[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk@smra.co.uk> dirk at SMRA.CO.UK
Thu Jan 2 08:46:47 UTC 2003


> ####Hunnic form... etc. Were do you have this info from? As far as 
I 
> remember then Procopius states that the Heruli army was more 
> numerous than the Langobards when they went to war, but they lost 
> anyway. If I am remembering right, then how does that fit with 
> the "Hunnic..etc"?#####





Hi Einar,

I strongly recommend you read the recent book by Walter Pohl, 
called 'Die Voelkerwanderung', and his monograph-type publication 
about 'Voelker an der Mittleren Donau' ( I can give you the full 
reference if you like). This would safe me from reproducing the 
research done by various scholars over several decades, and knowing 
the nature of the Danube Heruls would probably be of great interest 
to you too.








> > 
> 
> And even because of losing a war and many of their 
> > > warriors beeing slain then the tribal structure was still 
> intact. 
> > So 
> > > intact that they could effectively split themselves up into two 
> > > seperate tribes( in reality so) and there were still other 
> groups 
> > of 
> > > Heruli that has to be accounted for. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > This is speculation. The split up may just as well be outward 
> signs 
> > that the tribal leadership structures had collapsed. Authority 
was 
> > weak, as would be expected from a group that was just chased away 
> by 
> > the Gepids.
> 
> ####  +++ No, it is not speculation. This migration could not have 
> taken place without a well functioning tribal structure and 
> sufficient resources######



We know from Procopius that they had just suffered famine and were 
abused and attacked by the Gepids before asking Rome for shelter. If 
they were still able to master a 1000 km migration to Thule, this 
shows that they were desparate and few.  





> > 
> 
> > That was because they were 
> > > strong and numerous before the war with the Langobards. Without 
> > > reasources and a relatively intact tribal structure, the 
> migration 
> > > to Scandinavia could not have happened. So simple is that.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No, it is not so simple I am afraid. You presented a circular 
> > argument. Procopius tells us that they were weak, but some of 
them 
> > migrated to Thule. You conclude that a migration to Thule can 
only 
> > have been conducted by a strong, well organised tribe, ergo 
> Procopius 
> > was wrong and the Heruls were strong. 
> 
> #### No, I never said they were "strong...etc" There are no 
circular 
> arguments. Read the above. See +++ ####
> > 
> > In reallity, you need the Heruls to be strong so that they can 
> become 
> > the elite of Scandinavia, the scholars and warriors of the time 
> who 
> > eventually would migrate to Iceland. Einar, you should not 
rewrite 
> > history to fit your theories, the weakness of which have been 
> > displayed by Linda Richters.
> > 
> #####You must be joking. Politely I want to say that I feel that 
> Linda has not presented any arguments bringing down my arguments. 
> Nor showed any arguments supporting her hypothesis (the Icelanders 
> being overwhelmingly Norwegians) .Why dont you join the discussion 
> then and tell us which weaknesses?
> Rewriting history? As you have a doctoral degree then it is amazing 
> how often I have to explain this for you; there were no Heruli 
> migrating to Iceland...etc-you should remember the rest. I was just 
> explaining this (for you) a few days ago.####




Ok, I was not aware that you had abandon this idea of Heruls (or 
their decendents) migrating to Iceland. Good move!






> 
> > 
> > > Ochus was killed around 548 AD. After that event a embassy was 
> sent 
> > > to Thule.. So there are at least 40 years between the Heruli 
> > loosing 
> > > the war and the return of Datius and the others from Thule. And 
> it 
> > > was obvious that the Heruli about 40 years after the war with 
> the 
> > > Langobards had safely established themselves in Scandinavia. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Again, you are speculating. All that is said by Procopius is that 
> > Heruls were still living in Thule. Procopius says no word 
> > about 'safely established'. In fact, he mentiones no kings or 
> > independent leadership. The fact that the Thule Heruls vanish 
from 
> > history, with no source outside Procopius ever mentioning them 
the 
> > assumption should be that they were integrated and absorbed.
> 
> #### Oh, who said they were not integrated? They were safely 
> established and integrated into the local population and their 
> aristocratic families also. #####
> > 
> > So 
> > > they traveled relatively slowly and send a messenger to 
announce 
> > > their arrival within a few days.
> > > Then Suartuas wanted to make war with the group from Thule and 
> > > destroy them.  So he demanded the Heruli to destroy the men 
from 
> > > Thule and took of in the direction of the Thule group with the 
> > > intention of destroying them(or subjugating them) .
> > > Then Procopius says( VI,xv. 27-36) " But when the two forces 
> were 
> > > one day´s journey distant from each other....."   
> > > So Procopius says: TWO FORCES. It would be interesting to know 
> if 
> > > this can be translated in any different way. But such it is 
> > > translated from Greek by Dewing. A force ready for battle does 
> not 
> > > have to be a big force but such a description in the context of 
> > this 
> > > text indicates that here we are talking about a reasonably big 
> > > groups of warriors ready for battle. No just a few tired 
> > > 
> > 
> 
travellers.                                                          
> > >        
> > > Using common sense, reading the whole chapter about this 
> > > events,seeing things in perspective and evaluating these events 
> in 
> > a 
> > > neutral manner, then it is safe to assume that this entourage 
> > coming 
> > > with Datius and Aordus was an impressive one as Procopius says.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > The forces, mentioned by Procopius included those of the local 
> > Herulic supporter on both sides. To assume from the use of the 
> > word 'force' that we are dealing with large scale armies is pure 
> > speculation. 
> 
> #### Are you trying to waste my time or make a fool out of 
> yourself??? Just a few sentences above, I talk of "a reasonably big 
> groups of warriors". In your brain, then I am saying; large scale 
> armies?? Interesting.########
> > 
> > 
> >   
> > > Taking everything into account that Procopius writes about this 
> > > events shows that beyond any reasonable doubt. His writings 
> about 
> > > TWO FORCES should  expel all doubts in our minds about that 
> > matter.. 
> > > Procopius account of these events are coherent,detailed, sound 
> and 
> > > not contradictory.
> > > We can safely make a guess that this entourage could easily 
have 
> > > included about 200-300 men.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So even more than Procopius says?
> 
> #### Maybe, as I can also evaluate from your info. In the beginning 
> of the letter#####




No you did not understand the argument in the first place, I'm afraid.





> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Nobles,warriors and other men with 
> > > different duties.
> > > Already in 529 AD a group of at least 1500-3000 Heruli 
> mercenaries 
> > > were in the service of Justinian. According to Procopius then 
> 3000 
> > > Herulian warriors joined the Gepids when Aordus was killed, 
> while 
> > > 500 Heruli joined the Byzantines sent by Justinian in order to 
> help 
> > > the Lombardian king Audoin. And here we are just talking about 
> > > warriors. These warriors had sisters,younger 
> > > brothers,parents,relatives,grandparents. There is no reason to 
> > > belief that the Heruli in Scandinavia were less numerous than 
> the 
> > > Illyrian Heruli.###########
> > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > *****GK: But we also have many examples of large
> > > > > groups migrating with women and children at various
> > > > > moments in the history of Germanic populations. There
> > > > > is no reason to assume this would not be the case with
> > > > > those Heruli who trekked northward.*****  
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but those groups had massive armies, which were able to 
> > > plunder 
> > > > at will. Procopius tells us that the Heruls were keen to 
avoid 
> > any 
> > > > conflict on their move to Thule. 
> > > 
> > > ##### No, he says no such thing, but naturally they avoided 
> > > conflict. Would you think it was wise to make war with kids and 
> > > women around? And why make war for no good reasons? Why would 
> they 
> > > have made war with nations on their way?###
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Because if a mass migration of tens-of thousands of people would 
> move 
> > through your country you would not be very happy if you were one 
> of 
> > the locals who feared for their harvests etc. In other words they 
> > would have tried to keep you out by force.
> 
> ####### Whom are you answering, me or George? Just a few days ago I 
> came with the hypothesis, they could have been 3-8 thousands. You 
> have maybe forgotten, that I have stated clearly, that I dont agree 
> with George here. And said it more than once.####
> > 
> > > Some scholars have argued that they 
> > > > took an eastern route to avoid running into Thuringians and 
> > > Saxons. 
> > > > Procopius tells us that they 'suffered no harm from the 
> Danes'. 
> > > > Hence, these people were unable to take what they needed by 
> force.
> > > 
> > > ### This is unvalid argumentation. Drawing such conclusions 
does 
> > not 
> > > really hold water. Probably the Dani were the most powerful 
> tribes 
> > > in Scandinavia, and doubtlessly Procopius were aware of that. 
> And 
> > > you forget he uses plural. The Dani was an umbrella term over 
> many 
> > > tribes.#####
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > The passage is clear, the migrating Heruls were happy not to 
> suffer 
> > more harm, after beeing defeated by Langobards, starving in 
> Rugiland, 
> > suffering rape abuse and attacks by Gepids, the Heruls were lucky 
> not 
> > to suffer any more. Remember, Procopius writes that the 
> Heruls 'were 
> > unable to take any more suffering' when they decided to move to 
> > Illyria and Thule.
> > 
> 
> ###### What ever you want me to remember then your argument I was 
> responding to is still invalid. I think actually that as you repeat 
> the rape,abuse part in almost every letter I should remember.####




Einar, in the previous letter you stated that my interpretation that 
the Heruls who had fled from the Gepids were refugees was 'an 
incredible statement'. Hence, you clearly had forgotten all about 
Procopius' report about 'abuse, rape and famine'. 






> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > > Like the Gepids of 523AD they needed substantial own 
resources 
> to 
> > > > support themselves. The Ostrogoths gave the Gepids 3 Solidi 
> for 
> > > > household unit. If the 'tens of thousands' of Heruls needed a 
> > > > similar amount for a much longer destance they must have been 
> > > > extremely rich indeed, which of course does not square with 
> the 
> > > fact 
> > > > that they were starving refugees.
> > > 
> > > ##### Starving refugees! This is an incredible statement. You 
> are 
> > > like implying that the Heruli migrating to Thule were starving 
> > > refugees?. Use you common sense.#########
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > No Einar, please read Procopius carefully. The Heruls fled from 
> the 
> > Langobards, starved in Rugiland, were abused, robbed, raped and 
> > attacked by the Gepids. 'Unable to take any more abuse' says 
> > Procopius, they decided to move again. If you don't regard this 
as 
> a 
> > report about suffering refugees, I cannot help you.  
> 
> #### Okay then. This is your final statement then. You really think 
> that the Heruli migrating to Thule were starving refugees. Which of 
> course is a totally unfounded hypothesis, but that is fine with 
me###



Yes, I think this is hopeless indeed.





> > 
> 
> > > Curiously, Procopius, who 
> > > > was very interested and who claimed to be informed directly 
> from 
> > > > people who had come from their and from Heruls makes no 
> > mentioning 
> > > > that the Heruls had once come from there, or that the Thule 
> > Heruls 
> > > > were returning to ancient homelands. If he had held such a 
> view 
> > he 
> > > > would most likely have mentioned it. The fact that he doesn't 
> > > shows 
> > > > that he thought that the Heruls did not come from Thule 
> > originally.
> > > 
> > > ##### Oh, was not Procopius keen to show that northern 
> barbarians 
> > > could return to Thule! but now the Heruli were not from 
there??. 
> > > This is a rather interesting logic and reminds me of the logic 
> of 
> > > Goffart who seems to be able to know somehow what Procopius was 
> > > THINKING!#####
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your cynisism is not helpful Einar. You may regard yourself a 
> greater 
> > expert on late antique sources than Goffart, but you should 
> support 
> > your arguments. 
> 
> ##### Naturally I respect Goffarts knowledge, but 
> he has like all others to bring forth arguments for his claims 
> (regarding the Heruli) ####
> 



Maybe sometimes 'all others' are right and the maverick theory is 
wrong?




> Goffart and others state that the origin of all 
> > northern barbarians from Thule/Scandza was a topic of that time. 
> Yet, 
> > the fact, that Procopius, who will certainly have believed that 
> all 
> > barbarians came from there at one stage finds no confirmation 
from 
> > his own sources for such an origin. Had his sources confirmed 
this 
> he 
> > would clearly have mentioned it. 
> 
> #### I dont think you have the slightest idea of  what 
> Procopius "will certainly have believed" As the Heruli were multi-
> ethnic it is futile to speculate of their exact origins. Some of 
the 
> Moravian Meruli might have been able to trace their ancestry to 
> Scandinavia, others not######



That is speculation. This cannot be surpported by the sources. 




> > 
> > 
> > > > But there were "settlements" (confirmed by
> > > > > both Procopius and Jordanes) for nearly two
> > > > > generations, there was independence, and then a
> > > > > catastrophic war with the Dani, the "best of the
> > > > > northerners".******
> > > > >
> > > > Again, the 'Dani driving out Heruls' sentence may refer to a 
> > > period 
> > > > around 500 before the supposed arrival of Heruls in Thule. It 
> was 
> > > in 
> > > > my view included for contemporary political reasons and does 
> not 
> > > > reflect real events. 
> > > 
> > > ### What contemporary political reasons would that be???? #####
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > At the time, the court of Ravenna was busy setting up a network 
of 
> > allied states in the north. With many Heruls still living in 
> Italy, 
> > it was politically opportune to demonstrate a common origin of 
> Goths 
> > and Heruls to strengthen those ties and especially placating the 
> > Roman senatorial elites. 
> 
> #### Yes, but you did not answer my question. What political 
reasons 
> for making up a story that the Heruli in Scandinavia were expelled 
> by the Dani?? Were the Heruli or the Dani involved in the 
> contemporary politics of Ravenna! Of course not.####



Of course yes, the Heruls were part of Theoderic's system of 
alliances. Giving them a common origin from Scandza like the Goths, 
would make such an alliance more acceptable for the Roman senatorial 
elites, who had suffered under Heruls in the preceeding decades.  


Dirk 


You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>. 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 



More information about the Gothic-l mailing list