Re: Odin and Caesar

From: malmqvist52@...
Message: 9783
Date: 2001-09-25

--- In cybalist@..., tgpedersen@... wrote:

> Jordanes: The Origin and Deeds of the Goths
>
> " XI (67) Then when Buruista was king of the Goths, Dicineus came
to
> Gothia at the time when Sulla ruled the Romans. Buruista received
> Dicineus and gave him almost royal power. It was by his advice the
> Goths ravaged the lands of the Germans, which the Franks now
possess.
> (68) Then came Caesar, the first of all the Romans to assume
imperial
> power and to subdue almost the whole world, who conquered all
> kingdoms and even seized islands lying beyond our world, reposing
in
> the bosom of Ocean. He made tributary to the Romans those that knew
> not the Roman name even by hearsay, and yet was unable to prevail
> against the Goths, despite his frequent attempts. "
>
> Caesar in battle with the Goths? Where did that happen?

From my amateurish point of view I would say that this Jordanes
passage is a representant for the famous historical mix-up Getae-
Goths.

Strabo reports(VII, iii, 11) that the Dacian tribes under king
Burebista in around 80 BC began to be a formidable foe of the Empire

I also read that "Burebista's state reached Moravia in the
west, the Balkan Mountains in
the south, and the Black Sea shore in the east. For
this reason, he was
called "the greatest king of Thracia" (by Strabo). The
capital of the state was
Costesti, a fortified citadel in south-eastern
Transylvannia, south of the fertile
valley of the river Mures, the ruins of which are
still visible today."
This in:
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/embassy/5230/

and there also

"The period between King Burebista's death and the beginning of King
Decebalus' reign, i.e. Ith c. BC – Ith c. AD, is characterised by
numerous
Dacian – Roman conflicts. Although in 87 AD Decebalus signs a peace
treaty
with the Roman Emperor Domitianus, the Dacians are the head of a
powerful
anti – Roman alliance. The first Roman conquest war of Dacia starts
in 101,
and is led by Emperor Trajan himself. After more than a year of
incessant fights,
Decebalus is obliged to sign a treaty, according to which some of
its provinces
are annexed by the Empire (Western Banat, Hateg, Muntenia and
Southern
Moldavia) and forbidden any independent foreign activities.
Nonetheless, Decebalus does not respect this treaty and
reinforces his army. When he is declared enemy of the Roman people by
the Senate, for the
second time, Trajan starts his second conquest war (105 – 106), at
the end
of which Dacia becomes a Roman province."

To me it sounds like Jordanes is "bragging" that Trajanus or whatever
Caesar couldn't subdue the the Goths, but exactly where he doesn't
say. It was probably not in Dacia since ceasar could subdue it.





The movements
> of Caesar are pretty well accounted for, so if this is to be true,
> the Goths (rather, *some* Goths) must have been in Germany. But
> that's also what Jordanes said they were. Could we read this as:
some
> Goths went to Germany, and there Caesar was unable to prevail
against
> them? That would fit nicely with Snorri's account.
>

I still have a problem with Odin being a goth In my thinking I can't
seem to fit this with the Eastern germanic Gothic being so much
different from all the other germanic languages, especially the
Scandinavian ones.

I have read in severeal sources among them a textbook in Gothic from
Studentlitteratur that about one third of the vocabulary in the
Germanic languages is of non-IE origin.

Then I read on a webpage that
90% of the gothic vocabulary is of IE origin. The webpage appeared to
be signend by Arval L. Streadbeck , where it also was stated
that "Only about 25 percent of the vocabulary of modern Germanic
languages can be traced directly back through West and North Germanic
to Indo-European."


Another webpage repeated tis information and gave these sources:
See A. L. Streadbeck, A Short Introduction to Germanic Linguistics
(1966); Antoine Meillet, General Characteristics of the Germanic
Languages (tr. 1970); T. L. Markey, Germanic and Its Dialects (1977);
H. F. Nielsen, The Germanic Languages (rev. ed. 1989)
Does anyone know in which of these the above information is written?

Is it somewhat accurate?

I will of corse try to get hold of these books myself in some way.

Best wishes
Anders