Anglo Saxons

Originally posted by Shield-of-Dardania Originally posted by Alkibiades2 Even after the conquest of England the Normans (themselves of Scandinavian ancestry) did not lose their wanderlust. Many headed to the Mediterranean. They were active in the First Crusade. They served as mercenaries in Byzantium. They conquered Sicily, establishing a capital in Palermo, and their great stone castles still stand in the northern part of the island. Fascinating.  But their blood wasn't just Scandinavian, was it? They also had Frankish, Gaulish and Roman in them. So, they could go north, remain in the centre or shift south, and they'd still be in the lands of some ancestors.

Yes, it seems in many ways that the great Frankish Kingdom (Andevin), followed closely the route of both the V. Goths and Vandals! It seems they even became embroiled in the occupation of Greece and surrounding areas! As well as attacking and looting Rome!

Please feel free to read about this Angevin Empire! And, also read about the great Spanish Empire!

But, more from me, might result in my exile to Elba!

Regards,

The Saxons were a Germanic tribe.They only ended up in England because they had been run out of there homeland, and the people (not the goverment) of Britan paid them to fight the Picks w/ money and land.When they were done fighting the invading Scots and stopped receiving payment they turned on the people and conquered them.

Well, this conversation is not going to go anywhere. Now you are bringing up "discoveries" from centuries ago to help prove a point that science is wrong?

This isnt going anywhere, I'm not going to waste my time. I've heard this argument many many times before, and it gets more ridiculous every time.

Originally posted by opuslola TGS, you said in the above post that "these are now accepted!" Please read some "history?" Do I have to tell you the number of things that have been "accepted" by the current sicentific establishment in the last 500 years? Do you believe that many of these "established facts" are not considered so? So, just why do you place such a "god like" acceptance upon any thing said in the 20th or 21st century? You just deny the invevitable? Most everything now considered as "fact" may well be doomed to hell withing the next 50 or so years! Regards,

Are you a religious person Opuslola (I dunno maybe you believe in creationism or something), if so, we can create a new thread to have this discussion because this is diverting from the original topic.

Science is always changing, as time passes, new discoveries are made and older out dated ones are discarded, thats how it works, and thats how humans learn.

But yes, the African origin of mankind is 100% accurate, its a mystery that has already been solved, it took decades but it has finally been solved. Its one that we can check off of the list.

But this is going off topic. Sorry guys.

Originally posted by opuslola TGS, wrote; "the only important thing is to be able to identify a people when they developed into who we know them to be. in the case of Iranians, they came from central asia, not Europe, not Africa, etc... they developed themselves as a people in Central Asia and that is where they originated." Even though TGS also related current thought as to the origin of modern man and women, IE Africa, I will say that this entire theme is also nothing but "supposition?" IE, educated guesswork! In any event, it could also be related to continental expansion or the currently accepted version? Thus we are supposed to believe that all continents now visable were at one time connected into one giant continent! If proto-mankind was developed during such a connection, then, in reality, no one really knows the epicenter of such a development! What we really know is that in Africa, some "experts"? have discovered the remains of a semi-manlike creature which has been promoted to be the originator of "Modern man and modern women!" As is the case with many such expressions of "science" it is, in reality, only the specific ability of certain "experts" to agree upon a certain "theory" and by the formation of thousands of papers in the "I agree" side, make this "theory" into something that soon seems to resemble "reality?" IE, a "semi forced agreement!" To disagree would or could ruin one's ability to move up in the vanguard of the speciality? But, in the long term, we do not know if such agreement will stand the "Test of time?" LOL Regards,

um...These are facts. its a FACT that humans originated in Africa. its a fact that Iranians originated in Central Asia. The Iranian origin in Central Asia is not almost unanimously accepted, We know where the Persians, Medes, Parthians, etc... came from. Even the Scythians Samartians originated in Central Asia but instead of migrated Southwards they migrated to the North West and ended up in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

You can deny that humans originated in Africa but then that will put an end to any possibility of a fruitful discussion.

At one point these were theories, but with technological advancement, DNA testing, and new archaeological finds, these are now accepted.


Edited by TheGreatSimba - 27-Dec-2009 at 17:40

I, as an Iranian myself, will have to also respectfully disagree with Cyrus' theory. Iranian peoples as we know them originated from Central Asia (where indo-Europeans came from originally is unimportant).

Like I said before, you can go back as far as you want in history with regards to the origins of peoples, this will only lead to Africa...

the only important thing is to be able to identify a people when they developed into who we know them to be. in the case of Iranians, they came from central asia, not Europe, not Africa, etc... they developed themselves as a people in Central Asia and that is where they originated.

Bear, I know nothing about "other times" on this site! "Hijacking" a thread is a coarse term! In other words, without "coarse" replies, there could be no "hi-jack!" To say "your Iranian migration is really a fiction" is a non winner!

You must know that your "certainty" is merely the "best guess" based upon the agreed upon suppositions! There is "no fact!", merely "best guesses!"

Cyrus has been a most gracious host for me since I began here, but it also seems that we share some commonalities!

I will end this post with this site;


http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=mabie&book=norse&story=twilight

"The long nights and the short, dark days followed fast upon each other, and as the time drew near when summer would come again men's hearts grew light with hope once more. Each day they looked into the sullen skies, through which clouds of snow were whirling, and said to each other, "To-morrow the summer will come;" but when the morrow came no summer came with it. And all through the months that in other days had been beautiful with flowers the snow fell steadily, [236] and the cold winds blew fiercely, while eyes grew sad and hearts heavy with waiting for a summer that did not come. And it never came again; for this was the terrible Fimbul-winter, long foretold, from which even the gods could not escape. In Jotunheim there was joy among the frost-giants as they shouted to each other through the howling storms, "The Fimbul-winter has come at last." At first men shuddered as they whispered, "Can it be the Fimbul-winter?" But when they knew it beyond all doubting a blind despair filled them, and they were reckless alike of good or evil. Over the whole earth war followed fast upon war, and everywhere there were wrangling and fighting and murder. It hardly snowed fast enough to cover the blood-stains. Mothers [237] forgot to love their little children, and brothers struck each other down as if they were the bitterest enemies."

Regards,

These are just hypotheses, as I said in this thread, a more possible hypothesis is an Iranian migration from the Germanic lands, anyway I'm researching about it and have found a large number of similarities between Iranian and Germanic cultures, different from other Indo-European cultures, like "the great winter".

Originally posted by beorna Oh, come on Cyrus, not again please.

Red Clay, you are also correct! A Google search:
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=1&oq=frigga&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS315US315&q=frigg+goddess

http://www.goddess-guide.com/frigg.html

http://www.goddess-guide.com/freya.html

Whether Friday was named for either or both of these gods is open to discussion, but one or more commonalities exist. For me it is the fact that both of these (or maybe they are one?) gods have the power over the Raven.

I would contend, that in the times whereby families or even nations / communites would display "Chrests" or "armorial signs", and one sees, what is usually today called an "eagle", or a "two headed eagle", is in reality, what we usually would call or descrive as the "Raven or Rook or the Corvus!" IE, the bird of the battlefield!

Regards,




Edited by opuslola - 27-Dec-2009 at 17:32