Franks, Goths and Other Germanics

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Do we know of any particular features that would distinguish a Frank from a Goth at this date?
How about other Germanic peoples?

Hello, Nathan

Several features separate the Goths from the Franks, Alemanni, etc. First, Goths spoke an Eastern Germanic tongue. For instance the Frankish nomen "Thiudebald" becomes "Thiudebalth" in Gothic. Also, the Goths were heavily influenced by neighboring steppe cultures, primarily the Alans, Taifali, and even the Huns. They used different swords than the Franks, narrower blades, yet not long after the beginning of the 5th century, the Franks were influenced by the Gothic-Alanic swords, especially the be-jeweled hilts with cloisine. Finally, Goths were a society in flux, not entirely Germanic but including Greeks and disenfranchised Romans, plus people with Sarmatian and Cappadocian blood. Bishop Wulfilas came from Cappadocian stock. :grin:

True, Aetius was Half-Scythian from his father who was considered "A Scythian of Gothic Stock"

[Nathan Ross]

Eutropius wrote that Armorica and Belgica were infested with Saxons and Franks at the time of Carausius, ie late 3rd cent.

Quite true - but Eutropius was writing at the time of Valens, and we know that the Saxons had become far more of a menace by the later 4th century. Whether we can draw from this that they were already raiding the coasts nearly a century before I don't know!

the Goths were heavily influenced by neighboring steppe cultures, primarily the Alans, Taifali, and even the Huns... Goths were a society in flux, not entirely Germanic but including Greeks and disenfranchised Romans, plus people with Sarmatian and Cappadocian blood.

This is interesting. Do we know when these cultural influences might have begun? Quite early, I would guess, if the Goths were indeed living around the northern or western shores of the Black Sea for some time. Zosimus perhaps doesn't call them 'Skythians' for nothing... mile:

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I think the Frisians are recorded Raiding Britian prior to the Saxons, maybe it was them?

[Alanus]

Do we know when these cultural influences might have begun? Quite early, I would guess, if the Goths were indeed living around the northern or western shores of the Black Sea for some time. Zosimus perhaps doesn't call them 'Skythians' for nothing... mile:

Back to you, Nathan

When the Goths arrive in the historical record (early 3rd century, I think), they are accompanied by the Taifali. Many historians now believe the Taifali were an Alanic tribe. They rode as the Tyrfingi Goth's cavalry, off and on for about 8 generations, and it seems the "sword cult" (a planted sword in the ground or stones, see Ammianus) was transmitted from the Taifali to the Tyrfingi-- aka through "Tyrfing," the sword which this branch of Goths named themselves after. The ritual even goes back to the Scythians and mentioned by Herodotus. In general, all the historians of the period referred to the Goths as "Scythians" due to the territories they occupied.

[Marja]

I agree on the last point, about Goths as Scythians, but many scholars derive Teruingi from 'Forest-Dwellers.'

D.H. Green, Language and History in the Early Germanic World, p. 169:

A number of different languages suggest that the features of the south Russian [Ukrainian] terrain more than once called forth a twofold naming of those who inhabited its two types of ground: the cattle-raising nomads of the open steppe and the sedentary agriculturalists of the woodland steppe. The Gothic distinction (Greutungi deriving from a Germanic root for 'sand, sandy soil' of the steppe and Tervingi from a root for 'tree') would thus be echoed in Slavonic for this region (Poljane 'field-dwellers' and Drevljane 'wood-dwellers'), but also similarly in Hunnic and Turkish.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The Sarmatians replaced the Scythians in the 1st century BC, becaus ethe Scythian Bows couldn't penetrate the Armor of the Sarmatian Cataphract-style horsemen before they closed on them. The Huns displaced the Sarmatians with the advent of stirrups, and the Asymmetric Bow which would pierce their armor before the Sarmatians could close on them.

it is believed The Sarmatians displaced the Scyths around the same time the Goths displaced the Cimbri and Teutones in the early 1st Century BC. Their contact with each other in Dacia, which was a cultural melting pot, would explain why the Goths and Sarmatians shared certain styles of warfare, pottery, etc etc.

Also, the Hunnic Language is belived to be a dialect of turkish in which only one other language of the dialect still exists today. The Huns were believed to be either the first Turkish invaders, or to have been displaced by them ,but it is most likely the Huns were a mix of Turkish, Mongolian, and Finno-Ugrian peoples from the area east of the Caspaina nd aral Seas (what is now khazakstan I think).

[Marja]

The Sarmatians replaced the Scythians in the 1st century BC, becaus ethe Scythian Bows couldn't penetrate the Armor of the Sarmatian Cataphract-style horsemen before they closed on them. The Huns displaced the Sarmatians with the advent of stirrups, and the Asymmetric Bow which would pierce their armor before the Sarmatians could close on them.

I thought that the stirrups only reached Europe with the Avars. Is there any new evidence of earlier stirrups?

Also, by late Roman times, the Sarmatians proper are associated with the Hungarian basin, and the Alans and Goths with the Pontic-Danubian region. The Huns would displace many of all these peoples.

it is believed The Sarmatians displaced the Scyths around the same time the Goths displaced the Cimbri and Teutones in the early 1st Century BC. Their contact with each other in Dacia, which was a cultural melting pot, would explain why the Goths and Sarmatians shared certain styles of warfare, pottery, etc etc.

I thought that the Cimbri and Teutones came from what's now northern Jutland, and the Goths from what's now northern Poland. The displaced Cimbri and Teutones came into contact with the Romans in the late 2nd century B.C.E. and whatever crises sent them south came somewhat earlier.

Also, the Hunnic Language is belived to be a dialect of turkish in which only one other language of the dialect still exists today. The Huns were believed to be either the first Turkish invaders, or to have been displaced by them ,but it is most likely the Huns were a mix of Turkish, Mongolian, and Finno-Ugrian peoples from the area east of the Caspaina nd aral Seas (what is now khazakstan I think).

[Alanus]

I agree on the last point, about Goths as Scythians, but many scholars derive Teruingi from 'Forest-Dwellers.'

Hi, Marja

Some agree with Green, while others see "Tyrfingi" as "people of the sword," such as Wolfram. Tyr was a crafty Germanic god, very early in the pantheon, and this gives us "Tyrfing" the sword which was placed in the middle of a circle of stones. Of course, Tyrfing continued as a legendary/mythical weapon, later showing up in the Old Edda (the poetical one) as the sword of Argantyr, given to Hervar the female warrior who then defends a Gothic fort from the Huns. Tyr is still with us in the word "Tuesday." ;-)

The origin of stirrups is an unsettled question. The Britannica places it as Hunnic, Columbia as Avar. The consensus is Avar, but Sirluminski noted that stirrups were found in Alanic graves in the Crimean Bosphorus. He didn't elaborate, and I think the statement is questionable. 8-)

[Alanus]

True, Aetius was Half-Scythian from his father who was considered "A Scythian of Gothic Stock"

I always wondered about that, considering Aetius was born at Durostorum. The anomoly is the number of references to him as "the last Roman." :roll:

[diegis]

I think Aetius father origins reffered more to the place of birth (Scythia Minor) then to his actual origin. Scythians was long gone by the time of Aetius, and his father was probably a romanized Getae (as those was the majority in Scythia Minor and i think this origin is mentioned by some authors) or Sarmatian, or even a local Roman (if we look at his name).

[diegis]

Origin of Goths is debatable, as material culture their established and well know culture, Cerniachov-Santana de Mures, is in majority of local origin, predominantly Dacian with provincial Roman, Sarmatian and German addings.

Most of ancient authors reffered to Goths as Getae (and Scythians sometime) and never as Germanic, this is a more modern interpretation, and more and more debatable.
Look for example at what contemporaries considered about Radagaisus army

http://books.google.ro/books?id=NM88AAAA...i.&f=false

This is from emperor Honorius Arch i think, related with same battles against Radagaisus and his defeat by Stilicho:

<<Quod Getarum nationem in omne aevum docuere extingui>>

There isnt any significant evidence that they migrated as a group from Scandinavia or even Baltic shores, and maintained their homogenity and history over milleniums.

More then that, there is more and more archeological evidences that in Iron Age era Dacians spread up to Jutlanda peninsula and all over today Poland, up to the Baltic.

http://uw.academia.edu/MarcinRudnicki/Pa...ral_Poland

They mention there several items, artefacts and poterry discovered, and more interesting, some probable sanctuaries of Thraco-Dacian origin, found even in Jutlanda.

This archeological discoveries are backed by writings (and maps) of Agrippa, Ptolemy and Jordanes

So i think more then probably Goths was a mix of Getae/Dacians with Germanic and Sarmatian elements added. This group absorbed more warlike Dacian elites and even common people who departed from former Decebalus kingdom after Trajan wars and raised to proeminence in time, coming in waves after other Dacian entities as so called "free Dacians", Costobocii and Carpii comes along, after the fall of Dacian kingdom of Decebalus.

After they entered in Roman empire they absorbed as well Roman people and elements (maybe even some Huns before, but Huns themselves was a mixed group of people with just a core of "real Huns").

[Robert Vermaat]

I think Aetius father origins reffered more to the place of birth (Scythia Minor) then to his actual origin. Scythians was long gone by the time of Aetius, and his father was probably a romanized Getae (as those was the majority in Scythia Minor and i think this origin is mentioned by some authors) or Sarmatian, or even a local Roman (if we look at his name).

Please state why you think that:
- 'Romanized Getae' were the majority in Scythia Minor
- Aetius' father belonged to that population group.

Origin of Goths is debatable, as material culture their established and well know culture, Cerniachov-Santana de Mures, is in majority of local origin, predominantly Dacian with provincial Roman, Sarmatian and German addings.
Most of ancient authors reffered to Goths as Getae (and Scythians sometime) and never as Germanic, this is a more modern interpretation, and more and more debatable.
[..]
So i think more then probably Goths was a mix of Getae/Dacians with Germanic and Sarmatian elements added.

Please Razvan, don't start all this again. You 'Goths=Dacians' theory has been discussed at great length before on this forum, no need to start that all up again.
I will add here that we only know about the Goths that they spoke a Germanic language. Which would be very odd if the main elements of that group, as you have repeatedly claimed, were mainly Dacians (of which we know, if I'm correct, that they did not speak a Germanic language).
How ancient authors refer to groups is of no relevance at all. Scythians is as anachronistic a description for Goths as it is for Sarmatians, but that's what ancient authors did - either from ignorance or to connect with their readers. Ammainus refers to the Persians as Parthians. Byzantine authors refer to the Franks as Celts. And so on. That the name Getae was used to describe what the author assumed was a Goth does not mean anything, let alone that it proved something about the ethnic ancestry of the person adressed.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

I thought that the stirrups only reached Europe with the Avars. Is there any new evidence of earlier stirrups?

Also, by late Roman times, the Sarmatians proper are associated with the Hungarian basin, and the Alans and Goths with the Pontic-Danubian region. The Huns would displace many of all these peoples.

I thought that the Cimbri and Teutones came from what's now northern Jutland, and the Goths from what's now northern Poland. The displaced Cimbri and Teutones came into contact with the Romans in the late 2nd century B.C.E. and whatever crises sent them south came somewhat earlier.

You're right about the Cimbri and Teutones, they went back to northern Jutland after Marius defeated them too.

It's believed the Stirrup was introduced to the Roman army by copying it from hunnic Foederati in the early 5th century. It's believed these stirrups were leather. I don't know the source on that, don't have access ot it right now.

[Alanus]

It's believed the Stirrup was introduced to the Roman army by copying it from hunnic Foederati in the early 5th century. It's believed these stirrups were leather. I don't know the source on that, don't have access ot it right now.

This is somewhat off-topic, but your post above is enlightening. Possibly, these stirrups were a combo of wood and leather. The stirrup question remains unanswered. However the earliest depictions of their use is found in Chinese rock paintings. It's no news that the Alans (Wuson) and Huns (Xiong-nu) were living in what is now China, were neighbors of the Chinese, and then traveled more-or-less together across central Asia to enter Europe, one after the other. If so, your statement may hold water, even the possibility that this device could have been transmitted to the Greutungi and finally Roman cavalrymen. Maybe Sulimirski was correct. 8)