Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[tied] Re: Sin once more

Expand Messages
  • gknysh
    ... and/or ... to ... that ... folk ... ****GK: 50 CE, not 50 BCE. Only those of the upper Pripet migrated to Galicia. Those of the Middle Dnipro who bore the
    Message 1 of 90 , Jul 31, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "tgpedersen" <tgpedersen@...> wrote:
      >
      > >(GK) The point is and remains that whatever you draw from Snorri
      and/or
      > > Saxo about "events in Germania at the time" has no relationship
      to
      > > either the history, pre-history,or archaeology of Eastern Europe
      > > east of the Bug, about which I have some knowledge (:=)).
      >
      > (TP)Yes, we haven't discussed that much. Last thing you told me was
      that
      > around the middle of the first century BCE, some Iranian-speaking
      folk
      > attacked the, was it Zarubintsy? culture, forcing them to migrate
      > south to Galicia.

      ****GK: 50 CE, not 50 BCE. Only those of the upper Pripet migrated to
      Galicia. Those of the Middle Dnipro who bore the brunt of the
      Sarmatian assault (these Sarmats were part of the Late Scythian State
      led by the Satarchai Spali, later defeated by the Goths as Jordanes
      recounts) migrated northeastward, creating the preconditions for the
      historical emergence of the Slavs. The "Zarubinians" of Galicia
      eventually became a component of the Goths.****
    • george knysh
      ... That s not what I said. Dio Cassius draws the general conclusion that Cesar started without sufficient grounds, and one of the things that would give him
      Message 90 of 90 , Oct 1, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        --- On Wed, 10/1/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@...> wrote:




        > --- On Tue, 9/30/08, tgpedersen <tgpedersen@ ...> wrote:
        > when he claims has has been attacked by "omnes
        > > Galliae civitates", then that is from his point of view what had
        > > happened.
        > >
        > > GK: We don't know what Ariovistus said. Caesar wrote DBG.
        > What C. wrote A. said was damning to Caesar, so much that Dio
        > Cassius could use it against him.
        >
        > GK: Cassius Dio does not confirm your fantasy of a common
        > assault of Aedui and Sequani against Ariovistus before Caesar's
        > involvement.
        That's not what I said. Dio Cassius draws the general conclusion that
        Cesar started without sufficient grounds, and one of the things that
        would give him that impression is Caesar's account of the negotiation.

        > (GK)And DBG 6:12 confirms the traditional account.

        DBG 6:12 doesn't mention any conflict between the Sequani and
        Ariovistus at all.

        ****GK: Exactly. Because there wasn't any such conflict along the lines of your "theory". What DBG 6.12 confirms is that Magetobriga and its aftermaths occurred before Caesar's arrival in Gaul in early 58 BCE. Every investigator prior to you who put together 1.31 and 6.12 "got it". You don't seem to "get it". That's tough, but that's your problem,and no excuse for flogging dead horses.****
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.