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

Tue Dec 24 08:59:43 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:
> >
> > that is always the problem with those sources. What to believe
and
> > what not to believe. Procopius clearly describes the surviving
> Heruls
> > as a very delapidated people. The fact that their kingdom was
> > definitely destroyed once and for all. The fact that they were
> unable
> > to set up a new kingdom. The fact that they were scattered all
over
> > the region all seems to support Procopius' report in my view. Or
to
> > you your argument. There is no reason for Procopius to lie about
> > starvation, abuse and decimation of the Heruls after the defeat
of
> > 508/9.  However, you are quite right the scattered survivors were
> > able to play important roles under whatever overlordship they
ended
> > up.
>
> And from your answer to Tore:
> > The remaining Heruls, who had survived the
> > battle and starvation, where now mistreated, robbed
> > and raped and eventually attacked by the Gepids.
> > Their second choice of residence had also turned out
> > to be a failure.
>
> The reporter of his own time, Procopius, was not a reliable source
> when it came to 30 years old events and figures - but we do not
> disagree that these Heruls were down and vulnerable among the
people
> they had earlier terrorized. This is obvious.

Hi Troels,

I think what is important to realise is that Procopius was not really
interested in the particular fate of some Heruls or other barbarians.
He was interested in the politics of Byzantium vis-a-vis those
barbarians. He did not intend to write an accurate history of the
Heruls, Warnians, or Anglians or any other of the peoples' he refered
to. It was his aim to get accross certain views about contemporary
problems to his fellow countrymen. In order to achieve this the
narrator assumed almost any freedom to bend history, exaggerate and
invent events, when it served his argument. This is often unrelated
to the distance in time which removed him from the events. The Heruls
were particularly useful to him. They probably had a reputation for
beeing more barbarous than Goths etc. already in Constantinopel and
they were an ideal vehicle for Procopius' purposes.

Without going into any detail, it is clear that Procopius was keen to
show that the barbarians were uncivilised, unpredictable and
unreliable who would betray the empire (even 'for no good reason') at
the first chance, simply because that was their nature. As such
barbarians could be used, especially as soldiers, but they cannot be
successfully integrated into the empire. The details, which Procopius
reported have to be analysed against this background. I think that
only in the context of this contemporary debate, to which Procopius
contributed can we attempt to filter out those bits that are reliable
and truthful.

> But please notice, that
> the Scandinavian Heruls may have left them before they went south
> along the Danube,

I think Procopius says quite clearly that the Thule Heruls split from
the rest just before they were about to cross the Danube.

> and please notice, that in spite of another
> disasterous defeat later by Anastasius these Illyrian Heruls were
an
> important element in the Roman army at the time of Procopius.

That is true, but if I remember correctly they were often treated
poorly here as well. Procopius mentioned that they would not even be
given shields in battle.

> However
> reading your own text above we obviously agree that the sources are
> uncertain - and consequently our conclusions are so too.

That is absolutely true and important to remember when postulating a
Herulic history which extents for centuries after their last
mentioning in written source and pertaining to great cultural shifts
which they are credited with in Scandinavia. I know you have not
really made such arguments, but as you know others are content to
speak of a Scandinavian 'Eruliland', creating royal Herulic
geneologies in Scandinavia, credit them as the orignial 'rune
masters', the instigators of the Viking age, bringers of the Aesir
religion, first settlers of Iceland and what not. All this is based
on a few, difficult to interpret lines about Thule.

>
> The only unsolved problem regarding this discussion is our missing
> Silinga-source.

Much more than this is unsolved and will likely remain unsolved.

>
>
> > > Claiming later acceptance and important roles among the
Lombards,
> > the
> > > Ostrogoths, the Bavarians and the Roman army it must be
difficult
> > for
> > > you to deny that the Heruls probably played a major role at the
> > place
> > > where their southern kinsmen had to call for new candidates of
> > royal
> > > blood - Scandinavia. This was as earlier thoroughly discussed
the
> > > place where the two contemperary historians, Jordanes and
> > Procopius,
> > > placed Herulian settlements.
>
> >
> > The Jordanes quote is, according to Hachmann and Svennung
> problematic
> > if I remember correctly. Both authors regarded it as later
addition
> > to a list of Scandinavian tribal names in order to strenghten and
> > emphasis the alliance between the Danube Heruls and the
Ostrogoths.
>
> They used the usual "addition"-escape in a time when other scholars
> believed in a Scandinavian origin of the Heruls. Now this has been
> changed to recent event instead - even accepted by Goffart.

Goffart certainly does not trust the Thule report of Procopius, and
stated that the Heruls had ancestral homes just north of the Danube,
which is a quote from Procopius, who also stated that the ancestral
homes of the Heruls were just north of the Danube. At any rate, I
have nothing against a small group of Heruls (perhaps largely non-
Germanic ones) escaping to a place that was called Thule at the time.
I still maintain that there are very serious problems with that
passage and that migration. However, what is clear is that this group
of Heruls was at best small, poor and shattered. At best, this group
clung on to some sort of Herulic identity in Thule for a while before
vanishing without much of a trace, like all the other probably much
stronger groups of Heruls, that lived in Italy, probably Bavaria and
the Rhineland.

I noted earlier, that when mittle Danubian Germanics from Moravia and
Bohemia (exactly the same region were the Moravian Heruls lived)
migrated to modern south west Germany in the late 5th early 6th
century, they left a clear and unmistakable archaeological record of
their migration and their presence. Until such a record is found in
Scandianvia I remain sceptical about any significant migration of
Danube-Germanic cultures to there.

Merry Christmas
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/