[gothic-l] Re: Visi and Ostro

[Oskar Andersson]

Hello Ingemar,

>   > The discussion whether there were    Visi and Ostro already before the
>   > sacking of Rome is  more academic than really vital. Before 376 we had
>   > Greutungi (with some other allied tribes) which in fact respond to the
>   > later name Ostro. In Dacia we had Vesi-Tervingi who later were called
>   > Visi. Athanaric never was a king but a kindins and the first Visigothic
>   > kingdom came with Alaric. The break between Greutungi (Ostro) and
>   > Vesi(Visi) appeared probably around 269 but the kingship only continued
>   > among Greutungi and allies. Theoderics later kingdom is something quite
>   > else and comparable only to Alarics.
>
> Oskar wrote:
>
> "What is you evidence for this? How are you able to identify the
> Visigoths of Dacia
> as the same Goths in Gaul and Spain later? Pretty much the same question
> relates to
> the Greuthungi and them responding to the term Ostro! I am searching for
> some continuum
> between the Goths of the Black Sea and those of Italy and Gaul/Spain. I
> am just saying that
> to me it seems that both Visigoths and Ostrogoths consisted of both of
> Tervingi and Greuthungi
> elements, and that I find it oversimplied and pretty erroneous to make a
> relationship between
> Tervingi and Visi and Greuthungi and Ostro.
> Naturally I am interested in what evidence you back this up with!"
>
> Hi Oskar!
>
> I think you make it too complicated. Agreeed there were Greutungian
> groups as well as Alans, Vandals and even Huns in the mainly
> Vesi-Tervingian groups that entered the empire in 376 and around. In
> Sweden we have a lot of immigrants like in other countries but we are
> still mainly Swedes. The mainpart of the Greutungi and allies were ruled
> for a long time by the Huns and entered the empire first about a hundred
> years later. It means the first wave  of Goths heading for Rome and Gaul
>    were   descendants of the Vesi-group  in general even if it was  a
> little mixed  but the name Visi -not Vesi - is not applied before
> Alaric. In the same way the Greutungi-alliance descendants went for
> Italy with Theoderic but as far as I know the name Ostro  was applied
> by Cassiodorus already before the Huns, but it may be an
> afterconstruction of course. In any case the Greutungi with allies and
> the Ostro are of the same heritage broadly spoken.
>
> Kindly
> Ingemar

I still see a problem in using the term Visigoths for them prior to the crossing, and even
prior to Italy, Gaul and Spain. To me there's simply no reason to do such. In fact, I think
the use of the term(s) COMPLICATES matters far too much. There's simply not enough
evidence to support such a claim - it is anachronistic. Why is there a need of identifying
Visigoths as early as possible, and that early?
Moreover, I am not sure that the Greuthungi group was that small that it'd only make such
a minor influence on the Tervingi.
I think there's no need to identify neither Ostrogoths nor Visigoths prior to their later kingdoms.
Heather refers to what you call Ostrogoths as Pannonian Goths, unified with Thracian Goths, and
not until entering Italy as Ostrogoths. I think that is the neatest way to do it where we don't need to
fear too much confusion over identification and so forth!

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/