Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

There were no Tartars back then. Roman Crimea was conquered by the Goths, and later reconquered by the Byzantines.

Yes there were. They were called the Tauri. They were there since before the Hellenic Colonization of southern Crimea. They were a pain in the ass for both the Greeks and Romans, a remnant of the Cimmerian people.

There is no demonstrable link between the Tauri and Tartars. About the Tauri, virtually nothing is known, apart from what little the Greeks wrote about them. It is speculated that they may have been a remnant of the earlier Cimmerians, but this is pure conjecture, and there is also evidence that they were a Scythian tribe, or at least closely related to the Scythians.
In any case, the Tauri and Scythians in Crimea were conquered and subjugated by the Goths, and never again appear in history. To say that the Tauri were Tartars without any evidence to back it up is to make a weird jump in logic.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The Russians moved into Crimea at about the same time, when they expanded southwards.

Vladamir I conquered it in 988, and gave it back as part of the peace deal. He also had to embrace Christianity. In exchange, he got the Emperors sister for his bride. This is considered highly questionable, as no Greek records of it exist.

Arab sources say that Vladimir was promised the Emperor's sister in return for putting down a rebellion in the Byzantine Empire. Greek sources say that the Rus' were already converted to christianity in the late 9th century and do not mention the reason why the Emperor's sister was married to Vladimir. What is true or not is hard to determine in this period of history, given the lack of records on pretty much everything.
Regardless, the Russians had already been pushing into Crimea for some time, having conquered Tmutarakan and Kerch (Korchev) and having lots of dealings with Khazars and Byzantines. The three groups often fought each other in shifting alliances.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Crimea was hugely important for early Russian history,

So important, in fact, that no written sources from the period mention it, a fact that's made many wonder if it's a legend based around the actual events of the Byzantine/Rus war of 1040, which involved different but similarly named people.

The Primary Chronicle mentions it, and the Primary Chronicle is the primary and pretty much only surviving non-legendary source for early eastern Slavic history. It also makes logical sense. The Byzantine influence on Russia is very obvious. Such a large influence makes little sense if there was no intensive contact. The only place where both civilisations where close enough for such intensive contact is Crimea.
But your mention of the Byzantine-Rus war of 1043 has me in doubt. What events exactly are you referring to? The southwards expansion of the Russians or the role of Vladimir the Great, which may or may not have been confused with Vladimir of Novgorod or Vladimir Monomakh?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The Eastern parts of Crimea and Korsun (Chersonesus) were eventually conquered by the Russians and became part of Kievan Rus'.

Yes, it was in Kiev Rus. For, depending on which source you buy and what part of the territory you just named we're talking about, between six months and 90 years. around the year 1000 to about 1090 at the latest

Korsun is not sure. But Korchev was part of the Principiality of Tmutarakan (which was part of Kievan Rus') from its conquest in 1016 to the Mongol invasion in the 12th century.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
This was all before any Tartar ever existed. The Tartars are the result of the merging of several nomadic Turkic peoples who came along with the Mongols

Yes, and no. You DO realize that the Kazars were Turkic speaking nomads?

Tauri - Goths - Kazars - Tartars

That help you understand what went on? Layer Cake. The culture evolved and the people on top changed, but it was the same people living in the same place. It wasn't until Catherine's invasion that large numbers of Russians came to live in the area, and they didn't come to absolutely dominate it until Stalin removed everyone else (one way or the other).

Here's something to mull over: the Crimean Tartars named their capitol Qirim (and to this day is known as Stary Krym). It's not what the Kazars called it (they called it Solkhat, or 'Ditch', and made a point not to live outside a small fort there). The Tauri though, in later periods when greek really took hold, called it Κιμμερικόν or 'Cimmerium'.

The Khazars were not nomads, they settled down eventually. I don't see how it is relevant though. The Khazars were destroyed by invasions of the Rus and the Oghuz Turks, they were nothing but a memory by the time of the Mongol invasions.
Your order is also wrong, as there is no demonstrable link at all between the peoples you list.
The correct order in Crimea is that the Scythians were conquered by the Goths, who were culturally assimilated by the Greeks, who lived alongside the Khazars, who were conquered by the Russians. Then the Genoese showed up before both Genoese and Russian cities were conquered by the the Tartars. The Greeks held out for a long time, but eventually they were conquered by the Ottomans. The Ottoman Empire gave birth to the Crimean Khanate, which was conquered by the Russian Empire, which became the Soviet Union. Then the Ukrainians showed up and last year they were conquered by the Russian Federation.
Regarding the Tatars, linguistics indicate that they are descended from a lot of different Turkic peoples, mostly the Cumans and Kipchaks, but there are also Pecheneg, Bulgar, Khazar and a very heavy Oghuz influences (altough the Oghuz influence may come from contact with the Ottoman Empire rather than genetic descent)

Also, the Tauri did not call their capital Kimmerikon, which is a Greek name (which was probably derived from the Iranian word gamira or gmira (meaning 'mobile unit'), as the Cimmerians were likely an Iranian people). Cimmerium is a latinisation of the Greek name. Turkic Qirim (and Russian Krym and English Crimea) also comes from the same Greek name. The origin of the Greek name is uncertain, but it was not what the Tauri called their capital, it is what the Greeks called it. How the Tauri themselves called it is unknown, because nothing of the Tauri language has survived.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also, I don't think Pompey ever said anything about Tartars, unless he had a time travel device, or you are referring to a different, later Pompey I do not know of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosporan_Kingdom

He most likely did, back when they were the Tauri.

I fail to see what an ancient Greek/Sarmatian kingdom or the Scythians have to do with the Crimean Tatars.
And no, Tauri aren't Tatars. The Tauri were an ancient, little known people, possibly related to the ancient Iranian Cimmerians, who were absorbed by the Scythians, who were also an Iranian people and have as little relation to Tatars as to Russians.


Looking forward to your response. I like this discussion a lot, I am really fond of Crimean history.

... This whole discussion about who was there first is pointless.

 Tyran wrote:
... This whole discussion about who was there first is pointless.

Palestians and Israelis say whhhhhattt

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The southwards expansion of the Russians or the role of Vladimir the Great, which may or may not have been confused with Vladimir of Novgorod or Vladimir Monomakh?

Depending on which source you cite, any of them. It's generally thought that Vladimir I didn't have any military actions against Byzantium. Vladimir of Novgorod did, though whether it was a success or failure again varies by which source.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But Korchev was part of the Principiality of Tmutarakan (which was part of Kievan Rus') from its conquest in 1016 to the Mongol invasion in the 12th century.

Incorrect.

The Rus may have entered the area, but lost it again within a single lifetime as they contracted following the death of Yaroslav in 1040.

Oleg Svyatoslavich (Oleg I of Chernigiv) put the final nail in Rus claims over Crimea when he gave Tmutarakan over the to Byzantines sometime between 1083 and 1094. It was then ruled by the Byzantines and their successor state, the Empire of Trebizond until the Mongol Invasions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The correct order in Crimea is that the Scythians were conquered by the Goths, who were culturally assimilated by the Greeks, who lived alongside the Khazars, who were conquered by the Russians.

Achem: Cimmerians were driven out by the Scythians, leaving behind the Tauri in what is now Crimea. The Scythians were culturally assimilated by the Greeks and formed a new kingdom. Which then eventually came under the long arm of Rome. Which was then in turn over run by the Goths, who left behind a rump population much as the Cimmerians had done in Crimea as the following hoards of the Huns, Bulgars, and Kazars moved through the area.


The Yalıboyu, the southernmost sub group of the Crimean tartars, are generally believed by historians and geneticists to be descended from the various ancient peoples of the Crimea, as well as any Pontic Greek or Genoese remnants. Sadly, they're also only about 30% of the remaining Crimean Tartars, having taken it on the face pretty hard during the Crimean War of the19th century and the Second World War, when compared to other Crimean tartar groups. The Tats, the largest group, are believed to have their origins in the Cumans and Kazars, while the Noğay have their roots in the Golden Hoard.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also, the Tauri did not call their capital Kimmerikon, which is a Greek name

What do you think they spoke? If not before the Roman period, almost certainly after. Particularly given their interest in piracy on the high seas in the later period, when they used the harbor at Symbolon (current Balaklava) to raid Greek and Roman shipping. Greek buried dozens of local languages in this era, not because of conquest, but because it was the language of trade from the Black Sea to the Nile headwaters, and from India to Iberia. Roman laws were read aloud to the public in Greek throughout much of the Empire because it was a language that everyone understood.

Are we still arguing about Putin's proxy war in Ukraine?

Does Crimea is part of Russia in the school book, now ?^^

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

The southwards expansion of the Russians or the role of Vladimir the Great, which may or may not have been confused with Vladimir of Novgorod or Vladimir Monomakh?

Depending on which source you cite, any of them. It's generally thought that Vladimir I didn't have any military actions against Byzantium. Vladimir of Novgorod did, though whether it was a success or failure again varies by which source.

The southwards expansion of the Rus is pretty well documented. Vladimir the Great did fight against Byzantium according to the Primary Chronicle, other sources do not mention it. That does not mean it did not happen, altough it can also indicate that the author of the Primary Chronicle confused Vladimir the Great with Vladimir of Novgorod, who most certainly fought the Byzantines and captured Korsun.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

But Korchev was part of the Principiality of Tmutarakan (which was part of Kievan Rus') from its conquest in 1016 to the Mongol invasion in the 12th century.

Incorrect.

The Rus may have entered the area, but lost it again within a single lifetime as they contracted following the death of Yaroslav in 1040.

Oleg Svyatoslavich (Oleg I of Chernigiv) put the final nail in Rus claims over Crimea when he gave Tmutarakan over the to Byzantines sometime between 1083 and 1094. It was then ruled by the Byzantines and their successor state, the Empire of Trebizond until the Mongol Invasions.

Not true. Byzantine control over Tmutarakan was in name only. It was done as a political move by Oleg Svyatoslavich, placing himself under Byzantine protection to prevent his brothers or cousins from taking the city from him again. It remained ruled by Oleg Svyatoslavich as archon. The fact that it remained a Russian city is evidenced by the finding of coins with cyrillic inscriptions. It was not until the 12th century that Tmutarakan was lost to the Russian princes because of the attacks of the Polovtsy (Cumans). Only after that point did the Byzantines move in to establish direct control. Before that it had been a Byzantine client state de-facto controlled by the Russians. The Empire of Trebizond only shows up in the 13th century, so that is no longer relevant.
Korchev also remained a Russian city until the Mongol invasions. Afterwards it was taken over by the Genoese, not the Byzantines.
Also, which Yaroslav died in 1040? In any case, the area was not lost then, as there are a lot of documented russian rulers of the area after 1040.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
... This whole discussion about who was there first is pointless.

Palestians and Israelis say whhhhhattt

And my answer is the same, pointless

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The fact that it remained a Russian city is evidenced by the finding of coins with cyrillic inscriptions.

AFAIK they all predated Oleg's departure from the region, as they were, again AFAIK, all minted with his likeness on them, and he died not long after that anyway. Even if you use the coins as proof that the Byzantine rule was in name only, that only buys you ten more years or so, not the century plus between there an the Mongolian invasions.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
For something that you say is "generally believed by historians and geneticists" I seem to have a lot of trouble finding it.

IIRC

Sevdiar, Memet. Etudy ob etnogeneze Krymskikh Tatar. New York: Crimea Foundation, 1997.

Kudusov, Eric. "Etnogenez korenogo naseleniia Kryma" . Kasavet 24 (1995): 14-25.

Tatars of the Crimea, revised edition. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.






It occurs to me however that we're rehashing a long running debate in central Asian anthropology re the genesis of Tartars, which is riddled with tainted sources on both sides of the argument due to shifting Soviet policies. To say there are not a lot of unbiased sources to draw from and a fresh anthropological survey really needs to be conducted by a neutral party is an understatement.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
The fact that it remained a Russian city is evidenced by the finding of coins with cyrillic inscriptions.

AFAIK they all predated Oleg's departure from the region, as they were, again AFAIK, all minted with his likeness on them, and he died not long after that anyway. Even if you use the coins as proof that the Byzantine rule was in name only, that only buys you ten more years or so, not the century plus between there an the Mongolian invasions.

It is well established and documented that the Byzantines did not rule the city directly until the early 12th century. Until that time, the city also still figures in Russian history and was used as a title by Russian princes. It was attacks by the Cumans in the 12th century that cut of Tmutarakan from the other Russian areas and forced the Byzantines to send an army and enforce their rule. Until that time, the city had officially been a client state, not a part of the Byzantine Empire itself and was ruled by local governors.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
For something that you say is "generally believed by historians and geneticists" I seem to have a lot of trouble finding it.

IIRC

Sevdiar, Memet. Etudy ob etnogeneze Krymskikh Tatar. New York: Crimea Foundation, 1997.

Kudusov, Eric. "Etnogenez korenogo naseleniia Kryma" . Kasavet 24 (1995): 14-25.

Tatars of the Crimea, revised edition. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.

Very obscure works,
I can't find them in either Google scholar or the database of my brother's university library. Plenty of studies there saying that Tatars were descended from the invading Turkic nomads though. None that say that Tatars were descended from earlier peoples (okay, I admit I did not check all of them, and I did not read entire books, only checked for keywords)
The first two were written by Crimean Tatars themselves, so might not be unbiased. The only works citing them seem to be clearly politically motivated at least.
Of the third one I could not find the book itself, but I did find several book reviews, but the only one mentioning anything about the ethnogenisis (Bill Bowring in The Slavonic and East European Review,
Vol. 77, No. 3 (Jul., 1999), pp. 585-586) says that "They are the descendants of the inhabitants for many centuries of the Crimean peninsula the Turkic and Mongol populations, who, under the Giray dynasty, ruled Crimea from the 1420s."

Maybe you would be so kind as to provide the actual relevant quotes instead of the references?

Without any evidence however, the issue seems pretty clear to me. Crimean Tatars are a Turkic people, unknown to history until the 15th century. They speak a Turkic language, closely related to other Kipchak languages. Tat Tatar, which is the standard Crimean Tatar language, can be shown to be a direct descendent of Cuman, heavily influenced by Turkish. To me, along with the fact that there are no obvious loanwords from previous (non-Turkic) peoples, this seems clear evidence that the Crimean Tatars are primarily the descendants of the Turkic peoples that invaded the area as part of the Mongol Horde, not primarily of Germanic Goths, Hellenic Greeks or Iranian Scythians and Tauri. If that were the case, one would expect at least a few linguistic traces of that.
To contrast this with the ethnogenesis of the Russian people, there can still be found clear Germanic, Baltic, Finnic and Turkic traces in Russian words, placenames and personal names next to the Slavic.
If Crimean Goths and Greeks took part in the ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars, one would expect there to be similar Germanic and Hellenic traces next to the Turkic. Instead, the only foreign elements in Crimean Tatar are either Ottoman or Russian in origin.

It would be really interesting to see a good research into this.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If Crimean Goths and Greeks took part in the ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars, one would expect there to be similar Germanic and Hellenic traces next to the Turkic. Instead, the only foreign elements in Crimean Tatar are either Ottoman or Russian in origin.

Interestingly, IIRC, 'tat' itself means non-turk or alien. When Friar William of Rubruck wrote of this area after the Mongol conquest: "There are lofty promontories along the sea coast from Kherson (sic) as far as the mouth of the Tanais, and between Kerson and Soldaia (Sudak) lie the Forty Settlements, of which nearly every one has its own dialect: the population includes many Goths, whose language is Germanic"

Michel Kazanski, in his History of the Goths states that "In all probability the remnants of the Crimean Goths remain in the 'Turkic' base of the Tatar population." This is borne out by Hans Schiltberger, a bavarian taken by the tartars as a slave, who's account claimed that the neighboring Tatars of the plains used the derisive term "Tat" to describe the Islamized Goths.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It would be really interesting to see a good research into this.

I agree. Perusing many of the works available, it seems like all of them have a slant one way or another. Some hilariously so.

Lev Gumilyov disturbingly so.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
If Crimean Goths and Greeks took part in the ethnogenesis of the Crimean Tatars, one would expect there to be similar Germanic and Hellenic traces next to the Turkic. Instead, the only foreign elements in Crimean Tatar are either Ottoman or Russian in origin.

Interestingly, IIRC, 'tat' itself means non-turk or alien. When Friar William of Rubruck wrote of this area after the Mongol conquest: "There are lofty promontories along the sea coast from Kherson (sic) as far as the mouth of the Tanais, and between Kerson and Soldaia (Sudak) lie the Forty Settlements, of which nearly every one has its own dialect: the population includes many Goths, whose language is Germanic"

Michel Kazanski, in his History of the Goths states that "In all probability the remnants of the Crimean Goths remain in the 'Turkic' base of the Tatar population." This is borne out by Hans Schiltberger, a bavarian taken by the tartars as a slave, who's account claimed that the neighboring Tatars of the plains used the derisive term "Tat" to describe the Islamized Goths.

But that is the big mystery of the Crimean Goths. Where did they go? We know they existed at some point, but until when? There are many records of travellers describing them, but from the same periods there are records of people who set out to seek them but found nothing. There is accounts of their existance all the way up to 1945, but the only traces they left behind date back to antiquity, nothing after that. One supposed account of their language exists from 1562, but it is highly problematic in that it does not seem to be descended from older Gothic. And if they were assimilated in the Greek and Turkic populations of Crimea, they have left no traces of that at all. There has been so much research into them, but no one ever found any conclusive evidence. They are like Crimea's yetis
There is even people today who claim they found Crimean Goths in the mountains

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
It would be really interesting to see a good research into this.

I agree. Perusing many of the works available, it seems like all of them have a slant one way or another. Some hilariously so.

Lev Gumilyov disturbingly so.

Never read anything of him, but his ideas do seem... rather unique, so to say.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And if they were assimilated in the Greek and Turkic populations of Crimea, they have left no traces of that at all.

That, weirdly, makes sense from a Native American standpoint.

Take the Mingos as an example. Here's group comprised of Seneca, Cayuga, and remnants of the Susquehannocks, Huron, and Erie. That's 5 different Iroquois dialects. What do they speak? Seneca with some Cayuga turns of phrase. The Eries only remnant is genetic, in the odd native over 6'7", even though we know from historical accounts that they were defeated and assimilated.

The actual word 'Mingo' comes from a Lanape term meaning 'sneaky bastards', or 'without dicks' depending on connotation.

So the idea that when the Mongols rolled in, the Goths got called 'tats' by the surviving turkic speakers seems pretty likely, and, in fact, we have examples of that from historic accounts. So the idea that the 'tats' of the Crimean Goths and the 'tats' of the Crimean tartars being the same people is pretty solid.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And if they were assimilated in the Greek and Turkic populations of Crimea, they have left no traces of that at all.

That, weirdly, makes sense from a Native American standpoint.

Take the Mingos as an example. Here's group comprised of Seneca, Cayuga, and remnants of the Susquehannocks, Huron, and Erie. That's 5 different Iroquois dialects. What do they speak? Seneca with some Cayuga turns of phrase. The Eries only remnant is genetic, in the odd native over 6'7", even though we know from historical accounts that they were defeated and assimilated.

The actual word 'Mingo' comes from a Lanape term meaning 'sneaky bastards', or 'without dicks' depending on connotation.

So the idea that when the Mongols rolled in, the Goths got called 'tats' by the surviving turkic speakers seems pretty likely, and, in fact, we have examples of that from historic accounts. So the idea that the 'tats' of the Crimean Goths and the 'tats' of the Crimean tartars being the same people is pretty solid.

But again, that does not add up with the linguistic facts. The Tat Tatars, the vast majority of the Tatar population, speak a language directly descended from Cuman (this is the standard Crimean Tatar language). The two other Crimean Tatar groups speak languages that, while mutally intelligible with Crimean Tatar, are not directly related. The Yaliboyu Tatars speak an Oghuz language that has more in common with Turkish than with Crimean Tatar, while the Nogay Tatars speak a Kipchak language directly related to Kazakh.
Now while all these languages are mutally intelligible and closely related, they can all be traced to different origins amongst different Turkic groups. Now if the Tat Tatars originally were Crimean Goths, then why would they have adopted a Turkic language that none of the original Tatars spoke? It makes much more sense to conclude that the Tat Tatars are the descendents of the Cuman part of the Turkic peoples that settled Crimea.
Also questions I have: What is the source for that 'Tat' was a term for Crimean Goths? And what is the relation with the Tat people of Dagestan (an Iranian people)?

And now I do not know anything about native American history, but in a European context, that would be extremely unique. Every people ever assimilated in Europe has left linguistic traces of some sort, even the unrecorded pre-Indo-European populations. Are you sure there are no Huron traces in modern Seneca at all? Wikipedia seems to imply the Hurons (Wyandot) are still alive, not assimilated. And can the tribe-based Native American situation be compared to the nation-based European situation of the late Middle Ages and Early modern period?

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also questions I have: What is the source for that 'Tat' was a term for Crimean Goths?

Johann (Hans) Schiltberger (1380 – c. 1440) was a Bavarian made a slave by the Ottomans, who used him as a messenger. His Reisebuch was first published posthumously in 1460. It's been reprinted since. (if you have the 1870's English edition like I do, you'll want to read the notes on the transcription by Bruun.

Hans wrote about cities and places he passed through.

"Item: an city called Kyrkyer, in good land called Gothia, who's people the Infidels call 'That'. (Chapter 36 [see note 8 on translation and transcription)

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Are you sure there are no Huron traces in modern Seneca at all? Wikipedia seems to imply the Hurons (Wyandot) are still alive, not assimilated.

The Eries were the ones that were wiped out other than those that were taken alive and assimilated. The Seneca resettled refugees, malcontents, and captured enemies as a sort of client state. They took on an identity of their own as the Mingos. (in this case, these were remnant populations in territory the Seneca gained control of as opposed to a remnant population of a people being annihilated.)

There are traces of the Huron dialect in Seneca (particularly in Canada), but this is true even in Seneca populations with no Huron ancestry. What was interesting was that the Mingos, who had a identifiable Huron component to their ethnogenesis, have no more or less Huron linguistic components than baseline Seneca.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Also questions I have: What is the source for that 'Tat' was a term for Crimean Goths?

Johann (Hans) Schiltberger (1380 – c. 1440) was a Bavarian made a slave by the Ottomans, who used him as a messenger. His Reisebuch was first published posthumously in 1460. It's been reprinted since. (if you have the 1870's English edition like I do, you'll want to read the notes on the transcription by Bruun.

Hans wrote about cities and places he passed through.

"Item: an city called Kyrkyer, in good land called Gothia, who's people the Infidels call 'That'. (Chapter 36 [see note 8 on translation and transcription)

Kyrkyer? That must be Qirq-Yer, the Crimean Tatar name for Chufut-Kale, the fortress of the Karaites (Turkic speaking Jews who might be descendents of the Khazars). That would have been in Tataria, not Gothia. Gothia was the name for the southern bit of Crimea (Principipality of Theodoro) where the Crimean Goths and Greeks lived. Tataria was the area to the north controlled by the Crimean Khanate. Theodoro was only conquered in 1475, so that was after Schiltberger died. That explains why he refers to Gothia as a seperate land. I wonder to whom he refers with "an city called Kyrkyer, in good land called Gothia, who's people the Infidels call 'That'." Does he refer to the people of Kyrk-Yer or the people of Gothia? One of those stupid flaws of Germanic languages. I got my hands on a copy (The bondage and travels of Johann Schiltberger, a native of Bavaria, in Europe, Asia, and Africa, 1396-1427, published in 2010), and shall read it once I have some free time again. I hate school

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Are you sure there are no Huron traces in modern Seneca at all? Wikipedia seems to imply the Hurons (Wyandot) are still alive, not assimilated.

The Eries were the ones that were wiped out other than those that were taken alive and assimilated. The Seneca resettled refugees, malcontents, and captured enemies as a sort of client state. They took on an identity of their own as the Mingos. (in this case, these were remnant populations in territory the Seneca gained control of as opposed to a remnant population of a people being annihilated.)

There are traces of the Huron dialect in Seneca (particularly in Canada), but this is true even in Seneca populations with no Huron ancestry. What was interesting was that the Mingos, who had a identifiable Huron component to their ethnogenesis, have no more or less Huron linguistic components than baseline Seneca.

That is interesting. I wonder how that happened.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Does he refer to the people of Kyrk-Yer or the people of Gothia? One of those stupid flaws of Germanic languages.

Its even worse when you only have an English translation of a Russian translation of 14th century Bavarian with Russian annotations. I spend as much time reading the notes as the text to follow what he's talking about.

I think he means Gothia because he continues about Christians of the Greek faith and good vinyards in the area, and makes reference to Clement being thrown into the sea in this land. Since that happened at Chersonesus, I'd ay we can get a pretty good idea where he was. He mentions a near by city called Sary Kerman (yellow castle?), which if I remember right is an old name for part of Sevastopol.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Does he refer to the people of Kyrk-Yer or the people of Gothia? One of those stupid flaws of Germanic languages.

Its even worse when you only have an English translation of a Russian translation of 14th century Bavarian with Russian annotations. I spend as much time reading the notes as the text to follow what he's talking about.

I think he means Gothia because he continues about Christians of the Greek faith and good vinyards in the area, and makes reference to Clement being thrown into the sea in this land. Since that happened at Chersonesus, I'd ay we can get a pretty good idea where he was. He mentions a near by city called Sary Kerman (yellow castle?), which if I remember right is an old name for part of Sevastopol.

I have never heard that name before, altough some searching on the internet leads to some sites saying it is an old Tatar name for Chersonesus/Korsun. Very obscure though. Interestingly, the modern Tatars just call it Herson or Hersonesus. Sevastopol was not yet founded in those days, but it located right next to the ruins of Korsun. The Tatars call Sevastopol Aqyar.

If he mentions good vineyards, he is probably in the south. The story of Clement also points towards Korsun/Imkerman area. I think it is fair to say that he is indeed speaking about Gothia. But that still doesn't solve the problem of who is calling who a tat!

And you have a Russian version? We should swap, I have the English version

 Iron_Captain wrote:
And you have a Russian version? We should swap, I have the English version

LOL no, I have an English translation (1890s) of the Russian edition from the 1860's. Instead of translating the German, the first English edition just translated the Russian version, notes and all.

Unfortunately, he's not clear, saying 'Infidels'.

Man this discussion got boring and pedantic.

Hey at least it's amicable.

I actually find it very interesting. Two knowledgeable fellows engaged in an actual dialogue with points and counterpoints ( who will probably and to their horror find that they agree on all accounts).

konst80hummel wrote:
I actually find it very interesting. Two knowledgeable fellows engaged in an actual dialogue with points and counterpoints ( who will probably and to their horror find that they agree on all accounts).

I will grant that Iron_Captain is one of the few dakkaites willing to admit that I can be knowledgeable on a subject. A side effect of my tendency to collect books: sometimes I read them, though I do not always retain the knowledge correctly.

So...this happened...



Guy hands the Prime Minister a bouquet of flowers then tries to pick him up by the balls and carry him out the building. Who says romance is dead?

And of course there are the obligatory Putin memes.



http://www.unilad.co.uk/video/politician-picks-up-ukrainian-prime-minister-by-balls-sparks-massive-fight-in-parliament/

 BaronIveagh wrote:

konst80hummel wrote:
I actually find it very interesting. Two knowledgeable fellows engaged in an actual dialogue with points and counterpoints ( who will probably and to their horror find that they agree on all accounts).

I will grant that Iron_Captain is one of the few dakkaites willing to admit that I can be knowledgeable on a subject. A side effect of my tendency to collect books: sometimes I read them, though I do not always retain the knowledge correctly.

Baronlveagh is indeed surprisingly knowledgeable on Russia-related topics. I don't get to discuss Crimean stuff often. Not many Westerners are interested in Eastern Europe unfortenately.
On the other hand, I am just a kid that stole his brother's library pass, so don't rate my opinions too highly I just like discussing stuff.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So...this happened...

Spoiler:

Guy hands the Prime Minister a bouquet of flowers then tries to pick him up by the balls and carry him out the building. Who says romance is dead?

And of course there are the obligatory Putin memes.

Spoiler:

http://www.unilad.co.uk/video/politician-picks-up-ukrainian-prime-minister-by-balls-sparks-massive-fight-in-parliament/

At least Ukrainian parliament sessions are never boring...
Ukrainian parliament is like a kindergarten, except you can find more intelligence in the average kindergarten

Sooo, I lol'd.

But what was the point?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sooo, I lol'd.

But what was the point?

Well. These are the guys that are in charge of the country. Given such leaders, it is no wonder Ukraine is by far the most messed up place in all of Europe. At least, that is the point this makes to me.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Well. These are the guys that are in charge of the country. Given such leaders, it is no wonder Ukraine is by far the most messed up place in all of Europe. At least, that is the point this makes to me.

Someone should break out some pics of the last fight at the Diet, or the House of Commons. It's not as uncommon in parliamentary systems as you might think....

The only thing that makes it a bit odd is it's the prime minister getting hoisted by his balls. Usually there's someone to block for him.

Even the US had a period where politicians would fight duels over the issues. Now that they don't care about them at all, it's a lot more civilized.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Sooo, I lol'd.

But what was the point?

Well. These are the guys that are in charge of the country. Given such leaders, it is no wonder Ukraine is by far the most messed up place in all of Europe. At least, that is the point this makes to me.

I'd say France is giving Ukraine a run for its money.

 BaronIveagh wrote:


Even the US had a period where politicians would fight duels over the issues. Now that they don't care about them at all, it's a lot more civilized.

Duel's are so old fashioned. We have the Hickory Cane incident

And that wasn't even the first time. There was a lesser known confrontation in the first Congress where another senator attempted to beat a fellow with his cane!