[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

Sun Dec 29 00:40:34 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
>
> --- "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> <dirk at s...> 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.******
>

That is not a strong argument I am afraid. Procopius (and other
ancient authors) regularly inflates the numbers of armies, often by
the factor of 10. See for example Procopius' account of the attack
of the Anglians on the Warnians. Thus, these numbers given for the
Herulic contingents were likely inflated as well. Also, the number
of the entourage of Datius, which he sets at 200 is no doubt vastly
exaggerated and based on other ancient authors who give such a
retinue to kings of great significance.

>  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.*****

Again, there is very little reason to believe those numbers. If they
were still 4500 warriors strong at that point they would have had an
extremely strong army, which did not have to take abuse and rape by
the Gepids, or which had to starve in Rugiland. Such an army would
have posed a very serious threat to any of the surrounding kingdoms.
The fact, the the Heruls vanished as an independently ruled people
indicates that their army really was decimated greatly, and that
they simply cannot have consisted of 'tens of thousands' of people
who trekked north to the end of the world.

>
>
>  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.*****

Actually, I think that yours is not a good argument either. Surely
the group that tried to establish itself first in Rugiland and
secondly near the Gepids was eager to establish some sort of
independent kingdom. Those attempts clearly failed, because they
were too weak. All they could set up was a federate kingdom on Roman
territory.

>
>  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.*****

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. 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.
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.

> >
> > 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.

You forget the Heruls who moved to Italy and those who stayed with
the Langobards and most likely those who established themselves in
Bavaria. Thus, they were not split in half but scattered in
different groups.

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.

This loss of their settlement areas in Jordanes is unreliable and
may refer  to a time just before 500AD, when there were in fact no
Heruls in Scandinavia.

> 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...****
>

That is true, yet another of the oddities in Procopius' account I
suppose. Procopius was mainly eager to tell that the Heruls
moved 'to the end of the earth' not just somewhere north, like to
the Warnians. Procopius was keen to show that northern barbarians
could return to Thule/Scandza. This was an important part in his
argument to contemporary barbarian policy. 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.

>  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).

That really is the reason? Reluctance for monarchy? That sound
highly unbelievable to me. The true reason why they could not
establish a kingdom was their weakness, not 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".******
>

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. Also, Procopius does not say anything about
Herulic independence in Thule. He also does not mention any Herulic
kings in Thule. Finally, if they had managed to establish themselves
so favourably in Thule, it seems odd that their princes were so
willing to rule over a group of rather insignificant federates of
the Empire.

> > 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.

Herulian material culture is not 'chameleonic', but rather
distinguishable in the form of the Hegykoe group for example.
According to Werner and Bona it is clearly distinguishable from that
of the Langobards, and it would also be most clearly distinguishable
from those of Goeter, Swear and Danes, especially if it was a true
mass-migration of 'tens of thousands of people'. Also, the Hegykoe
group does not display any Scandinavian features, which would also
be rather unexpected given that the supposed migration of the Heruls
would have taken place some 300 years earlier.

Further, if the hypothesis that the Heruli
> were "returning home" is plausible, their absorption
> into the local population becomes even more logical.

Procopius tells us no such thing. In fact, he implies that they were
not returning home when they moved to Thule.

Some of the characteristics, which Mahomedov identifies
as 'Scandinavian' are in fact more widely dispersed than this, e.g.
the three-naved houses and the iron combs.

Finally, there seems to be a consensus in the literature dealing
with this episode that the Herulic group which according to
Procopius moved to Thule was very small and weak, and certainly far
from figuring 'tens of thousands'.

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/