[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli
Einar Gunnar Birgisson <einarbirg@yahoo.com>
einarbirg at YAHOO.COM
Wed Jan 1 18:33:26 UTC 2003
--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
<dirk at s...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Einar Gunnar Birgisson
> <einarbirg at y...>" <einarbirg at y...> wrote:
> > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> > <dirk at s...> wrote:
> > > --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...>
wrote:
> > > >
>
> To you Dirk I want to say, that I have
> > sometimes problems understanding your argumentation processes
and
> > obviously it is not just me who has a short memory.
> > You bring up a completly new argument when stating that
Procopius
> > mentioning the number 200 is "...based on other ancient
> > authors.."etc. Then you can maybe tell us about those examples?
>
> Yes, I did so several times before. E.g. the retinue of Givultus
is
> said to have numbered 200, but this number is also given in other
> earlier sources.
>
#### Hi Dirk.
You might be right. That indicates that the number could have been
more than 200 as
well as possibly less than 200####
> >
> > From Procopius-History of the Wars, VI. xiv 3-11.
> >
> > Quote; "But as the time went on they became superior to all the
> > barbarians who dwelt about them both in numbers, and as was
> natural,
> > they attacked and vanquished them severally and kept plundering
> > their possessions by force. And finally they made the Lombards,
who
> > were Christians together with several other nations, subject and
> > tributary to themselves"
> >
> > This shows that the Heruli were rather powerful at that time.
They
> > not just subjugated the Lombards,but SEVERAL other nations. So
they
> > were numerous,strong and safely established at that time.
>
> Slight problem here. They were certainly militarily strong. In
fact,
> they had adopted a Hunnic form of subsistence, i.e. terrorising
local
> populations. Interestingly, this does not require great strenght
in
> numbers, in fact the subressed populations were likely more
numerous.
> The fact that they were soundly defeated by the Langobards shows
that
> they were not 'safely established' at all.
####Hunnic form... etc. Were do you have this info from? As far as I
remember then Procopius states that the Heruli army was more
numerous than the Langobards when they went to war, but they lost
anyway. If I am remembering right, then how does that fit with
the "Hunnic..etc"?#####
>
And even because of losing a war and many of their
> > warriors beeing slain then the tribal structure was still
intact.
> So
> > intact that they could effectively split themselves up into two
> > seperate tribes( in reality so) and there were still other
groups
> of
> > Heruli that has to be accounted for.
>
>
>
> This is speculation. The split up may just as well be outward
signs
> that the tribal leadership structures had collapsed. Authority was
> weak, as would be expected from a group that was just chased away
by
> the Gepids.
#### +++ No, it is not speculation. This migration could not have
taken place without a well functioning tribal structure and
sufficient resources######
>
> That was because they were
> > strong and numerous before the war with the Langobards. Without
> > reasources and a relatively intact tribal structure, the
migration
> > to Scandinavia could not have happened. So simple is that.
>
>
>
> No, it is not so simple I am afraid. You presented a circular
> argument. Procopius tells us that they were weak, but some of them
> migrated to Thule. You conclude that a migration to Thule can only
> have been conducted by a strong, well organised tribe, ergo
Procopius
> was wrong and the Heruls were strong.
#### No, I never said they were "strong...etc" There are no circular
arguments. Read the above. See +++ ####
>
> In reallity, you need the Heruls to be strong so that they can
become
> the elite of Scandinavia, the scholars and warriors of the time
who
> eventually would migrate to Iceland. Einar, you should not rewrite
> history to fit your theories, the weakness of which have been
> displayed by Linda Richters.
>
#####You must be joking. Politely I want to say that I feel that
Linda has not presented any arguments bringing down my arguments.
Nor showed any arguments supporting her hypothesis (the Icelanders
being overwhelmingly Norwegians) .Why dont you join the discussion
then and tell us which weaknesses?
Rewriting history? As you have a doctoral degree then it is amazing
how often I have to explain this for you; there were no Heruli
migrating to Iceland...etc-you should remember the rest. I was just
explaining this (for you) a few days ago.####
>
> > Ochus was killed around 548 AD. After that event a embassy was
sent
> > to Thule.. So there are at least 40 years between the Heruli
> loosing
> > the war and the return of Datius and the others from Thule. And
it
> > was obvious that the Heruli about 40 years after the war with
the
> > Langobards had safely established themselves in Scandinavia.
>
>
>
> Again, you are speculating. All that is said by Procopius is that
> Heruls were still living in Thule. Procopius says no word
> about 'safely established'. In fact, he mentiones no kings or
> independent leadership. The fact that the Thule Heruls vanish from
> history, with no source outside Procopius ever mentioning them the
> assumption should be that they were integrated and absorbed.
#### Oh, who said they were not integrated? They were safely
established and integrated into the local population and their
aristocratic families also. #####
>
> So
> > they traveled relatively slowly and send a messenger to announce
> > their arrival within a few days.
> > Then Suartuas wanted to make war with the group from Thule and
> > destroy them. So he demanded the Heruli to destroy the men from
> > Thule and took of in the direction of the Thule group with the
> > intention of destroying them(or subjugating them) .
> > Then Procopius says( VI,xv. 27-36) " But when the two forces
were
> > one day´s journey distant from each other....."
> > So Procopius says: TWO FORCES. It would be interesting to know
if
> > this can be translated in any different way. But such it is
> > translated from Greek by Dewing. A force ready for battle does
not
> > have to be a big force but such a description in the context of
> this
> > text indicates that here we are talking about a reasonably big
> > groups of warriors ready for battle. No just a few tired
> >
>
travellers.
> >
> > Using common sense, reading the whole chapter about this
> > events,seeing things in perspective and evaluating these events
in
> a
> > neutral manner, then it is safe to assume that this entourage
> coming
> > with Datius and Aordus was an impressive one as Procopius says.
>
>
>
> The forces, mentioned by Procopius included those of the local
> Herulic supporter on both sides. To assume from the use of the
> word 'force' that we are dealing with large scale armies is pure
> speculation.
#### Are you trying to waste my time or make a fool out of
yourself??? Just a few sentences above, I talk of "a reasonably big
groups of warriors". In your brain, then I am saying; large scale
armies?? Interesting.########
>
>
>
> > Taking everything into account that Procopius writes about this
> > events shows that beyond any reasonable doubt. His writings
about
> > TWO FORCES should expel all doubts in our minds about that
> matter..
> > Procopius account of these events are coherent,detailed, sound
and
> > not contradictory.
> > We can safely make a guess that this entourage could easily have
> > included about 200-300 men.
>
>
>
> So even more than Procopius says?
#### Maybe, as I can also evaluate from your info. In the beginning
of the letter#####
>
>
>
> > Nobles,warriors and other men with
> > different duties.
> > Already in 529 AD a group of at least 1500-3000 Heruli
mercenaries
> > were in the service of Justinian. According to Procopius then
3000
> > Herulian warriors joined the Gepids when Aordus was killed,
while
> > 500 Heruli joined the Byzantines sent by Justinian in order to
help
> > the Lombardian king Audoin. And here we are just talking about
> > warriors. These warriors had sisters,younger
> > brothers,parents,relatives,grandparents. There is no reason to
> > belief that the Heruli in Scandinavia were less numerous than
the
> > Illyrian Heruli.###########
> >
> > > >
> > > > *****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.
> >
> > ##### No, he says no such thing, but naturally they avoided
> > conflict. Would you think it was wise to make war with kids and
> > women around? And why make war for no good reasons? Why would
they
> > have made war with nations on their way?###
>
>
>
> Because if a mass migration of tens-of thousands of people would
move
> through your country you would not be very happy if you were one
of
> the locals who feared for their harvests etc. In other words they
> would have tried to keep you out by force.
####### Whom are you answering, me or George? Just a few days ago I
came with the hypothesis, they could have been 3-8 thousands. You
have maybe forgotten, that I have stated clearly, that I dont agree
with George here. And said it more than once.####
>
> > 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.
> >
> > ### This is unvalid argumentation. Drawing such conclusions does
> not
> > really hold water. Probably the Dani were the most powerful
tribes
> > in Scandinavia, and doubtlessly Procopius were aware of that.
And
> > you forget he uses plural. The Dani was an umbrella term over
many
> > tribes.#####
> >
>
>
> The passage is clear, the migrating Heruls were happy not to
suffer
> more harm, after beeing defeated by Langobards, starving in
Rugiland,
> suffering rape abuse and attacks by Gepids, the Heruls were lucky
not
> to suffer any more. Remember, Procopius writes that the
Heruls 'were
> unable to take any more suffering' when they decided to move to
> Illyria and Thule.
>
###### What ever you want me to remember then your argument I was
responding to is still invalid. I think actually that as you repeat
the rape,abuse part in almost every letter I should remember.####
>
>
>
> > > 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.
> >
> > ##### Starving refugees! This is an incredible statement. You
are
> > like implying that the Heruli migrating to Thule were starving
> > refugees?. Use you common sense.#########
>
>
>
> No Einar, please read Procopius carefully. The Heruls fled from
the
> Langobards, starved in Rugiland, were abused, robbed, raped and
> attacked by the Gepids. 'Unable to take any more abuse' says
> Procopius, they decided to move again. If you don't regard this as
a
> report about suffering refugees, I cannot help you.
#### Okay then. This is your final statement then. You really think
that the Heruli migrating to Thule were starving refugees. Which of
course is a totally unfounded hypothesis, but that is fine with me###
>
> > Curiously, Procopius, who
> > > was very interested and who claimed to be informed directly
from
> > > people who had come from their and from Heruls makes no
> mentioning
> > > that the Heruls had once come from there, or that the Thule
> Heruls
> > > were returning to ancient homelands. If he had held such a
view
> he
> > > would most likely have mentioned it. The fact that he doesn't
> > shows
> > > that he thought that the Heruls did not come from Thule
> originally.
> >
> > ##### Oh, was not Procopius keen to show that northern
barbarians
> > could return to Thule! but now the Heruli were not from there??.
> > This is a rather interesting logic and reminds me of the logic
of
> > Goffart who seems to be able to know somehow what Procopius was
> > THINKING!#####
>
>
>
> Your cynisism is not helpful Einar. You may regard yourself a
greater
> expert on late antique sources than Goffart, but you should
support
> your arguments.
##### Naturally I respect Goffarts knowledge, but
he has like all others to bring forth arguments for his claims
(regarding the Heruli) ####
Goffart and others state that the origin of all
> northern barbarians from Thule/Scandza was a topic of that time.
Yet,
> the fact, that Procopius, who will certainly have believed that
all
> barbarians came from there at one stage finds no confirmation from
> his own sources for such an origin. Had his sources confirmed this
he
> would clearly have mentioned it.
#### I dont think you have the slightest idea of what
Procopius "will certainly have believed" As the Heruli were multi-
ethnic it is futile to speculate of their exact origins. Some of the
Moravian Meruli might have been able to trace their ancestry to
Scandinavia, others not######
>
>
> > > But there were "settlements" (confirmed by
> > > > both Procopius and Jordanes) for nearly two
> > > > generations, there was independence, and then a
> > > > catastrophic war with the Dani, the "best of the
> > > > northerners".******
> > > >
> > > Again, the 'Dani driving out Heruls' sentence may refer to a
> > period
> > > around 500 before the supposed arrival of Heruls in Thule. It
was
> > in
> > > my view included for contemporary political reasons and does
not
> > > reflect real events.
> >
> > ### What contemporary political reasons would that be???? #####
> >
>
>
> At the time, the court of Ravenna was busy setting up a network of
> allied states in the north. With many Heruls still living in
Italy,
> it was politically opportune to demonstrate a common origin of
Goths
> and Heruls to strengthen those ties and especially placating the
> Roman senatorial elites.
#### Yes, but you did not answer my question. What political reasons
for making up a story that the Heruli in Scandinavia were expelled
by the Dani?? Were the Heruli or the Dani involved in the
contemporary politics of Ravenna! Of course not.####
>
> > Also, Procopius does not say anything about
> > > Herulic independence in Thule. He also does not mention any
> > Herulic
> > > kings in Thule. Finally, if they had managed to establish
> > themselves
> > > so favourably in Thule, it seems odd that their princes were
so
> > > willing to rule over a group of rather insignificant federates
of
> > > the Empire.
> >
> > ####Who says they were willing? Were is the indication for that?
> > They were probably choosen for the task.###
> > >
>
>
> Against their will? That is agian speculation.
#### #####Yes, easily. As princes they had duties.######
>
>
>
Best regards Einar#######
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/
More information about the Gothic-l
mailing list