Getae and Dacians? Are they the same? Or is this unknowable?

[Rumo]

Hi Alan,

All of the above social groups were large, and they were not placed in the position of "survive or fall to the wayside." In my grandparents situation, they settled into a totally English-speaking population. There was no "little Italy." Everything was done in English (at the workplace, or just purchasing groceries), so it was either "fit in" or "stand aside." The same situation held for those "outsiders" who fell in with the Goths, but even more so. Because the Gothic gens was primarily a military one, and it extended into a migratory one until the 5th century. You either learned the prevailing language or you went nowhere in that military society. A case of not NEED TO, but HAVE TO.

In your Scandinavian origin theory the Germanic speakers were settling among more numerous natives, not viceversa.
I also don't think these Goths were purchasing groceries as your grandparents did, thus for I'd rather go with Ovid:
Exercent illi sociae commercia linguae:
per gestum res est significanda mihi.

Other well-known military societies like the Huns had multiple identities and languages, so again, there is no precondition for Goths to speak only one language.

I would say he knew a lot about them, just in the fact they lived along a well-trodden trade route. Trade and its exchange of commodoties gave all people (no matter where they lived) "news" of happenings and populations hundreds of miles away. It was slower than it is today, but the same principle. Eusebious,Ulfilas, and the Catholics, extended Christianity right into the Crimea, well beyond the Dnieper. Don't be so hard on the ancient authors. They knew populations and river names thousands of kilometers away from where they lived. Enough that Stabo correctly identified and geographically-placed the Sacae who lived beyond Sogdiana.

I don't think you understood what I meant. Here's a slightly outdated map of ?ernjachov settlements and cemetaries:
[attachment=2:396f3f7t]<!-- ia2 cernjachov.jpg<!-- ia2 [/attachment:396f3f7t]
Please note the clusters of settlements from the middle and the upper basins of Dniester, Dnieper and Don. Both Danube valley and Crimea (which was reachable by water) are far enough and peripheric to Gothia.

The ancient authors often couldn't separate Germans from Celts or Goths from Scythians. For vast areas of Barbaricum they knew no mountains, rivers or cities. You have the map, put Gothic names on it. Try the same with Greek names on a map of Greece.

Here's another way to put it: for most authors there's a sharp difference between the geography of Barbaricum and that of the Roman space. For the two ecclesiastical authors you mentioned below the Goths were just living beyond the Danube. At the same time the same authors knew of many cities and regions inside the Empire.

Well, we only have Sozemus and Socrates Scholasticus as our sources, so they could have been "lying sacks of ----," but then again maybe they were honest in claiming that the Christianization of the Goths (ie Tyrfingi) was due to Ulfilas and Fritigern.

The mass conversion advocated by Sozomen and Socrates Scholasticus and the general ecumenical optimism of clerics are not confirmed by evidence, as the archaeological traces of Christianity in Gothia are poor.

Oh? I never realized that the Thracians and Dacians were 100 % literate, and I don't suppose the Romans ever called them "barbarians" either, eh? hock:

Why the outburst? Roman Dacia was a literate province (we know thousands on inscriptions on stone, not to mention on pottery, wax tablets, gems, etc.).

Sure, for Romans Thracians were also barbarians, but since you mentioned it, in north-Danubian Gothia literacy was almost inexistent, and while Hellenistic Thrace is no match for Greece or Rome, there was however a small number of literate individuals. Here're two examples:

[attachment=0:396f3f7t]<!-- ia0 alexandrovo.jpg<!-- ia0 [/attachment:396f3f7t]

[attachment=1:396f3f7t]<!-- ia1 sboryanovo.jpg<!-- ia1 [/attachment:396f3f7t]

Oh, I'm sure that all the families in Iceland sat around the fire reading Jordanes and Tacitus. Especially since it was dark outside for 6 months. Give me and the readers of this thread a break, Rumo. If the Roman classics were so popular in Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, why weren't those stories incorporated into their sagas. Certainly, they weren't written down until the middle ages, but they described tales that occurred in the old homeland, even though they didn't reach Iceland until after 870. The sagas-- including the Hervar Saga-- were sung since man first opened his mouth to stick his foot in it! :lol:

Those songs were written down in 12th-13th centuries or thereabouts, and probably not by families sitting around the fire. Sure, some people dream of pure and unchanging heroic Germanic oral traditions, as romanticism and nationalism still echo today, but the truth is by that time north-western Europe knew of Graeco-Roman literary traditions for a while. Of Beowulf it was argued by several scholars that has Christian, Latin-derived elements. The aforementioned Jordanes was quoted by Freculf, the bishop of Lisieux, around 840 and after that by many other authors. Jordanes was known in Sweden for some centuries before Carolus Lundius. Anyway, in early 13th century we also find Saxo Grammaticus and his Gesta Danorum, undeniably in debt to classical tradition.
So I see no solid reason to reject hypothetic Latin literary influences. A story of Goths and Huns doesn't need to travel on obscure Scythian paths.

I suppose we could use the population I alluded to earlier. However the sword was actually real, as in historical, not mythical. Tyrfing was planted in a mound of ground, or sometimes a pile of stones, by the populace who worshiped it-- the Gothic Tyrfingi. But additionally, it was also worshiped by the Alans and all Sarmatian tribes going all the way back to the Scythians. See Ammianus and Herodutus on this matter.

There's no evidence Tervingi worshipped a sword, let alone one named Tyrfing.

Herodotus mentioned Scythians worshipping Ares by planting swords on the top of mounds, which is not quite the same thing.

Like I said earlier. The Tyrfing-Tryfingi-Hervar-Saga link is irrefutable in the standard world of common sense and logic. Beyond that world, it can be argued by "reachers"... such as all those Icelanders reading thousands of scribal copies of Jordanes before going to bed.

I'd rather not be part of that world of "common sense".
Those links are not irrefutable, but rather speculative and unlikely. There are many possible scenarios, some quite trivial, e.g. a Germanic word interpreted by two different cultures came to mean two different things in two different contexts, a sword and the name of a tribe.

[Alanus]

Hello, Rumo

I'll try not to lengthen this thread beyond the limits of patience and readability, and simply discuss your major points. And if any revisionist historians are tuning in, that's fine. They could use an education in ancient weaponry. As a Roman reenactor, I seem to be surrounded by swords and bows, plus a pile of clanky armor. First off, they're called "swords," not "sabers" as Professor Heather so inventively describes them. A saber is a single-edged weapon. A sword cuts both ways, if you get my drift. :lol:

By the way, I've never claimed that Gothic society spoke only Gothic. I said Gothic was the dominent language, the one spoken more or less "officially." Every army needs a uniform language and terminology, and Gothic was it.

There's no evidence Tervingi worshipped a sword, let alone one named Tyrfing.
Herodotus mentioned Scythians worshipping Ares by planting swords on the top of mounds, which is not quite the same thing.

There are a bunch of these Black Sea styled swords pictured on the net, through dealers, and some are illustrated on various RAT threads. The later ones carry studs of Indic garnets on the hilt, and most hilts are either silver or gold. They were made more for ritual than as usable weapons. Some of the nicest and oldest come from the kurgans around Fillipovka, others from Issyk Kul. Attila found one that legitimized him, in his way of thinking. The Romans called them the "Sword or Mars," while the Greeks termed them "Ares." To the steppe cultures-- the Scythians, Saka, Massagetae, Alans, and Goths-- it was a physical representative of their progenitor god. In most cases, the sword was planted in a mound or on a pile of faggots. More or less, this tripart arrangement is known as the "axis mundi." We still see it today as the steeple atop churches. Importantly, it IS the "same thing." And in fact the only recorded name for it is 'Tyrfing," so we are indebted to the Goths or more precisely the Tyrfingi, "people of the sword."

The sword was named after Tyr, one of the oldest Germanic gods. (He still lives with us every "Tues"day.) "His name belongs rather to the region of symbolism than of mythology, although the conjunction of this emblem with the circle is in itself a subject of some interest. Hence we are led to expect that the special emblem under which Tyr was worshiped would be the sword." (George W. Cox, 1882.) Many of these ritual swords were made by the Goths themselves, others by the Sarmatians, and still others by a Black Sea tribe known as the Chalybes. The finished blade was called "chalibis" by the Romans, ferro exchalibis, aka "steel." (consult any Latin-English thesarus) And as far as we know, this is the earliest record of "steel," not just regular steel but rather a type that contained crystalized layers of carbon within it-- the forerunner of "Damascus." This placed the ritual sword at a premium price; and strangely enough one of these chalibis swords ended up in Britain or Gaul as "exchalibur," ie "excellence from chalibis."

Now let's detour to the Hervar Saga, "The Gotic land is here called Tyrfinger ("the Tervingian"), the same name that is given to the mythical hereditary sword of the Goths. This presupposed that the Thraco-Scythian Ares-Mars, who was seen as the incarnation of the people and the land and who also manifested himself in the shape of a sword, had been accepted as a Gothic god.... The sword incarnation, however, is neither a Germanic nor a Scandinavian phenomenon; instead it's the characteristic epiphany of the Black Sea Ares-Mars among all ethnic groups." (Wolfram) The sword Tyrfing is singularly recorded in the very name of the Tryfingi. And in the extremely long run, the evidence now sells for big moola on the antiquities auction block.

I'd rather not be part of that world of "common sense". Those links are not irrefutable, but rather speculative and unlikely. There are many possible scenarios, some quite trivial, e.g. a Germanic word interpreted by two different cultures came to mean two different things in two different contexts, a sword and the name of a tribe.

Sure, Rumo. It's just coincidence. But if you coincidentally happen to find one of these swords buried in the ancient soil of Rumania, just wrap it carefully and mail it to me. :wink:
Thanks.

[Rumo]

Well, Alan, there is a long debate between Walter Goffart and Herwig Wolfram about the ethnogenesis of Goths and other barbarian groups, and especially about the power of the oral traditions. Some of Goffart's arguments from The Narrators of Barbarian History were criticized by Wolfram in "Origo et religio. Ethnic Traditions and Literature in Early Medieval Texts", Early Medieval Europe 3 (1994) which prompted another reply from Goffart in "Does the Distant Past Impinge on the Invasion Age Germans", published in Andrew Gillett (ed.) On Barbarian Identity. Critical Approaches to Ethnicity in the Early Middle Ages (2002). Both latter studies were re-published in Thomas F. X. Noble (ed.), From Roman provinces to Medieval kingdoms (2006).

Instead of discussing every point Wolfram makes about Goths, Scythians, swords or gods, I'm bringing some excerpts from Goffart's article, which I believe will outline better the main idea:

• The fifty of somewhat more years we remember from personal experience embrace only recent times, current events. The distant past is quite different. It does not cling to an individual or a family; it is collective and deliberately taught or adopted. Possible distant pasts are multiple. The French of today can choose to descend from Lascaux cave people or Gallo-Celts or Franks or none of the above; the English can descend from Stonehenge builders or Celto-Britons or Saxons or Normans. These are learned choices.
  [...]
  Normally ignored, the distant past impinges on the present by deliberate choices, nourished by scholarship, erudition or religion. It does not exist 'out there', independently, as through an impassive river of memory flowed from a fountainhead downstream into the present. The Cambridge historian Eric Hobsbawm earned deserved praise for alerting us to the 'invention of tradition'. Invented tradition strolls hand-in-hand with the distant past, an intermediary between the opacity of remote centuries and the desire of the present to appropriate alluring days of yore.
  The distant past, of which no one has a direct memory, bears on what persons want their collectivity to be or to become. [...] When a recent article [my note: Goffart refers here to Wolfram's article mentioned in my introductory paragraph] labours at the anachronism of having medieval Scandinavia illuminate the Migration Age, we are put in mind of an 'invention of tradition', rather than normal history.
  [...]
  Wolfram contrasts himself to the 'positivists' - once a term of praise - who, he claims, are horrified by the biased historical writing of the 'compilers' of origines gentium; like him, everyone should accept that 'there exists an ethnic memory which can reach back over many generations. It includes genuine onomastic material and recounts theogony and ethnogenetic processes about which we would lack all other evidence'. Woflram takes it as a premise not needing proof that many generations of ethnic memory heartened the Germanic peoples.
  [...]
  Wolfram casts off the normal rules. Simple verification is the common ground among scholars. Wolfram's discourse is often beyond verification. 'In fact, there were continuous migrations of small warbands who were forced to go into exile. Groups of 200 or 300 warriors at the most left home due to internal strifes and feuds': the words are spoken confidently, with precise numbers of emigrants and the authenticating phrases 'in fact' and 'at the most'; but Wolfram knows as little as everyone else about warrior departures. 'One of Woden's many divine names was "Longbeard"': fair enough, but this is not general knowledge. Wolfram needs to share with us how he knows this. Certain names (such as 'Goth') 'mark their bearers as reborn divine ancestors'; Wolfram affirms this often, but without disclosing what makes it true. With only the word 'witches' in hand, he spins imaginary stories of tension among early Goths and expects them to be believed. The situation does not always improve when verification is possible, such as with the seventeen Alban and Gothic kings. Their alleged parallelism proves wrong when checked. Wolfram's argument needs a canonical number, familiar to educated men: it does not exist; the number of Alban kings varies from one author to the next. As for the 'genre' of origo gentis, of great importance to Wolfram's theme, it is a tissue of misunderstanding and distortion; the 'genre' evaporates when severely verified. There are histories of Goths and Lombards and many others; but there is no consecrated 'genre', ancient or medieval, of the kind fundamental to Wolfram's argument.

On a slightly different note, Goffart added in Barbarian Tides (p. 51):

• To hear Wolfram and others, Latin accounts of Goths, Franks, or Lombards should be regarded not as works of medieval historical literature, but as tribal histories faithfully safeguarding ethnic memories of religious intensity. Provided this channel is allowed to exist, large quantities of substantive "Germanic" content can be sent scuttling along it to the medieval world. To Wolfram, mere names and words divulge whole episodes of lost history in surprising and improbable detail. It has been ever so in the optimistic erudition of deutsche Altertumskunde, in which, to take a salient example, the island of Bornholm in the Baltic has only to bear this name in order to prove that the Burgundian people originating from there or at least pulled in for a little rest.

For variation, here're some excerpts from an overview article authored by Susan Reynolds, "Our Forefathers? Tribes, Peoples, and Nations in the Historiography of the Age of Migrations" published in After Rome's Fall. Narrators and Sources of Early Medieval History (ed. Alexander C. Murray, 1998):

• If mild scepticism about the old concept of the migration of peoples is in order, so it may be about two new ones. The ideas of a nucles or core of traditions (Traditionskern) and of ethnogenesis both seem to represent attempts to save something from old historiographic traditions that we have now formally discarded. [...] Some of the leaders of Goths or Burgundians may have been descended from long-distant ancestors somewhere around the Baltic. Maybe, but everyone has a lot of ancestors, and some of theirs may have have come from elsewhere. There is, asa Walter Goffart has repeatedly argued, little reason to believe that sixth-century or later references to what look like names for Scandinavia or for places in it, means that traditions from those particular ancestors had been handed on through thick and thin. We may guess at the kind of values barbarian leaders are likely to have had, and may suspect that they encouraged their followers to feel the kind of loyalty and solidarity that was often symbolized in myths of common descent and law. We also know from other societies that traditions can be invented, changed, lost, and borrowed by one group from another. That makes them, if anything, more rather than less, interesting historically. They tell us about the beliefs and ideas current at the time they were told.
  [...]
  Just as this may have not have been a period of exceptionally large and long migrations, it was not only period of ethnogenesis in Europe. Europeans seem to be rather good at creating new nations to suit their new states, whether in Europe or outside. Ethnic groups nowadays, moreover, are generally taken to be units of cultures and descent, rather than of government. The gentes, peoples, or nations that lasted in western Europe, although they believed in their common descent and culture, were in reality defined primarily by their political allegiance.

So here there are some reasons why I don't take Wolfram's theories at face value.
I know that speculation is unavoidable when weaving a persuasive narrative, but that doesn't mean we should speculate endlessly. A corollary of parsimony is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. When sweeping vast areas of space and long intervals of time, my opinion is that one needs better arguments than the few common (though sometimes only similar) names invoked by Wolfram.

Also some arguments you put forward seem to support rather a migration from Scythia to Scandinavia, not viceversa (e.g. Wolfram's "sword incarnation").

Many of these ritual swords were made by the Goths themselves, others by the Sarmatians, and still others by a Black Sea tribe known as the Chalybes. The finished blade was called "chalibis" by the Romans

It should be noted however that Chalybes lived somewhere on the south-eastern shores of Black Sea (Strabo, XI.14.5.), south of Caucasus. Herodotus (I.28) lists them among the Anatolian nations conquered by Croesus. The Latin chalybs is rather a borrowing of the Greek ?????.

By the way, I've never claimed that Gothic society spoke only Gothic. I said Gothic was the dominent language, the one spoken more or less "officially." Every army needs a uniform language and terminology, and Gothic was it.

It is my misunderstanding then. However at some point you supported the "axiom of the three generations": having a dominant language, the "joiners" (as you called them) will eventually shift to it (according to your own analogy, you "cannot speak a word of Gaelic or Italian, only English")

But I don't agree that any army needs an uniform language. Having bi(poly)lingual commanders is enough.

[Alanus]

Salve, Rumo

We seem to be wandering furthur from the "Getae" problem. The Goffart-Wolfram debate is one of historicities and idealologies, and we readers tend to believe one or the other. I follow Wolfram's ideas on Gothic origins. To me there is an incredibly standard etymology in the Scandian "Got-Gut," both deriving before the "h," which then spread from Germanic languages into Celtic, Britonic, Welsh, and finally into modern English. But people can believe what they want. Etymology is elective, but never specifically "right" or "wrong."

Now let's look at Goffart's amazing postulation in regard to oral history: "The French of today can choose to descend from Lascaux cave people or Gallo-Celts or Franks or none of the above; the English can descend from Stonehenge builders or Celto-Britons or Saxons or Normans. These are learned choices."

How can he say that? There is no oral tradition linking the French to the Lascaux cave people. "Lascaux" in an archaeological term. And no way can the English descend from Stonehenge builders through any form of "history," be it oral or written. Goffart gets an F on this argument because there are no "learned choices." He talks about apples and figs.

Evidently Wolfram said,"there exists an ethnic memory which can reach back over many generations." I agree, but would rather call it "cultural memory." It can't be proven historically, but it certainly exists, and someday when we grow up spirtitually we'll discover how it hides within us. It's why the Alans and Britons believed that "Alanus" was the "first" Indo-European man. This is folk memory, yes, but it's incredibly old. By the same token Layamon's Brut gave us "Argante" as the female Briton-English keeper of the sword, and the HervarSaga gave us "Argantar" as the male version. These two almost identical written traditions arrived from an incredibly old oral record. Not too "choosy" a phenomenon. And they illustrate the power of ancient traditions.

However, here's a point in Goffart's favor. "Wolfram needs to share with us how he knows this. Certain names (such as 'Goth') 'mark their bearers as reborn divine ancestors'; Wolfram affirms this often, but without disclosing what makes it true." He's correct. Wolfram has this tendency, and it's incredibly maddening. But it doesn't make him wrong all of the time, only some of the time.

Also some arguments you put forward seem to support rather a migration from Scythia to Scandinavia, not viceversa (e.g. Wolfram's "sword incarnation").

I said, "Many of these ritual swords were made by the Goths themselves, others by the Sarmatians, and still others by a Black Sea tribe known as the Chalybes. The finished blade was called "chalibis" by the Romans."

And you added, "It should be noted however that Chalybes lived somewhere on the south-eastern shores of Black Sea (Strabo, XI.14.5.), south of Caucasus. Herodotus (I.28) lists them among the Anatolian nations conquered by Croesus. The Latin [i]chalybs is rather a borrowing of the Greek ?????[/i]

That's good research, and you get an A. The Iranian Chalybes settled in the exact area once dominated by the Hittites. And we find in the wondrous treasures of King Tut a beautiful Hittite dagger forged from iron, a date that generally precedes the normal "iron age." But the Chalybes, the inventors of chalibis, carried the art to its highest-- now imitated by modern smiths. They lived on the popular trade road that ended across the Bosphorus in Constantinople. Back in the Chalybean days, young journeymen traveled to the iron-rich mounts of the Chalybes to learn the craft, much like a student now goes to college. In this manner, the technique of forging chalibis spread out in Semitic, Sarmatian, and Gothic societies. That's why the word was both famous in Greek and Latin.

We don't know when the direct method was lost, but it was supplanted by "Damascus" steel. The Chalybes themselves never died out. They became attacted to the Shah. In the early 1970s when the Shah ran into trouble, many Chalybes fled west. In my home town we have Taki Chalybe, and two towns away we have Fatah Chalybe. The clan never died out. So I wasn't talking about any steppe origin of the Goths, but was describing the adoption of Chalybean sword-making methods by other cultural groups.

But I don't agree that any army needs an uniform language. Having bi(poly)lingual commanders is enough.

Oh dear. I hope you really didn't mean that. Without a standard (imposed) language, the Roman troops and cavalries could never have conquered the territories they did. And we wouldn't be discussing these matters on RAT. hock:

[diegis]

But I don't agree that any army needs an uniform language. Having bi(poly)lingual commanders is enough.

Oh dear. I hope you really didn't mean that. Without a standard (imposed) language, the Roman troops and cavalries could never have conquered the territories they did. And we wouldn't be discussing these matters on RAT. hock:

Salve Alanus

Well, just a short comment. We cant compare roman army, well established and trained, with a history of centuries at least, and with romans being always the superior ones both military and culturaly when integrated others in their army (and even like that, i dont know how many of the mercenaries/irregulars troops and even auxiliares simple soldiers know very well latin, excepting the military comands), with goths. The germanic part of them wasnt either culturaly or social superior to neither dacians or sarmatians, nor numericaly, so its hard to believe what language was used back then. This conglomerat was made on bases of comon interests of several diferent ethnic groups, formed mostly by "barbarians" (but having a strong roman influence too), and was far from the proces of romanization made in roman empire, and from the level of organization of Roman army. I agree with Rumo, probably some leaders of the groups (germanics, dacians, sarmatians etc.) was bilingual (if not multilingual). Remember that in previous century, sarmatians and bastarnae acted as allies and auxiliares in Dacian army of Decebal, they lived for quite a while beside dacians, and my opinion is that dacian language (dacian being the superior culture) had the more chances to be a kind of "lingua franca" in this conglomerat (at least until goths leaved the Danube area, and probably many dacians remain in Dacia, now "free" again, since romans retreated the army and administration).

[Paullus Scipio]

Alanus wrote:

Oh dear. I hope you really didn't mean that. Without a standard (imposed) language, the Roman troops and cavalries could never have conquered the territories they did. And we wouldn't be discussing these matters on RAT.

...I don't think this necessarily holds true. 'Barbarian hordes' will have/must have contained a multiplicity of ethnic groups/tribes who spoke different languages and/or dialects, whether they be 5 C BC Gauls/Celts or 5 C AD Goths, and it does not seem to have been a bar to military efficiency/success.
For a fairly well-documented example consider Punic armies, especially Hannibal's of the second Punic War, containing as it did Africans - Moors and Libyans, various Spanish Iberians and Celt-Iberians, Gauls from Southern France, Alpine Gauls, Cisalpine Gauls, Italians, Greeks etc....as has been noted, only leaders needed to speak the 'lingua franca'. Knowledge of basic commands doubtless sufficed for the rank and file....

[Alanus]

Hello, Diegis

Sorry, but I disagree that the Dacian language formed a significant part in the Gothic culture in the period when they crossed the Danube. The Goths, as you and Rumo say, were probably muli-lingual. I certainly can see how and why they would be. If anything, the second language would have been Sarmatian-Alanic, judging from the documented homogeny of the Gothic contingents at this time, aka 350 to 400. But the commands-- shouted in battle-- were no doubt in Gothic. That's my point. When you yell "Charge!", everyone has to know it means "Charge!" And so, as with any other military configuration, the Goths charged when they were given a singular, understandable, command. And I'm reasonably sure it wasn't Dacian. :roll:

And hello, Paullus

On this thread I was positing the idea (which I obviously think correct) that the Gothic hierarchy, in other words-- the military leaders of that culture-- spoke Gothhic. And it only stands to reason they would have given battle-orders in Gothic. Heaven knows how many languages were actually spoken within this ever-changing and migrating society. But there had to be a spoken foundation in which everyone could work/fight from.

[Rumo]

Though the other participants to this discussion already brought some relevant examples, there are some important written testimonies that in many large armies from Antiquity there was no common language for all soldiers and the orders had to be translated for troops not speaking the language of the top hierarchy. The most famous of them all is probably Xenophon's Anabasis. Here we have the Greeks receiving orders from Pigres, one of Cyrus's interpreters. Another episode is the one before the battle of Cunaxa, when Pategyas shouted in Persian and Greek that the enemy is approaching. Therefore I believe my point stands, having bi(poly)lingual commanders is enough and there is clear evidence for that. We have no reason to assume that Gothic armies were entirely formed of Germanic speakers (with some learning it as a second language).

Alan, I don't think that scholarly debate is just one of ideologies, because in essence Goffart's request is simple enough: evidence. For you and Wolfram that long-lasting and sometimes incredibly accurate folk memory is an unquestioned premise. Alanus is no more an archaic memory than Romulus and Remus, than Hellen, Dorus, Aeolus, Thessalus and hundreds if not thousands similar eponymous ancestors from cultures worldwide. For some any wordplay can be an etymology (à propos de got-gut, read this), but etymologies may be right or wrong for historical linguists. There's little if any doubt that many Romance words come from (Vulgar) Latin.

Now let's look at Goffart's amazing postulation in regard to oral history: "The French of today can choose to descend from Lascaux cave people or Gallo-Celts or Franks or none of the above; the English can descend from Stonehenge builders or Celto-Britons or Saxons or Normans. These are learned choices."

How can he say that? There is no oral tradition linking the French to the Lascaux cave people. "Lascaux" in an archaeological term. And no way can the English descend from Stonehenge builders through any form of "history," be it oral or written.

Please read carefully the entire paragraph. It's about a distant past which is "is collective and deliberately taught or adopted". We learn today that some of the earlier inhabitants of the territory we call now England were the Stonehenge builders, and in France we find the Lascaux cave people. Any relatively educated person can claim descendency from these populations, as educated Franks claimed Trojan ancestry or educated Goths claimed a Scandinavian one. As Goffart concluded, these are learned choices.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Drago?,

Though the other participants to this discussion already brought some relevant examples, there are some important written testimonies that in many large armies from Antiquity there was no common language for all soldiers and the orders had to be translated for troops not speaking the language of the top hierarchy.
The most famous of them all is probably Xenophon's Anabasis. Here we have the Greeks receiving orders from Pigres, one of Cyrus's interpreters. Another episode is the one before the battle of Cunaxa, when Pategyas shouted in Persian and Greek that the enemy is approaching. Therefore I believe my point stands, having bi(poly)lingual commanders is enough and there is clear evidence for that. We have no reason to assume that Gothic armies were entirely formed of Germanic speakers (with some learning it as a second language).

Your examples, unfortunately, are not very relevant. Both are about armies made up from different groups that normally would not work together. Persians and Greeks fighting together are not typical for an army with one Heeressprache. See Paul’s example about Hannibal – what single command language would they all be familiar with?

One of the best examples (and more relevant to this discussion I think) for one single command language is the Roman army. The language in the Roman army was Latin, regardless of the linguistic background of the troops. We know this because of the military treatises written after the fall of the Western Roman empire. These documents originated in the mainly Greek speaking part of the empire, were written in Greek, but especially the commands which we know from the late-6th/early-7th c. Strategicon are clearly in Latin. The Heeressspraache of the Roman army continued to be Latin until the 10th century (Rance, Treadgold).

While I agree with you that a single command language was not necessarily the case for some armies in Antiquity (especially when mercenaries and allies were involved), I think that the Roman example provides proof that professional (standing) armies were more likely to have a command structure with one command language.

[diegis]

Hello, Diegis

Sorry, but I disagree that the Dacian language formed a significant part in the Gothic culture in the period when they crossed the Danube. The Goths, as you and Rumo say, were probably muli-lingual. I certainly can see how and why they would be. If anything, the second language would have been Sarmatian-Alanic, judging from the documented homogeny of the Gothic contingents at this time, aka 350 to 400. But the commands-- shouted in battle-- were no doubt in Gothic. That's my point. When you yell "Charge!", everyone has to know it means "Charge!" And so, as with any other military configuration, the Goths charged when they were given a singular, understandable, command. And I'm reasonably sure it wasn't Dacian. :roll:


.

Salve Alanus

What i want to say is that we dont how to know what language/languages was used by goths, not even in military, during their diferent stages. The resons i mentioned the dacian language as a kind of lingua franca was:
Roman poet Ovidius, who was exiled in new formed province called Scythia Minor (later integrated in Moesia), mention several things, and sai there was many barbarians even in Tomis (a legend relate the name of this city with queen Tomyris, if i am not mistake even Jordanes is the one who mentioned), this being Getae(Dacians) and Sarmatians, and he learn the Getae language, but not quite well, since Getae/Dacians laugh when hear him. As well, in a letter for a friend he said that he even writed some poetry in dacian language (unfortunately wasnt discovered), and that his friend to not be surprised if will found "barbarian" words in his poems, since one of them are almost like the writings of a Getae poet. What i want to point out is that getae-dacian language was already the "lingua franca" in the area, sarmatians from around Dacia knew it, greeks from greek towns at Black Sea knew it, and even Ovidius, if he wanted to understand well with the peoples there, learn it. As well, during the wars betwen Decebal and Traian, the same sarmatians (and bastarnae) was allies of dacians, and provided them auxiliars troops. I am pretty sure that many of those foreigns around Dacia knew dacian language at some level, dacians being the most developed nation (if we can say like that), either military, culturaly and social (they was the only ones who had a even empire in Burebista times, and a centalized kingdom in Decbal time) among them.

The comparation betwen roman army, and goths army is, in my opinion, very unrealistic. Roman army, begining even with Scipio Africanus if you wish, and especialy with Caius Marius, had a well established organization, chain of comand, standardized training and equipment. As well, romans was always the dominant, both military and culturaly and the foreign auxiliars who joined the roman army did that to receive citizenship too, they wanted to become romans, they consider that is a step forward for them, even if in many times they come from conquered nations. That roman army was a profesional one where soldiers served for 20-25 years, and even like that i dont think all auxiliars learned very well latin, or bothered to do that, except ofcourse the military comands. Ofcourse this comands and military related terms was preserved even later, in eastern roman empire, as a recognition of the prestige of roman army, who was the best in the world.
But about the goths, the best comparation is like Rumo and Paullus said, not with the roman army. Goths was a conglomerat of peoples with diverse ethnicity, joined togheter probably by comon interests. First time they even didnt invade alone the roman borders, but with one of the free dacian tribes, Carpii, who lead the invasion. They didnt had a profesional and organized army as roman one, but a mix of several diferent troops from several diferent peoples, so most probable was bilingual, if not polylingual. Maybe later, when they becomed "foederati", and allies of romans, even took some roman military comands, who know.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Razvan,

The comparation betwen roman army, and goths army is, in my opinion, very unrealistic. Roman army, begining even with Scipio Africanus if you wish, and especialy with Caius Marius, had a well established organization, chain of comand, standardized training and equipment. As well, romans was always the dominant, both military and culturaly and the foreign auxiliars who joined the roman army did that to receive citizenship too, they wanted to become romans, they consider that is a step forward for them, even if in many times they come from conquered nations. That roman army was a profesional one where soldiers served for 20-25 years, and even like that i dont think all auxiliars learned very well latin, or bothered to do that, except ofcourse the military comands. Ofcourse this comands and military related terms was preserved even later, in eastern roman empire, as a recognition of the prestige of roman army, who was the best in the world.
But about the goths, the best comparation is like Rumo and Paullus said, not with the roman army. Goths was a conglomerat of peoples with diverse ethnicity, joined togheter probably by comon interests.

Yes and no. Of course the earliest 'Gothic' armies cannot be compared to the Roman army. But on the other hand, the Roman army included recruits and mercenaries from dozens of linguistic backgrounds, all of whom managed to learn the command language.

How were early Gothic armies organized? We don’t have a clue. Indeed, different groups working together, with maybe one tribal group or a group of leaders from different tribal groups in command. Its guesswork, since we only get to ‘know’ the Goths when the invade Roman territory during the 3rd century. My point is this: with just a few leaders, you need simple commands, not 6 or 7 people shouting translations.

Later in history though, Gothic armies are always controlled by Goths, people wwhom we as certain of that they spoke a Geranic language. Even then, a Gothic army was never a ‘national’ army; it consisted of one or a few leaders with their followers and hangers-on. The picture that we know from Fritigirn, Alaric and all the way up to Totila is not very different; one war-leader, whose army grew if he was successful, but whose army could vanish if his soldiers chose to follow a different leader. Very Germanic btw, we see similar patterns with the Franks, Alamanni and Vandals.
It would seem very strange to me that in those times, commands would have been given in other language than Gothic.

[Rumo]

Hi Drago?,

Your examples, unfortunately, are not very relevant. Both are about armies made up from different groups that normally would not work together. Persians and Greeks fighting together are not typical for an army with one Heeressprache. See Paul’s example about Hannibal – what single command language would they all be familiar with?

One of the best examples (and more relevant to this discussion I think) for one single command language is the Roman army. The language in the Roman army was Latin, regardless of the linguistic background of the troops. We know this because of the military treatises written after the fall of the Western Roman empire. These documents originated in the mainly Greek speaking part of the empire, were written in Greek, but especially the commands which we know from the late-6th/early-7th c. Strategicon are clearly in Latin. The Heeressspraache of the Roman army continued to be Latin until the 10th century (Rance, Treadgold).

While I agree with you that a single command language was not necessarily the case for some armies in Antiquity (especially when mercenaries and allies were involved), I think that the Roman example provides proof that professional (standing) armies were more likely to have a command structure with one command language.

Hello Robert,

Thank you for your input but I'm arguing for Gothic (focusing on their early centuries, when Goths ruled the territories north of lower Danube) armies having no Heeressprache (my actual claim being that there was no common language covering the entire ?ernjachov culture - see map above), so I find Xenophon's account quite relevant. Persian armies like many other ancient armies (Hannibal's too - as you point out it had no single common language, it's hard to believe all those Gauls were fluent in Punic) were a mixture of nations (for Persian army see also Herodotus, VII.60-100), speaking different languages. Translators and multilingual officers were common, not only to communicate within the army, between its segments, but also to negociate with the enemy, to obtain precious information from the natives, etc.

In ancient world I find the Roman army rather the exception than the rule. The Roman army was a very complex institution and I don't know on what grounds it can be argued that north-Danubian Gothic armies were even remotely similar. Sure, once the Goths entered the Roman service they learned the Roman ways and the differences became smaller.

You also make a good point about Strategikon. However, according to Rance the Latin Heeressprache lasted only until the 7th century (p. 269), though it echoed even in 10th century texts.
An important question would be if in this case the soldiers actually understand a language or just use some codes with limited functionality. I have my doubts that all Roman soldiers around 600 were fluent in Latin, as the language was already fading from public usage in the east. Forgive my analogy (it's not meant to offend, just to illustrate the difference), telling a dog to roll over, it doesn't mean the dog actually understands or speaks English, even if it performs the action it was ordered to. I find no reason to assume such "meta-linguistic" commands weren't used in multilingual armies, regardless if they were words in some language, shouts, whistles, or virtually any signal which could be unequivocally perceived by soldiers as a specific order. But this is not a common language being spoken and understood.

The picture that we know from Fritigirn, Alaric and all the way up to Totila is not very different; one war-leader, whose army grew if he was successful, but whose army could vanish if his soldiers chose to follow a different leader. Very Germanic btw, we see similar patterns with the Franks, Alamanni and Vandals.
It would seem very strange to me that in those times, commands would have been given in other language than Gothic.

I believe the common language of the Late Empire barbarians was in most cases Latin. The traces of written Germanic dialects are scarce. It's weird that even few runic inscriptions are known from ?ernjachov space, there are none (to my knowledge) in Ostrogothic Italy. The mentions of spoken Gothic in Italy are also few, and in most cases it's about bilinguals anyway. Italy was mostly Latin speaking and most probably the Ostrogothic armies had also local recruits. I find rather the Goths using Latin than everybody else learning Gothic.

[Alanus]

Hello, Rumo

You have made some good points, yet some observations seem faulty. First, we all tend to think that barbarian armies, specifically Gothic in this case, were incapable of strategum. They seemed too simplistic, ruled by blood-thirst and wild aggression. But historically this was not the case. We only have to look at the campaigns of Vercingetorix in Gaul and Armenius in the Toubourg Forest.

The Roman army was a very complex institution and I don't know on what grounds it can be argued that north-Danubian Gothic armies were even remotely similar. Sure, once the Goths entered the Roman service they learned the Roman ways and the differences became smaller [....] An important question would be if in this case the soldiers actually understand a language or just use some codes with limited functionality. I have my doubts that all Roman soldiers around 600 were fluent in Latin, as the language was already fading from public usage in the east. Forgive my analogy (it's not meant to offend, just to illustrate the difference), telling a dog to roll over, it doesn't mean the dog actually understands or speaks English, even if it performs the action it was ordered to.

First, we have no indication, linguistally, that the Goths didn't use Gothic as a command language within Theodoric's Italian Kingdom or in the Visigothic Kingdom of Toulouse. The Visigoths, in particular wrote their (quite famed) laws in Gothic, and it would seem odd if they chose Latin for an official military language. Secondly, the "dumb brute dog" idea dismisses strategum, the preplanned discussions between commanders prior to battle. And these certainly occurred. We see this kind of advanced planning early in the campaigns of Cnivea, give-and-take until he led Roman forces into a swamp-- a battle in which both emperor Decius and his son were casualties. We see it again with Fritigern as he successfully baited Valens into a three-sided trap. Preplanning required discussion in a language mutually understood, even if the strategic map was scratched in dirt by a stick. So the command language was singular in both planning and again on the battlefront, and it had to be Gothic. In both illustrations these were "north-Danubian Gothic armies," even though Fritigern's army fought on Roman soil. The Gothic army in this period had a near-Roman structure: from a decanus (the lowest commander) to the thiudfadus (commander of 1,000 men).

Now to the agreeable part. You are correct in pointing out the "Latinization" of the Goths. It began during the reign of Constantine when the first large numbers of Tyrfingi were incorporated not only as federates but also regulars. By the time we get to Fritigern, we find that Latinization was also accompanied by a strong military force that the Romans "had" to deal with. This can be seen, again, in the extraordinary accomodations afforded to Fritigern. In the early 370s, Valens lent a portion of his forces in Thrace to Fritigern who then led them against Athanaric. Half a decade later, Valens again struck a deal with Fritigern, allowing his Tyrfingi to enter Thrace. Things went sour, Lupicinus invented the "dogmeat scheme," and the Goths fought back. After the unintentional death of Valens at Adrianople, the new Emperor Theodosius was trapped in his own tent by Fritigern who let him retreat. These actions bespeak of a Gothic leader who was already "Romanized," a man with tremendous tactical skills. No, these later leaders (including Gainas, Saul the Alan, Alaric, and Athaulf) were not brutes incapable of intelligent planning and communicating with both their men and the Romans. And it would not surpise me if Latin had become their second language, although they must have spoken Alanic with some fluency.

I find frequent mention of the Cernjachov Culture on this thread. It seems illogical to hold Cernjachov up as significantly influenced by the Dacians. We know exactly who the ruling linguistic hierarchy was. "It has become clear that the so-called Sintana de Mures/Cernjachov Culture can be associated with the spread of Gothic power." (Heather and Matthews, GITFC, p. 50) Considering the huge extent of this regio, Dacia covered perhaps 10 to 15 percent of the geographical area. This "culture" appears to be the one ruled by King Ermaneric, an Ostrogoth. Within his kingdom we find Estoni to the northwest, Mordwines to the north east, and Alans in the south. The linguistic and localized customs of this culture are almost beyond count, but we all know which language Ermaneric spoke. We cannot tie this regium with the Tyrfingi until after its disolution. Two or three generations after Ermanaric's death and the approach of the Huns, the last surviving "king" fled toward the Danube. This was young Viteric; and his regents were Alatheus the Greutungus and Safrax the Alan. Known as the "Two Duces," they joined the riekship of Fritigern. Through the power of well-planned stategum and clear discourse, we all know how the story ended.

[Rumo]

Hi Alan,

First, we have no indication, linguistally, that the Goths didn't use Gothic as a command language within Theodoric's Italian Kingdom or in the Visigothic Kingdom of Toulouse. The Visigoths, in particular wrote their (quite famed) laws in Gothic, and it would seem odd if they chose Latin for an official military language.

You're correct, we have no direct evidence Goths didn't use a Germanic idiom in Gothic Italy or Spain, but we know they used mostly Latin in several important aspects of their daily lives. Their codes of laws were written in Latin (Euric's code was also in Latin!), their history was written in Latin (Getica, Chronica Regum Visigothorum), their epitaphs were mostly in Latin, their documents (letters, contracts, etc.) were in Latin and last but not at least, they eventually learned the languages of their lands, as from early Middle Ages until today the languages of Spain, southern France and Italy were Romance languages, not Germanic. Conversely the evidence of written and spoken Germanic idioms is scarce.
You quoted Heather so let me quote Wolfram from The Roman Empire and its Germanic peoples (actually translated from German by Thomas Dunlap):

• The army on the march held out the promise of social mobility and attracted the native underclasses. At the time of migration this attraction seemed very useful, as it helped to relieve the chronic shortage of man-power. But in Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Africa the coloni were needed in the fields and not on the battlefield. Theodoric the Great, for example, staked his future on consolidating and stabilizing his kingdom, which is why he prohibited the Roman peasant underclasses from joining a Gothic army.
  However, the old attraction was still alive when the Gothic kingdoms were fighting for their survival. At the battle of Vouillé, a contingent of Roman magnates from the Auvergne with the free and unfree clientes fought on the side of the Visigoths. This unit was led by a Catholic senator and son of the former bishop of Clermont. The Ostrogothic King Totila not only accepted Roman slaves and coloni into the Gothic army, he even mobilized them against their senatorial masters with promises of freedom and ownership of the land. In so doing the king gave the Roman underclasses a chance and an excuse to do what they had been ready and willing to do since the third century: "to become Goths" out of despair over their economic and social condition.

In Balkans, Italy or Spain I find much more likely that these "new Goths" weren't all learning a Germanic language (to use it in the army), but the Germanic and other barbarian speakers eventually lost their language to Latin/Romance. Especially in those late Gothic kingdoms under crisis as their armies gained suddenly a large body of new recruits. Goths were all who fought for the Gothic kings, as Wolfram put it:

• Thus being a Goth, enjoying the "freedom of the Goths" and marching in the Gothic army were one and the same thing.

Secondly, the "dumb brute dog" idea dismisses strategum, the preplanned discussions between commanders prior to battle. And these certainly occurred. We see this kind of advanced planning early in the campaigns of Cnivea, give-and-take until he led Roman forces into a swamp-- a battle in which both emperor Decius and his son were casualties. We see it again with Fritigern as he successfully baited Valens into a three-sided trap. Preplanning required discussion in a language mutually understood, even if the strategic map was scratched in dirt by a stick. So the command language was singular in both planning and again on the battlefront, and it had to be Gothic. In both illustrations these were "north-Danubian Gothic armies," even though Fritigern's army fought on Roman soil.

I never said Goths had no strategy. When I was discussing Strategikon it was about orders. I believe in any army of those times several things are true, including these two: a) few people give orders, most people obey orders and b) orders are not subject to debate. Thus, even with no translators, a system of codes (and not a real language) seems to be enough. Strategikon may be considered evidence for that. The Greek, Armenian or Semitic speaking soldiers fighting against Avars or Sassanids were receiving orders in Latin, though most probably many of them weren't fluent in this language. Moreover, words like fulcum are actually of Germanic origin, should we believe all those Roman soldiers were also speaking some Germanic dialect?

As for "had to be Gothic", the examples provided in this thread (Persians, Carthaginians, the barbarian armies faced by Romans in the Dacian and Marcomannic wars) show that it was often the case that large and arguably skilled armies were led with help of bilinguals (sometimes mere translators, not necessarily commanders). There's simply no evidence that the barbarian armies of Cniva or the half-Roman armies of Totila had a single common language, and at least in the latter case if they had one, that was Latin.

The Gothic army in this period had a near-Roman structure: from a decanus (the lowest commander) to the thiudfadus (commander of 1,000 men).

The structure you're mentioning is from the late Visigothic kingdom, not from north-Danubian Gothia. However a "decimal system" doesn't make an army "near-Roman", though I agree that late Gothic armies were similar with contemporary Roman ones.

I must sign off soon, so I'll drop one more quick comment:

I find frequent mention of the Cernjachov Culture on this thread. It seems illogical to hold Cernjachov up as significantly influenced by the Dacians. We know exactly who the ruling linguistic hierarchy was. "It has become clear that the so-called Sintana de Mures/Cernjachov Culture can be associated with the spread of Gothic power." (Heather and Matthews, GITFC, p. 50)

While I agree with you that Dacian influence was somewhat limited in north-Danubian Gothia (?ernjachov space), I disagree with your interpretation of that quote. The text is about (political) power, not about language.

[Alanus]

Rumo,

In the time of Euric, 460 onward, Goths and their laws were Latinized. Agreed. But in the period of the migrations the rulers of those Goths that crossed the Danube (and rulers of previous generations) had Gothic names and spoke Gothic. Otherwise Ulfilas would have conveniently written his bible in Dacian or Cappadocian, or perhaps even Iranian. Your argument that these Goths didn't speak Gothic is self-defeading.

By mentioning how Latinized/Romanized the Goths were by 460, you have given credence to the Three Generation Principle that you refuted earlier. Thanks. It only took three generations, and even the clothing changed.

I'm glad you agree that Dacian influence on the Cernjachov Culture was minimal. Therefore Dacians had a very minor influence on the Gothic culture as a whole, which is understandable. In this period-- late 3rd century to mid 4th century-- the Dacians weren't influencing anybody and were themselves being Latinized to the extent that the present language of Rumania still remains a strong and lyric "romance" tongue.

Glad you liked my quote from Heather. :lol: