Romans In Denmark.

[Cyclops]

Yeah there's a theoretical quagmire lurking under the page in very history and Archeology book.

Whats a Dane? Whats a Goth? I've just read an account of the battle of Chalons. The Hun (aka Skythians according to the Byzantines aka the Hsung Nu (who knew?)) horde (which contained Alans, who were Sarmatians after they were Skythians but before they were Sauromatae) was fighting the Goths (who were Skandinavian tribesmen, you know burly spearchucking blonde footmen, excpet on their way through the Skythian (that is Saka) homeland to the Slavic homelands they adopted Roxolani tactics to escape the Huns (remember they're Skyths but not Saka) and as they traversed the Roman Empire picking up Germans) and the Romans (whose army was composed of Burgundians, various Franks and even Armoricans who may or may not have been Gauls, but quite possibly not a single actual Roman, aside from Aetius (although he spent 10 years as a Hun hostage so he may be considered naturalised)) not to mention Alans, which is curious because the Alans were supoposed to be in the Hun horde.

Anyway, thats when I came to the confusing bit...

As for the migrations, well I think they were more a matter of fighting elites being driven hither and thither. I imagine they took some ladies with them but like the Vikings in Ireland I think generally shopped locally rather than carry wife and kids a thousand miles. I know the Goths had family in camp at Adrianople, but I can't imagine Attila organising a little nomad creche.

[cmacq]

I on the other hand think in many cases the numbers were huge. Its just more connivent to think otherwise?

[Landwalker]

I on the other hand think in many cases the numbers were huge. Its just more connivent to think otherwise?

And why is that? Surely, particularly given the nature of the Scandinavians to glorify conquest and exploration, the preexisting population of Iceland would have been mentioned in the epics if it had been significant enough to need forcible displacement, or this displacement would have been mentioned in one of the non-Scandinavian sources that so loved to demonize the vikings and would no doubt jump upon any opportunity to condemn them for forcibly overcoming an island of Irish monks. Is there some archaeological evidence to the contrary?

Cheers.

[cmacq]

And why is that?
Cheers.

was commenting about this

As for the migrations, well I think they were more a matter of fighting elites being driven hither and thither. I imagine they took some ladies with them but like the Vikings in Ireland I think generally shopped locally rather than carry wife and kids a thousand miles. I know the Goths had family in camp at Adrianople, but I can't imagine Attila organising a little nomad creche.

right, there was an monastery, not sure if it was irish? may have been hebrideans, no one knows for sure? We do have fragment from an ancient greek report of a merchant that was taken there by the hebrideans.

The Icelanders themselves claim they brought irish wifes? But this in part may suggest the presence of a small hebridean population? Remember this all happened during the Med. Warm period, which is again partly why radiocarbon dating doesn't work well. That and the little ice age, both of which Mr al gore managed to leave off his charts?

[Landwalker]

was commenting about this

Ah, my mistake. Carry on, then.

Cheers.

[Sakkura]

Anyway, thats when I came to the confusing bit...

O rly?