Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)
Saxon and Scythian |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1 56789 45> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Google Delicious Digg StumbleUpon Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks reddit Facebook MySpace Newsvine Furl Topic Search  Topic Options
|
|||||
gcle2003 
King 
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
 Quote Reply
 Topic: Saxon and ScythianPosted: 28-Apr-2008 at 11:18 |
|||||
|
The main point that emerges to me is that Cyrus has no clear idea of what he means by 'Saxon', as is obvious from the fact he thinks 'bird', 'pig' and 'dog' are 'Saxon' words. Not only are there different varieties of historical 'Saxon' languages/dialects, even in the modern world you have upper Saxon and lower Saxon, varieties of High and Low German respectively.
Wikipedia says in Finnish and Estonian variants of 'Saxony' and ''Saxon' are used to refer to the whole of Germany and the German people, which would presumably make this difficult to discuss in Finnish and Estonian
 . |
||||||
 |
||||||
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph 
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 12:03 |
|||||
|
Indeed. The old Swedish word for Germany was also Saxland.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
beorna
General 
Joined: 03-Dec-2007 Location: Germany Online Status: Offline Posts: 925 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 12:10 |
|||||
|
The main point for me is, that we speak about Saxon culture, Saxon language and the Saxon nation. Is I pointed out. There was no natio like the Saxons. It's like speaking about the Viking language. I am sure Styrbjrn can agree, that there wasn't a Viking language at all. Sure, the languages of the Viking were very similar but there wasn't one single language. The Saxon that appear in the middle of the 4th century were pirates, they weren't a single tribe. Like the Vikings they belonged to a unknown number of north German, Danish and perhaps skandinavian tribes or groups. All these tribes spoke very close related languages but not a saxon language. The two Saxon groups that we know today are those of the Anglosaxons in England, where the name of the Angli became more popular than those of the Saxons and on the continent, the so called Old-Saxons. Their nationbuilding began with the frankish Invasion under Charlemagne. There was no Saxon nation before that war.
Gcle2003 mentioned the upper and lower Saxons. That shows a very interesting point. Everybody would expect, that both are parts of one nation. That completely wrong. With the breakdown of the power of duke Henry the Lion, Saxon duchy was devided into some parts. Only the eastern part was called Saxon after this. From there the name moved eastwards. But not because they conquered this areas. It was the opposite. The people of Saxon toda, Uppersaxon or the Freestate/Republic of Saxon have ethnical nothing to do with the Old Saxons. The descendants of those Oldsaxons got back their name after WWII, when the land Lower Saxony was installed. The Western parts of the Saxon duchy from the Medieval time, Westfalia is united with the Rhineland.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 13:45 |
|||||
Actually I mentioned the upper and lower Saxon languages (dialects). Cyrus is concentrating here on the relationship between the languages, irrespective of the peoples. I agree - in fact it's what I said - there are a number of 'Saxon' languages, not just one.
Similarly there has never been one 'Saxon nation', but it's not correct to say there was no Saxon nation before Charlemagne: it's more accurate to say there were several, not least in Britain.
It does rather depend on what one means by 'nation', not a terribly clear concept at the best of times.
All true. It's interesting to note however that the shift of 'Saxon' as an appelation from Lower Saxony to Upper Saxony took place in a relatively short time frame of 3-400 years. How much more shifting may have gone on in the millenium before that, especially in the preliterate period?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator 
King of Kings Joined: 07-Aug-2004 Location: Iran Online Status: Offline Posts: 6240 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 14:09 |
|||||
Ok, I think the first text is in the Old Norse language, because I found the word "Svithjod" among the first words of this text which is the name of "Scythia" in the Old norse language.
As you read here, The mythology of a culture originated as a means of recording what that culture thought to be the real and actual facts about the origin and existence of the cosmos around them.
What is the fullest and most detailed source for Germanic mythology?
Prose Edda
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9031961/Edda : body of ancient Icelandic literature contained in two 13th-century books commonly distinguished as the Prose, or Younger, Edda and the Poetic, or Elder, Edda. It is the fullest and most detailed source for modern knowledge of Germanic mythology.
Please read it: http://www.northvegr.org/lore/prose2/034.php
Svithjod the Great, or the Cold, is the ancient Sarmatia and Scythia Magna, and formed the great part of the present European Russia. In the mythological sagas it is also called Godheim; that is, the home of Odin and the other gods. Svithjod the Less is Sweden proper, and is called Mannheim; that is, the home of the kings, the descendants of the gods.
Does it show anything except the strong influence of Scythian/Saxon culture on the Germanic culture?
As Strabo, Pliny and other ancient historians and geographers say, Saxon was what Scythians called themselves. Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 28-Apr-2008 at 14:25 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 14:18 |
|||||
A hundred was a territory big enough to support a hundred men. The hundred court was an essential element of law enforcement in medieval times (pre- and post-Conquest).
The head man of a hundred was called an alderman. (A shire, or a town, had more than one.)
It wasn't that consistent. Literally a 'county' should have a 'count' (='earl') in charge of it, but some were dukedoms, and in many if not most cases the shire structure wasn't part of the feudal one - for instance the Earl of Southampton did not hold the county of Southampton (aka Hampshire).
Yes. The Frisians were a minority among the immigrants, but they seem to have had an undue influence on the language. Maybe they just talked a lot
 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 16:08 |
|||||
Completely wrong. Svithiod literally means "People/Nation of the Swedes" and is the modern Icelandic name for Sweden (Old English Sweotheod=Svithiod in Old Norse). The name Greater Sweden was applied to the Russian lands after the expansion of Scandinavian settlements and establishment of Rus principalities there. You quoted the translator's notes, describing what the placenames mean, ie what was former known as Scythia and Sarmatia to the Greeks is what the Norse called Greater Sweden!
I'm fairly certain both me and others have shown you this to be wrong already. Why are you continuing to write incorrect things? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
King John
Chieftain 
Joined: 01-Dec-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1366 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 17:27 |
|||||
ALthough you did get the first text right, it is the opening paragraph before the poetic part of Vlundarqkia. 1. Svij is actually the name for Sweden in Old Norse. It has nothing to do with Scythians. It appears in Cleasby/Vifgusson, one of the best Old Norse-English dictionaries, in this form Svij as a word meaning Swede. For the etymology of the word it said that the word came from two words Sviar and j, Svar means Swede ans j means a people, a nation. Cleasby-Vigfusson do acknowledge that this term (Svj) was used to discuss the Scythians. They say this was the old name for the East of Europe. However when you look at the etymology of the word you will see it clearly means the people of Sweden. Text 1 says: "Niur is called king in Sweden; he had two sons and a daughter, she is called Bovildr. There were three brothers, sons of the FInnish king; one called sl*gfir, another Egill, the third Volundr; they walk on snow shoes and hunt animals. The came into Wolfdale and built for themselves a house there; there is a lake , which is called Wolf's lake. Early in the morning they found on the lake shore three women, and they were spinning linen. There were near them their skin and plumage of a swan. Those were valkyries. They were two daughters of king Hlvr, Hlagur swanwhite and Hervor all-wise; in the third was ̈lrun, daughter of Kir of Valland. They took them home to the halls with themselves. Egill took lrun, and sl*gfir Swanwhite, and Volund All-wise. They resided there for 7 winters. Then they flew to visit battles and came not back. Then glided Egill to look for lrun. And sl*gfir searched for Swanwhit. And VOlund sat in Wolddale. He was the most skillful man, such as men know of, in ancient stories. King Niur allowed him to be taken by hands, as here is told." (My translation) 2. Are you going to actually answer my question? I will pose it again in case you forgot it. Which of the above texts is most unlike the others? Which text doesn't seem to fit with the others? 3.
Edited by King John - 28-Apr-2008 at 17:59 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1366 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 17:42 |
|||||
|
Here is a map of where Scythia is/was:
Note the proximity to Asia Minor, areas around Afghanistan, and the Lower Slavic countries. Now compare the map of Scythia to the map of Europe. 
Notice were Sweden is, it is not close at all to the area occupied by the Scythians. The Scythian area goes through South Russia, the southern former Soviet Republics, Ukraine. Compare this with a map of Germania during the Roman Empire: 
Notice the difference between Sarmatia and where the Saxons were. How could the Saxons be Scythians or even speak a Scythian language that isolated from Scythia in the heart of Greater Germania? |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Chookie
Pretorian 
Joined: 14-Apr-2008 Location: Alba Online Status: Offline Posts: 171 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 22:56 |
|||||
|
I'm afraid that you are all arguing from defective positions, all the languages so far mentioned in this thread are, for the most part, derived from Sanskritic.
This might help:- http://www.merriam-webster.com/table/dict/indoeuro.htm |
||||||
|
||||||
|
beorna
General
Joined: 03-Dec-2007 Location: Germany Online Status: Offline Posts: 925 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 23:07 |
|||||
|
There is allways a problem with names. Tacitus said, that once ago one single tribe wore the name Germani and from those it went on all the others. The original Germani never conquered Germania nor can we be sure that the later Germanics shared the same ethnic group as the Germani did and nevertheless their names stands for all these nations. The Greeks were called Danaeans, Hellenes and now Greeks. Especially the two, Hellenes and Greeks, were small countries and never conquered Greece. Italy was once ago a little region in the South, today Italy means the whole penninsula. Saxon meant nothing else but pirates. We don't know what the correct translation is, knife users, knife brothers or what ever. It is the same with the Hunns and the Scythians or others. It was a term for a special group of people and not for one single nation. That's why we read about Chaibones, which is Aviones, about Saxones Eutii (Jutes), about Saxon Kouadoi, which means Kobandoi, as I believe, there were Ymbre, Ambrones, yes even Odoaker was a Saxon, but he occures in other sources as Thuringian and as a Skire. Britannia is said to be conquered by Saxones, Angles and Jutes. But there were also Frisians and Franks, in the Rhine delta there lived Herulians, Warnians. They all took part in the great Saxon conquer. The invaders in Britain are mentioned as Saxons but as Anglii as well. Sometimes they were called Anglosaxon. So if there were Sakas, what group was it? All Saxon groups were well known from the Taciteian times, no Sakas! And it's the same on the continent. There is no archaeological group known in the area that we can connect with saxones that can be linked with Sakas, not 600 BC, not 100 BC and not 300AD. Sure, for some centuries we have less notice of those areas, but this is the time between 100 to 500 AD. When there is something known, than there are Franks, Thuringians - no Sakas. The Franks called those people Saxons who weren't Thuringians. That doesn't mean they were one nation, tribe, gens. So as a result of the Frankish Conquer those gentes became a Saxon tribe. So we have neither in Britain nor in Germany a Saxon tribe. So how can Sakas be Saxon or Saxon be Sakas if Saxons weren't a tribe? And as King John wanted to show, why should those nations at the sea be Sakas, those east of them and quite closer to the steppe not? Or are all Germans Sakas?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1366 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 28-Apr-2008 at 23:21 |
|||||
Would you care to elaborate how these languages are all derived from Sanskritic? From the table that you provided I see these languages (Old Norse, Old Saxon, Old English/Anglo-Saxon) developing from the same Proto-German language, whereas Old Persian I see developing out of a Proto-Iranian language. While all these languages developed from a common ancestor, a proto-Indo-European language, I don't see how they all derived from Sanskritic. Here is the table Chookie provided |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings Joined: 07-Aug-2004 Location: Iran Online Status: Offline Posts: 6240 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 18:25 |
|||||
|
I think you want to say Russia was called Svithjod the Great just because it was larger than Sweden, yes?
Why do you call it incorrect? Don't they say that "Scythians named lands after themselves, Saksony.", Geography of Strabo, Book XI, Chapter VIII, 4, The Natural History, Pliny the Elder, Book Vi, Chapter XI? This is one of the most accurate historical facts which is confirmed by modern Geographical names:
Saksony, Russia: http://www.traveljournals.net/explore/russia/map/m4197466/saksony.html |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Sarmat
Caliph
Joined: 31-May-2007 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 3113 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 19:08 |
|||||
|
Yes, Swedes called Russia "Great Sweden." The same as Greeks called southern Italy and Sicily "Great Greece."
Russia was one of the important destination of Viking colonisation. Even name Russia itself is of Viking origin and Russia was rules by Swedish/Viking dynasty most of its history. Also most of the early kings of Rus are characters of Scandinavian literature as well.
Apparently early Riuriks were considered "our own" by Scandinavians especially Swedes.
And all these has nothing to do with Skythians.
|
||||||
|
Σαυρομάτης
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 19:29 |
|||||
|
There's a French Street in Southampton. Does that mean I'm French? (I confess I used to smoke Gauloise cigarettes.)
There's an English Garden in Munich. Does that mean Bavarians are English?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
King John
Chieftain
Joined: 01-Dec-2006 Location: United States Online Status: Offline Posts: 1366 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 20:07 |
|||||
|
Cyrus your argument seems to have crumbled. It seems you are just clinging at some evidence that you think supports your case. In fact the ties between the evidence and your case are tenuous at best. Just because a name, which has similarities to an ethnicity, appears in a certain area doesn't meant that a group lived there. Please go back and look at the map I provided in my earlier post and answer the questions that I posted with the map. You've come into this discussion with your mind already made up and therefore are not taking in the other side. Why is it that the Saxons who lived right by Denmark, which is very far from the Scythian land, have to be Scythians.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2810 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 29-Apr-2008 at 20:27 |
|||||
Did you not read what I said or ignored it? If my answer wasn't clear, see Sarmat's answer.
You are changing names. There is no "Scythia the Less or the Great". Furthermore, Scandinavians did not necessarily believe in Snorris' Edda: this was a construction created several centuries after Christianity arrived, to explain the old gods from a Christian perspective. Remember the Christian Icelandic writers also claimed the Norse gods were Trojans.
Wrong. And wrong. "Kv" has changed to 'v' in some cases. No such change has happened in Norse though, as far I know. Further, "Svith" doesn't mean anything. If you are comparing with "Svithiod" (actually Svij, but I'm too lazy to type the thorns and dashes): it's Svi-thiod, not Svith-iod! Svi- means "of the Swedes", thiod means nation or people. Only "Svith" has no meaning whatsoever. Svi, svar means Swede,Swedes. How can you make conclusions without even knowing what the words mean?!
No, Cyrus, they don't. I read the whole sections, and I found nothing of the sort. Please quote the part where you found that.
You posted this map in the old thread and it is as irelevant now as then. For example, "Saxan" in Sweden is in fact Sax-n, the Sax river. Rivers and lake names are much older than your imagined contacts with "Scyths". Skasen has a totally different etymology. Saxon street is not even worth mentioning. Iirc several other names were proven having no connection with Scyths as well. Names doesn't mean what you want them to mean. For example, there is a place in Sweden called Frankrike, which in Swedish literally can mean France - even the spelling is correct! Would you dare to give a guess to the origin of that place (hint: there were never any Franks in the region)? I skimmed through the old behemouth thread on the same topic: http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22148&PN=5 Apparently Cyrus is making exactly the same arguments that were shot to pieces in that thread, including misquoting and misunderstanding ancient sources, using 15th-17th century propagandists as sources, making erroneous etymological conclusions (for example shire, which he was proved wrong by Sharrukin here: http://allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=22148&PN=10 or Svithjod). I see no real reason to continue this, since it's all repetition and Cyrus doesn't care whether he is proved wrong or not. Edited by Styrbiorn - 29-Apr-2008 at 21:59 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Cyrus Shahmiri
Administrator
King of Kings Joined: 07-Aug-2004 Location: Iran Online Status: Offline Posts: 6240 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 15:58 |
|||||
|
All these has nothing to do with Russia, all sources say that they called Scythia (not Russia) "Svithjod the Great" (not "Great Sweden"),
Do people who live in that French street also call themselves French, what about you? We know before the mongol invasion, there were people who lived in this region and called themselves Saxon (Saqsin in Arabic). Please read it: http://digilib.bu.edu/dspace/bitstream/2144/585/3/mongolmission008646mbp.txt The Mongol Mission NARRATIVES AND LETTERS OF THE FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES IN MONGOLIA AND CHINA IN THE THIRTEENTH AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES Now follow the names of those countries which have manfully resisted the Tartars and are at the present time not subject to them: Great India, part of the Alans, part of the Kitayans and the Saxi [According to The Secret History of the Mongols (section 262) they were the Chechen of the Caucasus (Sasoun)] . When we were there we were told that the Tartars besieged a certain city of these Saxi and tried to subdue it. ... More info about these people: It is known that in the thirteenth century a Christian people called the Saxi and speaking a language very similar to Old English inhabited near the Sea of Azov, and that troops of the Saxi served in the Georgian Army in the twelfth century. Who Am I, Poem By Rumi: http://niceslow.blogspot.com/2006/11/who-am-i-poem-by-rumi.html What is to be done, O Moslems? for I do not recognize myself. I am neither Christian, nor Jew, nor Gabr, nor Moslem. I am not of the East, nor of the West, nor of the land, nor of the sea; I am not of Nature's mint, nor of the circling heavens. I am not of earth, nor of water, nor of air, nor of fire; I am not of the empyrean, nor of the dust, nor of existence, nor of entity. I am not of India, nor of China, nor of Bulghar, nor of Saqsin; I am not of the kingdom of 'Iraqain, nor of the country of Khurasan. I am not of this world, nor of the next, nor of Paradise, nor of Hell; I am not of Adam, nor of Eve, nor of Eden and Rizwan. My place is the Placeless, my trace is the Traceless; 'Tis neither body nor soul, for I belong to the soul of the Beloved. I have put duality away, I have seen that the two worlds are one; One I seek, One I know, One I see, One I call. Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 30-Apr-2008 at 17:14 |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
beorna
General
Joined: 03-Dec-2007 Location: Germany Online Status: Offline Posts: 925 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 16:45 |
|||||
|
It is said that the Aestii in the Baltic region spoke a language close to the Britons. Do you really believe that Britons are Balts or Balts are Britons? People from the civilized mediterranian regions called the non-civilized people of the north Barbarians. Why? Because they only understand barbarabarbara. I am not sure if we can always trust them! Nobody denies that there were Saxi, Saka or whatever in the east. But they didn't emigrate or invade to the Germanic Saxony. If your Saxi spoke a language close to Old English, I don't know about that, than it would be more possible that Germanic groups, maybe of the former Cernjachov-culture resisted to the Hunnic invasion like the Goth from Krim and moved eastwards. But that's completely unproofed, I guess. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
gcle2003
King
Suspended Joined: 06-Dec-2004 Online Status: Offline Posts: 7035 |
Quote Reply
Posted: 30-Apr-2008 at 20:47 |
|||||
|
There were Anglo-Saxon migrants (mercenaries) to Byzantium after the Norman conquest. Not that many of them, but it's not impossible that they drifted north and east from there.
Apart from that different peoples may well have similar names - cf Moghul/Mongol, Kazakh/Kazak.
|
||||||
|
||||||
It is very obvious that according to the Norse mythology, Scandinavians believed that in the very old times, they migrated from Scythia the Great, the home of the Norse gods, to Scythia the Less (Sweden), the home of the descendants of the gods. As you know in the Germainc languages, it was very possible that "k" sound was changed to "v", for example we see "Quelle" in the German language is changed to "Well" in English, so "Scyth" could be also changed to "Svith".
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1 56789 45> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz
This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.
