Bernd 08/17/2018 (Fri) 05:55:39 No.18532 del
There are several things to address in your post.
Hmm. Let's write briefly on Visigothic Spain. The whole conquest there seems like an act of opportunism. A very successful one at that.
The thing with Visigothic Spain is that they always had the same chaos after the death of almost all their kings. In contrast to Merovingian Franca where that particular family reached a status of a Sacred Cow and their removal was a taboo for a very long time (even if one of the countries lost it's Merovingian ruling branch they sought a new ruler from the others, noone from the aristocracy thought any one of them could step in into their shoes), in Visigothic Spain there were always contenders from the high nobility for the throne and dynasties changed rapidly. They had attempts to sanctify ruling families through legislation and religious anathema (I think) but it was unsuccessful.
It just that at Roderic's time there was a neighbour with a mind set on conquest and who was ready to step in then divide et impera. Islam was a new thing back then, very new. I'm not sure they understood it's not just another strain of Christianity, a heresy or Judaism (and I think Islam itself wasn't what it become later, how we know it today, religions need time to gain their more or less final shape) so the nobles might not thought much about it. For some reason they found it more acceptable to not back Roderic against the Muslims in the hope they can keep their own little realm in the kingdom.
The Jews. Sephardic Jews are the product of Muslim Spain. Yes there were Jews previously in Iberia but they weren't Sephardi yet. It really doesn't matter, the point is it's hard to seize up their actual contribution to the conquest. It is sure that the Visigoths legislated laws very hard on them and they gained enormously lot with the new masters. I'm not sure however how many of them left in the Gothic state and how many chose to rather emigrate to North Africa (for example). They were (are) a mobile folk. The written sources left on us are not always trustworthy as sometimes the image of the Jew (for example committing something vile and the good bishop overcame him) was used to make a religious point in a story (hence it is made up). Each should be judged individually and take some of them with a hint of salt. I know it's easy to believe something bad about someone who is already hated. It's another justification of the hatred itself.