> --- In email@example.com, "Torsten" <tgpedersen@> wrote:Shchukin
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "gknysh" <gknysh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> > > >(TP) This is what Lucan has Caesar say on his arrival in Rome
> > > > after having crossed the Rubicon in 49 BCE.
> > > > ''tene, deum sedes, non ullo Marte coacti
> > > > deseruere uiri? pro qua pugnabitur urbe?
> > > > di melius, quod non Latias Eous in oras
> > > > nunc furor incubuit nec iuncto Sarmata uelox
> > > > Pannonio Dacisque Getes admixtus: habenti
> > > > tam pauidum tibi, Roma, ducem fortuna pepercit,
> > > > quod bellum ciuile fuit.'
> > > > Pharsalia, Book III
> > > > http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/lucan/lucan3.shtml
> > > > which Riley
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/ls8exo
> > > > translates as
> > > > " And have there been men, forced by no warfare, to
> > > > desert thee, the abode of the Gods! For what city will they
> > > > fight?
> > > > The Gods have proved more favouring in that it is
> > > > no Eastern fury that now presses upon the Latian shores,
> > > > nor yet the swift Sarmatian in common with the Pannonian,
> > > > and the Getans mingled with the Dacians. Fortune, Borne,
> > > > has spared thee, having a chief so cowardly [Pompey], in that
> > > > the warfare was a civil one."
> > > >
> > > > GK: Does nothing for your thesis. Merely "supports"
> > > > Harmatta's view that the Sarmatians were across from Pannonia
> > > > (he thinks), although frankly, it doesn't even do that.
> > >
> > > ****GK: Lucan may simply have projected the situation of
> > > 59/60 CE (when Sarmatians were indeed located just across
> > > Pannonia on the Danube) back to 49 BCE.
> > True, Vannius' war would have given the spectacle of Germani
> > joined in common operations with Pannonian Sarmatians.
> Tacitus, Annals,
> 'ipsi manus propria pedites, eques a Sarmatis Iazugibus erat, impar
> multitudini hostium, eoque castellis sese defensare bellumque
> ducere statuerat.'
> "Vannius's own native force was infantry, and his cavalry was from
> the Iazyges of Sarmatia; an army which was no match for his
> numerous enemy. Consequently, he determined to maintain himself in
> fortified positions, and protract the war."
> 'Igitur degressus castellis Vannius funditur proelio, quamquam
> rebus adversis laudatus quod et pugnam manu capessiit et corpore
> adverso vulnera excepit. Ceterum ad classem in Danuvio opperientem
> perfugit; secuti mox clientes et acceptis agris in Pannonia locati
> "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
> that the Romans settled part of Vannius' Yazygian allies in
> Pannonia. That would explain why Pannonia became so important to
> Rome in the era of the soldier emperors
> when the Roman army was being Sarmatized in weaponry.