# La lista de los Reyes Godos - List of the Gothic Kings



## Cecilio

Many years ago school education was base on rote learning. The students had to learn things by heart: grammar rules, mathematical rules, etc. In Spain, one of the classical things that schoolchildren had to learn by heart was the list of the Gothic Kings (la lista de los Reyes Godos), that is the list of Spanish kings since the end of the roman Empire until the arrival of the Moors. The list includes some extremely odd names: _Sigerico, Teudiselo, Wamba, Chindasvinto._ (See this Wikipedia link for the whole list; funnily enough, it seems that three newly (re)discovered kings have been added to the list, see the link from El País).

People of my generation didn't have to memorize this list, so it's just a thing of the past. However, the concept of "la lista de los Reyes Godos" has remained in popular culture as a symbol of something absurd that one is forced to learn by heart. I wonder if there are similar things in other countries. What lists did people have to learn? Or even more intriguing: Are these lists still being used in your school system nowadays?


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

Fun question, Cecilio!

I was born in the early 70s so I was lucky and never had to learn by heart the list of the Reyes Godos, so very pointless. However, I was sent to the nuns and these being very pointless women as well, made us learn by heart the books of the Bible (both old and new testament) when I was 9 or 10. 

Having "seen the light" by then and having decided I was an Atheist, I refused to learn such list, convinced that it was a fruitless effort. So young and the nuns gave me a "cate" in Religion for my rebellious attitude. Most girls in the class did stoically learn the list, though.

(funnily enough, I am a reader of the Bible now!)

I wonder whether Catholic schools nowadays make their students memorize this list.


----------



## cuchuflete

Eleven presidents ago, we had to memorize the names of all the presidents and the (then) forty-eight states.  For intellectual stimulus, that seems about as useful as los Reyes Godos.  The really profound stuff came in the seventh grade, when we were about 12 years old. We were forced to learn (!) state history, and memorize the names of dozens of cities and towns, together with whatever they had manufactured during previous centuries.  Mirando el ombligo con máxima atención, ¿No os parece?


----------



## Paquita

In France my father had to learn " départements" ("county" now, there are 95) with their "préfectures" (main town) and "sous-préfectures". 

Ten years ago a teacher of History taught Kings of France list, but he was the only teacher who did so.

But not me...


----------



## Víctor Pérez

En la escuela francesa de mis tiempos, lo teníamos más fácil: solo teníamos que saber decir *nos ancêtres les Gaulois...*


----------



## K-Milla

In México there are so many things that you could have learnt by hearth that is a _quite big_ list.

In my case, the teachers were so keen on Mexican History [presidents, revolution] which I found it so boring... Now, I can't remember the years and the things that this people did 

If you are catholic, you must learn lots of things!


----------



## avellanainphilly

I was born in the early 1980s, so having to learn the list of Gothic Kings sound like Ancient History to me, but I have a very vivid memory of trying to learn by heart the list of Spanish prepositions: _a, ante, bajo ..._


----------



## alexacohen

I did have to learn by heart the _tabla de multiplicar._ And all the countries in the world. And all the USA different states, but I never counted them. 
It wasn't that bad: at least, I have never tried to buy a ticket plane to fly to Brussels, Switzerland.

I don't remember having ever studied the list of the Gothic kings, not even the list of the Spanish kings except a chosen few.

I remember who was Ferdinand VII, but never knew when and where reigned the previous six Ferdinands.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

avellanainphilly said:


> I was born in the early 1980s, so having to learn the list of Gothic Kings sound like Ancient History to me, but I have a very vivid memory of trying to learn by heart the list of Spanish prepositions: _a, ante, bajo ..._


 
That's true! And the table of "valencias químicas"...


----------



## Nanon

Another profound intellectual stimulus that was used in French schools in the first half of the XX century (or was it XIX?) was the list of the affluents of the Loire. Try to memorise a list of rivers... Luckily I never had to.


----------



## tvdxer

Cecilio said:


> Many years ago school education was base on rote learning. The students had to learn things by heart: grammar rules, mathematical rules, etc. In Spain, one of the classical things that schoolchildren had to learn by heart was the list of the Gothic Kings (la lista de los Reyes Godos), that is the list of Spanish kings since the end of the roman Empire until the arrival of the Moors. The list includes some extremely od names: _Sigerico, Teudiselo, Wamba, Chindasvinto._ (See this Wikipedia link for the whole list; funnily enough, it seems that three newly (re)discovered kings have been added to the list, see the link from El País).
> 
> People of my generation didn't have to memorize this list, so it's just a thing of the past. However, the concept of "la lista de los Reyes Godos" has remained in popular culture as a symbol of something absurd that one is forced to learn by heart. I wonder if there are similar things in other countries. What lists did people have to learn? Or even more intriguing: Are these lists still being used in your school system nowadays?



I love those names!

Rote memorization seems to have been largely phased out in American education.  Some is still required...American state capitals and multiplication tables come to mind.  

Perhaps it'd be good if more was.  There are some things people should just know, like capitals of certain countries, etc.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

tvdxer said:


> There are some things people should just know, like capitals of certain countries, etc.


I agree with you, tvdxer, but things require analysing and be thought about. It is good to know capital cities and rivers, but one should be able to place them in maps and know about their history, etc.

That's why I went so mad when they made me memorize the books of the Bible. It's better, I believe, to pick up the Bible and read whatever book at random and go deep into it.

However, it's also true that certain exercises in order to remember things by heart are good if you feel you're having problems getting concentrated. But, then, that is something one should choose to do. At school, analysing and getting deep into things should be the priority.

Have a good Saturday everyone


----------



## ireney

Thankfully at no point in the Greek education history were we expected to learn the Byzantine Emperors (waay to many) and learning the kings of Greece wouldn't be any great feat of memorisation anyway 
At one point a teacher of religious studies had my class memorise all the books of the Bible but it wasn't the norm when I grew up. My parents said they didn't have to either when going to school so I feel pretty safe in assuming that wasn't ever the norm .
I _think_ ours wasn't the only primary school teacher who tried to hammer in our heads some geography names (countries and capitals, major lakes and rivers in Greece and abroad, Greek perfectures and their capitals, that sort of thing) but then, since I am still woefully bad at it, I think it's obvious they weren't too strict about it.
What we did have to learn was the multiplication tables but then I wouldn't consider that rote memorisation of something trite.


----------



## alexacohen

ireney said:


> I _think_ ours wasn't the only primary school teacher who tried to hammer in our heads some geography names (countries and capitals, major lakes and rivers in Greece and abroad, Greek perfectures and their capitals, that sort of thing)


I do think some kind of memorization, maybe this is not the right word, but really, children should know some Geography. Not all, but some. 
We all are living on this planet, it's our home. 
Last year I bought one of those balls which simulate our blue planet, with oceans, countries and all that. Several friends of my kids were playing with it in the swimming pool, and I asked them if they could locate the British Islands. The kids were aged twelve and thirteen.

"Islands? But, the oceans are sooo big! There are too many oceans"

So I gave them clues: near mainland Europe, Atlantic Ocean...

They were able to locate the British Islands after much perusing the globe. 
They showed me, proudly, the British Islands, in the Atlantic Ocean, near Europe.
They had found the Canary Islands.


----------



## asm

I agree; our kids & adults need basic geography.  
Although I am not in defense of people who think Europe is a country, I don't know how much it too much (or too little). 
I memorized all countries (with capitals) of the world when I was in elementary school; many of those countries don't exist any more, there are many new countries that I cannot locate in the map. I am OK with the way my teachers taught me these concepts; I think it is my responsibility to go further at my age.

Other example in this thread is the periodic table; ironically, none of my teachers/professor ever made me learn the table. I have a major in Chemistry and used the table every day of my secondary education. When I came to teach chemistry (high school level) I was always in conflict with other teacher in the school who wanted to make all students learn the table & valences (just because). 

There are certain levels of knowledge that require memorization of some concepts/terms; as one of my biochemistry professors told me one day: if you attend a conference and they talk about specific amino-acids, you better know what they are talking about (not only the name, but also the polarity, formula, etc.).






alexacohen said:


> I do think some kind of memorization, maybe this is not the right word, but really, children should know some Geography. Not all, but some.
> We all are living on this planet, it's our home.
> Last year I bought one of those balls which simulate our blue planet, with oceans, countries and all that. Several friends of my kids were playing with it in the swimming pool, and I asked them if they could locate the British Islands. The kids were aged twelve and thirteen.
> 
> "Islands? But, the oceans are sooo big! There are too many oceans"
> 
> So I gave them clues: near Europe, Atlantic Ocean...
> 
> They were able to locate the British Islands after much perusing the globe.
> They showed me, proudly, the British Islands, in the Atlantic Ocean, near Europe.
> They had found the Canary Islands.


----------



## Cecilio

ireney said:


> At one point a teacher of religious studies had my class memorise all the books of the Bible but it wasn't the norm when I grew up.



I suppose you mean the titles of the books...

In any case, religions are usually associated with rote learning: prayers, commandments, lists of books, lists of prophets, etc.


----------



## Fernita

When I was a school student in Buenos Aires, we were required to learn not only the names of the Roman Kings by heart but also the Chinese Dynasties. We were 11 years old and it was a must. 
At the age of 12, we had to learn definitions by heart: definition of History, Geography, Philosophy, and other subjects as well. 
We also had to learn (at the age of 13) the names of all our presidents in chronological order by heart.(Mirando nuestro pequeño ombliguito...) In addition, the list of the capital cities of all countries in the word by heart was mandatory. 
My kids went to the same school but the teaching methodology had changed at that time. 

To my mind, it's not useful to learn things by heart (*except for the cases stated by other foreros with whom I agree)*, but I must admit I will never forget them. On the other hand and generally speaking, students (in Argentina) learn very little nowadays but, of course, it depends on the school they attend and on their parents' effort to motivate them. I had to teach my own kids lots of things but always tried to make them think critically allowing them time to ponder and come to their own conclusions. I've always felt that it's more important to listen to students than to provide them with "information" , being the latter the only teaching methodology that was applied some years ago.


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

Hi/hola, everyone!

I've just remembered that some weeks ago, the morning radio program I usually listen to (El Matí de Catalunya Ràdio, conducted by journalist Antoni Bassas) featured a special on competitive exams in order to become a *notary public* and the preparation these people have to undergo. Madman's stuff... Goodness! 

These guys spend years locked in their homes learning by heart every single law and code in Spain; that is, tones and tones of pages. Listening to them on the radio was a most stressing experience and I found the whole procedure most pointless. What is the point in learning things by heart if not getting deep into them???

I don't know if it's the same in your countries with certain professions in order to achieve a position as civil servant.


----------



## palomnik

K-Milla said:


> If you are catholic, you must learn lots of things!


 
Indeed. In the USA students in Roman Catholic schools had to memorize the Baltimore Catechism, a book of hundreds of questions with appropriate answers on every aspect of Catholicism.  You were assigned a certain number of questions to memorize for homework each day.  Catechism class was always the first class of the day, to emphasize how important it was - and God help you if you didn't have your homework memorized.

I presume that this has changed since I was in school, which was longer ago than I care to mention.  I like to think that all that memorization helped me later on in life when I took up learning languages.

I can imagine what it must be like to memorize the Qur'an.


----------



## Nanon

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the topic here is not only "for or against memorisation". Learning things by heart is absolutely necessary. And sometimes it simply cannot be avoided. Of course we, as children, had to memorise the multiplication tables, but we also had to learn other enumerations of things. For instance, we had to learn lists of words that were often unrelated except by spelling irregularities. 

Here's a typical sample of the weird lists young French speakers memorise. In English, just for fun: "jewel, stone, cabbage, knee, owl, toy, louse". In fact, it makes sense: these words are exceptions to a spelling rule. I liked to learn these lists and to imagine how these objects could concatenate...

Now, multiplication tables, geography, spelling... all this is unquestionably useful. But the question is, do we learn the list of Gothic Kings and the like: a) because it is a tradition b) because we will really use this material, or c) simply to get trained to memorise difficult names? If c) is the right response, shouldn't we improve our learning skills by learning, let' say, poetry instead?


----------



## aleCcowaN

As Fernita told, we were required to learn large lists. Roman kings and all Roman emperors from Augustus to Alexander Severus, just the most important from Maximinus on.

The most absurd were the list of rivers and chains of mountains, sometimes with a 20 Km resolution, for a country which is 4,000 Km North to South. And to add ridicule to absurd, you had to recite your lists without a map.

But I'm not complaining. Thirty years later I still remember by heart that Longfellow's poem which let me avoid English Summer exams: "I shot an arrow into the air / It fell to earth, I knew not where / ...". A couple of year ago, I understood what it says.

Trained parrots. Education has improved a lot. Today we have natural turkeys.


----------



## Cecilio

Thank you very much for the answers. The posts in this thread show that rote learning has obviously been used all over the world and that long lists that students have to learn by heart can be found everywhere. However, it's not clear whether any of these lists has remained in popular culture as a common joke, like Spanish "Lista de los Reyes Godos". Is this only a Spanish phenomenon?

In Spain there's also a second candidate for this hit parade of rote learning: the list of prepositions, which I had to learn as student and still remember. Here it goes (from memory):

*a, ante, bajo, cabe, con, contra, de, desde, en, entre, hacia, hasta, para, por, sin, sobre, tras, mediante.*

Could it be useful to know this list by heart?


----------



## Fernita

To learn the list of prepositions by heart *is useful when one has to analyze sentences from the grammatical point of view. *
By the way, I also learnt them by heart and _según_ and _so_ are missing in your list. I know this is not the point but just in case...


----------



## alexacohen

Fernita said:


> To learn the list of prepositions by heart *is useful when one has to analyze sentences from the grammatical point of view. *
> By the way, I also learnt them by heart and _según_ and _so_ are missing in your list. I know this is not the point but just in case...


I was going to write exactly the same thing when I got disconnected for the umpteenth time.

I did not, by the way, learnt the list of the Gothic kings.
But I did learn by heart some others: it was necessary to know them to put historical events into place.

_Egbert, Ethelwulf, Ethelbald, Ethelbert, Ethelred I, Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, Edmund I, Edred, Edwy, Edgar the Peaceful, Edward the Martyr, Ethelred the Unready (I loved that one), Edmund Ironside, Canute (did marijuana exist then?), Harold Harefoot, Hardicanute, Edward the Confessor_... shall I continue?

Let's try another one. 

_Ahmosis, Amenofis I, Tutmosis I, Tutmosis II, Tutmosis III, Hatshepsut Ma'atkare, Amenofis II, Tutmosis IV, Amenofis III, Amenofis IV/Akenaton, Smenkhare, Tut'ankamon, Aya, Horemheb..._ 

Your list of prepositions seems quite tame to me.
There are some things that cannot be reasoned, but learnt.


----------



## Cecilio

Fernita said:


> To learn the list of prepositions by heart *is useful when one has to analyze sentences from the grammatical point of view. *
> By the way, I also learnt them by heart and _según_ and _so_ are missing in your list. I know this is not the point but just in case...



Yes, you're right. But including "so" and "según" somehow breaks the musical melody of the list. Where should the be placed? That's another interesting thing about lists to be remembered: usually there's some rhythm in them.


----------



## Fernita

Cecilio said:


> Yes, you're right. But including "so" and "según" somehow breaks the musical melody of the list. Where should the be placed? That's another interesting thing about lists to be remembered: usually there's some rhythm in them.


Right! There's some kind of rhythm in them.
I learnt them a long time ago as follows:* a, ante, bajo, cabe, con, contra, de, desde, en, entre, hacia, hasta, para, por, según, sin, so, sobre y tras.* I wonder why "*mediante*" and "*durante*" were not included at that time.

I'll never forget the list of Roman Kings: *Rómulo, Numa Pompilio, Tulio Hostilio, Anco Marcio, Tarquino el Antiguo, Servio Tulio, Tarquino el Soberbio.*


----------



## Cecilio

aleCcowaN said:


> As Fernita told, we were required to learn large lists. Roman kings and all Roman emperors from Augustus to Alexander Severus, just the most important from Maximinus on.




Well, at least you didn't have to learn the names of all the consuls and consular tribunes of the Roman Republic (more than a thousand in total: link).


----------



## alexacohen

Fernita said:


> * a, ante, bajo, cabe, con, contra, de, desde, en, entre, hacia, hasta, para, por, según, sin, so, sobre y tras.* I wonder why "*mediante*" and "*durante*" were not included at that time.


Maybe "madiante" and "durante" were not included becaude they broke the rhythm. But you're right, prepositions were listed alphabetically.


> I'll never forget the list of Roman Kings: *Rómulo, Numa Pompilio, Tulio Hostilio, Anco Marcio, Tarquino el Antiguo, Servio Tulio, Tarquino el Soberbio*


I remember the list of the Roman Emperors, but you'll have to trust me: I dare not write any more lists. 

I'm not against memorizing some facts; After all, no one remembers everything that was taught at school. I have forgotten maths to the extent that I can no longer multiply correctly. I don't even remember what a square root is. I have never needed that knowledge. 
And I assume those who chose to study Maths no longer remember the list of the prepositions.


----------



## Nanon

Cecilio said:


> Yes, you're right. But including "so" and "según" somehow breaks the musical melody of the list. Where should the be placed? That's another interesting thing about lists to be remembered: usually there's some rhythm in them.



True -- these grammatical lists are supposed to be learnt in a particular order.
In French:
qui - que - quoi - dont - où - lequel - duquel - auquel - quiconque (memorised automatically, at least for the first part, as "kikekoi")

and the famous
mais - où - et - donc - or - ni - car ("Mais où est donc Ornicar ?") (the name "Ornicar" does not exist, it has been created for the purpose of memorisation)


----------



## TraductoraPobleSec

I was told once that in the US, the word HOMES is taught as a trick to learn the five great lakes: Huron, Ontario, Michigan, Eire and St. Claire. 

I have a friend who, in order to memorize certain long lists, she herself made them into songs.


----------



## cherine

*Hi guys,*

*You should hate me by now for playing the party pooper, but I must say this:*

*Let's not ruin this -so far- interesting thread by focussing on lists (i.e. do not get drifted away from the thread's topic to discuss, comment and/or analyse particular lists).*

*Love to all,*
*Cherine.*


----------



## alexacohen

You are right, of course, dear mod.

I shouldn't have written any list; but I really think it is necessary to learn X things, whatever they may be, by heart.
Knowing by heart a list of chemical elements would be useless for me, but would be vital for someone working in a laboratory.
The list of the Pharaohs of the XVIII dynasty would be useless for an architect, but was useful to me to identify artworks.
And so on.

I'm sorry, everyone, for being carried off topic.


----------



## danielfranco

When I was in elementary school we had to memorize several tables:
Natural logarithms, GNP of the African countries, monographies of the "Niños Héroes", etc. It must have been very useful, because I can't recall a single one of those facts right now.

D (said he, absurdly)


----------



## Athaulf

danielfranco said:


> When I was in elementary school we had to memorize several tables:
> _*Natural logarithms*_, GNP of the African countries, [...]



Please tell me you're joking.


----------



## danielfranco

Yep. Me joking long time. Just a bit of hyperbole to put things in perspective. Some things you MUST memorize, but they are only useful in their context. As a matter of general education or culture, it might be only necessary to have access in your mind to such arrays of data if you wanted to beat everyone who plays Trivial Pursuit against you.

D


----------



## Nanon

alexacohen said:


> Knowing by heart a list of chemical elements would be useless for me, but would be vital for someone working in a laboratory.


 
Well, in more than one lab, you can see the periodic table hanging on the wall, for those who don't know it by heart (or for those who learned it by heart but might want to check before relying on their memory).
This is probably why asm, who has a major in chemistry, did not feel obliged to memorise it.


----------



## ampurdan

The table of valences.
All the countries of the world with their Capitals.
Main rivers of Catalonia, Spain and Europe.
A myriad of UN organizations, secretariats, commissions and agencies.
The list of the Roman Emperors with their "dynasties".
The list of the Popes from St. Peter to the fall of the Roman Empire.


----------



## Miguel Antonio

I am young enough not to have endured the ordeal of learning the list of Wisigoth kings of Spain, yet old enough to suffer the nightmare of reciting by heart all the rivers of Spain and their tributaries. Funny, though, once the _Minius, Durius_ and _Tagus _crossed the Portuguese border they seemed to have no more tributaries... considering that the Wisigoth kings _did_ rule over these tributaries too 

And as a very young child in England I learnt to do my math by reciting all the way up to 12x12=144, when I came to Spain I was saved the last two sets of multiplications as we only went up to 10x10=100 

Since I attended a Catholic school we were obliged to learn _verbatim_ certain senteces from the Catechism, in doing so, you were guaranteed a pass in the subject matter of "religion"  

Now that I have grown older all I strive to learn _verbatim_ are the lyrics to the songs I like to sing 

Don't worry, be happy 

MA


----------



## Cecilio

So far there have been some very interesting contributions to this thread. It seems that there's a variety of lists that people had to learn by heart. Some of them seem more absurd than the others. I am surprised, for example, that some people had to learn the list of the Roman Kings. There is no historical evidence about their existence and some historians think they're simply legendary names. That's the ultimate list to be memorized: one that includes people who probably never existed!


----------

