Question about a Roman name

[D B Campbell]

But when "Goths" start to call themselves "Goths"? Isnt just Jordanes calling them like that? Or wasnt this just in some writings of scholars educated by reading some Roman archives?

I wonder how Shapur I knew about the Goths? :?

[diegis]

But when "Goths" start to call themselves "Goths"? Isnt just Jordanes calling them like that? Or wasnt this just in some writings of scholars educated by reading some Roman archives?

I wonder how Shapur I knew about the Goths? :?

This is interesting indeed, sorry i pass over this. I might just speculate on this, and say that by the description of Roman armies and teritories used in that Shapur I inscription, he had some source from the inside the Roman empire, or maybe from war prisoners he get.
As the time is few decades after Caracalla, is possible that those who was used as sources to be some a bit educated Romans using the terminology they was teached and was imposed during Caracalla reign, or at least someone (maybe some spies from Roman Eastern provinces) who was exposed to that terminology as that "damnatio memoriae" was pretty tough.

I dont see how he might know in other way, but is just a speculation ofcourse

[Crispvs]

"I wonder how Shapur I knew about the Goths?"

He could always have talked to the Emperor Valerianus of course.

As Valerianus spent the latter part of his life as Shapur's prisoner, it is hardly likely that the two never spoke to each other. As two men of equally exalted rank, albeit one the prisoner of the other, the two must have had cause and probably the desire to talk together. Few men have the experience of commanding an empire and their mutual understandings would have been a rare and valued thing. As an emperor, Valerian was, technically at least, equal in rank to Shapur himself and they must have had some things at least in common. Added to that, even if they had not got on well with each other, Valerianus' experience as a Roman general and later emperor would be a valuable resource to the militarily inclined leader of the enemy power and I would be amazed if Shapur did not attempt to learn his captive's important knowledge.
Thus if Valerianus referred to 'Goths' that would be a perfectly good source for Shapur's own knowledge, Diocletian's comment that an emperor can never know more than what his officials choose to tell him notwithstanding.

Crispvs

[Robert Vermaat]

"I wonder how Shapur I knew about the Goths?"

As Valerianus spent the latter part of his life as Shapur's prisoner, it is hardly likely that the two never spoke to each other. As two men of equally exalted rank, albeit one the prisoner of the other, the two must have had cause and probably the desire to talk together. Few men have the experience of commanding an empire and their mutual understandings would have been a rare and valued thing. As an emperor, Valerian was, technically at least, equal in rank to Shapur himself and they must have had some things at least in common.

From our point of view he was, and when both empires were on speaking terms each would address the other as 'brother'.
However, Valerian had invaded Persian territory and had been defeated. Even if we disregard the account by Lactantius (who pictured a humiliating treatment and a grisly end - flaying alive or swallowing molten gold), it would be difficult to picture both men in conversation, on an equal basis as high-ranking statesmen.

[ValentinianVictrix]

But when "Goths" start to call themselves "Goths"? Isnt just Jordanes calling them like that? Or wasnt this just in some writings of scholars educated by reading some Roman archives?

I wonder how Shapur I knew about the Goths? :?

Do we know exactly how far the Gothic territory extended eastwards? We know that before the arrival of the Huns the Goths had engaged in warfare with the Alans, and I presume that the Alans were living more to the east, and possibly raiding into Sasanid territory. I suppose its just possible that the Alans could have traded Gothic prisoners as slaves with the Sasanids?

[Alanus]

But when "Goths" start to call themselves "Goths"? Isnt just Jordanes calling them like that? Or wasnt this just in some writings of scholars educated by reading some Roman archives?

I wonder how Shapur I knew about the Goths? :?

Do we know exactly how far the Gothic territory extended eastwards? We know that before the arrival of the Huns the Goths had engaged in warfare with the Alans, and I presume that the Alans were living more to the east, and possibly raiding into Sasanid territory. I suppose its just possible that the Alans could have traded Gothic prisoners as slaves with the Sasanids?

Hailog, Gentlemen

Likely that Shapur I knew about the Goths because they almost encroached upon his borders. We know that early-on they raided lands southeast of the Black Sea. Bishop Ulfilas descended from captured Cappidocians. We also know that Goths were recorded by Tacitus (Germania)under slightly differing names.

Strongly against linking Goths with Getae as the "same people," even though the Getae became a part of that culture. Much of what Heather postulated can be argued, and Kulikowski (in trying to debunk Jordanes' King Ermaeric "myth") has been disproven with Gothic archaeological finds along the river Samara, a tributary of the Ural. Perhaps Wolfram was overly "Germanic;" but what we do know-- Goths spoke a Germanic language, their leaders had Germanic names, their Bible was in a Germanic tongue-- is that the heirarchy was heavily Germanic influenced.

We have been through this before, as mentioned by Robert. Let the dead dog lie in peace