Historical problems

On this page, I will summarize the historical problems solved and raised by both the traditional identifications and Ritter's theory.

Historical problems of the traditional identifications

The historical problems raised by the traditional identifications are twofold:

Why do the stories about Dietrich von Bern have nothing to do with the actual life of Theodoric the Great?

Why do the Nibelungenlied and the Roman chronicles have a slightly but distinctly different view of what actually happened to the Nibelungen/Burgundians?

According to the traditional theory, the answer to both questions is:

Because the original, historical story has been extensively reworked during at least eight centuries.

There is undoubtedly some truth in this statement. The people telling and writing the stories during this eight centuries were not historians, they were entertainers earning their living by telling well-known stories of the Ancient Heroes. Their first priority was the story, not the history.

Nonetheless, I do not consider this answer altogether sufficient. It does not explain why:

Theodoric and Dietrich have absolutely nothing in common (except for their names).

the original story of the Burgundians has actually made a complete volte face to produce the story of the Nibelungen.

To explain this last statement:

According to the Roman chronicles, the Burgundians, living somewhere in Gaul, were suddenly and treacherously attacked by the Huns, who extirpated the tribe and its royal family.
Nota bene: The Burgundians thus fought to defend their homesteads.

According to the Nibelungenlied and all other Nibelungen-stories, the Nibelungen were invited to Attila's court and while being there were suddenly and treacherously attacked, everyone dying in the process.
Nota bene: The Nibelungen thus fought in the town of their enemy, while having the right to expect sacred hospitality.

Thus, the central theme of the story has switched from a purely defensive, clear-cut honourable fight to a much more messy situation, in which nearly everyone loses his honour as well as his life (this, incidentally, being the story's prime attraction for the prickly and honour-mad Germans).
Besides, in the sources there is no reference whatsoever to the Burgundians traveling anywhere. On the contrary: they fight in Gaul, while all stories agree that Attila's court, whatever the exact place, was not in Gaul.

Thus, the situation is complex. While I do not follow the traditional theory, it is not possible to dismiss it out of hand. Nevertheless, profound criticism would do it some good and in the following pages I will ruthlessly attack it.

Historical problems of Ritter's theory

When considering Ritter's theory, the primary question is, of course:

Does any historical source state anything that can be construed as support for Ritter's theory?

The answer is: no.

Nevertheless, sources for fifth century history are not exactly abundant. It is quite possible that Ritter is absolutely right, but no sources have survived to attest it.
Possibilities, however, do not make scientific evidence.

If we follow Ritter, some historical problems mentioned above are solved:

The stories about Dietrich von Bern have nothing to do with the actual life of Theodoric the Great, because Dietrich von Bern is in fact not Theodoric the Great.
The same goes for the discrepancies between sources and stories about the Nibelungen/Burgundians.

Thus, Ritter's theory radically simplifies the historical problems. Unfortunately, simplification is no scientific evidence, either.

There are two historical problems raised by Ritter:

According to the Thidrekssaga, Attila the Hun lived in Soest. This means that he cannot have been the same as the Attila the Hun of Roman history, who lived somewhere in Hungary.
If we accept the Thidrekssaga has retained some historical truth, we must also accept that this truth stems from oral tradition. This, in turn, leads to the question whether oral tradition is reliable at all and, if so, to what extent.

These problems can be solved. I think there were indeed two Attila's the Hun, and I intend to prove from the text of the Thidrekssaga itself that the original story has probably been fixed during the lifetime of Dietrich von Bern, thus also proving that the saga directly descents from this story and must have been handed down by oral tradition.

Load the page discussing oral tradition.