[gothic-l] Visigothic King Fridigern

[Oskar Andersson]

Hi,


> Oskar,
>
> What is the proof that the there was not a Visigothic
> king (Athanarich) around 366 AD.

I don't say he was not a king/kindins. I am only objecting towards
calling him a Visigothic King since the two groups of Goths crossing
the Danube in 376 were both Tervingi and Greuthungi, both formerly
under the rule of Athanarich and Ermenarich - and not only Tervingi Goths.
Thus I find it confusing to call them Visigoths as early as 376! What you call
Visigoths prior to the crossing of the Danube was not of the exactly same
tribal components as those entering Italy in 405/06 and 410.


I think you have
> to go back to the early history of the Visigoths and
> their kingdom. It could be even earlier for the Visigoths.
> Athanarich followed his Visigothic father Rotesthes.
> My claim is that between 340 and 366 AD a Visigothic
> kingdom started to form.

There seems to be some kind of confusion surrounding Visigoths/Ostrogoths.
My problem is that you are referring to a "Visigothic kingdom" prior to Tervingi
and Greuthungi sought admittance into the Empire. You are identifying "Visigoths"
prior to the crossing of the limes of two Gothic subdivisions - the problem resides
in identifying "Visigoths" prior to the merging of the two groups of 376 - the two groups
that ravaged Balkans and Hadrianople - and nearly 40 years later went to Italy.

How come you identify "Visigoths" as early as 340? What do you base this on? In my
opinion the "Visigoths" should be identified when they enter Gaul and Spain. Please come
with evidence supporting this idea of a continuing culture which enable us to identify what you
call Visigothic in the Black Sea region and about 100 years later in Gaul/Spain!

I think the label Visigoths almost only apply to the branch populating Gaul and Spain in the 5th
century and onwards, and not to the tribe of Terivingi Goths under Athanarich that populated Dacia
prior to 376.

>
> But then came the Hunnic attack. The Huns under their
> Khan Balamber crossed the Volga in 376 AD and attacked
> the Goths. The Gothic military leaders Hammo and Sarvs
> were defeated and the Rosomons and the Alans were
> subjected. Ermanarich is defeated on the River Don.
> E. must be regarded as an Ostrogothic king.

Why must he be regarded as an Ostrogothic king? Why not simply
a Greuthungi king? Can we identify Ostrogoths as early as the 4th century? I don't think so.
But since you seem to be of another opinion, please just put the evidence forward for such thinking, ok?



> I believe Jordanes desribes it in the following way:
>
> Sunilda's brothers blame Ermanarich for her death (the
> famous binding together with wild horses and ripped apart)
> "and olunged a sword in Ermanarich's side. Enfeebled by
> this blow he dragged out a miserable existence in bodily weakness.
> Balamber, king of the Huns, took advantage of his ill health
> to move an army into the country of the Ostrogoths, from whom
> the Visigoths had already seperated because of some dispute."
>
> According to Jordanes the Huns then subjected the Ostrogoths.
> The Visigoths asked Emperor Valens to let them settle
> in Thrace or Moesia.
>
> Gothically
>
> Bertil

Best,
Oskar


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Tiny Wireless Camera under $80!
Order Now! FREE VCR Commander!
Click Here - Only 1 Day Left!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/WoOlbB/7.PDAA/ySSFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

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/