Re: Odin and Caesar

--- In cybalist@..., malmqvist52@... wrote:

> --- 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.

It's fame hasn't reached me yet. Please explain that mix-up.

>
> 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.

Hm. Trajanus did subdue the Daci, so I don't think this is a
candidate for Jordanes statement that the Romans could not defeat the
Goths.

>
>
>
>
> 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.

Perhaps you are not taking into account that Gothic is known almost
exclusively from Wulfila's bible, 4th cent. CE. West Germanic is
attested from around 9th cent. CE and North Germanic from the 12th
century CE. This means that Gothic makes a more archaic and
complicated impression. If West and North Germanic had been written
down as early as East Germanic (Gothic), they would have made the
same archaic impression on us.

>
> 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?

In the common Germanic vocabulary, such as it can be reconstructed
from its various Germanic languages, there are a number of words, by
some estimated to 30% of the vocabulary, that are not found in other
Indo-European languages. It is assumed that these words are taken
from a substrate language, that is a language that was spoken before
by the population who switched to the Germanic.
On top of that, modern Germanic languages, especially English, have
borrowed a lot from the Romance languages. But the percentage of
Romance words depends on whether you count words in English
dictionaries (large) or count them in actual speech (small).

>
> I will of corse try to get hold of these books myself in some way.
>
> Best wishes
> Anders

Torsten