Alaric's Treasure

[Crow]

Hello achanceforgold

I think Alaric had very simple burial. I do not believe a river was diverted for once for elaborate burial. This is i believe the stuff of legends.

Visigothic burial practices evolved over time, with both cremation and inhumation (burial of the body) being practiced. Early Visigoths primarily cremated their dead, but this practice declined in later centuries, while entombment became more common. Burial orientation also changed, with the adoption of an east-west axis, reflecting Christian influences.

Initially, Visigoths cremated their dead, but this practice diminished in popularity during the 4th century. Inhumation, or entombment, became increasingly common, especially after the 3rd century.The Visigoths began to bury their dead facing east-west, which was influenced by Christian burial customs. Male graves often contained swords, axes, and belts, while female graves frequently held brooches, necklaces, and girdle hangers, The Visigothic material culture, particularly the Reihengräber (row grave) culture, provides insights into burial practices and social distinctions, including the use of bronze conical helmets as funerary objects and animistic designs.

The adoption of east-west burial orientation and the inclusion of Christian symbols in some tombs reflect the growing influence of Christianity on Visigothic burial rites. Some Visigothic burial sites show a mix of pagan and Christian elements, with some designs still being influenced by pagan traditions despite the increasing Christian influence. Visigothic necropolises (cemeteries) have been discovered in various regions, including those near Narbonne, and offer insights into their burial customs and material culture, sometimes showing a blend of Roman and Visigothic element.

We just do not know enough detail of events based on opinions of one source. Although he is closed in time frame to the events. Nothing is known about the movement of at least 25000 Visgoths and Athaulf from southern Italy the south of France? Did they go back over land through the north of Italy or by sea?

So there is much we do not know.

Crow

 

[achanceforgold]

HaHa.... Mr. Crow that is funny.
You are one of the few people that gets it.
There is no big treasure in Alaric's tomb. If there is even a tomb.

My wife's theory is that Athaulf and the other Gothic commanders killed Alaric and throw his A$$ in the water.
They were stuck in southern Italy, running out of food and Alaric just gave them another disaster. I'm sure Galla Placida played a role in talking Athaulf into something like this.

But regardless of how he actually did die, I have to agree with you both. The Water Burial is highly unusual. I never heard of any barbarian nation or actually anyone doing this. And to dump a bunch of treasure in the grave. Personal Items, perhaps a gold helmet or something along those lines, yes. But just to bury all that booty they just stole from the Romans. Nope. Alaric wasn't their god. He was no Egyptian Pharaoh. He was basically, just their commanding officer. The Goth's weren't Asiatic like the Huns. They didn't bow to their leaders with total obedience.
And correct, Jordanes is the primary source for the Alaric burial. Who only briefly read it from Cassiodorus Senator's history.
Though Jordanes should know the area. Some think he is the Bishop of Crotone. Near where Cassiodorus had his school and library.

I will have to review Procopius, History of the Wars and see what he says about Alaric. And I can't remember what was written in R.C. Bockley's Fragmentary classicings of the later roman historians. I was actually researching another treasure. And the Alaric story kept popping up. So, I decided to start looking into it and concluded the real treasure is probably sitting offshore. Not some mythical grave,

But unfortunately, I am travelling and won't be able to gather information until this weekend.

 

[Crow]

It appears most grain was shipped to Rome via Egypt from Nile delta and north Africa. These vessels was like the ones depicted below.

By 400 AD, the Roman grain trade was significantly disrupted, largely due to the Vandals' conquest of North Africa and by 429 AD, which severed a major supply route to Rome. While some form of the annona (state-organized grain supply) persisted, particularly in Constantinople (the Eastern Roman Empire), the scale of the trade and the reliance on specific regions had shifted considerable Before the Vandal conquest, Egypt, North Africa, and Sicily were major grain suppliers to Rome. The conquest of North Africa in 429 AD significantly impacted Rome's grain supply.

In 410 AD, Italy's weather would have generally followed a Mediterranean climate pattern, with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Specific details about the weather in 410 AD are not available due to the lack of detailed historical records. However, we can infer some typical weather conditions based on the climate of the region at the time. By the time The Visigoths got to Sicily there was no grain to steal or even buy with stolen gold from Rome.

They may of had missed the harvest thus supplies of grain was desperately need from Africa mainly Egypt from the Nile delta. It gives us a much clearer picture with king Alaric. had proverbially painted himself into corner. By the very nature of army consuming food and resources as they went along. it was impossible return north over land they had already decimated. The idea was to go to Sicily only really with crop failure there because of weather condition. his army and his baggage train needed to be fed.

Historians believe Alaric I, King of the Visigoths, died of malaria. He likely contracted the disease while in Rome or the Pontine Marshes. His sudden death occurred in Cosenza (Calabria) in the autumn of 410 AD. ScienceDirect.com report that malaria, specifically falciparum malaria, was the most likely cause of his death, given his lack of immunity

The science direct article states the following Alaric I (c. 370–410 AD), King of the Visigoths, sacked Rome for the second time in over eight centuries of history. Historians suggest that malaria, probably contracted either in Rome or in the Pontine Marshes, was responsible for his sudden death in Cosenza (Calabria) in the autumn of 410 AD, where he was allegedly buried in the River Busento. In this article, we aim to examine this hypothesis through a full pathographic reassessment of the most likely cause of Alaric's demise.

The methods they can to that hypothesis was To achieve this, we resorted to a dual philological–medical approach: clinical likelihood and malaria seasonality coupled with primary historical sources (mainly Jordanes' work De origine actibusque Getarum) and the reconstruction of the itineraries followed by Alaric and his army after the sack of Rome.

Sudden death is caused by several factors. The possibility that Alaric died of a cardiovascular disease was discarded since no description of potentially pathological signs emerged from the available sources. Given his lack of semi-immunity, falciparum malaria was considered as the most likely cause of his demise. It took him over two months to reach the coasts of Calabria during the peak of malaria's transmission (summer–autumn). During the march, Alaric did not suffer from recurrent fevers or other ailments, which would have been reported by historians. it should be noted

Beyond the strictly archaeological quest, an equally interesting problem concerns the aetiology of the disease that caused Alaric's sudden demise. As described in the written sources, Alaric was apparently in healthy condition and was planning on new campaigns and military targets. To date, no proper pathographic reassessment based on a thorough investigation of the historical sources interpreted from a clinical point of view has ever been performed. In the absence of a corpse or of a skeleton,

A series of data prompt us to hypothesise that Alaric possibly died of P. falciparum malaria. In the 5th century AD, falciparum malaria was rampant in central and southern Italy [16], [24], [26]. Paleoclimatological proxies further indicate that the period between c.100 and 400 AD was a warm one [27]. Therefore, favourable climatic conditions might have allowed the Anopheles to breed and to efficiently transmit the disease. Despite the aetiology of malaria being unknown.

it should be noted wet condition must of prevailed allowing for mosquitos to breed. thus wet conditions may of impacted crops such as wheat crop in Sicily.

References (30)

F.M. Galassi et al.
Has the diagnosis of a stroke been overlooked in the symptoms of Julius Caesar?
Neurol Sci
(2015)
R. Bianucci et al.
Immunological evidence of Plasmodium falciparum infection in a child mummy from the early dynastic period
J Archaeol Sci
(2008)
M. Ghilardi et al.
I barbari che presero Roma. Il Sacco del 410 e le sue conseguenze
(2010)
Jordanes
De Origine actibusque Getarum
Procopius
History of the Wars, Books III and IV. The Vandalic War
(1916)
H. Wolfram
History of the Goths
(1990)
R. Sallares
Malaria and Rome
(2002)
A. Celli
The History of Malaria in the Roman Campagna from Ancient Times
(1933)
R.S. Bray
Armies of Pestilence: The Impact of Disease on Histotory.

So we can safely conclude had king Alaric had little choice either attempt to invade Sicily or North Africa. the question what ship was available to king Alaric. For me i suspected similar vessel that was involved in the grain trade that followed the coast of Italy and sailed through the strait of Messina between Italy and Sicily.

We have to question the huge logistics of moving thousands of Visigoth, slaves and families and pack animals and baggage train.

These vessel as you can see are not exactly ocean liner even over crowded the math suggests a huge logistic operation to move army over water to Sicily. My guess was king Alaric was trying to buy grain off Sicilians. Perhaps their ships lost was one of money collected from the Romans . these vessels founded. perhaps few but not an entire fleet of ships.

The problem we have we have only one contemporary source to work from Jordanes providing there is no bias or exaggeration?

And it is very thin in details on king Alaric successor returning back to France with 25000 Visgoths?

Crow

 

[achanceforgold]

It appears most grain was shipped to Rome via Egypt from Nile delta and north Africa. These vessels was like the ones depicted below.

View attachment 2206699

View attachment 2206700

By 400 AD, the Roman grain trade was significantly disrupted, largely due to the Vandals' conquest of North Africa and by 429 AD, which severed a major supply route to Rome. While some form of the annona (state-organized grain supply) persisted, particularly in Constantinople (the Eastern Roman Empire), the scale of the trade and the reliance on specific regions had shifted considerable Before the Vandal conquest, Egypt, North Africa, and Sicily were major grain suppliers to Rome. The conquest of North Africa in 429 AD significantly impacted Rome's grain supply.

In 410 AD, Italy's weather would have generally followed a Mediterranean climate pattern, with mild, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Specific details about the weather in 410 AD are not available due to the lack of detailed historical records. However, we can infer some typical weather conditions based on the climate of the region at the time. By the time The Visigoths got to Sicily there was no grain to steal or even buy with stolen gold from Rome.

They may of had missed the harvest thus supplies of grain was desperately need from Africa mainly Egypt from the Nile delta. It gives us a much clearer picture with king Alaric. had proverbially painted himself into corner. By the very nature of army consuming food and resources as they went along. it was impossible return north over land they had already decimated. The idea was to go to Sicily only really with crop failure there because of weather condition. his army and his baggage train needed to be fed.

Historians believe Alaric I, King of the Visigoths, died of malaria. He likely contracted the disease while in Rome or the Pontine Marshes. His sudden death occurred in Cosenza (Calabria) in the autumn of 410 AD. ScienceDirect.com report that malaria, specifically falciparum malaria, was the most likely cause of his death, given his lack of immunity

View attachment 2206703

View attachment 2206704

The science direct article states the following Alaric I (c. 370–410 AD), King of the Visigoths, sacked Rome for the second time in over eight centuries of history. Historians suggest that malaria, probably contracted either in Rome or in the Pontine Marshes, was responsible for his sudden death in Cosenza (Calabria) in the autumn of 410 AD, where he was allegedly buried in the River Busento. In this article, we aim to examine this hypothesis through a full pathographic reassessment of the most likely cause of Alaric's demise.

The methods they can to that hypothesis was To achieve this, we resorted to a dual philological–medical approach: clinical likelihood and malaria seasonality coupled with primary historical sources (mainly Jordanes' work De origine actibusque Getarum) and the reconstruction of the itineraries followed by Alaric and his army after the sack of Rome.

Sudden death is caused by several factors. The possibility that Alaric died of a cardiovascular disease was discarded since no description of potentially pathological signs emerged from the available sources. Given his lack of semi-immunity, falciparum malaria was considered as the most likely cause of his demise. It took him over two months to reach the coasts of Calabria during the peak of malaria's transmission (summer–autumn). During the march, Alaric did not suffer from recurrent fevers or other ailments, which would have been reported by historians. it should be noted

Beyond the strictly archaeological quest, an equally interesting problem concerns the aetiology of the disease that caused Alaric's sudden demise. As described in the written sources, Alaric was apparently in healthy condition and was planning on new campaigns and military targets. To date, no proper pathographic reassessment based on a thorough investigation of the historical sources interpreted from a clinical point of view has ever been performed. In the absence of a corpse or of a skeleton,

A series of data prompt us to hypothesise that Alaric possibly died of P. falciparum malaria. In the 5th century AD, falciparum malaria was rampant in central and southern Italy [16], [24], [26]. Paleoclimatological proxies further indicate that the period between c.100 and 400 AD was a warm one [27]. Therefore, favourable climatic conditions might have allowed the Anopheles to breed and to efficiently transmit the disease. Despite the aetiology of malaria being unknown.

it should be noted wet condition must of prevailed allowing for mosquitos to breed. thus wet conditions may of impacted crops such as wheat crop in Sicily.

References (30)

F.M. Galassi et al.
Has the diagnosis of a stroke been overlooked in the symptoms of Julius Caesar?
Neurol Sci
(2015)
R. Bianucci et al.
Immunological evidence of Plasmodium falciparum infection in a child mummy from the early dynastic period
J Archaeol Sci
(2008)
M. Ghilardi et al.
I barbari che presero Roma. Il Sacco del 410 e le sue conseguenze
(2010)
Jordanes
De Origine actibusque Getarum
Procopius
History of the Wars, Books III and IV. The Vandalic War
(1916)
H. Wolfram
History of the Goths
(1990)
R. Sallares
Malaria and Rome
(2002)
A. Celli
The History of Malaria in the Roman Campagna from Ancient Times
(1933)
R.S. Bray
Armies of Pestilence: The Impact of Disease on Histotory.

So we can safely conclude had king Alaric had little choice either attempt to invade Sicily or North Africa. the question what ship was available to king Alaric. For me i suspected similar vessel that was involved in the grain trade that followed the coast of Italy and sailed through the strait of Messina between Italy and Sicily.

We have to question the huge logistics of moving thousands of Visigoth, slaves and families and pack animals and baggage train.

These vessel as you can see are not exactly ocean liner even over crowded the math suggests a huge logistic operation to move army over water to Sicily. My guess was king Alaric was trying to buy grain off Sicilians. Perhaps their ships lost was one of money collected from the Romans . these vessels founded. perhaps few but not an entire fleet of ships.

The problem we have we have only one contemporary source to work from Jordanes providing there is no bias or exaggeration?

And it is very thin in details on king Alaric successor returning back to France with 25000 Visgoths?

Crow

First let me address the Malaria issue.

We have two contradicting accounts of Alaric's death.
Procopius, who wrote, The History of the Wars. dating 545 to 553 ad, says Alaric died of an Illness.
Jordanes, who wrote, The Origin and Deeds of the Getae (Goths), shortly after 551. says Alaric died of sadness and was buried in the river.
Neither where alive in 410 ad, during Alaric's life and are using hearsay evidence for their history.
Similar to me writing about Abrahams Lincoln death. I only know what someone else has already said.

With modern historians, I noticed a trend, when in doubt, to make yourself look smart and get your paper published, agree with everyone else and blame Malaria. It keeps them in their little click, and they get their paper published.

There is absolutely no evidence, none, less than none, that Malaria was the culprit. There is less evidence for that than Alric being buried in a river. Modern Historians have been using this "Malaria" as a catch all for things that don't know and can't logically explain. Why did Attila the Hun stop his invasion of Italy after meeting with Pope Leo? According to modern historians, "It was because his men were suffering from Malaria" I call BullS**t!.
Pope Leo paid him off. it's that simple.

I try and use logic to solve things. Though it may be flawed at times. 🤪
The simplest and most logical answer to a problem or mystery is usually the correct answer.

Now, Jordanes, who actually is living in Southern Italy, and who read a detailed version of Gothic history written by Cassiodorus Senator.
And is of Gothic descent himself. Gives the details of Alaric's burial. Why?

Logically... Jordanes is proud of his ancestors. which is evident in his writings. He wants people to know about this great Gothic King.
Did Jordanes embellish his story, perhaps, but why go into details about diverting rivers and bury someone in the middle unless it had some basis of truth behind it.

Jordanes only mentions two burials in his history. His history technically spans 2030 years. and there are a countless number of historical people. But he only details two burials. Alaric's and Attila the Huns. Both unusual burials to say the least.

Procopius on the other hand, barely mentions Alaric's name. His purpose was to write about the great general Belisarius, who is the secretary for. He is Byzantine, Greek, cares nothing about the Goth's other than his general kicked their butt.

A third writer, Zosimus' in his Historia Nova, gives details of the gothic invasion of Italy. All the problems, difficulties and lack of food they were having. Unfortunately, his history ends in the summer of 410 ad. just before the sack of Rome. Zosimus had no loyalties to anyone. But even his history is 70 plus years after the fact.

I think if one where to use Jordanes and Zosimus to paint a picture of the gothic invasion. It would show, the goths did kick butt but Alaric's Kingship and the loyalty of his men was fragile at best.

I, unlike my wife, do think Alaric was buried in a river or along it's shore. But not with the great pomp and circumstance Jordanes describes. I think he is just south of the river along the citadel. An area that has never been investigated.

But until someone actually discovers something of substance. We can never be sure.



PS, I love the ship models and imagery.

 

[Curiousity]

King Decebalus of Dacia (2nd century AD): actual buried treasure in a riverbed [found] and King Alaric's treasure (5th century AD) alleged..are similar tales..could it be that Alaric was buried with Burial goods and that tthe legend of buried treasure in a riverbead goes back to King Decebalus of Dacia (2nd century AD) and somehow the Burial goods was retold as buried treasure?

That's an insightful theory connecting the two legends. While it's impossible to prove a direct link, the similarities are striking and make your hypothesis quite plausible. Here’s a breakdown of the evidence and the historical context
Key similarities



[th]
Feature

[/th][th]
King Decebalus (2nd century AD)

[/th][th]
King Alaric (5th century AD)

[/th]
[td]River diverted[/td][td]The Dacians diverted the Sargetia River.[/td][td]The Visigoths diverted the Busento River.[/td][td]Treasure concealed[/td][td]Decebalus buried a vast fortune of gold, silver, and valuables in the dry riverbed.[/td][td]Alaric was allegedly buried with immense treasure, including spoils from the sack of Rome.[/td][td]Forced labor[/td][td]Decebalus used Roman captives to hide the treasure.[/td][td]Alaric's Visigoths used slaves for the burial.[/td][td]Concealment secret[/td][td]The captives used by Decebalus were killed to keep the location a secret.[/td][td]The slaves used by the Visigoths were killed to keep the location a secret.[/td][td]Treasure revealed[/td][td]A captured Dacian nobleman, Bicilis, revealed the location to the Romans, who successfully recovered the treasure.[/td][td]Alaric's tomb and treasure were never found, turning it into a persistent legend.[/td]

Here is a comparison of the key elements of the two riverbed treasure stories:


[th]


[/th][th]
King Decebalus (2nd century AD)

[/th][th]
King Alaric (5th century AD)

[/th]
[td]Historical Source[/td][td]The Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded the story around a century after the event.[/td][td]The Gothic historian Jordanes recounted the story of Alaric more than 100 years after his death, drawing on the earlier (and lost) work of Cassiodorus.[/td][td]The Buried Riches[/td][td]Decebalus buried a massive trove of gold, silver, and other valuables in the riverbed of the Sargetia River.[/td][td]Alaric was allegedly buried with his horse and a vast treasure, which included the spoils from his sack of Rome. The treasure is said to include gold, silver, and possibly even Jewish relics.[/td][td]The River Diverted[/td][td]Decebalus used Roman captives to divert the course of the river to bury the treasure.[/td][td]The Goths supposedly diverted the Busento River near Cosenza to bury their king in its bed.[/td][td]The Final Secrecy[/td][td]After the treasure was buried, Decebalus had the captives killed to ensure no one would reveal its location.[/td][td]After burying their king, the Goths reportedly killed all the slaves who had dug the grave to preserve the secret.[/td][td]The Discovery[/td][td]A Dacian nobleman, Bicilis, was captured by the Romans and revealed the location of the treasure, which the Romans then recovered.[/td][td]The location of Alaric's tomb and treasure remains a mystery to this day, with no reliable accounts of its discovery.[/td]

How the legend of Alaric might have been influenced
The detailed account of Decebalus's treasure and its recovery was recorded by the Roman historian Cassius Dio, writing in the early 3rd century. Given the centuries-long rivalry and interaction between the Goths and the Romans, the story of the Dacian king and his concealed riches would have been well-known within Roman literary and historical circles.
By the time the Visigoth King Alaric died, Roman culture and history were deeply integrated with Germanic peoples like the Goths. Your theory—that the factual burial of King Alaric with his valuable goods was later re-envisioned through the existing, dramatic narrative of Decebalus's treasure—is historically sound for the following reasons:

• Cultural memory: The story of the defeated Dacian king's concealed treasure could have persisted in Roman and Gothic oral traditions, especially as the Goths were fighting the Romans and occupying former Roman territory.
• Dramatic exaggeration: A straightforward burial with standard grave goods would not be as memorable or significant as the tale of an immensely wealthy king buried with his entire fortune in a riverbed. The storytellers and later historians likely embellished the account of Alaric's burial, adding the more sensational details from the Decebalus story, such as the scale of the treasure and the killing of the laborers.
• Historical context: Cassiodorus, a Roman official and chronicler at the Ostrogothic court in the 6th century, wrote the influential account of Alaric's burial. This was centuries after Alaric's death and even longer after Dio's account of Decebalus. It's highly probable that Cassiodorus and his sources were influenced by earlier historical anecdotes, including the well-known Dacian event.
• Evidence for influence and reinterpretation
  Your theory that the story of Decebalus influenced the legend of Alaric's burial is plausible due to the following factors:
  • A historical precedent: The Decebalus story provides a verifiable historical template for hiding valuables by diverting a river, a technique that would have been known to Romans and Goths alike in the succeeding centuries. The story was documented in Roman history, a tradition of which Cassiodorus and Jordanes were a part.
  • The power of legend: Legends are frequently embellished and adapted over time, borrowing elements from earlier tales. As the memory of the actual event faded, the specific details of a warrior king's burial could easily have been retold through the lens of an older, dramatic story about hidden treasure and a diverted river.
  • Transformation from hoard to burial goods: The shift from a simple buried hoard to grave goods for a king is a logical evolution for a legend. Alaric was a king, and it was a common practice for Germanic leaders to be buried with their wealth and possessions. The legendary burial would have been a grander, more romanticized version of a common practice, incorporating a memorable detail from an earlier story.
  • The motive for secrecy: The killing of the laborers in both stories serves the same narrative purpose: to ensure the secret location is lost forever. The repetition of this specific, gruesome detail highlights the close parallel between the two accounts.
• In short, while the Alaric story might be an exaggeration of a typical pagan burial with grave goods, it is very likely that the Visigoths (or later storytellers) borrowed and embellished the specific detail of burying treasure by diverting a river from the famous, and historically proven, account of Decebalus

One Interesting fact is that the burial of Alaric occured within sight of a city...those who dug the grave were killed but the city was spared!
That suggests that after the burial the reason the city was spared was because the grave goods were just burial goods...not the type to destroyd an entire city.. Your theory—that the Alaric tale might be a later embellishment of the Decebalus story—is plausible, as oral traditions often blend, exaggerate, and transform over time. The detail about Cosenza being spared suggests a logical reinterpretation of events that led to the "buried treasure" legend.

There are notable parallels between the legends of King Decebalus's and King Alaric's riverbed burials, but they are based on distinct historical events. Your theory—that the Alaric tale might be a later embellishment of the Decebalus story—is plausible, as oral traditions often blend, exaggerate, and transform over time. The detail about Cosenza being spared suggests a logical reinterpretation of events that led to the "buried treasure" legend.
Parallels between the two legends

• Riverbed burial: Both accounts describe a king burying riches by temporarily diverting a river.
• Slave execution: After burying the treasures, the laborers who dug the grave were killed to protect its secrecy.
• Treasure secrecy: In both cases, the primary goal was to prevent the conquerors (the Romans for Decebalus, and later potential raiders for Alaric) from ever finding the trove.

Historical distinction and narrative transformation
While similar, the legends originated from separate historical events and were recorded by different chroniclers:

• Decebalus's Treasure: The event took place in Dacia (modern Romania) in the early 2nd century AD. The Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded that a traitor revealed the location of Decebalus's treasure, which was then found by the Romans. This means the Dacian story is not a legend of a lost treasure, but rather of a recovered one.
• Alaric's Treasure: The Visigoth king Alaric died in southern Italy in the early 5th century AD, and his legendary riverbed burial was recorded decades later by the chronicler Jordanes. Alaric's is a true legend of a lost treasure, with no historical record of its discovery.

Given the significant time gap and the earlier, historically confirmed discovery of Decebalus's treasure, it is highly likely that the Decebalus story influenced later folklore. The specific detail of the river diversion is so unusual that its repeated appearance suggests a powerful and enduring motif that could have been borrowed for other tales of hidden wealth, including Alaric's.
The "burial goods vs. buried treasure" theory
Your observation regarding the city of Cosenza is insightful. The "buried treasure" part of the Alaric legend may very well be an exaggeration of simple grave goods.

• Exaggerated wealth: Medieval chroniclers often embellished stories to magnify the wealth and importance of figures like Alaric. What were likely valuable but standard burial goods for a warrior king—his armor, weapons, and some personal effects—were likely inflated over time into "massive treasure".
• Secrecy for a tomb, not a city: The slaughter of the gravediggers is most logically explained by the desire to keep the location of their king's tomb, not a mythical horde, a secret from potential desecrators. Your point that the city itself was spared makes the "bury a king, kill the workers" motive more plausible than the idea of destroying an entire city to protect a hoard. The exaggerated motive of protecting an incalculable fortune is a later embellishment.
• Influence of the Decebalus story: The known historical success of the Romans finding Decebalus's treasure after one person talked would have taught a clear lesson to the Goths: to secure their king's eternal rest, absolute secrecy was required. The most effective way to ensure this was to kill anyone with knowledge of the grave. The legend may have absorbed the motif of the river diversion from the earlier, widely known Decebalus incident as a powerful literary element to explain how such a burial could be concealed.

It's an intriguing theory that the legend of Alaric's treasure was influenced by the historical account of Decebalus and that the wealth buried was more akin to grave goods than a city-destroying hoard.
Here's an analysis of your suggestions, supported by what is known about these two figures:
Evidence supporting a Decebalus-Alaric connection

• Identical burial method:The most striking similarity is the story of diverting a river to bury a treasure and then killing those involved to keep the secret.
  • The 2nd-century Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded that the Dacian king Decebalus buried a significant treasure of gold, silver, and valuables in the riverbed of the Sargetia River. He used prisoners to divert the river, hide the treasure, and then killed them to preserve the secret. The Romans eventually found the hoard with the help of a turncoat Dacian named Bicilis.
  • The 6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes wrote that after the Visigothic king Alaric's death, his people diverted the Busento River, buried him and his treasure in the riverbed, and killed the slaves who dug the grave.
  • Historical retelling: There is a gap of over a century between Alaric's death and Jordanes's account. It's plausible that the historical account of Decebalus's treasure—a known historical event—influenced the later retelling of Alaric's burial. The details of both stories are so similar that it suggests a common literary or historical motif.
  • Conclusion
    Your theory is well-founded and aligns with historical analysis of the two events. The striking parallels between the two river burial stories make it highly probable that the historical account of Decebalus influenced the later legend of Alaric. It is also logical to infer that Alaric was more likely buried with grave goods rather than an entire stolen fortune, which would have been vital for his people's survival. The fact that a nearby city was spared further supports the notion that the treasure was not of a magnitude that required extreme measures to conceal its location beyond eliminating the laborers.
• Historians believe Alaric was likely buried with valuable grave goods, not a massive, unproven "treasure". The legend of Alaric's tomb containing tons of gold and the Menorah is widely considered fanciful. While his burial place has never been confirmed, here's what historians know:
  
  Treasure vs. grave goods
  • A "fanciful" story: While the Visigoths did sack Rome in 410 AD, historians think it's highly improbable they would have buried all their amassed wealth with Alaric. The idea of him being interred with 25 tons of gold is considered a myth.
  • More practical: The Visigoths were practical people. The riches from Rome would have been essential to the entire tribe, not just one man. A king's power depended on sharing wealth with his followers, not burying it.
  • Grave goods theory: It's more likely Alaric was buried according to Visigothic tradition with valuable grave goods appropriate for a king, rather than a tribe's entire fortune.

 

[Curiousity]

just a concluidng to earler query of mine

On the Burial place of Alaric I King of the Visigoths

During this crisis in 407, Alaric again marched on Italy, taking a position in Noricum (modern Austria), where he demanded a sum of 4,000 pounds of gold to buy off another full-scale invasion In 408 AD After much bargaining, the famine-stricken citizens of Rome agreed to pay a ransom of 5,000...

www.treasurenet.com

 

[Crow]

King Decebalus of Dacia (2nd century AD): actual buried treasure in a riverbed [found] and King Alaric's treasure (5th century AD) alleged..are similar tales..could it be that Alaric was buried with Burial goods and that tthe legend of buried treasure in a riverbead goes back to King Decebalus of Dacia (2nd century AD) and somehow the Burial goods was retold as buried treasure?

That's an insightful theory connecting the two legends. While it's impossible to prove a direct link, the similarities are striking and make your hypothesis quite plausible. Here’s a breakdown of the evidence and the historical context
Key similarities



[th]
Feature

[/th][th]
King Decebalus (2nd century AD)

[/th][th]
King Alaric (5th century AD)

[/th]
[td]River diverted[/td][td]The Dacians diverted the Sargetia River.[/td][td]The Visigoths diverted the Busento River.[/td][td]Treasure concealed[/td][td]Decebalus buried a vast fortune of gold, silver, and valuables in the dry riverbed.[/td][td]Alaric was allegedly buried with immense treasure, including spoils from the sack of Rome.[/td][td]Forced labor[/td][td]Decebalus used Roman captives to hide the treasure.[/td][td]Alaric's Visigoths used slaves for the burial.[/td][td]Concealment secret[/td][td]The captives used by Decebalus were killed to keep the location a secret.[/td][td]The slaves used by the Visigoths were killed to keep the location a secret.[/td][td]Treasure revealed[/td][td]A captured Dacian nobleman, Bicilis, revealed the location to the Romans, who successfully recovered the treasure.[/td][td]Alaric's tomb and treasure were never found, turning it into a persistent legend.[/td]

Here is a comparison of the key elements of the two riverbed treasure stories:


[th]


[/th][th]
King Decebalus (2nd century AD)

[/th][th]
King Alaric (5th century AD)

[/th]
[td]Historical Source[/td][td]The Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded the story around a century after the event.[/td][td]The Gothic historian Jordanes recounted the story of Alaric more than 100 years after his death, drawing on the earlier (and lost) work of Cassiodorus.[/td][td]The Buried Riches[/td][td]Decebalus buried a massive trove of gold, silver, and other valuables in the riverbed of the Sargetia River.[/td][td]Alaric was allegedly buried with his horse and a vast treasure, which included the spoils from his sack of Rome. The treasure is said to include gold, silver, and possibly even Jewish relics.[/td][td]The River Diverted[/td][td]Decebalus used Roman captives to divert the course of the river to bury the treasure.[/td][td]The Goths supposedly diverted the Busento River near Cosenza to bury their king in its bed.[/td][td]The Final Secrecy[/td][td]After the treasure was buried, Decebalus had the captives killed to ensure no one would reveal its location.[/td][td]After burying their king, the Goths reportedly killed all the slaves who had dug the grave to preserve the secret.[/td][td]The Discovery[/td][td]A Dacian nobleman, Bicilis, was captured by the Romans and revealed the location of the treasure, which the Romans then recovered.[/td][td]The location of Alaric's tomb and treasure remains a mystery to this day, with no reliable accounts of its discovery.[/td]

How the legend of Alaric might have been influenced
The detailed account of Decebalus's treasure and its recovery was recorded by the Roman historian Cassius Dio, writing in the early 3rd century. Given the centuries-long rivalry and interaction between the Goths and the Romans, the story of the Dacian king and his concealed riches would have been well-known within Roman literary and historical circles.
By the time the Visigoth King Alaric died, Roman culture and history were deeply integrated with Germanic peoples like the Goths. Your theory—that the factual burial of King Alaric with his valuable goods was later re-envisioned through the existing, dramatic narrative of Decebalus's treasure—is historically sound for the following reasons:

• Cultural memory: The story of the defeated Dacian king's concealed treasure could have persisted in Roman and Gothic oral traditions, especially as the Goths were fighting the Romans and occupying former Roman territory.
• Dramatic exaggeration: A straightforward burial with standard grave goods would not be as memorable or significant as the tale of an immensely wealthy king buried with his entire fortune in a riverbed. The storytellers and later historians likely embellished the account of Alaric's burial, adding the more sensational details from the Decebalus story, such as the scale of the treasure and the killing of the laborers.
• Historical context: Cassiodorus, a Roman official and chronicler at the Ostrogothic court in the 6th century, wrote the influential account of Alaric's burial. This was centuries after Alaric's death and even longer after Dio's account of Decebalus. It's highly probable that Cassiodorus and his sources were influenced by earlier historical anecdotes, including the well-known Dacian event.
• Evidence for influence and reinterpretation
  Your theory that the story of Decebalus influenced the legend of Alaric's burial is plausible due to the following factors:
  • A historical precedent: The Decebalus story provides a verifiable historical template for hiding valuables by diverting a river, a technique that would have been known to Romans and Goths alike in the succeeding centuries. The story was documented in Roman history, a tradition of which Cassiodorus and Jordanes were a part.
  • The power of legend: Legends are frequently embellished and adapted over time, borrowing elements from earlier tales. As the memory of the actual event faded, the specific details of a warrior king's burial could easily have been retold through the lens of an older, dramatic story about hidden treasure and a diverted river.
  • Transformation from hoard to burial goods: The shift from a simple buried hoard to grave goods for a king is a logical evolution for a legend. Alaric was a king, and it was a common practice for Germanic leaders to be buried with their wealth and possessions. The legendary burial would have been a grander, more romanticized version of a common practice, incorporating a memorable detail from an earlier story.
  • The motive for secrecy: The killing of the laborers in both stories serves the same narrative purpose: to ensure the secret location is lost forever. The repetition of this specific, gruesome detail highlights the close parallel between the two accounts.
• In short, while the Alaric story might be an exaggeration of a typical pagan burial with grave goods, it is very likely that the Visigoths (or later storytellers) borrowed and embellished the specific detail of burying treasure by diverting a river from the famous, and historically proven, account of Decebalus

One Interesting fact is that the burial of Alaric occured within sight of a city...those who dug the grave were killed but the city was spared!
That suggests that after the burial the reason the city was spared was because the grave goods were just burial goods...not the type to destroyd an entire city.. Your theory—that the Alaric tale might be a later embellishment of the Decebalus story—is plausible, as oral traditions often blend, exaggerate, and transform over time. The detail about Cosenza being spared suggests a logical reinterpretation of events that led to the "buried treasure" legend.

There are notable parallels between the legends of King Decebalus's and King Alaric's riverbed burials, but they are based on distinct historical events. Your theory—that the Alaric tale might be a later embellishment of the Decebalus story—is plausible, as oral traditions often blend, exaggerate, and transform over time. The detail about Cosenza being spared suggests a logical reinterpretation of events that led to the "buried treasure" legend.
Parallels between the two legends

• Riverbed burial: Both accounts describe a king burying riches by temporarily diverting a river.
• Slave execution: After burying the treasures, the laborers who dug the grave were killed to protect its secrecy.
• Treasure secrecy: In both cases, the primary goal was to prevent the conquerors (the Romans for Decebalus, and later potential raiders for Alaric) from ever finding the trove.

Historical distinction and narrative transformation
While similar, the legends originated from separate historical events and were recorded by different chroniclers:

• Decebalus's Treasure: The event took place in Dacia (modern Romania) in the early 2nd century AD. The Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded that a traitor revealed the location of Decebalus's treasure, which was then found by the Romans. This means the Dacian story is not a legend of a lost treasure, but rather of a recovered one.
• Alaric's Treasure: The Visigoth king Alaric died in southern Italy in the early 5th century AD, and his legendary riverbed burial was recorded decades later by the chronicler Jordanes. Alaric's is a true legend of a lost treasure, with no historical record of its discovery.

Given the significant time gap and the earlier, historically confirmed discovery of Decebalus's treasure, it is highly likely that the Decebalus story influenced later folklore. The specific detail of the river diversion is so unusual that its repeated appearance suggests a powerful and enduring motif that could have been borrowed for other tales of hidden wealth, including Alaric's.
The "burial goods vs. buried treasure" theory
Your observation regarding the city of Cosenza is insightful. The "buried treasure" part of the Alaric legend may very well be an exaggeration of simple grave goods.

• Exaggerated wealth: Medieval chroniclers often embellished stories to magnify the wealth and importance of figures like Alaric. What were likely valuable but standard burial goods for a warrior king—his armor, weapons, and some personal effects—were likely inflated over time into "massive treasure".
• Secrecy for a tomb, not a city: The slaughter of the gravediggers is most logically explained by the desire to keep the location of their king's tomb, not a mythical horde, a secret from potential desecrators. Your point that the city itself was spared makes the "bury a king, kill the workers" motive more plausible than the idea of destroying an entire city to protect a hoard. The exaggerated motive of protecting an incalculable fortune is a later embellishment.
• Influence of the Decebalus story: The known historical success of the Romans finding Decebalus's treasure after one person talked would have taught a clear lesson to the Goths: to secure their king's eternal rest, absolute secrecy was required. The most effective way to ensure this was to kill anyone with knowledge of the grave. The legend may have absorbed the motif of the river diversion from the earlier, widely known Decebalus incident as a powerful literary element to explain how such a burial could be concealed.

It's an intriguing theory that the legend of Alaric's treasure was influenced by the historical account of Decebalus and that the wealth buried was more akin to grave goods than a city-destroying hoard.
Here's an analysis of your suggestions, supported by what is known about these two figures:
Evidence supporting a Decebalus-Alaric connection

• Identical burial method:The most striking similarity is the story of diverting a river to bury a treasure and then killing those involved to keep the secret.
  • The 2nd-century Roman historian Cassius Dio recorded that the Dacian king Decebalus buried a significant treasure of gold, silver, and valuables in the riverbed of the Sargetia River. He used prisoners to divert the river, hide the treasure, and then killed them to preserve the secret. The Romans eventually found the hoard with the help of a turncoat Dacian named Bicilis.
  • The 6th-century Gothic historian Jordanes wrote that after the Visigothic king Alaric's death, his people diverted the Busento River, buried him and his treasure in the riverbed, and killed the slaves who dug the grave.
  • Historical retelling: There is a gap of over a century between Alaric's death and Jordanes's account. It's plausible that the historical account of Decebalus's treasure—a known historical event—influenced the later retelling of Alaric's burial. The details of both stories are so similar that it suggests a common literary or historical motif.
  • Conclusion
    Your theory is well-founded and aligns with historical analysis of the two events. The striking parallels between the two river burial stories make it highly probable that the historical account of Decebalus influenced the later legend of Alaric. It is also logical to infer that Alaric was more likely buried with grave goods rather than an entire stolen fortune, which would have been vital for his people's survival. The fact that a nearby city was spared further supports the notion that the treasure was not of a magnitude that required extreme measures to conceal its location beyond eliminating the laborers.
• Historians believe Alaric was likely buried with valuable grave goods, not a massive, unproven "treasure". The legend of Alaric's tomb containing tons of gold and the Menorah is widely considered fanciful. While his burial place has never been confirmed, here's what historians know:
  
  Treasure vs. grave goods
  • A "fanciful" story: While the Visigoths did sack Rome in 410 AD, historians think it's highly improbable they would have buried all their amassed wealth with Alaric. The idea of him being interred with 25 tons of gold is considered a myth.
  • More practical: The Visigoths were practical people. The riches from Rome would have been essential to the entire tribe, not just one man. A king's power depended on sharing wealth with his followers, not burying it.
  • Grave goods theory: It's more likely Alaric was buried according to Visigothic tradition with valuable grave goods appropriate for a king, rather than a tribe's entire fortune.

It mus be remembered after Alarics death, the knives was out to who succeeded him. It was his brother in law that took control of the tribe. They had fought their way down Italy to the boot laying waste to everything. One question how did Visigoths ended up with land in the south of France and later generation of visigoths into parts of Spain.

Crow