[gothic-l] Erulic and Gothic Naval Warfare in the Black Sea

[Tim O'Neill]

andreas.schwarcz at univie.ac.at wrote:
>
> Tim's interpretation of Wolfram is wrong.

Actually Andreas, my interpretation of Wolfram is exactly
the same as yours.  My post only concerned the expeditions
of 255 and 256 AD, as you can see - I've addended my post
below. I didn't discuss the later raids, despite Bertil's
misrepresentation that I did.  You can read my post below
for yourself.

> The question of
> "Sarmatian" naval support concerns the sea expeditions of 255 and
> 256 AD, where Zosimus, Historia nea, I 31 ff., names the Boranoi
> as attackers of Asia minor, based on the ships of the Bosporan
> realm in the Crimea (see Wolfram, Die Goten, 3rd ed., p.58 f.). The
> Boranoi usually are considered as Sarmatians. The ships they
> used were not built by them, they used the fleet of the Bosporan
> realm.

The point of my post, in the context of a discussion on
the idea that the Vandals and Goths could be seen as
proto-Vikings, was that Wolfram considers the Goths to
have followed the lead of their Sarmatian neighbours in
first using local ships as a way of attacking Black Sea
outposts - which argues against the idea that these
actions were due to a distant memory of a Scandinavian/
Baltic ('proto-Viking') maritime tradition.

> The case of the Gothic/Herulian attack in 268/69 AD is
> different. It started from the Maeotis and the mouth of the Dnjestr
> and Zosimus, I 42, expressly tells us that then ships were built by
> the invaders (see Wolfram, Die Goten, 62-64).

The question we were trying to discuss was whether or not
the Goths used 'native' Germanic boat-building techniques
or whether they simply adopted local maritime traditions
and techniques much as they had, in earlier raids, simply
made use of Bosporanian ships.  I'm not convinced either
way, but many on Germanic-L were sceptical of Bertil's
assertions that they *did* use Germanic-style ships as a
result of their Scandinavian origins.  He chose not to
reveal any of his sources, however, since he has an article
on the subject ready for publication.  He also chose to
reply to posts questioning his theory with the kind of
condescenion, sneering superiority, deliberate evasion of
points, and blatant misrepresentation which has made him
a less than productive and distinctly unpopular member of
Germanic-L for many months and has been the cause of
regular complaints to me about his posting style for the
last six months.

Faced with the potential prospect of a number of useful
members of G-L quitting the list over his constant rudeness
and having already had other knowledgeable members do so,
I grew tired of playing referee in constant Bertil-inspired
disputes and I bumped him from G-L.  His deliberate
misrepresentation of my post (below) seems to be a petty
and childish attempt at revenge.

Sorry to Matt that our troubles on G-L have spilled over
here, and I won't be responding to any further provocation
by Bertil on Gothic-L.  Frankly, you're welcome to him.
Cheers Andreas,

Tim O'Neill
(Weary G-L List Owner)

[Begin Germanic-L post]

> Given that Bertil has chosen not to reveal his sources
> regarding his radical theory that the Goths and Vandals
> preserved ancient Germanic maritime traditions of naval
> warfare and ship-building in their campaigns on the
> Black and Mediterranean seas, I figured we could look at
> the relevant sources and see if there might be any support
> for such an idea.  Bertil has decided to remove himself
> from this discussion, which is certainly his right, but
> the flurry of recent posts shows there is certainly an
> interest in this possibility, so his non-participation
> shouldn't prevent the rest of us from discussing this
> concept and analysing the appropriate sources.
>
> For the early Gothic maritime attacks on the Black Sea
> I gather the main source is Zosimus' _Historia Nova_.
> I just went to see what Wolfram has to say on these
> first maritime expeditions in the region and was interested
> by what I found.
>
> In his _History of the Goths_ Wolfram describes the early
> third century attacks by the Goths on the Empire, showing
> how they were preceeded and, later, accompanied by similar
> raids by the Goths' Sarmatian neighbours and allies.
> Writing of the earliest attacks from the sea in the Black
> Sea region (255, 256 and 257 AD), Wolfram says:
>
> 'Once again Sarmatian peoples preceeded the Goths in this
> new theatre of war.' (p. 48)
>
> He describes how the Bosporanian client kingdom was
> weakened by a waning of Roman support, was brought under
> the control of Sarmatian and Gothic invaders.  Wolfram
> describes how the Bosporanian navy had been able to
> safeguard the cities on the Black Sea before this, but
> says that now this fleet fell into the hands of the
> new invaders.
>
> It was the Borani who we first hear of mounting sea raids
> - forcing the Bosporanian fleet to carry their to Pityus
> to carry out an abortive attack.  This was no certainly
> no 'Viking'-style raid by these Sarmatian tribesmen (who
> can hardly be said to have had any maritime tradition,
> even in their distant past).  They simply got the fleet
> to transport them to Pityus and then let it sail home -
> leaving the Boranian warriors almost stranded after the
> unsuccessful campaign (they managed to force some Roman
> vessels to take them home eventually).
>
> The next season the Borani tried again, and this time
> a Gothic contingent accompanied them in what Wolfram
> specifically describes as a 'confiscated fleet' of
> Bosporanian ships.  This attack managed to capture
> Pityus this time and, thanks to the desertion of the
> garrison, also seized the city of Trebizond.
>
> Wolfram makes it quite clear that it was the Sarmatians -
> originally a steppe nomad group of peoples - who initiated
> these attacks by sea using captured ships and sailors
> pressed into service.  In a footnote he cites Zosimus
> on this point and lists the Carpi, Borani and Urugundi
> (who may or may not have been Sarmatians) as prefiguring
> the Goths in this regard.  Far from depicting the Goths
> as natural sea plunderers who adopted naval warfare as
> a matter of course thanks to an unbroken tradition of
> maritime warfare dating back to their (possible)
> shadowy origins in Scandinavia, Wolfram shows them as
> teaming up with their fellow steppe dwellers to take
> advantage of a shift in the balance of power.  And, like
> their Sarmatian friends, they needed to force the local
> people to do their sailing for them.
>
> Wolfram gives no indication of any Gothic ship-building,
> the use of any non-local ships or ship designs in these
> campaigns or any sign of a 'pre-Viking' maritime
> tradition amongst the Goths.  Just as the Goths in this
> period adopted steppe nomad cavalry techniques, so they
> seem to have followed their Sarmatian allies in taking
> advantage of the rapid transport option offered by the
> captured local Bosporanian fleet.
>
> Wolfram footnotes this section with references to
> Zosimus, and certainly gives no indication that Zosimus
> discusses any Gothic ship-building or seafaring on the
> Black Sea.
>
> I don't have a translation of Zosimus and I don't read
> Greek, so can anyone shed some light on what he has to
> say about these raids? (Iris?)  Is Wolfram's assessment
> that the Goths were simply following their opportunistic
> allies' lead rather than an ancestral tradition dating
> back 250 years an accurate one?  If so, it seems they were
> following a precendent which went back precisely one year -
> to the opportunistic raid carried out by the Borani in
> 255 AD thanks to local Bosporanian sailors.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tim O'Neill

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html

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