Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

King Arthur - The Scottish Dimension

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by marktwain View Post

    The Chronicle of the Princes (the Red Book of Hergest) has this to say:

    “And after joining battle, with cruel fighting on every side, the Flemings and the Normans took to flight, according to their usual custom. And after some of them had been killed, and others burned, aand the limbs of the horses of others broken/ and others taken captive, and the greater part, like fools, drowned in the river, and after losing about three thousand of their men, they returned exceedingly sorrowful to their country.


    \\sarah \woodbury\
    Sarah's not terribly pro French/
    Belgium, is she?
    Revolt of 1136, when the Marcher lords fled West Wales ?

    https://www.sarahwoodbury.com/the-revolt-of-1136/
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Crug_Mawr
    How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
    Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

    Comment


    • #62
      If King Arthur was Scottish, he would have 2 potential 'Saxon' enemies. The first would be the Northumbrians, since they are 'English', and on their doorstep. The second would be the 'Scots' who founded Dal Riata.
      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

      Comment


      • #63
        I am curious: How could the Scots who founded Dal Riata be "potential 'Saxon' enemies" of a Scottish King Arthur?

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by jf42 View Post
          I am curious: How could the Scots who founded Dal Riata be "potential 'Saxon' enemies" of a Scottish King Arthur?
          A Roman author by the name of Sidonius Appollinaris called people, from the island we now call Ireland, Saxons. Given that science, via several means, has disproved an Anglo-Saxon invasion, the only 'Saxons' must be those 'English' already in 'England', almost certainly from Northumbria, or invaders from Ireland.
          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

          Comment


          • #65
            History: Anglo-Saxons

            After the Romans left, Britain was open to invasion by the various Germanic peoples from the Baltic area who had already been making raids on the 'Saxon Shore' in the days of the Empire. Invasions started around 400 AD.
            The Saxons were a Germanic tribe from the Danish peninsula and northern Germany. Their territories originally reached as far as the Rhine but Saxony was conquered by Charlemagne in 792. Under pressure from the Franks, they migrated to various parts of Europe including Britain and pursued piracy in the North Sea and English Channel. They settled in Essex, Sussex and Wessex.
            The Jutes were a Germanic people who may have originated in the Rhineland, rather than Jutland in Denmark, and later settled in Frankish territory. In around 450 AD, they occupied Kent under Hengist and Horsa and conquered the isle of Wight and the Hampshire coast in the early C6th.
            The Angles came from the German/Danish border area, now Schleswig-Holstein and may have been united with the Saxons before invading Britain. They settled largely in East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria.
            By the end of the C6th, the tribal settlements had become seven kingdoms (the Heptarchy) and by the first decade of the C7th, Northumbria was dominant with its king bearing the titles of Rex Anglorum and being accepted as the bretwalda or overlord of the others. Although the tendency is to think of the people that the Normans conquered as 'The Saxons', they were actually a mixture of the various groups and the language now known as Old English, was a combination of several Germanic tongues which developed into Middle English after the second Germanic influx, that of the Norsemen. This took place in several stages, with the Danes arriving by 800 AD and the Norwegians in the north-west by about 900 AD. The third wave of Germanic invasion was that of the Normans. They had only been in France for a few generations but their language and naming system were already heavily influenced, with many old Germanic names taking on 'Normanised' forms.
            The kingdoms were eventually united under the kings of Wessex. During the reign of King Alfred in the C9th, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was begun. Written by monks, it provides a record of history from the Roman invasion to 1154 and an illustration of the development of Old English prose.
            Anglo-Saxon Rulers In the Anglo-Saxon period, England was divided into small kingdoms. They are known as the Heptarchy (lit 'rule of seven') as there were usually seven of them although the number varied occasionally due to amalgamations and divisions. They formed a loose confederation under a single king, the most powerful amongst them who was acknowledged as head king or bretwalda and were eventually united under the kings of Wessex.

            \Bernard Cornwell's web
            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by marktwain View Post
              History: Anglo-Saxons

              After the Romans left, Britain was open to invasion by the various Germanic peoples from the Baltic area who had already been making raids on the 'Saxon Shore' in the days of the Empire. Invasions started around 400 AD.
              The Saxons were a Germanic tribe from the Danish peninsula and northern Germany. Their territories originally reached as far as the Rhine but Saxony was conquered by Charlemagne in 792. Under pressure from the Franks, they migrated to various parts of Europe including Britain and pursued piracy in the North Sea and English Channel. They settled in Essex, Sussex and Wessex.
              The Jutes were a Germanic people who may have originated in the Rhineland, rather than Jutland in Denmark, and later settled in Frankish territory. In around 450 AD, they occupied Kent under Hengist and Horsa and conquered the isle of Wight and the Hampshire coast in the early C6th.
              The Angles came from the German/Danish border area, now Schleswig-Holstein and may have been united with the Saxons before invading Britain. They settled largely in East Anglia, Mercia and Northumbria.
              By the end of the C6th, the tribal settlements had become seven kingdoms (the Heptarchy) and by the first decade of the C7th, Northumbria was dominant with its king bearing the titles of Rex Anglorum and being accepted as the bretwalda or overlord of the others. Although the tendency is to think of the people that the Normans conquered as 'The Saxons', they were actually a mixture of the various groups and the language now known as Old English, was a combination of several Germanic tongues which developed into Middle English after the second Germanic influx, that of the Norsemen. This took place in several stages, with the Danes arriving by 800 AD and the Norwegians in the north-west by about 900 AD. The third wave of Germanic invasion was that of the Normans. They had only been in France for a few generations but their language and naming system were already heavily influenced, with many old Germanic names taking on 'Normanised' forms.
              The kingdoms were eventually united under the kings of Wessex. During the reign of King Alfred in the C9th, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was begun. Written by monks, it provides a record of history from the Roman invasion to 1154 and an illustration of the development of Old English prose.
              Anglo-Saxon Rulers In the Anglo-Saxon period, England was divided into small kingdoms. They are known as the Heptarchy (lit 'rule of seven') as there were usually seven of them although the number varied occasionally due to amalgamations and divisions. They formed a loose confederation under a single king, the most powerful amongst them who was acknowledged as head king or bretwalda and were eventually united under the kings of Wessex.

              \Bernard Cornwell's web
              This was the accepted view in most quarters, including mine, until fairly recently. The debate had always between archaeologists and historians. With the aid of linguists the latter had generally won the argument concerning the period 400-600AD, but with recent scientific discoveries, the AS invasion is now considered at least suspect. These include DNA and isotope analysis of teeth.

              If Roman authors had been read, then it would have been evident the proto-English people were already speaking a proto-English language (using G Julius Caesar and Tacitus), and that even Irish (or possibly Welsh) pirates were called Saxons. The clincher is that the Romans named defenses after the areas they were defending. The Saxon Shore Forts defended areas such as Essex (East Saxon) and Sussex (South Saxon).

              The fact remains is that there was almost certainly no traditional AS invasion. This 'history' appears to stem from Gildas's sermon, called On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain.
              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                Rex is King in Latin. However, most kings in Britain were probably no more powerful than a Count in power, and likely to control a similar territory to a modern county.
                Yes - but I noticed in English translations (Dutch too) sometimes "Prince" is used (presumably "princeps" ?), to refer to what we would call a King or even Emperor….

                I suspect that to (early) medieval writers there could be a nuance in "types" of "kings" there, not sure
                High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                  Yes - but I noticed in English translations (Dutch too) sometimes "Prince" is used (presumably "princeps" ?), to refer to what we would call a King or even Emperor….

                  I suspect that to (early) medieval writers there could be a nuance in "types" of "kings" there, not sure
                  'King Arthur' was originally a Leader of Battles.
                  Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror
                  https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1972/1972-h/1972-h.htm
                  This 2nd oldest source on the matter reveals Arthur is not a king. Latin for leader is Dux, and a specific Roman military rank in this period. He was the supreme military commander in a province, but second to a Governor in authority. Arthur is a general according to Nennius, a Patton rather than a Roosevelt as an example.
                  How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                  Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                    This 2nd oldest source on the matter reveals Arthur is not a king. Latin for leader is Dux, and a specific Roman military rank in this period. He was the supreme military commander in a province, but second to a Governor in authority. Arthur is a general according to Nennius, a Patton rather than a Roosevelt as an example.
                    Interesting - when did he become "King Arthur" then ?

                    Presumably in the later middle ages when kings were all the rage and the old Roman ranks meant little any more ?
                    High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                      Interesting - when did he become "King Arthur" then ?

                      Presumably in the later middle ages when kings were all the rage and the old Roman ranks meant little any more ?
                      Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century.
                      How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                      Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Nick the Noodle View Post
                        Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century.
                        There are a number of detailed analyses of that text available…

                        At a quick glance though he's referred to as "just" Arthur - not "King Arthur" ?

                        https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.medievalac...a0057_head_006

                        And now I need someone with a more detailed knowledge of Latin than I have

                        Erat Arthurus quindecim annorum iuvenis, inauditae virtutis

                        It was a king Arthur in the fifteen-year-old young man, of unheard-of virtue,
                        ??

                        Is the word "Arthur" itself taken to mean "King" then ?
                        Last edited by Snowygerry; 22 Nov 19, 07:57.
                        High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post

                          There are a number of detailed analyses of that text available…

                          At a quick glance though he's referred to as "just" Arthur - not "King Arthur" ?

                          https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.medievalac...a0057_head_006

                          And now I need someone with a more detailed knowledge of Latin than I have






                          ??

                          Is the word "Arthur" itself taken to mean "King" then ?
                          Given that the book is entitled History of the Kings of Britain, you might be looking too deeply. However, that is the type of thought process that is required to understand this topic .
                          His dad was king, and Arthur was his sole male child, although Arthur himself was illegitimate.

                          Totally stole your link for the companion thread .
                          How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                          Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Later on in the text he is indeed referred to as "King Arthur" though….

                            Tunc rex Arthurus,sumpto festinanter consilio, petitioni eorum acquievit.
                            High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
                              Later on in the text he is indeed referred to as "King Arthur" though….
                              I believe there is reasonable evidence that Geoffrey of Monmouth stole a history of a Scottish Prince, as a framework to place a King Arthur story upon. Geoffreys version is not history afaik, simply a mixture of propaganda and great story telling imho.
                              How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
                              Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Bernard Cornwell has an Arthurian trilogy. Typical Cornwell, set in pseudo history, but fiction. I'm about half way through the second book. They are pretty good so far.

                                https://www.amazon.com/King-Arthur-T.../dp/B015CLB7KI

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X