History of the Goths

by Herwig Wolfram, Thomas J. Dunlap

Incorporating exciting new material that has come to light since the last German edition of 1980, Herwig Wolfram places Gothic history within its proper context of late Roman society and institutions. He demonstrates that the barbarian world of the Goths was both a creation of and an essential element of the late Roman Empire.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, European History, Medieval, Medieval History, Ancient History, Ancient

Paperback

First published January 1, 1979

Reviews

[Brett C · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very scholarly, evidence-based, and heavily researched work on the Goths. This narrative opened with a thorough history of the Gothic peoples, their ethnogenesis, and the formation of tribes. Furthermore, Herwig Wolfram explained and thoroughly analyzed their customs, armies, laws, language, social constructs, religious views, interactions to form polyethnic alliances and kingdoms, and their interactions with the Romans, encroaching Huns, and other neighboring ethnic communities. These included the Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Vandals, Burgundians, the Franks.

The Goths were considered the "poison of the state" (pg 175) to the Romans yet failed to organize themselves as a unified entity to prevent themselves from becoming deluded throughout history. I learned a great deal with the various treaties, foedus, agreed upon between frontier Roman settlements and command elements with the various Goth raiding and warring parties. These included the various Gothic tribes, their alliances, and mentioned heavily the great Gothic kings like Alaric, Fritigern, Ermanaric, and Athanaric. The Goths crossed the Danube in the autumn of 376 provoking war on Roman soil that ended in 416 with Roman decision to settle the Goths in Aquitania by 418.

There was a lot to cover in a review about a book of this magnitude. Overall I was pleased and I felt I learned a great deal. I attempted to cross-reference some of this online and most resources cited this exact book and exact author. I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in the Goth peoples and their interactions with the Romans and Byzantium. Thanks!

[Jamie Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Naming things gives an appearance of unity and coherence which they may not in fact possess. Some time in the fifth or fourth centuries B.C. a loose federation of Germanic tribes began migrating southward. A late creation myth said they came from Scandinavia, which might be true. The name Goth does not show up until around 300 A.D. surprisingly late in antiquity, well after the tribes formerly known as the Gutones had established themselves with enough territory and power to be taken seriously by the Eastern and Western Roman empires.

Like many of the loosely organized barbarian tribes, the Goths were not homogeneous, and were willing to take in anyone who would fight with them and live by their rules.

From the time when Gothic invasions into the empire began, many individuals and groups were ready to join the barbarians; they began by collaborating with the Goths and ended up as Goths themselves. The constantly developing barbarian society proved receptive to other gentes. From the third to the sixth centuries the following maxim held true: a Goth was anyone who was allowed to fight with the tribe, irrespective of his ethnic or social background. (p. 231)

Eventually they would become a danger to the Eastern empire and an existential threat to the Western, but for the first centuries of their contact with the Romans they were opportunistic raiders and plunderers. In their own territories they had farms and towns and traded with their neighbors, but since the clans were always at war with one another, borders were constantly expanding or contracting depending on their military fortunes. The Romans regularly employed them as foederati, allied troops granted limited citizenship privileges in exchange for protecting the empire’s borders, but they never took to Roman military discipline and were likely to fail to show up when called or wander off when they wanted to go home. They had initially been an infantry force, but later developed a strong cavalry which would become the deciding factor in the battle of Adrianopole.

In the late fourth century the Huns pushed west from central Asia, overwhelming and destroying the kingdoms of the eastern or Ostrogoths. Some of the tribes joined the Huns, but others pleaded with the Romans to be taken inside the imperial borders for protection. The Romans agreed, a decision which has remained controversial ever since, but even if the emperor had good intentions in allowing the Goths entry, local Roman officials behaved with great cruelty, starving them to the point where some had to sell their children into slavery in order to eat.

Eventually the Goths revolted, and found a strong leader in Fritigern. The eastern Emperor responded by driving them out of their homes and across the Danube. When they returned the imperial army was confident they could defeat them again. The emperor Valens failed to consolidate his forces, and on 9 August 378 marched his army sixteen miles in full armor under a blazing sun with no water to meet the Goths. In one of history’s greatest and most consequential battles, the Gothic heavy cavalry surrounded and smashed the Roman lines. Valens was killed, along with 20,000 soldiers, two-thirds of the Roman army. It was a crushing defeat for the eastern Roman empire, destroying the core of the fighting forces, including seven veteran legions. The empire did not fall, and the Goths quickly retreated, but the defeat encouraged other barbarian tribes to invade and take possession of Roman territory.

Adrianopole is often called the last great battle of antiquity and the first of the Middle Ages. The lesson that leaders took from it was the supremacy of cavalry, which would come to dominate battlefields for the next thousand years, until the arrival of massed pike formations and then gunpowder.

As the empire weakened, the Goths expanded their range, raiding as far south as Cyprus and throughout the Black Sea. Eventually they turned their attention to the rich lands of Italy, and under Alaric sacked Rome in 410. They moved west and claimed large territories in southern Gaul and established kingdoms across Spain. These western Goths became knows as Visigoths, a name created by the Romans to contrast them with eastern, or Ostrogoths.

It is the fate of all barbarians to become civilized in the lands they conquer, and the Goths eventually fell victim to their own success. In the east the Byzantine empire revived its armies and eventually destroyed the Gothic kingdoms; the Umayyad Caliphate conquered those in Spain. The Gothic kingdoms in France would participate in the great battle on the Catalonian Plains near Orleans, decisively turning back Attila’s Huns in 451. After that the kingdom would go into decline and disappear by 552.

This book gathers together virtually everything known about the Goths, and so makes for a good reference book, although it is written in a rather dry academic style. The author’s research was very impressive, including a 38 page bibliography, and 2508 footnotes in the 158 page index. From their start as just another minor tribe on the far reaches of Rome’s borders, the Goths rose to shake the empire to its core, hastening its final demise. For anyone interested in them, this book is a good place to start.

[Joseph Toth · Rating 2 out of 5]

In the first chapter Wolfram/Dunlap concentrate on the Gothic name which was first mentioned between 16 &18 A.D. by Latin and Greek authors who speak of `Gutones' which is a weak derivative of Goths. The Gutones are mentioned until about 150 A.D. and then not again until 262 A.D., when Shapur I had a tri-lingual inscription made that mentioned Germanic, Gothic, & Roman troops he had defeated in 245 A.D. Several years later Claudius II assumed the name Gothicus, also the Greeks & Persians mention the Goths in text as well. In 300 A.D. the spelling Goth replaced the weak derivative Gutones almost altogether. The name Goths included a diverse Germanic & Non-Germanic peoples; in Italy- the Vandals, in Spain- the Gepids, Rugians, Sciri, Alans, & Burgundians. They were lumped together because of common faiths, laws, & languages. For the purpose of classification modern scholars created the term `Eastern Germanic Peoples' that is commonly used today. The term Visigoth was also created, not by modern scholars but by Cassiodorus. As he understood them the Ostrogoths were the eastern Goths or Goths of the rising sun. So to make a geographical distinction Cassiodorus called the second group of Goths, also called the Tervingi-Vesi, the Visigoths for western Goths. The formation of the Gothic tribes before the invasion of the Huns is the topic of the second chapter. "As late as the sixth century Theodoric the Great insisted that his family had originated in Scandinavia and had made the long trek from there by way of Eastern Pomerania and the Vistula to the Black Sea, thence to Pannonia and Moesia, and finally to Italy." (P.36) Wolfram/Dunlap goes on to say that instead of trying to prove/disprove this origin perhaps we should accept it, not as fact but as a motif in a saga. Based on old songs the tribe was overpopulated, so on the orders of King Filimer an army of Goths with their women & children left their homeland. While crossing a river the bridge collapsed forever separating them. Some stayed behind and others that had crossed moved on. The emigration of an entire tribe as well as the idea of overpopulation is a common traditional theme. The strength of the Goths was in there kingship, whose authority surpassed that usually found among Germanic tribes. The king, as the central authority figure of a wandering tribe, could employ the resources of his smaller tribe faster & more effectively than that of a larger kingless tribe. "From the early summer of 291 the ancient world had been aware of the existence of two Gothic tribes. At the same time the main tribal element was still made up of `Eastern Goths'. (P.85) But by the 4th century the eastern Goths disappeared from the Roman view, replaced by the western Goths. In chapter three, Wolfram/Dunlap discuss the 40 year migration and the formation of the Visigoths. In 376 A.D. the Tervingi, Goths, were admitted to the empire to settle parts of Thrace. The Goths led by Alaviv and Fritigern were seen as supplicants to the mercy of the Emperor. They would be supervised by Roman authorities and were to survive by farming the land with no other subsidies from the empire, & in exchange the large numbers of Goths would be expected to serve in the Roman army. The Goths were not especially serious about their promise and had already set their sights on Thrace before even negotiating with the Emperor. Also the Emperor's order probably included disarmament as a pre-condition for admission but Roman officials failed to enforce it. The admission of an entire people caused problems. There was not enough transportation to ferry them across the Danube, and the way the Romans went about it threatened the family & clan structures. Also a shortage of food did not calm a hungry tribe. And as always there was exploitation by dishonest officials & generals. Initially they followed orders and they marched slowly to the Thracian troops headquarters. Lupicinus invited Alaviv & Fritigern to a reconciliatory feast, a quarrel broke out & Lupicinus ordered the Gothic leaders killed, Fritigern escaped but Alaviv did not, this is in early 377 A.D.. Fritigern assumes full control of the Goths & began to sweep across the land pillaging & burning everything in his path. On August 9th 378 A.D. at the battle of Adrianople the Romans were soundly defeated and the Emperor Vallens was killed. This battle has been considered the turning point in the history of western warfare, and in its wake the Visigoths, as horsemen, emerged from out of the Danubian Tervingi. Skipping ahead to around the middle of September 415 A.D., Valia is chosen as King of the Goths. He was supposed to continue the war with Rome, but to do that he had to solve the hunger of his people. He marched the Goths through the Iberian Peninsula towards Africa, but they were not seafarers & their 1st attempt across the Straits of Gibraltar was fatal. So in the spring of 416 A.D. Valia surrendered to Constantius, commander-in-chief of the west, in exchange they were given food & the task of clearing Spain of enemies. This was known as the foedus of 416 & was followed by a settlement of the Goths that was contractually guaranteed & carried out according to Roman law in 418, although Valia did not live long enough to see it implemented. In chapter four Wolfram/Dunlap write about the kingdom of Toulouse 418-507. The kingdom of Toulouse was settled in 418 A.D. & became the center of the Goth dominion. After Valia's death Thoederid becomes the next king, not much is known about his early life because the Roman observer wanted to know if he would honor the foedus of 416 & 418. In the year 523 the Emperor Honorius died & two years later the Goths begin a regular march to the gates of the Gallo-roman capital of Arles. The city is never taken & the clashes are not considered to breaking the foedus, they are simply to gain the Goths some attention. 451 A.D. Attila attacks and the Goths are pressed into service. Theoderid & his two eldest sons, Thorismund & Theodoric II, marched to the fields between Troyes & Chalon-Sur-Marne. The battle is seen as both a loss for the Huns & a draw for Aëtius, Theoderid is killed and Thorismund is king 451-453. Theodoric II then becomes king 454-466 & is killed by his brother Euric; this ended the foedus of 50 years & also ended the marches to Arles. By 475 Euric had made all land between the Atlantic, the Loire, & the Rhone Gothic territory. Euric died in 484 of natural causes, & on Dec. 28 484 Alaric II becomes king and is then killed in 507 at the battle of Vouille. Alaric II was regarded as an ineffectual leader, with his death & the destruction of the army the end of the kingdom of Toulouse was brought about. Chapter five discusses the "new" Ostrogoths. Amazingly the Ostrogoth people only lasted five generations. Precisely 451 to 552 A.D., the Ostrogoth century is marked by two major defeats and the kings associated with them. King Valamir, who commanded the tribal contingent in Attila's army which was defeated on the Catalonian fields in 451, And King Teja who was killed at the Mons Lactarius in 552.The history and origin of these people is poorly recorded, prior to 451 there is no certain date where & when they appeared. As well there is no Kingship or administration after 552. The lineage of the kings of the Ostrogoths is rather short so I can list them here. Valamir is king until his death in 469, who is then succeeded by his brother Thiudimir who rules until his death in 474. His son Theodoric "the Great" is next & by 493 had become the unchallenged master of Italy and lived to 526 A.D., next his grandson Amalaric, who held no real power, was king until 531. Theudis, a former governor of Theodoric, becomes King until 548, when his nephew Totila who was already a gothic king takes over until his death in battle in 552. Lastly there is King Teja who ruled for not even three months before his death. After Teja's death, the Goths held out kingless until 555 A.D. when they surrendered in exchange for becoming faithful servants of the Emperor, thus ending 500 years of Gothic history.

[Andrew Varga · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this book was like reading a university calculus textbook--creammed full of information, but without any literary style to make the information dump enjoyable. It took me over a year to read this book because I could only read it in very short spurts before my eyes would glaze over. This book is not for someone wanting to learn about the Goths--this book is for someone who has an extensive knowledge of the Goths already, and then wants to dive into the deepest minutia of their history. I can't count the times that there were references to ancient battles, historians, events, places, or rulers without any context because the author just assumes that the reader will know.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really interesting and very well researched text ( over 150 pages of notes and 35 page bibliography). You should keep a notebook on the side because there are a loooooot of names, place names, and dates, you need a quick reference. I have heard that there is an updated version by Wolfram due to new archeological discoveries since the books print run that I have, (1988). This may be where Bauhaus and Type O Negative are discussed ☺. This book covers an era that gets quickly passed over in history classes, an important and influential era that the Goths were right in the middle of, they helped bring down and start empires. Check it out.

[Angelica · Rating 4 out of 5]

I started reading this in May and it is now October. It felt like a monumental task the entire time, eased somewhat by the fact that the appendices, notes, etc. are half of the entire book. It is mostly a very dry yet informative text, yet nevertheless there are moments where Wolfram's writing is evocative. When I read the final paragraph, I felt an overwhelming surge of emotion: relief that is over, appreciation for this tremendous history, sadness for the twilight and then extinction of the Gothic peoples.

I don't recommend this book to just anyone. But if you have a desire like I did to read it, then you will be greatly rewarded.

[Zachary Moore]

A very interesting overview of Gothic history,with its primary focus being on the structure of the Gothic state and proto-state and with plentiful discussion of institutions alongside the narrative. Unfortunately, the book is not very approachable for the reader lacking a good foundation in Gothic and late Roman history and the sheer number of difficult to pronounce names makes it difficult to keep track of the narrative in places without a scorecard.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 3 out of 5]

I struggled to get through this. I gave up just passed the 1/2 way mark though I probably didn’t process a lot of what came before. I was lost a lot of the time and I don’t know if it was me or the writing or both.

[Stewart · Rating 3 out of 5]

A difficult read, but lots of interesting evidence and enlightening insights. In fairness, not only is this an academic text, but it was also translated from German. I’m sure this added to the cumbersome writing style already inherent in books of this sort. Well worth reading if you are very interested in the topic, as Wolfram covers it thoroughly, but don’t expect to be coddled with entertaining blockbuster-style narrative.

[Stone · Rating 3 out of 5]

Wolfram's book gives an incredibly informative account of the ethnogenesis of the Goths. Reading it requires a great amount of knowledge in ethnology as well as a solid understanding of late antique Roman political history. The book is anything but a beginner-friendly introduction to the Goths. I would much recommend first reading Jordanes' Getica before diving into monumental works like this one.

[Brent · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting as an attempt at an ethnography, but very dry (not sure if the original or the translator is at fault). It’s also in the tail end of the Great Men approach to history, with a lot of names & battles/military campaigns. But, there are some forays into cultural history, as best Wolfram could do with the materials available to him at the time. (Saying this as a history minor who kept up with semi-formal history studies in grad school.)

[Erneilson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Interesting but way beyond my level of historical expertise. One gets quickly overwhelmed with the huge number of names of individuals and tribal affiliations and place names that are mostly foreign to me. I was hoping for more information about the people of Götaland and Gotland in Sweden but they were given not much more than a paragraph.

[George M.]

unreadable

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wonderful book. Such a wealth of information taken mostly from primary sources with an exhaustive list of references.

[Christian Roy · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thorough book for sure. Very interesting, but very hard to keep track of all the names and locations and to put them all together in a coherent manner.

[Petra · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a very hard read. It really tells more about the Goths from a historian perspective rather than archaeological. Because of that, it is full of details, not always relevant ones- on the other hand, it misses some big events happening at the same time. It requires quite remarkable level of concentration and is maybe better for reading when you need one specific thing rather than Goth history altogether. Going into this I hoped for some archaeological background which I didn't get really in the end - so my rating is 3.

[Katharine Kerr · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the second edition, a hardback that I own. It's a brilliant work, though somewhat outdated by further specialist research. Wolfram reorganized and reinterpreted much of the classical literature that dealt with the Gothic tribes. By comparing it with archaeological evidence he began the work of separating out the myths and inaccuracies from what we can know about these peoples.

His work is perhaps best seen as part of the ongoing effort by scholars and historians to re-evaluate that period of history that used to be known as "the fall of the Roman empire," that is, the transformation of the Western reaches of that empire into the nascent nation states that later became medieval Europe. (This is the period roughly from 320 AD to 800.) The Goths played a very large part in this transformation, but they were not the murderous ransacking barbarians that too many classical authors considered them to be!

Wolfram laid the foundation for a closer examination of what we can know of Gothic customs, laws, and history. The book is well written and supplied with a really good bibliography, clear maps, and a massive amount of endnotes.

[Daniel Pittman · Rating 3 out of 5]

I feel like I started reading this book years ago. It had some moments that were good but much of it felt like it dragged on. It was translated so perhaps that was part of the difficulty. It was understandable but it largely came down to feeling boring through extended sections.
I can't completely dog the book though, it contained a great deal of information I have never seen anywhere else and did a good job in staying organized.
I would really struggle to recommend the book unless you are really interested in a deeper knowledge of the period or the Goths. I would say it would be better to just look up a few sections that really interest you rather than read the entire book.

[Dan Weiss · Rating 3 out of 5]

The star rating I gave it is only reflective of me. It is a tremendously dry book but full of information and it is footnoted copiously. I read it as a bit of side reading and I think some parts of the book assume a foreknowledge of the primary sources and more than casual familiarity with the subject. The narrative jumps around a bit so it requires the aforementioned knowledge or some careful reading.

That being said, it is incredibly valuable for those researching Late Antiquity. I planned on reading it for "fun" but ended up actually using it as a source for my dissertation.

[Neil · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very difficult book for me to get through. Ends when the Goths are driven out of Southern France and Italy. Doesn't cover the Gothic Kingdom in Spain and its eventual collapse.
Contains a tremendous amount of research but not always very readable.

[Rick Novy · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is very informative, but reading it is like watching grass grow. It is extremely dull.