On the Burial place of Alaric I King of the Visigoths

[Curiousity]

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 pounds of gold, 30,000 pounds of silver, 4,000 silken tunics, 3,000 hides dyed scarlet, and 3,000 pounds of pepper
The legend, recounted by Jordanes, a 6th-century historian, states that Alaric's body, along with his horse and treasures, was buried in the riverbed after the Goths diverted the Busento near Cosenza, Italy. To ensure the tomb's secrecy, the workers who dug the grave were subsequently killed.

The Lost Fort: The legend of Alaric's burial

lostfort.blogspot.com

Written by Jordanes 140 years after Alaric death

What else...those still trying to find Alaric grave
It must be noted that
Visigoth burials, especially during their presence in the Iberian Peninsula (roughly 5th to 8th centuries AD), demonstrated a variety of practices and characteristics, including:

• Inhumation: The Visigoths primarily practiced inhumation, meaning they buried the body intact rather than cremating it.
• Grave Goods:Many graves were "furnished" with personal adornments, including:
  • Personal ornaments: Belt buckles (some inlaid with stones, possibly worn on less formal occasions), fibulae (brooches), necklaces, earrings, and belt fittings.
  • Clothing: Evidence suggests the deceased were often buried with their clothing.
  • Other artifacts: Pottery and other artifacts have been found alongside the deceased.

As one website pointed out if those laborors who dug the grave were killed so the site would be hidden why was "...ie in plain sight of the town of Cosenza which encrouches up an hill. If the story about the killed prisoners is true, what then happened to the inhabitants of Cosenza?"

The Lost Fort: The legend of Alaric's burial

lostfort.blogspot.com

Still there are those still trying to find..this underwater tomb..although obviously it has been washed out by the river...

 

[Selwyn]

The most telling inconsistent part is the knowledge of the story-
Who recorded it, if the ultimate goal was to ensure secrecy?
If all the slaves and soldiers involved in the burial were slain, how could any information have been recorded regarding the known details or claim of the burial procedure?
My contention is that the story is a hoax

 

[Curiousity]

The most telling inconsistent part is the knowledge of the story-
Who recorded it, if the ultimate goal was to ensure secrecy?
If all the slaves and soldiers involved in the burial were slain, how could any information have been recorded regarding the known details or claim of the burial procedure?
My contention is that the story is a hoax

It could be that he was probably buried with grave goods in or by the river....and after 150 years of oral history....the facts could have gotten garbled....
Yes, the motif of kings burying treasure and then killing those who helped them to keep the location secret appears in various legends and accounts.
Examples include:

• The Roman historian Dio Cassius wrote that the Dacian king Decebalus buried gold and silver in a riverbed in the 2nd century. Afterward, he had the river restored and the slaves who worked on it killed.
• The Byzantine historian Jordanes told a similar story about the Visigoth king Alaric I and his treasure. The treasure was buried under the Busento river in 410. The slaves who buried the treasure were killed to hide the location. The legend states that King Alarico's tomb is under the Busento and Crati rivers where they meet. The Busento River was temporarily redirected to construct his tomb in the riverbed, and slaves were killed to keep the grave's location secret. The treasure is believed to include gold, silver, and the Menorah from the Second Temple in Jerusalem

 

[Prairie Gazingfox]

It could be that he was probably buried with grave goods in or by the river....and after 150 years of oral history....the facts could have gotten garbled....
Yes, the motif of kings burying treasure and then killing those who helped them to keep the location secret appears in various legends and accounts.
Examples include:

• The Roman historian Dio Cassius wrote that the Dacian king Decebalus buried gold and silver in a riverbed in the 2nd century. Afterward, he had the river restored and the slaves who worked on it killed.
• The Byzantine historian Jordanes told a similar story about the Visigoth king Alaric I and his treasure. The treasure was buried under the Busento river in 410. The slaves who buried the treasure were killed to hide the location. The legend states that King Alarico's tomb is under the Busento and Crati rivers where they meet. The Busento River was temporarily redirected to construct his tomb in the riverbed, and slaves were killed to keep the grave's location secret. The treasure is believed to include gold, silver, and the Menorah from the Second Temple in Jerusalem

It might sound not very probable or logical but I don't think, even in those tyrannical and total obedience times, that even the high officers or whoever would be the next in power to Inherit the deceased King position, Could totally hide the APPROXIMATE location

Because those soldiers who would perform the killing of the gravediggers, Had eyes to see where they were ordered to grab the gravediggers From and move them say 2 kilometers away and there kill them.... after a few months or years those soldiers would sooner or later connect socially with other ordinary pheasants or citizens, right?? And would talk at least about the 2 km away execution PLACE.
And then by word of mouth, the.locals within three next several years would start drawing in their minds a picture of where the First location ( the tomb ) could be, having heard by chance of the Second 2 km away location.
And so that's probably how some of these Legends started. And I believe it Some of the legends to be therefore Approximately Correct!

 

[Curiousity]

It might sound not very probable or logical but I don't think, even in those tyrannical and total obedience times, that even the high officers or whoever would be the next in power to Inherit the deceased King position, Could totally hide the APPROXIMATE location

Because those soldiers who would perform the killing of the gravediggers, Had eyes to see where they were ordered to grab the gravediggers From and move them say 2 kilometers away and there kill them.... after a few months or years those soldiers would sooner or later connect socially with other ordinary pheasants or citizens, right?? And would talk at least about the 2 km away execution PLACE.
And then by word of mouth, the.locals within three next several years would start drawing in their minds a picture of where the First location ( the tomb ) could be, having heard by chance of the Second 2 km away location.
And so that's probably how some of these Legends started. And I believe it Some of the legends to be therefore Approximately Correct!

• Waterlogged conditions and preservation: The theory that the grave would be waterlogged for centuries is a valid point. The tomb was placed in the riverbed itself, which is inherently a wet environment. The prolonged submersion and the natural flow and shifting of the river over 1,600 years would make the survival of perishable grave goods (like textiles or organic materials) highly unlikely.
• River channel changes and sinking: The movement of the river channel, flooding, and the accumulation of sediment over 1,600 years would indeed affect the original location and depth of the grave. Geologists involved in recent searches estimate the tomb could be much deeper than originally dug, perhaps 5 to 8 meters (about 16 to 26 feet) below the current riverbed, making it extremely difficult to find or access.
• Evidence of excavation/looting: The whole point of the elaborate burial and the killing of the slaves was to leave no trace of the grave site, preventing future looting. If the grave had been looted after the Visigoths left, the remnants would likely have been washed away or dispersed by the river, making any substantial evidence of the original excavation or remains highly improbable to find centuries later. The fact that the treasure remains "lost" supports the effectiveness of the secrecy.
• Analysis: These are strong points:
  • Sinking/Flooding: The shifting riverbed and ongoing flooding would indeed cause the tomb to sink and destabilize over time.
  • Excavation Evidence: The sheer scale of diverting a river, digging a large tomb, and re-diverting it would leave significant geological and archaeological signs, even if the exact location was forgotten.
  • Looting: The idea that the grave was looted, and the remains scattered back into the river, is plausible, especially given the potential for knowledge of the location to spread despite the diggers being executed.
  • Survival: The user's conclusion is sound; finding any significant remains after centuries of submersion and looting is highly improbable.

 

[Prairie Gazingfox]

• Waterlogged conditions and preservation: The theory that the grave would be waterlogged for centuries is a valid point. The tomb was placed in the riverbed itself, which is inherently a wet environment. The prolonged submersion and the natural flow and shifting of the river over 1,600 years would make the survival of perishable grave goods (like textiles or organic materials) highly unlikely.
• River channel changes and sinking: The movement of the river channel, flooding, and the accumulation of sediment over 1,600 years would indeed affect the original location and depth of the grave. Geologists involved in recent searches estimate the tomb could be much deeper than originally dug, perhaps 5 to 8 meters (about 16 to 26 feet) below the current riverbed, making it extremely difficult to find or access.
• Evidence of excavation/looting: The whole point of the elaborate burial and the killing of the slaves was to leave no trace of the grave site, preventing future looting. If the grave had been looted after the Visigoths left, the remnants would likely have been washed away or dispersed by the river, making any substantial evidence of the original excavation or remains highly improbable to find centuries later. The fact that the treasure remains "lost" supports the effectiveness of the secrecy.
• Analysis:These are strong points:
  • Sinking/Flooding: The shifting riverbed and ongoing flooding would indeed cause the tomb to sink and destabilize over time.
  • Excavation Evidence: The sheer scale of diverting a river, digging a large tomb, and re-diverting it would leave significant geological and archaeological signs, even if the exact location was forgotten.
  • Looting: The idea that the grave was looted, and the remains scattered back into the river, is plausible, especially given the potential for knowledge of the location to spread despite the diggers being executed.
  • Survival: The user's conclusion is sound; finding any significant remains after centuries of submersion and looting is highly improbable.

I was taking about, not centuries later, but the plausibility of the grave site having been talked about by those soldiers doing the killing of the gravediggers and Some local people.
In the immediate weeks and months after the burial and parallel ( in time frame) killing....

But you are right. All of these points you presented could have taken place. Some sound more valid than others.
Yes, I didn't think of the possibility that the soldiers ordered to kill the gravediggers, could have been immediately ordered to move away to a location where they wouldn't have a chance to ever talk to no one from the Area.
Also the Executioners could have had their eyes covered with a piece of cloth untill the whole party had reached Another diatant part of that Region.

 

[Mackaydon]

"The whole diverted river story could be a legend written 140 years after the events it purports to describe. The idea that there are 25 tons of gold under the Busento River is fanciful at best. The Visigoths would not have buried all of their Roman loot with Alaric. Even if the sources are correct that he was buried with his horse and treasure according to pagan custom (Alaric was an Arian Christian, but he held to some of his people’s traditional religious practices as well), they would have been grave goods, not tons and tons of gold."
Source: https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/39042
Don in SoCal

 

[ToddsPoint]

Himmler drained the river and dug it up during the third reich. He found nothing.

 

[Curiousity]

There is a theroy that the traesues from Jerusalem were buried with Alaric
The money and general booty from the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem were indeed used to finance the construction of the
Colosseum
. However, the most famous sacred objects, such as the golden Menorah and the Table of Showbread, were not melted down immediately but were kept as war trophies and displayed in the Temple of Peace in the Roman Forum.
An inscription at the Colosseum (Flavian Amphitheater) explicitly mentioned that it was built "from the (proceeds from the sale of the) booty" (Latin: ex manubiis). The vast wealth, including melted-down gold and silver from the Temple, provided the significant funds needed for the massive construction project.
The specific fate of the sacred vessels is less certain after their display in the Temple of Peace:

• They remained there for centuries until Rome was sacked by the Vandals in 455 CE.
• The Vandal king Genseric took the treasures to his capital, Carthage.
• When the Byzantine general Belisarius conquered Carthage in 533 CE, he brought the treasures to Constantinople.
• According to the historian Procopius, Emperor Justinian, fearing the treasures were
• cursed, sent them back to Jerusalem to be placed in Christian churches there.
• After this point, the treasures, including the Menorah, disappear from historical record, and their ultimate fate is unknown. Theories suggest they were destroyed, hidden, or melted down during later invasions