Re: [OT] barbarians

But most of them (the in this time period, anyway) would have been Picts
or
some such and not Scots (who were johnny-come-latelies from Ireland),
right?

Ahh, the movement of tribal groups in an interesting topic.

(So says a Slav/German mix, born in Bohemia, living in the US with
relatives
in Canada-Mom's side- and California-Dad's side, married to an
English/Scot
mix).

Rob

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Atkinson" <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
To: <gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu>
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2001 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: [OT] barbarians

>
> --- "Barclay, Tom" <tomb@bitheads.com> wrote:
> > John said:
> > Yup.  Remember, the original definition of the term
> > now rendered "barbarian" was "Anyone not Greek."
> > This
> > evolved into "Anyone not Roman" when they conquered
> > the part of the world worth having.
> >
> > Tom Replies:
> > Hmmm. I musta missed that in history. I agree with
> > your comment about "Not > Greek" and "Not Roman"
> meaning (in their eyes) > barbarians. OTOH, since they
> > never conquered the land of the Kelts and Druids
> > (just build bleedin' > Hadrian's Wall) which is now
> called Scotland, I > can't possibly see how you
> > conclude "they conquered the part of the world worth
> > having".
>
> Actually they got at least as far north as Edinburg.
> I've visited the ruins of a Roman supply camp there.
>
> Sorry John,
> > but in this one instance, you're just plain wrong.
>
> The other half is that at this time the Scots had not
> yet invented Whiskey so there was absolutely nothing
> of value that far north.
>
> John
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
>