We have some basic issues with Vandal pre-history in part I here and in part II here.  So when do the Vandals actually make their appearance on the stage of world events?

Cassius Dio

It seems that the first person to report on actual Vandals is the Greek writer Cassius Dio (circa 155 A.D. – circa 235 A.D.) who mentions them in his Roman History (Historiae Romanae).  Specifically, he speaks of the Vandals in – probably – four separate instances:

First, he states that the “Albis rises in the Vandalic Mountains, and empties, a mighty river, into the northern ocean.”  This is in the context of describing the campaign of Drusus the Elder (father of Germanicus and Claudius, grandfather of Caligula) about 9 A.D.  Whether the Vandalic Mountains were called that in the time of Drusus, as opposed to the time of Cassius – some two centuries later – is unclear.  More importantly, where the Vandalic Mountains were located is also  unclear.  At first glance, we note that, what we call today the Elbe, rises in the Krkonoše/ Karkonosze/Riesengebirge Mountains which are part of the Sudeten/Sudety range (interestingly, there is a connection here to the Mountains of Jassa (and note the Vandal name of Assi, ash) so maybe the old (southern) Poles were Vandals after all?).  However, as any river, the Elbe is constituted out of a number of smaller rivers and the “origin” of the Elbe is partly a matter of convention (e.g., see the Ohre, the Vltava, the Sazava, the Berounka, etc.)  Therefore, the mountains may have been the Sudety/Sudeten or the Ore Mountains/Erzgebirge/ Krušné hory/Rudawy or even the south-western Bohemian Forest Mountains/Šumava.

In fact, if one only looks at the situation from the perspective of the Roman legionary who is coming from the Rhein, the Elbe appears to originate in the Ore Mountains, i.e., the Erzgebirge/ Krušné hory/Rudawy. 

Furthermore, Cassius Dio nowhere states as to whether the Vandals occupy the lands to the north of the Vandalic Mountains, to the south of them, the mountains themselves or some or all of the above.  

And, to be perfectly frank, he does not say that these mountains were named that by reason of the Vandals actually inhabiting them or territory near them or for some other reason.

The next two mentions that may be relevant come from the Marcomannic Wars (also known as the German and Sarmatian Wars, bellum Germanicum et Sarmaticum) of 166 A.D. – 180 A.D.  Specifically, Cassius mentions that, circa 171 A.D., the tribes of the Astingi (led by chieftains Raus and Raptus) and Lacringi tried to negotiate a deal with Marcus Aurelius to get some land in Dacia.  The Astingi dislodged the Costoboci and then, failing to obtain a deal with the Romans, ravaged Dacia.  The Lacringi then turned on the Astingi and defeated them.  After that the Astingi kept their head down and agreed to help Marcus Aurelius in the Marcomannic Wars against other tribes in exchange for land.

There is nothing in Marcus’ passage to suggest that these were “Vandals”.  However, it has been argued that the Astingi were the same as the Asdingi/Hasdingi who are mentioned later as a type of a Vandal “stock” (family?) in Jordanes’ Getica (albeit at that point their past wa a memory).   If so, then we have Vandals in the 2nd century in Dacia (today in Romania) – far away from Germany, Poland or even the Riesengebirge or Erzgebirge.  No one knows who the Lacringi were and they are never heard of again.

(Incidentally, the above mentioned passage ends with the following statement by Cassius Dio illustrating who he, at least, thought, the Romans called “Germans”: “for we give the name of Germans to those who dwell in the northern regions“).

Thereafter, Cassius notes that, at the end of the Marcomannic Wars, Commodus – Marcus Aurelius’ son – apparently obtained a promise from the Marcomanni not to attack “the Iazyges, the Buri, or the Vandili.”  This is the first ever unambiguous mention of the Vandals set at a specific time and – roughly – place.  If the Iazyges were on the Tisa at the time, this passage seems broadly consistent with the Vandals being in Dacia.

The last “Vandalic” passage in Cassius Dio’s work is the observation that,  circa 212 A.D. – 213 A.D., the Romans (in the person of Fabricius Luscinus though not the one from the 3rd century B.C. obviously) “stirred up enmity” between the “Vandili and the Marcomani, who had [apparently at that point] been friends.”

So, Dio identifies the Vandalic Mountains as somewhere in today’s Czech Republic but actual Vandals only in Dacia.

Exit Dio.

Other Sources

Other sources on the Vandals are scarce.

The  Historia Augusta (between 238 and 270 or 4th century) speaks of the Vandals as amongst the peoples defeated by Marcus Aurelius in Pannonia.  Flavius Eutropius of Constantinople (latter half of the 4th century, i.e, two centuries after the Marcomannic Wars) in his Compendium of Roman History, lists the Vandals among those peoples who were defeated by Marcus Aurelius during the Marcomannic Wars.  On the other hand, another East Roman author, Peter the Patrician (Πέτρος ὁ Πατρίκιος, 500 A.D. – 565 A.D.) claims (he may not have been the author of “his” History but that is neither here nor there at this point) that the Lacringi and Astingi came to help Marcus Aurellius and, as noted above in the discussion of Cassius Dio‘s work, the Emperor Commodus, apparently, ordered the Marcomanni not to attack the Iazyges, Buri or the Vandals. Thus, it would seem that the role of the Vandals changed during the course of the wars (that too is suggested by the Astingis’ (if these were Vandals) quieter stance after their defeat by the Lacringi, as per Dio above).

Jordanes in his Getica also mentions that by the Goths’ “strong right arm the Vandals were often laid low…”  and that the “Astringi” (Astingi?) were one of a number of tribes in the army of Ostrogotha which he sent against the Roman Emperor Philip (reigned 238 A.D. – 249 A.D.) or rather to loot the Empire’s provinces in Dacia and Thrace.  That army was commanded by Ostrogotha’s generals Argaithus and Guntheric and the Vandals are not otherwise mentioned here.  The invasion has been dated to 248-249 A.D.  The Vandals are notably absent from the later Gothic invasions of Cniva and the other Goths that raged in the area throughout the second half of the third century.

Publius Herennius Dexippus (Δέξιππος) (circa 210 A.D. – 273 A.D.) also briefly mentions these events in his Skythica.  According to him, the Emperor Aurelian (reigned 270 A.D. – 275 A.D.) defeated the “Vandeloi” in 271 A.D. at which point the Vandals asked for peace.  At this point Aurelian apparently conferred with his army commanders who felt charitable and they all decided to accept the peace.  Two Vandal kings gave their sons as hostages and Aurelian gave the Vandals provisions enough to enable them to return to Dacia.  A band of five hundred Vandals strayed, however, and ravaged Moesia.  They were defeated by the Romans and the Vandal kings had the band members put to death so as not to tick off the Romans even more.   In concord with this, Peter the Patrician also claims that the Vandals crossed the Danube at the beginning of the reign of Emperor Aurelian, were defeated, sued for peace and surrendered hostages and control over trade routes.  The Historia Augusta also mentions Vandals participating (as prizes apparently – perhaps the same hostages as mentioned above) in the triumph of Emperor Aurelian.  (The same Aurelian is also mentioned as freeing the Vindelici – whoever those were then – presumably members of the breakaway “Gallic” Empire). 

These events seem to have been partly repeated during the reign of Emperor Probus (reigned 276 A.D. – 282 A.D.).  According to the same Historia Augusta, the Vandals were among the people who were resettled by the Probus, who then rebelled and who were subsequently crushed by him.  This seems to be confirmed by Zossimus (490s–510s) in his New History (probably relying on Eunapius).  Zossimus also, interestingly, states that Probus fought against the Vandals and Burgundians suggesting that the two, at least at the time of Probus, were distinct groups.

Another source that deserves mentioning here is the Tabula Peutingeriana of the 3rd-5th century (?) which lists the “Vanduli” squeezed between the Danube and the Marcomanni.

  Where Does this Leave Us?

Thus, the examination of the earliest authors after the four mentioned previously (Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus and Ptolemy) reveals relatively little of Vandal history.  Very generally, at the end of the second century and throughout the third, they appear on the Danube along with many other tribes converging slowly on the Roman Empire.

• Pre-Marcomannic Wars (?) – Vandals’ location at this point is completely unclear.   Based on the sole reference by Cassius Dio to “Vandalic” Mountains, it is possible – on the assumption that these mountains were named for their inhabitants – that they lived somewhere in or around the  mountains surrounding Bohemia.  Whether this was north, south, west, east of or in Bohemia itself is, of course, speculation.

• Marcomannic Wars (166 A.D. – 180 A.D.) – Vandals (perhaps including the Asdingi and/or Lacringi) take part in the wars in Dacia (?) and then (?) in Pannonia.  At first some (but not all – Lacringi?) of them fight against the Roman Empire (Asdingi?) and are defeated.  Then they become friends with the Romans again.  Whether these are the same Vandals as those of Pliny or whether these are the Vindelici of Strabo or both, we do not know.  This occurred in the reign of Marcus Aurelius and then Commodus.

• Circa 212 A.D. – 213 A.D. – Vandals are now friends with the Marcomanni but the Romans set them against each other – whether this leads to a war we do not know.  This occurred in the reign of the Emperor Antoninus, aka, Caracalla.

• Circa 248 A.D.-249 A.D. – The “Asdringi” are part of a large Gothic force invading Dacia and Moesia.  Vandals defeated by Goths (?)

• Reigns of Aurelian and Probus (270 A.D. – 282 A.D.) (there actually were two emperors in between too) – the Vandals are defeated, resettled, rebel again and a re defeated again.

Taking this all in, it seems that a group or groups by the name Vandals operated in a minor (relative to the Marcomanni, Quadi and Iazyges) role during and shortly after the Marcomannic Wars.  Thereafter, they established themselves on the Danube and were a small irritant to the Romans from time to time.

Next time, we will see what other peoples thought of where the Vandals came from.  We will look at Jordanes (above what we already wrote), Procopius, Paul the Deacon and maybe some others.

Source Materials

Cassius Dio’s Historiae Romanae (55.1) 

[1] “The events related happened in the consulship of Iullus Antonius and Fabius Maximus.  In the following year Drusus became consul with Titus Crispinus, and omens occurred that were anything but favourable to him.  Many buildings were destroyed by storm and by thunderbolts, among them many temples; even that of Jupiter Capitolinus and the gods worshipped with him was injured.

“ταῦτα μὲν ἐπί τε τοῦ Ἰούλλου Ἀντωνίου καὶ ἐπὶ Φαβίου Μαξίμου ὑπάτων ἐγένετο, τῷ δὲ ἐχομένῳ ἔτει ὁ Δροῦσος μετὰ Τίτου Κρισπίνου ὑπάτευσε, καὶ αὐτῷ σημεῖα οὐκ ἀγαθὰ συνηνέχθη: πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ καὶ ἄλλα καὶ χειμῶνι καὶ κεραυνοῖς, πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ναοὶ ἐφθάρησαν, ὥστε καὶ τὸν τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ Καπιτωλίου τῶν τε συννάων αὐτοῦ κακωθῆναι.”

[2] Drusus, however, paid no heed to any of these things, but invaded the country of the Chatti and advanced as far as that of the Suebi, conquering with difficulty the territory traversed and defeating the forces that attacked him only after considerable bloodshed. From there he proceeded to the country of the Cherusci, and crossing the Visurgis, advanced as far as the Albis, pillaging everything on his way.

“οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἐφρόντισέ τι αὐτῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ἔς τε τὴν τῶν Χάττωνἐσέβαλε καὶ προῆλθε μέχρι τῆς Σουηβίας, τήν τε ἐν ποσὶν οὐκἀταλαιπώρως χειρούμενος καὶ τοὺς προσμιγνύντας οἱ οὐκ ἀναιμωτὶκρατῶν. κἀντεῦθεν πρός τε τὴν Χερουσκίδα μετέστη, καὶ τὸνΟὐίσουργον διαβὰς ἤλασε”

[3] The Albis rises in the Vandalic Mountains, and empties, a mighty river, into the northern ocean.  Drusus undertook to cross this river, but failing in the attempt, set up trophies and withdrew. For a woman of superhuman size met him and said:  ‘Whither, pray, art thou hastening, insatiable Drusus? It is not fated that thou shalt look upon all these lands. But depart; for the end alike of thy labours and of thy life is already at hand.’

“μέχρι τοῦ Ἀλβίου, πάντα πορθῶν. ἐκεῖνον γάρ ῾ῥεῖ δὲ ἐκ τῶν Οὐανδαλικῶν ὀρῶν, καὶ ἐς τὸν ὠκεανὸν τὸν προσάρκτιον πολλῷμεγέθει ἐκδίδωσιν᾽ ἐπεχείρησε μὲν περαιωθῆναι, οὐκ ἠδυνήθη δέ, ἀλλὰτρόπαια στήσας ἀνεχώρησε: γυνὴ γάρ τις μείζων ἢ κατὰ ἀνθρώπουφύσιν ἀπαντήσασα αὐτῷ ἔφη ‘ποῖ δῆτα ἐπείγῃ, Δροῦσε ἀκόρεστε; οὐπάντα σοι ταῦτα ἰδεῖν πέπρωται. ἀλλ᾽ ἄπιθι: καὶ γάρ σοι καὶ τῶνἔργων καὶ τοῦ βίου τελευτὴ”

[4] It is indeed marvellous that such a voice should have come to any man from the Deity, yet I cannot discredit the tale; for Drusus immediately departed, and as he was returning in haste, died on the way of some disease before reaching the Rhine.

“ἤδη πάρεστι.’ θαυμαστὸν μὲν οὖν τό τινα φωνὴν παρὰ ῾̣̣̓οῦδαιμονίου τοιαύτην τῳ γενέσθαι, οὐ μέντοι και ἀπιστεῖν ἔχω: παραχρῆμα γὰρ ἀπέβη, σπουδῇ τε ὑποστρέψαντος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τῇὁδῷ νόσῳ τινί, πρὶν ἐπὶ τὸν Ῥῆνον ἐλθεῖν, τελευτήσαντος.”

[5] And I find confirmation of the story in these incidents: wolves were prowling about the camp and howling just before his death; two youths were seen riding through the midst of the camp; a sound as of women lamenting was heard; and there were shooting stars in the sky.  So much for these events.”

“καί μοι τεκμηριοῖ τὸ λεχθὲν ὅτι καὶ λύκοι περὶ τὸ στρατόπεδον ὑπὸτὸν θάνατον αὐτοῦ περινοστοῦντες ὠρύοντο, καὶ νεανίσκοι δύο διὰμέσου τοῦ ταφρεύματος διιππεύοντες ὤφθησαν, θρῆνός τέ τιςγυναικεῖος ἠκούσθη, καὶ ἀστέρων διαδρομαὶ ἐγένοντο.”

Cassius Dio’s Historiae Romanae (72.11 & 72.12)

[72.11.6] “Both the Astingi and the Lacringi came to the assistance of Marcus.”

“ὅτι ἦλθον καὶ Ἄστιγγοι καὶ Λάκριγγοι εἰς βοήθειαν τοῦ Μάρκου.”

[72.12.1] “The Astingi, led by their chieftains Raus and Raptus, came into Dacia with their entire households, hoping to secure both money and land in return for their alliance. But failing of their purpose, they left their wives and children under the protection of Clemens, until they should acquire the land of the Costoboci by their arms; but upon conquering that people, they proceeded to injure Dacia no less than before.”

“ὅτι Ἄστιγγοι, ὧν Ῥᾶός τε καὶ Ῥάπτος ἡγοῦντο, ἦλθον μὲν ἐς τὴνΔακίαν οἰκῆσαι ¹ ἐλπίδι τοῦ καὶ χρήματα καὶ χώραν ἐπὶ συμμαχίᾳλήψεσθαι, μὴ τυχόντες δὲ αὐτῶν παρακατέθεντο τὰς γυναῖκας καὶτοὺς παῖδας τῷ Κλήμεντι ὡς καὶ τὴν τῶν Κοστουβώκων χώραν τοῖςὅπλοις κτησόμενοι, νικήσαντες δὲ ἐκείνους καὶ τὴν Δακίαν”

[72.12.2] “The Lacringi, fearing that Clemens in his dread of them might lead these newcomers into the land which they themselves were inhabiting, attacked them while off their guard and won a decisive victory.  As a result, the Astingi committed no further acts of hostility against the Romans, but in response to urgent supplications addressed to Marcus they received from him both money and the privilege of asking for land in case they should inflict some injury upon those who were then fighting against him.”

“οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐλύπουν. δείσαντες δὲ οἱ Λάκριγγοι μὴ καὶ ὁ Κλήμηςφοβηθείς σφας ἐς τὴν γῆν ἣν αὐτοὶ ἐνῴκουν ἐσαγάγῃ, ἐπέθεντοαὐτοῖς μὴ προσδεχομένοις καὶ πολὺ ἐκράτησαν, ὥστε μηδὲν ἔτιπολέμιον τοὺς Ἀστίγγους πρὸς τοὺς Ῥωμαίους πρᾶξαι, πολλὰ δὲ δὴτὸν Μᾶρκον ἱκετεύσαντας χρήματά τε παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λαβεῖν καὶ χώραν γεἀπαιτῆσαι, ἄν γέ τι κακὸν τοὺς ”

[72.12.3] “Now this tribe really did fulfill some of its promises; whereas the Cotini, though they made similar offers, nevertheless, upon receiving Tarrutenius Paternus, the secretary in charge of the emperor’s Latin correspondence, on the pretext that they wished to make a campaign with him against the Marcomani, not only failed to do so, but even treated Paternus himself shamefully, thereby bringing about their own destruction later.”

“τότε πολεμοῦντάς οἱ δράσωσι. καὶ οὗτοι μὲν ἔπραξάν τι ὧνὑπέσχοντο, Κοτινοὶ δὲ ἐπηγγείλαντο  μὲν  αὐτοῖς ὅμοια, Ταρρουτήνιον δὲ Πάτερνον τὸν τὰς ἐπιστολὰς αὐτοῦ τὰς Λατίναςδιὰ χειρὸς ἔχοντα παραλαβόντες ὡς καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς Μαρκομάνους αὐτῷσυστρατεύσοντες οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἐποίησαν τοῦτο, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸνἐκεῖνον δεινῶς ἐκάκωσαν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀπώλοντο.”

[72.12.5] “When the Marcomani were successful in a certain battle and slew Marcus Vindex, the prefect, the emperor erected three statues in his honour; and after conquering the foe he himself received the title of Germanicus (for we give the name of Germans to those who dwell in the northern regions).”

“τῶν δὲ Μαρκομάνων εὐτυχησάντων ἔν τινι μάχῃ καὶ τὸν Οὐίνδικα τὸν Μᾶρκον ἔπαρχον ὄντα ἀποκτεινάντων, τούτῳ μὲν τρεῖςἀνδριάντας ἔστησε, κρατήσας δὲ αὐτῶν Γερμανικὸς ὠνομάσθη: Γερμανοὺς γὰρ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἄνω χωρίοις οἰκοῦντας ὀνομάζομεν.”

Cassius Dio’s Historiae Romanae (73.2)

[1] “The Marcomani by reason of the multitude of their people that were perishing and the constant ravishing of their lands no longer had an abundance of either food or men. At any rate they sent only two of their chief men and two others of inferior rank as envoys to sue for peace.”

“ ὅτι οἱ Μαρκομάνοι οὔτε τροφὴν οὔτ᾽ ἄνδρας συχνοὺς ὑπό τε τοῦπλήθους τῶν ἀπολλυμένων καὶ ὑπὸ τῆς ἀεὶ τῶν χωρίων κακώσεωςἔτι εἶχον: δύο γοῦν μόνους τῶν πρώτων καὶ δύο ἄλλους τῶνκαταδεεστέρων πρέσβεις πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὲρ τῆς ”

“εἰρήνης ἔπεμψαν. καὶ ἐξεργάσασθαι αὐτοὺς δυνάμενος ῥᾳδίως, μισόπονος δὲ δὴ ὢν καὶ πρὸς τὰς ἀστικὰς ῥᾳστώνας ἐπειγόμενοςἐσπείσατο αὐτοῖς ἐπί τε τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐφ᾽ οἷς ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦσυνετέθειτο, καὶ ἵνα τούς τε αὐτομόλους καὶ τοὺς αἰχμαλώτους, οὓςμετὰ ταῦτα ἔλαβον, ἀποδῶσιν αὐτῷ, καὶ σῖτόν τινα κατ᾽ ἔτοςτακτὸν τελῶσιν,”

[3] “Moreover, he obtained some arms from them and soldiers as well, thirteen thousand from the Quadi [actually Kouadi] and a smaller number from the Marcomani; and in return for these he relieved them of the requirement of an annual levy.”

“ ὃν ὕστερον αὐτοῖς ἀφῆκεν. ὅπλα τέ τινα παρ᾽ αὐτῶν ἔλαβε, καὶστρατιώτας παρὰ μὲν τῶν Κουάδων μυρίους καὶ τρισχιλίους, παρὰ δὲτῶν Μαρκομάνων ἐλάττους: ἀνθ᾽ ὧν ἀνῆκεν αὐτοῖς τὸ”

[4] “However, he further commanded that they should not assemble often nor in many parts of the country, but only once each month and in one place, and in the presence of a Roman centurion; and, furthermore, that they should not make war upon the Iazyges, the Buri, or the Vandili.  On these terms, then, he made peace and abandoned all the outposts in their country beyond the strip along the frontier that had been neutralized . . .”

“ κατ᾽ ἔτος διδόναι τινάς. προσεπέταξε μέντοι σφίσιν ἵνα μήτεπολλάκις μήτε πολλαχοῦ τῆς χώρας ἀθροίζωνται, ἀλλ᾽ ἅπαξ ἐνἑκάστῳ μηνὶ καὶ ἐς τόπον ἕνα ἑκατοντάρχου τινὸς Ῥωμαίου παρόντος,πρὸς δὲ καὶ ἵνα μήτε τοῖς Ἰάζυξι μήτε τοῖς Βούροις μήτε τοῖς Οὐανδίλοις* πολεμῶσιν. ἐπὶ μὲν τούτοις συνηλλάγη, καὶ τά τεφρούρια πάντα τὰ ἐν τῇ χώρᾳ αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ τὴν μεθορίαν τὴνἀποτετμημένην ὄντα ἐξέλιπεν…”

*ou)andi/lois, bandh/lois; cf. bandi/lous.

Cassius Dio’s Historiae Romanae (78.20)

[2.2] “Antoninus maligned himself when he claimed that he had overcome the recklessness, greed, and treachery of the Germans by deceit, since these qualities could not be conquered by force.”

“ὅτι ὁ Ἀντωνῖνος ἑαυτὸν διέβαλε, φάσκων ὅτι τῶν Κελτῶν τὴνθρασύτητα καὶ τὴν ἀπληστίαν τήν τε ἀπιστίαν, ἀνάλωτον οὖσαν βίᾳ, ἀπατήσας εἰλήφει.”

[3] “He likewise commended Fabricius Luscinus because he had been unwilling to secure the death of Pyrrhus through the treachery of a friend; and yet he took pride in having stirred up enmity [about 212/213] with the Vandili and the Marcomani, who had been friends, and in having executed Gaïobomarus/Gaïovomarus, the king of the Quadi, against whom accusation had been laid.”

“ὅτι ὁ αὐτὸς τὸν μὲν Λουσκῖνον τὸν Φαβρίκιον ἐπῄνει ὅτι μὴἠθέλησε τὸν Πύρρον διὰ τοῦ φίλου αὐτοῦ δολοφονῆσαι, ἐμεγαλοφρονεῖτο δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ τοὺς Οὐανδίλους καὶ τοὺς Μαρκομάνους φίλους ὄντας ἀλλήλοις συγκεκρουκέναι, καὶ ὅτι καὶ τὸν τῶνΚουάδων βασιλέα Γαϊοβόμαρον”

 Publius Herennius Dexippus’ Skythica

(ed. Karl Wilhem Ludwig Müller – see also Jacoby for the “modern” version)

Historia Augusta

Marcus Aurelius Part 2

[17] “Toward the provinces from then on he acted with extreme restraint and consideration. He carried on a successful campaign against the Germans.  He himself singled out the Marcomannic war — a war which surpassed any in the memory of man — and waged it with both valour and success, and that at a time when a grievous pestilence had carried away thousands of civilians and soldiers.  And so, by crushing the Marcomanni, the Sarmatians, the Vandals, and even the Quadi, he freed the Pannonias from bondage,”

“Ergo provincias post haec ingenti moderatione ac benignitate tractavit. contra Germanos res feliciter gessit. speciale ipse bellum Marcomannicum, sed quantum nulla umquam memoria fuit, cum virtute tum etiam felicitate transegit, et eo quidem tempore quo pestilentia gravis multa milia et popularium et militum interemerat. Pannonias ergo, Marcomannis Sarmatis Vandalis simul etiam Quadis exstinctis, servitio liberavit et Romae cum Commodo, quem iam Caesarem fecerat, filio, ut diximus, suo triumphavit.”

Historia Augusta

Life of Aurelian Part 2

[33] “There were Blemmyes, Axomitae, Arabs from Arabia Felix, Indians, Bactrians, Hiberians, Saracens and Persians, all bearing their gifts; there were Goths, Alans, Roxolani, Sarmatians, Franks, Suebians, Vandals and Germans — all captive, with their hands bound fast.”

“Blemmyes, Axomitae, Arabes Eudaemones, Indi, Bactriani, Hiberi, Saraceni, Persae cum suis quique muneribus; Gothi, Alani, Roxolani, Sarmatae, Franci, Suebi, Vandali, Germani, religatis manibus captivi.”

Historia Augusta

Life of Aurelian Part 3

[41] “He it was who gave us back the provinces of Gaul, he who set Italy free, he who removed from the Vindelici the yoke of barbarian enslavement.”

“ille nobis Gallias dedit, ille Italiam liberavit, ille66 Vindelicis iugum barbaricae servitutis amovit.”

Historia Augusta 

Life of Probus

[18] “Having made peace, then, with the Persians, he returned to Thrace, and here he settled one hundred thousand Bastarnae on Roman soil, all of whom remained loyal.  But when he had likewise brought over many from other tribes, that is, Gepedes, Greuthungi and Vandals, they all broke faith, and when Probus was busied with wars against the pretenders they roved over well nigh the entire world on foot or in ships and did no little damage to the glory of Rome.  He crushed them, however, at diverse times and by various victories, and only a few returned to their homes, enjoying glory because they had made their escape from the hands of Probus. Such were Probus’ exploits among the barbarians.”

“Facta igitur pace cum Persis ad Thracias rediit et centum milia Bastarnarum in solo Romano constituit, qui omnes fidem servarunt.  sed cum et ex aliis gentibus plerosque pariter transtulisset, id est ex Gepedis, Greuthungis et Vandalis, illi omnes fidem fregerunt et occupato bellis tyrannicis Probo per totum paene orbem pedibus et navigando vagati sunt nec parum molestiae Romanae gloriae intulerunt.  quos quidem ille diversis vicibus variisque victoriis oppressit, paucis domum cum gloria redeuntibus, quod Probi evasissent manus. haec Probus cum barbaris gessit.”

FlaviusEutropius’ Compendium of Roman History, Book VIII

[13] “Having persevered, therefore, with the greatest labour and patience, for three whole years at Carnuntum, he brought the Marcomannic war to an end; a war which the Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Suevi, and all the barbarians in that quarter, had joined with the Marcomanni in raising; he killed several thousand men, and, having delivered the Pannonians from slavery, triumphed a second time at Rome with his son Commodus Antoninus, whom he had previously made Caesar.  As he had no money to give his soldiers, in consequence of the treasury having been exhausted for the support of the war, and as he was unwilling to lay any tax on the provinces or the senate, he sold off all his imperial furniture and decorations, by an auction held in the forum of the emperor Trajan, consisting of vessels of gold, cups of crystal and murrha, silk garments belonging to his wife and himself, embroidered with gold, and numbers of jewelled ornaments. This sale was continued through two successive months, and a great quantity of money was raised from it. After his victory, however, he gave back the money to such of the purchasers as were willing to restore what they had bought, but was by no means troublesome to any one who preferred to keep their purchases.”

History of Peter the Patrician

(Routledge 2015, edited by  Thomas M. Banchich)

Jordanes Getica, Chapter 16

(89) “Now the Gothic race gained great fame in the region where they were then dwelling, that is in the Scythian land on the shore of Pontus, holding undisputed sway over great stretches of country, many arms of the sea and many river courses. By their strong right arm the Vandals were often laid low, the Marcomanni held their footing by paying tribute and the princes of the Quadi were reduced to slavery. Now when the aforesaid Philip–who, with his son Philip, was the only Christian emperor before Constantine–ruled over the Romans, in the second year of his reign Rome completed its one thousandth year. He withheld from the Goths the tribute due them; whereupon they were naturally enraged and instead of friends became his foes. For though they dwelt apart under their own kings, yet they had been allied to the Roman state and received annual gifts. (90) And what more? Ostrogotha and his men soon crossed the Danube and ravaged Moesia and Thrace. Philip sent the senator Decius against him. And since he could do nothing against the Getae, he released his own soldiers from military service and sent them back to private life, as though it had been by their neglect that the Goths had crossed the Danube. When, as he supposed, he had thus taken vengeance on his soldiers, he returned to Philip. But when the soldiers found themselves expelled from the army after so many hardships, in their anger they had recourse to the protection of Ostrogotha, king of the Goths. (91) He received them, was aroused by their words and presently led out three hundred thousand armed men, having as allies for this war some of the Taifali and Astringi and also three thousand of the Carpi, a race of men very ready to make war and frequently hostile to the Romans. But in later times when Diocletian and Maximian were Emperors, the Caesar Galerius Maximianus conquered them and made them tributary to the Roman Empire. Besides these tribes, Ostrogotha had Goths and Peucini from the island of Peuce, which lies in the mouths of the Danube where they empty into the Sea of Pontus. He placed in command Argaithus and Guntheric, the noblest leaders of his race. (92) They speedily crossed the Danube, devastated Moesia a second time and approached Marcianople, the famed metropolis of that land. Yet after a long siege they departed, upon receiving money from the inhabitants.”

Zossimus, Historia Nova (Book I)

“Another of [Probus’] battles was against the Franks, whom he subdued through the good conduct of his commanders. He made war on the Burgundi and the Vandili.  But seeing that his forces were too weak, he endeavoured to separate those of his enemies, and engage only with a part.  His design was favoured by fortune; for the armies lying on both sides of the river, the Romans challenged the Barbarians that were on the further side to fight.  This so incensed them, that many of them crossed over, and fought until the Barbarians were all either slain or taken by the Romans; except a few that remained behind, who sued for peace, on con.dition of giving up their captives and plunder; which was acceded to.  But as they did not restore all that they had taken, the emperor was so enraged, that he fell on them as they were retiring, killed many of them, and took prisoner their general Igillus. All of them that were taken alive were sent to Britain, where they settled, and were subsequently very serviceable to the emperor when any insurrection broke out. The wars upon the Rhine being thus terminated…”

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

The Vandals are a curious people.  They are apparently a Scandinavian group but rather a late comer to the light of history.  What do we know of them? (For Part I of this series, see here).

Turns out rather little before their Rhine Crossing of 405 or 406.

But Aren’t Vandals an Ancient People known to Romans?

It depends on how one looks at this question.  Let’s look at Strabo, Pliny, Tacitus and Ptolemy first.

Strabo – Not Really

Strabo, who was the earliest of the four, does not speak of Vandals.  He does speak of the Vindelici who fought Tiberius on Lake Venetos but those were, supposedly, Celts and we have made a case that they may have been Slavs or a portion of pre-Slavs.  (See also here).  In any event, “mainstream” historians do not claim these Vindelici as Vandals…

Ptolemy – Don’t Know That Name

Ptolemy who wrote mid 2nd century and, therefore, closest to the appearance (reappearance?) of Vandals on the Danube, does not know of any Vandals. To be precise: Ptolemy does mention the Silingi.*  However, he does not say that they were Vandals.  The Silingi are called Vandals only later in the 5th century.  In fact, this is the single mention of the Silingi before the 5th century.  In truth we do not have proof that the Ptolemaic SiIingi were the same as the later Vandal Silingi.  Nevertheless, we ought to mention them.

* Incidentally, Ketrzynski claims that the number of manuscripts that mention the Silingi is one, whereas 38 mention just Lingi.  We have not confirmed this though, if true, that might put into question whether the Silingi even existed under that name… The below 1562 edition of Ptolemy seems to support Ketrzynski but, of course, according to Mommsen and his progeny, the rule is that German scholarship only has to show a single mention of the SIlingae – the other 38 are naturally immaterial:

And where did Ptolemy place the (Si)lingi?  Silesia, surely?  Not really.  Ptolemy places the Suevi Semnones between the Albis (Elbe) and the Suevus (whatever river that was).  South of (or rather “below”) them he places the Silingi.  Then he says that “below the Silingae are the Calucones on both banks of the river Albis”.  This means that the Silingi must have been somewhere west of the Oder – probably in the later Mark Brandenburg.

Where does the name Silingi come from?  The obvious suggestion given the probable origin of all Germanic peoples would be in Scandinavia – specifically, the island of Sjælland in Denmark – a hypothesis supported by no less an authority on the Germanic peoples than Gustaf Kossina.  Alternatively, also, Zeeland in the Netherlands would make a good candidate.  (Whether either of these could be the Selentia of Gallus Anonymous is another question).

(Again, the Silingi are never heard from again in Germany and, if this indicates, a transitory character of their appearance there, all the more reason to believe that they and their name originated somewhere else.  Of course, it is possible that Silesia was named after a passing Silingi but (A) we have a different etymology of the name Silesia in German chronicles, (B) there is no evidence so far for any Silingi in Silesia and (C) if the Silingi were in Brandenburg in the 2nd century and in Dacia in the 2nd/3rd (?) there would not have been much time for them to have spent in Silesia).

That’s all for Ptolemy.

Which leaves us with Tacitus and Pliny the Elder.

But Didn’t Tacitus Write of the Vandals?

Sort of.

In his “chapter” 2 of Germania, Tacitus says the following:

“The Germans themselves, I should regard as aboriginal, and not mixed at all with other races through immigration or intercourse. For, in former times, it was not by land but on shipboard that those who sought to emigrate would arrive; and the boundless and, so to speak, hostile ocean beyond us, is seldom entered by a sail from our world. And, beside the perils of rough and unknown seas, who would leave Asia, or Africa, or Italy for Germany, with its wild country, its inclement skies, its sullen manners and aspect, unless indeed it were his home? In their ancient songs, their only way of remembering or recording the past, they celebrate an earth-born god, Tuisco, and his son Mannus, as the origin of their race, as their founders.  To Mannus they assign three sons, from whose names, they say, the coast tribes are called Ingævones; those of the interior, Herminones; all the rest, Istævones.  Some, with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity, assert that the god had several descendants, and the nation several appellations, as Marsi, Gambrivii, Suevi, Vandilii,* and that these are genuine old names.  The name Germany, on the other hand, they say, is modern and newly introduced, from the fact that the tribes which first crossed the Rhine and drove out the Gauls, and are now called Tungrians, were then called Germans. Thus what was the name of a tribe, and not of a race, gradually prevailed, till all called themselves by this self-invented name of Germans, which the conquerors had first employed to inspire terror.”

“Ipsos Germanos indigenas crediderim minimeque aliarum gentium adventibus et hospitiis mixtos, quia nec terra olim, sed classibus advehebantur qui mutare sedes quaerebant, et inmensus ultra utque sic dixerim adversus Oceanus raris ab orbe nostro navibus aditur. Quis porro, praeter periculum horridi et ignoti maris, Asia aut Africa aut Italia relicta Germaniam peteret, informem terris, asperam caelo, tristem cultu adspectuque, nisi si patria sit?  Celebrant carminibus antiquis, quod unum apud illos memoriae et annalium genus est, Tuistonem deum terra editum. Ei filium Mannum, originem gentis conditoremque, Manno tris filios adsignant, e quorum nominibus proximi Oceano Ingaevones, medii Herminones, ceteri Istaevones vocentur. Quidam, ut in licentia vetustatis, pluris deo ortos plurisque gentis appellationes, Marsos Gambrivios Suebos Vandilios* adfirmant, eaque vera et antiqua nomina. Ceterum Germaniae vocabulum recens et nuper additum, quoniam qui primi Rhenum transgressi Gallos expulerint ac nunc Tungri, tunc Germani vocati sint: ita nationis nomen, non gentis evaluisse paulatim, ut omnes primum a victore ob metum, mox etiam a se ipsis, invento nomine Germani vocarentur.”

* Other manuscripts of Germania have the following forms: Wandalios, vandalos, Vandilios, Vandalios, Vandilos, Vandileos.

So all Tacitus says is that –  “with the freedom of conjecture permitted by antiquity” – some other people say the German nation had different names (including something like Vandals) sometime before but, apparently, this was not so during Tacitus’ own time since “modern” nomenclature was limited to  Ingævones, Herminones and Istævones.  That the freedom of conjecture or speculation regarding matters of antiquity is greater than permissible historical and scientific methods would otherwise allow, is obviously implicit from Tacitus’ statement.  Tacitus does not name Vandals as a tribe or a tribal confederation or any other social grouping existing as of the time of the writing of Germania.  He proceeds to name plenty of other tribes but never returns to the Vandal name.  The above reference is it.

Ok, on Tacitus – But What About Pliny?

Pliny, supposedly, says the following:

“There are five German races; the Vandili, parts of whom are the Burgundiones, the Varini, the Carini, and the Gutones.”

Actually, however, the manuscripts primarily relay another name, that of Vindili – thus the above text becomes:

“Germanorum genera quinque: Vindili,* quorum pars Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini, Gutones.”

* In some versions: Vandili, Vandali but also Vandalici, Vandilici

However, the Vindili appear similar to the Vindelici and the Vindelici are not otherwise unknown to history:

• as noted above, they are discussed by Strabo in the invasion of their lands around Lake Constance (e.g., at Bregenz) – the same report is also independently, though indirectly, confirmed on the Augusta Vindelicorum;

• in the Historia Augusta where the Emperor Aurelian is said to have freed them; and

• later as the pagan tribe worshipping Fortune (“quippe qui etiam Vindelicos et Leuticios“) alongside the Lusatians (?) in the writingsof William of Malmesbury (here they have been intepreted as Slavs).

(And, of course, the term Windische, i.e., with an “i”, is used throughout the Middle Ages to speak of the Slavs.  And, strangely, the Lici-ka-viki are the tribe of the Polish ruler Mieszko I.  (Putting aside the entire legend of the Lechites).

Considering that the manuscript versions include Vindili and also Vandilici, one question that would seemingly be in order would be whether these Vindili/Vandilici of Pliny’s could have anything to do with Strabo’s Vindilici?  But such a question does not seem to be asked a lot.  Why?  There are at least two possibilities.

First, it may be that Pliny really is talking about the same people as Strabo and, therefore, this is not really a reference to “Vandals” (whoever they then were).  If so, then Pliny would not be the first source talking about actual, “live” Vandal peoples.

Second, it is also possible that the Vindilici of Strabo were the future Vandals.  But the problem is that we know the location of the Vindilici quite accurately – they were a people settled on Lake Venetos (i.e., Lake Constance).  This connection may make sense since Lake Constance is a lot closer to the Danube than Poland is and when the Vandals actually make their (in this case less questionable appearance) appearance in the 2nd and 3rd centuries (see below), they do so precisely on the Danube.  Certainly a migration, after their defeat by Tiberius, from Lake Constance downstream along the Danube towards Pannonia (with a slight detour in Bohemia perhaps) is not an out of the question scenario and, in many ways, seems more plausible than an unexplained Vandal migration from the North.

It is true that the people who supposedly constitute the Vandals in this account of Pliny’s include Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini, Gutones.  However, the ethnicity of Varinnae is unclear – we know that they may have been a German tribe at one point but later we see them to be a Slavic-speaking tribe – why they would have changed languages (if indeed they did) remains unclear.  Their location is not given by Tacitus except in the most general terms but they are likely to have lived somewhere between Warnau just south of Kiel and Warnemuende near Rostock.  In other words, assuming these are the same people, the relevant location would be the northwest portion of the former East Germany and into Schleswig-Holstein.

The Charini, likewise, are of uncertain provenance.  Their name – at least in that form – does not appear anywhere else.

Both of those tribes exhibit in their names the characteristic Slavic -in ending.

The Burgodiones too are, surprisingly, difficult to trace.  Ptolemy names the Buguntae “who occupy the region as far as the Vistula.”  However, he also names the Burguntae “below” whom he locates the Lugi Omani.  It is likely that these are the same tribe but even that is uncertain.  In any event, if “below” means “south” and if the Lugi relate to the Lausitz, i.e., Lusatia/Łužica, and if Burgodiones means Burguntae then we should place them in the middle Oder region.  If Burgodiones are the Buguntae then that location could be pushed “as far as the Vistula” and what that means may depend on what we think Vistula meant to Pliny (on which topic, see here and here).

Finally, the Gutones may be the Gotones (located by Tacitus “beyond the Lugii” next to the Rugians and Lemovians – so, potentially, at the mouth of the Oder but maybe at the mouth of the Vistula – again, see above) but they may also be the Cotini or Gotini or Gothini  (located somewhere in Moravia or Slovakia by Tacitus).

Thus, the location of these “Vandalic” tribes – were we to use Ptolemy as a crutch in interpreting Pliny and were such a crutch a reliable one – would, perhaps, be somewhere between the Baltic Sea and further south but more likely in the former East Germany with, potentially, some spillover into Western Poland and the Carpathians.

All of this is, of course, further confused by the fact that Pliny wrote a generation before Tacitus (in the 70s) whereas Ptolemy wrote likely 70-80 years later.  Whether Ptolemy’s Geography can be used to interpret the location of highly movable tribes such a long time before it itself was written should be at least slightly questionable.

Moreover, the problem with the Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini, Gutones is that no other writer of antiquity – even if they claim a relation amongst the Goths, Vandals and others – asserts that Goths or Burgundians were Vandals.  The Vandals feature as the mortal enemies of the Goths and Langobards – not as their cousins.  The Burgundians are not spoken of as Vandals anywhere else.  And neither are the Varini.  (The Charini do not appear again).

Furthermore, the fact that the Goths, Varini and Burgundians later appear on the Danube and Rhein (and, separately named, so do the Vandals) suggests that a connection of the Vindili with the earlier Vindelici who lived south of the Danube (rather than with any tribes populating areas north of the Carpathians) may be more relevant than historians have, thus far, were willing to admit.

So Where Are We on All of This?

The concept of Vandals is fairly ancient but their origins are not to be found in the most ancient of geographers.  Nor is their then location.  Strabo speaks only of Vindelici on Lake Constance.  Pliny the Elder names a people called Vindili who may have been Vandals but may also have been the Vindelici.  Tacitus does not name any tribe existing in his time as Vandal.  Ptolemy does not mention Vandals at all.

None of the above writers of antiquity, to the extent they even mention a name that may be interpreted as Vandals, provides any location for the group.

At best, stitching sources together as best as we can, we can say that if such a people were around in this early imperial period, they lived either (A) somewhere around the Danube or (B) in eastern Germany.  In the latter case, some portion of Poland is also possible if we are talking about the upper or middle Oder/Odra.  Even that much seems a highly variable guesstimate which, in case (A), is based on entirely on Strabo and, in case (B), is based entirely on Pliny identifying other tribes as “Vandalic” and Ptolemy – separately – listing similar sounding tribe names.  Of course, it’s also possible that at some point they lived somewhere between (A) and (B) which would be Bavaria or Bohemia.

While they may have originally migrated out of Scandinavia (whatever their prior ethnicity or origin may have been before that migration), as the much later res gestae suggest, such a migration, properly set in time, is not incompatible with either case (A) or (B).   In such a case, a straight shot path towards Rome would have led over current Denmark and through eastern portions of current Germany.  Whether Vendsyssel in Denmark relates to the Vandals or the Wends (Slavs) is another mystery.  How much time they actually spent in any of intermediate locations between Scandinavia and the Danube would be another question.  And that question further assumes that the “same people” left Scandinavia as the people who are later reported on the Danube or in Gall – which is yet another unprovable assumption.  Not to mention that we would also have, in case of such a migration, the question of who lived in the Vandals path across Germany.

We will not get more information on any of these topics as the chronicles, such as they are, are silent.  What we are dealing with here is, at best, Vandal pre-history.

To get more information on the Vandals in later times we will have to look past these earliest of sources.

That, next time.

(Incidentally, Pliny does speak of the geographic location (if in only very vague terms) of the Veneti:

“Some writers state that these regions, as far as the river Vistula, are inhabited by the Sarmati, the Venedi, the Sciri [known later to be a Germanic (?) tribe in Pannonia], and the Hirri, and that there is a gulf there known by the name of Cylipenus, at the mouth of which is the island of Latris, after which comes another gulf, that of Lagnus, which borders on the Cimbri.”)

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

Poles as Vandals

An interesting aspect of the debates about the “pre-historic” past of Poland has been the insistence on a Vandal connection.  That insistence has a long tradition.  An early reference is Gerhard from Augsburg’s statement that in year 992 there died “Misica dux Vandalorum“ referring to Mieszko I of Poland.  Of course, “Wandal” was then prominently featured in various Polish sources:

• Kadlubek mentions, Wanda the princess who was the daughter of Krak;

• Dzierzwa (Mierzwa) Chronicle puts a Vandalus in the family tree of the first Poles;

• Greater Poland Chronicles name Vistula the River Vandalus after the same Wanda and hence the Poles become known as Vandals, etc.

Elsewhere, in Fredegar, there is a Croccus (Krak?) who is presented as a Vandal (as opposed to Gregory of Tours’ Alemanic prince).  All of this contributed to the thinking that the Poles were the descendants of Vandals – simplistically, not that some were but that all were – or at least the important ones.  (An exhaustive literature deals with this topic and we will not repeat all of that here).

Later, the Bishop of Warmia/Ermland, the Polonized German, Marcin Kromer claimed that the Slavs were not Illyrians, nor Dacian nor Germans (in the then “modern” sense) nor Vandals (“Polonos & Slauos, Vandalos non esse“).  Rather, he said, the Slavs were related to the old Veneti who were Sarmatians.  That is, for Kromer, Sarmatian was not an ethnic concept as much as geographic and he noted that the Veneti came out of Sarmatia and out of the Veneti there came Slavs.  In this discussion he based his reasoning primarily on the work of Jordanes.  And he too, like the earlier Polish authors, presented his views in the “all or nothing” package.

In the centuries that followed, the Poles dropped the “Vandal” attire and began to view themselves as Sarmatians.  In fact, Polish nobility developed an entire “Sarmatian” style.  However, in doing so, they basically ignored the Veneti and focused, instead on re-creating the old Sarmatian, as they imagined him, which, in practical terms, for them, came to mean someone with an appearance of an Eastern-flavored Scythian/Cossack type with a heavy dose of the then relevant Tatar and Turkish styles.

Germans as Vandals

The Polish move away from the Vandals left the field open for the Germans to claim the Vandals as their own.  The Vandals, at least of the sixth century, spoke Germanic, i.e., Gothic, as per Procopius (History of the Wars, Book III, Vandalic War, chapter II):

“There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at the present, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths, and Gepaedes. In ancient times, however, they were named Sauromatae and Melanchlaeni; and there were some too who called these nations Getic.  All these, while they are distinguished from one another by their names, as has been said, do not differ in anything else at all. For they all have white bodies and fair hair, and are tall and handsome to look upon, and they use the same laws and practise a common religion. For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one language called Gothic; and, as it seems to me, they all came originally from one tribe, and were distinguished later by the names of those who led each group. This people used to dwell above the Ister River from of old.”

Furthermore, the then names of Vandal leaders certainly did sound Gothic.  Thus, it was possible to identify the Vandals as Germanic speaking – again, at least as of the sixth century.

That, in turn, translated into politics and the the expansionist aims of the German Reichs (both the second of the 19th century and the third of the 20th).   It was claimed that the Vandals (and Goths and other Germanic tribes) inhabited all of Central Europe and so the Germans were now simply reclaiming their property which, previously had been stolen (when the Germans were out fighting Romans) by the Slavs (who came from the Pripet Marshes or Urals or space) when no one was looking.

Of course, this too was an “all or nothing” type of thinking.  Had the Vandals been in, e.g., Poland, they would have left some of their offspring there presumably who would then (presumably) be Poles.  At the same time, the “Germans” of the time may well have been Germanized Slavs.  To have the latter claim more ownership of Vandal heritage would seem bizarre* but there you have it.  (The Nazis, of course, took a more “nuanced” view and went out looking for “Aryan” children amongst the Slavs as part of their Lebensborn program – Poland lost about 200,000 children this way – most of whom live as Germans to this day and do not know who they are).

Although today no sane German claims any part of Poland (or any other European country) on the basis of some mythical Vandal past, the rapprochement in historical science has resulted in the wide acceptance that Vandals, in fact, had been in Poland and many historians and archeologists – German, Polish and Scandinavian – claim as much.  In particular, the Vandals have been associated with the so-called Przeworsk “culture” of pots and pans.

But What of the “Real” Vandals?

We will not deal with the archeologists as their pots and pans are not known to have been stamped “Made in Vandalia”.  We will ask, however, what the historians say of the Vandals.

Next time.

* Not to mention that the references to the Sarmatians and the Melanchlaeni above could serve to build an entirely new theory of the “Scandinavians” coming into Europe last, in an (appropriately styled) pincer maneuver, whereby the first wave would have been the northern one that pushed past Finns into Scandinavia and then south through future Denmark and the second wave were the other Goths, Vandals and others who would have come from the Volga region a century ahead of the Huns.  Alas, we leave that for others to construct – though note such a theory might have the advantage of explaining the Tocharian language being centum!

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

It is a fact that no one had recorded the name Wanda before Master Vincentius Kadlubek.  (On the story see here).  The assertion, therefore, has been made that Kadlubek just made it up.

He also stated that “name, they say, is the name of the River Wandal[us] [meaning Wisla/Vistula] derived, for that [river] was the center of her kingdom; so too all those who were under her rule became known as Vandals.”  In the version coming from the Greater Poland Chronicles, Wanda receives the homage from the Alemanni and a loyalty oath and, to thank the Gods, after returning home, she offers herself in sacrifice by jumping into the Wisla/Vistula.  And “[f]or this reason, the river Wisla from Queen Wanda has received the name Wandal.  And from that the Poles and other Slavic peoples who border their country stopped being called Lechites and began to be called Vandals.”

It has been noted that already Isidore from Seville derived the Vandals from the river Vindelicus (not Vandalicus) while also bringing up the Alemanni: “…They say that the Lanus is a river beyond the Danube, after which the Alani were named, just as the people living by the river Lemannus [or Lake Leman] are called Alemanni. About these Lucan says … The River Vindilicus springs from the far frontier of Gaul and people maintain that the Vandals lived by it and got their name from it.”  See here.

What is interesting, however, is that the name Wando had been in use before and was even borne by a Catholic Saint – Saint Wando of Fontenelle.  We can read about him the Gesta Abbatum Fonanellensium – the Deeds of the Abbots of Fontenelle (the later Abbey of Saint-Wandrille or Abbaye de Saint-Wandrille de Fontenelle) an early to mid-9th century work the earliest surviving manuscript comes from the 11th century.  This Benedictine abbey of Fontenelle (or Saint Wandrille) (of which Wando had been an abbott) is located in Normandy.  Saint Wando died about the year 756.

All in all nothing special here.  Except, right after the chapter discussing Wando (among others), we have a chapter discussing Milo.  And in that Chapter we have a mention of an abbess (i.e., a female abbot of a nun abbey or, if you will, a “mother superior”).  She was the abbess of the nearby abbey at Caudebequet.  And her name was… Wisla.  Here is the text:

So the question is, is this the source of the idea for Kadlubek?  Or is it just coincidence?

And, in any event, why are abbesses in the 7th century north of France called Wisla?  There is a Slavic name Wislawa.  Of course, Wisla has been recorded “before the Slavs”… Mysteries continue.

The text also contains further references regarding our prior topic, the Viltaburg and the Veleti.

Poland recently elected a new President and much of Europe and the world winced as the candidate had previously been described by the concerned media establishment as “nationalist” or “conservative”.  Worse yet is the fact that he comes from a political party noted for its real or perceived Euroscepticism and a lukewarm approach to Germany as the main driver of European integration.

Given the whole Greece thing and Britain always teetering on the edge of more teetering, a Polish President imbued with an unease towards the most European of all European states is of, course, not something that Europe needs at the moment.

So have the Poles really pulled a fast one and put in a place someone that will represent the nation’s “national” interests?   Are German Eurocrats really worried?

We have come across a hidden German archive that seems to indicate the calm, stable hand of the Bundeskanzlerin has absolutely no reason to flinch or tremble.  It’s all proceeding according to plan:

So is that it? (after all there was a Count Dudo – see under year 880 in the Annals of Fulda).

Duda is an East Goth and that’s that!

But then we came across another page from the same work that raises some concerns:

What is that “nicht befriedigend gedeutet”?  Was soll das sein?

And who were these Ostgoten after all?

The Spannung only rises.

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved

The original (or at least as original as we think) story of Krak was put to pen by Master Vincentius (Wincenty) aka Kadlubek in his Polish Chronicle.  We have previously explored the origin of the Krak name/persona but did not delve into the actual Krak legend.  Given that we’ve already given space to the legend of Piast, it seems fitting that we should also finally get to Krak. This then is that story.  (We will also get to the Czech Krok, of course!)

(The chronicle is in the form of a dialogue between Matthew and John, Polish clergymen that Master Vincentius greatly respected.  For the duration of the Krak tale, Matthew is the one telling the tale while John chimes in with philosophical observations (usually taken from the Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus of Marcus Junianus Justinus).  Since the latter are not relevant to the story of Krak, we’ve left them out and only have Matthew speaking).

The Legend of Krak

“It is said too that at time it was the Gauls who had taken control of almost all of the world.  Our legions killed a great number of them in many a battle.  The ones that remained, a long time harassed, our men compelled to an agreement that stated that, whether by fortune or by bravery, either side should gain something from others, each side should get an equal share.  The Galls received all of Greece and we got the lands running from, on the one side, the country of the Parthians, on the other side all at the way to Bulgaria and on the third side to the borders of Carinthia.  Then after many a battle with the Romans, after braving many a danger of war, they took over cities, setting up regional governors and elected a duke by the name of Gracchus.  But eventually they [it appears that here the author is talking about the Galls] grew indolent in their profligacy, slowly losing their mettle by the debauchery of [their] women [or women running things].  The most noble of this tribe died poisoned and the others bent their heads to the yoke of the locals.  And so those, who could not be defeated by a force of arms, were brought down by the sloth of the few.”

“From then on many a man was beguiled by a desire to rule.  For that reason, Gracchus, returning from Carinthia, for he had the gift saying deep things, calls a council of the whole troop, has them all face him, gets their support and unites them in obedience [to him].  He says that a headless man like a wounded animal is pathetic.  The same is a body without a soul, the same a lamp without light, the same a world without the sun – as too a country without a king.  For a soul refuels the spirit of bravery, light makes seen the nature of things, the sun too spreads to all its beneficent rays.  With these rays, as with jewels, is encrusted a diadem on a kingly head such that from the brow there shines magnanimity, from the back restraint and from both sides there sends its munificent radiance a garnet of enterprise.  He promises that should they elect him such, then he will not be a king but rather a partner in the kingdom.  For he believes that he was not born for himself but for the whole world [see Lucan].”

“And so they all greet him as the [new] king.  And he lays down laws and enacts statutes.   And so there arises the seed of our civil law and there takes place its birth.  Because before him freedom had to give way to servitude and right to walk step by step behind injustice.  And that was just which brought the biggest advantage to the wealthiest.  Nevertheless strict justice was not to rule right away.  But from then on it did not yield to great violence, and justice was called that which benefitted that one who can do the least.”

“Poland flourishing thus wonderfully under Gracchus’ leadership would most assuredly recognized his offspring as the most worthy heir to the throne had not the second of his sons been disgraced by the crime of fratricide.”

Of the Dragon 

“For there was in the cracks of a certain rock/boulder a terribly cruel monster, that some used to call ‘whole-eater’ [holophagus, in other writings also draco].  To sate his hunger based on the number of days he was to be given a certain count of cattle.  Should the inhabitants fail to deliver the same offerings they would be punished by the monster through a loss of a commensurate number of their own heads.”

“Gracchus, unable to suffer this shame – for he was a more affectionate son of the fatherland than a father to his own sons – secretly called his sons and presented his plan and gave his advice: ‘Cowardice is the enemy of bravery, foolishness of wisdom, indolence of youthful vigor.  For it is no bravery if it is cowardly, it is not wisdom if it is foolish and it is not youth if it is indolent.  What’s more when there is no opportunity to practice courage, so must one create one.  Who then should avoid glory when it presents itself on its own, unless he be someone inglorious!  Yet the good of the citizenry, defended and preserved, becomes an eternal triumph.  For one should not  care about his own safety whenever a common danger arises.  It is for you, you who are our favourites, who, one as well as the other, we have raised according to our abilities, to arm yourselves so as to kill the monster, it befits you to join battle with him but [also] not to risk yourselves too greatly for you are one half of our life, those who deserve to inherit this kingdom.‘”

“And they answered thusly: ‘Truly one could count us filled with the hatred of [as if we were treated as mere] stepsons, should you withhold from us so glorious a task!  To you belongs the power of commanding and to us the necessity of obedience.‘”

“And so when they have experienced many a time an open manly combat and futile tests of strength, they were forced to rely on their guile [instead].  For in lieu of placing cattle, they put in the usual place only hides filled with burning sulphur.  And when the greedy whole-eater greedily gulped these down, he choked on the flames blazing through his innards.”

“And right after this took place, the younger of the brothers attacked and killed the older, his partner in victory and in the kingdom, [treating him] not as a companion but as a rival.  He follows his [brother’s] body [during the funeral procession filled] with crocodile tears.  He lies saying that [his brother] had been killed by the monster but the father welcomes him back happily as a victor.  For it is often the case that grief becomes overcome by the happiness of triumph.”

“And so in this way, the younger Gracchus takes the rule after his father, a criminal inheritor!  Yet he was longer branded by the fratricide than decorated with power.  For when the deception soon after was revealed, as penance for his crime he was sentenced to eternal banishment: ‘for it is the most justice law that those who commit crimes should be [slowly] killed by the same.”

And of Wanda

“Soon thereafter, on the rock [perhaps, crag? interesting, is that Celticism where the name of the city comes from!?] of the whole-eater, a famous city was founded, from the name of Gracchus named Gracchovia.  And the funeral rites were not concluded but with the completion of the building of the city.  Some called it Cracow from the crowing of crows that gathered there to feast on the corpse of the monster.”

“And so great a love of their departed ruler filled the Senate, the magnates and all of the people that they entrusted his only daughter Wanda with the rule of the country after her father.  She so exceeded all others by her beautiful person as also by the allure of her grace that you would have thought that nature, when rewarding her [with its gifts], not only generous but even extravagant was.  For even the most prudent of the wise were astounded by her advice and the most cruel amongst the enemies relented at her sight.”

“Thus, when a certain Lemmanic [Alemannic? but see here] tyrant raged forth with the intent of destroying this people, thinking to take the throne seemingly free [i.e., because there was no male king], he yielded to her unspeakable charm rather than the force of [her] arms.”

“For the moment his armies saw in front of them the queen, they fell as if touched by some sort of a ray of light – and all of them as if commanded by some god, purged themselves of all hostile feelings and stood aside from the fight.  They claimed then that they did not balk at battle but rather at sacrilege.  They said that they were afraid of no man but in [this wo]man they venerated a godly majesty.  Their King touched by the torment of love or perhaps of outrage [at his soldiers refusing to fight], or both, proclaims:

‘Wanda, the sea,

Wanda, the Earth,

the clouds, let Wanda command,

to the immortal gods, let her give herself as sacrifice for her own people

and I for you, oh my lords, make this solemn sacrifice to the gods of the underworld, that you as also your successors forever should grow old under this womanly rule!‘”

He said thus and then threw himself onto his sword giving up his spirit, and so his angry life, with a complaint, amongst the shadows escapes.”

“From her name, they say, is the name of the River Wandal[us] [meaning Vistula] derived, for that [river] was the center of her kingdom; so too all those who were under her rule became known as Vandals.  Because she desired no one marry and even virginity she thought of higher than marriage, she left the world without an heir.  And for a long time did the kingdom teeter without a ruler.”

Thoughts 

Interestingly, it was Isidore of Seville that first suggested in his Etymologies that the Vandals got their name from the River  “Vindilicus” or “Windilicus” though he placed it in Gaul.  Kadlubek was probably aware of Isidore’s works though whether he got this idea from the Etymologies is unknown.

It was only much later that Jan Dlugosz gave name to the “tyrant”, i.e., Rytygier or Ruediger.  Interestingly, in the so-called Dietrich of Bern sagas, Ruediger is also the emissary of Etzel/Attila  to the king of the Wilzi/Veltabi who tries to get the king – Ossantrix – to give the hand of the king’s daughter – Helke – to Attila/Etzel.  As if that were not enough, Dlugosz, at least in some manuscripts, also states that Popiel’s name in German was Osserich – presumably, deriving that from Ossen – ash.  On the Asciburgian mountains we wrote already here.  Whether this Ossantrix has anything to do with the ancient Ossi of Tacitus’ Germania – which Ossi lived in the neighborhood of the Veltae/Veltabi in Ptolemy’s Geography – and whether either of those have anything to do with the land of Ossum that the Goths entered from Gothiscandza in Jordanes Getica is a matter for another time.

Copyright ©2015 jassa.org All Rights Reserved