[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

[Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk@smra.co.uk>]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
>
> --- "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > --- 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.
>
> *****GK: I don't think Procopius would have  bothered
> to write so much about an insignificant group fielding
> only 300+150 warriors. I'll stick with the figures
> 3000+1500. The Heruls were after all much closer to
> Constantinople than the Angles and Warnians. And just
> because there are inflations in one instance doesn't
> mean that there must be in all.******



That is true of course. It just means that we cannot be certain about
any of the figures. Since they don't match up with the rest of the
report and the fact that the Heruls were defeated, suffered hunger
and abuse I regard them as inflated. However, we will never know.




>
> > 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.
>
> *****GK: Well if Datius was in Procopius' eyes a king
> of great significance why shouldn't he have had the
> appropriate entourage?*****



Because, he was not significant enough to find mentioning in any
other source (e.g. Marcellinus Comes). As pointed out by modern
scholars the number of retinue attributed to Datius by Procopius was
a topos which he took from earlier sources. E.g. the Alamannic king
Givultus, who reportedly commanded 70,000 troops and 30,000 cavalry,
is given a retinue of 200 men. Yet, scholars agree that those numbers
are inflated as well, although this king operated in a large area and
fought big battles.






> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >  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.
>
> *****GK: Unless the Gepids had a vastly stronger army
> of course, which they doubtless had.*****
>



An army of 4500 would still have been formidable at the time. Even if
the Gepids could field a large army of up to 12,000 or 15,000 men, a
Herulic force of 4500 would have been a real mortal danger. Yet, the
Gepids were free to abuse, rob and rape the Heruls without any
opposition. According to Bona, the Gepidic army was about 15,000
strong at the best of times.





>  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.
>
> *****GK: Just because the Heruls chose not to have
> kings at certain points in time does not mean that
> they were not "independently ruled people". Here's my
> mathematics: focusing just on the figures and
> statements made by Procopius, if the Heruls of 500 AD
> were a strength of a factor of 100, and "most" were
> killed by the Lombards, this would leave approximately
> a factor of 20 surviving. Of these a factor of 10
> moves to Scandinavia and a factor of 10 eventually
> crosses the Danube. Of the latter "most" are
> slaughtered by the Romans. Which leaves us a factor of
> 2 able at one point to field 4,500 warriors. On this
> computation those trekking to Scandinavia would have
> been much more numerous. But I decided to take
> Procopius' "most" as about 1/2, and concluded very
> reasonably that the Scandinavian trekkers would have
> had an army about twice the size of that of the
> Illyrians. Add to that wives, children and old folk
> and you get some tens of thousands on the move. Not as
> much as the hordes of Radagaisus or the various
> contingents fleeing before the Huns.******



The weak point in this calculation is the number 4500 warriors, which
is unbelievable given the circumstances. Also, your calculation
implies that at strength 100, the Heruls could field an army of
225,000 men, i.e. as much as the army of the whole Roman empire. That
sounds rather unbelievable to me.

My numbers would be roughly: 50,000 Heruls in total, prior to 509
(i.e. a strong people comparable in size to the Suevi in Spain, but
slightly smaller than the Vandals). Of the 50,000, 20,000 remained
after 509. Some 5,000 moved to Italy and a further 5,000 stayed with
the Langobards (this incorporates also other groups who seemed to
have moved to Bavaria). The remaining 10,000 (still a large group)
sufferes starvation in Rugiland and following mistreatment and attack
by the Gepids, the remaining 8,000 Heruls decide to cross the danube
and ask Rome for protection. Of those a smaller group of up to 3,000
(at best) decide to move to Thule. I regard the group that moved to
Thule as smaller than those who stayed, because in the first report
Procopius does not even mentione the Thule Heruls and only remembers
about them in the following chapter. Also, Marcellinus Comes who
reported about these events knew nothing about Heruls moving to Thule
at all.




> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >  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: There were a number of independent Herulian
> political formations after 508, and while not equal to
> the more successful Germanic states, they certainly
> were not as insignificant as you imply. They were a
> kind of middle power, comparable, say, to independent
> Slavic tribes, or to lesser Germanic groupings.*******



Which independent Herulian political formation after 508AD do you
have in mind. As far as I know there were the Illyrian Heruls, who
were subjects of the Emperor. They were dependent, but unruly at
times. Also there was a failed attempt by Sintvald to set up a
kingdom in the Alps. Can you please list the 'independent Herulian
political formations' with the historical sorces mentioning them.




>
> > >
> > > GK:  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.
>
> ******GK: Well they tried. And later some of them
> allied with the Gepids. The larger group that trekked
> northward was more successful, at least for a time.
> They had about 40 years of independence in Scandinavia
> (compared to the 50-60 odd years of the Ostrogoths in
> Italy).******



Where do you get the idea of independent Herulic rule in Thule from?
Which source tells us about such an indenpent rule (political
entity)? Surely, Procopius does not say such a thing. In fact, by not
refering to any Herulic kings or independence in Thule he implies the
opposite.




> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >  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.
>
> *****GK: That is why I surmised that the move
> northward was planned and "permission" to transit
> obtained from a variety of states and peoples.*****
>


A people of 'tens-of thousands' would not have needed to steal itself
past Warnians etc., but could have acted more assertively.




> > 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.
>
> *****GK: Well I don't think that the people which
> moved north after the Lombard battle were "starving
> refugees"*****



How do you arrive at this assumption? Certainly, according to
Procopius, they were refugees, fleeing from abuse, attack and
mistreatment by the Gepids after suffering starvation in Rugiland.
Why do you think they asked Rome for help if they were not refugees
in need of support? I would really like to see the source, which
contradicts Procopius and tells us that the Heruls were a very strong
and prosperous people after 509 and the only reason for them not
setting up a new independent kingdom was there 'reluctance for
kingship', and not the weakness of their forces.


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/