[gothic-l] Re: The Gothic and Eruli Proto-Vikings

[dirk at SMRA.CO.UK]

--- In gothic-l at egroups.com, bertil <mvk575b at t...> wrote:

>
> You are trying to assume a logic that
> does not exist. The Frank- (German
> Frankreich) in France is related to the Franks,
> the original home of the Franks. Franken has
> in my opinion nothing to do with that. We are
> referring to nations not regions.


Bertil, that is exactly what I said. The German region of Franken
(Franconia) adopted this name with the influx of Franks from the
6th/7th century. However, the Franks do not originate as you said in
France either, but most likely in the area of today's Belgium and the
middle-Rhine valley.  They expanded into modern France from the 4th
century.



>
> Of course there are a number of other peoples
> that make up the Germans, and I would never dream
> of claiming a Scandinavian home for these peoples.
> So the differnce here is that I am not claiming
> any origin for the Germanic peoples while you seem
> unwilling to accept any Scandinavian origin.


I have not problem to accept that various Germanic peoples came from
Scandinavia. The only thing that I feel uneasy about is when sources
are used selectively to prove a Scandinavian origin at all expense.
Thus, you once said the Rugi came from Norway and categorically denied
that Tacitus claim that they settled in the Ruegen area was valid,
because there is an area in Norway that is called Roegaland. On an
another occacion you say that there is no reason to be sceptical about
Paulus Deaconus' history of the Langobards, which was written up to
800 years after the event, because his writing supports your aims. I
just think we have to look at all the available evidence.




> From your contributions I now have a good hunch
> concerning your standpoint and everybody is free
> to have his/hers opinion. Your arguments have
> not convinced me neither have those arguments
> you refer to on another list. I wish you good
> luck on that list.
>
> Of course you are upset over the term "proto-vikings"
> for the Eruli and Gothic raiders. I understand that
> and you are welcome to present your arguments in good
> time against the fact that they showed great aptitude
> as sea raiders.


I am not upset about the term proto-viking, but I think it does not
make a lot of sense, unless you want to imply that the Goths are the
ancestors of the Vikings or something. From Wolfram and Vernadsky, the
sea operations of the Goths seem to have started off in a
shambles, with Goths and Eruli basically boarding conficated fishing
boats and the remainders of the Bosporan fleet, probably using their
navigators and seamen to transport them to their destinations.
Certainly, the Goths will have learned something about seafaring at
the Black Sea, but I am not so sure if this does full justice to the
sea faring skills of the Vikings. Also, if you only call the Goths
proto-Vikings because of their seafaring skills, than the word would
equally apply to many peoples in this time which have carried out sea
raids such as the Franks, the Saxons, the Frisians and others.

Dirk








-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
Create your business web site your way now at Bigstep.com.
It's the fast, easy way to get online, to promote your business,
and to sell your products and services. Try Bigstep.com now.
http://click.egroups.com/1/9183/3/_/3398/_/974820767/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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