The nature of power in Hispano-Visigothic kingdom of Toledo: the practical and the

political-institutional perspectives.

Abstract: For the historian, establish a precise chronological marker is a difficult task completion. More
complex even if the study period is framed with the stamp of a time of crisis, as Late Antiquity. Dubbed
by some as the “Low Empire”, for others the “High Middle Ages”, the Late Antique world (II –VIII
centuries) is presented as a carrier of "identity" as they pointed at the time Brown and Marrou, in which
the idea and overcome crisis should be replaced by more current as would be the transformation or retrofit
concepts. In this study, based on political and institutional elements, we analyze how, gradually, became
the passage of imperial power imposed on the choice of a single ruler to a multiplicity of emperors and
kings always supported by aristocratic groups interested in participating and grant such powers in roman
barbarian’s monarchies heirs of imperial authority in the Roman West. In particular, we take a special
look to the Hispano Visigothic monarchy of the sixth and seventh centuries that kept some important
political elements of Roman imperial past retrofitted.

Keywords: Late Antiquity; Roman-barbarian monarchies; Western Roman Empire; Visigoth kingdom of
Toulouse; Hispano-Visigoth Kingdom of Toledo.

1 - Defining some concepts.

When the historian begins an investigation, whatever the period it examined, it
does from a series of precepts presented by a group of experts who may have links to
various historiographical trends and pointing a host of second interpretation possibilities
their readings and their specific interests. Follow these precepts, or reaffirm them, it is
always recommended from a scientific point of view, but sometimes the reading of the
sources and the investigated context of knowledge end up leading to perspectives that
may be new, perhaps not mentioned unless they have been properly depth. In many
cases such evidence generate contradictions with respect to some statements previously
made by experts and have always been used as the fundamental basis of the studies.
That's when doubts arise inherent to the work of the historian who are, above all,
welcome to the dynamic development of history. In other words, we believe that the
emergence of doubts and the search for explanations of them, supported by the
comprehensive approach of the sources serve as authentic leitmotiv of historical
knowledge to be valued positively by all the historians. If we think the opposite way,
rejecting any explanation simply because it deviates from the assumptions presented by
certain historiographical segments, we are incurring what Fernando Gascó defined as
the simple repetition of existing, attitude, which exempts the need for any further
investigation, argument which greatly weakens the development of history itself.
This scientific approach, in my view misguided and inconsistent, reached during
much of the twentieth century, the approaches focused on the study of the political and
institutional perspectives that were, on the one hand, evil associated with a positivist
line of History and the other for what Walter Pohl defined as "a strange mixture of
violence and fiction" created by nineteenth century nationalist ardor. Fortunately the
historiographical approaches of the 1990s and the early 2000s ended up consolidating
the relevance of the political-institutional studies to understand the historical societies,
of course, in the same degree of importance of other topics of interest to the historian
ranging from economic to social, religious cultural. After all, when we direct our
attention to the development of political and institutional aspects in historical research,
we can go through and evaluate all thematic dimensions identified, including one
devoted to the study of ideological concepts that gained considerable historiographical
projection in recent decades. From it we can walk a very rich historiographical way
back, especially the design of the legitimacy of political power that is directly linked to
the discussion about the nature of power and its derivatives, such as the sharing of
Roman imperial authority in the early days of late antiquity. This is, in our opinion, one
of the essential elements so that we can understand the process of political and
institutional changes that characterize the old late world, in so far as the sharing of
imperial authority refers to a political practice that gained momentum between centuries
II and VIII involving the gradual replacement of the policy adoption by family heredity,
without that implies in the setting of an imperial or royal dynasty. Both were related to
the succession process of imperial authority and were defended by certain political
groups of the Roman senatorial environment that were placed as preservers and
defenders of ancestral traditions that included both the election of one of its members as
its acclaim among the legionaries, demonstrating its transit in the various political,
social and cultural. Guy ended up being marked by the collective consensus and chosen
according to the ideological constructions from the time of the Principate, by the divine
will. Concepts that were supported and present in philosophical thoughts stoic,
Neoplatonic and Christian, based on a tradition that became and adjustments were in
order to legitimize that individual and his support group who met the income of political
power. Here we find the confluence of political and institutional elements with the
ideological who, as asserted Evangelos Chrysos, bring to light the fact that between the
Roman-Barbarian regna, heirs of the Roman imperial tradition in Western territories, is
defended an imitation or even a emulation with respect to practices preterit and Roman
imperial political institutions coming, even to the degree of criticizing them, according
to the context analyzed. Among many examples of this critical stance remember that by
Isidore of Seville, far from criticizing the Roman political institutions of the fourth and
fifth centuries, directed his comments against the Roman-eastern imperial authority in
the early seventh century was still fixed on a small fringe the territories of the Hispanic
uprising presence that prevented in practical terms the project Hispano-Visigoth desired
political unity by the thought of hispalense.
In this sense we observed that the entry of the barbarians and their installation in
Western Roman territories, from the fifth century, are considered by a portion of the
experts, as the main factors that led to the ruin and decline of the Roman world. Starting
from such a catastrophic principle, it attributed to the barbarians of the Roman power by
extreme force and violence, the sources Roman-barbarian kingdoms, placed as
medieval, appear as the fruit of Roman imperial political and institutional crisis,
including being blamed for decay of the Roman imperial world when, according to the
reading of the manuscript sources, we found just the opposite. In addition, this
sequential prospect of death illuminated Hellenistic Roman world that gave way to a
late ancient world dark and gloomy, quite common in the presentation of Gibbon, is part
of an interpretation that has already received numerous revisions, but that still insists on
rise the historiographical debate. For this reason, it is essential that we define the
concept of crisis, relating it to the political and institutional elements, and it appears
referenced in ancient sources late trying, as far as possible, to retreat from ideological
discussions and end up diverting the real focus of the investigation we want to achieve.
Thus, it seems sure to follow the reasoning proposed by Diaz Martinez linking the idea
of crisis with the notion of exhaustion, without this means decay or break an existing
system using for this, the perspective of the crisis classical-Hellenistic political system
polis/civitas. Indeed, watching carefully the manuscript sources, we find that the
institutional and political foundations based in the narrower Greco-Roman urban
environment began to offer signs of saturation from the Roman hegemonic growth for
the Mediterranean world. Contact with other socio-political realities, fruit of intense
process of political and cultural interaction between Rome and regions dominated by it,
caused a clear change in the Roman original institutional scheme bringing their political
universe news that included, for example, a different perception of the concept of
citizenship and that ended up being extended in the early third century. Similar ground
has been covered by all the Roman magistrates that from the second century BC were
gradually gaining a new profile related to the growth of personal powers that led to the
advent of the Principate and the supremacy of the Roman Princeps political
environment. This concentration of power, coated with a Republican cover based on the
senatorial election, but strongly supported by the legion acclaim, comes as another basic
element in our approach. In fact, if we focus our attention on the political and
institutional figure of the Princeps observe a significant change in relation to the
detention of authority from the Antoninus Pius succession. For the first time we will
have two Princes, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, ruling the Roman imperial world
simultaneously and legitimately and recognized posture also described both by Isidore
of Seville, with respect to the split power in Hispano-Visigoth kingdom, between Liuva
and his brother Leovigildo in the second half of the sixth century, for Braulio of
Zaragoza in consortium between Chindasvinto and Recesvinto, and the chronicler of
Mozarabe Chronicle of 754 pointing the division of authority between Egica and his son
Witiza in the early eighth century. But differently rhetoric and theoretical placement
hispalense bishop that "no power accepts to be shared," logic also pointed out by Julian
of Toledo in describing the episode of usurpation of Duke Paul in the reign of Wamba,
we find that the existence of two holders of imperial authority in the Roman world of
the second half of the second century responded to an obvious need and contextual been
confirmed since Adriano times, the impossibility of a single Princeps exercise its
unlimited and full form in a territory so vast and variegated social and culturally.
Therefore we can say that we find ourselves before a principle of transformation, or
readjustment, characteristic of political elements in the Principate and which in our
opinion will have an institutional recognition over the historical process, among which
the authority of the division Roman imperial who will, according to our interpretation,
one of the founders landmarks of Late Antiquity.
In addition to the division of imperial authority, which will be constant between
II and V centuries in Roman territories, observed another important practical politics
that tends to institutionalize and who became frequent from the reign Marcus Aurelius,
the form of hereditary succession to power. Undoubtedly the passage of heredity
political adoption is related to the constant weakening of republican institutions like the
Roman senate, defender of ancestors Republicans mores and deeply inspired by the
stoics and meritocratic principles and in line with the growth of regional powers that
provided encroachments and severe political instability and internal military. One
possible explanation to understand this change with Marcus Aurelius, which according
to the Historia Augusta associated his son Commodus the imperial condition in the year
176, must incorporate some important events such as the death of his brother Lucio
Vero in 169, the pressure of the investees barbarians in the Danube area and northern
Italy between 170-174 and the ever-present threat of births on the eastern areas of the
Roman world. However, such evidence reveals a fact that became undisputed
throughout the century, the impossibility of a single Augusto exercise its authority over
such a vast territory. A finding that seems to be echoed in the attitude taken by Marcus
Aurelius to grant imperium maius the Avidius Cassius in the eastern territories, likely
first step towards a future association with the imperial power. Project that ended in
failure with the acclamation, and consequent usurpation of Avidius Cassius by the
legions of Syria between 174 and 175 and that allowed the association to Commodus
imperial power the following year. Perhaps for this reason, the choice of a successor
without the most appropriate profile of the stoic point of view, but bound by family ties
of fidelity, find another explanation for the famous phrase left by Dion Cassius and
referred to this context, the passage of a golden era to the other iron corroded,
understood by many since the statement made by Gibbon as sign of crisis and early
Roman decadence when, in our opinion, pointed to a process of transformation and
political readjustment, with important institutional developments, Roman Imperial
power which is characteristic throughout the late antiquity. Indeed, following the
reasoning of Dion Cassius who wrote his history in the first third of the third century,
the transfer of power of Marcus Aurelius to his son and consort in imperial division of
political power represented a double change with respect to the period initiated by the
rise of Nerva: first, the weakening without the definitive disappearance of the adoption
as a solution of the imperial political succession, welcomed by the senatorial
environment option which Dion Cassius was part alongside the strengthening of the
form of hereditary succession, revealing of an autocratic power trend the Princeps little
desired by certain senatorial segments; and in tandem with this, the division of the
Roman imperial authority between the Princeps and his carnal heirs ever seen and
described negatively in the Vespasian time and their children, but recognized and
approved in cases of Septimius Severus and Caracalla and Geta their children as well as
the government of Gordians, all these later and followers of the example of the
Antonines. Clearly we have other examples of both the form of hereditary succession as
division of the Roman imperial authority over the centuries III, IV and V, and some
deserve a broad highlight, as the reigns of Valerian and his son Gallienus, Constantine
and his sons, Valentinian I and his heirs, and of Theodosius and his descendants. In all
these examples the division of imperial authority and the hereditary succession became
political practices recognized from the institutional perspective, validated as legitimate
and supported by a tradition dating back to the time of Marcus Aurelius.
2 - The Imperium to Regna: alliance and hegemony of the Visigoths in the
pars occidentalis.
Now, it seems right to say that the establishment and the establishment of
Roman-Barbarian regna from the V century beginnings within the Western Roman
territories followed that same policy premise of the Roman imperial authority division,
to the extent that the new realms Roman barbarians appeared, at first, as allies and
defenders of Rome and the Emperor before possible tyrannical attitudes or even
incursions of other barbarians who would threaten the Roman imperial power. Indeed,
both Paul Orosius as Key Hidácio indicated in their reports that the establishment of
peace between the Romans and Visigoths in the year 416, with the task of the last to
conduct military campaigns in Hispania against Vandals, Alans and Suevi, had as initial
element the defense of the Roman cause, rewarded with the imperial concession areas in
the province of Aquitaine where the Visigoths created, from 418, the foundations for
their regnum. We must point out that we found from this time and the constituent
elements characteristic of a regnum, as the territorial definition on which a leader of
barbaric origin, rex, the acclaimed principle, elected by his noble and recognized by the
Western Roman Emperor, exercise an effective political authority supported in support
of aristocratic elements and regional nobility, are those of Roman or barbaric origin,
which would provide the spread of Visigoth hegemony over vast regions of the Roman
west by the end of the fifth century. Clear that the political and institutional structures of
the regnum of the Visigoths of Aquitaine would be linked, first, to those already
existing in the Roman imperial environment, most effective way to approach and
consequent legitimacy of the Visigoth royal power that sought to join the Roman
political traditions. In turn inserted in a more forceful way, from then on, interpersonal
loyalty ties and dependency that characterized the relations of power among the
barbarians. The fusion of Romans and barbarians political elements eventually set up a
new institutional reality, the Roman-barbarian, distinct regnum the Roman imperial,
sign the policy and institutional readjustment process that characterized the Late
Antiquity. Notorious example of this transformed political reality is the role played by
barbarian rex figure that over the fifth century, was replacing and taking up of gradual
way, the place of pre-eminence of the Western Roman Emperor. In fact, the fifth
century of our era present in an imperial institution holding of a less relevant authority
in political and military terms, more and more dependent on the support and alliance of
barbaric military force and its noble leaders, among them rose the rex. But in addition to
the outstanding military role, we observed that the Visigoth king, mainly from the mid-
fifth century, began to exercise effective control over one of the specific duties of the
imperial figure, the enactment of laws. As well indicated Isidore of Seville, from the
reign of Euricus the Visigoths "began to have written laws," highlighting the theoretical
role of royal power over the social body as regnum "does not regulate who does not
correct" the rex. But in addition to the outstanding military role, we observed that the
Visigoth king, mainly from the mid-fifth century, began to exercise effective control
over one of the specific duties of the imperial figure, the enactment of laws. As well
indicated Isidore of Seville, from the reign of Euricus the Visigoths "began to have
written laws," highlighting the theoretical role of royal power over the social body as
regnum "does not regulate who does not correct".
3 - Of Aquitaine to Hispania: the Hispano-Visigoth kingdom of Toledo in
the sixth and seventh centuries.

Still on the nature of power in the Hispanic Visigoth kingdom of Toledo (centuries
VI - VII).
However, it seems relevant point out the equivalence between the theoretical
role and the ideological construction that, over the centuries VI and VII, sought to
strengthen the political power held by Roman-barbarian rulers, particularly the
Hispanic-Visigoths. We know that the disappearance of the Visigoth of Aquitaine
regnum, after the defeat of Alaric II in Vogladum in the year 507, promoted a natural
break in the institutional realm of the construction process, resumed in the mid-sixth
century in the territories of Narbonensis and Hispania. It is interesting to note that
approximately for half a century was an effective division of authority between groups
stood regal noble holders of political power and regional military, one in Hispanic
territories and the other with a strong presence in the region Narbonensis. We can define
them in general terms, according to John's Biclaro reports and Isidore of Seville,
through the leadership of Atanagildo, which exercised its political authority in axis
Toletum - Emerita Augusta - Hispalis, and I Liuva, elected and acclaimed rex Gothorum
the Visigoth nobility established in Narbonensis. Indeed, restructuring the perspective
of a regnum to gather the nobility groups of Narbonensis Gaul and Hispania begins his
journey indicating the brother of Liuva I, Leovigildo, as royal consort who would rule
the Hispanic territories, while Liuva would remain sovereign in Narbonensis. Indeed,
according to isidoriana narrative, Leovigildo will be presented as the one who extended
his authority, by means of war, on the territories of Hispania and Gaul. However,
according to the chronicle of biclarense, which offers very interesting contextual
information, this venture was made possible thanks to the support offered by the Roman
nobility groups and Visigoths established in Tarraconense, as well as the marriage
union between Leovigildo and Athanagildus widow, Gosvinta, which led to the
Hispania rex the guild and the loyalty of noble segments that had supported the
Atanagildo. With the death of Liuva in 573 was realized union of nobility Visigoths
groups of Gaul and Hispania's return Leovigildo, appointed as the sole holder of
potestate regnum thereafter, royal authority was enhanced by military victories taken by
the sovereign to throughout his reign and that allowed him, according to hispalense
narrative, next to the Visigoth people "take over much of Hispania". So aim Leovigildo
as the first sovereign who exercised his authority in regnum we define as Hispano-
Visigoth, as we see, from 570, a Hispanic territorial configuration forged through
military conquests and on which the rex develop all his political activity .
Despite his outstanding military condition, Leovigildo was faced with some
attempts at usurpation of which the most emblematic was the carried out by his son
Hermenegild, appointed by the Chronicle of John of Biclaro as a "domestic quarrel" that
was exploited by noble segments linked to the sovereign Atanagildo old and his widow,
Gosvintha, since Hispalis promoted a rebellion that hit large areas of the Hispanic
south. Therefore, the rebellion led by Hermenegild had strong political arguments, in
addition, of course, the religious issue between Arians and Catholics that was always
reported by the sources as the main cause of the rebel movement. The Leovigildo
reaction was quite hard and ended with the military defeat of the rebels, followed by the
physical removal of Hermenegild and several nobles who supported the rebellion, while
others have suffered the pain of exile and banishment. A very clear example of authority
possessed by Leovigildo on the political environment of Hispano-Visigoth regnum and
found developments in other areas of royal activities, such as the review and updating of
laws enacted by Euricus code in addition to the enactment of new laws. Undoubtedly
we find here a renewed association between Gothorum rex as heir and successor of the
Roman imperial traditions in the territories of Hispania, element already observed in the
late fifth century and was increased in the reign of the successor and son of Leovigildo,
Recaredo from the conversion of the Visigoths to Catholicism in the III Council of
Toledo in 589. From this moment on, throughout the seventh century, we find the
connection made by Hispano-Visigoths thinkers of Catholicism as true ideological
cement of regnum unit that brought together the Hispanic country and all the Hispano-
Visigoth nobiliary people.
Indeed defined itself clearly from the III Council of Toledo, the support base of
Hispano-Visigoth regnum from institutional tripod formed by the princeps
sacratissimus, by ecclesiastical nobility and the primates of Hispano-Visigoth lay
people, which should theoretically and by mutual agreement, be responsible for the
tasks of government involving itself succession Hispano-Visigoth royal. That is, the
regnum found its aspect of royal authority granted by all the nobility, ecclesiastical and
secular, on a territory that, in general, would cover much of Hispania and Galia
Narbonensis. Indeed, both the Visigoth’s council minutes as the Legislative Assembly
available in Lex Visigothorum edited from Reccesvinthus in the year 654 reinforced the
idea of royal political activity in that territorial scope. But, above all, the foundation of
sovereign authority was held by a double strand, the choice of the future king and
consequent grant of authority by the nobility segments, side of the design of the divine
choice of the monarch enhanced by ecclesiastical thought and reconcile with clear
impact on the royal law. Perspectives that were revealed through practical actions, such
as the election and acclaim of the sovereign by the members of the palatal office, as
well as the ceremony of anointing, conducted by members of the Hispano-Visigoth
episcopate in detail described by Julian of Toledo in the case of election , acclaim and
Wamba anointing in the year 670.
However, although we find evidence in the Hispano-Visigoth sources that link
the rise and legitimacy of the later rulers who reigned Wamba in the last two decades of
the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth century, case Ervigio, Egica and
Witiza, following the same line practice of election, acclaim and anointing, calls our
attention to the use of a new political argument, the choice - indication of the successor
to the royal throne through public deeds and loyalty oaths between sovereign. The first
practical use, the choice according to a desire expressed in a public deed, in the form of
a will, served, surely, to legitimize the rise of Ervigio questioned, while the second, the
imposition of a sacred oath was used by him in indicate his successor and Egica
political opponent, revealing an attempt at political preservation and survival of the
nobility group Ervigio through a principle he remembered, in general, the classical
political adoption. Soon we noticed, especially in the case of Egica, the royal succession
would already be defined prior to the death of the sovereign and directed by certain
political groups, contrary to the determination reconcile formulated in the IV Council of
Toledo, the choice of the new king by means of an election and acclaim among the
members of the most prominent regnum of people. A theoretical formulation supported
by segments of the Hispanic Visigoth church nobility, which was, as we have seen, the
search for political unity through consensus among the group formed by Hispano-
Visigoths political groups and that shows us a picture of intense nobiliary disputes, one
of the essential causes to understand the political weakening of the Hispano-Visigoth
royal institution. Clearly observed that the intensification of those policies
confrontations ended up generating strengthening, temporary, certain nobility groups
that did assert his power by implementing a royal succession based on the principle of
heredity and that at various times urged disgruntled groups that practice the various
theft attempts. The reign of Egica can be analyzed according to this view, in that the
sovereign succeeded his father in law and political rival being taken by the contextual
circumstances to maintain the various members of the nobility group Ervigio in
important administrative and military functions. Wear between the noble groups was
accentuating up until the point of attempted usurpation promoted by the bishop of
Toledo, Sisberto, quelled by Egica and that it provided an opportunity to reorganize
your palate office with members of his nobility support group. An authentic reopening
of his reign, took place with the celebration of the XVI Council of Toledo of 693, and
fully consolidated with the consortium of his son Witiza the royal throne in the year
698. Beside the proposal of hereditary succession, carried out with the rise of Witiza as
the only sovereign in 702 we find, once again, the division of royal authority.
Indeed, the link between the hereditary succession and the division of royal
authority made through the practice of royal consortium, was of a steadily in the
Hispano-Visigoth kingdom of Toledo from the second half of the sixth century,
implemented by Liuva I and his brother Leovigildo, and this for their sons
Hermenegildus and Recaredo. We found that many royal consortia were made during
the seventh century - between Recaredo and Liuva II, Suinthila and Ricimer, Chintila
and Tulga, Chindasvinto and Reccesvinthus, Egica and Witiza - some culminated with
failure, others successfully made and who had effective continuity, but above all
revealed a need for division of government tasks, whether by age problems, either by
difficulties in managing and governing a vast territory and at the same time, several
politically. Thus, it seems fair to say that in Hispano-Visigoth kingdom of Toledo, we
are faced with the realignment of political practices, and common characteristics of
early Late Antiquity, but have been updated according to the Hispano-Visigoth context
with major institutional repercussions. Of these it should be noted the gradual
weakening of the royal figure, and with it, the idea of a regnum delegate, agreed and
recognized by the Christian deity and the world of Hispano-Visigoth nobility at the
expense of strengthening of regional noble powers. Proof of this mismatch between the
royal nobility and institutions can be found by several usurpation attempts occurred
during the seventh century that resulted in the famous rebellion led by Rodrigo in the
year 710, which caused the disappearance of Hispano Visigoth royalty, the fact that in
our opinion marked the beginning of a policy and institutional change in the Hispanic
environment and we can suggest as the moment of transition from Late Antiquity to the
First Middle Ages.
4 - Conclusions.
Therefore, we find that both the division of royal authority as the process of
hereditary succession played an important role in the institutional configuration of the
Hispano-Visigoth regnum of the sixth and seventh centuries. Political practices that
were institutionalized because of their relevant facing ideological burden to the
legitimacy and recognition of certain political groups who achieved rents of royal
power. In this case we must remember the important role played by the segment of the
Hispanic Visigoth church nobility that from the Council's meetings and functions of
support and advice royalty from the moment of conversion to Catholic Christianity,
both the governance point of view as in the organization of legislative corpus of the
kingdom, sought to reinforce the idea that the royal authority was also granted by the
divine will and sanctified by the anointing ceremony, in addition to granting the regnum
promoted by members of the Hispano-Visigoth people from other political, as the
election and the acclamation of the new king. However, we found a curious
contradiction between the theoretical and rant made by ecclesiastical thinkers and
practical action of division of royal authority, the applicant at various times of the
Hispano-Visigoth history, held by Hispano-Visigoth rulers for several reasons. If we
think of theoretical proposals by Isidore of Seville and Julian of Toledo, two of the most
prominent representatives of the episcopal and ecclesiastical world's Hispano-Visigoth
kingdom of the seventh century, we will notice the maintenance of the relationship is a
God - a king, being less than desirable, is for the common good or for the sake of
religious unity and the realm of politics, the division of the royal authority, even if made
of hereditary form. After all, following the Pauline precept and New Testament, a body
could only be governed by a single head.
But the theoretical arguments and ideals are not always support the practical and
pragmatic attitudes presented by the reports of sources, dichotomies that deserve a
closer look by the historian. We must interpret and seek plausible explanations to
understand, for example, the possible reasons leading a sovereign to share his authority
with another individual and that usually chosen was, in most cases, your child. When
verifying the recurrence of such political practices in the political environment of
Hispano-Visigoth kingdom of Toledo began to notice that those were also part of the
Visigoth past, when it was still linked to the Roman imperial world. The possibility of
connections between characteristics policies and practices developed in the Roman
political environment, which strongly influenced the nascent Roman-barbarian
kingdoms established in Western Roman territory must be highly regarded by
historiography. As analyzed in our study, both the division of political authority as the
very notion of heredity succession are both common to the Roman imperial tradition
since the time of Marcus Aurelius. That is, we can see that the end of the second century
presents us with a new policy that will have an effective historical continuity, as these
and other political practices presented will be transformed and readapted according to
the historical context that we analyze. A true terminus post quem, beginning closest,
with a historical period which we define as Late Antiquity, since this policy and
institutional perspective that presents us with practices such as division of the imperial
and royal authority and hereditary succession, together with institutions such as the
imperium and the regnum of changes and adaptations that distinguish them from those
existing in the times of the Principate and the Republic. So if we think of the crisis as a
sign of this new world old late, we must understand it as a sign of major changes in
political, institutional, social, cultural and religious who have for the Hispanic Visigoth
case, its terminus ante quem, closest end, in the first decades of the eighth century.