Gothic tribes

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I was wondering how many named tribes there were among the Goths. I seem to be confused about who was what.

I know there were the Greutungi who were first reported in the Ukraine. Then there were the Tervingi. But I also read of the Amali and the Balthi and was there a difference? Were these just familial clans or also tribes. Are there any that I have not mentioned?

Thanks again.
Tom

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I have been busy for a while (building a goat barn) and haven't be able to pursue my own thoughts on this.

I know the Greutungi were from north of the Black Sea when the Huns began pressing them.
I know the Tervingi were in present-day Moldova and the plains south of the Carpatian mountains at the same time.

I know that the Greutungi fought "many" battles against the Huns and Alans, so the destruction of the Greutungi was not as quick as Gibbons would have his readers think.
I know that, eventually defeated, the Greutungi did withdraw toward the Danube.

Then there is the Tervingi. They were north of the Lower Danube. They retreated into present-day Transylvania, but not all of them stayed. Some chose to seek asylum among the Romans.

Therefore, we have Greutungi-A who stayed and were absorbed into the Hunnic tribes, Greutungi-B who I assume retreated into the mountains, and Greutungi-C, led by Safrax, who crossed into Rome.

Likewise, there the Tervingi-A who remained in Transylvania and Tervingi who crossed into Rome.

I have a list of leaders from among the Amalis. I have a list of leaders among the Balthi. My question was, though poorly stated, were the Amalis and the Balthi sub-tribes of the Tervingi Goths?

Were the Amalis and the Balthi then the Tervingi-B who left Transylvania and chose Rome as a protector?

I know the names of some of the Gothic leaders at the time of the split into A-B-C groups, but these different bands adopt a different name to disassociate themselves from the other Tervingi's who did not enter Rome?

Thanks.

Tom

So, now

[authun]

Ave Civitas,

I was wondering how many named tribes there were among the Goths. I seem to be confused about who was what.

The Heruli are very closely associated with the Goths but you won't find a consensus on what the exact relationship was, just differing opinions.

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

It's me again with another Gothic question.
I was studying Wolfram's "History of the Goths" and found this:

Among the Tervingi there was a preeminent "royal family" that we may perhaps identify as
the Balthi. The Romans, however, noticed other people among the Goths
who wore the "royal insignia" and who assumed a special
position because of their "dignity and descent."

Now, my question is, since this Royal Insignia is not mentioned anywhere in his
book, does anyone know what that insignia might have been?

Thanks again for all your help.

Tom

[Lothia]

Heruli? Interesting. Let me do some searching on their relationship.

Thanks.

Tom

[authun]

Heruli? Interesting. Let me do some searching on their relationship.

You might start with this article by Troels Brandt:

http://www.gedevasen.dk/heruls.pdf

on his website; http://www.gedevasen.dk/heruls.html

[Lothia]

Ave Authun,

That was a very good site. If the two fought, like is mentioned there, "– the defeat of the strong Heruls ruled by king Alaric" yet they shared names makes me wonder what their relationship was.

Thanks for the link.

Tom

[aligern]

Skala Tom
The Greutungs and Tervings are better thought of as confederations than as tribes. The Amals and Balths are families and decent lines and not tribes in themselves. If they were tribes then the lines would not run out which they both do in the early VIth century.
The Romans thought of Vandals, Gepids, Rugi Burgundians? and perhaps Heruls as 'Goths' because they all spoke similar languages and had similar clothing. Roman identification of peoples was very much based uponn geographic origin, clothing, weaponry and fighting style and language.
So you can tell a Sarmatian by his coming from North of The Black sea, his horse hoof armour, long lance, trosers, language and living in a wagon.

It is likely that the Goths had absorbed other groups as they moved South and some of these will have retained their identities for a while. After the Goths moved on many of these people may well have stayed behind. Some Carpi, for example operate with the Goths, Some clearly move into the Empire.

I say maybe with the Herul link because they are mentioned separately in the third century in the great raids across the Black Sea and into Greece that exploit the disruptive crisis in the Roman Empire.
As to what marked kings... well the Goths appear to have had iudeces or judges rather than kings so early kings may just be leaders in war and each group within a confederation had its own judge(s) in peacetime, ither Greutungi Eormeneric looks lika a proper king, but it is unlikely that he was an amal or a Balth.
One way of differentiating nobility night have been hairstyle and the wearing of longer hair. Certainly among the later Visigoths if you wanted to punish someone for attempted usurpation you cut off their hair (decalvation and yes it might mean scalping in which case no regrowth of said hair) . Both the Alaric jewel and the Theoderic medallion show long, but not super-long hair.
another way might be the wearing of some piece of jewellery such as a gold bracteate disc on a chain. They might have originally been given as insignia by the Romans to favoured tribal leaders and then copied. The other distinction was you wife's jewellery and dress as this was clearly an area for display and the exercise of precedence.

Roy

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree with Roy about the notion of Germanic tribes and kingship around this period. remember that most of the source material that we have was written later, when the groups involved were already established. But where Jordanes projects his reality of the 6th century back into the 3rd and 4th centuries where the Gothic ruling family is concerned, is Gregory of Tours much more vague - he admits that the Franks had no real kings during the mid-5th century, but duces.

It's highly probable that, around this time, the tribal structure of non-homogenous groups such as the Franks and the Goths was not strong (or: 'solid') enough to develop a kingship model recognizable to us. Leadership would be formed by 'strong men' from a variety of backgrounds, with a real royal structure nor a model of a royal dynasty. That’s not really surprising when you look at all the groups that had been assimilated by these ‘tribes’, whose members would not likely accept an individual from just one family to rule over them. We see this with Alaric, whose ‘tribe’ is waxing and waning after every victory or defeat, as well as with the Franks who sent Childeric into exile to the Tungri and accepted the kingship of Syagrius (‘Rex Romanorum et Francorum’). Even Clovis had to defeat all the different Frankish groups with his own regnum (Toxandrian Franks), as well as the ‘other’ Frankish groups (the regnum of Arbogast and the Ripuarian Franks) in order to unite all the Franks under one ruler for the first time. The Goths never managed to do even that.

[aligern]

Agreed, The Clovis story in Greg of Tours is an exemplar of how to get from being one of several kings to top dog adding wealth and warriors until you can overawe everybody.

there may be a hint of this in the Alaric/Ataulf period of the Visigoths in the story of Sarus and his feud with the Balths.
Look too at Preocopius story of those royals who flee from tribes (I am thinking in particular of Ildigisel and the Lombards and probabaly Mundo the Gepid) The losers in dynastic conflict are either killed or go off with their warband to recruit and cause trouble.

Its interesting too that in the Adrianople period Gothic leadership moves around within an arisocratic class relatively easily. that is probabaly because there is not a tradition of kings coming from one family.
After the death of Gaesalic? (Alaric IIs son) the Visigoths go back to a method of electing kings, sometimes its son follows father, but verty seldom for more than one succession.
And yet, the Germans know who can become king and who cannot. There is quite a bit of intermarriage between trives at the top of society and the Romans reinforce this by insisting on dealing with one leader and backing him to control the tribe. So Odovacar, for example is not some nouveau riche or military careerist, but the Second son of the king of the Sciri who leads a rebellion of the foederati in Italy.

Roy

[Lothia]

Ave Civitas,

I appreciate the great information provided. There is a Gothic only group in Yahoo, and I posted a similar question there. One suggestion about royalty markers was the torque.

I never thought about hair length being an identity marker, and "scalping" (a little more permanent than being tonsured) would indicate how serious they were about that identification.

Again, thanks a bunch. You guys are great.

Tom