>Except for Bucharest and PloeÅti?
"Late" in a time span betw. 550-2011. (Bucharest a few years
earlier than 1400; Ploiesti perhaps around 1400, real documents
starting around 1500.)
>I know you want me to clean up your mess after you
Look who's talkin'! Put your own stuff in order (as Brian told
you), and only after that let your legions march on the boulevard.
>I said circular.
Yeah sure.
>George, puhleeze, stay on the subject.
Torsten, pls. click this:
http://learn.to/quote
>George, stay on the subject.
I do, but you should expand your (bio-)RAM to be able to see it. :)
At the time of the Suebi tribal confederation led by Ariovistus arrival in Gaul
For the last time:
can you show some evidence that those Germanic contingents
had a significant Germanic CONTINUATION from Alsatia to Noricum,
namely to such a significative extent (and during the entire
period of Roman state domination in those provinces) until that
territory was Germanized for good in the 5th-6th-7th centuries?
If you can't do that, then Ariovist's Germanic subjects are
of no higher relevance than any other Germanic populations
in the following 5-6 centuries after Ariovits's era. The
territory where High German is spoken wasn't Germanized in
the 1st c. BCE in spite of the presence of some Germanic
groups in the upper Rhine valley.
Whether those Germanic groups managed - during that long time
span - to get the upper hand within next Germanic power configura-
tions in Germany and Gaul, that's another question, which would
be your 2nd task to substantiate: how were they able to become
the "upper class" in the Frankish, Langobard, Alamanian etc.
tribes/populations.
>a rapid decrease of settlement density can be observed in the
>areas of the upper and middle Oder River basin. In fact the
>Gubin group of the Jastorf culture disappeared then entirely,
>which may indicate this group's identity with one of the
>Suebi tribes.
The only sign is the fact that medieval Suebians (and Alamanians)
have the same name, and that Langobards were also some Germanic
group of the Suebian-Alamanian type. So, indirectly, one might
say that their ancestors might have spoken a Germanic dialect
that in time became "Hoch"deutsch (or Oberdeutsch). Corroborated
with the knowledge of the, anyway, unfurled big movement from
what's now East-Germany and Poland to what's now Alsacia, South-
Germany, Switzerland and Austria (and Northern Italy).
You tend to repeat the same Przeworsk-Ariovist story, not caring
about the significance of the next 5-6 centuries and about the
tremendous influence exerted by Franks (who really had might and
clout, and really influenced the Christianization and the fixing
of some kind of old German (Deutsch) language in written forms,
esp. in "Althochdeutsch"). That's why, if your assumption had
something, then that "social class" with Bastarnian roots must
have been somewhere around Clovis & Co.
>As a result of the consequent Roman efforts to subjugate all
>of Germania, the member tribes of the Suebi alliance became
>displaced, moved east, conquered the Celtic tribes that stood in
>their way and settled, the Quadi in Moravia, and the Marcomanni
>in Bohemia.
With some probability that they later on were called Bogoarii
or Baiuvari, who started Germanization of Southern Germany in
the 6th-7th c. (And there are theories that they were mixed
with some populations from the Caucasus region, perhaps some
Alanic populations.)
>A Roman defeat known as the Teutoburg Forest Battle (9 AD)
>stabilized the situation at the peripheries of the Empire
>to some degree.
This sentence contains a contradiction: Arminius's victory
actually meant a weakening of the Roman position, so that
the attempts at conquering further Germanic territories stopped
there. The second problem of your sentence (in connection
with the previous ones dealing with situations in Bohemia)
is that the Teutoburg clashes had to do with an area of
interest at the lower Rhine (in the vicinity of today's
Xanten, near Netherland's border). Many hundreds of km distance
to Prague, Budweis (Budejovice) and Brünn (Brno). AFAIK
(correct me if I'm wrong), in those years and 1-2 c. after
that, at the limes that crossed Bavaria there weren't
significant problems with the Germanic ones living NE of
it (Franconia [i.e. Bavaria's Franken], Bohemia, Thuringia etc.).
>You mean before the real Germans came in? Here:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetii
There it says Helvetii were Celts and that seemingly only one
subgroup might have been Germmanic, perhaps "Teutonic". Not
too numerous and significant for later hochdeutsche times.
(At the time of alemannische-schwäbische-bairische Germanization
of southern Germany, the generations of the "Teutonic" rests
in Switzerland might have been Romanized for centuries, thus
being, in the eyes of the newcomers, "Walchen"/"Blochen" or,
in a more recent kind of Deutsch, "Welsche", and might have
induced Romance toponymic relics such as Waals, Wallis,
Walchensee. As was the case of those Rhaetians who also got
Romanized (i.e. becaame "walhisc") and left some tiny
minorities who today speak Ladin and Rumansh.)
>You have either completely misunderstood what I have proposed,
>or garbled your sentences, or you're deliberately trying to
>derail the discussion.
I get it very well (cento per cento), but it is you who doesn't
understand that you cannot stop in the 1st c. CE. You neglect
or you don't care for the next centuries: in order for a Germanic
population to be able to influence linguistically other Germanic
groups it must fulfill some preconditions. One of it you've
already stated repeatedly: the assumption that a part of that
supposed population was very important socially, so that it
must have become some kind of upper class or nobility in other
Germanic environments. OK with that. But then you have to show
some scenario as to how that group/class managed to get the
upper hand in other significant Germanic populations, and *where*
-- namely *which* of those populations who later on really
colonized southern Germany. Some of them? Or all of them?
For, AFAIK, the Germanic presence PRIOR to the major "inroads"
performed by Germanic tribes into the Roman territory, as SPQR
got weaker and weaker (in the 3rd-4th-5th c., when the Roman
army and military administration got more and more... Germanized),
had little or no impact. It is this what I deem the weakest
part of your theory. Not the sentences regarding Ariovist's and
Germanic people's movements back and forth in the 1st century
BCE. Especially since your theory is aimed at a precisely
uttered thesis: Bastarnae's own vernacular was the inception of
the Oberdeutsch German dialect group (i.e., ich/ech + er sayers
versus the ik + he sayers :)).
>Those are two wild goose chases you hope to set me on.
I only can hope you'll be dealing with this part of your
theory in the next decade. :)
>I suspect the 'massive Germanic colonization of the territory
>in question' they told you about in school is an artifact of >linguistics
Ach sooo!... Well, then... we're acceleratedly approach the saying
"Hopfen & Malz". :)
>set so late in time because one tends to place undocumented,
>reconstructed events of undocumented times as recent as possible,
>to avoid the feeling of uncertainty.
Aha? Do schaug her! :)
>they are relevant to my scenario, so I might mention them again.
By now, everybody has gotten it: Bastarnians might have played
some "pivotal" role in your theory. OK. Now then: give some
details regarding the "procedere" - how their inheritors became
... marshalls, seneshals, dukes, kings within later significant
Germanic political configurations, that set up polities during
the decline of western SPQR and after its fall. AFAIK, regarding
the future "deutsches Volk" there, only Franks, Alamanians,
Suebians and Bavarians had an impact. Goths, Vandals, Langobards
et al. almost no impact (they were focusing in on other geogr.
realms).
>So from that future... archaeologists may falsely conclude that
>your... country was once occupied by... Americans?
Highly probable! Or by ... the People's Republic of China. :)
>You should prepare your... metaphors better... George.
I'll hire a ghost-writer (with a White House past :)).
>How do like my new Celine style (me and my three dots)?.
Imitation is a compliment. :)
>At last you get it?
At last you're as courageous as to mumble it. :)
>That's written evidence, not archaeological evidence. All you
>your little pointless spiels detract from the substance of
>your postings.
I'm not doing anything like that: it's only your own impression
because your... limits show up. In fact, your theory, in your
mind, isn't a theory=hypothesis any longer, but a dogma. You
are already sure. Your argument already has been - as one puts
it in "Bastarnian" - 'vorgefasst'. So, what you are doing is a
monologue, you in fact don't need any input from cybalist
netizens other than "yessir, that's right!" :)
(A way better place for your presentation would be a personal
blog.)
>Then we'd still have to explain why Frankish is High German.
Frankish isn't Oberdeutsch, it is Mitteldeutsch, and, in the
Luxemburg, Cologne, Aachen areas and along a line in the NE
direction (through Berlin), it is a mixture of MD and low
German Mundarten.
If I were you, I'd ask myself why have so many features of pre-
Oberdeutsch sound shifts reached so southern areas, namely
especially along the Rhine and way into the Alamanian linguistic
group (esp. Alsacia and Switzerland), where, e.g., the lung u
has stayed so or barely changed to an &u diphtong, in contrast
with the eastern Oberdeutsch neighbors (Schwaben & Baiern) whose
long u has turned to an [aj] as broad as they come. Whether
this has something to do with the major inroads performed by
considerable immigrations of Franks, other Rhine-Weser as well
as (perhaps) North-Sea groups.
(Only Bavaria's Franks' dialect is quite Oberdeutsch, i.e.
around Nenberch and upwards towards Bamberg, Würzburg. But
Ripuarians on both sides of the Rhine are speakers of dialects
that are semi-low German, e.g. in Kölle-alaaf.)
>NWBlock. He hints at that being Venetic.
In your opinion, what kind of population were those Veneti?
Illyrian? Slavic? Or?
>>I know. But this could be a scenario.
>
>You're free to develop one.
On topic is your own theory, esp. the part of it dealing with
the history of the penetration by the "Bastarnian noble ones"
of other Germanic "Pfalz" dwellers.
>the Franks stand out from the other Germanic groups is that
>they, or at least the bulk the bulk of the population were
>bodenständig, ie they were not about plunder in a far and
>foreign region, but were trying to extend their own country
>in a sustainable way.
And they seem to have been in the first place of the top
of those who imposed the so-called "feudal" society.
>As I said, I think they were distributed evenly over all Germanic
>peoples.
Yes-yes, but... *why*. Only because of the later spreading of
that type of deutsche Sprache one calls "Hochdeutsch"? If only
because of this, then it is very thin: the spreading might have
had various different (and later) causes (esp. the way *how*
and *where* Church centers & monasteries developed better and
in higher numbers).
>That means that all the later wars between Germanic people were >originally family feuds;
As usual. (To a certain extent, the 1st WW as well.)
>You keep wanting to identify the new layer with an existing German
>tribe. Archaeology doesn't want to grant you that.
No: I'm strictly referring to epochs much later (centuries later)
and am asking in which of the relevant future deutsche Stämme
might have played an upper class role those groups that you would
deem as the inheritors of the old Bastarnae et al. similar groups,
who *once* left that Przeworsk area moving in a south-west
direction. Thus, methinks that archeology finds concerning the
1st c. BCE are OF COURSE different from those finds concerning,
say, the 5th-6th-7th centuries CE (so, in this respect, archeology
would be of no help for comparingly scrutinizing the era of the
(1) German colonization of the plains north of the Alps, and
of the (2) Christian missions in the same area (esp. the Irish
and Anglo-Saxon ones, under the surveillance of Frankish royal
and imperial overlords).
>The Sueui were Ariovistus' people. In a sense, the Sueui was, or >supplied, the new upper layer in Germania. I think they were the >Bastarnae.
If Sueui > Suebians.
>So I don't think they were Bastarnae.
So let's retain that your theory says Vangiones, Triboci and
Nemetes weren't important within the link Bastarnae -> Hochdeutsch.
>Ostsiedlung north of the Limes? No way.
Read! "later medieval Ostsiedlung"! That means way after
1000-1200! And not in Roman times! (Ein biÃerl Konzentration,
pls.!)
> The Germani were present directly north of Limes in all of its existence. If you think otherwise you are misinformed.
You misunderstood what's been edited in a clear way
<Haaarrgottsakra!> Should I copy my paragraph to repost it?
I never mix up the time periods of "Romania" in "Germania"
& the time periods one millennium later (when the re-
Germanization, with Germans and Netherlanders, occurred).
>>IMHO, the best candidate would have been the Frankish
>>nation. I for one would examine the plausibility of
>>such a hypothesis.
>
>Go ahead.
It is your theory (or dogma). So, it is you the one who'll
show which of the Germanic mighty forces might have had
the most significant "Bastarnian" input. I only think of
Franks because in the time periods significant for the
discussion only they accomplished something (and the
Burgundians to a lesser extent, without influences
towards Germany, in a limited small area). Other Germanic
mighty groups of some "magnitude" vanished after a while
(Vandals, Goths, Gepids & al.). The Langobards after a
somewhat longer while.
>I don't know where the idea of a German colonization of Southern
>Germany in the 4th-6th centuries comes from.
Written documents & archeology! With few exceptions, the
immense majority of the old settlements are attested starting
with the 6th, yet especially the 7th century. Especially in
Bavaria (where I've got the chance on more frequent occasions
to read about such stuff, even upon entering premises of
some churches, than in the case of Württemberg and Baden).
>If I were you, I'd take a look at what that supposed event
>is based on.
You yourself should do that, coz, otherwise, the entire
community of historians will laugh at you (provided that
they's pay attention to your theory -oops- dogma). It stands
as the "amen" in the church (as the "Bastarnian" sayin goes)
that the massive Germanic colonization was several centuries
earlier in the area of major former Roman settlements (above
all Colonia Agrippinensis = Cologne) and the massive
colonization of the southern former Celtic and former
Romanized territories in the 5th-6th-7th centuries. This is
not my invention, this is common standard stuff taught as
such for centuries now here, where the vernacular neo-"Bastarnian"
is spoken (and where the last "Bastarnian" empire started,
that of "Dolfi" 78 years ago :)).
>The Roman empire never controlloed the land north of the
>Danube. That leaves a lot of Germany to Germani.
And what role played esp. south of the Limes - prior to the
6th-7th c. German colonization - the presence of some booze
and dope addict dirty chaotic Germanic fellas? Much the more
so, since the real mighty organization was at the hands and
minds of other groups, esp. those known as Franks, whose
positions were in other, western-north-western regions.
Your theory rises and falls with the answering the question:
was there a significant Germanic presence in the south of
the future "Roman Empire of German Nation" (Eastern Francia)
between Ariovist and the incipient German settlements under
the Merowingian and Carolingian Bosse der Bosse? If there
was no significant one, then your theory, in order to succeed
and get you the prize, has to seek a different path. (Which
would imply that those Germanic ones whom you call Bastarnae,
after they played for a while in ancient times in Baden and
Alsacia, must have left the region and joined some other
configurations, where they rapidly must have climbed the
hierarchy ladder, and this in order to satisfy your thesis:
they were sort of a "nobility" within the configurations of
the then Europe's "Germania".)
>>Are you able to make a synthesis between the wanna-be
>>continuators of Ariovist's Germanic tribes and the massive
>>immigration of Germanic populations (the future Germans
>>speaking lingua teodisca) 400-500 years later?
>
>If you tell me what that the evidence for that supposed
>event is.
Hehe, that's your task! I don't know of any "Bastarnian"
"noble or royal" "caste" to have infiltrated other Germanic
groups, so that those Germanic groups' chances were enhanced
when dealing with the moribund Rome. And I'm afraid the odds
that such a social class really existed and it really was
the direct inheritor of Bastarnae (genetically, linguistically
and culturally) are worse than those of the 18th c. Illuminati
to have considerably (or decisively?) influenced those who made
the revolution succeed in France starting in 1789. :)
>I did. Glad it got through eventually.
Now you're in to carry on, and to supply the decisive details.
(You seem reluctant to do that, esp. by inviting me to do
this: "go ahead", you said. :))
>Yes, but Ariovistus was Germanic, Burebista Dacian and Burebista
>attacked the Germani. If they were the same, he would have
>attacked himself.
BTW, in the 19th c. there were some scholars who deemed Dacians
as a Germanic population. They even established... German
lineages for the names of illustrious Dacian kings; I still
remember ... Dietwald, as the German equivalent for Decebalus. :)
(And some learned people in the 15th c. or so from among the
Transylvania's German population also thought of Dacians as
their direct ancestors, although they knew of their actual
Flemish, west-Frankish and Vallon roots.)
>>And even if in some years Dacians would have managed to
>>supply x thousand Germanic slaves it looks like a bit weird
>>to me that out of that Germanic slaves contingent those
>>three Germanic tribes pop up in Alsace and Baden-Württemberg
>>and the same tribes multiplied in so far as to build a
>>compact Germanic population near the Alps in order to
>>pass on Hochdeutsch to the bulk of Germanic "late-comers"
>>of the 5th-6th-7th centuries.
>
>So? Millions of Germans perished in WWII in Eastern Europe and
>millions fled. Where's the dilemma?
The dilemma only consists of the lack of "news" on the
Germanic multiplication in the relevant territory (under Roman
administration) in those centuries before the real massive
German(ic) colonization of the South set in. (But now the three
tribes during Ariovst's period have to be "deleted", since you
yourself say in this post they weren't important in the end.)
Gimme information on the existing of such a massive Germanic
presence under SPQR auspices south of the Limes, and the
dilemma will evaporate. (I'm looking forward to your presenting
me an explanation why written attestations tell us of inceptions
and not of... continuations in the 5th-6th centuries; and why
did the territory need the missions unfurled by Anglo-Saxon
and Irish monks and bishops, since, with a massive Germanic
population who spent centuries under Rome, that had become
Christian, the Church would have other possibilities, much
earlier. On top of that, Goths, who in the 5th-6th century
became Italy's bosses, would also have taken care of the
mission, even if they rather belonged to the Arianist
Christianity.)
>That supposed Germanic invasion of Southern Germany in the
>4th - 8th century CE keeps recurring in your arguments.
>I'd like to see the evidence for it.
Have you never read/heard of it? If you are in so good
command of German it is curious that this is new to you.
In the German-speaking countries this is belongs to
almost everyone's Allgemeinbildung. Even the main myths
and legends are based on the major events that occurred
in the middle of the 1st millenium CE (Hildebrandslied,
Dietrich von Bern (Theoderich), Nibelungen & Etzel and
the like; historians and linguists have established that
Nibelungenlied's Siegfried has various features inspired
from a real Rhineland Frankish king who was buried in
Cologne or so).
From a Germanic pre-era in Southern Germany there is
nothing (neither in legends and myths). Or there is a lot,
and I haven't heard/read about it, but then I'm wondering
why German, Austrian and Swiss mass-media and schools keep
mum on that hypothetic proto-Germanic... colonization,
why weren't, for instance, Swapinga (the initial name of
a settlement that today is a Munich borrough and called
Schwabing), mentioned earlier than the 6th century, especially
since you suggest that a significant Germanic tribe was
big and mighty in the South centuries earlier and that
the more recent Suebi were and are their "nephews". Why
on Augusta Vindelicorum no earlier attestations as a
Germanized city - that has, in the 2nd millennium CE,
belonged up to day to the Oberdeutsch dialect called
Schwäbisch, i.e. Suebian, and its German name is now
Augsburg. (Augusta V'corum already had existed under Octavian
Augustus, at least since 15 BCE.)
(a nice W-E!)
George