From: Torsten
Message: 65111
Date: 2009-09-24
> --- On Wed, 9/23/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:You've been reading Suetonius, I see. I fail to see the connection.
>
> --- 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"
> (:=)))
> But seriously, now that I've seen the text, it's clear enough thatI understand. It is very doubtful unless interpreted to something that matches what you believe.
> (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).*****
> > > They may well have stayed north of the Danube throughout theI 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.
> > > 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...*****
> > > No point in further speculation until one sees the text. As forI stand by that description of your MO.
> > > 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 (:=))) ****
> Here is the real quote.The interesting thing is the concept of Sarmatians joined with Pannonians.
> 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.
> Merely "supports" Harmatta's view that the Sarmatians were acrossExplain 'iuncto' and admixtus'
> from Pannonia (he thinks), although frankly, it doesn't even do
> that.
> 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.