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

Tue Jan 7 09:16:19 UTC 2003

--- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, "Troels Brandt <trbrandt at p...>"
<trbrandt at p...> wrote:
> --- In gothic-l at yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh at y...> wrote:
> > --- "Dr. Dirk Faltin <dirk at s...>"
> > <dirk at s...> wrote:
>
> >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > *****GK: That is a good point. How many such "new
> > recruits" are to be counted among the 1500+3000 is of
> > course difficult to say, but this goes some way
> > towards revising your earlier view of the Eruli as an
> > insignificant and dilapidated people after 509. *****
> >
>
> I am not sure this point is so good. First of all no other people
> would join the weak people Dirk describes as you also indicate, and
> secondly Procopius used so many words on describing their general
> character as the lowest of all low in the society, that they must
> have been regarded as a separate ethnical group at that time.

Troels, we simply lack any basis for these kinds of interpretations.
Procopius' characterisations are one thing, his army strenght are
another. We have many examples in the history of that period when
slavs and peasants joined peoples like Visigothic groups even though
they were not in good shape at time. I suppose this is simply a
matter of relative conditions. A slave may still find it advantageous
to become a soldier or warrior in a small and weak group if that
means escaping slavery, combined with the prospect of plunder.
Procopius tells us that the Illyrian Heruls harrassed the local Roman
provincials. This alone could have been enought for slaves and minor
peasants to join the marauding groups of Heruls.

I would
> rather think that the Heruls going north were followed by other
pagan
> Germanic people being defeated or threathened at this time of the
new
> Christian groups as Franks and Lombards.

At the time the Franks were at best nominally Christian, with the
conversion of Chlodewig said to have taken place in 497AD. The
Langobards were also largely pagan in spite of Procopius' comments
suggesting otherwise. At best the Langobardic royal house may have
flirted with Christianity at the time, while they were mostly pagans.

Alamans is one example as
> they were pressed from 498 AD - Thuringians is maybe another - and
if
> Wolfram is right that the letter of Cassiodorus was to the Western
> Heruls before 507 AD, where did this group disappear when
Theodorics
> alliance against the Franks fell apart in 507 AD?

The Thuringians were likely about as Christian or pagan as the
Langobards at the time, meaning that their royal family and
higher 'nobility' had been exposed to Arian Christianity for a couple
of decades at best, while the rest of the population was clearly
pagan. The Alamanni were likely all pagan at the time, nevertheless
when parts of them needed to seek refuge from Frankish incursions
they moved to Italy and Pannonia not to Thule. Note, those places in
the mediterranean were attractive and known to those people. A land,
some 2000 kilometers to the north was neither.

We never heard
> about these Heruls again though they by Cassiodorus were put at the
> same level as the Thuringians and the Varni.
>

I hope you are not suggesting that these peoples all moved to Thule
as well? In general, if a significant tribal group relocates you will
get all sorts of indication or evidence. This includes, historical
sources, archaeological remains and toponymic evidence. Yet, there is
absolutely no evidence at all that any of these groups joined the
Heruls and moved to Thule.

I would say that in general, migrations do leave identifiable traces,
often even if this involves small groups. For example, the migration
of Sueves from the middle Danube and Moravia to the Alamannic areas
of south western Germany brought about clear traces in the material
culture as well as linguistic evidence. I.e. the name Sueves was
gradually adopted by the local Alamanni.

For the Varnians we know of groups in Thuringia, at the Rhine,
individuals even in Spain and we know of a third group in Bavaria.
Hence, one pagus in Bavaria was called the 'fields of the Varnians',
indicating that some Varnians have likely migrated there at an
unknown point in time. These could have been the Rhine Varnians, but
equally possible that they had come from Thuringia.  Another pagus in
middle Germany was called 'Frisonovelt' (i.e. field of the Frisians),
thus Frisians from the North Sea had likely moved there and it is not
impossible that the western Heruls had finally been absorbed into the
Frisians. At least we have no indication that they moved somewhere
else. Similarly, another Bavarian pagus was called pagus Scirensis,
i.e. district of the Sciri, of whom remainders had likely settled
there. Also, groups of Anglians maintained a separate ethnic and
legal identity in middle Germany until at least the 9th century.

My expectation would be, if a conglomerate western Heruls, Varnians,
Thuringians etc. had really joined eastern Heruls and moved to Sweden
you would at the very least get some sort of toponymic indication for
that. Yet, no placename in Scandinavia retains any reference to any
of those tribes and not even the Heruls, which some of you what to
see as so powerful, were able to impose their name on any place in
Scandinavia. Apart from this, we have not the slightest evidence to
support a scenario by which eastern Heruls were joined by 'other
pagan Germanic groups'.

Dirk

> Troels

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/