From: george knysh
Message: 65200
Date: 2009-10-07
--- On Wed, 10/7/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
From: Torsten <tgpedersen@...>
Subject: Fw: Re: [tied] Re: Frankish origins
To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, October 7, 2009, 8:14 PM
--- In cybalist@... s.com, george knysh <gknysh@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 10/7/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
>
>
> "So Vannius came down out of his fortresses, and though he was
> defeated in battle, notwithstanding his reverse, he won some credit
> by having fought with his own hand, and received wounds on his
> breast. He then fled to the fleet which was awaiting him on the
> Danube, and was soon followed by his adherents, who received grants
> of land and were settled in Pannonia."
>
> In other words, with no information to the contrary, we must assume
>
> GK: Correction. "You must assume".
>
> that the Romans settled part of Vannius' Yazygian allies in
> Pannonia.
>
> GK: No. The normal assumption is that the Iazigi cavalrymen
> fled back to Iazigia, whence they had come to assist Vannius. And
> there is also the possibility that they switched sides (less
> likely). So your assumption is only one of three possibilities. Of
> course we know that you only need one in a million (:=))).
You neglect to mention the assumption of yours that the Quadi employed only one single cavalryman.
****GK: I made no such assumption.****
Then there would indeed be only the three possibilities you mention. If they employed more than one, and I have implicitly assumed that they employed hundreds or thousands of them, then the possibility that they all returned to Yazygia (most likely the Danube-Tisza interfluve) is indeed one in a million or much more.
****GK: Poor Torsten. One or even a dozen swallows does not a spring make. We have no evidence at all of substantial Sarmatian colonization of Pannonia. Your "argument" that Tacitus implicitly allowed for this is untenable. With such an "approach" one could rewrite world history. Everyone seems to understand these things except you. That's why I've finally run out of patience.****
> That would explain why Pannonia became so important to Rome in the
> era of the soldier emperors
> http://tech. groups.yahoo. com/group/ cybalist/ message/65077
> http://bib.irb. hr/datoteka/ 167165.FIllyrica _antiqua- h-gracanin. pdf
> when the Roman army was being Sarmatized in weaponry.
>
> GK: weapon "sarmatization" does not require the presence of
> settled Sarmatians as per your scenario.
True, we're talking Occam here. Your scenario that every Yazyg stayed north of the border
*****GK: That is not my scenario. A few Iazigi more or less makes no difference. I'm talking "bulk" not units of one or two, which make absolutely no difference.*****
and that the Romans to the south of it then built up a mirror copy with Sarmatian weaponry and battle techniques entirely of people of other ethnicity than Yazygian to the point where it dominated the later empire is not doing so good here.
****GK: They may have had their Kikkuli. So what? It is your point about Sarmatian colonization of Pannonia which has no archaeological or documentary basis. Like your fantasy about the sarmatization of Przeworsk or your fantasy that it is Przeworsk which germanized Germania. I've really had enough of this crapola.*****
> Elementary.
Yes.
Torsten