[gothic-l] Re: "Eruli", "Goths", "Danes" and wherefrom the runes

Sun Dec 22 12:33:51 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at p...>"
<trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> Hi Dirk
>
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at p...>"
> > <trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> > > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> > > <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>Those Heruls who went to Italy after their defeat
> > > >> in 509AD, were likely Arian Christians. They also
> > > >> must have included the highest ranking members of
> > > >> the Herulic royal clan, because otherwise they
> > > >> would not have been received by Theoderic.
> > >
> > > You could argue for the opposite conclusion as well. Why should
> > > he give himself all that trouble - he needed strong warriors.
> >
> > I just provided the commonly accepted interpretation.
Apparently,
> > Theoderic would not have granted an audience to those Heruls,
had
> > they not included men of high/royal status.
>
> Apparently both conclusions are guesswork - but of course some
nobles
> were among them.

Hi Troels,

these conclusions are presented in Wilfried Menghin's 'Die
Langobarden', Walter Pohl's 'Die Voelkerwanderung' and others. I
definitely think that it is more than just 'guess work', but
conclusions based on the analysis of many relevant sources.

>
> > > ..............
> > > > The
> > > > integration of Heruls into the Langobards can be deducted
from
> > the
> > > > Historia Langobadorum, which reports that the Langobardic
king
> > took
> > > > the royal insignia of the Herulic king. This act likely
meant
> > that
> > > he
> > > > also took the overlordship of the followers of Rodolph, the
> last
> > > > independent Herulic king.
> > >
> > > No - just that they were defeated by him and that he took
> > possession
> > > of their land and maybe 3 remaining Heruls.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Not really. You have to analyse the whole of the subsequent
> > Langobardic history, to understand that it was common practice
to
> > integrated the bulk of the survivors of a defeated enemy into
the
> > own ranks, especially and explicitly among the Langobards. The
> > wording in the sources (about royal insigia etc.), plus the
> > subsequent events show that this is what has happened also after
> the
> > defeat of the Heruls. See, for example, W. Pohl 'Die
> > Voelkerwanderung', 2002, for a full analysis of these events.
> > However, if you have evidence to support your view that Wacho
> assumed
> > the royal Herulian insignia only to claim overlordship over 3
> > remaining Heruls, I would be interested to know what this is;-)
>
> Sorry - maybe they were 4. This does not tell us much as it is
> evident that members of these migration- and mercenarie people
went
> into the service of each other and were married to each other all
the
> time.
>

Again, the integration of the defeated Heruls into the Langobards is
a recuring them in Menghin, Pohl, Werner and Bona. The terminologi
in the Langobardic history and the subsequent events show that a
significant part of the Heruls were integrated into the Langobards.
This integration went along similar lines as later with the Gepids,
when Alboin forced the daughter of the defeated Gepidic king to
marry him in order to legitimise his overlordship over the Gepids
that joined him for the march to Italy. The events surrounding Tato,
Wacho and Silinga show that Heruls played a significant part in the
Langobardic kingdom after 509AD.

> Odoaker was called Rex Herulorum, but he was not the king of the
> Herulian people.

Well, he was not a Herul himself, but he was king of a large group
of Heruls. As such he was no doubt a Herulic king or king of 'a
Herulic people'. We can not think of these separate groups in terms
of 'one or the people'. Thus, there were kings of different Gothic
groups at the same time as well. Thus, we should probably use terms
like 'the Odoaker Heruls', 'the Danube Heruls', the 'Rhineland
Heruls' etc.

Julian II and his follower called themselves
> Erulicus,

You probably mean Justinus II, as Julian ruled in the mid 4th
century.

but when Narces and the Lombards/Awars defeated the Heruls
> in 567 AD, most of them were probably killed or integrated among
the
> Lombards and Awars in the regions where they were defeated as we
did
> not hear about refugees. Few years ago the Danish Queen gave up
her
> title "Queen of the Goths and Wends".

> Don't use ceremonial boasting as historical documentation without
> caution and use of other stronger sources too.

Menghin, Pohl and Werner have used the whole spectrum of sources and
all reached the same conclusion. Thus, I am inclined to accept their
view.

>
>
> > > > Also, interation of defeated enimies is a
> > > > directly attested custom for the Langobards and will no
doubt
> > have
> > > > taken place in 509AD. Wacho's marriage to Silinga, the
daughter
> > of
> > > > Rodolph was likely instigated in order to facilitate the
> > > integration
> > > > and garner support among Herulic factions among the
Langobards.
> > >
> > > Normally these marriages were used for alliances - not for
their
> > own
> > > subjects. Are you sure she was a daughter of Roduulf and not
of
> > > another Herulian king? What does the source tell us?
> >
> >
> > I think one source calls her simply daughter of the Herulic king,
> > but also mentiones that the Heruls had no king after Rodolph.
>
> According to Procopius Ochus was king of the Heruls 30 years
later.
> Wacho first became king after the Heruls were defeated, and
Silinga
> was his 3rd wife with a young son when Ochus was killed.
>
> > Another source, I think calls her daughter of Rodolph, but
> > I am not certain.
>
> That is the one I am searching for. The first showed up to be too
> uncertain.

In Menghin's book (Die Langobarden) she is definitely called
daughter of Rodolph, I will see if he states a direct source. At any
rate it seems likely that she was either Rodolph's daughter or
another member of the original Danube Herulic royal clan. Overall,
there can hardly be any doubt that the Heruls were scattered around
the region after their defeat of 508/9. Parts of them had moved to
Italy, which I think was the most prefereable option, since Italy
had been the target of scores of barbarians before them. Another
group joined the Langobards just as defeated enemies were
intergrated into the Langobards at other occasions and as is
indicated by subsequent events. One group may also have settled in
modern Bavaria and contributed to the Bavarian ethnogenesis, as is
claimed by many secondary sources. Family ties of the Bavarian
Agilofings with Heruls like Fara and Sindvalt may support this view.
A further group of which Procopius had some knowledge first tried to
make a living in the deserted Rugiland. However, they suffered
starvation there and sought refuge among the Gepids, who mistreated
them. Too weak to opose the Gepids they decided to seek refuge among
the Romans. Of this group, Procopius reports that a further group
split off to travel north to Thule. I think this secenario is well
supported by historical sources.

cheers
Dirk

>
> Troels

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/