[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

Tue Dec 31 16:55:03 UTC 2002

--- "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.
> > >
> >
> >
> > 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.

******GK: Very well then, let’s start over. I think
that the figures given by Procopius as to the military
strength of the Illyrian Eruli in his time are
acceptable (4500 warriors). He would have no
particular reason to inflate them. In that case, the
problem would be in his statement that “most” of the
Erulian warriors were slaughtered by the Lombards in
509, and that in an initial phase, “most” of the
warriors fielded by the group which crossed the Danube
were slaughtered by the Romans. Let us dismiss these
two statements as fantastic, and accept that while
defeated by both Lombards and Romans the Erulian
forces were still fairly substantial. This eliminates
my “mathematical” argument that the Scandinavian bound
Eruli would have been at least twice as potent as
those who crossed the Danube. The ridiculous
retroactively computed figure of 225,000 warriors you
came up with for the Eruli prior to 509 is the result
of our accepting Procopius’ contention of two
comprehensive slaughters prior to the mention of 4500
extant Illyrian Eruli warriors in his time. I make the
further assumption that the separation between the
Illyrian and Scandinaviam groups occurred after the
lost battle with the Lombards, and not just before the
“Illyrians” crossed the Danube. As you’ve pointed out,
Procopius does not mention other groups which split
off and went elsewhere. The most logical time for all
these “separations” would have been post res perditas
in Moravian Eruliland. And that is why I am unwilling
to see the Scandinavian bound Eruli as starving and
abused refugees. I do think however that Procopius
overdoes things a bit about the “Illyrians”. They
certainly moved away from Rugiland because of famine,
and were dissatisfied with conditions next to the
Gepides, but I think that Procopius overstated their
“misery” in order to point out how “kind” the Romans
were in receiving them, and how ungrateful these
wretches later turned out to be. So let’s have no more
about “starving and abused refugees” kindly taken in
by the Romans. The revised numbers for the
Scandinavian bound group would thus be: appr. 4,000
warriors plus women, children and old folk. A total of
some 20,000 people on the move (give or take a couple
of thousand either way) does not seem
unreasonable.******

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.

*****GK: You forget that the “Illyrians” were
spiritually exhausted and in a despondent frame of
mind after the loss of their “empire” shortly before,
and the separation of many of their brethren. If they
did not “take on” the Gepides prior to 509 while at
the height of their power, they would hardly consider
doing this now. Also, as stated above, I think that
Procopius overstated the “abuse” they suffered from
the Gepides. “Real mortal danger”? I hardly think
so…***

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.

******GK: Actually the weak point is not the 4500
warriors but, as mentioned, the acceptance of
Procopius’ fantastic suggestion that “most” Eruli were
killed by the Lombards and that “most” of the Illyrian
refugees were killed by the Romans.*******

> > >  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:  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.

*****GK: I read Procopius differently. The
Scandinavian Eruli are not mentioned as settling under
the lordship of any group in Scandinavia (certainly
neither Gauts nor Dani). Which implies that they were
independent. Even if not ruled by a central royal
power. And the comment by Jordanes is quite eloquent.
The main proof of the superiority of the Dani over
other northerners that he offers is that the Dani
expelled the Eruli “propriis sedibus”. The Eruli are a
category of the same kind as the Dani here.*****

__________________________________________________
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/