Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins

From: Torsten
Message: 65216
Date: 2009-10-12

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
> I have no further interest in this.

(George leaves the room in a huff)

> When after a million words the probability of a position remains at
> ca. 1%

Wow. Chief Statistician Knysh just upped my chances tenthousandfold from one in a million.

> I want to spend my time on more useful endeavours.

I know what you mean. I'd like to chase more women too.

> See below and farewell.

You just can't help yourself, can you ? ;-)

> --- On Wed, 10/7/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:

> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Wed, 10/7/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
> >
> > "So Vannius came down out of his fortresses, and though he was
> > defeated in battle, notwithstanding his reverse, he won some
> > credit by having fought with his own hand, and received wounds on
> > his breast. He then fled to the fleet which was awaiting him on
> > the Danube, and was soon followed by his adherents, who received
> > grants of land and were settled in Pannonia."
> >
> > In other words, with no information to the contrary, we must
> > assume
> >
> > GK: Correction. "You must assume".
> >
> > that the Romans settled part of Vannius' Yazygian allies in
> > Pannonia.
> >
> > GK: No. The normal assumption is that the Iazigi cavalrymen
> > fled back to Iazigia, whence they had come to assist Vannius. And
> > there is also the possibility that they switched sides (less
> > likely). So your assumption is only one of three possibilities.
> > Of course we know that you only need one in a million (:=))).
> You neglect to mention the assumption of yours that the Quadi
> employed only one single cavalryman.
> ****GK: I made no such assumption.****
> Then there would indeed be only the three possibilities you
> mention. If they employed more than one, and I have implicitly
> assumed that they employed hundreds or thousands of them, then the
> possibility that they all returned to Yazygia (most likely the
> Danube-Tisza interfluve) is indeed one in a million or much more.
> ****GK: Poor Torsten. One or even a dozen swallows does not a
> spring make. We have no evidence at all of substantial Sarmatian
> colonization of Pannonia. Your "argument" that Tacitus implicitly
> allowed for this is untenable.

George doesn't like my argument.

> With such an "approach" one could rewrite world history. Everyone
> seems to understand these things except you.

Here's what everybody understands:
'It is mostly assumed, that the Yazyges immigrated to the great Hungarian low plain between 18 and 20 CE. This perception is based on the one hand the fact that Aquincum in this period experienced a military occupation and the construction of a camp, on the other hand, that the Yazyges is mentioned by Ovid still between 9 and 17 CE near Tomi.'

Apparently 'everybody' neglects the fact that the Sarmatians were nomads. So when Ovid sees them on the frozen Danube going somewhere, it's not on a one-way ticket. Nomads follow migration patterns. In other words, from the fact that Ovid sees Sarmatians on the Lower Danube we can't infer they are not in the same period in Pannonia part of the year.
As for the 'military occupation' of Aquincum (Harmatta neglects to say by whom) it can only establish a terminus ante quem (if the occupation referred to was Roman). That is a pretty slim file of evidence for restricting Sarmatian immigration into Pannonia to after 20 CE. And if the Sarmatians began migrating to the Carpathian Plain
before 9 BCE, when Pannonia
was made part of the Roman Empire, why would they have stayed east of the Danube?

> That's why I've finally run out of patience.****

I think that is a realistic assessment by you.

> > That would explain why Pannonia became so important to Rome in
> > the era of the soldier emperors
> > http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/65077
> > when the Roman army was being Sarmatized in weaponry.
> >
> > GK: weapon "sarmatization" does not require the presence of
> > settled Sarmatians as per your scenario.
> True, we're talking Occam here. Your scenario that every Yazyg
> stayed north of the border
> *****GK: That is not my scenario. A few Iazigi more or less makes
> no difference.

Oh yeah? But if there were any they would have left traces, and you told us there was absolutely no evidence of that?

> I'm talking "bulk" not units of one or two, which make absolutely
> no difference.*****

Ok, they were there, but they made no difference, except there were some Kikkulis among them? Did Kikkuli make a difference? Maybe you should read your drafts one extra time before you post them?

> and that the Romans to the south of it then built up a mirror copy
> with Sarmatian weaponry and battle techniques entirely of people of
> other ethnicity than Yazygian to the point where it dominated the
> later empire is not doing so good here.
> ****GK: They may have had their Kikkuli. So what?

Ask the Mitanni so what. Their pantheon was augmented by their Kikkulis.

> It is your point about Sarmatian colonization of Pannonia which has
> no archaeological or documentary basis.

That 'no archaeological or documentary basis' rests on the assumption that Ovid saw the Sarmatian herders with their creaking carts crossing, not migrating up and down the Danube.

> Like your fantasy about the sarmatization of Przeworsk

I just noted I haven't proofread that part of Boosen, so I can't have posted his presentation of the phase changes of Przeworsk from heterogeneous to hierarchical. I will.

> or your fantasy that it is Przeworsk which germanized Germania.

Southern Germany wasn't even Germanic before Ariovistus. BTW his employment as mercenary chieftain could be another sign of Sarmatian influence.

> I've really had enough of this crapola.*****

You were always a sore loser.

> > Elementary.
> Yes.