From: Torsten
Message: 67429
Date: 2011-04-29
>As I now told you twice. Glad you understood, finally.
> >I added the context of the answer. As you can see George maintained
> >that these Roman urbes were in place in Ariovistus' time, in the
> >1st century BCE, which they weren't. I'm not disputing that they
> >were there later.
>
> OK: Rottweil came into existance roughly 100 later (in the 70s of
> the 1st c. CE), and the *Roman* place Augusta Vindelicorum started
> its *Roman* existence in 15 BCE, prior to that it was a Celtic
> place (of the Vindelici). Betw. 80-44 BCE, the Roman Empire did
> noy yet comprise the area east of the (Alsacian) Rhine and
> north of the (Swiss-Austrian) Alps.
> But you didn't limit your Ariovist argument to a few years, didMy scenario / proposal? No, that doesn't end with Ariovistus, since he died unsuccessfull. I assume Bastarnianized Jastorfers migrated southward as documented historically, eg the Langobards. That was what the Migration period was also about, migrations south within Germania.
> you?
> I thought you were referring to the whole rest of the 1stSee above on what I think happened during the first few centuries CE
> c. BCE and at least the 1st c. CE as well - or, in fact, to the
> entire time period until the great Germanic colonization of the
> whole area.
> For, otherwise, what relevance could have had a scattered GermanicExcuse me? The Roman frontier was crawling with Germani in the 1st - 2nd - 3rd - 4th - 5th centuries. The last non-Germanic population of Southern Germania were the
> presence in those Roman provinces in order to influence in a
> certain way the Germanic dialects spoken there *after* the
> 4th-5th-6th-7th c. colonizations and the Germanization of the
> non-Germanic population??
> The way you put the Ariovist + Bastarnae problem may suggestI do and there was.
> a massive Germanic presence from Strasbourg to Salzburg of even
> to Vindobona (Vienna) from that time until the inception of
> the great Germanic immigrations 4-5-6-7 centuries later.
> It is this that doesn't fit the story.It fits history, and I suggest you read up on it.
> >Yes, I should show that my proposal does better than theThese details are relevant to the question of where Spartacus' Germani came from.
> >competition, which I did. I looked at all the other sources
> >from where the Roman could have obtained Germanic slaves in
> >the period up to Spartacus' rebellion, and there weren't any.
>
> These details are of no avail.
> What matters is the chief assertion:It's not a chief assertion, it's part of my proposed scenario.
> that those Germanic groups at the beginning or in the middle ofNo, because the Bastarnae beside expanding south under Ariovistus also expanded west toward the NWBlock area, changing it to an upper layer Proto High German, lower layer Proto Low German society, and it was this mix (eg. the Langobards) which later, after Ariovistus, expanded south.
> the 1st century BCE (I) came in, (II) stayed there, and (III)
> was able to "teach" the later bulks of Germanics (be them from
> the Elbe or from Bohemia, be them from the lower Rhine and Weser)
> that kind of Germanic vernacular that later on was called
> "Hochdeutsch" (or Mittel- + Oberdeutsch).
> Where in the relevant territory was there such an importantNorth, and possibly south of the
> Germanic population between, say, 50 BCE and 300 or 600 CE?
> (Namely in today's Alsace, Switzerland, Austria, Baden-
> Württemberg, Bavaria.)
> Which Roman and Gothic documents attest this?You can't be serious. The wars against the Germani were the main effort of the Roman empire ever since they got a common border with them after 51 BCE.