[gothic-l] Goths getting to remote places

[Brian Gendler]

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Need a credit card?
Instant Approval and 0% intro APR with Aria!
http://click.egroups.com/1/7101/8/_/3398/_/968973277/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->


   Hello again, folks!
I apologise that this is so butchered that it may not be clear who I am
commenting on, sorry.

Manuel Gutierrez Algaba wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2000, Anthony Appleyard wrote:
> > I can't connect Indian Sanskrit {Cita} with {Gatas} or {Erila} or {Helda}.
> > Sanskrit {c} is {tsh},  and an Indian hearing {H} in a foreign name would
>
> Tshita  ~~ Scytas ---> ( Alani, Goths, Crimean people all of them)
>
> > likelier write it "h" or "kh".

First off, the Cita of the Gatas was in Prakrit, not Sanskrit. Taylor
states that much more clearly than Konow did. I have no idea, however,
just how different the two really are. I spent almost a year trying to
learn Sanskrit before I gave up, but I have never looked at Prakrit. I
also want some clarification on something else... is the word Sikh
derived from Saka? I seemed to gather that from the "Origin of the Saka
Races" essay that somebody linked to a few days back.

> > Also, I know that the Goths travelled far, but
> > there are limits to practicability, and them getting to India in force would
> > need them to stay together over many thousand miles against all enemy attacks
> > and natural hazards and temptations to settle sooner,

Just like the issue of Scandinavian migrations, are we neccessarily
talking about "in force" in the sense that we would be talking about
with Alexander? I also don't think that the Goths would be looking for
the same kind of trouble that Alexander was. Alexander was looking to
build a sustainable empire, wasn't he? I think that with the Goths we
are probably talking more about smaller warbands. To compare, look at
how long the Germanic people were making minor incursions into the Roman
Empire before they really got up the nerve and strength to sack a real
city.

> >From Crimea to Spain there's 6000 km or so. Enemies ? Roman
> legions, germanic tribes, the Huns at the rearside...
> Comparatively the way south or east was far  clearer of enemies.
> Natural hazards: Don, Dnieper river; damned frozen winters.

This was the same thought I had. Does it seem any less dangerous to sack
Rome on the way to Spain than it does to skirt around the Persians?
Remember that the Goths wanted to hop on over to Africa from Spain and
only didn't make it because the Straight of Gibralter proved harder to
ford than the Danube. The Vandals did, however, make it from Scandinavia
to Africa where they built their little empire for a while.

> >The name similarities mentioned
> > above could well be stray accidental "look-alikes".

I agree completely, but I am not willing to write them off as such, yet.

> That's true, very true. But, it's clear that Aryans invaded India,
> and they were not Celts, nor Romans, nor Slavic people, ... the
> bet leans to Goths or a very, very related people.

This statement confuses me. The Aryans had been in India long before 150
ce., as Vedic is Indo-European and goes back over a thousand years
before the date in question. What is the hard evidence of a Germanic
presence?

   That's all for now,
        Gendler

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.
Homepage: http://www.stormloader.com/carver/gothicl/index.html