01-27-2007, 07:43 PM
Mike Mike, you’re doing it again, just when I thought you had began to discuss in a more pleasant way.
First of all, PLEASE get your [quotes][/quotes] right, you’re not making yourself more clear by muddling who actually said what.
Secondly, I was talking in absolutes as we were discussing an absolute issue.
I’ll explain my point again, because I see you did not grasp that. I’m not talking about relative trade, but about absolute trade. Absolutely!
The point under discussion was the theory (not necessarily one supported by either of us) that the British were affected by the Justinian plague, whereas the Anglo-Saxons were not, because the British traded with the Byzantines and the Anglo-Saxons did not. That was a theory already heard of in the 1970s, but recently this was expanded into a new theory. In this theory the Anglo-Saxons were not hit by this plague because they did not only not trade with the Byzantines, but the also did not come into contact with the British.
My point is that this does not stand when built on the theory that the plague was the Justinian plague.
The points:
1) The Anglo-Saxons did not trade with the Byzantines directly. I agree to that.
2) The British did trade with the Byzantines directly. I’m not sure about that (much Byzantine goods does not prove direct Byzantine trade), but it seems highly likely.
3) The plague was the Justinian plague because the dates fit. I disagree.
Why?
Look at the other trading partners of the Byzantines, and see if the Justinian plage spread to them.
The Byzantines in Italy or North Africa? No.
The Ostrogoths? No.
The Lombards? No.
The Visigoths or other Spanish peoples? No.
The Franks? No.
So why should I accept that only the Irish and the British were affected by the Justinian plague, only because they suffered from a plague during the same time (roughly)? I fail to see that there is a scientific base for that theory, as we can’t see any other trading partner in between those regions being hit by that Justinian plague.
With that, the argument of the plague not reaching the Anglo-Saxons due to a lack of direct trade with the Byzantines, also fails.
With that, the added argument that this supposedly proved the lack of direct contact between British and Anglo-Saxons, also fails.
You’re darned right I’m talking about absolutes.
First of all, PLEASE get your [quotes][/quotes] right, you’re not making yourself more clear by muddling who actually said what.
Secondly, I was talking in absolutes as we were discussing an absolute issue.
I’ll explain my point again, because I see you did not grasp that. I’m not talking about relative trade, but about absolute trade. Absolutely!
The point under discussion was the theory (not necessarily one supported by either of us) that the British were affected by the Justinian plague, whereas the Anglo-Saxons were not, because the British traded with the Byzantines and the Anglo-Saxons did not. That was a theory already heard of in the 1970s, but recently this was expanded into a new theory. In this theory the Anglo-Saxons were not hit by this plague because they did not only not trade with the Byzantines, but the also did not come into contact with the British.
My point is that this does not stand when built on the theory that the plague was the Justinian plague.
The points:
1) The Anglo-Saxons did not trade with the Byzantines directly. I agree to that.
2) The British did trade with the Byzantines directly. I’m not sure about that (much Byzantine goods does not prove direct Byzantine trade), but it seems highly likely.
3) The plague was the Justinian plague because the dates fit. I disagree.
Why?
Look at the other trading partners of the Byzantines, and see if the Justinian plage spread to them.
The Byzantines in Italy or North Africa? No.
The Ostrogoths? No.
The Lombards? No.
The Visigoths or other Spanish peoples? No.
The Franks? No.
So why should I accept that only the Irish and the British were affected by the Justinian plague, only because they suffered from a plague during the same time (roughly)? I fail to see that there is a scientific base for that theory, as we can’t see any other trading partner in between those regions being hit by that Justinian plague.
With that, the argument of the plague not reaching the Anglo-Saxons due to a lack of direct trade with the Byzantines, also fails.
With that, the added argument that this supposedly proved the lack of direct contact between British and Anglo-Saxons, also fails.
You’re darned right I’m talking about absolutes.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
