[gothic-l] Re: Jordanes and the Scandinavian Eruli

Tue Dec 31 00:14:15 UTC 2002

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
> --- "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at p...>"
> <trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, Tore Gannholm
> > <tore.gannholm at s...>
> > wrote:
> > >
>
>information
> > from a later source, the new king brought down
> from Thule
>
> I agree, but Procopius wrote "one of the most
> numerous nations there
> are the Gauti [Gautoi], and it was next
> [para=at/beside/by] to them
> that the incoming Eruli settled at the time of
> question"

******GK: Hello Troels and Tore! Has anyone tried to
make something of the seemingly redundant "at the time
of question"? Arguing that Procopius was aware of a
subsequent expulsion, but chose not to mention it? And
that while the Eruli did "remain on the island" (as he
earlier stated), by the time he completed his work
(ca. 553/4) they were no longer where they were in
508-548?*******

### Hi George.
 This "at the time in question" I discussed last year but got no
special comments on. I dont have Procopius at home so maybe my
memory will fail me, but this sentence in the context it is in seems
to indicate that when Procopius was finishing his work then the
Heruli did not dwell in the same place as they settled in the
beginning. This is naturally supportive of Jordanes account. We have
to remember that the informants of Procopius were Heruli so they
were maybe not so keen to mention the expulsion by the Dani. So
maybe they did not inform Procopius of the expulsion or that
expulsion was not any major event at all. Meaning no war, but the
Heruli had to move because of aggression from the Dani. I am not
sure this means that they dwelled in the same place from c.509-548,
just that they had to move within Scandinavia somewhere in this time
period, and because of aggression from the Dani.
 And that expulsion does not mean a war was fought. That the embassy
from Illyria and Datius entourage met no aggression from the Dani
does indicate that the Dani agression was well before those events.
I would guess somewhere between 510 and 530 (just to make a guess)
Your analysis below is very sharp and is very supportive to the
hypothesis that Jordanes is talking about a event after c.509. That
was also the conclusion of Andreas. So Jordanes and Procopiu's
accounts support each other. And now you and Andreas agree here too.
Regarding this "island" then I think that the Romans thought that
Scandinavia was an island.

One thing I want to bring up is the war with the Langobards.
Procpius account does not make much sense here. The Heruli were
suposed to have attacked them for no good reason and Procopius is
really picturing the Heruli as fools. Why should the Heruli have
attacked one of the nations paying tribute to them for no good
reason? I think this story is made up by Procopius. Was it not such
that this relatively powerful Heruli tribe was allied with Theodoric
in Italy! It would have served the interests of the East Roman
Emperor to weaken this alliance and therefore weaken the rule of
Theodoric.. Most likely there was a revolt among the nations paying
tribute to the Heruli. The main player was probably the Langobards.
And all with good support from the East Roman Emperor. Even military
support of some kind. I think that it is very possible that the
Emperor had a hand in the victory over the Heruli. And instead of
telling the truth about the Christians attacking the Pagan Heruli,
then a more tasty story was invented. Naturally then Procopius was
serving his boss, the Emperor. Procopius then pictures the pagans as
unreliable, unfair, demanding against the Christian Langobards and
with the helping hand of God the Heruli got their punishment
(starving refugees etc, etc). So the Emperor got rid of the Pagan
state, weakened Theodoric in Italy, got cheap mercenaries and many
owned him an favor. I wonder if Cameron has dealt with this
possibility. I realize that the Heruli suffered losses in this war
but nothing of the kind indicated by Procopoius. His accounts are
contradictory here.
  One more thing. As I have shown parallels between Ynglingasaga and
Procopius account then it is appropriate to mention that the
splitting up of this mysterious southern tribe and their trek up
North is in Ynglingasaga blamed on, you guess whom?; THE ROMANS.
This is supporting my hypothesis that the mysterious southern tribe
in Ynglingasaga and Procopius Heruli are the same people.
  The most important period of the Heruli was c.450-509. This period
needs to be analysed, their settlements located etc. Surprisingly
little discussion have been of this period.

Best regards Einar.#########

eorge.
in the
> Dewing translation. The interpretation has been
> discussed earlier and
> as far as I can see this position of arrival must be
> the same as the
> position of the Jordanes-event, if the two authors
> mentioned the same
> group of Heruls.
>
> This makes enclaves in the forests of Smaaland the
> most probable
> choise in my opinion. Here the Dani had a reason to
> expell them and
> they would live "para" the Gautoi.
>
> Troels

******GK:If one assumes that Jordanes is reporting an
event (the expulsion) which occurred earlier than the
northward trek of the Procopian Heruls, then we have a
paradoxical situation. Jordanes, in 551, is writing
about something the Dani did to the Heruls a couple of
generations ago, but is unaware of the aforementioned
northward trek, of the Heruls' current location, or of
the entire "king summoning episode". I find it easier
to assume that it is Procopius who omitted to mention
the post-548 demise of the northern Herulian political
society because of his lack of interest in these
"barbarians" unless they were of immediate relevance
to Byzantine political and military issues, than that
Jordanes knew nothing at all about them after the
obscure pre-508 expulsion.== One would also have to
assume, I think, that this pre-508 expulsion of some
group of Heruls already in the north would have been
mentioned by Cassiodorus, whom Jordanes merely copied.
That is why, on balance, I find it more "economical"
to take the view that it is indeed Jordanes and not
Cassiodorus who is reporting the "expulsion" of the
Heruls by the Dani, and that this expulsion is that of
the Heruls who went northwards as per Procopius from
the areas they occupied "at the time in question". The
expulsion would thus be a very recent event, and
Jordanes would not have to repeat the Procopian
information.== I realize of course that any scenario
here is based on pretty tenuous analysis. I just feel
somewhat more comfortable with one that involves less
(possible) assumptions than another.*****
>
>

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/