114 EARLY MEDIEVAL SPAIN642, which involved the replacement of the dynasty of Chintila (636-
639) and Tulga (639-642), was followed by the execution of seven
hundred members of the Gothic aristocracy.43 From the Law Code it
is fair to assume that this would have been accompanied by the ex-
propriation of their estates. Even allowing that the anonymous but
contemporary author of this part of the Chronicle may have grossly
exaggerated the numbers involved, this particular usurpation was
clearly the occasion for a major change in the distribution of power
in the kingdom.
In view of this it is hardly surprising to find that changes in ruler
were frequently accompanied by violence and revolt in Visigothic
Spain. The friends and dependants of a former king, and this could
extend down into relatively low levels of society, as all those with any
ties to the ruler and his more important followers would be affected,
clearly stood to lose a great deal in both status and office if the new
monarch was inimical to them or was able to dispense with their
services. For such men, as for the Arian supporters of Leovigild in
587-590, revolt could be the only way to alter the new balance of
power. Conversely, such men's interests lay in ensuring the mainten-
ance of the dynasty to which they were committed, and this could
involve attempting to secure the succession of a minor, as in 601, 621
and 639. If this proved impossible or unworkable, then the alterna-
tive was to bring about the election of one of their own number to
ensure the maintenance of the status quo. This is the likeliest expla-
nation of the apparently peaceful transfers of power that occurred in
612 and 636. But if thwarted, or if the consensus amongst the ruling
group could not be maintained, then rebellion might prove the only
alternative to prosecution and deprivation under a new and unsym-
pathetic regime that needed to recover what had been given away by
its predecessor in order to reward its own adherents.
Attempts were made by the Church to deal with this problem. V
and VI Toledo (636 and 638) legislated to protect the family and
dependants of former kings, trying to ensure reasonable security for
them.^44 Whether this had any effect in practice is unlikely as the
enactments were essentially part of an over-optimistic attempt by King
Chintila (636-639) to ensure the future protection of his own family
and followers. These, however, are likely to have been the very people
to have· borne the brunt of the violent changes attendant upon
Chindasuinth's usurpation in 642. The sharp distinction drawn be-
tween the personal and inheritable family lands and property of the