Chlochilaicus was the king of the Geats

Many scholars had their own speculation that “Chlochilaicus” was Hygelac, the king of the Geats who was also portrayed in the poem “Beowulf”. What’s really interesting is that, Chlochilaicus had existed in the past as a real living person and not a fictional character. His existence has been recorded by a well-known historian, Gregory of Tours.

Since Hygelac had existed in the past, then all other characters from the poem Beowulf also probably existed in real life. If this would be the case then the poem could be considered as “based on true story” rather than a fantasy or fiction. Anyway, let’s just leave this subject to the scholars because it’s their job to uncover the truth about this mystery.

So let’s further dig down into the historical account that was recorded by Gregory of Tours about Chlochilaicus.

But before we proceed, I would first like to clarify that Chlochilaicus is an anonymous type of Latin name. It is similar to the name John Doe which is used by many to refer to a male person with unknown identity. But the difference is that, the name Chlochilaicus is more specifically used as reference for small kings or rulers.


The Raid of France under the king Chlochilaicus


Documented under the Gregory of Tours was the raid of France by the king Chlochilaicus. According to the record, the Scandinavian raiders had suddenly emerged out of nowhere from the Frankish Kingdom territories. The attack happened during the sixth century under the rulership of the Frank king, Theodericus I.

Was the Scandinavian raid successful?


Unfortunately, the Scandinavian king was killed. They never expected that there was an immediate military response that was led by Theodebertus, the son of Theodericus. As a result, king Chlochilaicus and his men got cornered and surely outnumbered. But instead of surrendering themselves, the Scandinavian king fought desperately on their way out for escape. As Viking warriors, they probably gave their best to fight back but still, they were in a huge disadvantage. So the king took a critical hit and died.

Despite the fall of the Viking king, still, there were plenty of his men who had managed to escaped and survived. They run back to their ships leaving the bodies of their fallen comrades which include their king and sailed back to where they came from.

The Remains of the Fallen Viking king


Since the Viking raid was very unsuccessful, the Franks managed to take back all the pillaged loots and spoils of the battlefield. But apart from those things, was the fallen corpse of the Viking king. When they searched his body, they interestingly found a Scandinavian monarch which confirmed that he was no doubt a king. Other than that, he was described a giant man due to his size and height.

As a custom tradition, barbarians were pagans deemed not worthy of any form of burial. Thus, the Franks had displayed the remains of the Scandinavian king for several days at the nearest Merovingian Court. This practice wasn’t actually just intended for the barbarians where it was more about a custom as a triumphal trophy. Thus, they perform this customary exhibition on every victorious battle that they accomplished.

Proofs that Chlochilaicus was the Scandinavian king Hygelac


To make everything short, there was actually no solid proof that the Scandinavian king Hygelac was the fallen Chlochilaicus who led the raids against France. Even the Scandinavian monarch that they got from the fallen king, it does not provide any clue that he was Hygelac.

The only main reason why many scholars had insisted that the Chlochilaicus king was Hygelac was due to their close estimated time or year of death. Based from the Beowulf poem, Hygelac died on the year 516 while the Scandinavian king who raided France died on 512. By comparing those years, there is only 4 years period of difference.

Due to the close year of estimated deaths of the two kings, it does make sense to speculate that the two kings were the same person. However, there are still too many possibilities for the scholars to consider before they can derive a convincing conclusion.


No comments:

Post a Comment