The traditional theory
On this page, I will summarize the traditional identifications of Dietrich,
Siegfried and the Nibelungen and the axioma's underlying these identifications.
Scholars generally agree on the identity of Dietrich von Bern, Attila the Hun
and the Nibelungen, but are less certain when it comes to Siegfried.
- Dietrich has been modelled after king Theodoric the Great, who
ruled the Ostrogoths in Italy from 493 to 526. Theodoric was the greatest king
of his times, as Dietrich reputedly was, and numerous Medieval sources seem to
equate them.
- The Nibelungen were the Burgundians. Roman sources tell how in the year
436, the Roman general Aetius destroyed the Burgundians. He may have been helped
by some Hunnish auxiliaries.
- Siegfried has been tentatively identified many times over. Speculations
range from 1st century Germanic freedom-fighters
through 6th century Frankish kings to
9th century Viking leaders.
- Attila the Hun, finally, is simply Attila the Hun.
The most surprising feature of these identifications, is, however
- that all scholars, whether they search for Siegfried, the Nibelungen or
Dietrich, whether they look for them in Roman, Early Medieval or High Medieval times,
have adhered to the absolute axioma that the historical counterparts of
the Germanic heroes must have found their way into Roman or Medieval chronicles.
By common scholarly consent, those persons not having merited an honourable mention in a Latin chronicle (roughly 99.9 %
of the population) are excluded from identification.
There is a second axioma, too:
- The Nibelungenlied, of all Dietrich- and Nibelungen-stories, is
historically the most trustworthy text.
Load the page
discussing Beck's criticism of Ritter's theory. The above axioma features prominently
in his short note.
As you may have noticed, I am no firm believer in the traditional identifications.
Nevertheless, I will try to treat them as fairly as possible, though the surprising
lack of evidence does not make this task any easier.
Continue the Introduction.