[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

Thu Jan 2 16:42:56 UTC 2003

> >
> >
> > 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.****
>

I think we can interpret and speculate a lot about the 'what ifs and
what if nots'. Based on Procopius' report, I think 4,500 Herulic
warriors would have done something to prevent the raping of their
women by the Gepids. You see, we can turn this in all sorts of
directions, I maintain that the analyses provided by Werner and
others are sound and that the Heruls were a 'delapidated people'
after the defeat of 509AD.

>  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. ******

At least we know that their independent kingdom and their power was
destroyed for ever. Assuming that a mass-slaughter was part of this
story does not seem to be too much to ask. What is however lacking is
any evidence for the mass-migration which you postulate.

> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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).*****

Ok, this implies that you now reject the factors, which you found
plausible in your earlier caluculation. In other words my
recalculation of the Herulic forces at strength '100' has shown you
that there was a fundamental problem here and you have sacrificed the
factors in order to keep the 4,500. That is your decision of course,
but the numbers make more sense the other way round.

>
>
> > 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.*****
>

This is not unheard of in history. In c437AD most of the Burgundians
were slaughtered by the Huns.

>  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.*****

Possibly, but a barbarian force of up to 1,000 warrior was far
from 'puny'. 1,000 warriors were still a significant force at the
time, when whole peoples have often not been able to field more than
3,000 men. In my view we have to think of the remaining Heruls in
similar terms as those Alans who had earlier been settled in
localised areas in Gaul to provide the garrison for a town or protect
a county.

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/