Saxon and Scythian

I just happend to notice that my last post was "ignored!"

If so, why? Perhaps it is because Franks and Saxons, are not now considered to be related?

Can the word "Frank" be considered to mean "free?", or "open?" Just take your pick! Could it be related to "Freisland?" Which might well mean "Land of the Free?"

Could the "Phranking / Franking privilege" be related?

Take your pick; http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=1&oq=franking&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS315US315&q=franking+privilege+definition

Regards,

Edited by opuslola - 20-Feb-2010 at 18:17

Originally posted by Boyo Didn’t Herodotus mention that Thracians worshiped Ares as one of their gods? Wouldn’t it make Samarians to be the same as Thracians who were well known by Herodotus? Thracians were a definite ethnicity. They left touchable traces behind, whereas Samarians are mentioned by scribes but left no place names no language behind and can not be assigned to a specific region with any certainly. It can be, the same people are talked about and all different names are attached to them. Having the same pantheon of gods doesn’t necessary tie them together? Greeks worshipped Ares too and were a separate nation. Besides, the same Herodotus wrote that Thracians are a populous people known by different names in different parts of the world.

It is interesting that Jacob Grimm, in his Teutonic Mythology, suggested the name Mars may have come from the expression 'in dem Aresburg' (hope I spelt it right).

Didn't have time to read the whole thread, so I apologize if someone said this already.

Originally posted by Brainstorm The only connection i could find ,would be the existence of Sarmatian mercenaries in Britain,during late Roman times. (its known that Sarmatians replaced Scythians in the same area)

Yes, as I was about to post:  Ironically, the Saxons may have fought Scythians, more or less, in that the probable prototype of the armored knight in the Arthurian age were the retired veterans, living at Bremetanacum (sp?) in Lancashire (to help defend it against Irish brigands), of the Sarmatian cataphracts stationed in Britain to back up the legion defending the Wall.  These were 'Scythians' of north Persian linguistic stock who wore plate armor and had armored skirts for their horses in the heaviest regiments.  As the only type of warrior capable of riding down the hardy but poorly armored Saxon foot, they would have made a natural mobile 'police force' in post-Roman Britain, moving quickly (under leadership of a high king?) to a threatened sector to combine with local militia in suppressing Saxon outbreaks.  (What eventually brought the Britons down was plague, seemingly, in the second half of the 6th century.) 

The most surprising similarities (or coincidence of course) ,are the use of dragon-similar in the artifacts of Saxons and the "flags" of Sarmatians, and the myth of Exculiber. Scythians (and probably sarm) ,used to build tombs ,placing on top long swords,stucked on the ground or between rocks . This is mentioned also by Herodotus,who calls them temples-tombs dedicated to Ares (god of War),as "he is the only God they worship).

Yes, the 'sword in the stone' has a decidedly Sarmatian flavor.  But I would guess the dragon standards would have to have been captured Sarmatian standards--characteristic dragon wind-sock useful to archery--or else similar ones adopted by their Keltic allies, with whom they no doubt became interbred.

The word Saqsin has perfect Turkic etymlogical explanation meaning Saksin (lower i.e. lower Volga or Saqcin i.e. guardian). And it's not the name of the region, but just a name for a trade city at the lower Volga. Finally, there are no definite proofs that Sarai was located in the place of Saqsin, 

So here two, yellow Alans, blue Vandals, red Suebians.

Originally posted by Slayertplsko Originally posted by Some Remember that nationally that exist back then and these people did not call themselves Germanic ,Germanic is just a linguistic term and late Proto-Germanic time is seen as the late Northern IE dialect of Europe or northern dialects in Scandinavia . that is what it is.. I have never said hat they where Germanic but they are ancestors linguistically to what we later call Proto-Germanic. Good remark. Perhaps I could add a few things. We don't know how they called themselves in early 1st millennium BC, we just know that Germanic speakers later called themselves thiudisk, perhaps earlier also sweboz. But there is no reason to conclude that with the Grimm's and Verner's law they 'suddenly' changed their endonym. When High German evolved from Ingvaeonic, the people didn't change its endonym, it remained thiudisk (a few centuries later the form slightly changed to diutisc), and it's in fact the same to this day. When Slovak language emerged in the 10th century, the people didn't change its endonym - they still considered themselves Slavs and the endonym remained sloveni (Slovák is a later variant that finds its place in the name for a masculine member of Slovak nation only), which means Slavs.

Edited by Some - 14-Jan-2009 at 19:34

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri beorna said 600 BC which means early 6th century BC and I said "about the 6th century BC", is this a very big lie?!! or do you want also deny the existence of the Persian empire in this century?

Yes, 600BC is 6th century BC, but one should be careful with linking 'around 600BC' to '6th century BC' - this can lead to misunderstandings, just like the one you caused. There, of course, was Persian empire in the 6th century, but not around 600BC. You simply weren't precise enough.

Moreover, Persians never controlled any land near Jutland - the nearest they got was present-day Ukraine.

I don't know what to think...

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri Slayertplsko, what can you do except to deny? I think someday you will deny even my own existence! Didn't Some say Germanic peoples came to scandinavia 4500 years ago? here   beorna said 600 BC which means early 6th century BC and I said "about the 6th century BC", is this a very big lie?!! or do you want also deny the existence of the Persian empire in this century?