[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

Thu Jan 2 15:34:25 UTC 2003

--- "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at smra.co.uk>"
<dirk at smra.co.uk> wrote:
> --- 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.

*****GK: The famine has nothing to do with numbers,
and you seem to forget that there was no famine in the
area next to the Gepides. If your "army" is more than
three or four times smaller than that of your abusers
(even more if one takes into account the Gepidic
associates) and you have the option of moving across
the Danube into friendlier territory, I think you do
the latter.****

 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.

*****GK: Obviously not right next to the Gepides and
north of the Danube. The general situation does not
support your view since the Heruli decided to move to
the Romans.*****

 Also, I think you are too
> arbitrary in
> labelling some parts of Propopius' account 'fantasy'
> and
> others 'reliable'.

*****GK: You are entitled to your opinion. But on
further reflection I do not think there is much of a
problem in rejecting Procopius' tales ot two mass
slaughters of Heruli as fantastic. ******
>
>
>
>
> 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.

*****GK: I'm afraid not. It is based on the acceptance
of Procopius' contention that the 4500 warriors (his
figure, which you arbitrarily reject as unreliable)
are the remnants of two mass slaughters (minus the
groups that moved away).*****

> 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,

*****GK: I don't think that two mass slaughters where
"most" warriors perish are plausible at all.*****

 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.

*****GK: As I said at the beginning I don't think one
can assume that the Illyrian Heruls of Procopius' time
could only field a few hundred warriors. he would
hardly have wasted his time writing about such a puny
force. I think he was pretty accurate about matters
pertinent to the Roman/Byzantine military.*****
>
> 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.

******GK: I agree with what Troels has written about
this in response to your critique of Einar.*****
(message truncated)

*****GK: One more point. I would tend to agree that
not all of the ca. 20,000 who started the trek wound
up "next to the Gauts". The Eruli were a diverse lot,
and it is entirely plausible that some elements
returned to other peoples whence they or their more or
less recent ancestors had joined the group on the
Danube. This would better fit with the extant
archaeological evidence.******

__________________________________________________
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/