Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Gothic kingdoms

Expand Messages
  • Ingemar Nordgren
    Hi Oskar! I wondered the same when I stumbled over it. The only explanation I can see is that he uses the word kingdom in a more general sense, including the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jun 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Oskar!

      I wondered the same when I stumbled over it. The only explanation I can
      see is that he uses the word kingdom in a more general sense, including
      the lokal reiks-leaders of the different kunis/kunjas, even when they
      approvingly were controlled of a leading king. He also claims Athanarik
      was a king and hence equates the title of kindins with king and calls
      the realm of the vesi-tervingi a kingdom, to which I definitely
      disagree. Athanarik was however a reiks/king of his own kunja of course
      but that is another matter. Evidently people speaking and thinking in
      English have trouble to distuingish between the title king and closely
      related titles not claiming formal kingship.

      Best
      Ingemar


      > Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 13:39:30 +0200
      > From: "Oskar Andersson" <o.andersson@...>
      > Subject: Gothic Kingdoms in the 4th century
      >
      > Listmembers,
      > > I have stumbled across this line in Peter Heather's valuable account of Gothic history - "The Goths."
      > > There is a quote that I am quite uncertain about, and I am looking for help to trace the ideas and sources behind it:
      > > Peter Heather> The Goths p. 97:
      >
      > "The Gothic world of the fourth century was divided into perhaps as many as six or more separate kingdoms."
      > > I assume Heather is making a statement about Gothic kingdoms, although he might very well be adressing the question of kingdoms maintained by other tribes (Sarmatians, Taifali, etc.). At any rate, I wanna know what underlies this statement, and what makes Heather contribute this very interesting question - compared to the old one that presented two major power centres to wit that of the Vesi-Tervingi and that of the Greuthungi-Ostrogoths in the region.
      > > Comments?
    • Oskar Andersson
      Hi Ingemar, ... That might very well be, but what source is Heather referring to? That is my main problem. I don t know what exactly to consult, and if it is
      Message 2 of 3 , Jun 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Ingemar,

        > Hi Oskar!
        >
        > I wondered the same when I stumbled over it. The only explanation I can
        > see is that he uses the word kingdom in a more general sense, including
        > the lokal reiks-leaders of the different kunis/kunjas, even when they
        > approvingly were controlled of a leading king.

        That might very well be, but what source is Heather referring to? That is my main
        problem. I don't know what exactly to consult, and if it is Ammianus Marcellinus
        then I would like some page referation, because it is too much of summer to sit
        inside and study him :-)

        He also claims Athanarik
        > was a king and hence equates the title of kindins with king and calls
        > the realm of the vesi-tervingi a kingdom, to which I definitely
        > disagree.

        What is your main objections to such a presentation?

        Athanarik was however a reiks/king of his own kunja of course
        > but that is another matter. Evidently people speaking and thinking in
        > English have trouble to distuingish between the title king and closely
        > related titles not claiming formal kingship.
        >
        > Best
        > Ingemar

        Thanks,
        Oskar
      • Ingemar Nordgren
        ... Mainly I have already stated it below but I can add that kindins was just the leader of the council of reiks, and the formal kingship is considered
        Message 3 of 3 , Jun 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          > He also claims Athanarik
          >
          >>was a king and hence equates the title of kindins with king and calls
          >>the realm of the vesi-tervingi a kingdom, to which I definitely
          >>disagree.
          >>
          >
          > What is your main objections to such a presentation?


          Mainly I have already stated it below but I can add that kindins was
          just the leader of the council of reiks, and the formal kingship is
          considered abandoned with the division between Greuthungi and
          Vesi-Tervingi when the þiuðans stops to exist. Kindins upholds the old
          royal function of high priest(sacral king) and makes the leading
          families cooperate, and in that way keeps the ethnicity of the Goths.
          Kindins means just 'kins-man' in my way to translate it and not the
          Roman 'judge'. Concerning Heather I did also not find any sources.


          >
          > Athanarik was however a reiks/king of his own kunja of course
          > >>but that is another matter. Evidently people speaking and thinking in
          >>English have trouble to distuingish between the title king and closely
          >>related titles not claiming formal kingship.
          >>


          Best

          Ingemar
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.