Re: Frankish origins

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

>
>
> --- On Sat, 9/19/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> >
> > --- On Sat, 9/19/09, frabrig <frabrig@ > wrote:
> >
> > In search for a Sarmatian etymon for his invented Iazigyan word
> **far-ang 'enemy, one of the others', which, according to him,
> might have been used by the Iazyges in Pannonia (early centuries CE)
> >
> > GK: It's worth remembering that in the early centuries CE
> > Pannonia (and then the Pannonias) was (were) Roman provinces
> > south and west of the Danube. The Yazigi roamed in the fields
> > north and east of Pannonia, across the border. Except for the
> > possible unrecorded individual(s) we don't know of any Yazigi in
> > Pannonia, or indeed of any Yazig entering Roman service prior to
> > 175 CE. That's pretty clear from the available Roman army
> > auxiliaries studies. Otherwise your linguistic points seem
> > solid.****
> >
>
> To find a cohesive and permanent ethnic unit in the article I kept
> my eye straight on the word cavalry
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Auxiliaries_ %28Roman_ military% 29
> 'Then the Danubian regions were annexed: Raetia (annexed 15 BC),
> Noricum (16 BC), Pannonia (9 BC) and Moesia (6 AD), becoming, with
> Illyricum, the Principate's most important source of auxiliary
> recruits for its entire duration.'
> The Yazyges were encouraged to colonize Pannonia in 7 BC
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iazyges
>
>
> ****GK: No evidence (or reference) is offered in this article for
> the assertion. The article itself has many other errors, whence the
> tag "this article may need to be rewritten entirely". Maybe the
> author was thinking of Harmatta's theory that the Iazyges moved
> into the Tysa basin (loosely called "Pannonia") around 7 CE. We
> certainly have no evidence whatsoever to indicate that "the Yazyges
> were encouraged to colonize Pannonia in 7 BC". Harmatta (and
> others) think that the Romans "encouraged them" to settle across
> the Danube from Pannonia in what was then Dacian territory, but
> this too is doubtful.
> Cf. http://www.kroraina.com/sarm/jh/jh2_1.html
> and cf. his note to p. 41. Other scholars think this too early a
> date (I agree). Sulimirski says "soon after 20 AD": cf.
> http://www.acronet.net/~magyar/english/96-10/szarme.htm
> Sulimirski says that the Romans attacked the Yazigi across the
> Danube in 78-76 BCE but I have been unable to locate the classical
> source for this.
>

Ah, you want me to translate it for you. Well here goes

' In my paper "Iranier, Germanen und Römer im Mittleren Donaubecken" I pointed out in 1960 that the immigration of the Iazyges possibly took place at an earlier date as it was assumed so far. I quote the relevant passage: "It is mostly assumed, that the Yazyges immigrated to the great Hungarian low plain between 18 and 20 CE. This perception is based on the one hand the fact that Aquincum in this period experienced a military occupation and the construction of a camp, on the other hand, that the Yazyges is mentioned by Ovid still between 9 and 17 CE near Tomi. In spite of that it seems not impossible that the first bands of Yazyges in the Tisza region appeared even earlier. We can refer to a statement by Eusebius,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius
to the effect that Tiberius 7 CE beside the Dalmatians also forced the Sarmatians to recognize Roman supremacy. Since the military operations of Tiberius during the great Pannonian uprising in the main was confined to the area between Sava
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sava
and Drava,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drava
http://encarta.msn.com/map_701512157/Drava.html
it is very likely, that these Sarmatians, who then were defeated by him together with the Dalmatians, were already settled near the Pannonian tribes, somewhere on the Tisza plain. Thus one might think that the immigration of the Yazyges into the Hungarian low plain might have taken place much earlier than assumed until now. Under this assumption the locus in Lucanius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Annaeus_Lucanus
would be easier to understand, according to which the Yazyges at his time had already lived for a century near Pannonia. One shouldn't imagine this movement by the Yazyges as one single advance towards the Northwest. As we shall see, these Iranians lived in a rather loose family and tribal organization also 100 years later. Thus the idea suggests itself that their penetration took place in smallish bands, families or tribes. Under this assumption their mention by Ovid can also be explained. While the first groups of Yazyges were already settled between the Danube and the Tisza, other tribes of this people might still have lived in Muntenia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muntenia
and near Tomi."

Maybe we can do better than that, they might have settled *among* the Dalmatians etc as equestrian mercenaries, as they did elsewhere and elsewhen.

> We know that they ranged on the Lower Danube (and perhaps made
> incursions westward) as early as the end of the 2nd and the
> beginning of the 1rst c. BCE. BTW the Wikipedia article also has it
> wrong in calling the Yazigi "metanastae" (after Ptolemy) already at
> the time of their original settlement in Ukraine. The Metanastae
> are those Yazigi who settled in Hungary. There is no evidence for
> the settlement of Yazigi in the trans-Pannonian plain until very
> shortly before the mid-1rst c. CE. During Vannius' time of trouble
> with his relatives, when these had the loyalty of the Quadian
> cavalry, Vannius, in need of equestrian mercenaries, got some help
> from the Yazigi, with the probable permission of Farzoi.

Oops! Where did this fact (Vannius' cavalrylessness) come from?

> So your speculations below about Yazigi in Pannonia are quite empty
> and useless.*****

Based on the fact that you (and other scholars) have another opinion.

> The state of affairs being that way, a large part of the newly
> organized auxilliaries, which were mainly cavalry, Roman cavalry
> being insignificant at the time, must have been Yazyges. That would
> explain why the Roman army adopted so many Sarmatian weapons: those
> who used them were ethnic Yazyges (they are not recorded as such
> because only when forced to do so by flagging recruitment from
> Italy, increasingly populated by Christian freeloaders, did the
> Roman army set up ethnically named units). The very fact that a
> unit is an auxilliary one means the troop are not Roman.
>
> I think it's the Batavi in the auxilliaries one should concentrate
> on
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Batavi
> as they would have had a sufficiently strong sense of self and of
> devotion to empire to survive the chaos of conflicting loyalties in
> the collapsing empire (cf. the hagiography of St. Maurice
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ St._Maurice
> ). Also note the city of Batavis or Batavia,
> http://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/ Passau
> There are to my knowledge no account of Batavi being settled here.
>
> The Pannonia to Netherlands story of the Franks of course occurs
> also in Trithemius' 'De origine gentis Francorum compendium' which
> has been translated now
> http://tinyurl. com/lfrkvd
>
> Maybe one should check that 'Cronyke van Hollandt, Zeelandt ende
> Vriesland'.

I can understand that you are freaking out when you see Trithemius again popping up. Problem is, the Sarmatian-ness of Childeric etc must explained by some migration route of someone, either inside or outside the Limes.


Torsten