[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

Thu Jan 2 08:18:00 UTC 2003

--- 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.
> 
> ******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, however does not square with them being abused and chased away 
by Gepids, after facing famine in Rugiland. The number of 4,500 is 
not supported by the general situation of the Heruls. Remember, 4,500 
is roughly the strength of a full legion, which could have held and 
controlled a large area. Also, I think you are too arbitrary in 
labelling some parts of Propopius' account 'fantasy' and 
others 'reliable'.

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. 

Not so fast please, 'the ridiculous retroactively computed figure of 
225,000 warriors' is based on the assumptions that 'you' supplied. 
Hence, the number of 225,000 warriors resulted from your 
own 'factors' which you used to support the number of 4,500 warriors. 
Unfortunately, you calculated only back to the 4,500 and forgot to go 
back  all the way and use your own 'factors' right through the end. I 
have nothing against those 'factors'. In fact, they are more or less 
plausible, but they show that the Heruls must have started with 
225,000 warriors initially, unless of course the factors are wrong or 
4,500 is an inflated number. I think it is a bit of both. Reduce 
4,500 by the factor of 5 to 10 to roughly 500 to 1000 warriors and 
the original force (at strenght 100) comes down to roughly 15,000 to 
20,000 warriors. While this is still slightly too high, it is in the 
right ball park, which agrees with everything that we know about 
tribal armies of that period. 

When considering those numbers we have to be very careful. A 
settlement of that time consisted of up to 100 people. Hence, if the 
Illyrian Heruls had 4,500 warriors, about 25% of their population, 
this would imply that they would potentially have had up to 200 
settlements in the area of Belgrad. 

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. 

That is certainly not what Procopius tells us. Procopius clearly 
implies that the Thule Heruls separated just before the crossing of 
the Danube. Remember, they were 'averse to crossing the Ister', this 
clearly implies that the decision of crossing the Ister had already 
been made.

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. 

There is too much speculation and arbitrary interpretation in that. 

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. 

There is absolutely no evidence to support this conclusion that 
Procopius was unreliable here. Clearly, Procopius is unreliable at 
times, but we cannot just make up thinks as we go along. The only 
detailed available source, tells us that the Heruls were 'refugees 
who could no longer bear the suffering', which matches Marcellinus 
Comes, and which is well supported by the overall situation.

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.****** 
> 

Still far too many in my view. You are talking about at least 200 
Herulic villages in Scandinavia. Such a mass migration would have 
left clear archaeological evidence.

> 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. 

Yes, but 4,500 desparate warriors can do a lot of damage. Desparation 
can be a very valuable ally. Thus, the state of mind of the Heruls, 
which I doubt we can assess anyway, could argue both ways and does 
not support your theory.

Also, as stated above, I think that
> Procopius overstated the "abuse" they suffered from
> the Gepides. "Real mortal danger"? I hardly think
> so
*** 
> 

You may not 'think so' but what you need is evidence to prove that 
Procopius was wrong and your interpretation is right.

> 
> 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.******* 
> 

We have only Procopius' word, and the fact that the Heruls seized to 
exist as independent political entity in the Danube region. If not 
most of them were killed, than at least most of their warriors were 
killed. We cannot use Procopius as pick-and-chose bag, and take what 
we like and discard what does not fit our theories. Lets agree to 
disagree on this issue and end the discussion here. 

Happy New Year!
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/ 