Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins

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

>
> I have no intention of continuing useless "discussions" with a
> snorrist.

I wonder who you mean. From the volume of the discussion below it is obvious you can't mean me.

> But in case others are interested on some issues I shall add some
> notes below.
>
> --- On Tue, 9/22/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> The presence of Yazygi in Illyricum is noted and assumable from
> statements by Eusebius and Lucanus.
> http://tech. groups.yahoo.com/group/cybalist/message/65077
>
> ****GK: On second thought, I may have made an incorrect assumption
> here about Sarmatian intervention in this war. I don't know
> Eusebius' text, and Harmatta does not reference it. Perhaps the
> Sarmatians were not part of the Pannonian army after all and their
> "subjugation" by Tiberius a mere p.r. note by some Roman historian.

Hahaha. Nice try. Given Tiberius' reputation, that's not very likely. And what would a 3rd-4th century writer gain by doing PR for a 1st century emperor?

> They may well have stayed north of the Danube throughout the
> campaign (or declined to give help).

If they were north of the Danube and hadn't joined the Pannonians, subjugating them as Eusebius says Tiberius did would mean a separate campaign, further diverting him from his original and most importanmt goal of annihilating the Marcomanni.

> No point in further speculation until one sees the text. As for
> Lucan it's clear enough from Harmatta that he is merely referring
> to the Sarmatians' habitat north of the Danube as "close to
> Pannonia", and not to their presence in Illyria. So nothing at all
> is "noted and assumable" afawk.*****

AFAYK.


Torsten