Peter Heather vs Goffart and Halsall
Curt Emanuel
Antiquity. It includes an article by Peter Heather discussing the reasons
for Rome's "fall" or, more precisely, what caused the crisis of 405-408 when
multiple groups of barbarians invaded the Western Empire. In it he discusses
the theories advanced by Walter Goffart and Guy Halsall and why he disagrees
with them.
Heather;s article is, "Why did the Barbarian Cross the Rhine", Journal of
Late Antiquity, Vol. 2, No. 1, Spring 2009. pp 3-29.
I want to first mention that nowhere in this does Heather ridicule or demean
Halsall or Goffart in any way. In fact he repeatedly states that he respects
them and that they state their arguments very well - he just believes the
evidence favors his opinions, not theirs. He also believes that the debate
which his article is a part of is, and will continue to be useful. I also
want to mention that I haven't read either Halsall or Goffart so I'm
depending on Heather to state their arguments accurately - any time I
mention an argument of theirs, please assume that I add (as stated by
Heather) to what I wrote.
Heather's introduction to the article is, in full, as follows:
"On the last day of 406 a large coalition of barbarian groups crossed the
Rhine. No surviving contemporary source tells us why. Two recent studies
have accepted that large numbers of outsiders were involved in the action,
but whereas I argued in 1995 that further westward movement on the part of
the nomadic Huns was the likeliest trigger of the bigger crisis, Walter
Goffart and Guy Halsall have suggested that divisions between the two halves
of the western empire and/or an effective withdrawal of Roman power from the
northwest encouraged the invasions. In the absence of direct evidence, all
attempts to understand the crisis must take the form of argued hypothesis,
and there is certainly room for more than one point of view. But all
hypotheses must be judged on their capacity to account for the entirety of
the evidence, and this study argues that because the first of these attacks
(Radagaisus) affected Italy rather than the Rhine, then any withdrawal from
the northwest (for which the evidence is weak) cannot have been the trigger.
Likewise, although division between east and west certainly affected what
happened afterward, it is an insufficient explanation for the original
invasions, because the vast majority of the invaders who emerged from the
middle Danubian region between 405 and 408 had not been living there in the
fourth century. Any convincing explanation of the crisis also must account
for what had brought large numbers of Alans, Goths, and Vandals west of the
Carpathians in the first place, before they then invaded the Roman Empire.
It is argued here that a desire on their part to escape the Hun-generated
chaos and predation remains the best overall explanation." p3
For the most part, the above passage outlines the key points at which
Heather disagrees with Goffart and Halsall. He also spends substantially
more time countering Halsall. According to Heather, in _Barbarian Tides_,
2006 Goffart argues that Constantinople encouraged the barbarian invasions,
particularly Radagaisus, in order to divert Stilicho from his designs on
Illyricum, and also that Barbarian perceptions of the type of agreement they
might negotiate with Rome changed substantially after the
Tervingi/Greuthingi treaty of 382. In this treaty, for the first time
barbarians were allowed to retain their identity as a group, rather than
being split up into small groups and re-settled, per prior Roman policy.
Heather devotes little effort to countering this, other than arguing that
the Huns arrived before Radagaisus invaded, not shortly afterwards as
Goffart argues. He does admit that the 382 treaty may have changed the
perceptions of barbarians, but adds that the fate of Radagaisus should have
provided more than ample evidence to the barbarians that Rome had made an
exception, not an overriding change of policy.
It's when we come to Halsall that he devotes some details in countering.
Halsall argues that Magnus Maximus (383-388) and Eugenius (392-394) stripped
the north-western Rhine frontier of troops to wage civil war against
Theodosius, and that Stilicho did nothing to restore them, prompting the
barbarian invasions. Heather argues against this in several ways. First, the
initial barbarian invasion was by Radagaisus across the Alps into Northern
Italy, not across the Rhine at all, which argues against the Rhine having
been stripped of troops. He states that the subsequent invasions across the
Rhine were more likely in response to leaders learning of Radagaisus' fate
and deciding to try another route. And while he agrees that the Rhine likely
lost some of its forces in the civil wars, he doubts the argument that those
troops weren't restored, at least somewhat, even if not to their prior
level. He states that Halsall placed much weight on Gildas' account of
Magnus Maximus withdrawing British troops for his civil war and not
returning them - but that this ignores the fact that Constantine's
usurpation began in Britain, likely using Roman troops and drew further
troops from Gaul. Heather believes this is evidence that substantial troops
were in place in the early 5th century. He also cites previous instances
where troops were withdrawn for a conflict in another region, then restored
thereafter, such as in the mid-4th century in the conflict between
Magnentius and Constantius II. He says there is no evidence whatsoever of
the disposition of forces here from literary sources and cautions that " . .
. there is a particular danger here of interpreting absence of evidence as
evidence of absence." p18
Halsall also argues that the invasions were triggered by Rome ceasing to
provide payment to the barbarians, and that the barbarians then invaded in
order to have access to the wealth which enabled them to maintain their
society. I find this argument of Halsall's persuasive myself as Attila used
the same "motivation" a few decades later. However Heather's counter to this
is very simple - and strong. According to Heather, Rome's diplomatic
payments prior to the invasions went to the Franks, Alamanni, Marcomanni,
Quadi and Sarmatians. But the invaders, with the possible exception of the
Suevi (who may have been another name for the Marcomanni and Quadi), were
not those being paid. The invaders were Goths, Alans, Vandals and
Burgundians - none of whom were on Rome's payroll. In contrast the Franks
and Alamanni did not invade at this time. Those who invaded were not those
who would have been impacted by a failure of payment.
Heather spends a fair amount of time recounting his argument from _The Fall
of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians_ that the
arrival of the Huns into the Danubian region pressured the Barbarians to
move. As I did with the book, I continue to find this a persuasive
argument - that the primary reason for Rome's "fall" was due to external,
not internal forces. Certainly Rome was not at its strongest in the early
5th century. But it wasn't at its weakest either, particularly when you look
at the 3rd century.
To return to Heather, he closes the article with, "Why, then, did the
barbarians cross the Rhine? To my mind, the evidence in its entirety is best
explained by a sensible determination on the part of the Vandals, Alans and
Suevi to get to the other, non-Hunnic side of the river." p29
NOTE: I don't want to go commercial on anyone but if you're interested in
this period I'd recommend you think about subscribing to The Journal of Late
Antiquity. The cost is $30 US annually and you receive two issues a year.
This was my first that I've received but if the rest hold up to this
standard then I'm getting excellent value for my money. It consisted of 10
Journal articles, several book reviews and a total of 180 pages. Authors
include Heather, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Michael Richter and Peter Kaufman.
Ralph Mathison from the University of Illinois is the editor and you can
find subscription information at:
http://www.press.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_late_antiquity/index.html
Curt
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
David Read
"Curt Emanuel" <cema...@ffni.com> wrote in message
news:h54r0q$ti5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Thanks Curt,
This article by Peter Heather seems to have been a curtain raiser for his
book "Empires and Barbarians", in which, obviously these ideas are developed
in greater depth. Heather is an advocate of Ammianus Marcellinus's history
in his counter to Guy Halsall's arguments, and he makes a good case.
Amusingly enough, given Halsall's criticisms of Bernard Bachrach's
"methodology" concerning the the calculations of early medieval army sizes,
Heather criticizes Halsall's own methodology, when it comes to the relative
weights to be given to the History of the 4th century Ammianus and the
Church History of the 5th century Socrates Scholasticus concerning the
reasons for the arrival of the Goths in the Danube frontier zone in the 4th
Century. (Heather also presents recent arguments and counter argumants from
other modern historians concerning the "reliability" of Ammianus.)
"The two historians [ i.e. Ammianus & Socrates - DR] have completely
different understandings of when and how the confederation of the Tervingi
split. And this, in the end, is the fundamental problem with Halsall's line
of argument. The title of Socrates' work is accurate, in that most of his
work concerns itself with the development of the Christian Church. Only
occasionally and tangentially do other events intrude, and then never in
very much detail, so that Socrates' overall knowledge of the fourth century
Goths is much less than that of Ammianus. Furthermore, Socrates was writing
in Constantinople in the mid-fifth century, so was not contemporary with the
events he was describing. When it comes to politics and military matters, it
would be unsound methodologically to correct the contemporary and very
specific Ammianus on the strength of an isolated report by Socrates, unless
there was some compelling reason to do so - which there is not." Empires &
Barbarians, p.160.
--
Cheers,
David Read
Curt Emanuel
news:pb2dnVqE6eT_nOvX...@bt.com...
Personally, after reading the two accounts I have a hard time seeing how
anyone could favor Socrates over Ammianus. I guess it's no guarantee but
Ammianus is very specific, talks about the meeting between Athanaric and
Valens on the boat in the middle of the river, Athanaric feeling he couldn't
take refuge in Thrace after his statement about the oath he'd taken to not
set foot on Roman soil, etc. All Socrates does is vaguely discuss a civil
war and the conversion of Fritigern's faction (Book IV, Ch XXXIII).
Though I will say that Socrates not being contemporary isn't, in and of
itself, a persuasive argument. He would have been able to speak with people
who served in the army in the 360's and 370's.
And then there's the whole question of what Socrates was trying to
accomplish. He was no fan of a pro-Arian like Valens and would be happy to
credit his destruction to "wrongful" conversion and inviting a bunch of
Arians into the Empire, though his account doesn't read all that strong.
If we're going to talk Goths, Heather also has a chapter, "The Creation of
the Visigoths" in _The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh
Century_. If I get the chance I'll re-read it though IIRC, one of the things
he emphasized was to not think too strictly that a Visigoth in, say, 430 had
to descend from a Visigoth from the 4th century. He talked quite a bit about
how these groups mixed and coalesced all the time.
Paul J Gans
>Curt
My thanks to both Curt and David. Very interesting. I also like
Heather's point of view. In particular I think that he's likely
right about the coalescing of groups. While lack of evidence isn't
in itself convincing, it is notable that there is no mention of
any "exclusivity" in the barbarian groupings. Indeed, there is,
as many have pointed out, a good bit of evidence to the contrary.
By the way, I find it amusing how "late antiquity" is encroaching
on the Middle Ages. Bachrach, of course, finds it quite natural.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
David Read
>
>
> Personally, after reading the two accounts I have a hard time seeing how
> anyone could favor Socrates over Ammianus. I guess it's no guarantee but
> Ammianus is very specific, talks about the meeting between Athanaric and
> Valens on the boat in the middle of the river, Athanaric feeling he
> couldn't take refuge in Thrace after his statement about the oath he'd
> taken to not set foot on Roman soil, etc. All Socrates does is vaguely
> discuss a civil war and the conversion of Fritigern's faction (Book IV, Ch
> XXXIII).
>
> Though I will say that Socrates not being contemporary isn't, in and of
> itself, a persuasive argument. He would have been able to speak with
> people who served in the army in the 360's and 370's.
Indeed.
>
> And then there's the whole question of what Socrates was trying to
> accomplish. He was no fan of a pro-Arian like Valens and would be happy to
> credit his destruction to "wrongful" conversion and inviting a bunch of
> Arians into the Empire, though his account doesn't read all that strong.
Indeed.
>
> If we're going to talk Goths, Heather also has a chapter, "The Creation of
> the Visigoths" in _The Visigoths from the Migration Period to the Seventh
> Century_. If I get the chance I'll re-read it though IIRC, one of the
> things he emphasized was to not think too strictly that a Visigoth in,
> say, 430 had to descend from a Visigoth from the 4th century. He talked
> quite a bit about how these groups mixed and coalesced all the time.
>
I'm not entirely sure if Heather is being fair to Halsall in his criticism
of the latter's use of Socrates. He points specifically to a footnote in
Halsall's "Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West 376-568" [2007] where
Socrates is simply named in a footnote along with several others concerning
the aftermath of the battle of Adrianople. Indeed, Halsall says in the
footnote that Ammianus is the best source, and then names others including
Orosius, Socrates, Sozomen and Zosimus. Halsall's own beef with Heather is
set out as follows:-
"The general trend of the past fifty years has been to downplay the scale
and effects of the barbarian migrations. The most important exception to
this has been the work of the British historian Peter Heather, who, like
many of the other leading students of the topic in recent decades, has
worked primarily on the Goths. Heather's work began with a scholarly and
thoroughly convincing critique of the use to which historians following the
Traditionskern approach had put Jordanes' _Getica_. From this basis, Heather
attacked the idea that the barbarian peoples were simply aristocratic
kernels carrying with them a core of tradition about their origins. Instead,
Heather argued that a people like the Goths was constituted in part by a
numerically important social stratum of freemen. These were indeed Goths,
descended from people who had crossed into the Empire from barbarian
territories in the late fourth century, and long played an important role in
maintaining the exclusivity of their ethnic identity. It will be noted that
the present book differs fundamentally from Heather's approach. Heather and
I would agree that the key factor in the break-up of the Empire was the
exposure of a critical fault-line between the imperial government and the
interests of the regional �lites. However, while Heather sees the appearance
of the Huns as decisive in exposing this fault-line, the thesis proposed
here is that the reasons for the Huns' profound effects on barbarian
politics are themselves to be sought in the processes, originating *inside*
the Empire, that uncovered the weaknesses of the ties binding the Empire
together."
In other words, to paraphrase Halsall's thesis, it was periodic
destabilizations by the Romans themselves of the trans-frontier zone that
weakened client "tribes" and made them easy targets for other peoples
further from the frontier, notably, in the case of the Goths, the Huns.
There is far more to Halsaall's thesis than an over-reliance on Socrates
Scholasticus.
So, going back to Socrates' Church History, the particular text Halsall
points to in the footnote mentioned above is this (see
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2601.htm ):-
"Chapter 34. Admission of the Fugitive Goths into the Roman Territories,
which caused the Emperor's Overthrow, and eventually the Ruin of the Roman
Empire.
Not long after the barbarians had entered into a friendly alliance with one
another, they were again vanquished by other barbarians, their neighbors,
called the Huns; and being driven out of their own country, they fled into
the territory of the Romans, offering to be subject to the emperor, and to
execute whatever he should command them. When Valens was made acquainted
with this, not having the least presentiment of the consequences, he ordered
that the suppliants should be received with kindness; in this one instance
alone showing himself compassionate. He therefore assigned them certain
parts of Thrace for their habitation, deeming himself peculiarly fortunate
in this matter: for he calculated that in future he should possess a ready
and well-equipped army against all assailants; and hoped that the barbarians
would be a more formidable guard to the frontiers of the empire even than
the Romans themselves. For this reason he in the future neglected to recruit
his army by Roman levies; and despising those veterans who had bravely
straggled and subdued his enemies in former wars, he put a pecuniary value
on the militia which the inhabitants of the provinces, village by village,
had been accustomed to furnish, ordering the collectors of his tribute to
demand eighty pieces of gold for every soldier, although he had never before
lightened the public burdens. This change was the origin of many disasters
to the Roman Empire subsequently.
Chapter 35. Abatement of Persecution against the Christians because of the
War with the Goths.
The barbarians having been put into possession of Thrace, and securely
enjoying that Roman province, were unable to bear their good fortune with
moderation; but committing hostile aggressions upon their benefactors,
devastated all Thrace and the adjacent countries. When these proceedings
came to the knowledge of Valens, he desisted from sending the adherents of
the homoousion into banishment; and in great alarm left Antioch, and came to
Constantinople, where also the persecution of the orthodox Christians was
for the same reason come to an end. At the same time Euzo�us, bishop of the
Arians at Antioch, departed this life, in the fifth consulate of Valens, and
the first of Valentinian the younger; and Dorotheus was appointed in his
place.
Chapter 36. The Saracens, under Mavia their Queen, embrace Christianity; and
Moses, a Pious Monk, is consecrated their Bishop.
No sooner had the emperor departed from Antioch, than the Saracens, who had
before been in alliance with the Romans, revolted from them, being led by
Mavia their queen, whose husband was then dead. All the regions of the East
therefore were at that time ravaged by the Saracens: but a certain divine
Providence repressed their fury in the manner I am about to describe. A
person named Moses, a Saracen by birth, who led a monastic life in the
desert, became exceedingly eminent for his piety, faith, and miracles. Mavia
the queen of the Saracens was therefore desirous that this person should be
constituted bishop over her nation, and promised on the condition to
terminate the war. The Roman generals, considering that a peace founded on
such terms would be extremely advantageous, gave immediate directions for
its ratification. Moses was accordingly seized, and brought from the desert
to Alexandria, in order that he might there be invested with the bishopric:
but on his presentation for that purpose to Lucius, who at that time
presided over the churches in that city, he refused to be ordained by him,
protesting against it in these words: 'I account myself indeed unworthy of
the sacred office; but if the exigencies of the state require my bearing it,
it shall not be by Lucius laying his hand on me, for it has been filled with
blood.' When Lucius told him that it was his duty to learn from him the
principles of religion, and not to utter reproachful language, Moses
replied, 'Matters of faith are not now in question: but your infamous
practices against the brethren sufficiently prove that your doctrines are
not Christian. For a Christian is "no striker, reviles not, does not fight";
for "it becomes not a servant of the Lord to fight." 2 Timothy 2:24 But your
deeds cry out against you by those who have been sent into exile, who have
been exposed to the wild beasts, and who had been delivered up to the
flames. Those things which our own eyes have beheld are far more convincing
than what we receive from the report of another.' As Moses expressed these
and other similar sentiments his friends took him to the mountains, that he
might receive ordination from those bishops who lived in exile there. Moses
having thus been consecrated, the Saracen war was terminated; and so
scrupulously did Mavia observe the peace thus entered into with the Romans
that she gave her daughter in marriage to Victor the commander-in-chief of
the Roman army. Such were the transactions in relation to the Saracens.
Chapter 37. After the Departure of Valens from Antioch, the Alexandrians
expel Lucius, and restore Peter, who had come with Letters from Damasus
Bishop of Rome.
About the same time, as soon as the Emperor Valens left Antioch, all those
who had anywhere been suffering persecution began again to take courage, and
especially those of Alexandria. Peter returned to that city from Rome, with
letters from Damasus the Roman bishop, in which he confirmed the
'homoousian' faith, and sanctioned Peter's ordination. The people therefore
resuming confidence, expelled Lucius, who immediately embarked for
Constantinople: but Peter survived his re-establishment a very short time,
and at his death appointed his brother Timothy to succeed him.
Chapter 38. The Emperor Valens is ridiculed by the People on Account of the
Goths; undertakes an Expedition against them and is slain in an Engagement
near Adrianople.
The Emperor Valens arrived at Constantinople on the 30th of May, in the
sixth year of his own consulate, and the second of Valentinian the Younger,
and found the people in a very dejected state of mind: for the barbarians,
who had already desolated Thrace, were now laying waste the very suburbs of
Constantinople, there being no adequate force at hand to resist them. But
when they undertook to make near approaches, even to the walls of the city,
the people became exceedingly troubled, and began to murmur against the
emperor; accusing him of having brought on the enemy there, and then
indolently prolonging the struggle there, instead of at once marching out
against the barbarians. Moreover at the exhibition of the sports of the
Hippodrome , all with one voice clamored against the emperor's negligence of
the public affairs, crying out with great earnestness, 'Give us arms, and we
ourselves will fight.' The emperor provoked at these seditious clamors ,
marched out of the city, on the 11th of June; threatening that if he
returned, he would punish the citizens not only for their insolent
reproaches, but for having previously favored the pretensions of the usurper
Procopius; declaring also that he would utterly demolish their city, and
cause the plough to pass over its ruins, he advanced against the barbarians,
whom he routed with great slaughter, and pursued as far as Adrianople, a
city of Thrace, situated on the frontiers of Macedonia. Having at that place
again engaged the enemy, who had by this time rallied, he lost his life on
the 9th of August, under the consulate just mentioned, and in the fourth
year of the 289th Olympiad. Some have asserted that he was burnt to death in
a village whither he had retired, which the barbarians assaulted and set on
fire. But others affirm that having put off his imperial robe he ran into
the midst of the main body of infantry; and that when the cavalry revolted
and refused to engage, the infantry were surrounded by the barbarians, and
completely destroyed in a body. Among these it is said the emperor fell, but
could not be distinguished, in consequence of his not having on his imperial
habit . He died in the fiftieth year of his age, having reigned in
conjunction with his brother thirteen years, and three years after the death
of the brother. This book therefore contains [the course of events during]
the space of sixteen years."
--
Cheers,
David Read
David Read
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:h57380$or5$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> My thanks to both Curt and David. Very interesting. I also like
> Heather's point of view. In particular I think that he's likely
> right about the coalescing of groups. While lack of evidence isn't
> in itself convincing, it is notable that there is no mention of
> any "exclusivity" in the barbarian groupings. Indeed, there is,
> as many have pointed out, a good bit of evidence to the contrary.
>
> By the way, I find it amusing how "late antiquity" is encroaching
> on the Middle Ages. Bachrach, of course, finds it quite natural.
>
Quite so. The advent of YouTube provides a gift from the UK to the rest of
the world. Or, at least, it makes it easier for me to to share with s.h.m.
A sketch from the History Today series of sketches by Newman and Baddiel.
They're all there, folks!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN7y0Sb0s6Y
--
Cheers,
David Read
Curt Emanuel
Obviously. However Heather believes it was Hunnic pressure, not something
inimical to the Empire which created the wave of invasions in 405-408. One
item he discusses in some detail is that Claudian has been mis-read as
stating that the Huns were massed in the Danube by 395 however he states
that the poem actually states that they attacked Rome through the Caucasus
East of the Black Sea, not through the Danube but by 409, when they were
seen as allies of Honorius, following the defeat of Uldin, they were in the
Danube. That's one of the reasons he believes the Huns were the primary
impetus behind the invasions.
In _The Fall of the Roman Empire_ Heather believes the Goths didn't face the
entire population of the Huns. "In 375/6 there was no massive horde of Huns
hotly pursuing the fleeing Goths: rather, independent Hunnic warbands were
pursuing a variety of strategies against a variety of opponents." p153
Yes, but the breakup of the Tervingi into two groups - headed by Athanaric
and Fritigern - is discussed in Book 33. I thought that was the specific
issue Heather had with Halsall?
From your earlier post: ""The two historians [ i.e. Ammianus & Socrates -
DR] have completely
different understandings of when and how the confederation of the Tervingi
split. ..."
I don't see where what brought the Goths into Roman territory yields too
much of a discrepency though of course Socrates ignores the Roman abuses
that seem to have brought the situation to a crisis.
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
Curt Emanuel
news:h57380$or5$2...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> By the way, I find it amusing how "late antiquity" is encroaching
> on the Middle Ages. Bachrach, of course, finds it quite natural.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
There are quite a few folks who don't care for the term - I'm trying to
remember the K-Zoo session I attended where a speaker said as much (doubt it
was any of the Society for Late Antiquity Sessions!). I like it myself
because, if used properly, it denotes a transition period. And it doesn't
have to say whether the transition was bloody with massive upheaval or
relatively peaceful with a lot of continuity from ancient to medieval. Lots
of folks seem to think the use of the term in and of itself implies people
are trying to play down the societal pain and disruption.
As long as people don't start trying to pin down "the date" when Late
Antiquity begins and ends - that's a big part of the problem the term itself
tries to address.
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
David Read
>However Heather believes it was Hunnic pressure, not something
> inimical to the Empire which created the wave of invasions in 405-408. One
> item he discusses in some detail is that Claudian has been mis-read as
> stating that the Huns were massed in the Danube by 395 however he states
> that the poem actually states that they attacked Rome through the Caucasus
> East of the Black Sea, not through the Danube but by 409, when they were
> seen as allies of Honorius, following the defeat of Uldin, they were in
> the Danube. That's one of the reasons he believes the Huns were the
> primary impetus behind the invasions.
Indeed.
>
> In _The Fall of the Roman Empire_ Heather believes the Goths didn't face
> the entire population of the Huns. "In 375/6 there was no massive horde of
> Huns hotly pursuing the fleeing Goths: rather, independent Hunnic warbands
> were pursuing a variety of strategies against a variety of opponents."
> p153
Yep, not news, I think.
>
>
> Yes, but the breakup of the Tervingi into two groups - headed by Athanaric
> and Fritigern - is discussed in Book 33. I thought that was the specific
> issue Heather had with Halsall?
>
> From your earlier post: ""The two historians [ i.e. Ammianus & Socrates -
> DR] have completely
> different understandings of when and how the confederation of the Tervingi
> split. ..."
Indeed. Odd that Heather pointed to the wrong page.
>
> I don't see where what brought the Goths into Roman territory yields too
> much of a discrepency though of course Socrates ignores the Roman abuses
> that seem to have brought the situation to a crisis.
The relevant text from Halsall is in pp. 170-175. It 's too long to quote
all of it here, but it is here that Heather's interpretation comes in for
the most criticism, albeit limited to footnotes. Following Valens'
campaigns against the Goths in 367-9,
"A treaty was signed on a boat in the middle of the Danube, ending any
further payments and restricting to two the points at which the Goths could
trade with empire. This was clearly not the outcome the Romans wanted.
Valens had failed to win the great victory that imperial ideology and
internal Roman politics demanded . . . . The Goths had not surrendered
and Valens had been unable to impose a settlement with clearly defined
obligations upon them. yet attempts to portray the treaty as a meaningful
victory for the Goths are unconvincing. Athanaric had avoided Roman
domination but he had not been able to negotiate good terms either and the
fall-out from the war was extremely detrimental to his rule. The restriction
of commerce and the end of diplomatic payments both reduced the access to
the Roman-made prestige-goods and treasure which oiled Gothic (as other
barbarian) politics. These and the military defeats point severe stress on
the Gothic realms. During this period Athanaric launched the persecution of
potentially pro-Roman Christians, during which Saba found martyrdom as
related at the beginning of this book. The fifth-century historians Socrates
Scholasticus and Sozomen mention that subsequently some sort of warfare
broke out amongst the Goths. They name Fritigern as the leader who opposed
the defeated and pronbably discredited Athanaric and state that the Roman
_limitanei_ supported Fritigern. The Romans apparently used Christianity to
bind Frtitigern's faction to them. Ammianus lets slip that Athanaric was
eventually driven out by a faction of his compatriots. It is not unlikely
that the _Greuthungi_ were similarly shaken up by the war. . . . This
volatile situation tipped the scales in the Huns' favour.
Nevertheless, if it is unlikely that the Huns would have had such
dramatic effects without Valens' destabilising of the region, their role was
still crucial. . . . Goths ceased to bother anyone for seven years
whilst Roman troops were able to carry out operations beyond the border and
without, the intervention of the Huns, it is unlikely that the Danube
frontier would have worried Valens again for some time. . . . The real
decisive factor was the Huns. Nomadic groups on the steppe generally have
close and often predatory relationships with their more settled neighbours.
The unstable political situation of the early 370s provided a golden
opportunity for their intervention. Rival factions could form around them,
adopting a new political identity and deploying the military support that
they provided. Overall, the episode is typical of steppes political history
and was to be repeated many times. The intervention of the Huns was vital
but it was not the _deus ex machina_ that it is often supposed to have
been."
--
Cheers,
David Read
Curt Emanuel
>
> Cheers,
>
> David Read
>
>
>
Well, that is a significant difference from what Ammianus talks about re why
the Tervingi split. I don't see where it has much to do with the argument
about why the barbarians invaded though. Seems like Heather's getting a bit
too worked up over relatively minor details.
Of course we all do that occasionally. I recall a horse harness discussion a
few years back ...
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
Paul J Gans
I'm on vacation and somebody brings up horse harnesses?
That's not fair!!!!
am...@hotmail.com
> "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
>
> news:JtqdnXC8NcY4r-rX...@bt.com...
>
>
>
> > "Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@ffni.com> wrote in message
> > However, while Heather sees the appearance of the Huns as decisive in
> > exposing this fault-line, the thesis proposed here is that the reasons for
> > the Huns' profound effects on barbarian politics are themselves to be
> > sought in the processes, originating *inside* the Empire, that uncovered
> > the weaknesses of the ties binding the Empire together."
>
> > In other words, to paraphrase Halsall's thesis, it was periodic
> > destabilizations by the Romans themselves of the trans-frontier zone that
> > weakened client "tribes" and made them easy targets for other peoples
> > further from the frontier, notably, in the case of the Goths, the Huns.
> > There is far more to Halsaall's thesis than an over-reliance on Socrates
> > Scholasticus.
>
> Obviously. However Heather believes it was Hunnic pressure, not something
> inimical to the Empire which created the wave of invasions in 405-408.
A rather funny point of view, taking into an account that prior to
this 'pressure' the Gothes migrated from the Baltics all the way to
the Black Sea without the Huns being involved.
.
> One
> item he discusses in some detail is that Claudian has been mis-read as
> stating that the Huns were massed
> in the Danube by 395 however he states
> that the poem actually states that they attacked Rome through the Caucasus
> East of the Black Sea,
>not through the Danube but by 409, when they were
> seen as allies of Honorius, following the defeat of Uldin, they were in the
> Danube. That's one of the reasons he believes the Huns were the primary
> impetus behind the invasions.
>
> In _The Fall of the Roman Empire_ Heather believes the Goths didn't face the
> entire population of the Huns. "In 375/6 there was no massive horde of Huns
> hotly pursuing the fleeing Goths: rather, independent Hunnic warbands were
> pursuing a variety of strategies against a variety of opponents." p153
Taking into an account that definition of the 'Huns' is anything but
clear (even to a specialist in this area, like Lev Gumilev), what
would amount to their 'entire population', how many of them had been
'massed' anywhere and who exactly these 'massed' people were is
probably anybody's guess. There is a high probability that they were
mostly a conglomerate of the local nomads temporarily united around a
relatively small band of 'truly hunnish' wariors (those who came from
the CA or even from the North of China). Almost definitely, they were
not a single huge tribe travelling all the way from the Northern China
because such a travel would be close to impossible (and would leave at
least some mark of its passage somewhere along its route).
In a rather fantastic dfescription of the Battle at Chalons, the Huns
are a clear minority of Atilla's army (so that, contrary to any
tactical sense, he keeps them in the center for a personal
protection). Then, these wild nomads somehow posessed powerful siege
'artillery' and useed it with a noticeable expertise. With the Chinese
specialists being (unlike the casee of the Mongols) out of picture,
doesn't it indicate presence of the powerful non-Hunnish element in
their army? Atilla and other prominent Hunnish personages had (AFAIK)
Germanic names, there are numerous clearly non-Hunnish personages
around Atilla (shouldn't there be much more on the lower steps of a
ladder?). It looks like Atilla built a _permanent_ capital. Well, to
be fair, this is not a clear indication of anything because, depending
on a style of 'nomadishness', at least a winter camp may be necessary:
if the winters in the area are too harsh and the animals could not dig
a grass from under the snow, then part of a population is busy
preparing the hay at the 'winter quarters'. IIRC, the Khazars and
Avars were in this mode and, eventually, Genghis founded his own
capital, Karakorum. However, it looks like Atilla had it as an around-
the-year capital.
.
David Read
> Well, that is a significant difference from what Ammianus talks about re
> why the Tervingi split. I don't see where it has much to do with the
> argument about why the barbarians invaded though. Seems like Heather's
> getting a bit too worked up over relatively minor details.
It's the dog eat dog world of Publish or Perish. How else would you get the
Most Modern View every six months?
>
> Of course we all do that occasionally. I recall a horse harness discussion
> a few years back ...
Ah, those were the days. Bring on those minor details!
--
Cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> "Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@ffni.com> wrote in message
>
> news:h5fs1e$edg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > Well, that is a significant difference from what Ammianus talks about re
> > why the Tervingi split. I don't see where it has much to do with the
> > argument about why the barbarians invaded though. Seems like Heather's
> > getting a bit too worked up over relatively minor details.
>
> It's the dog eat dog world of Publish or Perish. How else would you get the
> Most Modern View every six months?
1st, the Most Modern View is updated much more orften than once per 6
months to keep in step with the ever-changing past. 2nd, it is totally
independent from a publishing & perishing world and, as such, is
totally objective and truthful in all minor details (which are, of
course, subject to the constant changes due to the unpredictable
nature of a history).
>
>
>
> > Of course we all do that occasionally. I recall a horse harness discussion
> > a few years back ...
Aren't these "h-things" totally legendary, like gryphons, dragons,
mermaids and objective journalists?
>
> Ah, those were the days. Bring on those minor details!
A long absense from SHM made you noticeably more blood-thirsty than in
the old days. Just out of a pure curiosity, (a) can you see yourself
in a mirror? (b) do you cast a shadow?, (c) did some of your teeth
grew a little bit longer than they used to? I'm not being speceistic,
just curious.....
:-)
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6920ba6b-5e41-4715...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>1st, the Most Modern View is updated much more orften than once per 6
>months to keep in step with the ever-changing past. 2nd, it is totally
>independent from a publishing & perishing world and, as such, is
>totally objective and truthful in all minor details (which are, of
>course, subject to the constant changes due to the unpredictable
>nature of a history).
Both points, one and two, being minor details themselves.
>Aren't these "h-things" totally legendary, like gryphons, dragons,
>mermaids and objective journalists?
See? More minor details...
>A long absense from SHM made you noticeably more blood-thirsty than in
>the old days. Just out of a pure curiosity, (a) can you see yourself
>in a mirror? (b) do you cast a shadow?, (c) did some of your teeth
>grew a little bit longer than they used to? I'm not being speceistic,
>just curious.....
I can certainly see myself in a mirror, and some might think I cast a very
long shadow. Hearts sink or rise accordingly.
You curiosity is to be commended. I think it's just my gums receding.
--
Cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:6920ba6b-5e41-4715...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >1st, the Most Modern View is updated much more orften than once per 6
> >months to keep in step with the ever-changing past. 2nd, it is totally
> >independent from a publishing & perishing world and, as such, is
> >totally objective and truthful in all minor details (which are, of
> >course, subject to the constant changes due to the unpredictable
> >nature of a history).
>
> Both points, one and two, being minor details themselves.
>
With most of the major things in history being appropriated by so-
called 'professionals', a non-professional like me should modestly
stick to the minor details.
> >Aren't these "h-things" totally legendary, like gryphons, dragons,
> >mermaids and objective journalists?
>
> See? More minor details...
Sure, the IMPORTANT thing is what Certain Distinguished Person did to
them....
>
> >A long absense from SHM made you noticeably more blood-thirsty than in
> >the old days. Just out of a pure curiosity, (a) can you see yourself
> >in a mirror? (b) do you cast a shadow?, (c) did some of your teeth
> >grew a little bit longer than they used to? I'm not being speceistic,
> >just curious.....
>
> I can certainly see myself in a mirror,
What about other people seeing you in the mirror?
> and some might think I cast a very
> long shadow.
Are you sure that they were seeing YOUR shadow and not one of, say,
lamp post? BTW, any noticeable gravitational changes?
> Hearts sink or rise accordingly.
>
Hmmmmm... Did you try to push a wooden stake through it (claim about
the numerous hearts sounds a little bit too ambitious and, anyway,
banshee as described by Pratchett, is probably a legendary figure) AND
eat some garlic afterwards?
> You curiosity is to be commended. I think it's just my gums receding.
Fittingly so ....
Weland
>
> "Curt Emanuel" <cema...@ffni.com> wrote in message
> news:h5fs1e$edg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Well, that is a significant difference from what Ammianus talks about
>> re why the Tervingi split. I don't see where it has much to do with
>> the argument about why the barbarians invaded though. Seems like
>> Heather's getting a bit too worked up over relatively minor details.
>
>
> It's the dog eat dog world of Publish or Perish. How else would you get
> the Most Modern View every six months?
In this case, I think there is more at stake than that. The pendulum
has largely swung a new direction in the last 35 years, and now that
first generation who encountered "Late Antiquity" as an age of
transition approaches retirement and they prepare their final statements
on the question that has shaped and reshaped their careers. Remember
that a lot of these guys know each other personally, and have read
papers at conferences in the same sessions disagreeing with each other,
and have written in response to one another. So the vexation over minor
details results not from the rush to publish or perish (and at this
point in his career, this is not a problem Peter Heather faces) but
rather some point or sub point raised in a conference paper of Halsall's
at some point in the past.
>>
>> Of course we all do that occasionally. I recall a horse harness
>> discussion a few years back ...
>
>
> Ah, those were the days. Bring on those minor details!
Got my hammer and tongs ready.....
Weland
> On Aug 7, 1:26 pm, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>"Curt Emanuel" <ceman...@ffni.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:h5fs1e$edg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>>Well, that is a significant difference from what Ammianus talks about re
>>>why the Tervingi split. I don't see where it has much to do with the
>>>argument about why the barbarians invaded though. Seems like Heather's
>>>getting a bit too worked up over relatively minor details.
>>
>>It's the dog eat dog world of Publish or Perish. How else would you get the
>>Most Modern View every six months?
>
>
>
> 1st, the Most Modern View is updated much more orften than once per 6
> months to keep in step with the ever-changing past. 2nd, it is totally
> independent from a publishing & perishing world and, as such, is
> totally objective and truthful in all minor details (which are, of
> course, subject to the constant changes due to the unpredictable
> nature of a history).
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>Of course we all do that occasionally. I recall a horse harness discussion
>>>a few years back ...
>
>
> Aren't these "h-things" totally legendary, like gryphons, dragons,
> mermaids and objective journalists?
Hey, mermaids are real!
>
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1419aa53-c98d-4e6b...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>With most of the major things in history being appropriated by so-
>called 'professionals', a non-professional like me should modestly
>stick to the minor details.
It's good to be modest.
>Sure, the IMPORTANT thing is what Certain Distinguished Person did to
>them....
That's true.
>What about other people seeing you in the mirror?
I can't answer for other people. Perhaps they imagine they see me in the
mirror looking over their shoulder when they shave in the morning.
>Are you sure that they were seeing YOUR shadow and not one of, say, lamp
>post?
Good point. That seems a more likely explanation.
>BTW, any noticeable gravitational changes?
Well, I've dropped a few pounds lately, so that might fit in with the lamp
post theory.
>Hmmmmm... Did you try to push a wooden stake through it (claim about
>the numerous hearts sounds a little bit too ambitious and, anyway,
>banshee as described by Pratchett, is probably a legendary figure) AND
>eat some garlic afterwards?
Oh, I didn't say numerous. More than one, I guess. Hearts and minds, I
think is the issue. And sometimes balls. Garlic before, during and after.
>Fittingly so ....
Quite.
--
Cheers,
David Read
David Read
"Weland" <gi...@poetic.com> wrote in message
news:h5j2bh$8hg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hey, mermaids are real!
And hippokampoi.
--
Cheers,
David Read
David Read
>
> In this case, I think there is more at stake than that. The pendulum has
> largely swung a new direction in the last 35 years, and now that first
> generation who encountered "Late Antiquity" as an age of transition
> approaches retirement and they prepare their final statements on the
> question that has shaped and reshaped their careers. Remember that a lot
> of these guys know each other personally, and have read papers at
> conferences in the same sessions disagreeing with each other, and have
> written in response to one another. So the vexation over minor details
> results not from the rush to publish or perish (and at this point in his
> career, this is not a problem Peter Heather faces) but rather some point
> or sub point raised in a conference paper of Halsall's at some point in
> the past.
Yep, very good points.
> Got my hammer and tongs ready.....
Of course. All good smiths should have their hammers and tongs ready.
--
Cheers,
David Read
erilar
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> am...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Aren't these "h-things" totally legendary, like gryphons, dragons,
> > mermaids and objective journalists?
>
> Hey, mermaids are real!
And so are dragons!!!!
--
Mary Loomer Oliver (aka Erilar)
You can't reason with someone whose first line of argument is
that reason doesn't count. --Isaac Asimov
Erilar's Cave Annex: http://www.chibardun.net/~erilarlo�
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1419aa53-c98d-4e6b...@d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >With most of the major things in history being appropriated by so-
> >called 'professionals', a non-professional like me should modestly
> >stick to the minor details.
>
> It's good to be modest.
But not always profitable...
>
> >Sure, the IMPORTANT thing is what Certain Distinguished Person did to
> >them....
>
> That's true.
What was that famous statement? "Don't think what your <h-word> can do
for you. Think what you can do for your <h-word>!" Very uplifting,
especially for the members of PETA.
>
> >What about other people seeing you in the mirror?
>
> I can't answer for other people. Perhaps they imagine they see me in the
> mirror looking over their shoulder when they shave in the morning.
.... and then they are up to a big (and often final) surprise?
>
> >Are you sure that they were seeing YOUR shadow and not one of, say, lamp
> >post?
>
> Good point. That seems a more likely explanation.
Actually, I'm not sure that this shadow thing is a mandatory one for
your kind of the species: thanks to the 'specialists' from Hollywood
the whole issue is totally confused. IIRC, in one of Walter Scott's
poems an absence of the shadow is attributed to a gentleman who was
simply a little bit too keen of knowledge. OTOH, M.Bulgakov clearly
associated it with a flying, blood-thirsty person.
>
> >BTW, any noticeable gravitational changes?
>
> Well, I've dropped a few pounds lately, so that might fit in with the lamp
> post theory.
>
Quite possible. Just as a scientific test, can you jump from a roof of
a reasonably high building? This will give some solid facts one way or
another.
> >Hmmmmm... Did you try to push a wooden stake through it (claim about
> >the numerous hearts sounds a little bit too ambitious and, anyway,
> >banshee as described by Pratchett, is probably a legendary figure) AND
> >eat some garlic afterwards?
>
> Oh, I didn't say numerous. More than one, I guess. Hearts and minds, I
> think is the issue. And sometimes balls. Garlic before, during and after.
I'm afraid that without a stake (more than one, following your
statement), the test will not be complete...
am...@hotmail.com
I can easily believe THIS. And dragons as well...
am...@hotmail.com
> In article <h5j2bh$8h...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> > a...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Aren't these "h-things" totally legendary, like gryphons, dragons,
> > > mermaids and objective journalists?
>
> > Hey, mermaids are real!
>
> And so are dragons!!!!
Let's draw the line: anything but the last item on the list.
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3601e709-0ab1-46f3...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 8, 1:51 am, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> I can't answer for other people. Perhaps they imagine they see me in the
> >mirror looking over their shoulder when they shave in the morning.
>.... and then they are up to a big (and often final) surprise?
Not to my knowledge. More likely that they just giggle nervously after
turning around and seeing no-one there. And they might nick the chin, and
count themselves lucky that they were not holding the razor to their throat
at the time. Who knows?
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away.
>Actually, I'm not sure that this shadow thing is a mandatory one for
>your kind of the species: thanks to the 'specialists' from Hollywood
>the whole issue is totally confused. IIRC, in one of Walter Scott's
>poems an absence of the shadow is attributed to a gentleman who was
>simply a little bit too keen of knowledge. OTOH, M.Bulgakov clearly
>associated it with a flying, blood-thirsty person.
Well it's your shadow thing. I admire the breadth of your research on these
matters. Obviously, as a gentleman of the larger persuasion, your own shadow
is unmistakeable.
Hmmm... Let me have men about me that are fat...
>Quite possible. Just as a scientific test, can you jump from a roof of
>a reasonably high building? This will give some solid facts one way or
>another.
After you.
>I'm afraid that without a stake (more than one, following your
>statement), the test will not be complete...
Government cutbacks in science funding are to blame. You should re-apply for
another grant.
--
Cheers,
David Read
erilar
<510aabc1-b8e2-490a...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
am...@hotmail.com wrote:
Oh, yes! Exactly there. Isn't "objective journalist" an oxymoron like
"military intelligence" ??
Curt Emanuel
news:3601e709-0ab1-46f3...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Quite possible. Just as a scientific test, can you jump from a roof of
> a reasonably high building? This will give some solid facts one way or
> another.
Most people can jump. It's the landing that gives them trouble.
--
Curt Emanuel
cema...@ffni.com
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Yes. If you can qualify as 'people' in a narrow sense of this world. I
was fully expecting David to be able to get the landing part
safely.....
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3601e709-0ab1-46f3...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 8, 1:51 am, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> > <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> I can't answer for other people. Perhaps they imagine they see me in the
> > >mirror looking over their shoulder when they shave in the morning.
> >.... and then they are up to a big (and often final) surprise?
>
> Not to my knowledge. More likely that they just giggle nervously after
> turning around and seeing no-one there.
>And they might nick the chin, and
> count themselves lucky that they were not holding the razor to their throat
> at the time. Who knows?
Let me sum it up. If I understood you correctly, you are appearing
unexpectedly in other people's bathrooms and then, just as
unexpectedly, dissapear leaving them with a nicked chin (or perhaps a
throat, if they are unlucky). This answers most of the questions
(don't get me wrong, I'm quite open-minded species-wise as long as I'm
safely on the other side of the ocean).
>
> Yesterday, upon the stair,
> I met a man who wasn't there
> He wasn't there again today
> I wish, I wish he'd go away.
>
> >Actually, I'm not sure that this shadow thing is a mandatory one for
> >your kind of the species: thanks to the 'specialists' from Hollywood
> >the whole issue is totally confused. IIRC, in one of Walter Scott's
> >poems an absence of the shadow is attributed to a gentleman who was
> >simply a little bit too keen of knowledge. OTOH, M.Bulgakov clearly
> >associated it with a flying, blood-thirsty person.
>
> Well it's your shadow thing. I admire the breadth of your research on these
> matters. Obviously, as a gentleman of the larger persuasion, your own shadow
> is unmistakeable.
Unless it travels separately from me.
>
> Hmmm... Let me have men about me that are fat...
>
> >Quite possible. Just as a scientific test, can you jump from a roof of
> >a reasonably high building? This will give some solid facts one way or
> >another.
>
> After you.
>
We can't jump from one research to another.
> >I'm afraid that without a stake (more than one, following your
> >statement), the test will not be complete...
>
> Government cutbacks in science funding are to blame. You should re-apply for
> another grant.
Not being in Academia, I have to rely on people's own resources...
:-)
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c856cd19-3a72-4ba8...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Especially if you go first. Should make for a nice, soft landing.
--
Cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Nope. Based on a previous experience, I can assure you that there will
be rather sharp pieces of bones protruding here and there.
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8c469982-aa52-4087...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>Let me sum it up. If I understood you correctly, you are appearing
>unexpectedly in other people's bathrooms and then, just as
>unexpectedly, dissapear leaving them with a nicked chin (or perhaps a
>throat, if they are unlucky). This answers most of the questions
>(don't get me wrong, I'm quite open-minded species-wise as long as I'm
>safely on the other side of the ocean).
Clearly, you didn't understand it correctly, and your open-mindedness smacks
of self-delusion, not to say a touching faith in my supposed powers. But I
appreciate your attempts to understand, even if it does mean giving me an
undeserved cult status. Are you angling to be High Priest?
>Unless it travels separately from me.
Is that economy class or with the baggage? You or your shadow.
>We can't jump from one research to another.
Insurance.
>Not being in Academia, I have to rely on people's own resources...
You mean you can't afford more than one stake?
--
Cheers,
David Read
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce18d961-1b3d-452d...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>Nope. Based on a previous experience, I can assure you that there will
>be rather sharp pieces of bones protruding here and there.
Still better than concrete.
--
Cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c469982-aa52-4087...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Let me sum it up. If I understood you correctly, you are appearing
> >unexpectedly in other people's bathrooms and then, just as
> >unexpectedly, dissapear leaving them with a nicked chin (or perhaps a
> >throat, if they are unlucky). This answers most of the questions
> >(don't get me wrong, I'm quite open-minded species-wise as long as I'm
> >safely on the other side of the ocean).
>
> Clearly, you didn't understand it correctly, and your open-mindedness smacks
> of self-delusion, not to say a touching faith in my supposed powers. But I
> appreciate your attempts to understand, even if it does mean giving me an
> undeserved cult status.
David, there is an obvious misunderstanding: as much as I respect you,
an issue was you being (or not being) an ordinary representative of
certain species.
>Are you angling to be High Priest?
Only if (a) you declare yourself a re-incarnation of certain Walachian
ruler and (b) there is some material gain for me without request to
eat insects and other unpleasant things.
>
> >Unless it travels separately from me.
>
> Is that economy class or with the baggage?
>You or your shadow.
In a separate car.
>
> >We can't jump from one research to another.
>
> Insurance.
Good point.
>
> >Not being in Academia, I have to rely on people's own resources...
>
> You mean you can't afford more than one stake?
Rather unwilling....
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Did I say that there should be concrete at the bottom?
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b6e06980-17da-407e...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 9, 4:44 pm, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8c469982-aa52-4087...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Let me sum it up. If I understood you correctly, you are appearing
> >unexpectedly in other people's bathrooms and then, just as
> >unexpectedly, dissapear leaving them with a nicked chin (or perhaps a
> >throat, if they are unlucky). This answers most of the questions
> >(don't get me wrong, I'm quite open-minded species-wise as long as I'm
> >safely on the other side of the ocean).
>
> Clearly, you didn't understand it correctly, and your open-mindedness
> smacks
> of self-delusion, not to say a touching faith in my supposed powers. But I
> appreciate your attempts to understand, even if it does mean giving me an
> undeserved cult status.
>David, there is an obvious misunderstanding: as much as I respect you,
>an issue was you being (or not being) an ordinary representative of
>certain species.
Yes, this is your issue. Let's see. You think I might be of another species,
a vampire no less, and I know I'm not. In order for you to be satisfied that
I'm not a vampire, you want me to jump off a high building , and possibly
die or be injured in the process. If I am not a vampire, which of course I
am not, then I will land safely, because vampires can defy gravity. This
would be a scientific experiment.
On the other hand, I believe you to be of the same species as me, i.e.,
human, and yet you claim to be of another species, as yet unidentified, but
which has the unusual attribute of being able to separate itself from its
own shadow. What purpose this attribute has is unclear.
Now, as initimated, the insurance policy of you jumping first might well
solve the problem. Whether or not the ground beneath the building is
concrete, it is hard enough to break your bones and leave their jagged edges
sticking up from your generously proportioned carcass, which might or might
not have otherwise survived the fall.
Where is your shadow at this point?
We need to identify this putative new species. I'll call it _milmanus
umbraseparatibus emanueli_. _Emanueli_, because it is a Minor Detail
(Copyright C. Emanuel 2009. All Rights Reserved). However, "Alex" for short
will do.
So, I repeat. After you.
--
cheers,
David Read
am...@hotmail.com
> <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b6e06980-17da-407e...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 9, 4:44 pm, "David Read" <david2...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > <a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:8c469982-aa52-4087...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Let me sum it up. If I understood you correctly, you are appearing
> > >unexpectedly in other people's bathrooms and then, just as
> > >unexpectedly, dissapear leaving them with a nicked chin (or perhaps a
> > >throat, if they are unlucky). This answers most of the questions
> > >(don't get me wrong, I'm quite open-minded species-wise as long as I'm
> > >safely on the other side of the ocean).
>
> > Clearly, you didn't understand it correctly, and your open-mindedness
> > smacks
> > of self-delusion, not to say a touching faith in my supposed powers. But I
> > appreciate your attempts to understand, even if it does mean giving me an
> > undeserved cult status.
> >David, there is an obvious misunderstanding: as much as I respect you,
> >an issue was you being (or not being) an ordinary representative of
> >certain species.
>
> Yes, this is your issue. Let's see. You think I might be of another species,
What I'm thinking is totally irrelevant: I'm just analyzing the facts
supplied by you.
> a vampire no less,
What's a big deal? One of my co-workers is a self-confessed vegan
vampire. We are in XXI century and have to be open-minded.
> and I know I'm not. In order for you to be satisfied that
> I'm not a vampire, you want me to jump off a high building , and possibly
> die or be injured in the process.
It is other way around: what _you_ wrote makes me (almost) sure that
you'll pass this test easily with no injury to yourself. Why would I
want to have you injured or dead? (BTW, if you are a vampire, you are
already ...er... not exactly alive).
>If I am not a vampire, which of course I
> am not, then I will land safely,
> because vampires can defy gravity.
Which means that you'll land safely if you ARE, not if you aren't.
>This
> would be a scientific experiment.
>
Or rather identification process because (a) AFAIK, science does not
believe in the vampires and (b) it is "if you landed safely then
identification is positive (or negative, depending on attitude) and
not "let's test if <certain type of the species> can defy a gravity".
> On the other hand, I believe you to be of the same species as me, i.e.,
> human,
Is your believe based on some solid facts or is it just a matter of a
blind faith?
I don't recall making any definite statements about my species at
since the times when Mary Gentle was around (and even then I never
insisted on being human).
> and yet you claim to be of another species, as yet unidentified,
Well, if you look back enough into the history, there was rather clear
identification. Let's say that the species is more or less the same as
in Paul's case.
> but
> which has the unusual attribute of being able to separate itself from its
> own shadow.
Yeah, sometimes it can be difficult: my dog keeps following me....
> What purpose this attribute has is unclear.
From dog's point of view it is extremely clear: she is getting
something tasty and/or belly rubbing...
>
> Now, as initimated, the insurance policy of you jumping first might well
> solve the problem.
There is no problem to solve, to start with.
>Whether or not the ground beneath the building is
> concrete, it is hard enough to break your bones and leave their jagged edges
> sticking up from your generously proportioned carcass, which might or might
> not have otherwise survived the fall.
It would make sense only if I claimed to be of the same species as you
implied you are (nobody forced you to make revelations regarding your
teeth, shadow, etc.). This not being the case (and your belief being a
matter of a pure faith), the whole scenario does not make too much
practical sense besides confirming your excessive bloodthirstiness,
which started the whole issue.
>
> Where is your shadow at this point?
At this specific point? At home.
>
> We need to identify this putative new species. I'll call it _milmanus
> umbraseparatibus emanueli_. _Emanueli_, because it is a Minor Detail
> (Copyright C. Emanuel 2009. All Rights Reserved). However, "Alex" for short
> will do.
As old Russian proverb says: "You can call me a kettle as long as you
don't put me on fire". BTW, is "D.Read" some kind of a species-related
indication?
:-)
David Read
<am...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6dd10a26-42a8-4aeb...@o36g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>What I'm thinking is totally irrelevant:
That's true.
>I'm just analyzing the facts supplied by you.
No you're not. You are repeating claims made by yourself.
>What's a big deal?
I've no idea. It's your big deal.
> One of my co-workers is a self-confessed vegan
>vampire. We are in XXI century and have to be open-minded.
Does your vegan friend have shadow? See itself in the mirror? Grow longer
teeth?
>It is other way around: what _you_ wrote makes me (almost) sure that
>you'll pass this test easily with no injury to yourself. Why would I
>want to have you injured or dead? (BTW, if you are a vampire, you are
>already ...er... not exactly alive).
Not at all. I'm betting I simply increase my chances of survival if I land
on you. What's your problem with jumping first?
>>If I am not a vampire, which of course I
>> am not, then I will land safely,
> >because vampires can defy gravity.
Which means that you'll land safely if you ARE, not if you aren't.
And since I'm not, I won't.
>>This
>> would be a scientific experiment.
>Or rather identification process because (a) AFAIK, science does not
>believe in the vampires and (b) it is "if you landed safely then
>identification is positive (or negative, depending on attitude) and
>not "let's test if <certain type of the species> can defy a gravity".
Umm, this was originally your scientific experiment, not mine. As you've
agreed, the idea of your jumping first as insurance was a good point. It
still is.
> On the other hand, I believe you to be of the same species as me, i.e.,
> human,
>>Is your believe based on some solid facts or is it just a matter of a
>>blind faith?
In your case, I suspect very solid facts.
>>I don't recall making any definite statements about my species at
>>since the times when Mary Gentle was around (and even then I never
>>insisted on being human).
> and yet you claim to be of another species, as yet unidentified,
>>Well, if you look back enough into the history, there was rather clear
>>identification. Let's say that the species is more or less the same as
>>in Paul's case.
Oh it's the orc thing. I understand.
> >but
> >which has the unusual attribute of being able to separate itself from its
> >own shadow.
>Yeah, sometimes it can be difficult: my dog keeps following me....
> >What purpose this attribute has is unclear.
>From dog's point of view it is extremely clear: she is getting
>something tasty and/or belly rubbing...
You mean your dog is a metaphorical shadow which travels in a separate car.
Do orcs usually keep chihuahuas?
>
> Now, as initimated, the insurance policy of you jumping first might well
> solve the problem.
>>There is no problem to solve, to start with.
Indeed. The supposed problem was yours.
>>Whether or not the ground beneath the building is
>>concrete, it is hard enough to break your bones and leave their jagged
>>edges
>>sticking up from your generously proportioned carcass, which might or
>>might
>> not have otherwise survived the fall.
>It would make sense only if I claimed to be of the same species as you
>implied you are (nobody forced you to make revelations regarding your
>teeth, shadow, etc.).
Quote me. Again, the implication was all yours, not mine.
>>This not being the case (and your belief being a
>>matter of a pure faith), the whole scenario does not make too much
>>practical sense besides confirming your excessive bloodthirstiness,
>>which started the whole issue.
Which is the more bloodthirsty, the orc or the vampire?
>
>> Where is your shadow at this point?
>At this specific point? At home.
Excellent. With Mrs.Orc.
>
> >We need to identify this putative new species. I'll call it _milmanus
>> umbraseparatibus emanueli_. _Emanueli_, because it is a Minor Detail
>> (Copyright C. Emanuel 2009. All Rights Reserved). However, "Alex" for
>> short
> will do.
>As old Russian proverb says: "You can call me a kettle as long as you
>don't put me on fire". BTW, is "D.Read" some kind of a species-related
>indication?
Clearly, m. umbraseparatibus emanueli is a sub-species of orc.
"D. Read" has always been a handy moniker. It's good for the hearts and
minds thing.
--
Cheers,
David Read