Okay, I already know that the mission of the RAE, according to its first article, is "to ensure that the changes experienced by the Spanish language in its constant adaptation to the needs of its speakers do not break the essential unity that it maintains throughout the Hispanic sphere », but since I cannot «blame» the evolution of language, I hold the members of this institution responsible for this linguistic injustice (and don't worry, it's not a problem for them... I hope).
A few months ago, a company specializing in fast online microcredit launched an advertising campaign in which asked this question:“Do you know what the Godos Kings have in common with .piiiiii (the aforementioned company)? ” And the voiceover replied:“That both have zero interest ”. And although it is unfair, which it is, it is what most people believe, because the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about the Goths is the famous list that many had to memorize in their student days, and the one that I myself demonized a few years ago with the title of my first book “I never learned the list of the Kings of God”. But I did not do it to add fuel to the fire of his bad reputation, but to banish that image of the stale and outdated history that was told in schools, and whose banner and emblem was the tedious list. And the thing is not left here, the Royal Spanish Academy (RAE for friends) gives us some semantic niceties of these Germanic peoples.
According to the RAE Dictionary, in addition to pertaining to or relating to these peoples, it defines the term “godo ” as peninsular Spanish (used in the Canary Islands) and as a native of Spain in some Latin American countries. Yes, used in a derogatory way. In the Canary Islands, godo began to be used in a derogatory sense in the 19th century, to point out the natives of the Peninsula who pretended to be nobles, whom the Canarians saw as arrogant. Play the Goth It was important. And in Chile, Colombia and Uruguay, during the independence process, the Spaniards were also called that way in a pejorative way. Likewise, the adjective gothic It is also defined as belonging to or relating to the Gothic peoples, but from the 16th century it began to be used to refer to architecture prior to the Renaissance, typical of the dark Middle Ages, as opposed to the perfection and rationality of classical art. The concept of gothic evolved over time, becoming associated with the morbid and the sinister. And hence that goth subculture linked to black clothes and nail polish, geisha-like makeup, sinister storytelling, horror movies, and music that transports you to the dark side.
The term barbarian . In its first meaning, the RAE says “belonging to the peoples that since the 5th century invaded the Roman Empire and spread throughout most of Europe ”, and in subsequent meanings makes it synonymous with fierce, cruel, reckless, uneducated, rude, coarse… and everything you want to add. So how did this relationship come about? Originally, the word "barbarian" comes from the Greek and means "foreigner", and was used to designate any person from outside the Hellenic territory. Citizens of other polis than their own were called xenos (that's where xenophobia comes from). Although each city of Greece was an independent State, the fact of sharing a culture, a religion and a language, gave them a common identity against foreign peoples, especially against the Persians. These same Persians are, unconsciously, the creators of the word "barbarian". The Persian language was characterized by the almost abusive use of the letter “–a ”, so when they spoke , the Greeks understood “barbar- “. Therefore, "barbarian" is an onomatopoeia of the language of the Persians. Already in Roman times, the Latin people, which at first was considered "barbarian" by the Hellenes, ceased to be so when they took and adapted the Greek culture. In turn, they used this term for the peoples they were conquering and for those who lived beyond their borders. For this reason, the North Germanic peoples who entered the Roman Empire had this name. And if we add to this that they not only entered, but also conquered Western Roman territory in a flash, we have the explanation that the meaning of "cruel, violent" was gaining ground to the detriment of "foreigner" until this last meaning disappeared.
And we will end with the term vandal . Going back to the RAE, we have its first meaning:“that commits actions typical of savage and destructive people ”, and in the second “of a barbarian people of East Germanic origin from Scandinavia ”.
Gaiseric and the Vandals sack Rome
To explain this relationship between the Vandals and savagery and destruction, we go back to 428, the year in which Genseric he was elected king of the Vandals. A year later, he organized one of the largest naval operations of antiquity, embarking 80,000 people – of whom only 15,000 were warriors – off the coast of what is now Algeciras and transferring them to the beaches of Ceuta. In a very short time, they occupied the Roman province of Mauretania and, the truth is that the Africans did not find it difficult to accept new masters who, at least, brought order to a very unstable territory. The one who did not have much trouble accepting that new situation was the Roman emperor Valentinian III who, retired in Ravenna and being aware of his position of weakness, granted Genseric the title of Rex Vandalorum and he recognized his people as federates of Rome in Africa. He thought that it would be enough to satisfy them and he focused on the problems that he had in his own house, which were not few, but… he was wrong. Gaiseric continued to tighten the pegs and stormed Carthage seizing the imperial fleet that remained moored. With this blow, the Vandals became the owners of the Western Mediterranean, and in a short time they took over Corsica, Sardinia, Sicily and the Balearic Islands. And what is worse, it meant the cut off of the supply of the African cereal that arrived in Rome, and from 439 he had to buy it from the new owners of North Africa, the Vandals.
In 455 Valentinian III was assassinated and Genseric fell apart:he sent his fleet to Rome. The new emperor, an unscrupulous wretch named Petronius Maximus As soon as he found out about the imminent arrival of the vandals, he fled loaded with treasures, but the people met him and gave him what was theirs... they lynched him. Rome was headless and abandoned to its fate, and who stepped forward? Pope Leo I that, in a display of arrogance and trying to repeat the success obtained when he stopped Attila at the gates of Rome (although certain epidemiological and other chrematistic issues really had more weight, such as the payment of a large ransom, than the figure of the pope with name of powerful animal). The fact is that he went out to meet the Vandals to negotiate an armistice with Genseric that would prevent him from entering Rome. The Supreme Pontiff could not avoid the inevitable. Leon failed in his attempt to intimidate the Vandal king and only managed to prevent the town from being excessively violent or the city and its basilicas from being set on fire. The city was plundered for two weeks. The looting was such that they came to dismantle the golden roof of the temple of Jupiter and did not leave a single work of art standing (note, they did not destroy them as the Goths of Alaric did years ago, but they took them to Carthage) . With this pontifical disaster began the black legend of the Vandals, promoted since then by the Church and that made the Vandals synonymous with savage or heartless. I suppose that if Attila had sacked Rome, now Hun would be synonymous with savage or heartless. A historical sanbenito…
Another historical sanbenito? The one that blames the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, directly to the incursions or massive migrations of the Germanic peoples. And we stayed so wide, when the only thing the barbarians did was finish off the job. The institutions that in the past organized that vast territory were left empty of power, and the victorious legions were no more than a hodgepodge of mercenaries or hustlers without order or cohesion, and who also allowed themselves to appoint and depose emperors as they pleased. Emperors who, by the way, each more nefarious, since they only cared about ensuring the cleaning up of their personal accounts and doing whatever it took to continue occupying the throne one more day. Taking care of the town, that was already a matter of the past. That giant with feet of clay collapsed and the Goths collected the remains of him to try to emulate his splendor. So, it's normal to be defamed if those who wrote your story, because the Goths weren't much writers, were the ones who lost their position of privilege.