> --- altamix <altamix@...> wrote:
> they (the Dacians GK) almost 80
> > years before did not wanted to leave Dacia at the
> > Aurelian time and prefered
> > to
> > live with these from north of Dacia comming Goths.
>
> *****GK: Would you provide for a more specific quote
> on this? I take it that this is from Salvianus' "De
> gubernatione Dei"? I have some old notes, but
> unfortunately all they say is that in Salvianus' time
> "Romans" willingly migrated into "barbarian" territory
> from that of the Empire, seeking a better life for
> themselves there. I don't have the item about
> population "staying behind" in Dacia after the 271
> evacuation.******
[Moeller:] indeed, so far i remember at least one who did this affirmation
is Salvianus. But so far I remember he did not say anything
about "romans willingly to migrate into barbarian territory ". He said
instead about "dacians" who prefered to remain with the goths
because they were more scatered of emigration as of goths.
This "evacuation" of dacia it seems to be deeply impregnated somehow.If
there were an evacuation , then it must that this word have had an another
meaning of what we today trough "evacuation" understand.
You have to agrree that Aurelian could nothing more to do as to withdraw the
rest of the what remaining of the imperial structure and the last rests of
the army.
If you take a look at the big events in Roman Empire, this withdrwall of
Aurelian is mostly not mentioned.
Dacia was lost somehow before Aurelian. He did the end line, he
evacuated -if you like this therm- administration, rests of the army and the
people who were rich enough to live in every part of empire .Of course there
are a part of colonists who left too with.
Please do not forget that the big withdrawall of army from Dacia was very
early. In fact at the death of Traianus, as Hadrianus became Imperator, anno
118 the romans did to withdraw the army from Dacia. After that time, beside
some cohortes, in Dacia was just one legion. And this is the XIII Gemina.
Much later in 170 i guess, they brought an another legion -the IV Macedonica
into Dacia. At 210-230 some cohortes were withdraw from Dacia in Panonia
too.
Anyway these are anoher topic.
It seems to me that the romanian historians tried to make as long they could
the period of the roman time for explaining the such called "latinisation"
and the ethnogenesis of actual romanian people.Even so, it is practicaly
imposible in 160 years to succed a such big colonisation. We dont have to
forgot that the dacians or getae were very, very numerous and if i take only
1 million peasants in Dacia of Decebalus, you will need for an assimilation
at least 4 Millions colonists to have any chance to colonisate them and
introduce a new language tothem. And these colonist have work as peasants,
to share the daily life with the old population for learning somehow the new
language.You will say that the romans have had just 10 legions in the wars
against Decebalus so where from I get these 1 Million of people.If you ask I
will answer you. I just try to remember you that in the both wars NOT all
dacians fought. And all ancient writers even Dio Cassius affirme that "most
of dacians did not fought " and the accepted roman rules without fighting.
The facts on how numerousy they were , we can see refelected later at these
roumaninas keeping the doors of europe closed for otoman empire and that
just with the formation of the romanians principates ( again a coincidence)
the invasion from north-east stoped.To be just an coincidence more that the
only countries in the south of europe, who have not been turkish "pashalik"
are again the thre romanians principates?
What Piotre before said about "we forgot how quick some population bilingual
could be" is partialy true. I say partialy because it can be applied maybe
to the migrators, nomads, to people who put them together and go along
together, sharing how I say, this daily life, and so becoming
quick -maybe -bilingual.
A such "way to work" for become billingustic is very hard to aply to
peasants whose daily life is in summer working the land and just in winter
they get hardly
time to put them together ( Ok iknow I exagerate a bit now).
I should like yopu to take an european map and to compare the situation of
anno 100 CE with the 2002 CE. If we get out the bulgarians and the ex
Yugoslavia and the Magyars we will have practicaly the situation of the year
100 CE.
In the north west a big mass of german speaking population, in north the big
slav area, in the south the greek and albanians ( even if some people deny
the continuity of them from illirians but in the same time they have no
ideea where the albanians come from) and the big so called latin speaking
area.
In the east the things are very changed. We dont have the sarmatians anymore
and the germans enclaves are lost (Herulli, bastarnae,etc.)
So, it seems to me the lingvists are trying to find an imposible language,
and i mean the thracian language.
I should like to ask Piotr how it does comme that people dont think to speak
about dialects of the same matrix language of south of europe ( from Black
Sea until Spain) .The roman empire could NEVER latinise such a big area
.Demograficaly first and because of army and adminsitration , such a wide
territory could never been so called "latinised" if there has not been big
similarities among these matrix language and latin language.
If we remember several writers included Strabo told us that in the balkan
area all people inclusivley the dacians living on the both parts of the
Donau speak the same language ( evidentily dialectaly , but with same
lexic). If we take a look at the indo european data base for example, we
learn that the thracians are gone until Italia . I know , to affirm that the
romans were thracians is considered wrong or unadequated but they DID spoken
a similar language with the whole thracians boundle.
Strabo tell us some more things. The celts in Galia spoked an celtic dialect
which was very similar with the latin. So similar was this that Augustus was
obbliged to crypt his corespondance with his generals from Greece for not
being read by celts.
See Mommsen , Zosimus for affirmations that " the language from
Balkansprachbund have had the same status within Roman Empire as the celtic
in Galia.
Even the archeological evidences from the space of Dacians, Galians and i
mean heretrough the inscriptions found before the roman qonquest, are in an
easy "mutilated" latin. But it seems no questions
were about this so far.Just as wonder, even in the heart of Latium, the
plants form the bothanical garden of Cesarus have had dacian names.(Strabo)
Just a wonder? Jost a coincidence? There are a big set of so called
"coincidences" onyl just because of denying this matrix language spoken on
this wide area.
If the thracian and dacian did not spoked a dialect of this language what a
language could they speak?
Iranian not, slavic not, germanic not. So far remain just the ethruscans and
the bascs as "unknown " points in our ecuation. And? In this case? Do we run
after a linguistic Fata Morgana? In Europe there ere not sooo many languages
as it is assumed to be. And please do not forget. This today new re-found
Balkansprachbund , even id blugars and serbs & co are slavs, they got a lot
from the "local population" the thracic one .So much that even today the
linguists can speak about this Balkansprachbund.And there is no more a clean
thracian speaking area, due the emigration of the salvs.
Hmm.. I dont think I exagerate, and I dont think my way to see the things
are new. I just suspect that the political events from the years 1840 until
today did a lot co complicated the opinions among historicians.
It is a wide subject and i see am gone far to far as i intended to do.
But we have time.( Kommt Zeit , kommt Rat)
Best Regards,
A. Moeller
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at
http://mail.yahoo.com