News
Sports
Celebrity
Lifestyle
Forums
Cooking
Classifieds
Forums
:
Istorija
+0 / -0
0
Godinu dana posle
tulkas
2013-04-02 09:16 PM
#7(D-2B)
...I tada Goti u stepu dođoše čineći nam zlo ali odvažnost imahu
preci naši boreći se za život i postadoše slavni jer slaviše bogove.
I tako smo mi unuci bogova, Svaroga našeg i Dajboga. I tada trpesmo zlo a pre silu imasmo veliku i branismo se od nečastivih Gota i Varjaga za mnoga leta. Tada nas Ilmeri podržaše i tako pobedismo neprijatelja...
#32(D-14A)
A Germanareh, unuk Aldorehovog unuka napade nas sa severa.
Ovi neprijatelji na čelu rogove nosiše.
Varjazi nas nagovarahu da ih napadnemo, ali mi ne mogasmo ratovati na dve strane jer su i jedni i drugi neprijatelji i među njima ne beše razlike.
Odlomci iz Velesove knjige, u prevodu S. Pesica.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-02 09:26 PM
Prošlo je godinu dan od kako sam na SC, pa rekoh da se ponovo oglasim po pitanju porekla Nemaca (msm na originalne unistitelje Wenda!).
To pitanje mi je bitno koliko i susjeda aka Avara.
Možda nisu najreprezentativniji o Vendima, ali imaju svoju poentu.
Naveo sam dva citata iz Velesove knjige, i unapred molim da se oni koji je osporavaju, ne mesaju i ne oduzmaju vreme!!
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-02 09:40 PM
Zvanicna istorija odmaze, a i nasa srpska skola, tako da je ovo improvizacija! Ono sto sam do sada naucio od Prof. „Tabanca”, me je navelo da posmatram kulture, arheoloske nalaze i predanja zajedno sa istorijskim spisima. Sad, kako ne znam šta je od Jordana verodostojno, a imajuci sve navedeno u vidu: normalno bi zakljucak o Nemcima trebao da se bazira na jednoj kulturi (ili delu), da ne kažem delu romanizovanih Kelta i potonjim plemenskim mesanjima.
Međutim, ja sam i dalje ubeđen da su dosljaci, odn nomadi.
Za one koji su citali Pesicev prevod, znaju da se Wendi pominju kao nasi srodnici, no, ova dva citata prevashodno koristim za orjentaciju prema traganju ka Nemcima.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-02 10:43 PM
Krug se svodi na Gote (Vizi Gote i Ostro Gote) i Gepide.
Dakako, od posebnog značaja je podela među Gotima.
Pošto ih info. smesta oko 100 g. kod Crnog mora, datum njihovog upada tražim ispod ovog datiranja...
Novi stavovi inače, osporavaju masovniji dolazak Gota sa Gotlanda.
Meni je u vezi njihovog spustanja, posebno bilo zanimljivo da li su iskoristili isti morsko - recni put kojim su kasnije po legendi dosli tzv. Varjazi...
Nije sporno da je među Gotima bilo vendskih plemena.
Zapravo, smatram da je gotska vlast bila kombinacija Nemaca i Wenda, o tome i zapisi ukazuju na razlicito ponasanje Wenda prema Slavenima.
A da ulazak Nemaca na podrucje Germanije treba traziti raspadom tzv. gotsko - vendske alijanse. I od nove vendsko slavenske i njima pridodate trenutno saveznicke im romejske vojne moći može se videti guranje nemackog elementa sa Balkana ka Germaniji, u okviru Vizigota? Ali, opet ostaje pitanje može li se reći da su „nasi” Ostrogoti bili cisto sastavljeni od naših plemena, kao i Vizigoti cisti bez naših... Kao dodatni indikator se namece pisanje Mosesa, Geti (samo, nasi?).
U daljem pomeranju ka Zapadu i treba traziti upad dosljaka.
Otkuda drugacije prica u Merovinga (?) o balkanskoj Troji?
Opet, moguće je da me Hronika Utrehta i romanizacija...papazjanija sa flandrijcima i ostalima demantuju u hipotezi o osnovnoj srzi „dosljaka - Nemaca”.
P.S.
Pricu o Asima sam ostavio po strani u pokusaju pojednostavljivanja.
Kritike su dobrodosle!
P.P.S.
Pojasnjenja tipa Deretic, da su Nemci starosedeoci Germanije i nemi ljudi na niskom stupnju razvoja. MOLIM STOP!!!
+0 / -0
0
trag
(xy)
2013-04-04 03:35 AM
Kapetane, ja ove odlomke na mogu da pronadjem u mojoj knjizi. Stampana je (i kupljena) 2003, izdavacka kuca „Pesic i sinovi”
Što se tiče optuzivanja neke nacije za nedela ja pokusavam da ne budem previse gruba ali osuđujem.
Narod ko narod, bleji i prati ovna predvodnika, bez svesti, razuma, pretvarajuci se tako u krvolocnu stoku a pri tom su i sami žrtva.
U politici se uvek traže ljudi prljavog karaktera, bez morala, spremni na sve i svasta, dzukci, spremni da slusaju svoje gospodare.
I ti isti politicari, zavisno od zadatka, manipulisu svojim narodom, zavisno od potreba mocnika.
U zavisnosti od mentalnog i duhovnog sklopa nacije određuje se i uloga ovna predvodnika/politicara.
Samo one nacije/narod koji je naivan ili lakomislen, ili tup, ili glup, neciste krvi, izopacenih gena, bez duse, materijalno nastrojen...uz obecanja sarene laže, spreman je da slusa svoje vodje čak i po cenu sopstvene propasti (koje nije svestan).
U zavisno od materijalnih interesa i geografskog polozaja, moznici postavljaju, ili uklanjaju, figure koje manipulisu piunima.
A piuni su, uglavnom, po svatanju mocnika, (genetski)sljam koji može i treba da se iskoristi, i žrtvuje, da bi se unistilo ono sto vredi.
Zar tome nije dokaz ljudska mrznja? Kolektivna mrznja jedne surogat nacije prema drugoj, iskonskoj, koja treba da nestane ili da se utopi u neku već postojecu, surogat.
Uvek je tako bilo, zato su Vendi germanizovani.
Ja zato pojedine nacije posmatram kao duhovne jadnike kojima se masovno manipulise preko religije i kojekvih obecanja, od kojih se stvara krvolocna stoka bez duse i razuma: siptari, Hrvati, bosnjaci...
U proslosti su to bili Nemci, Bugari, Italijani...Spanci, Holandjani, Englezi...(primer: stvaranje amera na racun indijanaca)
Svi igraju prljavo, ruke su im do lakata natopljene srpskom krvlju a pri tom su im temelji kulture i civilizacije na srpskim korenima.
Iz tog razloga ne osporavam Deretica, covek se bori na svoj način. Čak i da nije uvek u pravu meni ne smeta.
Zar su drugi posteni?
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-04 05:37 PM
U pitanju su izvuceni delovi...flag recenicu i desni klik za pretrazi na google, i videces.
Ja sam dobronamernom kritikom pokusao da nam pomognem,
učinim ga boljim, sto je svima u interesu.
Model rada i pristupa koji Dr. Ivo Vukcevic je za mene dobar početni obrazac, stim sto bih lično kombinovao uz rad našeg arheologa Dr. Djordja Jankovica.
Nazalost, i dalje zaostajemo svetlosnim godinama za Slovencima i njihovim istoricarima koji socno usivaju B.B. skolu.
Pozdrav!!!
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-04 05:44 PM
Ili model pristupa Florin Kurte...
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-04 07:03 PM
I odg. na primljeni „susjedski” mejl:
Imao sam na umu Strabona, a u vezi tzv. pojave trakizacije,
pa, i ilirizacije Skorda, te naseljavanja 50. 000. Geta u Meziji.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-04 07:51 PM
Getica,
170. 247
„...in Antorum fines movit procinctum, eosque dum adgreeditur prima congressione su. pera. tus, deinde fortiter egit regemque eorum Boz nomine cumfiliis suiset LXX primatibus in exemplum terroris adfixit...”
Anti su pored vladara imali i vladajuci sloj.
+0 / -0
0
trag
(xy)
2013-04-06 01:00 PM
Tabanac je vezan za Velesovu knjigu pa me cudi da se još nije oglasio povodom tvog posta.
Bilo bi lepo da se razjasne neke nedoumice vezane za knjigu.
Nadam se da će se (moj vitez))) oglasiti uskoro.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-06 01:58 PM
Avaj, ipak ću morati da procitam Jordana, makar kao orjentir...
P.S.
http://ia700501.us.archive.org/0/items/istoriianarodasr00davi/istoriianarodasr00davi.pdf
Pozdr av!!!
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-06 08:45 PM
Chapter 51: Other Goths.
(267) There were other Goths also, called the Lesser, a great people whose priest and primate was Vulfila, who is said to have taught them to write. And to-day they are in Moesia, inhabiting the Nicopolitan region as far as the base of Mount Haemus. They are a numerous people, but poor and unwarlike, rich in nothing save flocks of various kinds and pasture-lands for cattle and forests for wood. Their country is not fruitful in wheat and other sorts of grain. Certain of them do not know that vineyards exist elsewhere, and they buy their wine from neighboring countries. But most of them drink milk.
Heh...
...i datovanje dolaska oviju Gota je po svemu sudeci, ne 1.
već sam početak 1. veka (ako ne i pre rođenja Jesue).
+0 / -0
0
trag
(xy)
2013-04-07 03:13 AM
heheheheheh, ako ceo zivot posvetis istrazivackom radu trebace ti, kao osnova, poznavanje jezika: latinski, starogrcki a možda i staroslovenski.
Ja verujem da si ti već nasao svoj put a tako vredan i uporan mogao bi postati reformator Srpske(i Jevropske) istorije.
http://www.magacin.org/2011/12/
србија-је-постојала-на-балкану-три-век/
P ostoje ljudi koji se bore za srbstvo, da se cinjenice ne zaborave, ali ti možeš mnogo vise.
Ponovo čitam Velesovu knjigu, pokusavam da povezem neke detalje koji mi bas nisu jasni.
Pozdrav.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 02:04 PM
Pa kad neće „Tabanac”...ali ja moram da ispratim i hrišćansku stranu. danas čitam: „Church Vestments: Their Origin and Development” by Herbert Norris.
Pozzz!!!
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 02:29 PM
Ako postoji interes a da ne bih smarao, koga zanima može da zaviri u ovo knjisce koje pruza uvid u ritualnu odoru koja se koristila u prvim vekovima hrišćanstva među svestenicima...između ostalih, može se naici i na dalamtinsku proizovdjenu na našim prostorima i nosenu od strane samih papa...
http://ia700504.us.archive.org/15/items/ecclesiasticalve00maca/ecclesiasticalve00maca.pdf
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 04:51 PM
Naravno bilo bi zafrkano ako je tzv. prostor Scandza, odakle su ovi navodno dosli - izmišljena Jordanova lokacija...postoje razlozi za takvu sumnju, kad malo bolje promislim. Makar da ne budu smatrani varvarima (!)...msm, izmislio je istoriju još do vremena Aleksandra Velikog...uz prepise drugih radova, i izgleda nekih koji više ne postoje...Zverajuci po ondasnjim autorima...naiso sam na zanimljivu mapu u Pomponijusa Mele (ispod Tule..)...
Ouh, well, back to Tacitus, again.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 05:00 PM
Mela kao i Plinije Stariji naziva Wende, Indima...
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 05:52 PM
Možda će ko pomisliti da gubim vreme, ali ovo je po meni bitna stavka zbog meni važnog Langdoka, i ako ništa drugo, Anta. Znamo da jednu od kolonizacija opisanih kod Porfija, međutim, posto su Sorbi, Wendi, sa njihovim prisustvom u Panononiji mi pokazujemo i ranije prisustvo ovde (najviše opisano u Veles knjizi)! Do u vreme Jesue :)
Gde je „El Tabanac”, kad je tajming da piše o apostolu Andreji!?
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 07:42 PM
Idemo dalje sa Gotima (čiji najraniji pomen vezem za 27. g. pre Jesue, za sada), sa odlomcima raznih autora o Gotima...
Frederik Kortlandt, „The origin of the Goths”: „Witold Mańczak has argued that Gothic is closer to Upper German than to Middle German, closer to High German than to Low German, closer to German than to Scandinavian, closer to Danish than to Swedish, and that the original homeland of the Goths must therefore be located in the southernmost part of the Germanic territories, not in Scandinavia. think that his argument is correct and that it is time to abandon Iordanes’ classic view that the Goths came from Scandinavia.”
Todd B. Krause and Jonathan Slocum: „To add to the mystery of how East Germanic is related to the other branches of the family, there is the fact that Gothic shares some common features with Old High German, in the West Germanic branch, to the exclusion of Old Norse. [...] Such features suggest the possibility of close interaction between Goths and Germans of the southeastern regions. If these features can be dated to an early period, as some scholars argue, then this casts some doubts on a protracted period of common development between Gothic and Old Norse, and even on the grouping of the West Germanic dialects itself.”
2. Arne Søby Christensen, Cassiodorus, Jordanes and the History of the Goths: Studies in a Migration Myth
p. 300 (la sfârşitul capitolului „Scandza”): „In short, nothing in the Scandza passage can be linked to the Goths - or to a Gothic tradition. And when the name of the gōtar was later Latinized, in the Middle Ages, the classicising form Gothi was used, as everyone was quite convinced at the time that the Goths originally came from this area: Jordanes had said so.”
3. Walter Goffart, „Jordanes and His Three Histories” în The Narrators of Barbarian History (AD 550-800), în special p. 84-96.
p. 89: „As for Scandza itself, the idea that an authentic Gothic tradition should have referred to an island of that name is no more plausible than that hoary legends among native peoples of North America should refer to the State of Alaska or the Yukon Territory, let alone to Hudson's Bay.”
Tot Walter Goffart, „Jordanes's Getica and the Disputed Authenticity of Gothic Origins from Scandinavia” în Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire
p. 66: „[A] careful sifting of the evidence, by [Peter] Heather as well as Christensen, does not confirm the belief that descent from Scandinavia was a lively memory among the Goths or the Amal family.”
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 07:44 PM
Herwig Wolfram în The Roman Empire and its Germanic peoples (tradusă din germană de Thomas Dunlap), p. 121-2:
Thus being a Goth, enjoying the „freedom of the Goths” and marching in the Gothic army were one and the same thing.
[...]
The army on the march held out the promise of social mobility and attracted the native underclasses. At the time of migration this attraction seemed very useful, as it helped to relieve the chronic shortage of man-power. But in Italy, Gaul, Spain, and Africa the coloni were needed in the fields and not on the battlefield. Theodoric the Great, for example, staked his future on consolidating and stabilizing his kingdom, which is why he prohibited the Roman peasant underclasses from joining a Gothic army.
However, the old attraction was still alive when the Gothic kingdoms were fighting for their survival. At the battle of Vouillé, a contingent of Roman magnates from the Auvergne with the free and unfree clientes fought on the side of the Visigoths. This unit was led by a Catholic senator and son of the former bishop of Clermont. The Ostrogothic King Totila not only accepted Roman slaves and coloni into the Gothic army, he even mobilized them against their senatorial masters with promises of freedom and ownership of the land. In so doing the king gave the Roman underclasses a chance and an excuse to do what they had been ready and willing to do since the third century: „to become Goths” out of despair over their economic and social condition.
John Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus, p. 326: „It would not be surprising if the Gothic federations, like their settlements, were more varied in composition than first impresions might suggest. According to Ammianus, the Huns killed and despoiled many of their Alan rivals and took the rest into alliance (31.3.1) - a pattern of warfare and accomodation among the barbarian peoples that must have been very frequent in the turmoil of this unsettled period. ”
Linda Ellis, „Dacians, Sarmatians and Goths on the Roman-Carpathian frontier, 2nd-4th centuries” în Shifting Frontiers in Late Antiquity, p. 119: „ Regrettably, very little is known about most of the peoples of post-Roman Eastern Europe. It is clear that several cultures were present east of the Carpathians from pre-Roman to post-Roman times. The archaeological evidence suggests that this region, and many of its settlements, were polyethnic and incorporated an effective presence and continuation of the native population. Answers to questions regarding the extent to which settlements and burial grounds were polyethnic, the nature and degree of co-existence, the processes of acculturation, or even the existence of social institutions to incorporate individuals through sanguine relationships, must await further archaeological excavations.”
Guy Halsall, Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, p. 51-2: „Although the Scythians were long gone, their name was still applied to the inhabitants of these regions: Taifals and Sarmatians, Alans and Goths. Although the Goths (or at least some of them) spoke a Germanic language, it is significant that when Graeco-Roman writers wanted a classical term for them they tended to use ‘Scythian’ rather than ‘German’. This implies that, as Cicero’s Scipio thought, lifestyle was more important than language in ethnographic categorisation. Whatever their language, it seems likely that a semi-nomadic pastoral lifestyle unified the various peoples beyond the middle and lower Danube.”
p. 134: „It seems that the Gothic confederacy, like those of the Saxons, Franks and Alamanni, comprised a number of other ethnic identities: former Roman provincials, Dacians, Carpi, Sarmatians, Taifali and so on. Even Gothic identity itself operated on more than one level, those of the kingdom and confederacy. Inhabitants of the region thus, like most other people, possessed a hierarchy of ethnic identities. Some might have been more restricted than others, or were acquired through entry into political and military circles. Political circumstances might determine the efficacy of a particular identity or the desire to signal it. Nevertheless we should not assume that because other ethnic identities persisted within Gútthiuda, as Gothic sources call the Tervingian homeland (presumably adapting the Roman term Gothia), this means that ethnic boundaries were rigid. In some way all inhabitants could probably think of themselves as Goths.”
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 07:47 PM
Patrick Amory, People and Identity in Ostrogothic Italy, 489-554. La p. 102-7:
One different cultural trait distinguishing the army might have been that the soldiers spoke the Gothic language, a Germanic tongue, and this woulde therefore explain the predominance of Germanic names in the army. But here were must tread very carefully. A spoken Gothic language is mentioned only four times in the Italian sources, only in military contexts, and only about individuals who also spoke another language. It need not have been identical to the written Gothic of the Arian churches. Latin was the common language of Italy, and our spoken „Gothic” must have been a specialized, minority tongue.
First, if any soldiers spoke Gothic, then they were bilingual. As we have seen above, everyone in Italy spoke Latin. There can be no doubt about this. It is true that all the definite non-Arian clergy who are described as spekaing Gothic were soldiers or members of the royal family. But all of them also spoke Latin, and some of them spoke Greek as well.
Second, we must define what we mean by the phrase „Gothic language”. The written language used by some members of the Arian clergy was an archaic, artificial and liturgical language. It was this archaism and artificiality that recommended it to the Arian churches, seeking to differentiate themselves from the Catholic church in Italy.
The spoken language called „Gothic” and attributed to some sixth-century soldiers need not to have had much in common with the written biblical and liturgical „Gothic”. The spoken language presumably came from the Balkans, where groups spekaing various Germanic dialects had settled since the late 300s. These dialects were mutually intelligibile, and no doubt absorbed Latin and Greek words from the Balkan Roman provinces even more than written „Gothic” did. This spoken Gothic influenced the Latin language in Italy very little.
[...]
The connection between personal names and a distinctively Gothic or Ostrogothic language is slight. In fact, out of four references to the spoken language, two attribute knowledge of it to men with non-Germanic names [în nota de subsol: Bessas şi Cyprianus]
[...]
Given that all references to spoken Gothic occur in a military context, a Mediterranean-wide military context, perhaps this „Gothic” refers to the pidgin of the Mediterranean armies. As we have seen, Procopius attributes the name of the language to Byzantine soldiers, but also to the Vandals, Gepids, Visigoths and Goths (Ostrogoths), all of whom served as soldiers in the Mediterranean. Armies can develop a pidgin or cant of their own when moving around and taking in wide recruits speaking different languages. The Roman army of preceding centuries had had a specialized Latin with a large vocabulary incomprehensible to the layman. Some of this Latin military slang had penetrated the fourth-century Balkan Germanic tongue that formed the basis of Ulfilas's translation of the Bible in the fourth-century Balkans. Given the phenomenon of the foederati, recruitment outside the imperial frontiers, and the high percentage of Germanic names among soldiers from the fourth century onward, it would be very surprising if this pidgin did not contain a large number of Germanic words and syntactical structures by the late fifth century, particularly in the Balkans.
Theoderic associated nostra lingua (never called „Gothic” by him) with the world of military training and the camp. Like the army iteslef, this language was associated with Theoderic's family, which itself came from the military world of the Balkans. Most members of this family are also attested as Latin-speaking, and some are attested as Greek-speaking. Theoderic, Amalasuintha, Amalaberga and Theodahad all received a classical education.
The king expresses astonishment and delight that the soldier and minister Cyprian learned nostra lingua and taught it to his children: learning the language was unusual. Another Italian commander much praised by the king, Liberius, is recorded as having done no such thing, but he seems to have had no difficulty leading troops. All the king's letters to soldiers and the army are written in Latin. To be sure, perhaps they were read aloud or translated, but we have references to no readers, translators or problems in communication. Nor need we hypothesize any.
107-8:
Spoken Gothic may have been stronger in Africa than in Italy, since we possess a fragment of a drinking song from there in the midst of a Latin poem: AL 279, which does call the language „Gothic”; one Arian Vandal bishop claimed that he could not speak Latin, a lie which his opponents soon saw through [...]; and in a disputation between an Arian and a Catholic, the Arian disputator exclaims „sihora armen!” („domine miserere!”) in Gothic [...]. These last two examples, though, surely show the learned, priestly aspects of the written Gothic language as transmitted through Ulfilas' Bible: the Arian clergymen are speaking Gothic to make debating points to emphasize the particularity of their church. The African poem that calls a Germanic tongue Gothic may be evidence that the names of the languages did not match names of the people, since there is not question that the Vandal royal family wished to dissasociate themselves and their gens from the Goths.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 07:51 PM
Kulikowsky, Michael, „Rome's Gothic Wars: from the third century to Alaric:p. 67-68:
The answer, at least in my view, is that there is no Gothic history before the third century. The Goths are a product of the Roman frontier, just like the Franks and the Alamanni who appear at the same time. That is clearly demonstrated by the contemporary literary evidence, and indeed all the evidence of the fourth and fifth century - everything except the sixth-century Jordanes. In the third century, the Roman empire was assaulted from the regions north of the Danube and the Black Sea by large numbers of different barbarian groups, among whom Goths appear for the first time. Not long thereafter, the Goths are clearly the most powerful group in the region, while most of the other barbarian groups with whom they appear in the third century either disappear from the record or are clearly subordinated to them. The most plausible explanation of this evidnece is to see one group among the many different barbarians north of Black Sea establishing its hegemony over the scattered and hitherto disparate population of the region, which was thereafter regularly identified as Gothic by Graeco-Roman observers.
p. 68-70:
How was it that these different people knew that they were Goths rather than something else, or did they? How did Greeks and Romans know it? What marked them off as such? In most cases, context alone would have supplied the clues. There may well have been items of emblematic clothing that established insider and outsider status. But that does not mean we can construct a Gothic costume on the basis of grave finds, because in most circumstances, these items were displayed to other Goths and communicated information about status within the communnity, not about relations to those outside it. Language probably made a difference, and when Gothic was codified as a written religious language in the fourth century, the use of the Gothic bible will surely have identified its user as a Goth as well as a Christian. But languages can be acquired and many of the philologically Germanic languages spoken in central Europe were mutually intelligible. We have no sources to tell us that specifically Gothic idioms or accents could be used to tell a Goth from a Gepid on the Danube frontier - perhaps they could not. What was it, then, that created a sense of community among the Goths of the later third and the fourth centuries? How was it that they knew what their Greek and Roman observers claim to know - that all these people were Goths?
It is possible that precisely the same Roman elite discourse that is accessible to us nowadays helped cultivate a sense of barbarian collective identity along different stretches of the frontier. Just as contact with the Roman empire shaped, and sometimes created, new social and political hierarchies beyond the frontier, so too Roman ideologies and perceptions may have helped single out elements in the culture of the barbarians that came to define those barbarians’ own sense of community. In other words, Roman elite discourses about what a Goth was helped to define how people came to identify themselves as Goths, to codify the signs that conveyed Gothicness. This possibility is not as strange as it might seem at first glance, as post-colonial studies of more recent periods have shown. Modern imperialism has had profound effects in shaping the identity of indigenous and subject peoples – it has been shown, for instance, that the codification of a Sikh cultural, as opposed to religious, identity was largely the result of the British need to have a readily identifiable collective group who could be employed in the colonial army. That a parallel process took place along the frontiers of the Roman empire is actually quite plausible: the diverse small groups whom the Romans called Franks or Goths because they lived in a particular place and were recruited into particular units of the Roman army eventually became Franks and Goths because that was how they were described when they had political dealings with the Roman empire, when, for instance, they were recruited into Roman military units or were defeated by an emperor and described in an imperial victory title. As leaders whom Romans identified as Goths grew in strength and their followers grew in numbers, those followers became more like each other, spurred to it by the military intercourse with the empire next door. If one wants to, it is possible to call this transformation ‘ethnogenesis’ – new Gothic polities clearly came into being at the end of the third and the start of the fourth century. But it needs no appeal to Gothic aristocrats or royal lines, nor to ethnic traditions or processes, to explain what happened, and whether these new polities were very aware of being a gens or an ethnos is not.
”
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 07:56 PM
Guy Halsall, The Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 (2007):The circumstances are important. In the later phases of the war, the Roman strategy of blockade combined with the difficulties of the terrain to force the Goths to break up into smaller groups in order to find food: most interpreters seem agreed on this. Fritigern disappears from the record, either killed in a skirmish or precisely because he was now no more than one of many leaders. Thus the peace was made with a series of small groups rather than with a unified group. The war was ended by a series of deditiones rather than a single foedus. This point is profoundly important for any understanding of the subsequent history of the Goths. The processes of peace-making are significant too. Heather points out that the war did not end with barbarian kings being thrown to the beasts or with vast numbers of Goths being sold in the slave markets of the east. Yet nor did Theodosius meet with any Gothic leaders to sign the ‘treaty’. He remained in Constantinople and sent Saturninus, a survivor of Adrianople, to clear up the situation. This is quite different from Roman practice in dealing with sovereign groups, such as in Valens’ treaty with Athanaric or Valentinian’s with Macrianus. It was indeed a war that ended with a whimper rather than a bang, and any terms may have been different from, and better than, those granted to other barbarians, but that does not imply a single treaty between equal parties.
All this has a crucial impact upon the issue of Gothic sovereignty within the Empire. Even sophisticated interpreters of these events admit that no Gothic leader is acknowledged either in the treaty or in the events of the next decade and more. Isidore of Seville, writing in the early seventh century had to backdate Alaric’s ‘kingship’ to the early 380s in order to close this gap. A treaty with a sovereign group with no acknowledged leaders seems most unlikely. Roman dealings with such bodies tended towards the recognition – sometimes the creation – of leaders, not their denial. This in itself poses a huge problem for the traditional view. Just as the peace was made with smaller groups of Goths, so the Goths must have been settled in small units in Thrace. Some, but not necessarily all, may have retained their social hierarchies.
Gothic military service after Adrianople is problematic. The sources talk of Goths in the Roman army, Gothic farmers and the granting of land to the Goths. These snippets have led historians to suppose that, when needed, the Goths supplied semi-regular allied contingents ‘en masse’ to the Roman army. There is no clear evidence to support this. The context of Synesius’ work and the fact that it post-dates the end of the Gothic war by over a decade, belonging to the period after Alaric’s acquisition of military authority in the Balkans, make it an unreliable source for the events of 382. So too does its generally vague language. Synesius is saying that these people should never have been allowed into the Empire as they will (the threat lies in the future) cause trouble. None of the references to Goths in the army automatically force one to see them as semiregular allied contingents. There is as much evidence to support the notion that they were drafted into regular units. It may be best to adopt Liebeschuetz’s suggestion that units described as foederati in the sources after Adrianople refer, not to allied contingents provided by autonomous or semi-autonomous barbarian groups, but to regular units recruited entirely from barbarian recruits.
The Goths were accepted into the Empire and settled. There may have been new and unusual elements of this settlement. Rather than being sold off into slavery, or made tenants, they appear to have been granted land, probably in deserted areas, and to have paid taxes, perhaps, as Cesa says, as a sort of privileged laeti. Possibly citizenship was envisaged, at least for those who served in the army. It is difficult, and unnecessary, to view them as having been settled as one group in a particular area. Some became farmers; others entered the army. In fact the recruitment problems after Adrianople meant the enlistment of large numbers of Goths. Whole units and even armies could be thought of as Gothic. Gothic commanders rose to preeminence. But the ‘foedus of 382’ did not settle a semi-independent people in Roman territory or mark a massive constitutional change in imperial history. That would be to go far beyond the evidence. The ‘foedus of 382’ is a historian’s construct. Once settled, we loše sight of the Tervingi on Roman soil. When we next hear of Goths in the Roman Empire they are soldiers, like Alaric’s followers, largely drawn from Gothic settlers to be sure, but not identifiable in any simple or straightforward way with the large group which crossed the Danube under Fritigern and Alaviv. In the silent years between 382 and 395 the nature of ‘the Goths’ altered profoundly.
[Alaric's] first certain appearance in history is as the commander of Gothic units under Theodosius against Eugenius and Arbogast in 394. Zosimus and Socrates Scholasticus (presumably following Eunapius) state that Alaric had been given command of allied barbarian troops in this campaign. He was not alone in this sort of status. Gothic and barbarian troop commanders abound at the end of the fourth century: Gainas, Tribigild, and Sarus to name but three. Others still commanded armed forces outside the imperial confines.
The nature of Alaric’s forces has been much debated. Some see them as the Gothic tribe or people who had entered the Empire in 376. This is difficult to square with the sheer profusion of Gothic groups around 400. Others have therefore advanced the opinion that Alaric’s force and those of the other Gothic leaders were warbands or armies recruited by Rome, probably on a short-term basis, in the aftermath of Adrianople. Although led by Goths these were polyglot in composition. A third, more radical view envisages the troops commanded by Alaric (and the others) as Goths recruited into regular auxiliary units of the Roman army of a new, if not unrecognisable, type. It has also been argued that this ‘nation or army’ debate is incapable of resolution on the basis of the evidence as we have it. It is certainly difficult to resolve from descriptions of the Goths’ activities. The sources are patchy and cryptic and armies in this period (as in most later eras) took their families with them when on the move. Concerns over this had led the western army to mutiny and proclaim Julian augustus in 361. Barbarian recruits brought their families along. Thus references to wagon trains (assumed to contain women and children) do not demonstrate that the Goths were a ‘people’ any more than they prove what sort of army (Roman regulars or federate barbarians) they were. Heather cites references to Gothic carts (not said to contain women or children) as decisive in showing that Alaric possessed a ‘wagon train used to transport families and goods. This seems to confirm that we are dealing with a sizeable social phenomenon.’ All armies have wagon trains. The sources similarly permit more than one interpretation of the nature of Alaric’s force on the basis of their activities and demands.
I have tended towards the interpretation of Alaric’s followers as a military force rather than a tribe or people on the move in search of lands to settle. Their emergence from formal units of the eastern army seems clear enough. Zosimus, although an often garbled source, makes a number of references to Gothic troops in what seem clearly to be regular regiments. That the Goths served independently under their own leaders by the terms of the so-called ‘treaty of 382’ finds no clear support. Pacatus can be understood as referring to regulars just as easily as to irregular allies. Alaric generally desired, and often received, Roman military rank. His career, as Peter Heather has remarked, is unusual but one cannot say that there was no point in his career when Alaric pursued a normal Roman military career. [...]
Even if his followers formed a tribe or people, they never dispersed, settled and farmed, though some authorities see this as their aim. Had they done so, either during the three years between 397 and 400 or during those between 402 and 405, they would have had to spread themselves across the countryside, amongst the land holdings of Roman farmers (these interpretations usually talk of about 20,000 Gothic warriors and their dependants, so over 10,000 family units). This would have involved considerably greater dispersion than the usual billeting of troops and made it easy for the Roman army, even in this period of recruitment problems, to mop them up. Furthermore, it would have been difficult for Alaric to maintain coherence within his group, or to call them away from their farms to an insecure future. The practicalities of so doing seem not to have troubled supporters of the ‘people on the move’ interpretation.
+0 / -0
0
tulkas
2013-04-07 07:58 PM
A najlakse bi bilo reći da su ih odnekuda poterali Huni...
Looking for Tassel Earrings?
Select a country:
Australia
Austria
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Canada
Croatia
European Union
France
Germany
Montenegro
Netherlands
Serbia
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States of America (USA)
English |
Latinica
|
Ћирилица
© Trend Builder Inc. and contributors. All rights reserved.
Terms of use
-
Privacy policy
-
Advertising
.