[gothic-l] Re: Analogy between fate of Eruli and Burgundians?

[Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk@smra.co.uk>]

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
> (To Dirk)
> The part of your message dealing with the "mass
> slaughter" of Burgundians by the Huns in 437 was
> truncated in reply. But it's worth a brief comment
> isn't it? I don't see how this supports your view of
> Procopius on the double mass slaughter of the Eruli.
> The Burgundians went on to create a significant
> kingdom which lasted until 534. My understanding was
> that Gundahar's defeat only involved a part of the
> Burgundian army.



We know that most of the Burgundians (army and civilians) were killed
by the Huns. While sources stating that the Burgundians figured over
200,000 people prior to their defeat are clearly overstated, a better
estimate is that they consisted of up to 30,000 to 50,000 people
around Worms. According to estimates by Swiss archaeologists only
less than 10,000 Burgundians were resettled to Sapaudia from the
Rhine, some 10 years after their defeat.






 And that is how I think Procopius
> should be read with respect to the Eruli. Perhaps the
> Erulian state collapsed in 509 not so much because of
> a "mass slaughter" of its warriors by the Lombards,
> but because it was a gathering of heterogeneous
> elements, led by the most energetic and aggressive
> "predator types" (for lack of a better term).



There is no indication that the Burgundians were a heterogeneous
people as the Heruls clearly were.




The most
> violent among them decided to take on the Lombards,
> but not all went along with the idea. So we might
> assume that "most" of the group that faced the
> Lombards were indeed slaughtered, but that still left
> quite a few .


That is certainly an idea, but it lacks any evidence in the sources.





These were unable to find an integrating
> ideology or programme to continue their earlier
> community, and so it disintegrated, with some going
> south to the Goths, others to Rugiland etc., and still
> others "back home" including those who wound up in
> southern Sweden.




In general, I find this hypothesis rather attractive and have at
times argued along similar lines. We know that the Heruls were multi-
ethnic. We know that they were scattered all over the region, with
some going to Italy and some staying with the Langobards. Clearly,
moving to Italy or staying with the Langobards appears as a
preferable choice to starvation in Rugiland and abuse near the
Gepids. However, the reasons why several groups ended up in different
areas cannot be deducted from the sources.

I still maintain that it is worth considering the fact that the
Illyrian (and Thule) Heruls bore seemingly non-Germanic names
(Grepes, Ochos, Datius, possibly even Aordos), causing one linguist
to state that 'one is at a loss to comment on them', which could be
indicative of a split-up along ethnically defined lines, with the
Germanic Heruls moving to Italy and staying with the Langobards and
the rest forced to wander around, exporing other options. I know of
course that the evidence for this is slim at best, but at least there
might be an indication here.

One (hopefully) final point. The Herulic armies which figured 3,000
and 1,500 respectively may at that time already have attracted new
followers of the regions where they were stationed. We know that the
Visigoths were several times in their history supplemented by large
numbers of slaves, Roman peasants and miners who became Visigoths.
Similarly, a unit of Heruls does not have to include only the
remnants of the once powerful Herulic tribe.


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/