From: Torsten
Message: 65288
Date: 2009-10-24
> --- On Wed, 10/7/09, Torsten <tgpedersen@...> wrote:It seems no one has considered a possible Sarmatian origin for Roman Mithraism.
>
> "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 ia a million (:=))).*****
>
> 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. Elementary.****
>