[gothic-l] Re: Tracing the Eruli

[george knysh]

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

*****GK: It is more reasonable to assume that the
"rapes" etc. were isolated incidents involving
relatively few victims, and that the choice was then
taken to move to the Romans rather than to retaliate.
Otherwise you would need to visualize a total
confrontation between Heruls and Gepids. I think this
is reading far too much into Procopius. And makes the
subsequent defection of 2/3 of the Heruls to the
Gepids less plausible.******

 You see, we can turn this in
> all sorts of
> directions,

****GK: Some directions, however are far more likely
than others.*****

 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.

*****GK: It is easy enough to maintain that after 509
the previous Herulian position on the Danube was lost
forever. They disintegrated and dispersed. But you
overemphasize the desperate weakness of those who
trekked to the north without any convincing evidence,
and arbitraily lump (and misinterpret) the history of
those who stayed behind. After all, it is clear
enough, on any reading of Procopius, that the Eruli
who decided to move away from the Gepids were not
"starving" refugees. There was no recorded starvation
there. But you keep lumping this together with the
abuses. And  the assumption that those who trekked
northwards were also starving and abused is completely
arbitrary.*****
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >  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.

*****GK: It is indeed. And we're talking about TWO
mass slaughters not one (by the Lombards, then by the
Romans). Their former importance was obviously
diminished, but they were still a factor on the Danube
for a couple of generations.*****

 What is
> however lacking is
> any evidence for the mass-migration which you
> postulate.

*****GK: We have the evidence of Procopius. As
mentioned (three time now I think) my original
estimate was based on the uncritical acceptance of
Procopius' story of TWO mass slaughters. I have now
revised this to ca. 20,000 original trekkers, with
numbers diminishing as many left "on the road" to
re-integrate their former peoples. So that the numbers
of those who eventually made it to southern Sweden was
much less. Some stayed with the Varni, some stayed
with the Dani, and there was probably further
dispersal. But a very significant "core" did make it
next to the Gauts.*****
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.

*****GK: You've finally gotten it. Your recalculation
did indeed convince me that the Procopian tales of two
mass slaughters were unbelievable.*****


 That is your
> decision of course,
> but the numbers make more sense the other way round.

****GK: You still haven't really demonstrated why
Procopius' figure of 4500 warriors is unreliable.****
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
>
>
(message truncated)

__________________________________________________
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/