The majority of the besieging armies were slaughtered, while the rest of the troops fled, leaving weapons and other equipment lying on the ground. In the aftermath of the Wendish victory, Samo invaded Frankish Thuringia several times and undertook looting raids there. The Sorbian prince Dervan abandoned the Franks and "placed himself and his people under Samo's realm". In 641, the rebellious duke of Thuringia, Radulf, sought an alliance with Samo against his sovereign, Sigebert III. Samo also maintained long-distance trade relationships. On his death, however, his title was not inherited by his sons. Ultimately, Samo can be credited with forging a Wendish identity by speaking on behalf of the community that recognised his authority. The main source of written information on Samo and his empire is the "Fredegarii Chronicon", a Frankish chronicle written in the mid-7th century (c. 660). Though theories of multiple authorship once abounded, the notion of a single Fredegar is now common scholarly fare. The last or only Fredegar was the author of a brief account of the Wends including the best, and only contemporary, information on Samo. According to Fredegar, "Samo [was] a Frank by birth [or nation] from the "pago Senonago"", which could be present-day Soignies in Belgium or present-day Sens in France. Although he was of Frankish origin, Samo demanded that an ambassador (Sicharius) of Dagobert I (King of the Franks) put on Slavic clothes before entering his castle. All other sources for Samo are derived from Fredegar and are much more recent. The "Gesta Dagoberti I regis Francorum" ("Deeds of King Dagobert I of the Franks") was written in the first third of the 9th century. The "Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum" ("Conversion of the Bavarians and Karantanians") from Salzburg (the Bavarian ecclesiastic centre), written in 871–72, is a very tendentious source, as its name suggests. According mainly to the "Conversio", Samo was a Karantanian merchant. The sources Fredegar used to compile his Wendish account are unknown. A few scholars have attacked the entire account as fictitious, but Fredegar displays a critical attitude and a knowledge of detail that suggest otherwise.