[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

[george knysh]

--- "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at smra.co.uk>"
<dirk at smra.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I would have a real problem with this notion of tens
> of thousands of
> Heruls migrating to Thule. Firstly, a tribal army of
> that time
> consisted of up to 3000 - 5000 warriors.

******GK: That is what the "Illyrian" Heruls
(survivors of both the Lombard and later Roman alleged
near total slaughters) are recorded as able to field=
3000+1500.******

 The Goths
> and Franks had
> more smaller peoples had less. However, as a general
> estimate this
> number will be about right. Procopius tells us that
> most of the
> Heruls were killed by the Langobards.

*****GK: I wouldn't attach a great deal of
significance to this "most of". This is clearly a
hyperbolic overestimation. Procopius then tells us
that one group of survivors trekked to Rugiland, then
near to the Gepids, then across the Ister, after
which, again, they were "mostly" slaughtered by the
Romans. And yet the descendants of this second
slaughter were subsequently able to field a total of
4500 warriors.*****


 From
> Cassiodorus we know that
> parts of the survivors fled to Italy, and Procopius
> added that those
> who sought refuge among Gepids and than Romans were
> in no state to
> oppose anybody. In fact, the mere fact that they
> were too weak to set
> up an independent kingdom shows that the remaining
> Heruls after 508AD
> will not have been a large people.

*****GK: That is not a very good argument, given the
fact that the Heruli seem to have had a kind of
"anti-monarchic" disposition at various moments of
their history.*****

 Also, even the
> idea that the 'tens-
> of thousands' of Heruls were largely women and
> children is not
> plausible. The logistic arrangement made by the
> court of Ravenna for
> the resettlement of Gepids in 523AD to Gaul shows
> that such a large
> migratory group, that was unable to take what it
> needed from others
> by force, would have needed substantial
> administrative support.

*****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.*****
>
> If the group that split off from the last survivors
> who sought refuge
> in the Roman empire was still 'tens of thousands' of
> people strong
> this would still be a very strong group.

*****GK: I agree. Even if one accepts that a majority
(not most) of the Heruls (as of their status in 500
AD) were killed by the Lombards, one may assume that
about one-half (Procopius is not specific here) moved
on to Rogiland etc., while the other half trekked
northward. Since this second half was not involved in
the Roman slaughter which further diminished the
numbers of the "Illyrians" one might argue that they
had at least twice as many warrors as their southern
cousins. But one may assume other things also. Such a
large migration must have been made possible due to
arrangements with some of the peoples involved in
allowing passage and settlement especially the Dani
and the Gauts, and most importantly the population of
the area of Sweden where the Heruli eventually
"settled", until they lost their "sedes" to the Dani.
More: it is arguable that this group was led by
families who could trace their ancestry back to the
areas where they were now moving towards. Why else go
there? There was plenty of unoccupied space in
between, but strangely enough they pushed on...****

 Note, the
> Burgundians who
> were resettled to the Sapaudia after their defeat by
> the Huns/Romans
> numbered less than 10,000 (according to estimates by
> archaeologists),
> but they were still very strong compared to the
> remaining Heruls.
> Afterall, they were able to set up a kingdom.
> Hence, since we know
> that most of the Herulic warriors were likely killed
> while parts of
> the people were scattered among Langobards,
> Ostrogoths, Romans etc.
> the group that according to Procopius moved to
> Thule, must have been
> very small indeed (my guess would be less than
> 1000). This would also
> explain why they were completely absorbed into the
> local population
> and why they did not set up a Herulic kingdom there.

*****GK: There was no "kingdom" for the reasons
pointed out earlier (a certain Herulian reluctance for
monarchy). 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".******

> It also exlanes
> the absence of any archaeological remains that point
> to the Heruls in
> Thule.

*****GK: Whatever "archaeological remains" are there
should be associated with these Heruls if possible
(for the period 510-550). The continuity with
archaeological sites in the south is not essential,
given,the chameleonic nature of Herulian material
culture. Further, if the hypothesis that the Heruli
were "returning home" is plausible, their absorption
into the local population becomes even more logical.
And we have enough evidence in Mahomedov to indicate
that Scandinavian elements participated actively in
the expansion of the Goths and others to the
southeast, even if his attempt to identify the Eruli
(a new name for these?)with certain material remains
is seen as doubtful.******
>

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com

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/