Re: [sceptredisle] Shall we argue about something? Parthians ?
- The Romans were well renowned for recruiting units in one part of the Empire and moving them to another and the early Cataphracti and Clibanarii were certainly raised in the Eastern parts of the Empire, there is earlier evidence of Parthian and Eastern soldiers in Britannia as evidenced by their gravestones and no doubt some of their descendants were still in the province and carrying their family names which might suggest an Eastern origin even if the family had been further East than Dover in a Century or more. HOWEVER the practice of raising recruits in the area where a unit had originaly been recruited and then sending them to the unit itself had long decayed by the 4th Century and most units had been recuiting locally for a Century or more. "Arthur" is supposedly early 5th Century and post the magic date of 410 so the Garrison of Britannia would not have had access to recruits from the rest of the Empire. The concept of an early 5th Century recruit travelling from Parthia to Britannia is mind boggling - not least is the question of WHY ? Plus the unlikely fact that the Eastern Empire would not send valued heavy cavalry to the Western and CERTAINLY NOT to a province outside of the Empire which has been abandoned.The movie of "Arthur" which promulgates the theory (although it has been suggested before, but has never achieved any academic credibility, not leasy because of the point above - for which I claim no originality by the way) also has a "human tax", in the same way that the Ottomans later recruited their Yeni Cheri (Janissary) Corps, and this is a total fiction. There is no record of the Romans ever recruiting any part of their Army, be it 'Regular', Auxilia, or Allies, in such a way.Anyway I have a massive "Down" on the last Arthur movie - historically, costume, script, etc. It was just SOOOO Bad and don't even mention the continuity or the military points.
From: Volker Bach <carlton_bach@...>
Sent: Wed, 31 May 2006 22:27:37 +0200
Subject: Re: [sceptredisle] Shall we argue about something?
Am Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2006 17:28 schrieb Bill Barber:
> In the 2004 movie, /*King Arthur*/, which starred Clive Owen, I think > the premise involved Arthur's knights being Parthian./**/Sarmatian. Which is a touch less improbable, but still a bit of a leap of faith. Really, I place very little trust in ideas that posit a certain people 'comes' from somewhere. Ethnic identities and even linguistic communities are too fluid over the long duration to make this kind of claim. Contacts, of course, are another matter, but origin just sounds far-fetched to me. Vale Volker ___________________________________________________________ Telefonate ohne weitere Kosten vom PC zum PC: http://messenger.yahoo.de ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> <FONT COLOR="#000099">Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy technology. It's free. </FONT><A HREF="http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/sK9olB/TM"><B>Click Here!</B></A> --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sceptredisle/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: email@example.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Not to be outdone, the British decided they were descended from Brutus of Troy.
Volker Bach wrote:
Am Montag, 29. Mai 2006 22:56 schrieb S.Kevin Wojtaszek:
> Gee, and I thought you meant the Mexican-American War!
Nah, this place is supposed to be about British history, isn't it?
> Someone on Parthia.com posted something about both the Saxons and the
> Scythians being derived from the "Saka People". Any comments?
I guess if the Franks can be Trojans and the Hessians descended from the
Hittites, who am I to deny the Anglo-Saxons their own illustrious ancestry?
Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - Jetzt mit 1GB Speicher kostenlos - Hier anmelden: http://mail.yahoo.de