Re: Imperialism as the source of new geographical knowledge

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:

>
> > Strabo would then mean that Mithradates as early as 110 or even
> > sooner was "intending" (or planning) to lead "an army against the
> > barbarians who lived beyond the isthmus as far as the Borysthenes
> > and the Adrias; this, however, was preparatory to a campaign
> > against the Romans". Not that he or his generals were already on
> > the field!
>
> (TP) Were too.


> ****GK: Where exactly?

I was being inexact. I was disagreeing with your contention that Strabo meant to say that Mithridates was 'dreaming' of a campaign against those who lived as far as the Borysthenes and the Adrias, I think it's pretty obvious that he said Mithridates was already in the process of doing it in 108. That of course doesn't mean necessarily that Mithridates actually did it, Strabo could be mistaken.

> In ->110 BCE the Scythians controlled everything from the Thracian
> boundary (as described by Ps. Skymnos) to that of the Bosporan
> kingdom. And M's "first spoils" against them were those of
> Diophantes at Chersonesos.

Source, remind me?

> So which "barbarians" was he battling against? (NB= Not Greek
> coastal cities).****

The Romanians, of course ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-balkans-vlachs.png
No, but seriously, this is the point I've just been been arguing with the other George about: was there a Proto-Romanian language and a Proto-Romanian ethnos already in the 1st century BCE, because it would fill the bill, geographically? Now if so, can we stretch it back to -> 108 BCE?


Torsten