The Silingi appear once, in the second century, in a geographer's list of peoples. Then the sources fall silent for some two and a half centuries, until a Spanish bishop records that this tribe drew the province of Baetica by lot in 411 and was wiped out there "to a man" in 418. This article tests what can actually be said about the Silingi, where scholars interpret instead of prove, and what part the Silesian mountain Ślęża plays in the story.
No inscription, no gravestone, no early ruler's name and no description of customs survives for the Silingi. What the record holds fits into a few lines. Around the middle of the second century, Claudius Ptolemy lists them in his Geography as a people of inner Germania. Then comes a gap of more than two centuries. They surface again only in the fifth century, in the chronicle of the Spanish bishop Hydatius, who calls them "Vandals with the by-name Silingi" and records how they ended.
That scarcity is what makes the case instructive. We know the Vandals as the people who crossed to North Africa in 429 and took Carthage. It is easy to lose sight of the fact that this people consisted of several sub-groups, which met very different fates in Spain. The Silingi are one of them, and they show how an entire tribe can hang on two sentences of a single chronicle.
The earliest mention stands in Ptolemy's Geography, compiled in Alexandria around the middle of the second century. In his chapter on Germania (book 2, chapter 11; the paragraph numbering differs between editions, and sections 9 and 10 are the ones usually cited) he names the Silingai. He places them "below", that is south of, the Semnones, the Suebian people he locates between the Elbe and a river called the Suebos. The common identification of the Suebos with the Oder is an interpretation, not a statement of the text.
Ptolemy says nothing more about the Silingi. He gives no town, no king, no trait. The name sits in a long run of peoples, each with a position, from which map-makers were meant to construct a chart. Whether Ptolemy considered the Silingai Vandals cannot be told from the passage. That they belonged to the Vandals appears only in Hydatius, about three centuries later.
Anyone who wants a precise landscape out of "south of the Semnones" asks too much of the source. Ptolemy worked at a desk, not in the field. He converted travellers' reports and marching routes into degrees of latitude and longitude, and in doing so he distorted central Europe noticeably: distances are compressed, coasts displaced, rivers drawn with the wrong course. His coordinates give neighbourhoods, not measurements.
Even so, placing the Silingai in the upper Oder region is widespread in scholarship, because it fits two other observations: the archaeological landscape of Silesia in the second century, and a place name discussed below. What can be said with certainty is only that Ptolemy lists the Silingai as a separate people east of the Elbe and south of the Semnones. Their exact location remains a reconstruction.
For the first to fourth centuries AD the area between the upper Oder and the upper Vistula is well explored archaeologically. It belongs to the Przeworsk culture, named after a find site in present-day south-eastern Poland. Its hallmarks are cremation burials, with the ashes placed in urns or in pits, weapon graves containing swords and spearheads ritually bent before burial, and a distinctive pottery. Many scholars connect this culture with the Vandals and Lugii of the written sources; Kazimierz Godłowski worked on the question in depth.
It pays to separate the layers here. What is documented is a group of finds with shared traits that includes Silesia. Calling that group "Vandalic" is an interpretation. Assigning a particular cemetery or settlement to the Silingi would be an interpretation on top of an interpretation. No find site carries an ancient tribal name, and the Przeworsk culture extends far beyond any territory a single small tribe could have held. To the question of where exactly the Silingi lived and what set them apart from their neighbours, archaeology gives no answer.
South-east of Wrocław (Breslau) a single granite mountain rises from the plain: the Ślęża, in German Zobten, 718 metres high. At its foot lies the town of Sobótka, and the river Ślęza flows through the foreland. The mountain is recognisable as a cult place from the Neolithic and the Lusatian culture onward; ramparts and stone sculptures on the summit attest long use, though the dating of the sculptures is disputed. They have been called Celtic, prehistoric or early medieval.
A chain of linguistic reasoning links the mountain to the Silingi, and it is repeated so often that it begins to look like fact. It runs: the tribal name Silingi passed into the name of the mountain, the river and finally the land, so that Ślęża and Ślęza became Silesia (Polish Śląsk). The Online Etymology Dictionary does derive Silesia from the mountain, the river and the Silingi, with the qualifier "supposedly". That is the right tone. Against it stands the Slavic derivation, which traces Ślęża and Ślęza to a Slavic root meaning "damp, marshy". On that reading the land's name has nothing to do with the Vandals but with Slavic inhabitants, the Ślężanie, who settled the region in the early Middle Ages.
Both derivations are held in scholarship and neither is proven. Even the direction is open: did the tribe take its name from the mountain, or the mountain from the tribe? No written source places the Silingi at the Zobten. The idea that the mountain was a Silingian "religious centre" follows from the name equation, not from a find, and anyone repeating it should label it a hypothesis. The earliest evidence for the landscape itself is much later: in 1017 a pagus Silensi is named, a district whose name already comes close to modern Silesia.
Tacitus does not know the Silingi. In chapter 43 of the Germania he names the Lugii east of the Oder with their five strong peoples, among them the Naharvali (in Tacitus Nahanarvali), and describes their grove with the cult of the divine brothers called Alcis. How Tacitus' list relates to Ptolemy's we have set out in the articles on the Lugii, the Naharvali and the Helisii, and we will not repeat it here.
For the Silingi only the cross-connection matters. Scholars have considered that the Silingi occupied about the same area as the Naharvali, or that they hide under that name already in Tacitus; J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz raised the possibility in his essay "Gens into Regnum: The Vandals" (2003). Anyone who goes further and places the grove of the Alcis on the Zobten links two hypotheses to each other. Nothing here can be proved, because Tacitus names neither the Silingi nor a location for the Naharvali. The equation remains one possibility among several.
After Ptolemy, things go quiet. Pliny the Elder, writing around AD 77, lists the Vandili as a large group comprising the Burgodiones, Varinnae, Charini and Gutones; the Silingi are missing. Cassius Dio knows the Astingi, who invaded Dacia under Marcus Aurelius, but the Silingi do not occur in his work. In the accounts of the Vandals and Alans who crossed the Rhine in 406, no source known today names the Silingi. Jerome's letter 123 of 409 lists the peoples who ravaged Gaul: Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepids, Heruli, Saxons, Burgundians, Alamanni and Pannonians. Here too the Silingi are absent.
That is a striking result. A people that draws a whole province by lot in 411 must have been sizeable in 406. Either they were counted under the umbrella name "Vandals", or they joined the march later, or the informants simply did not know their name. The sources cannot decide among these. All that is clear is that the sub-tribe Hydatius later names is invisible in the reports of the Rhine crossing.
The story that eventually carries the Silingi to Spain begins with the Rhine crossing at the end of 406. Late antique chroniclers record that Vandals, Alans and Suebi crossed the river; tradition fixes the date on the last day of the year. The sources do not name the place explicitly. Scholars suspect the crossing near Mainz because Jerome (letter 123) reports that the once-famous city of Mainz was captured and destroyed and that many thousands were slain in its church. The destruction is attested; the crossing there is an inference.
The names of those involved are thin as well. Gregory of Tours, drawing on the lost historian Renatus Profuturus Frigeridus, names the Vandal king Godigisel, who fell in battle against the Franks; the Alans under Respendial came to the aid of the hard-pressed Vandals. The Silingi are not mentioned. Whether they were among the men who crossed at Mainz, we do not know. Three years later, in 409, the migrants stood in Spain, and Hydatius records the moment in one sentence: Alani, et Vandali, et Suevi Hispanias ingressi, "Alans, Vandals and Suebi entered Spain".
Two years later Hydatius makes the statement on which all our knowledge of the Silingi rests. According to him, the intruders turned to peace and divided the Spanish provinces among themselves, and they did so by lot (sortiuntur). Orosius, writing around 417, mentions the same process without naming anyone: the newcomers, he says, divided the land by lots and still hold it.
Hydatius lists the shares. The Asdingi, whom he simply calls "Vandals", and the Suebi received Gallaecia, the western edge of the world on the ocean, that is the north-west of the peninsula. The Alans took Lusitania and Carthaginiensis. And the Vandals "with the by-name Silingi" received Baetica, the fertile land along the Guadalquivir in the south. This is the first passage that calls the Silingi Vandals and the only source that assigns them a province. The Latin word cognomen means an added name; Hydatius therefore treats "Silingi" as a by-name within the Vandal group, not as a separate people beside it.
Who was Hydatius? He came from Gallaecia, was born around 400, became bishop of Aquae Flaviae (today Chaves in Portugal) and around 468/469 wrote a chronicle continuing Jerome's world chronicle. He says he saw Jerome as a child in the East. His chronicle is the principal source for fifth-century Spain, but it has limits. Hydatius wrote decades after the events of 411 to 418, from the north-west and from the viewpoint of a Catholic who experienced the Suebi as a scourge. His attention is fixed on Gallaecia; news from the south of the peninsula, where the Silingi lived, is sparse.
That does not mean he is wrong. It does mean that so weighty a claim as the allotment of 411 rests on his testimony alone. Neither contemporary reports from Gaul nor later authors confirm it independently. Whoever writes about the Silingi is, at the core, restating Hydatius. The standard edition and translation today is that of R. W. Burgess (Oxford 1993).
That the Silingi in Baetica had a kingship we learn only through one event: their defeat. From 416 the Visigothic king Wallia, whose Goths acted as allies of Rome, waged war on the peninsula on behalf of the emperor Honorius, after the Goths' attempt to cross to Africa had been wrecked by a storm. For 416 Hydatius notes that Wallia captured "Fredibalus, king of the Vandal people, by a ruse and without any fighting" and sent him to the emperor Honorius. The name is usually written Fredbal in scholarship. That he was king of the Silingi is the usual interpretation, because the Vandals in Baetica were Silingi according to Hydatius; the text itself says only "gens Vandalorum". The sources report nothing of Fredbal's fate in Ravenna.
Two years later comes the entry we quote here, because it contains the core of the case:
Vandali Silingi in Betica per Valliam regem omnes extincti.
“The Vandal Silingi in Baetica were all wiped out by King Wallia.”Hydatius, Chronicon for the year 418 (edition by R. W. Burgess, Oxford 1993); own translation
The same entry carries the note on the Alans. They were so badly beaten by the Goths, it says, that after the death of their king Addax the few survivors forgot the name of their kingdom and placed themselves under the protection of the Vandal king Gunderic, who had settled in Gallaecia. The sentence shows how Hydatius works: he writes two fates for two peoples, and for the Alans he names survivors, for the Silingi he does not.
Popular accounts sometimes claim that Orosius described the destruction of the Silingi. He did not. Orosius finished his Histories around 417/418, at the time of the campaign. In chapter 43 of book 7 he describes how Wallia, after the failed African plan, made peace with Honorius, returned the emperor's sister Placidia with honour, and offered his own risk "to Roman security" in order to fight the other peoples who had settled in Spain. Wallia's envoys tell Honorius to keep peace with everyone and take hostages from everyone; the Goths, they say, fight and perish for themselves but conquer for the emperor. Orosius names no people in this context, and the word Silingi does not occur in his chapters 40 to 43.
The names Silingi, Alans and Asdingi, and the fate of each, therefore come from Hydatius, not from Orosius. This is no quibble, because it decides how many independent witnesses we have: not two, but one.
Hydatius writes omnes extincti, "all wiped out". The phrase should neither be skipped nor taken too literally. Chroniclers of the period use such formulas for the end of a political body. Most probably it means that the Silingi ceased to exist as an independent power: their king was captured, their army beaten, their province back under Roman control. Whether every man, woman and child was killed is not claimed by the sentence and could not be proved by it.
Modern accounts therefore often assume that survivors of the Silingi merged into the Asdingi. That is a plausible reconstruction but an interpretation: Hydatius says it only of the Alans. What Baetica looked like after 418, he does not describe.
The Asdingi and the Suebi in Gallaecia soon fell out. Around 419/420 the Vandals under Gunderic besieged the Suebi in the "Nervasian mountains"; a Roman army under Asterius intervened, and the Vandals withdrew to Braga. In the following years the Asdingi left Gallaecia and moved south into Baetica, the province that had previously belonged to the Silingi. Gunderic died in 428 after the capture of Seville. His brother Gaiseric took over, and in 429 the Vandals crossed to Africa.
One can read this as a relay: the name Silingi disappears, the name Asdingi remains. According to a widely held view the name Asdingi lived on in the royal family. Of the Silingi we hear nothing more in the later sources on the Vandal kingdom. That does not mean every Siling vanished, only that the name was not carried forward.
Put everything together and a thin thread remains: one line in Ptolemy around 150, one sentence on Spain in 409, one sentence on the lot of 411, one sentence on Fredbal's capture in 416 and one sentence on the destruction of 418. Everything else, the equation with the Naharvali, the derivation of Silesia, the cult on the Zobten, is modern linking. That is legitimate as long as the link stays visible.
Anyone writing history from such sources has to keep the layers apart: what an ancient author says, what archaeologists find, what later chroniclers add and what scholars suppose. For the Silingi the first two layers are almost empty, which is exactly why they show so well how much can be built on little text, and where the bridge ends.
The Vandals · The Lugii · The Nahanarvali · The Helisii · The Semnones · The Suebi · The Goths · The Manimi.
All History & Finds articles →
It is one of the strangest love stories of the North: a god falls for a single glance, grows sick with longing, and …
Read more →