Re: German population in Europe after fall of Roman Empire.

From: Seppo Renfors (Renfors_at_not.com.au)
Date: 06/30/04 

Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 05:55:53 GMT

Soren Larsen wrote:
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:40E0C2F9.F3AF4CB1@not.com.au
> > Soren Larsen wrote:
> >>
> >> "Seppo Renfors" <Renfors@not.com.au> skrev i en meddelelse
> >> news:40DFE1D5.1761879C@not.com.au
> >>> Inger E Johansson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Seppo,
> >>>> Ostrogoths have been proven beyond any reasonable doubts to origin
> >>>> from Ostergotland.
> >>>
> >>> The "Ostro" part of the "Goths" is said to mean "eastern" and as
> >>> opposed to the "Visi" or "Western" Goths.
> >>
> >> It is surely said, but it is wrong, Visi meaning 'noble' and Ostro
> >> meaning 'shining'.
> >>
> >> The 'east' and west' convention only entered in a period when the
> >> Visigoths just happened to be located West of the Ostrogoths
> >>
> >>> BOTH are a later people that
> >>> the single people known as "Goths".
> >>
> >> What Goths? - Tervingi or Greutungi?
> >
> > What part of "Single" do you have trouble with?
>
> That the 'Greutungi and Tervingi' should be more a single entity
> than the 'Visigoths and Ostrogoths'. :-)

I see it didn't even singe a single hair.... oh well... didn't really
expect you to understand anyway.

> >>> http://www.roangelo.net/valente/longobar.html
> >>> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11347d.htm
> >>>
> >>> I can't find anything that comes close to mentioning BC for Goths,
> >>> and Ostrogoths particularly. The very earliest arguments I can find
> >>> for "Goths" is them being at the Vistula at around the time of the
> >>> Birth of Christ but this is uncertain too. This is well before they
> >>> moved anywhere.
> >>
> >> You have just killed Ingers argument about them being Scandinavian
> >> :-)
> >
> > Not at all. I only question the time lines as a specific people.
>
> What part of 'This is well before they moved anywhere' do you
> have trouble with.
>
> Most amusing since this was your own words. :-)

I have no problems at all with that - when it is read IN CONTEXT, and
not taken out of it and misrepresented. Your time line STINKS and is
unrealistic and is generated from a serious misunderstanding on your
part.

> >> Anyway the Goths on the Vistula is an archaeological identification
> >> of the Goths with the Wielbark culture. So you are damned right
> >> this in uncertain, since there is nada cooperation in the sources.
> >
> > There is a plethora of authority on their origin from Scandinavia -
> > you know that too!
>
> There is nada! Even Ingemar Nordgren and John Kaliff who Inger
> claims are supporting her, speaks only of Scandinavian influence on
> the Wielbark culture _and no proven significant migration_.

AHA.... and you have immediately redefined "influence" to refer to
something only able to be done on the phone!! Like DUH.... "influence"
back them meant contact - personal contact, no phones then you know.
It could be in the form of peaceful immigration or conquest and partly
by trade, or a bit of each.

> The Wielbark in turn are only linked to the Goths by archaeological
> remains, and nobody knows if this is a result of migration, or just
> the Wielbark culture being adopted in the later Gothic area.

How can something that isn't known about be "adopted"? Why would a
complete foreign culture (including language) become practised by
another people who already HAS its own culture (they all have one you
know - it is impossible to be without one). Is such a notion even
SANE? NO, it is not. A culture is spread (back them) by contact, close
contact - there is no other way. You say evidence of it does exist -
but are doing your damnedest to cast aspersions on it.

> But feel free to cite some modern historians, who believes they can
> make a solid case for the Goths essentially being a a migrating tribe
> with a Scandinavian origin..

Ahhh... a heavily qualified request - nope, I decline because of that,
but I can tell you that the sources that point to this are numerous
and not exactly hard to find.

> I wont hold my breath.

Oh PLEEEEEEEEEAAAASSSSEE won't you at least try.... some 10 minutes
would do...

> >> How can the title "Cassiodorus Jordanes and the History of the Goths"
> >> be misleading?
> >
> > Well, if you cannot understand that frankly is your problem.
>
> OK You dont have a clue. I guessed as much.

YOU don't understand and *I* supposedly don't have a clue!?!? You are
rather reality challenged aren't you.

> >>> Cassiodorus was an Italian author who write twelve-volume history of
> >>> the Goths, now lost.
> >>
> >> Cassiodorus was a Roman of eastern extraction (Anthioc) who happened
> >> to be living in Italy. There was no such beast as an Italian at the
> >> time.

How odd..... Let us remember that claim: "There was no such beast as
an Italian at the time"

> >> If you are going to argue on the grounds of geography, then be
> >> advised
> >> that the Ostrogoths in living in Italy at the time also should be
> >> concidered Italians.
> >
> > Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (490 -> 583) is said to be
> > a "Roman writer" but it is ignoring his Syrian ancestry!
>
> Oh Seppo. You dont ge to understandt this just by surfing the web. :-)

Are you claiming an error of the above? If so point to it.
>
> Where do you think Antioch was located? Big surprice - Syria!

So it supports the "ancestry" I pointed to. Are you using your foot
for a sieve yet?
>
> But then he was not of Syrian ancestry, but rather Greek since
> his name refer to a Zeus cult in Antioch, which had a large greek
> element..

BULL***. His ancestry was Syrian - HE was not born there, but in a
GREEK colony!
>
> But then he was not greek since he was third generation in emperial
> roman service and was a roman citizen.

It remained a Greek colony.
 
> >Further more
> > HE was born in Scyllaceum (South Italy) which was NOT part of the
> > Roman empire then - remember it had collapsed.
>
> The _western_ empire had collapsed.

Like DUH..... that IS Italy as well you know!
>
> The eastern empire did certainly claim sovereignty over Italy and Italy
> was only held by Theodoric and the Goths for the empire!

CRAP! What sort of alternate history are you proposing?
>
> When the Goths got too independent in Italy, then the empire
> struck back.
>
> irrellevant maps snipped.

Ahhh..... proved embarrassing for you did they..... specially the one
showing the Greek Colony.... tsk.. tsk.. tsk..

> >
> > Further more during the reign of Julius Caesar the name "Italy"
> > referred, in its strictest sense, only to the southern and central
> > sections of the peninsula.
>
> You are confused again Seps!
>
> Julius Caesar lived half a millennium before these event.

So apparently "half a millennium before" the time you claim "There was
no such beast as an Italian at the time" Italy - a geographic region
that was so named!! A "Roman" is a specific ethnic group, as wrongly
YOU claimed. You were not able to tell the fine distinction I made.
You must be a masochist, constantly shooting yourself in the foot!

> So this is completely irrellevant.

....as most of your stuff is.... but then YOU started arguing about
it.

> Do you also discuss contemporary geography
> and ethnicity based on maps and info from around 1500?

You said: "Julius Caesar lived half a millennium before these event",
and I said: "during the reign of Julius Caesar the name "Italy"
referred, in its strictest sense, only to the southern and central
sections of the peninsula."

So according to you, we now have Julius Caesar living "around
1500"...... you really are having trouble staying with reality.
 
[snip rubbish]

> > So next time you try to empty your "gezunder" ("chamber pot" to you)
> > do NOT do so into a gale!
>
> So it was you standing downwind :-)

Another misrepresentation - a rather poor effort at that.

[..]

> >>> It is said Jordanes condensed those 12 volumes in
> >>> his own works.
> >>
> >> No! That is what Jordanes says.
> >
> > Aha..... so you asked him did you?
>
> He says so in the preface to his work :-)

Therefor "it is said", isn't it..... you are doing your level best to
discombobulate the issues!
>
> He was actually commissioned to do it by a Castilus.
>
> But then knowing about the subjects you discuss was never
> your style Seps.

You are only posting irrelevant rubbish that is truly meaningless.

> >> BZZZZZT! It is the origin in Scandinavia that has to be proved.
> >> Not the opposite.
> >
> > Why? Who says.... note: you don't count.
>
> Because you cant prove a negative.
>
> If I claimed the Goths came from Venezuela, then it would be my job to
> provide the evidence.
>
> You guys say the Goths came from Sweden - we are waiting for the evidence .

This is disingenuous (which is a compliment in this situation). It's
one of the oldest of the less honest methods of arguing.

1- claim "it doesn't exist"
2- claim "can't prove the negative"
3- claim "it is up to the opponent to..."

It is a way of shifting the focus away from ones own claims to the
other person when ones own claims can no longer be upheld. In this
situation it is virtually the same as the waving of a white flag.

As evidence does exist, and a lot of people have accepted it in much
the same way they accept the sun rises in the East, then one needs not
"prove" the "sun rises in the east" any longer. On the other hand, YOU
are NOT claiming "it doesn't exist"! YOU claim "something else exited"
and THAT is up to you to prove. Don't attempt those old has-been
tricks again.

> >> Actually are modern lingustic the most damaging argument against
> >> Ingers fantasy, since nobody any longer conciders north and
> >> east germanic to be more closely related than west and north
> >> germanic.
> >
> > Linguistics are a poor indicator as it relies VERY heavily on totally
> > unprovable theories. Yet at the same time linguistics are an
> > additional tool - but not to the elimination of all other evidence as
> > those hanging their hat solely on linguistic.
>
> "Older scholarship argued for a linguistic connections between Gothic and
> Old Norse, while Gutnish, the dialect of Gotland was regarded as a form of
> Gothic. Yet, this theory is nowaydays no longer accepted. Instead, Old Norse
> is not closer to Gothic than any other Germanic dialect. "
>
> http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Goths

but you didn't quote ALL of it. That paragraph finished with "Old
Norse is not closer to Gothic than any other Germanic dialect" - A
point worthy of noting here is that it isn't "old NORSE" that it
relates to and it is bogus. You do realise that it is a whole
MILLENNIA later in time as well, eh? So if you are going to rely on
Wikipedia as your source - remember, it is something anyone can edit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goths

Hell, for all I know perhaps YOU wrote that stuff! Note, Gutnish is
not part of "old Norse"!!

[..]
>
> >>
> >> So nada linguistic support for a Scandinavian origin.
> >
> > THAT is a blatant LIE.
>
> Then provide evidence to the contrary

Already done elsewhere - further to that more is included in your own
cited "dictionary" above.

> >Alternately you don't have much of an idea
> > about the different languages in Scandinavia at the time!
>
> Again Sweetie

Get your jollies at a gay bar, I'm not interested!

> You are the one claiming linguistic evidence
> supporting the Goths coming out of Sweden. So the burden of
> evidence is on you.

Already done elsewhere - further to that more is included in your own
cited "dictionary" above.
 
> I just have to point out that no such evidence exists within
> what is known about Scandinavian languages at the time .

Seek and ye shall find - the only proviso is that you keep your eyes
open!
>
> H F Nielsen cited by A Søby Christensen 2002
>
> "There are no tenable philological arguments supporting a
> particular Gotho-Nordic branch of Germanic, nor are there
> consequently any such arguments supporting a Gothic
> emigration from Scandinavia, as is sometimes supposed to be
> the case."
>
> H F Nielsen is professor in linguistics and an expert in early
> germanic language.

.....and one who doesn't keep his eyes open either! The language HE is
looking to a connection is the WRING branch! Is that deliberate? Who
knows - politics often does play a part in findings. The language was
the one spoken on BOTH SIDES if the Baltic Sea at the time. Gutnish
being one dialect that has been identified.

> >>> Gutthones" is claimed to appear in Greek and is the
> >>> claimed forerunner to the name "Goths". Only I can find no Greek
> >>> text mentioning "Gutthones".
> >>
> >> Pytheas through Pliny the Elder - uncertain - Otherwise Pliny's own
> >> writing.
> >
> > Yeah? Where... what documents/books are you referring to? Perhaps you
> > are supporting Inger's claim of Ostrogoths existing 475 BCE? Pytrheas
> > after all points to c.380 - c.310 BC at least.
>
> Pytheas work 'The Ocean' has not survived and is only known though
> later writers citing him.

We do know of "the Ocean" having existed - and some things from it via
other writes so much is true - only NOT for this issue.
 
> Pliny is one of those writers and 'guttones' is
> mentioned in a passage that _might_ stem from Pytheas and in
> another passage that Pliny himself wrote.

Yeah well.... forget the "might". It doesn't
 
> > Pliny doesn't count as
> > he is too late in the day to be of importance to this issue.
>
> Pretty damaging to Inger then :-)

HUH??? It doesn't affect her, or anyone else's view in any way.!
>
> Maybe you should stop being her knight in tinfoil armour.

I'm AMAZED at how many people who's whole life are focused to such an
extent on Inger, that they neither see nor hear anything else and
cannot debate a bloody thing without having Inger uppermost their mind
constantly! Bloody AMAZING!

BTW why do you keep adding cross posts for? Don't you think your
infatuation with Inger is widely enough know already? 

-- 
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------