How accurate is this video? Especially regarding medieval Spain

Nov 2010
6,779
Cornwall
#2
It is really, really accurate. The compiler knew what they were doing. I've watched all the details through from the barbarian migrations to the fall of Granada and I can't fault it. What it doesn't show of course is the political ruler EG Almohads, Almoravids, it shows the actual ruler at the time. The only other thing is - and it couldn't really be possible in this format - there were at least 32 muslim Taifas of notable size and/or duration, but it can only show the larger ones.
 

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
4,841
Canary Islands-Spain
#5
It is good, but there're some mistakes:

Cantabria was conquered by the Visigoths

Most of the modern Basque Country belong to Castile since the 12th century
 
Nov 2010
6,779
Cornwall
#6
It is good, but there're some mistakes:

Cantabria was conquered by the Visigoths

Most of the modern Basque Country belong to Castile since the 12th century
Frank I don't agree with the older opinion that they did conquer the north coast, not at all. Everything I've read suggests not (which is most things going in Castellano about them). There were well-documented punitive missions and, although they could be held to be further east, modern thought is that the Visigothic measures pushed the Vascons further to the west along the coast as well as into Gascony ('Vascony').

The map follows latest opinions exactly really. Though as you know there is a not a definitive answer on whether that is correct. But in that sense it isn't an error, just an interpretation

Arab 'conquests' mirrorred almost exactly what the Visigothic kingdom was, suggesting a heavy degree of political take-over. To include the Narbonanse and excluse the North Coast strip east of Galicia.
 

Frank81

Ad Honorem
Feb 2010
4,841
Canary Islands-Spain
#7
Frank I don't agree with the older opinion that they did conquer the north coast, not at all. Everything I've read suggests not (which is most things going in Castellano about them). There were well-documented punitive missions and, although they could be held to be further east, modern thought is that the Visigothic measures pushed the Vascons further to the west along the coast as well as into Gascony ('Vascony').

The map follows latest opinions exactly really. Though as you know there is a not a definitive answer on whether that is correct. But in that sense it isn't an error, just an interpretation

Arab 'conquests' mirrorred almost exactly what the Visigothic kingdom was, suggesting a heavy degree of political take-over. To include the Narbonanse and excluse the North Coast strip east of Galicia.
I'll focuse on the Visigothic issue

The Vascons were kept in the area of modern Basque Country and Navarre, but they didn't went so much to the west. Cantabria revolted early in the 6th century, and Leovigild went there to punish the "rebels" (surelly they weren't part of the Gothic domains before). This is the famous piece of art where Leovigild brutally punish a Cantabrian




However, once the area was included into the kingdom, there're no news of revolts, but on the opposite, Cantabria grew strong as a duchy on the north, its count being one of the most, or the most, loyal to Rodrigo. In this map, Vasconian areas are wrongly included in the Cantabrian county




By the time of the Muslim invasion, the count was Pedro, a powerful dux ultimately related to Leovigild. Pedro opposed the Muslims since the beginning, and so his fighting precede that of Pelayo. The daugther of Pelayo, Ermesinda, married the son of Pedro, Alfonso, the intention of their powerful fathers were to unite Asturias and Cantabria someday; when Favila, the son of Pelayo and king of Asturias, died fighting a bear, Alfonso became Alfonso I, first king of Asturias and Cantabria.

If we compare the previous map of Visigothic duchies, and the routes of Muslim conquerors, we'll see how as you said, the Arabs tried to copy-calk the Visigoth kingdom by going directly to the capitals of the duchies, removing the Goths and ruling the area instead (as Alexander went from satrapy to satrapy and finally mirowed the Achaemenid empire)



This is "Peña Amaya", the capital of the Cantabrian duchy was here (currently, Burgos province). The Arabs sieged and assaulted this bastion, and Pedro had to fly away north of the Cantabrian mountains. Remains of a fortress and a village can be found there

https://c1.staticflickr.com/4/3596/3798153963_e49d82ae1b_b.jpg


Including a path excavated in the rock accesing the citadel

[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1cHiopwklK4/UaUl3uYLfpI/AAAAAAAACHw/vLy0ql-w6CQ/s1600/DSCN2775.JPG
 
Last edited:
Nov 2010
6,779
Cornwall
#8
Good stuff Frank. Again though there wasn't too much removing of Goths - unless there was undue resistance. There seems more and more leaning toward the change of ownership theories (leaving out the 'denyers'), very likely to the great relief of the hispano-romans and jews. But at the end of the day it's the hierarchy you deal with, which was the minority Goths. It's well documented about certain pacts and certain cities but I think it was more widespread - even to the 'last Visigoth' a descendent of a Visigothic family around Toledo, who emigrated to Timbuctu hundreds of years later.

Visigothic society was such an oppressive,vviolent thing that with all the confications, punishments and exiles throughout the shenanigins of Chindasvinto, Wamba, Ervigio and Egica a new regime probably came as a relief to some of them, hence their participation in some form in the takeover.

Back to the theme - Leovigildo was absolutely exceptional, the sort of leader that only came to these tribes occasionally. Whatever gains and suppressions he made were unlikely to be consolidated. I'm just reading a Historia de Navarra, which is where I got the suggestion of the Vascones moving on the tribes to the west under pressure from Leovigildo. I can't recall the other punitive expeditions but certainly Wamba and was it Suintila? Leovigildo established Vitoriana to keep the 'north' in check. It's been suggested this is near Vitoria but could be anywhere in truth.
 
Dec 2017
148
Regnum Teutonicum
#9
With Germany there are a few minor mistakes. The biggest one is that post-World War 2 the chancellors are shown instead of the heads of state (the presidents). During the whole video the heads of state and not the chancellors are shown and then in 1949 it suddenly switches to the chancellors. So it should be Heuss, Köhler, Gauck, Steinmeier, etc. instead of Adenauer, Brandt, Kohl, Merkel, etc.
 

Similar History Discussions