Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins

From: Torsten
Message: 65111
Date: 2009-09-24

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

> --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
>
> --- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- 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?
> >
> > GK: Utilizing a source which has not survived. What would a 4th
> > c. author know about early 1rst c. events otherwise? Learn your
> > ABC's (fat chance...)
>
> A first century PR writer who ascribes to contemporaneous Tiberius
> a victory he didn't obtain? How would his readers, including
> veterans, have taken that?
>
> ****GK: Like those who were told of Caligula's British "victories"
> (:=)))

You've been reading Suetonius, I see. I fail to see the connection.


> But seriously, now that I've seen the text, it's clear enough that
> (a)it doesn't support the notion that Sarmatians had colonized
> Illyria and (b) it is very doubtful in itself (for reasons given)
> unless you interpret it as meaning that Tiberius stopped Sarmatian
> raids across the Danube (they resumed later BTW).*****

I understand. It is very doubtful unless interpreted to something that matches what you believe.


> > > 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 important goal of annihilating the Marcomanni.
> >
> > GK: Yawn... Nothing of the sort of course. As usual, these
> > things are clearly over your head. A bachelor's degree in
> > linguistics is obviously not enough to help.
>
> A-hem.
>
> Shchukin
> Rome and the Barbarians in Cenral and eastern europe
> pp. 248-249
> 'The kingdom of Maroboduus sat as the proverbial thorn between
> newly-conquered Germany and Noricum-Pannonia, from which areas a
> constant stream of fugitives came to join him and to escape the
> exactions of Roman legates. His back was secured by the numerous
> Suebi tribes who extended as far as the Sea. The situation was of
> course worrying. Twelve legions were assigned to this opponent, but
> their number did not make for numerical superiority. So a quick
> military campaign was planned: two major expeditions would strike
> out in a pincer movement from Mogontiacum along the. Main, and from
> Carnuntum along the Morava, aiming to seize the heart of
> Maroboduus's kingdom in Boihaemum. This operation began in 6 AD,
> and was stopped only 5 days before the two pincer forces were to
> meet up. A mutually satisfactory peace was agreed with Maroboduus.
>
> The ultimate cause was an uprising which had flared up at the rear
> of Tiberius's advancing army: the local population of Pannonia and
> Dalmatia had rioted as a result of the heavy exactions placed on
> them as part of the war preparations. The forces of the Illyricum
> prefect throughout were defeated, and the rebels threatened Italy
> itself. Panic spread throughout Rome, and Augustus declared that
> the enemy would reach the city within ten days unless drastic
> measures were taken.7 But measures were taken, with veterans and
> even slaves being called up; the nobility was encouraged to free
> slaves in order to form new fighting units with them. These units
> were entrusted only with guard duty, but this freed all regular
> units for combat. The assistance of the allies was sought, the
> Thracian cavalry of Rhoemetalces arrived, peace was agreed with
> Maroboduus, the legions of Tiberius reversed their march, and
> forces arrived from Moesia. By the winter of 6-7 AD a total
> of 10 legions, over 70 cohorts, 14 cavalry alae and 10,000 veterans
> had assembled. A legion then consisted of 6100 foot soldiers and
> 726 cavalrymen. Augustus sent Germanicus, son of Drusus, to assist
> and monitor Tiberius.
> ...
> 6. Paterculus. I, 108, 1-2; 109, 1-2.
> 7. Paterculus. II, III, 1.'
>
>
> *****GK: No proof here that Sarmatians had colonized Illyria.
> Yawn...*****

I put that quote there to rectify your ignorance of the context of Tiberius' role in the Bellum Pannonicum, which occasioned your former personal attack, not to prove a point about Sarmatian colonization of Pannonia.

> > > 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.
> >
> > ****GK: F- as usual for our snorrist dilettante. I've given the
> > Lucan passage which Harmatta tried (unsuccessfully) to squeeze
> > his idea from. Above your head too I'm afraid.****
>
> The usual George hysteria.
> 1. George gets an idea.
> 2. If not opposed, George convinces himself it is the God-given
> truth.
> 3. If then opposed, George goes into an epileptic rage against the
> heretic and wants him and his idea banned.
>
>
> ****GK: Yes poor Torsten, things are tough. Don't forget to wipe
> your mouth (:=))) ****

I stand by that description of your MO.


> Here is the real quote.
> This is what Lucan has Caesar say on his arrival in Rome after
> having crossed the Rubicon in 49 BCE.
> ''tene, deum sedes, non ullo Marte coacti
> deseruere uiri? pro qua pugnabitur urbe?
> di melius, quod non Latias Eous in oras
> nunc furor incubuit nec iuncto Sarmata uelox
> Pannonio Dacisque Getes admixtus: habenti
> tam pauidum tibi, Roma, ducem fortuna pepercit,
> quod bellum ciuile fuit.'
> Pharsalia, Book III
> http://www.thelatin library.com/ lucan/lucan3. shtml
> which Riley
> http://tinyurl. com/ls8exo
> translates as
> " And have there been men, forced by no warfare, to
> desert thee, the abode of the Gods ! For what city will they fight?
> The Gods have proved more favouring in that it is
> no Eastern fury that now presses upon the Latian shores,
> nor yet the swift Sarmatian in common with the Pannonian,
> and the Getans mingled with the Dacians. Fortune, Borne,
> has spared thee, having a chief so cowardly [Pompey], in that the
> warfare was a civil one."
>
> *****GK: Does nothing for your thesis.

The interesting thing is the concept of Sarmatians joined with Pannonians.

> Merely "supports" Harmatta's view that the Sarmatians were across
> from Pannonia (he thinks), although frankly, it doesn't even do
> that.

Explain 'iuncto' and admixtus'

> I stand by my evaluation of your "expertise". ****

And I stand by my evaluation of your work ethic: sloppyness supplemented when exposed with argumenta ad hominem.


Torsten