DOCSLIB.ORG

Army Structure 229

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Army Structure 229 Chapter 7 Army Structure: Roman Continuity and Byzantine Change Savvas Kyriakidis It is inevitable that from the 6th through to the 13th centuries the army of the East Roman Empire underwent significant transformations. These were the consequence of changes in the political, economic and social structures of the empire, as well as of developments in the wider political and military context. Nonetheless, the sources indicate the existence of elements of continuity in the structure of the imperial army. Taking into account the political, military and social developments in the wider Byzantine world, this paper examines the continuities and transformations in the structure of the military forces of the East Roman Empire up to 1204. The military organization of the Byzantine Empire has attracted insufficient attention in the modern scholarship and is in many respects still an underde- veloped field. Works devoted entirely to the army are rare. As far as the military history of the later Roman Empire up to the 6th century is concerned, most of the conclusions of the work of A.H.M Jones are still valid, although some details require revision. More recently, the monograph published by M.J. Nicasie examines the structure of the late Roman army from the reign of Diocletian until the battle of Adrianople in 378 where the eastern Roman army was crushed by the Goths. The monograph published by H. Elton in 1997 exam- ines the fighting techniques and effectiveness of the late Roman armies in the West from 350 until 425 and includes an analysis of the military structures of the empire. The work published by A.D. Lee in 2007 focuses on the impact and effects of war on the state and society of the later Roman Empire.1 In addi- tion to these, a significant number of articles published in recent years have contributed significantly to our understanding of the structure and adminis- tration of the imperial army.2 The works of J. Haldon shed important light on the study of the military structures from the 7th to the 12th century. Important 1 Jones, The Later Roman Empire, 2, pp. 607-686; Nicasie, Twilight of empire; Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe; Lee, War in Late Antiquity. 2 Lee, “The Army”, pp. 211-37; idem, “The Empire at War”, pp. 113-33; Elton, “Warfare and the Military”, pp. 325-47; idem, “Army and battle in the Age of Justinian”, pp. 532-56; M. Whitby, “The Army”, pp. 288-314. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2018 | doi 10.1163/9789004363731_009 230 Kyriakidis information concerning the evolution of the army in the 10th century can be found in the work of H.-J. Kühn, while the book published by W. Treadgold in 1995 which covers the period from the 3rd to the 11th centuries focuses more on pay and numbers.3 Important conclusions concerning the Byzantine army in the 12th century can be found in the work of A. Hohlweg, while the monograph published by J. Birkenmeier focuses on tactics and the fighting capabilities of the Comnenian armies.4 1 From Constantine to Justinian The army Constantine commanded when he was proclaimed emperor by the troops of his father, the Tetrarch Constantius I, in 306 was the creation of the reforms of the emperor Diocletian (284-305). Most of army was stationed along the frontiers, while each of the Tetrarchs was in command of a standing field army, the comitatus. The establishment of four standing armies enabled the empire to respond simultaneously to threats on four fronts. For instance, in the last years of the 3rd century, Constantius was defending the frontier along the Rhine against the Franks, Maxentius was in Africa, Galerius invaded the Persians through Syria and Diocletian was in Egypt suppressing a revolt.5 It has been suggested that during the Tetrarchy the comitatus was made up of legions of 5,000 men divided into ten cohorts.6 Nonetheless, for important operations the field army needed to be reinforced either by detachments drawn from the frontier zones, or by foreign troops, usually referred to as foede- rati or auxilia.7 These were supplied under treaty by tribes in alliance with the empire and served under their own leaders for specific expeditions.8 In the recent past, the increasing employment of such units of barbarians in the Roman army has been seen as detrimental to the affairs of the empire. It was suggested that it weakened the Roman army to the point of its being unable to 3 Haldon, Byzantine Praetorians; idem, Byzantium in the Seventh Century, pp. 208-54; idem, Recruitment and Conscription; idem, “Military Service, Military Lands and the Status of Soldiers”, pp. 1-67; idem, Warfare; Kühn, Die byzantinische Armee im 10. Jarhundert; Treadgold, Byzantium and its Army. 4 Hohlweg, Beiträge zur Verwaltungsgeschichte des Oströmischen Reiches unter den Komnenen; Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army. 5 Jones, The Later Roman Empire, p. 608; Barnes, The New Empire of Diocletian and Constantine, pp. 49-64; Elton, “Warfare and the Military”, pp. 326-27. 6 Elton, “Warfare and the Military”, p. 327. 7 For the foederati see Stickler, “The foederati”, pp. 532-56. 8 Jones, The Later Roman Empire, pp. 611-12; Elton, “Warfare and the Military”, p. 329..
Recommended publications
  • The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D

    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the D

    The Politics of Roman Memory in the Age of Justinian DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Marion Woodrow Kruse, III Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2015 Dissertation Committee: Anthony Kaldellis, Advisor; Benjamin Acosta-Hughes; Nathan Rosenstein Copyright by Marion Woodrow Kruse, III 2015 ABSTRACT This dissertation explores the use of Roman historical memory from the late fifth century through the middle of the sixth century AD. The collapse of Roman government in the western Roman empire in the late fifth century inspired a crisis of identity and political messaging in the eastern Roman empire of the same period. I argue that the Romans of the eastern empire, in particular those who lived in Constantinople and worked in or around the imperial administration, responded to the challenge posed by the loss of Rome by rewriting the history of the Roman empire. The new historical narratives that arose during this period were initially concerned with Roman identity and fixated on urban space (in particular the cities of Rome and Constantinople) and Roman mythistory. By the sixth century, however, the debate over Roman history had begun to infuse all levels of Roman political discourse and became a major component of the emperor Justinian’s imperial messaging and propaganda, especially in his Novels. The imperial history proposed by the Novels was aggressivley challenged by other writers of the period, creating a clear historical and political conflict over the role and import of Roman history as a model or justification for Roman politics in the sixth century.
  • 037 690305 the Trans

    037 690305 the Trans

    Horld ElstorY >#9 h. Eoeb Hednesday P.t{. lEE TnAtrSIfIOnAt KII{GDUSs VAI{DI,LS' HEiltLI' OSIBT0ES lfter the Roam defeat bf tbe Vlaigoths at 441b,gs tn t8, rp bart the cqo- uautng eto:y of the collapse of tbe Rccdr &pfre ps fo:nd e pag€ 134 fn t+g"r. Stlllcho rt tll3 bottm of tb3 flrst col:uor rp dlscswr tbat tbe @ercr Bcrorlu a (9*t&3) rypolntect Ure VErSgl Stlllplro es Easter of tbe troops. Eere nas a sltaratlcn rbera a Uerlgqls EA ffid ofE-tbe nttltary forceel It rns not just tbat tbs C'€ina,s ;ffi-:y lrr charge of Ee rrall alorg tbe RhJ.ne, hrt,gon me of tbeo le tn obarge of tbe Rmm arry fneiae tbp r.ratl! Itrs ltke tbe cansLto nose under tbe tmt. far see litt&e ty ltttte rbat is bappentng I Golng to colu.m tvo: trr 406 Cauf. ras ,qP.rnm by Vmdals srd other trlltBs. dgpqf:re-of fn Lgt'51o tberc vas @ lccc'ed evaoratlor € Brltafg.-the..cglete t& troq>J- dates rnay:Er@g$E- sore sdrcAsErt f thl$k tbls is tbe elgplslg dg!g- for tho purposef\r1 evasusticn of the ls1ad. lnd then ln lueust of /+oB Sbilfpl*r l€g Elgl*g at Fcrelusr cdsrt ttt€ @ere did no[ tnrEt brs rnlrrtary c@EQs r.nre Just not golng rtght fcr tie fupire. Rm Sacked I relgn llotlce next that tbe @eror Theodoslus. erperor ll th9 9eg! $o b€99 -hie i" 4OS; ;i"*ua tbe earllest' colleffilf existLne lgggr tbe-lieodoela CodE.; l&eD yan_bave a good rJ"i6W bas to 16rltlply,-fi c1assl$r -md cod,l.$ none-art none latr, "tafc"trcn tbat socLety breatcnp'0gg, due to lncreased ccrlos srd Laltless:eegt lbea people ar€ Uun"":irg tb€r'selvee teet'e ls no need for a lot of lane.
  • The Military Reforms of Gaius Marius in Their Social, Economic, and Political Context by Michael C. Gambino August, 2015 Directo

    The Military Reforms of Gaius Marius in Their Social, Economic, and Political Context by Michael C. Gambino August, 2015 Directo

    The Military Reforms of Gaius Marius in their Social, Economic, and Political Context By Michael C. Gambino August, 2015 Director of Thesis: Dr. Frank Romer Major Department: History Abstract The goal of this thesis is, as the title affirms, to understand the military reforms of Gaius Marius in their broader societal context. In this thesis, after a brief introduction (Chap. I), Chap. II analyzes the Roman manipular army, its formation, policies, and armament. Chapter III examines Roman society, politics, and economics during the second century B.C.E., with emphasis on the concentration of power and wealth, the legislative programs of Ti. And C. Gracchus, and the Italian allies’ growing demand for citizenship. Chap. IV discusses Roman military expansion from the Second Punic War down to 100 B.C.E., focusing on Roman military and foreign policy blunders, missteps, and mistakes in Celtiberian Spain, along with Rome’s servile wars and the problem of the Cimbri and Teutones. Chap. V then contextualizes the life of Gaius Marius and his sense of military strategy, while Chap VI assesses Marius’s military reforms in his lifetime and their immediate aftermath in the time of Sulla. There are four appendices on the ancient literary sources (App. I), Marian consequences in the Late Republic (App. II), the significance of the legionary eagle standard as shown during the early principate (App. III), and a listing of the consular Caecilii Metelli in the second and early first centuries B.C.E. (App. IV). The Marian military reforms changed the army from a semi-professional citizen militia into a more professionalized army made up of extensively trained recruits who served for longer consecutive terms and were personally bound to their commanders.
  • The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476)

    The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476)

    Impact of Empire 6 IMEM-6-deBlois_CS2.indd i 5-4-2007 8:35:52 Impact of Empire Editorial Board of the series Impact of Empire (= Management Team of the Network Impact of Empire) Lukas de Blois, Angelos Chaniotis Ségolène Demougin, Olivier Hekster, Gerda de Kleijn Luuk de Ligt, Elio Lo Cascio, Michael Peachin John Rich, and Christian Witschel Executive Secretariat of the Series and the Network Lukas de Blois, Olivier Hekster Gerda de Kleijn and John Rich Radboud University of Nijmegen, Erasmusplein 1, P.O. Box 9103, 6500 HD Nijmegen, The Netherlands E-mail addresses: [email protected] and [email protected] Academic Board of the International Network Impact of Empire geza alföldy – stéphane benoist – anthony birley christer bruun – john drinkwater – werner eck – peter funke andrea giardina – johannes hahn – fik meijer – onno van nijf marie-thérèse raepsaet-charlier – john richardson bert van der spek – richard talbert – willem zwalve VOLUME 6 IMEM-6-deBlois_CS2.indd ii 5-4-2007 8:35:52 The Impact of the Roman Army (200 BC – AD 476) Economic, Social, Political, Religious and Cultural Aspects Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop of the International Network Impact of Empire (Roman Empire, 200 B.C. – A.D. 476) Capri, March 29 – April 2, 2005 Edited by Lukas de Blois & Elio Lo Cascio With the Aid of Olivier Hekster & Gerda de Kleijn LEIDEN • BOSTON 2007 This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
  • Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History Dissertation

    Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History Dissertation

    Empire of Hope and Tragedy: Jordanes and the Invention of Roman-Gothic History Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Brian Swain Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2014 Dissertation Committee: Timothy Gregory, Co-advisor Anthony Kaldellis Kristina Sessa, Co-advisor Copyright by Brian Swain 2014 Abstract This dissertation explores the intersection of political and ethnic conflict during the emperor Justinian’s wars of reconquest through the figure and texts of Jordanes, the earliest barbarian voice to survive antiquity. Jordanes was ethnically Gothic - and yet he also claimed a Roman identity. Writing from Constantinople in 551, he penned two Latin histories on the Gothic and Roman pasts respectively. Crucially, Jordanes wrote while Goths and Romans clashed in the imperial war to reclaim the Italian homeland that had been under Gothic rule since 493. That a Roman Goth wrote about Goths while Rome was at war with Goths is significant and has no analogue in the ancient record. I argue that it was precisely this conflict which prompted Jordanes’ historical inquiry. Jordanes, though, has long been considered a mere copyist, and seldom treated as an historian with ideas of his own. And the few scholars who have treated Jordanes as an original author have dampened the significance of his Gothicness by arguing that barbarian ethnicities were evanescent and subsumed by the gravity of a Roman political identity. They hold that Jordanes was simply a Roman who can tell us only about Roman things, and supported the Roman emperor in his war against the Goths.
  • Ross Burns Justinian's Fortifications East of Antioch

    Ross Burns Justinian's Fortifications East of Antioch

    Ross Burns Justinian’s Fortifications East of Antioch Almost fifty years ago, Dillemann put the issues starkly – fortifications were a useless distraction: The Notitia Dignatatum, at the beginning of the 5th Century, only speaks of units, generally cavalry, with their bases. In [Procopius’] Buildings, the only issues are fortified positions with no mention of units. Defence policy has reached sclerosis. Previously, positions were surrounded by walls of light construction, like enclosures, which attracted Procopius’ disapproval. For good reasons Justinian’s predecessors judged it useless to raise solid ramparts; it was a nonsense to condemn cavalry to defend them. The latter only had to be given shelter from the blows of marauders and pillagers; they did not imagine they had to withstand a siege.1 Is it true, as Dillemann has argued, that Justinian put too much faith in fortresses and not enough in manpower and élan? As a corrective, we have Liebeschuetz’s observation that while fortresses did not in themselves amount to an impermeable physical barrier, they prevented permanent occupation of territory by an enemy. In the sixth century there was no way in which the Persians could be prevented from penetrating into the Empire. The only way to check an invasion was by means of a field army strong enough to defeat or at least to threaten the invading force. Fortified cities provided no kind of barrier and most of them could be captured easily. Nevertheless, they too had an important function. They provided shelter for the inhabitants, their corn and their animals. They also provided bases for Roman armies operating in the neighbourhood…[The Persians] could not remain in permanent occupation while the cities were not in their hands.2 It is well recognised that no line of fortresses can operate as an effective line of defence in its own right.3 Nevertheless, the distribution of forts could mark out the extent of territory a state sought to control for most purposes.
  • Hospitalitas

    Hospitalitas

    Department of Economics Working Paper Series Hospitalitas Andrew T. Young Working Paper No. 15-41 This paper can be found at the College of Business and Economics Working Paper Series homepage: http://be.wvu.edu/phd_economics/working-papers.htm Hospitalitas† Andrew T. Young College of Business and Economics West Virginia University Morgantown, WV 26506-6025 ph: 304 293 4526 em: [email protected] Latest Version: October 2015 Abstract: Good government requires a constitution that demarcates what political agents can and cannot do, and such a constitution must be self-enforcing. The medieval West was characterized by the estates system, where the political power of monarchs was roughly balanced by that of a landed and militarized nobility. This rough balance of power contributed to a Western tradition of limited government and constitutional bargaining. I argue that this balance has important roots in the fifth and sixth century barbarian settlements that occurred within the frontiers of the declining Western Roman Empire. These settlements provided barbarians with allotments consisting of lands or claims to taxes due from those lands. These allotments aligned the incentives of barbarian warriors and Roman landowners; they also realigned (or newly aligned) the incentives of barbarian warriors and leadership elite as their roving confederacies became stationary kingdoms. Barbarian military forces became decentralized and the warriors became political powerful shareholders of the realm. JEL Codes: H10, P16, P48, N40, N43, Keywords: constitutional political economy, polycentric sovereignty, shareholder states, collective action problems, governance institutions, state emergence † I thank the participants at the 2015 Western Economic Association International meetings in Honolulu, Hawaii for valuable comments and suggestions.
  • Jews and the Roman Army: Perceptions and Realities1

    Jews and the Roman Army: Perceptions and Realities1

    JEWS AND THE ROMAN ARMY: PERCEPTIONS AND REALITIES1 Jonathan P. Roth Scholars, including military historians, often project the conventions of Talmudic, or even modern, Judaism back into previous periods. This is particularly true in general assumptions about Jews in the military 1 This note contains a select bibliography, some titles of which will be cited in the following footnotes. S. Applebaum, ‘Three Roman Soldiers of Probably Jewish Origin,’ in M. Rozelaar and B. Shimron, eds., Commentationes ad antiquitatem classicam pertinentes in memoriam B. Katz (Tel Aviv 1970). ——, ‘Ein Targhuna,’ in S. Applebaum, Judaea in Hellenistic and Roman Times: Historical and Archaeological Essays (Leiden 1989), 66–69. B. Bar-Kochva, The Seleucid Army: Organization and Tactics in the Great Campaigns (Cam- bridge 1976). P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome (Shef\ eld 1988). M. Gichon, ‘Aspects of a Roman Army in War According to the Bellum Judaicum of Josephus’, in D. Kennedy and Ph. Freeman, eds., The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East I. BAR International Series 297, I (Oxford 1986), 287–310. A. Goldsworthy, ‘Community Under Pressure: The Roman Army at the Siege of Jeru- salem,’ in A. Goldsworthy and I. Haynes, The Roman Army as a Community. Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplemental Series 34 (Portsmouth RI 1999). R. González Salinero, ‘El servicio militar de los judíos en el ejército romano,’ Aquila Legionis 4 (Madrid 2003), 45–91. M.H. Gracey, ‘The Armies of the Judaean Client Kings,’ in D. Kennedy and Ph. Free- man, eds., The Defence of the Roman and Byzantine East I. BAR International Series 297, I (Oxford 1986).
  • Fall of the Western Empire "Migration" Or "Invasion"? the Beginning

    Fall of the Western Empire "Migration" Or "Invasion"? the Beginning

    1 Fall of the Western Empire "Migration" or "Invasion"? The Beginning of the "Dark Ages" Replacement of a "Worn Out Society" with New Vigorous Peoples Elements of Truth in Both Positions Rural Romans not Very Different From Germanic Peoples Germanic Tribes Move Southward Against the Roman Borders Possible Factors Deteriorating Weather / Climate Crop Failures in North Increased Population The Huns Map Cavalry Force Tribes First Enter Europe ca. 370 The Hunnic Empire (370-469) Rome's Answer: Foederati Battle of Hadrianople (378) Visigoths 2 Established in Roman Empire as Foederati Alaric Invades Italy (409) Sacks Rome (Aug. 24, 410) Impact Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel Aftermath Latifundia vs. Political Engagement Western Roman Empire Gradually Given Over to Germanic Tribes Southern Gaul Granted to Visigoths in 418 Task of Defending Western Roman Empire in the Hands of Germanic Generals The End of the Western Empire Odoacer - Leader of Ostrogothic Foederati (470) Romulus Augustus, Last Roman Emperor in the West Odoacer Attacks and Defeats Romulus Augustus Declares Himself First King of Italy (476) The Germanic Kingdoms Map Continuity with Rome Germans Admired and Wanted to Share in the Wealth and Civilization of Rome 3 Theodoric (454-526) Two-Tiered Government Similar Experiments Tried in Burgundian Kingdom Discontinuity Urban vs. Rural Germanic People Are Primarily Rural Germanic Manors and Villages Dissolution of Roman Cities Rule of Law vs. Personal Justice Rome: Extensive Law Code, Court System, Standards for Evidence, Advocates Germans: Blood Feuds, Trial by Ordeal Tribe vs. State New Opportunities Emergence of the Church Pope Gregory the Great (590-604) Latin Christendom .
  • Polybius and Livy on the Allies in the Roman Army

    Polybius and Livy on the Allies in the Roman Army

    POLYBIUS AND LIVY ON THE ALLIES IN THE ROMAN ARMY Paul Erdkamp* From the fourth or third century until the beginning of the rst century bc, Rome’s armies were also the armies of her allies. The socii and nomen Latinum raised at least half of the soldiers that fought wars for Rome. The Italic allies were clearly distinguished from the non-Italic troops, such as Cretan archers or Numidian horsemen, by the fact that they were governed by the formula togatorum. This can be concluded from their ‘de nition’ in the lex agraria from 111 bc: socii nominisve Latini quibus ex formula togatorum milites in terra Italia imperare solent. The formula togatorum is seen as a de ning element, distinguishing the Latin and Italic peoples from Rome’s overseas allies. Although in the second century bc a con- sciousness of Italy as a political and cultural unity gradually emerged, it was still referred to as a military alliance of Roman citizens and allies at the end of that century.1 The beginnings of this system remain in the dark, due to the inadequacies of our sources. The foedus Cassianum between Rome and the Latin League (traditionally dated to 493 bc) supposedly established a federal army under Roman command, but next to nothing is known about its functioning. The participation of the allied peoples was based on the treaties between their communities and Rome. The position of the Latin colonies was slightly different, because their obligations were probably based on the lex coloniae governing each Latin colony.2 We may assume that the role of the allies was re-de ned * I wish to thank John Rich, Luuk de Ligt and Simon Northwood for their many valuable comments.
  • Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department Of

    Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department Of

    Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of History TOWARDS THE END OF AN EMPIRE: ROME IN THE WEST AND ATTILA (425-455 AD) Tunç Türel Master’s Thesis Ankara, 2016 TOWARDS THE END OF AN EMPIRE: ROME IN THE WEST AND ATTILA (425-455 AD) Tunç Türel Hacettepe University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of History Master’s Thesis Ankara, 2016 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study would have been impossible to finish without the support of my family. Therefore, I give my deepest thanks and love to my mother, without whose warnings my eyesight would have no doubt deteriorated irrevocably due to extensive periods of reading and writing; to my sister, who always knew how to cheer me up when I felt most distressed; to my father, who did not refrain his support even though there are thousands of km between us and to Rita, whose memory still continues to live in my heart. As this thesis was written in Ankara (Ancyra) between August-November 2016, I also must offer my gratitudes to this once Roman city, for its idyllic park “Seğmenler” and its trees and birds offered their much needed comfort when I struggled with making sense of fragmentary late antique chronicles and for it also houses the British Institute at Ankara, of which invaluable library helped me find some books that I was unable to find anywhere else in Ankara. I also thank all members of www.romanarmytalk.com, as I have learned much from their discussions and Gabe Moss from Ancient World Mapping Center for giving me permission to use two beautifully drawn maps in my work.
  • Who Were the Eruli?

    Who Were the Eruli?

    © Scandia 2008 www.scandia.hist.lu.se ABvar Elkgird Who were the Eruli? I. The received view In practically all the standard handbooks covering the history of the Germanic tribes,' the Eruli, or Heruli2 are represented as originating somewhere in Scan- dinavia. Thus A. kippold in Der Kleine Pauly (1967) describes them as a Ger- manic tribe, expelled from Scandinavia by the Danes around A.D. 250. In all es- sentials Lippold agrees with B. Rappaport's long article in the unabridged Pau- lys Real-Encyklopadie, 2nd ed. 1913. The same general picture emerges from the shorter and much less specific ar- ticle by R. Much in Hoops' Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde, 2nd ed. 1913. The Eruli are said to have had their original home ("Stamrnsitz") in Scandinavia. Following the sixth-century historian Jordanes, Much declares that the EruIi were driven out by the Danes. After this, part of the tribe settled somewhere in northwest Germany, from where they made an abortive incursion into Gau'l in 287. Another part of the tribe, says Much, accompanied the Goths to the region north of the Black Sea. Much also refers to a very detailed story by the sixth century Greek historian Prokopios, in which a group of Eruli, led by members of their royal family, made a long trek from 1llyricu.m to Scandinavia some time in the beginning of the sixth century. This is described by Much as a "return" ("Riickwanderung") of the tribe to their ancestral home. One of the standard works on the history of the ancient Germanic tribes, by Ludwig Schmidt, has the same story and the same interpretation, both in the first edition (1910) and in the second (1933).