Observations upon the Prophecies of Daniel/Part I Chap VI

Of the ten Kingdoms represented by the ten horns of the fourth Beast.
Now by the wars above described the Western Empire of the Romans, about the time that Rome was besieged and taken by the Goths, became broken into the following ten kingdoms.


 * 1. The kingdom of the Vandals and Alans in Spain and Africa.
 * 2. The kingdom of the Suevians in Spain.
 * 3. The kingdom of the Visigoths.
 * 4. The kingdom of the Alans in Gallia.
 * 5. The kingdom of the Burgundians.
 * 6. The kingdom of the Franks.
 * 7. The kingdom of the Britains.
 * 8. The kingdom of the Hunns.
 * 9. The kingdom of the Lombards.
 * 10. The kingdom of Ravenna.

Seven of these kingdoms are thus mentioned by Sigonius. $1$Honorio regnante, in Pannoniam $2$Hunni, in Hispaniam $3$Vandali, $4$Alani, $5$Suevi & $6$Gothi, in Galliam $4$Alani $7$Burgundiones & $6$Gothi, certis sedibus permissis, accepti. Add the Franks, Britains, and Lombards, and you have the ten: for these arose about the same time with the seven. But let us view them severally.

1. The Kings of the Vandals were, A.C. 407 Godegesilus, 407 Gunderic, 426 Geiseric, 477 Hunneric, 484 Gundemund, 496 Thrasamund, 513 Geiseric, 530 Gelimer. Godegesilus led them into Gallia A.C. 406, Gunderic into Spain A.C. 409, Geiseric into Africa A.C. 427; and Gelimer was conquered by Belisarius A.C. 533. Their kingdom lasted in Gallia, Spain and Africa together 126 years; and in Africa they were very potent. The Alans had only two Kings of their own in Spain, Resplendial, and Ataces, Utacus or Othacar. Under Resplendial they went into France A.C. 407, and into Spain A.C. 409. Ataces was slain with almost all his army by Vallia King of the Visigoths A.C. 419. And then the remainder of these Alans subjected themselves to Gunderic King of the Vandals in Bœtica, and went afterwards with them into Africa, as I learn out of Procopius. Whence the Kings of the Vandals styled themselves Kings of the Vandals and Alans; as may be seen in the Edict of Hunneric recited by Victor in his Vandalic persecution. In conjunction with the Chatti, these Alans gave the name of Cathalaunia, or Catth-Alania, to the Province which is still so called. These Alans had also Gepides among them; and therefore the Gepides came into Pannonia before the Alans left it. There they became subject to the Hunns till the death of Attila A.C. 454, and at length were conquered by the Ostrogoths.

2. The Kings of the Suevians were, A.C. 407 Ermeric, 458 Rechila, 448 Rechiarius, 458 Maldra, 460 Frumarius, 463 Regismund. And after some other Kings who are unknown, reigned A.C. 558 Theudomir, 568 Miro, 582 Euboricus, and 583 Andeca. This kingdom, after it had been once seated in Spain, remained always in Gallæcia and Lusitania. Ermeric after the fall of the Alan kingdom, enlarged it into all Gallæcia, forcing the Vandals to retire into Bœtica and the Carthaginian Province. This kingdom lasted 177 years according to Isidorus, and then was subdued by Leovigildus King of the Visigoths, and made a Province of his kingdom A.C. 585.

3. The Kings of the Visigoths were, A.C. 400 Alaric, 410 Athaulphus, 415 Sergeric and Vallia, 419 Theoderic, 451 Thorismund, 452 Theoderic, 465 Euric, 482 Alaric, 505 Gensalaric, 526 Amalaric, 531 Theudius, 548 Theudisclus, &c. I date this kingdom from the time that Alaric left Thrace and Greece to invade the Western Empire. In the end of the reign of Athaulphus the Goths were humbled by the Romans, and attempted to pass out of France into Spain. Sergeric reigned but a few days. In the beginning of Vallia's reign they assaulted the Romans afresh, but were again repulsed, and then made peace on this condition, that they should on the behalf of the Empire invade the Barbarian kingdoms in Spain: and this they did, together with the Romans, in the years 417 and 418, overthrowing the Alans and part of the Vandals. Then they received Aquitain of the Emperor by a full donation, leaving their conquests in Spain to the Emperor: and thereby the seats of the conquered Alans came into the hands of the Romans. In the year 455, Theoderic, assisted by the Burgundians, invaded Spain, which was then almost all subject to the Suevians, and took a part of it from them. A.C. 506, the Goths were driven out of Gallia by the Franks. A.C. 585, they conquered the Suevian kingdom, and became Lords of all Spain. A.C. 713, the Saracens invaded them, but in time they recovered their dominions, and have reigned in Spain ever since.

4. The Kings of the Alans in Gallia were Goar, Sambida, Eocharic, Sangibanus, Beurgus, &c. Under Goar they invaded Gallia A.C. 407, and had seats given them near the Rhine, A.C. 412. Under Sambida, whom Bucher makes the successor, if not the son of Goar, they had the territories of Valence given them by Ætius the Emperor's General, A.C. 440. Under Eocharic they conquered a region of the rebelling Galli Arborici, given them also by Ætius. This region was from them named Alenconium, quasi Alanorum conventus. Under Sangibanus they were invaded, and their regal city Orleans was besieged by Attila King of the Hunns, with a vast army of 500000 men. Ætius and the Barbarian Kings of Gallia came to raise the siege, and beat the Hunns in a very memorable battle, A.C. 451, in campis Catalaunicis, so called from these Alans mixt with the Chatti. The region is now called Campania or Champagne. In that battle were slain on both sides 162000 men. A year or two after, Attila returned with an immense army to conquer this kingdom, but was again beaten by them and the Visigoths together in a battle of three days continuance, with a slaughter almost as great as the former. Under Beurgus, or Biorgor, they infested Gallia round about, till the reign of Maximus the Emperor; and then they passed the Alps in winter, and came into Liguria, but were there beaten, and Beurgus slain, by Ricimer commander of the Emperor's forces, A.C. 464. Afterwards they were again beaten, by the joint force of Odoacer King of Italy and Childeric King of the Franks, about the year 480, and again by Theudobert King of the Austrian Franks about the year 511.

5. The Kings of the Burgundians were, A.C. 407 Gundicar, 436 Gundioc, 467 Bilimer, 473 Gundobaldus with his brothers, 510 Sigismund, 517 Godomarus. Under Gundicar they invaded Gallia A.C. 407, and had seats given them by the Emperor near the Rhine in Gallia Belgica, A.C. 412. They had Saxons among them, and were now so potent, that Orosius A.C. 417 wrote of them: 'Burgundionum esse prævalidam manum, Galliæ hodieque testes sunt, in quibus præsumpta possessione consistunt. About the year 435 they received great overthrows by Ætius, and soon after by the Hunns: but five years after had Savoy granted them to be shared with the inhabitants; and from that time became again a potent kingdom, being bounded by the river Rhodanus, but afterwards extending much further into the heart of Gallia. Gundobald conquered the regions about the rivers Araris and Rhodanus, with the territories of Marseilles; and invading Italy in the time of the Emperor Glycerius, conquered all his brethren. Godomarus made Orleans his royal seat: whence the kingdom was called Regnum Aurelianorum. He was conquered by Clotharius and Childebert, Kings of the Franks, A.C. 526. From thenceforward this kingdom was sometimes united to the kingdom of the Franks, and sometimes divided from it, till the reign of Charles the great, who made his son Carolottus King of Burgundy. From that time, for about 300 years together, it enjoyed its proper Kings; and was then broken into the Dukedom of Burgundy, County of Burgundy, and County of Savoy; and afterwards those were broken into other lesser Counties.

6. The Kings of the Franks were, A.C. 407 Theudomir, 417 Pharamond, 428 Clodio, 448 Merovæus, 456 Childeric, 482 Clodovæus, &c. Windeline and Bucher, two of the most diligent searchers into the originals of this kingdom, make it begin the same year with the Barbarian invasions of Gallia, that is, A.C. 407. Of the first Kings there is in Labbe's Bibliotheca M.S. this record.

Historica quædam excerpta ex veteri stemmate genealogico Regum Franciæ.

''Genobaldus, Marcomerus, Suno, Theodemeris. Isti duces vel reguli extiterunt à principio gentis Francorum diversis temporibus. Sed incertum relinquunt historici quali sibi procreations lineâ successerunt''.

Pharamundus: sub hoc rege suo primo Franci legibus se subdunt, quas primores eorum tulerunt Wisogastus, Atrogastus, Salegastus.

''Chlochilo. Iste, transito Rheno, Romanos in Carbonaria sylva devicit, Camaracum cepit & obtinuit, annis 20 regnavit. Sub hoc rege Franci usque Summam progressi sunt''.

''Merovechus. Sub hoc rege Franci Trevirim destruunt, Metim succendunt, usque Aurelianum perveniunt''.

Now for Genobaldus, Marcomer and Suno, they were captains of the Transrhenane Franks in the reign of Theodosius, and concern us not. We are to begin with Theudomir the first King of the rebelling Salii, called Didio by Ivo Carnotensis, and Thiedo and Theudemerus by Rhenanus. His face is extant in a coin of gold found with this inscription, THEUDEMIR REX, published by Petavius, and still or lately extant, as Windeline testifies: which shews that he was a King, and that in Gallia; seeing that rude Germany understood not then the coining of money, nor used either Latin words or letters. He was the son of Ricimer, or Richomer, the favourite of the Emperor Theodosius; and so being a Roman Frank, and of the Salian royal blood, they therefore upon the rebellion made him King. The whole time of his reign you have stated in Excerptis Gregorii Turonensis è Fredigario, cap. 5, 6, 7, 8. where the making him King, the tyranny of Jovinus, the slaughter of the associates of Jovinus, the second taking of Triers by the Franks, and their war with Castinus, in which this King was slain, are as a series of successive things thus set down in order. ''Extinctis Ducibus in Francis, denuo Reges creantur ex eadem stirpe qua prius fuerant. Eodem tempore Jovinus ornatus regios assumpsit. Constantinus fugam versus Italiam dirigit; missis a Jovino Principe percussoribus super Mentio flumine, capite truncatur. Multi nobilium jussu Jovini apud Avernis capti, & a ducibus Honorii crudeliter interempti sunt. Trevirorum civitas, factione unius ex senatoribus nomine Lucii, à Francis captà & incensa est.&mdash;Castinus Domesticorum Comes expeditionem accipit contra Francos'', &c. Then returning to speak of Theudomir, he adds: Franci electum à se regem, sicut prius fuerat, crinitum inquirentes diligenter ex genere Priami, Frigi & Francionis, super se crearunt nomine Theudemerum filium Richemeris, qui in hoc prælio quod supra memini, à Romanis interfectus est; that is, in the battle with Castinus's army. Of his death Gregory Turonensis makes this further mention: In consularibus legimus Theodemerem regem Francorum filium Ricimeris quondam, & Ascilam matrem ejus, gladio interfectos.

Upon this victory of the Romans, the Franks and rebelling Gauls, who in the time of Theudomir were at war with one another, united to strengthen themselves, as Ordericus Vitalis thus mentions. Cum Galli prius contra Romanos rebellâssent, Franci iis sociati sunt, & pariter juncti, Ferramundum Sunonis ducis filium, sibi regem præfecerunt. Prosper sets down the time; Anno 25 Honorii, Pharamundus regnat in Francia. This, Bucher well observes, refers to the end of the year 416, or the beginning of the next year, dating the years of Honorius from the death of Valentinian; and argues well, that at this time Pharamond was not only King by the constitution of the Franks, but crowned also by the consent of Honorius, and had a part of Gallia assigned him by covenant. And this might be the cause that Roman writers reckoned him the first King: which some not understanding, have reputed him the founder of this kingdom by an army of the Transrhenane Franks. He might come with such an army, but he succeeded Theudomir by right of blood and consent of the people. For the above cited passage of Fredigarius, Extinctis Ducibus, in Francis denuo Reges creantur ex eadem stirpe quâ prius fuerant, implies that the kingdom continued to this new elected family during the reign of more Kings than one. If you date the years of Honorius from the death of his father, the reign of Pharamond might begin two years later than is assigned by Bucher. The Salique laws made in his reign, which are yet extant, shew by their name that it was the kingdom of the Salii over which he reigned; and, by the pecuniary mulcts in them, that the place where he reigned abounded much with money, and consequently was within the Empire; rude Germany knowing not the use of money, till they mixed with the Romans. In the Preface also to the Salique laws, written and prefixed to them soon after the conversion of the Franks to the Christian religion, that is, in the end of the reign of Merovæus, or soon after, the original of this kingdom is thus described: Hæc enim gens, quæ fortis dum esset & robore valida, Romanorum jugum durissimum de suis cervicibus excussit pugnando, &c. This kingdom therefore was erected, not by invasion but by rebellion, as was described above. Prosper in registering their Kings in order, tells us: Pharamundus regnat in Francia; Clodio regnat in Francia; Merovæus regnat in Francia: and who can imagine but that in all these places he meant one and the same Francia? And yet 'tis certain that the Francia of Merovæus was in Gallia.

Yet the father of Pharamond, being king of a body of Franks in Germany in the reign of the Emperor Theodosius, as above, Pharamond might reign over the same Franks in Germany before he succeeded Theudomir in the kingdom of the Salians within the Empire, and even before Theudomir began his reign; suppose in the first year of Honorius, or when those Franks being repulsed by Stilico, lost their Kings Marcomir and Suno, one of which was the father of Pharamond: and the Roman Franks, after the death of Theudomir, might invite Pharamond with his people from beyond the Rhine. But we are not to regard the reign of Pharamond in Germany: we are to date this kingdom from its rise within the Empire, and to look upon it as strengthened by the access of other Franks coming from beyond the Rhine, whether in the reign of this King or in that of his successor Clodio. For in the last year of Pharamond's reign, Ætius took from him a part of his possession in Gallia: but his successor Clodio, whom Fredigarius represents as the son of Theudomir, and some call Clogio, Cloio, and Claudius, inviting from beyond the Rhine a great body of Franks, recovered all, and carried on their conquests as far as the river Soame. Then those Franks dividing conquests with him, erected certain new kingdoms at Cologn and Cambray, and some other cities: all which were afterwards conquered by Clodovæus, who also drove the Goths out of Gallia, and fix'd his seat at Paris, where it has continued ever since. And this was the original of the present kingdom of France.

7. The Kings of Britain were, A.C. 407 or 408, Marcus, Gratian, and Constantine successively; A.C. 425 Vortigern, 466 Aurelius Ambrosius, 498 Uther Pendraco, 508 Arthur, 542 Constantinus, 545 Aurelius Cunanus, 578 Vortiporeus, 581 Malgo, 586 Careticus, 613 Cadwan, 635 Cadwalin, 676 Cadwallader. The three first were Roman Tyrants, who revolted from the Empire. Orosius, Prosper and Zosimus connect their revolt with the irruptions of the Barbarians into Gallia, as consequent thereunto. Prosper, with whom Zosimus agrees, puts it in the year which began the day after that irruption. The just time I thus collect: Marcus reigned not many days, Gratian four months, and Constantine three years. He was slain the year after the taking of Rome, that is A.C. 411, 14 Kal. Octob. Whence the revolt was in Spring A.C. 408. Sozomen joins Constantine's expedition into Gallia with Arcadius's death, or the times a little after; and Arcadius died A.C. 408 May the 1st. Now tho the reign of these Tyrants was but short, yet they gave a beginning to the kingdom of Britain, and so may be reckoned the three first Kings, especially since the posterity of Constantine, viz. his sons Aurelius Ambrosius, and Uther Pendraco, and his grandson Arthur, reigned afterwards. For from the time of the revolt of these Tyrants Britain continued a distict kingdom absolved from subjection to the Empire, the Emperor not being able to spare soldiers to be sent thither to receive and keep the Island, and therefore neglecting it; as we learn by unquestionable records. For Prosper tells us; A.C. 410, ''Variane Cos. Hac tempestate præ valetudine Romanorum, vires funditùs attenuatæ Britanniæ''. And Sigebert, conjoining this with the siege of Rome, saith: Britannorum vires attenuatæ, & substrahunt se à Romanorum dominatione. And Zosimus lib. 6. The Transrhenane Barbarians invading all places, reduced the inhabitants of the island of Britain, and also certain Celtic nations to that pass, that they fell off from the Roman Empire; and being no longer obedient to the Roman laws, κατ' ‛εαυτον βιατευειν, ''they lived in separate bodies after their own pleasure. The Britons therefore taking up arms, and hazarding themselves for their own safety, freed their cities from the imminent Barbarians. In like manner all Brabant and some other Provinces of the Gauls imitating the Britons, freed themselves also, ejecting the Roman Presidents, and forming themselves into a sort of commonwealth according to their own pleasure. This rebellion of Britain and the Celtic nations happened when Constantine usurped the kingdom''. So also Procopius, lib. 1. Vandal. speaking of the same Constantine, saith: Constantine being overcome in battle, was slain with his children: Βρεταννιαν μεν τοι Ρωμαιοι ανασωσασθαι ουκετι εχον· αλλ' ουσα ‛υπο τυραννους απ' αυτου εμενε. Yet the Romans could not recover Britain any more, but from that time it remained under Tyrants. And Beda, l. 1. c. 11. Fracta est Roma à Gothis anno 1164 suæ conditionis; ex quo tempore Romani in Britannia regnare cessaverunt. And Ethelwaldus: A tempore Romæ à Gothis expugnatæ, cessavit imperium Romanorum à Britannia insula, & ab aliis; quas sub jugo servitutis tenebant, multis terris. And Theodoret, serm. 9. ''de curand. Græc. affect''. about the year 424, reckons the Britons among the nations which were not then in subjection to the Roman Empire. Thus Sigonius: ad annum 411, Imperium Romanorum post excessum Constantini in Britannia nullum fuit.

Between the death of Constantine and the reign of Vortigern was an interregnum of about 14 years, in which the Britons had wars with the Picts and Scots, and twice obtained the assistance of a Roman Legion, who drove out the enemy, but told them positively at their departure that they would come no more. Of Vortigern's beginning to reign there is this record in an old Chronicle in Nennius, quoted by Camden and others: Guortigernus tenuit imperium in Britannia, Theodosio & Valentiniano Coss. [viz. A.C. 425.] & in quarto anno regni sui Saxones ad Britanniam venerunt, Felice & Tauro Coss. [viz. A.C. 428.] This coming of the Saxons, Sigebert refers to the 4th year of Valentinian, which falls in with the year 428 assigned by this Chronicle: and two years after, the Saxons together with the Picts were beaten by the Britons. Afterwards in the reign of Martian the Emperor, that is, between the years 450 and 456, the Saxons under Hengist were called in by the Britons, but six years after revolted from them, made war upon them with various success, and by degrees succeeded them. Yet the Britons continued a flourishing kingdom till the reign of Careticus; and the war between the two nations continued till the pontificate of Sergius A.C. 688.

8. The Kings of the Hunns were, A.C. 406 Octar and Rugila, 433 Bleda and Attila. Octar and Rugila were the brothers of Munzuc King of the Hunns in Gothia beyond the Danube; and Bleda and Attila were his sons, and Munzuc was the son of Balamir. The two first, as Jornandes tells us, were Kings of the Hunns, but not of them all; and had the two last for their successors. I date the reign of the Hunns in Pannonia from the time that the Vandals and Alans relinquished Pannonia to them, A.C. 407. Sigonius from the time that the Visigoths relinquished Pannonia A. C. 408. Constat, saith he, ''quod Gothis ex Illyrico profectis, Hunni successerunt, atque imprimis Pannoniam tenuerunt. Neque enim Honorius viribus ad resistendum in tantis difficultatibus destitutus, prorsus eos prohibere potuit, sed meliore consilio, animo ad pacem converso, fœdus cum eis, datis acceptisque obsidibus fecit; ex quibus qui dati sunt, Ætius, qui etiam Alarico tributus fuerat, præcipue memoratur''. How Ætius was hostage to the Goths and Hunns is related by Frigeridus, who when he had mentioned that Theodosius Emperor of the East had sent grievous commands to John, who after the death of Honorius had usurped the crown of the Western Empire, he subjoins: Iis permotus Johannes, Ætium id tempus curam palatii gerentem cum ingenti auri pondere ad Chunnos transmisit, notos sibi obsidiatûs sui tempore & familiari amicitiâ devinctos&mdash; And a little after: Ætius tribus annis Alarici obses, dehinc Chunnorum, postea Carpilionis gener ex Comite domesticorum & Joannis curopalatæ. Now Bucher shews that Ætius was hostage to Alaric till the year 410, when Alaric died, and to the Hunns between the years 411 and 415, and son-in-law to Carpilio about the year 417 or 418, and Curopalates to John about the end of the year 423. Whence 'tis probable that he became hostage to the Hunns about the year 412 or 413, when Honorius made leagues with almost all the barbarous nations, and granted them seats: but I had rather say with Sigonius, that Ætius became hostage to Alaric A.C. 403. It is further manifest out of Prosper, that the Hunns were in quiet possession of Pannonia in the year 432. For in the first book of Eusebius's Chronicle Prosper writes: Anno decimo post obitum Honorii, cum ad Chunnorum gentem cui tunc Rugila præerat, post prælium cum Bonifacio se Ætius contulisset, impetrato auxilio ad Romanorum solum regreditur. And in the second book: ''Ætio & Valerio Coss. Ætius depositâ potestate profugus ad Hunnos in Pannonia pervenit, quorum amicitiâ auxilioque usus, pacem principum interpellatæ potestatis obtinuit. Hereby it appears that at this time Rugila, or as Maximus calls him, Rechilla, reigned over the Hunns in Pannonia; and that Pannonia was not now so much as accounted within the soil of the Empire, being formerly granted away to the Hunns; and that these were the very same body of Hunns with which Ætius had, in the time of his being an hostage, contracted friendship: by virtue of which, as he sollicited them before to the aid of John'' the Tyrant A.C. 424, so now he procured their intercession for himself with the Emperor. Octar died A.C. 430; for Socrates tells us, that about that time the Burgundians having been newly vext by the Hunns, upon intelligence of Octar's death, seeing them without a leader, set upon them suddenly with so much vigour, that 3000 Burgundians slew 10000 Hunns. Of Rugila's being now King in Pannonia you have heard already. He died A.C. 433, and was succeeded by Bleda, as Prosper and Maximus inform us. This Bleda with his brother Attila were before this time Kings of the Hunns beyond the Danube, their father Munzuc's kingdom being divided between them; and now they united the kingdom Pannonia to their own. Whence Paulus Diaconus saith, they did regnum intra Pannoniam Daciamque gerere. In the year 441, they began to invade the Empire afresh, adding to the Pannonian forces new and great armies from Scythia. But this war was presently composed, and then Attila, seeing Bleda inclined to peace, slew him, A.C. 444, inherited his dominions, and invaded the Empire again. At length, after various great wars with the Romans, Attila perished A.C. 454; and his sons quarrelling about his dominions, gave occasion to the Gepides, Ostrogoths and other nations who were their subjects, to rebel and make war upon them. The same year the Ostrogoths had seats granted them in Pannonia by the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian; and with the Romans ejected the Hunns out of Pannonia, soon after the death of Attila, as all historians agree. This ejection was in the reign of Avitus, as is mentioned in the Chronicum Boiorum, and in ''Sidonius, Carm. 7 in Avitum'', which speaks thus of that Emperor.


 * &mdash;&mdash;Cujus solum amissas post sæcula multa
 * Pannonias revocavit iter, jam credere promptum est.
 * Quid faciet bellis.

The Poet means, that by the coming of Avitus the Hunns yielded more easily to the Goths. This was written by Sidonius in the beginning of the reign of Avitus: and his reign began in the end of the year 455, and lasted not one full year.

Jornandes tells us: Duodecimo anno regni Valiæ, quando & Hunni post pene quinquaginta annos invasa Pannonia, à Romanis & Gothis expulsi sunt. And Marcellinus: ''Hierio & Ardaburio Coss. Pannoniæ, quæ per quinquaginta annos ab Hunnis retinebantur, à Romanis receptæ sunt: whence it should seem that the Hunns invaded and held Pannonia'' from the year 378 or 379 to the year 427, and then were driven out of it. But this is a plain mistake: for it is certain that the Emperor Theodosius left the Empire entire; and we have shewed out of Prosper, that the Hunns were in quiet possession of Pannonia in the year 432. The Visigoths in those days had nothing to do with Pannonia, and the Ostrogoths continued subject to the Hunns till the death of Attila, A.C. 454; and Valia King of the Visigoths did not reign twelve years. He began his reign in the end of the year 415, reigned three years, and was slain A.C. 419, as Idacius, Isidorus, and the Spanish manuscript Chronicles seen by Grotius testify. And Olympiodorus, who carries his history only to the year 425, sets down therein the death of Valia King of the Visigoths, and conjoins it with that of Constantius which happened A.C. 420. Wherefore the Valia of Jornandes, who reigned at the least twelve years, is some other King. And I suspect that this name hath been put by mistake for Valamir King of the Ostrogoths: for the action recorded was of the Romans and Ostrogoths driving the Hunns out of Pannonia after the death of Attila; and it is not likely that the historian would refer the history of the Ostrogoths to the years of the Visigothic Kings. This action happened in the end of the year 455, which I take to be the twelfth year of Valamir in Pannonia, and which was almost fifty years after the year 406, in which the Hunns succeeded the Vandals and Alans in Pannonia. Upon the ceasing of the line of Hunnimund the son of Hermaneric, the Ostrogoths lived without Kings of their own nation about forty years together, being subject to the Hunns. And when Alaric began to make war upon the Romans, which was in the year 444, he made Valamir, with his brothers Theodomir and Videmir the grandsons of Vinethar, captains or kings of these Ostrogoths under him. In the twelfth year of Valamir's reign dated from thence, the Hunns were driven out of Pannonia.

Yet the Hunns were not so ejected, but that they had further contests with the Romans, till the head of Denfix the son of Attila, was carried to Constantinople, A.C. 469, in the Consulship of Zeno and Marcian, as Marcellinus relates. Nor were they yet totally ejected the Empire: for besides their reliques in Pannonia, Sigonius tells us, that when the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian granted Pannonia to the Goths, which was in the year 454, they granted part of Illyricum to some of the Hunns and Sarmatians. And in the year 526, when the Lombards removing into Pannonia made war there with the Gepides, the Avares, a part of the Hunns, who had taken the name of Avares from one of their Kings, assisted the Lombards in that war; and the Lombards afterwards, when they went into Italy, left their seats in Pannonia to the Avares in recompence of their friendship. From that time the Hunns grew again very powerful; their Kings, whom they called Chagan, troubling the Empire much in the reigns of the Emperors Mauritius, Phocas, and Heraclius: and this is the original of the present kingdom of Hungary, which from these Avares and other Hunns mixed together, took the name of Hun-Avaria, and by contraction Hungary.

9. The Lombards, before they came over the Danube, were commanded by two captains, Ibor and Ayon: after whose death they had Kings, Agilmund, Lamisso, Lechu, Hildehoc, Gudehoc, Classo, Tato, Wacho, Walter, Audoin, Alboin, Cleophis, &c. Agilmund was the son of Ayon, who became their King, according to Prosper, in the Consulship of Honorius and Theodosius A.C. 389, reigned thirty three years, according to Paulus Warnefridus, and was slain in battle by the Bulgarians. Prosper places his death in the Consulship of Marinianus and Asclepiodorus, A.C. 413. Lamisso routed the Bulgarians, and reigned three years, and Lechu almost forty. Gudehoc was contemporary to Odoacer King of the Heruli in Italy, and led his people from Pannonia into Rugia, a country on the north side of Noricum next beyond the Danube; from whence Odoacer then carried his people into Italy. Tato overthrew the kingdom of the Heruli beyond the Danube. Wacho conquered the Suevians, a kingdom then bounded on the east by Bavaria, on the west by France, and on the south by the Burgundians. Audoin returned into Pannonia A.C. 526, and there overcame the Gepides. Alboin A.C. 551 overthrew the kingdom of the Gepides, and slew their King Chunnimund: A.C. 563 he assisted the Greek Emperor against Totila King of the Ostrogoths in Italy; and A.C. 568 led his people out of Pannonia into Lombardy, where they reigned till the year 774.

According to Paulus Diaconus, the Lombards with many other Gothic nations came into the Empire from beyond the Danube in the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, that is, between the years 395 and 408. But they might come in a little earlier: for we are told that the Lombards, under their captains Ibor and Ayon, beat the Vandals in battle; and Prosper placeth this victory in the Consulship of Ausonius and Olybrius, that is, A.C. 379. Before this war the Vandals had remained quiet forty years in the seats granted them in Pannonia by Constantine the great. And therefore if these were the same Vandals, this war must have been in Pannonia; and might be occasioned by the coming of the Lombards over the Danube into Pannonia, a year or two before the battle; and so have put an end to that quiet which had lasted forty years. After Gratian and Theodosius had quieted the Barbarians, they might either retire over the Danube, or continue quiet under the Romans till the death of Theodosius; and then either invade the Empire anew, or throw off all subjection to it. By their wars, first with the Vandals, and then with the Bulgarians, a Scythian nation so called from the river Volga whence they came; it appears that even in those days they were a kingdom not contemptible.

10. These nine kingdoms being rent away, we are next to consider the residue of the Western Empire. While this Empire continued entire, it was the Beast itself: but the residue thereof is only a part of it. Now if this part be considered as a horn, the reign of this horn may be dated from the translation of the imperial seat from Rome to Ravenna, which was in October A.C. 408. For then the Emperor Honorius, fearing that Alaric would besiege him in Rome, if he staid there, retired to Millain, and thence to Ravenna: and the ensuing siege and sacking of Rome confirmed his residence there, so that he and his successors ever after made it their home. Accordingly Macchiavel in his Florentine history writes, that Valentinian having left Rome, translated the seat of the Empire to Ravenna.

Rhætia belonged to the Western Emperors, so long as that Empire stood; and then it descended, with Italy and the Roman Senate, to Odoacer King of the Heruli in Italy, and after him to Theoderic King of the Ostrogoths and his successors, by the grant of the Greek Emperors. Upon the death of Valentinian the second, the Alemans and Suevians invaded Rhætia A.C. 455. But I do not find they erected any settled kingdom there: for in the year 457, while they were yet depopulating Rhætia, they were attacked and beaten by Burto Master of the horse to the Emperor Majoranus; and I hear nothing more of their invading Rhætia. Clodovæus King of France, in or about the year 496, conquered a kingdom of the Alemans, and slew their last King Ermeric. But this kingdom was seated in Germany, and only bordered upon Rhætia: for its people fled from Clodovæus into the neighbouring kingdom of the Ostrogoths under Theoderic, who received them as friends, and wrote a friendly letter to Clodovæus in their behalf: and by this means they became inhabitants of Rhætia, as subjects under the dominion of the Ostrogoths.

When the Greek Emperor conquered the Ostrogoths, he succeeded them in the kingdom of Ravenna, not only by right of conquest but also by right of inheritance, the Roman Senate still going along with this kingdom. Therefore we may reckon that this kingdom continued in the Exarchate of Ravenna and Senate of Rome: for the remainder of the Western Empire went along with the Senate of Rome, by reason of the right which this Senate still retained, and at length exerted, of chusing a new Western Emperor.

I have now enumerated the ten kingdoms, into which the Western Empire became divided at its first breaking, that is, at the time of Rome's being besieged and taken by the Goths. Some of these kingdoms at length fell, and new ones arose: but whatever was their number afterwards, they are still called the Ten Kings from their first number.

Notes to Chap. VI.
1 Apud Bucherum, l. 14. c. 9. n. 8.

2 Rolevinc's Antiqua Saxon. l. 1. c. 6.