Celtic & Latin titles of leader
Graham Nowland
I've noticed that Pendragon and Vortigern are both often referred to as
British language words for over-king or head leader. I wonder if someone who
knows a bit of old British could confirm the differences in the two words
how they read in the original and why there are two.
Would they have been translations of Latin terms for some post Roman type
office which amounts the seam. If so what are the possible Latin names for
the overall British leader.
While you're at it I would really like to know what is the Celtic word for
boar the animal type I mean?
Kind regards
Graham
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: I've noticed that Pendragon and Vortigern are both often referred to as
: British language words for over-king or head leader. I wonder if someone who
: knows a bit of old British could confirm the differences in the two words
: how they read in the original and why there are two.
: Would they have been translations of Latin terms for some post Roman type
: office which amounts the seam. If so what are the possible Latin names for
: the overall British leader.
The two seem unlikely to be differing translations of some non-British
original. They operate at significantly different semantic
levels. "Vortigern" is a preposition+noun compound, composed of "vor" (=
later Welsh "ar", but "gor-" or "gwr-" often in compounds) with a range of
meanings very similar to English "on" but often including a sense of
"power over", with "tigern" a straightforward, literal word meaning
"ruler". "Pendragon", on the other hand, is far more
metaphoric. "Pen" (lit. "head") may come to its use as "chief,
foremost" either via a general metaphor relating elevation and importance,
or more directly from an understanding of the head as the controlling part
of the body. "Dragon" (borrowed from Latin "dracon-") is one of a large
set of poetic metaphors for a warrior, hero, or leader (the concepts being
fairly intertwined). It is commonly found alone in medieval Welsh, as
well as the compound "pendragon" being found applied to other rulers than
Arthur. But "dragon" never became an ordinary, unmarked noun meaning
"ruler" -- it always retained its strongly metaphoric sense. For these
reasons, the two epithets seem unlikely to result from different attempts
to translation the same non-British original (Latin or otherwise).
: While you're at it I would really like to know what is the Celtic word for
: boar the animal type I mean?
The usual modern (and medieval) Welsh term is "baedd", but you find traces
of an older use of "twrch" (as in the name of the fabulous boar being
hunted in the tale of Culhwch & Olwen).
--
*********************************************************
Heather Rose Jones hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
**********************************************************
Pamela Maddison
"draig" or "dragon" are used as terms for "warrior" in Welsh poetry. The
actual name "Pendragon" is only appended to Uthyr, who is around in a lot of
early material but only later is suggested as Arthur's father. The earliest
material give his mother's genealogy but say nothing at all about his
father.
2. Vortigern: much more difficult territory in a way. It literally means
"over-king", "high king", but may be a name as opposed to a title. I know a
lot of writers suggest it is a title, but I'm not happy with one-off
titles - there is only one person referred to by this term. It isn't used
again, unlike the Saxon "Bretwalda". There are similar names at the time -
Vortimer and Vortipor - and I personally think they were either auspicious
names given to boys of high rank or "throne names". There is some
indication in some Welsh tales that in earlier times boys in particular were
not given their adult name until they were old enough to bear arms, which
may have an effect on the kind of name they were given.
"Dragon" is from the oblique case of "Draco", Latin for "dragon, serpent"
that was apparently used for the cavalry standard; we have a good
description of it in the second century from Arrian as being multi-coloured
and whipping around in motion. Much of the Roman cavalry was of Celtic
origin, which may explain the spread of the term.
"Vortigern" is pure Celtic. There is no suggestion in any of the texts that
he operated outside Maxima Caesariensis - the Roman province that covered
South East England.
The main rank that could operate in more than one province was Dux. Roman
authorities were very cautious about giving anybody a big enough power base
to make a bid for rule - after all, it had happened often enough, sometimes
successfully in the long term, sometimes only in the short term (Postumus in
Gaul, Carausius in Britain). In this context it's interesting that the
Welsh tales don't call Arthur a King, he is always "the Emperor Arthur",
which is the logical next step for any successful general with ambition.
I rather doubt that there would have been any Celtic term for an over-all
ruler, as this was such a very rare thing. The nearest anybody came in Gaul
was Vercingetorix (another similiar name), it was all Cassivellaunus could
do to get the kings in Kent to co-operate with him, and Caractacus was
handed over to the Romans by Cartimandua. Inter-tribal rivalries, before
and after, were so strong that I have difficulty in seeing it as a Celtic
idea at all; I think you would need to be looking at Latin terminology,
either Dux or Imperator.
The only Welsh word I know for "boar" is "baedd"
Graham Nowland <graham....@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:7n%o5.36735$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
sedd...@my-deja.com
> The only Welsh word I know for "boar" is "baedd"
>
I wonder what that tells about Mount Badon, or Mynnyd Baedden (the
welsh counterpart).
Seddy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Flynn
<sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o327d$9l7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > The only Welsh word I know for "boar" is "baedd"
>
> welsh counterpart).
>
A number of authors have made the case that Bath=Badon. You would imagine
that the name "Bath" comes from the hot waters, but it does not. Called
Aquae Sulis by the Romans, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles describing the capture
of Bath in 577 calls it Badonceaster, the "City of Badon". In British
(Welsh) usage the "th" sound was usually indicated by a double d, but
sometimes also by a single d, according to Phillips & Keatman. They say that
Bathon was a British name.
There is a similar Saxon name Badda, probably a god or hero, from which
we get Badbury from Baddanbyrig or Baddanburg, meaning "fort of Badda".
Michael
sedd...@my-deja.com
"Michael Flynn" <mef...@home.com> wrote:
>
> <sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o327d$9l7
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> >
> > welsh counterpart).
> >
> Seddy,
> A number of authors have made the case that Bath=Badon. You would
imagine
> that the name "Bath" comes from the hot waters, but it does not.
Called
> Aquae Sulis by the Romans, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles describing the
capture
> of Bath in 577 calls it Badonceaster, the "City of Badon". In British
> (Welsh) usage the "th" sound was usually indicated by a double d, but
> sometimes also by a single d, according to Phillips & Keatman. They
say that
> Bathon was a British name.
> There is a similar Saxon name Badda, probably a god or hero, from
which
> we get Badbury from Baddanbyrig or Baddanburg, meaning "fort of
Badda".
> Michael
Nice one Michael. That's not soemthing I've heard. Can you supply the
full details of Phillips & Keatman?
The implication, if I read it right, is that the relevant Badon/Baedden
name for the battle is essentially British, and not Saxon, which would
rule out those Saxon-derived names you mentioned.
The assumption that Bath is a derivative of Bathen/Baedden also implies
that Bath is a choice contender. However, my understanding was that the
Caester suffix was Saxon and that there aren't too many Saxon
placenames that utilise a British element.
There is a Mynnyd Baedden (hill of the boar?)in Wales just north west
of Bridgend which was mentioned by Blacket & Wilson (cry out in alarm).
What primary source made the first mention of the battle?
Regards
indr...@my-deja.com
Irish Baidid "dive/sunk under," Welsh Boddi "to drown," Gaulish
Baditis "Water Plant [= Latin Clava Herculis]") from Proto Indo
European *GwADh- "dive in /sink under."
Aquae Sulis - which means "Waters of (the goddess) Sulis (Minerva)" -
would likely have been the Latin name of the healing temple complex,
but "the Bath" might have been a Celtic by-name for the site.
-C. Gwinn
Michael Flynn
Badon without seeing this point brought up. The NG is certainly a marvelous
tool for research. I hope these are archived for the next author to write a
book on the subject.
Michael
<indr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o3hcs$sb7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Malcolm Martin
from sedd...@my-deja.com contains these words:
> What primary source made the first mention of the battle?
I think I'll go for Gildas (c 542 ?) as the first primary source
still extant in its original form.
Nennius is possibly the second 9 (c 840 ?), although if the reference
to the Battle of Badon in Nennius does actually come from a
pre-Nennian poem or song, then that poem or song may pre-date Gildas.
(Since it is a song/poem which stops at Badon, and does not mention
any battles after that, I would tentively suggest that it was
composed shortly after Badon as a tribute to the victor.) Whilst on
this, does anyone know if anybody has tried to recover a Welsh or
Brittonic proposed original poem from the Latin of Nennius?
But, and coming back to the question of Badon, I seem to recall that
Nennius uses the same word elsewhere to refer to the hot springs of
Bath, hence the identification by some of the Battle of Badon with Bath
I can't think of any other earlier mentions in the poetry I've read,
but others here may have a different take on this.
--
Kind Regards
Malcolm Martin
London UK
malcolm...@zetnet.co.uk
Michael Flynn
<sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o3gsc$rk4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <Y8ap5.106812$3E6.9...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
> >
>
> Nice one Michael. That's not soemthing I've heard. Can you supply the
> full details of Phillips & Keatman?
>
House p.87
They describe themselves as historical detectives and have done a similar
treatment on Shakespeare.
They come to a novel conclusion about who Arthur was and make a good case
for it. They don't make any unsupported statements. You get to follow their
reasoning every step of the way.
>
> What primary source made the first mention of the battle?
>
the battle of Badon Hill. Nennius refers to Mons Badonis, the mount of
Badon, not Mount Badon (which would have been Mons Bado) The Annals of
Wales calls it the battle of Badon, leaving off mention of a hill. Geoffrey
of Monmouth places the battle of Badon Hill in the vicinity of Bath. (PFJ
Turner The Real King Arthur, p208)
Also Nennius in his list of the marvels of Britain, tells of the hot
lake where the baths of Badon (balnea badonis) are, in the country of the
Hwicce. These were an Anglo-Saxdon tribe that occuoied the Worchester and
Gloucestershire areas and part of Avon county, including what is now Bath.
(Phillips & Keatman p88)
There are some very recent posts here that discuss the critical strategic
position of Bath - worth reading.
morgan
<> > The only Welsh word I know for "boar" is "baedd"
> I wonder what that tells about Mount Badon, or Mynnyd Baedden (the
> welsh counterpart).
Hmm...if your talking about the hill in Maesteg, then that would suggest to
me , that it was quite literally a mountain named after the large amount of
wild-boar which were found there in the dark ages.
Or... some kind of metaphorical name to do with a hoard of invading saxons??
But then again us Welsh wern't that inventive with naming mountains/hills
were we, Mynydd-y-Gaer, Mynydd Huw etc..
It's like Ifor the Engine, Dai the Baker, Jones the Butcher, Arthur the King
if it quacks like a duck its a duck
We know where it's at..right there under your nose.
Graham Nowland
news:8o2cui$6c4$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> 1. Pen dragon: "chief dragon" in the figurative sence of "leading
>warrior" - "draig" or "dragon" are used as terms for "warrior" in Welsh
poetry. The
> actual name "Pendragon" is only appended to Uthyr, who is around in a lot
>of early material but only later is suggested as Arthur's father. The
>earliest material give his mother's genealogy but say nothing at all about
his
> father.
Pamela, thanks for this interesting reply. I am caught by the Welsh looking
version you give "Uthyr and you also mention early material. What is the
earliest material mentioning Uthyr and what's the verdict on his
historicity. And if Uthyr just means "trerrible" or "beastly" or whatever
it was someone (it could have been you come to think of it) said recently -
could Uther Perndragon then, even remotely, be an appellation for someone
with a completely different name. If so is there any possibility of
speculating about potential candidates. Also can say a little more about
the earliest materail of his mother's genealogy?
> "Dragon" is from the oblique case of "Draco", Latin for "dragon, serpent"
> that was apparently used for the cavalry standard ...
>
Yes I noticed Gildas also used Draco to refer to Maelglas (one of the five
tyrants). In that case without the "pen." Dragons also have powerful earth
spirit associations.
> 2. Vortigern: much more difficult territory in a way. It literally means
> "over-king", "high king", but may be a name as opposed to a title. I know
> a lot of writers suggest it is a title, but I'm not happy with one-off
> titles - there is only one person referred to by this term.
> "Vortigern" is pure Celtic. There is no suggestion in any of the texts
that
> he operated outside Maxima Caesariensis - the Roman province that covered
> South East England.
Again interesting. Vortigern's base is sometimes claimed to be Gloucester or
Cirencester across in Britannica Prima. But If Vortigern actually operated
as a leader in MC, which makes a lot of sense, could he have been one of 4
provincial leaders derived from the four later Roman provinces? Or perhaps
only 3 if Lincoln was lost early
It suggests a three tiered heirarchy, which would certainly be a lot easier
to manage. By this I mean Dux or even Imperatur at the top, 3/4 provincial
leaders in the middle called ??? in Latin and ???? in Celtic and then local
kings. Not too different from the Late Roman system.
>it's interesting that the
> Welsh tales don't call Arthur a King, he is always "the Emperor Arthur",
> which is the logical next step for any successful general with ambition.
I've read somewhere that there was a letter from Honorius in 410 authorising
the use of the term Imperatur in Britain as a separate state. Perhaps it
wasn't quite that explicit but I would be intersted to know the details on
that.
Kind regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
news:<8o21r5$971$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> "Vortigern" is a preposition+noun compound, composed of "vor" (=
> later Welsh "ar", but "gor-" or "gwr-" often in compounds) with a range of
> meanings very similar to English "on" but often including a sense of
> "power over", with "tigern" a straightforward, literal word meaning
> "ruler".
Thanks Heather. Could it then add up to "power over rulers." And if so could
this suggestion of "overkingship" apply to a provincial leadership role?
Also would the distinction explain the confusion between Vortigern and
Vitalinus?
>"Pendragon", on the other hand, is far more
> metaphoric............. It is commonly found alone in medieval Welsh, as
> well as the compound "pendragon" being found applied to other rulers than
> Arthur.
Indeed!! Could you supply more details and sources?
Kind regards
Michael Flynn
> > Welsh tales don't call Arthur a King, he is always "the Emperor Arthur",
> > which is the logical next step for any successful general with ambition.
>
authorising
> the use of the term Imperatur in Britain as a separate state. Perhaps it
> wasn't quite that explicit but I would be intersted to know the details on
> that.
>
contents of Honorius' letter, but he abdicated responsibility for the
defense of Britain and suggested that they organize their own forces. This
effectively ended his authority over Britain. It has been suggested by some
that he sent Ambrosius Aurelianus or perhaps some other as a
miltary/technical advisor with templates for manufacturing weapons etc.
(weapons manufacturing had been an imperial government monoply conducted
almost exclusively at factories in modern Yugoslavia for the whole empire.
Even repair and refurbishment was done there.)
The authority (and necessity) of declaring a local emperor is implied
because a rather complex bureaucracy existed in Britain and key posts had to
be appointed by an emperor on a regular basis. most terms of office were for
one or two years to prevent any one person from amassing too much power. One
person would be given political authority, someone lese would have military
authority, and both depended on the man who controlled the finances. There
were tax collectors, building inspectors, customs, road maintenance, city
police. It became a question if local leaders would recognize that
authority without the army to back it up, but the forms remained for a while
and I'm sure that it was useful for trade to continue to recognize
contracts, courts, insurance, landlord/tennant law and all that. The system
was created to depend on an emperor at the top. A vacuum was created that
would be filled by any strong leader that rose to eminence.
Michael
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: <hrj...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
: news:<8o21r5$971$2...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
:> "Vortigern" is a preposition+noun compound, composed of "vor" (=
:> later Welsh "ar", but "gor-" or "gwr-" often in compounds) with a range of
:> meanings very similar to English "on" but often including a sense of
:> "power over", with "tigern" a straightforward, literal word meaning
:> "ruler".
: Thanks Heather. Could it then add up to "power over rulers." And if so could
: this suggestion of "overkingship" apply to a provincial leadership role?
: Also would the distinction explain the confusion between Vortigern and
: Vitalinus?
The precise semantic interpretation of this sort of compound is open to
argument -- it could be intended to be understood as "over-king" in the
sense of one who is over kings, or in the sense of a king who is over
(other people). But it's also worth keeping in mind that it _could_ be
"just a name". Both elements in the compound occur regularly in personal
names of people who weren't prominent rulers -- they are part of the pool
of ordinary "name parts" -- as contrasted, for example, with
"pendragon" where neither compounding element also occurs as an element in
personal names.
:>"Pendragon", on the other hand, is far more
:> metaphoric............. It is commonly found alone in medieval Welsh, as
:> well as the compound "pendragon" being found applied to other rulers than
:> Arthur.
: Indeed!! Could you supply more details and sources?
The entry on "pendragon" in the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru (Univ. of Wales
Dictionary -- the historic dictionary of Welsh) provides early citations
of use. I recall that one was in a poem referring to one of the famous
Llywelyns (ap Iorwerth, I think), but I'm in the office at the moment, so
I can't look up the specifics.
Graham Nowland
news:thxp5.107672$3E6.9...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
>I don't know the exact contents of Honorius' letter, but he abdicated
responsibility for the
> defense of Britain and suggested that they organize their own forces. This
> effectively ended his authority over Britain.
Michael
I've since remembered that this argument is contested, not only about
whether it actually amounted to a hand over, but whether it even applied to
Britain. There is apparently some evidence that the so called "rescript"
letter was sent to Brettia in Italy, not to Britain. Even if it was actually
sent to Britain such letters were apparently not unusual at the time and did
not mean the Empire was giving up on a province altogether.
They were formal responses to questions, often asking for help. In addition
the Honorius letter was apparently addressed to the Civitates (local
governors) and not to the Vicarius (governor general) of whatever province
it was sent to. That would reduce its authority to a mere statement of the
local position rather than an abdication. I believe at this time the
Vicarius was answerable to the Prefecture of Gaul which didn't go under
until the late 5th.
About then the Roman historian Zosimus, formerly a Comes in an Eastern
Province himself, wrote about the British wind up from a well informed
position. He said the British expelled the Roman leadership by force of arms
in 409, abandoned Roman laws and established their own administration.
What implication that would have on the titles and powers of the leaders of
independent Britain is unclear to me. Peter Salway suggests that once the
British expelled the Roman leadership London stopped being the base of
central authority and a more provincial approach was taken.
Perhaps all this is why Vortigern and Ambrosius are never mentioned not as
emperors. The fact that Arthur on the other hand is often mentioned as
emperor and not with Celtic words for overking or head-warrior, does support
the quite widely held theory that he might have been trying to re-establish
the Roman system.
Again Salway suggests that much of the 5th century civil strife may have
been caused by a battle for supremacy between Pelagian and Catholic
parties - Vortigern for example as a wavering Pelagian, Ambrosius as a
highly regarded Catholic. This might be one reason why no soldiers were sent
by Rome or Gaul in response to the letter to Aetius in Gaul asking for help,
but Germanus was sent (twice) from Gaul to suppress the British Pelagians.
It's an interesting argument but doesn't fully explain the view that comes
across in the early saint's lives of Arthur. There he is mentioned as a
pagan, rapist, domineering lout. Perhaps that was the Catholic punishment
for being a Pelagian, or perhaps Arthur was really what they said.
Perhaps though Arthur the "Emperor" was just trying to recapture the glory
days before Catholicism became the state religion. Once the various pieces
all come into place you certainly start forming the impression that the
early Catholics would rather Arthur had not existed.
It's to try and unravel some of this that I am asking these questions about
leadership titles and I appreciate your interest.
>It has been suggested by some
> that he sent Ambrosius Aurelianus or perhaps some other as a
> miltary/technical advisor with templates for manufacturing weapons etc.
> (weapons manufacturing had been an imperial government monoply conducted
> almost exclusively at factories in modern Yugoslavia for the whole empire.
> Even repair and refurbishment was done there.)
I'm glad you put in a bit of caution there because even with Ambroisius's
famous elasticity of age, he is unlikely to have been sent to Britain by
Honorius - except remotely at the very end the late 420s I think. If that
were true and he was also still around to take over from Vortigern around
460, his value as a hands-on warrior would have been limited - right at the
time when his leadership and warrior powers needed to be at their height.
Some people also try to put Ambrosius at Badon, ie at 495 the earliest date
quoted, but they use questionable and incomplete research to back this up.
There is also a "two Ambroisus's theory" to get round the time problem.
Your point about weapons manufacture is very interesting and I am wondering
who your source is, so I would appreciate details. There is very little
about Late-Roman weapons manufacture easily to hand, which seems a bit odd
when you think about it.
My question is this. If the Romans in Britain controlled the weapons supply
and maintenance from an overseas source, then after 409-10 wouldn't the
British have had a serious problem? In this monopoly conjecture the British,
once expert weapons smiths, would have had no access for 400 years and a
very difficult technology lost.
I understand the Celt smiths were in fact kept in continuous employment at
Roman legionary centres and major settlemens, although in secure forges and
workshops. My undertanding is they made and repaired weapons in Britain
using a near-steel tempering technique called the "bloom forging" process.
This wiould have made them available to make weapons for an independent
Britain.
If this is actually wrong and weapons were an overseas monopoly in Roman
Britain how did the post Romans, Vortigern, Ambrosius, Arthur and so on,
supply their armies once the break with Rome took place? A lost technology
of that kind may take generations to recover but the independent British
obviously had a good weapon supply and maintenance system.
Kind regards
Graham
news_surfer
> There is a Mynnyd Baedden (hill of the boar?)in Wales just north west
> of Bridgend which was mentioned by Blacket & Wilson (cry out in alarm).
>
>
>
> Seddy
>
Of course, Seddy, if people would only read "The Holy Kingdom" instead of
crying out in alarm at the mention of Wilson and Blackett's names, then they
would find many of the answers they are looking for.:-)
1) Vortigern is called Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau in the Welsh genealogies.
"Theyrn" means "king" in Welsh, which is true. He was King of Britain after
he usurped the throne from Cystennyn Fendigaid (Constantine the Blessed).
"Gwr" means man or husband. So "Gwrtheyrn" would appear to mean "man-king"
or perhaps "common-man-king". According to my Welsh dictionary the word
"gwrthun" means "repugnant", "odious", "absurd" and "gwrthuni" means
"odiousness", "absurdity". Taken together it is clear that the full title
Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau in effect means "the odious man who usurped the
kingship". Which is a pretty good description of Vortigern. In the triads he
is branded as: one of the "three arrant traitors", one of the "three
notorious drunkards" and one of the "three persons who along with their
posterity were subjected to disgrace and divested of privilege for ever".
2) In the Brut Tysilio and other places, it is stated that before becoming
king Vortigern was ruler over a territory called Ewyas and Erging. This is
the valley of the River Wye stretching up into Herefordshire. It would have
included Gloucester, which is said to have been founded by his ancestor
"Gloyw Gwalltir" or "Claudius of the wide lands". He was therefore a
western lord and it is difficult to reconcile this with a connection with
south east England. In any case his most infamous act (in the eyes of the
Welsh anyway) was not his drunkeness but rather his giving of Kent as a
foothold to the Saxons. This alone suggests he had little personal interest
in South East England being a lord from the west.
3) Vortigern's son Vortimer is called "Gwrthefyr" in Welsh, which again
would appear to be a title. In fact he also is given the epithet "Vendigaid"
meaning "Blessed". In my dictionary "gwrthryfela" means "to rebel" and
"gwrthryfelwr" means "rebel" or "mutineer". Since Vortimer rebelled against
his father and displaced him from the throne, I would take his title
"Gwrthefyr" as coming from this root. He would appear to be the same person
as Audeyrn or Edeyrn. In "The Genealogies and Families of the Saints of the
Island of Britain" he is given the following notice: "Aurdeyrn, the son of
Gwrtheyn Gwrthenau, was a saint in Llan Edeyrn, in Cibwyr, where his church
is, and there he lies. He founded there a college for three hundred saints,
which was demolished by the Saxons in the time of Cadwalader the Blessed".
The church of Edeyrn may have been demolished but it was obviously rebuilt
later as it is today the Church of St Mellons on the outskirts of Cardiff.
If you go there, provided the modern day vandals who are such a plague in
the area haven't destroyed it, you will see St. Edeyrn represented in full
armour in one of the stained glass windows.
4) Pendragon would appear to be a title meaning "commander-in-chief". The
word "Pen" means "head" and it seems that local lords were, at least
sometimes, referred to as "dragons". For example King Crair, known to the
Romans as Carausius had the title "Dragon of Gwent". A later "Dragon of
Gwent" was
Casnar Wledig, who with his brother King Euddav, or "Octavius" (the father
of Queen Helen the mother of Constantine the Great) drove the Romans out of
Southeast Wales c.312 AD.
5) As has been noted elsewhere the word "Baedd" means "boar". The boar was
an important Saxon motif and was often used to decorate their helmets. Boars
are depicted on the famous Sutton Hoo helmet and boar crests feature on the
"Pioneer helmet" the "Benty Grange helmet" and the "Coppergate helmet". The
poem Beowulf confirms that Saxon princes often wore boar crests on their
helmet. Seen from this perspective, it becomes clear that the Mabinogion
story concerning Twrch Trwyth (the hog which lies) refers to a Saxon or even
Vandal invasion of Britain. Since there is a long, local tradition that
Mynydd-Baidan is the site of a battle fought after the Romans left Britain
and various place names in the area are linked with this, it seems
reasonable to believe that this hill-top takes its name from being the site
of the Battle of Badon or Baedon, famously fought by King Arthur to preserve
his kingdom. The battle is not the Battle of Bath but rather the "Battle of
Mount of the Boar".
Adrian Gilbert.
Michael Flynn
Interesting post. Thanks for the reply. As to the arms manufacturing
monopoly, I could not find where I read about all the factories all being in
one area but I did find material that contradicted that. Maybe it had been
true only for one period. I believe that the information I read was in
reference to the earlier imperial period and would have been before the
Claudian invasion anyway.
There is relevant information in "The Late Roman Army" by Pat Southern &
Karen R. Dixon, Yale University Press, 1996. Starting at page 89 are two
pages of discussion about state factories. It says that by the 4th century
most military equipment was produced at state factories (fabricae). The
Notitia Dignitatum lists their locations along with the type of goods
produced. The book does not have anything specific to say about Britain,
but it would be interesting to see what Notitia Dignitatum says about
factories in Britain. If any factories were in Armorica I would expect that
these would also be readily accessible to the British at the time of Arthur.
Looking at the big picture, I would expect that the knowledge of the
stirrup would be the key strategic factor that could turn the balance of
power in favor of the besieged Bretons. The Romans had learned of the
stirrup from fighting the Persians and by the time around 410 had developed
and used with great success (at least one time) the concept of heavy armored
cavalry using stirrups and actually fighting from horseback and defeating a
greatly superior force of infantry while suffering no casualties (sorry,
don't remember the source). The problem with this technology was that it was
very expensive and required much training and men who were quite expert with
horses. It may have also required a special breed of horse to carry all the
weight, as the horse also was covered in chain mail.
This knowledge would have come from Rome and in that day was probably a
closely guarded secret. This knowledge would be an appropriate response from
Rome to a request for military aid.
If this knowledge was forthcoming, it would also explain the origin of
the romances about Arthur as the "first knight" in the medeival sense. This
type of warfare was revolutionary and if it were carried out with great
success it would have been very impressive and would be an inspiration for
story tellers for a long time to come.
A thought about the Pelagian vs Catholic controversy. Accepting the
story that Joseph of Arimathea established a Christian church at Glastonbury
around AD38, this gives us a church that develops quite independetly of the
Roman church and it is to be expected that there would be doctrinal
differences. Jowett says that for the first 300 years or so that the British
bishops were always given preferential seating at international gatherings
because of the primacy of the British church. It wasn't until later that the
bishop of Rome assumed a position of primacy.
Patrick was raised in the British church but before he started his
ministry he was trained and commisioned in Europe by the Catholic Church. I
believe that Pelagius probably reflected the attitudes of the British Church
although on individual points no doubt he did his own thinking.
It seems that one important difference was that that the British bishops
were always adamant that Mary was not to be deified. Jowetts position is
that Mary had wanted to live as a private person without having to deal with
Christian pilgrims worshiping her and the British bishops protected her and
allowed her to live out a simple, quiet life. He says she died at
Glastonbury at age 66 in AD48, attended by all the disciples who were still
living at the time, and was buried under the floor of what is now called
Marys' Chapel.
Another feature of the British church, according to Jowett is that there
was an alliance with certain elements of the druids who accepted Jesus as
the fulfillment of one of their prophesies. Other druids did not. This could
explain how Merlin gets into the mix, whoever he is. I have thought that
Merlin may be a position rather than a person, as he pops up in so many
places and times.
It is interesting how the Church of England preserves Druid styles,
surely without realizing it.
Michael
Graham Nowland <graham....@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:hJRp5.38542$c5.1...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
hrj...@socrates.berkeley.edu
: 1) Vortigern is called Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau in the Welsh genealogies.
: "Theyrn" means "king" in Welsh, which is true. He was King of Britain after
More accurately, "teyrn" means "ruler, prince, etc." in Welsh -- the
specific phonological form "-theyrn" is caused by the preceding "r" in
this particular name. (Note that the same name-element shows up as
"-deyrn" in the name "Cyndeyrn", and as "teyrn" in the name
"Teyrnon".) This sort of detail can be important when trying to establish
derivations and etymologies, so it's a good idea to be in the habit of
being precise.
: he usurped the throne from Cystennyn Fendigaid (Constantine the Blessed).
: "Gwr" means man or husband. So "Gwrtheyrn" would appear to mean "man-king"
: or perhaps "common-man-king". According to my Welsh dictionary the word
Except that the earliest recordings of the name clearly use the form
"Vor-" (over, above) which is clearly distinguished from contemporary
"vir-" (man) -- phonological changes in the two didn't lead to them
falling together until the Old Welsh period.
: "gwrthun" means "repugnant", "odious", "absurd" and "gwrthuni" means
: "odiousness", "absurdity". Taken together it is clear that the full title
Again, working from the later forms rather than the earliest forms can
lead to hypotheses that those earlier forms would make impossible. The
earliest recording of this byname is Nennius' 9th century "Guortheneu".
Now, "gwrthun" is a compound deriving from "gwrth" (in compounds often
with a sense of "against, contrary to") and "mun" (a root that is obsolete
as an independent word in recorded Welsh, but appears in a number of
compounds and has as sense of "thought, mind"). This derivation can be
clearly seen in Medievl Welsh forms of the word such as 13th c.
"gurthvun", 14th c. "[g]urthmun" (retaining a more archaic spelling
without the internal lenition). In Nennius' time, one would expect
something similar to this second form, therefore the form that actually
does appear in Nennius cannot be equivalent to modern Welsh
"gwrthun". The GPC suggests instead a compound of "gwor+tenau",
i.e. "very skinny" (with the same "-r+t-" > "-rth-" sound-change as
mentioned above).
: included Gloucester, which is said to have been founded by his ancestor
: "Gloyw Gwalltir" or "Claudius of the wide lands". He was therefore a
Except that the eponymous Gloyw is a back-formation from the place-name,
rather than the other way around. I'm not following the proposition that
"Gwalltir = wide lands" rather than the more clearly transparent
"long-hair".
: meaning "Blessed". In my dictionary "gwrthryfela" means "to rebel" and
: "gwrthryfelwr" means "rebel" or "mutineer". Since Vortimer rebelled against
: his father and displaced him from the throne, I would take his title
: "Gwrthefyr" as coming from this root. He would appear to be the same person
You've completely lost me on "gwrthryfel-" to "Gwrthefyr". Etymology
doesn't work by randomly rearranging sounds and tossing out the ones you
can't use. How do you integrate your proposed derivtion with the earliest
surviving forms of this name, Gildas' "Vortiporius" and the "Guortepir" of
Harleian ms. 3859 (ca. 10th c.)? Particularly since it's fairly
straightforward to reconstruct a 10th c. form of "gwrthryfel-" as
"gurthri#el-" (where it's unclear without more digging whether # should be
"m" or "b").
geoff
arms was a necessary legal one. Private citizens were not allowed to bear
arms, or to organise themselves for defence- unless they received official
Sanction.
Re the evidence that the British cities and their magisterial/curial classes
threw out government officials, that is usually taken to mean that they
were reacting against the rule of Constantine (who assumed the purple in the
year of the three Emperors), not that of the Empire per se.
Cheers,
Geoff.
Graham Nowland
> Badon likely comes from the Celtic root *BAD- "immerse in liquid" (note
> Irish Baidid "dive/sunk under," Welsh Boddi "to drown," Gaulish
> Baditis "Water Plant [= Latin Clava Herculis]") from Proto Indo
> European *GwADh- "dive in /sink under."
>
> Aquae Sulis - which means "Waters of (the goddess) Sulis (Minerva)" -
> would likely have been the Latin name of the healing temple complex,
> but "the Bath" might have been a Celtic by-name for the site.
>
> -C. Gwinn
That seems pretty definitive. Thanks C Gwinn. It allows the inference that
the Romans only took over the hot springs area and developed it, which is
apparently supported by archaeological evidence that was as pre Roman and
very important healing complex, which was also strategically located.
Sul is said to have been a British goddess of hot springs, generally. The
Romans putting Minerva in there along with Sul suggests the Romans
recognised the importance and there is a martial aspect to the latter
goddess as well as a healing one. Bath was I understand a favourite healing
spa (and cursing place) for middle rank Roman soldiers.
Since this was started by asking what the word for boar was in old British,
it would now be interesting to know the equivalent word for the female: sow.
I'm not trying to be funny. There is a genuine reason for the question.
Kind regards
Graham
news_surfer
<hrj...@socrates.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:8o94df$ngu$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
on the old Welsh histories which back what I was saying. You obviously think
differently. No change there then.
Adrian Gilbert.
Michael Flynn
>
> While you're at it I would really like to know what is the Celtic word for
> boar the animal type I mean?
>
Someone asked about the implications of the god Camulos that the city
Camulodunum was named after. The brief references I found simply said he was
a god of war. I made an enquiry at the uk.religion.pagan newsgroup and got
an interesting reply from a guy who sounded like he was there and was quite
pissed at the Romans for intruding. He said they were waiting with 13,000
men to "kick the Romans' ironclad butts" but were thrown off and
disoriented by the unexpected sight of elephants and camels.
He said that Camulos is represented by the boar, and that he may have
been the god of that tribe/royal family/whatever. You would recognize them
because they would have images of a boar on their shields and/or helmets.
If you wish to check this out the post has its own topic, which is simply
"Camulos"
Michael
Joe Jefferson
>
> In article <Y8ap5.106812$3E6.9...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
> "Michael Flynn" <mef...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >
> > > > The only Welsh word I know for "boar" is "baedd"
> > >
> > > welsh counterpart).
> > >
> > A number of authors have made the case that Bath=Badon. You would
> imagine
> > that the name "Bath" comes from the hot waters, but it does not.
> Called
> > Aquae Sulis by the Romans, the Anglo Saxon Chronicles describing the
> capture
> > of Bath in 577 calls it Badonceaster, the "City of Badon". In British
> > (Welsh) usage the "th" sound was usually indicated by a double d, but
> > sometimes also by a single d, according to Phillips & Keatman. They
> say that
> > Bathon was a British name.
> > There is a similar Saxon name Badda, probably a god or hero, from
> which
> > we get Badbury from Baddanbyrig or Baddanburg, meaning "fort of
> Badda".
> > Michael
>
> full details of Phillips & Keatman?
>
> name for the battle is essentially British, and not Saxon, which would
> rule out those Saxon-derived names you mentioned.
>
> The assumption that Bath is a derivative of Bathen/Baedden also implies
> that Bath is a choice contender. However, my understanding was that the
> Caester suffix was Saxon and that there aren't too many Saxon
> placenames that utilise a British element.
>
> of Bridgend which was mentioned by Blacket & Wilson (cry out in alarm).
There is also the city of Bade, capital kingdom of Gorre which was ruled
by King Bademagu. It was to this city that Guinevere was brought when
she was kidnapped by Bademagu's son Meleagant.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
indr...@my-deja.com
> Since this was started by asking what the word for boar was in old
British,
> it would now be interesting to know the equivalent word for the
female: sow.
> I'm not trying to be funny. There is a genuine reason for the
question.
Brythonic "sow" might have been something like *Socca (the word is
found in Gaulish compound word Candosoccus), which would give Welsh
Hwch.
richard wardle
had a letter for this sound in their language like an 'a' and would not
have confused therefore badon with Badda and produced the badbury
rings/forts.(see L Alcock Arthurs Britain) Unfortunatley it looks like a d
with the tail slanted back over the o when written and this could be the
reason for the confusion
Bath was a holy place before the romans arrived
Therefore if this is right bath was bath before and after the romans and
after the saxons. Indeed the saxons spell the name of Bath(in their tongue)
correctly when refering to the battle of 577
That the battle was fought in bath is pushing things to far because Badon is
refereed to as Mount Badon. As I don't know of another Bath I must assume
that the battle was fought in or around one of the hills close by. Not
nessacarily a hill fort because it would then be called Din Badon, indeed a
fort would hinder the use off cavalry and as the use of cavalry is
specifically inferred by the charge of Arthur one must assume it was used at
the battle
I have my own reasons for believing this to be the case besides the logical
construct of Alcock (and Morris J) and that is to do with strategic and
tactical aims.But more of that when I get the site up
Regards Richard
Joe Jefferson wrote in message <39A9E3...@primenet.com>...
>sedd...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <Y8ap5.106812$3E6.9...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>,
>> "Michael Flynn" <mef...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > <sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8o327d$9l7
>> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > >
>> > > > The only Welsh word I know for "boar" is "baedd"
>> > >
sedd...@my-deja.com
Thanks for getting involved. I take it as a bit of an honour to be able
to converse with you.
My quip - "cry out loud" - was a personal response to criticism I've
suffered elsewhere for "daring" to use Blacket & Wilson as a viable
source for Athurian discussions. It was also a tester to see what
people's views on their book were in this forum. I note by your
grinning emoticon that you took it in the right way. Perhaps you could
join me elsewhere to provide some support.
To get back on topic, one relevant point that has occured to me on this
subject was the linguistic origins of Baedden, Badon etc. If Gildas
first mentioned the name, he would have done so in Latin - Mons
Badonicus. No doubt, Gildas had another source for this, either by
mouth, through folk stories, or (more likely) through written documents.
It is unlikely that these sources were Saxon in origin since Gildas was
British. Hence, if the Boar reference comes from the Saxon, is there
any other explanation in British. What is the actual translation from
Latin to modern English for Badonicus?
Look forward to your response.
Regards
Seddy
PS Are B&W able to get involved in this forum. I'm sure they could add
a lot to the discussion and I would hope that people here would be more
than happy to hear what they had to say rather than lambasting them for
the wrong reasons.
news_surfer
<sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ofvo8$mbg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[material snipped]
>
> To get back on topic, one relevant point that has occured to me on this
> subject was the linguistic origins of Baedden, Badon etc. If Gildas
> first mentioned the name, he would have done so in Latin - Mons
> Badonicus. No doubt, Gildas had another source for this, either by
> mouth, through folk stories, or (more likely) through written documents.
>
> It is unlikely that these sources were Saxon in origin since Gildas was
> British. Hence, if the Boar reference comes from the Saxon, is there
> any other explanation in British. What is the actual translation from
> Latin to modern English for Badonicus?
>
> Look forward to your response.
>
> Regards
>
> Seddy
As I have posted elsewhere and at length (a couple of months ago I think)
Gildas is referred to in the Welsh records by the name of "Aneurin of Coed
aur" (Aneurin of the golden woods) and he is recognised as having been a son
of Caw of Cawlyd (Strathclyde), who was driven out of what later became
Scotland and sort sanctuary in Wales. Caw and some of Gildas' brothers lived
in North Wales at Twcelyn in Anglesey. Gildas and some of the others found
sanctuary with King Arthur in South Wales. Gildas is termed a saint of the
college of Cattwg, which means that he had his training at Bangor Cattwg or
Llancarvon Abbey, nine miles west of Cardiff. For a time he lived in
Brittany and then he came back to Wales, spending time living as a hermit in
a cave on the island of Echni (now called Flatholm and lying just outside of
Cardiff). One may therefore comfortably assume that at one time or another
in his life he had access to whatever Welsh records were in existence: at
Llancarvan, Landaff, Bangor Illtyd or anywhere else.
Not twenty miles from Llancarvan is Mynydd-y-Gaer, where King Arthur was
buried. Beyond this, going westwards, you soon come to Mynydd Baidon, where
local legends say that the Battle of Baidon or Baeden was fought. On the top
of this mountain you can still see the hastily constructed fortifications
and a hundred years ago some of the local people put together a book. This,
apparently, explained the likely course of the battle based on the
topography of the land and lthe remains that could be seen today. As this
battle would have happened in the lifetime of Gildas you can bet he knew all
about it. He may even have been present. We may assume, therefore, that the
Welsh for Mon Badonicus was Mynydd Baidon (Baeden), the spelling may have
been variable.
I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me what a meal posters on this
newsgroup make of all of this. The history is well recorded in numerous
records, family trees, lives of the saints and so on. I can only think they
prefer to manufacture histories of their own to actually researching the
sources. Unfortunately this applies to academics as much as amateurs. They
would much rather play with words and clever etymologies than read the
actual history of Britain as recorded by its natives and passed down through
the generations. This is our tragedy, no worse and no better than that of
the Sioux, the Apaches or any of the other "tribes" whose cultures were
destroyed in the name of progress. It is less excusable now that " The Holy
Kingdom" (http://www.adriangilbert.co.uk.docus/books/holyking.html ) has
been published. For whether or not you agree with our conclusions, we have
graced the book with the fullest bibliography of primary sources of any
Arthurian book currently on the market. We hope that real researchers will
make good use of this and get to grips with the tens of thousands of Welsh
documents that currently lie languishing, unconsulted, in the British
Library and other places. When that day comes we might see a little less
name calling and a little more genuine scholarship.
>
> PS Are B&W able to get involved in this forum. I'm sure they could add
> a lot to the discussion and I would hope that people here would be more
> than happy to hear what they had to say rather than lambasting them for
> the wrong reasons.
>
Alan and Baram would be able to add an enormous amount to this Forum but I
don't think they ever will get involved. The problems are two-fold. First of
all Alan is nearly seventy now and does not take to new technology that
well. Secondly they would be frothing at the mouth if they ever got to read
a tiny fraction of the crap that is posted here in the name of "Arthurian
research". They don't suffer fools gladly and I am sure the replies that
would be posted would be virtually unprintable in many cases! You are right,
however, to castigate those who lambast them for the wrong reasons. It is
true that their books are recondite and difficult to work with (their lack
of any index making them harder still). Nevertheless they have the enormous
advantage on any other Arthurian "researchers" that I have come across in
that their ideas not only tie together very well but have led to real,
archaeological discoveries. For who else do you know that has in their
possession not just one but two memorial stones to King Arthur,
authenticated as genuine not by some silly philologist but by field
archaeologists?
Thank you again Seddy for your interest. I will try to duck in and out of
the newsgroup from time to time as work permits. Just remember that if you
really want to know about King Arthur there is really only one hurdle to be
crossed. You simply have to disregard the pontificating of English
professors for the past two centuries and get back to the real history of
Britain. Do this and you will quickly find the truth which, believe it or
not, is stranger than fiction and certainly a lot more interesting.
Adrian Gilbert.
--
If you are interested in ancient mysteries,
pyramids, King Arthur etcetera, then visit
my website for latest information
at www.AdrianGilbert.co.uk .
morgan
Taking Mount Baeddens (Mount of the Boar) close proximity to Mynydd-y-Gaer,
(Mount of the Fort) where so much of W&B's hypotheses is based, I guess
mount Baedden could well have been the base for Hengist and Horsa, before
they were invited to Mynydd-y-Gaer and slaughtered almost all our(welsh)
soldiers.
Isn't that the explanation for the Mynymwnt y Milwr ( monument of the
Soldiers) which is located on the hill (m-y Gaer)
What time period is given for Hengist and Horsa impact on our history?
Also for all you Roman experts, Caerleon is only about 30 miles from
Mynydd-y-Gaer, is anything known about Roman occupation in this immediate
locality?
Kind Regards
Morgan the curious
"news_surfer" <definite...@freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:SbTp5.1255$oz1.1...@nnrp4.clara.net...
>
> <sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8o3gsc$rk4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> [material snipped]
> > There is a Mynnyd Baedden (hill of the boar?)in Wales just north west
> > of Bridgend which was mentioned by Blacket & Wilson (cry out in alarm).
> >
> > What primary source made the first mention of the battle?
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Seddy
> >
> Of course, Seddy, if people would only read "The Holy Kingdom" instead of
> crying out in alarm at the mention of Wilson and Blackett's names, then
they
> would find many of the answers they are looking for.:-)
>
> 1) Vortigern is called Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau in the Welsh genealogies.
> "Theyrn" means "king" in Welsh, which is true. He was King of Britain
after
> he usurped the throne from Cystennyn Fendigaid (Constantine the Blessed).
> "Gwr" means man or husband. So "Gwrtheyrn" would appear to mean "man-king"
> or perhaps "common-man-king". According to my Welsh dictionary the word
> "gwrthun" means "repugnant", "odious", "absurd" and "gwrthuni" means
> "odiousness", "absurdity". Taken together it is clear that the full title
> Gwrtheyrn Gwrthenau in effect means "the odious man who usurped the
> kingship". Which is a pretty good description of Vortigern. In the triads
he
> is branded as: one of the "three arrant traitors", one of the "three
> notorious drunkards" and one of the "three persons who along with their
> posterity were subjected to disgrace and divested of privilege for ever".
>
> 2) In the Brut Tysilio and other places, it is stated that before becoming
> king Vortigern was ruler over a territory called Ewyas and Erging. This is
> the valley of the River Wye stretching up into Herefordshire. It would
have
> included Gloucester, which is said to have been founded by his ancestor
> "Gloyw Gwalltir" or "Claudius of the wide lands". He was therefore a
> western lord and it is difficult to reconcile this with a connection with
> south east England. In any case his most infamous act (in the eyes of the
> Welsh anyway) was not his drunkeness but rather his giving of Kent as a
> foothold to the Saxons. This alone suggests he had little personal
interest
> in South East England being a lord from the west.
>
> 3) Vortigern's son Vortimer is called "Gwrthefyr" in Welsh, which again
> would appear to be a title. In fact he also is given the epithet
"Vendigaid"
> meaning "Blessed". In my dictionary "gwrthryfela" means "to rebel" and
> "gwrthryfelwr" means "rebel" or "mutineer". Since Vortimer rebelled
against
> his father and displaced him from the throne, I would take his title
> "Gwrthefyr" as coming from this root. He would appear to be the same
person
Graham Nowland
Welcome back Adrian,
I've read your book The Holy Kingdom. I am finding it difficult to locate a
copy of the version of Brut you mention. Is the same as the Brut Tsylio in
the collection called the Red Book of Rydderch?
Incidentally I can't find anyone who has actually looked at your Brut
although that doesn't stop them knocking it.
Kind regards
Graham
richard wardle
news_surfer wrote in message ...>>Adrian Gilbert wrote
>> To get back on topic, one relevant point that has occured to me on this
>> subject was the linguistic origins of Baedden, Badon etc. If Gildas
>> first mentioned the name,
<snip>
Gildas himself states he was born in the year of Badon "the year of my
nativity" he says
I doubt therefore that he would have been present , at least in any form
where he would be cognizant of the actions around him.
Have you not read his account?
It is well known that he is (allegedley) from the votadanni that were moved
to north Wales
you can bet he knew all
>about it. He may even have been present. We may assume, therefore, that the
>Welsh for Mon Badonicus was Mynydd Baidon (Baeden), the spelling may have
>been variable.
>
>I have to say that it never ceases to amaze me what a meal posters on this
>newsgroup make of all of this.
<snip>
>Adrian Gilbert.
>--
I have snipped the more abusive references to the people in this newsgroup.
I have no doubt that they do not want to read them twice.
Whatever your personal opinions of the many people who post here I for one
am not interested. If you are so intolerent of other peoples views and input
into the disscussions going on here and have such disregard of them why do
you bother to visit?
You have obviously set your mind on your doctrine and consider it to be the
only viable view on this subject.
If you feel the documents you mention are so valuable why dont you translate
them and disseminate them here to support your views
I have visited the B&W site. It is mainly ptolmec drivel with some good
points wasted by their diatribe against any other possible view except
theirs. The conspircy theory is wonderful but they have yet to come up with
new documented evidence they are willing to share. I expect your site to
mirror them when I visit it.
Richard
sedd...@my-deja.com
I feel I should add my own thoughts on this matter. I hope that I can
do so without resorting to the vilification that has accompanied
discussion of Blacket & Wilson's work elsewhere and which have led to
this situation where discussion of their work can only be conducted
against a background of personal attack.
Clearly, B&W have not helped their position by mounting attacks on the
personal creditability of their opponents, but, considering the
quantity of research and the timescale during which it has been
undertaken, it doesn't surprise me that they would resort to such when
criticism of their work come down to methodology rather than substance.
It's important to remember that, if their "conspiracy" theory is
correct, then not only are they revealing a history that goes against
all accepted "factual" histories, but they are also attacking the
creditability of professional historical work in Britain and elsewhere
for the past two centuries, and they are doing so on the basis of
content not reputation.
It seems clear to me that these debates and quarrels have served to
draw attention away from the main tenets of their work. Whether this is
a deliberate ploy by historians is not clear, but it is possible and
would be understandable within the context of B&W's "conspiracy".
But surely all this is of lesser importance as far as this forum is
concerned. B&W have studied documents that haven't been considered
before. They have pointed to new sites and provided alternative
interpretations of known sites. Yes, their book includes slightly more
sceptical explanations at some points (eg a comet/meteorite strike in
the 6th century as the precursor to famine - better explained by a
volcanic eruption somewhere in the world), but should these instances
detract from their central premise. We don't have to believe all they
say, but we should at least take note and put their theories to the
test rather than attacking the integrity and methodology of the authors.
Believe me when I say that I don't want to be anyone's apologist
(except perhaps my own). B&W, as we have seen, can take care of
themselves, they don't need me to fight their corner. But if there is
to be a proper debate, let it be conducted within the bounds of
history, archaeology, linguistics, genealogy and the other techniques
that B&W use. They are not professionals, but how could they be experts
in all those fields. The lack of serious attention paid to their work
by professionals in these areas says more about the level of
professionalism in modern academia than it does about the creditability
of B&W.
We should be using their work to throw light on areas they don't look
at. In my own little Arthurian world, I would like to get their
impressions of Aelle's southern invasion. Others may want B&W's take on
their own areas of interest.
I do agree on the issue of whether to publish source documents. I would
add my (small and insubstantial) voice to calls for Adrian and B&W to
place translations of the documents on their web sites. I don't know
about the rest of you, but I think that the availability of e-texts on
the internet is one the major advances in historical accessability.
Without spending years of searching in libraries and second hand book
shops we can have access to the words of contempories. And not only
that, but it's possible to place these texts within appropriate
databases for our own use. History for the masses, a brilliant
development.
I do suggest and in the kindest terms, that those with an Arthurian
interest look at B&W's work in its proper light and not to get caught
up in the hysteria, even if Adrian and B&W are themselves embroiled in
it.
Kind Regards
Seddy
news_surfer
<sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8oilar$qnm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
{Material snipped}
Thank you for a reasoned and sensible posting, one that for once
acknowledges the interesting and important nature of B & W's monumental
researches in this area. For what it is worth, I can tell you that what you
have seen in "The Holy Kingdom" is only the tip of a very large ice-berg.
They have much, much more material that currently remains unpublished. Were
it ever to see the light of day it might blow away the entire framework of
ancient history as currently understood.
>
Yes, their book includes slightly more
> sceptical explanations at some points (eg a comet/meteorite strike in
> the 6th century as the precursor to famine - better explained by a
> volcanic eruption somewhere in the world), but should these instances
> detract from their central premise.
Actually, although David Keys put forward the Volcano theory in his recent
book "Catastrophe", this is by no means the universal opinion of experts in
the field. There was a very interesting programme on BBC2 last night on just
this subject. I cannot remember the various professors names and I only
caught the last half of it but there were astronomers from Northern Ireland
who have been working with dendrochronology for years. One guy in particular
presented the evidence for a long winter of seven years, beginning in 540
AD. He then went on to say that the idea of a Volcanic explosion at that
time is now generally discounted. The consensus is that the earth was hit
by fragments of a comet or a very large meteorite and that they had found
evidence for where this had happened in South America. He even talked about
clouds of poisonous gases drifting around, an idea which we present in "The
Holy Kingdom" as the cause of the Yellow Plague. This is new work and
represents a substantial shift in academic attitude.
Now though he is placing this event slightly earlier than B & W, who put the
comet strike at c. AD 555, it is certainly remarkable that what B & W were
saying nearly twenty years ago, is now the opinion of orthodox science too.
Could it be that, as I have said all along, they are so far ahead of the
pack that other outrageous claims (such as that the Vandals settled in the
Midlands of England and are Geoffrey's "Africans") will in the fullness of
time also be found to be the truth? If you are interested in the subject of
cometary catastrophism you may want to go and hear Dr Victor Clube speak at
Andrew Collins' October gathering. For details see Andy's website at
http://www.andrewcollins.co.uk.
>We don't have to believe all they
> say, but we should at least take note and put their theories to the
> test rather than attacking the integrity and methodology of the authors.
> Believe me when I say that I don't want to be anyone's apologist
> (except perhaps my own). B&W, as we have seen, can take care of
> themselves, they don't need me to fight their corner. But if there is
> to be a proper debate, let it be conducted within the bounds of
> history, archaeology, linguistics, genealogy and the other techniques
> that B&W use. They are not professionals, but how could they be experts
> in all those fields. The lack of serious attention paid to their work
> by professionals in these areas says more about the level of
> professionalism in modern academia than it does about the creditability
> of B&W.
Well said.
> We should be using their work to throw light on areas they don't look
> at. In my own little Arthurian world, I would like to get their
> impressions of Aelle's southern invasion. Others may want B&W's take on
> their own areas of interest.
> I do agree on the issue of whether to publish source documents. I would
> add my (small and insubstantial) voice to calls for Adrian and B&W to
> place translations of the documents on their web sites.
If enough people ask me I will see about re-publishing some of the Welsh
sources (in English translation of course) as books.
>I don't know
> about the rest of you, but I think that the availability of e-texts on
> the internet is one the major advances in historical accessability.
> Without spending years of searching in libraries and second hand book
> shops we can have access to the words of contempories. And not only
> that, but it's possible to place these texts within appropriate
> databases for our own use. History for the masses, a brilliant
> development.
> I do suggest and in the kindest terms, that those with an Arthurian
> interest look at B&W's work in its proper light and not to get caught
> up in the hysteria, even if Adrian and B&W are themselves embroiled in
> it.
> Kind Regards
> Seddy
>
We don't want to be embroiled in it either. I would much rather people took
a sensible approach towards "The Holy Kingdom" instead of the hysterical
name-calling we have had to endure for the last couple of years. I am the
first to admit that it is not perfect in every detail but it is a very
serious study of British history both before and after the Roman invasions.
However, because it is at odds with so much that is taken as almost holy
writ by those who don't know, we have had problems. What our detractors seem
not to realise is that nearly all of what we are saying in "The Holy
Kingdom" was the orthodox view of British history until there was an almost
Orwellian re-writing of the same about two hundred years ago. It is a
topsy-turvy world, for what people think is the "old" history is really the
new and our "new" history is the real "old"! That is how the situation
really is and that is the source of all the problems.
Adrian Gilbert.
Joe Jefferson
>
> <snip>
> Actually, although David Keys put forward the Volcano theory in his recent
> book "Catastrophe", this is by no means the universal opinion of experts in
> the field. There was a very interesting programme on BBC2 last night on just
> this subject. I cannot remember the various professors names and I only
> caught the last half of it but there were astronomers from Northern Ireland
> who have been working with dendrochronology for years. One guy in particular
> presented the evidence for a long winter of seven years, beginning in 540
> AD. He then went on to say that the idea of a Volcanic explosion at that
> time is now generally discounted. The consensus is that the earth was hit
> by fragments of a comet or a very large meteorite and that they had found
> evidence for where this had happened in South America. He even talked about
> clouds of poisonous gases drifting around, an idea which we present in "The
> Holy Kingdom" as the cause of the Yellow Plague. This is new work and
> represents a substantial shift in academic attitude.
This is very interesting, but I'd wonder about the liklihood of poison
gas drifting from South America to Europe without dispersing. Have you
thought of getting some input from a meteorologist on whether or not
this is possible?
Graham Nowland
>B&W have studied documents that haven't been considered
> before. They have pointed to new sites and provided alternative
> interpretations of known sites.
snip
> We should be using their work to throw light
snip
> I do suggest and in the kindest terms, that those with an Arthurian
> interest look at B&W's work in its proper light.
I agree.
Kind regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> Someone asked about the implications of the god Camulos that the city
newsgroup and
>got...
> He said that Camulos is represented by the boar, and that he may have
> been the god of that tribe/royal family/whatever.
Thanks Michael I have been too busy lately to get heavily into this but I
will check it. But I am now on ration for this NG because of work pressure.
Thanks again - v thoughtful.
Kind regards
Graham
Graham Nowland
> A thought about the Pelagian vs Catholic controversy. Accepting the
> story that Joseph of Arimathea established a Christian church at
Glastonbury around AD38, this gives us a church that develops quite
independetly of
the Roman church and it is to be expected that there would be doctrinal
> differences. Jowett says that for the first 300 years or so that the
British bishops were always given preferential seating at international
gatherings
> because of the primacy of the British church. It wasn't until later that
>the
> bishop of Rome assumed a position of primacy.
Michael
Even if you don't embrace the Joseph of Arimathea theory its easy to
accept that the early British church was fairly independent. After the
Nicaean Council
established the creed things must have statered to change, because there was
now an
easy formula and a do-it-yourself litmus test to flush out heretics.
The sub text in Gilds writing about 540 is pretty definitely that the Roman
church was the dominant one and it must have been quite strong in 429 when
Germanus came to erase the heresy of Pelagianism. This implies that
generally the Roman church was now strong enough in Britain to justify a
serious purging effort.
>I believe that Pelagius probably reflected the attitudes of the British
>Church although on individual points no doubt he did his own thinking.
Yes I agree. I think that even now most ordinary Christians, when
not stressed, are sort of Pelgains anyway, because by their actions and
often verbally they express the Pelagian view that humanity is basically
good. The big Pelagian
no-no, original sin, is still only donned for formal
occasions or by full time god botherers.
Pelagius and his major disciples were excommunicated. He was denounced a
number times. There was a big final showdown when Pelagians were generally
outlawed and Pelagius "disappeared." That was in 418. Germanus was in
Britain in 429 and again later to try and stamp surviving Pelagianism out.
I find it interesting that Germanus was also a general and is reputed to
have led at least one battle in Britain. This was said to be against Saxons
and Picts but it could have been anyone really, considering his mission and
the way people kept changing sides then. Religious civil war perhaps?
Kind regards
Graham
morgan
"Joe Jefferson" <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:39ADB5...@primenet.com...
<snipped>
> This is very interesting, but I'd wonder about the liklihood of poison
> gas drifting from South America to Europe without dispersing. Have you
> thought of getting some input from a meteorologist on whether or not
> this is possible?
>
Hi Joe,
The force of a cometary impact of the size which is thought to have
"caused" the dark age would have at least been several megatons (take the
hiroshima bomband multiply by at least a 1000). Such an impact would have
thrown a huge amount of dust into the atmosphere, which in turn would have
affected the "natural" climatic cycles of that time, blocking the sun,
causing famine,etc etc,
Think of the well publicised El Nino effect, every so often the flow of warm
water from South America changes dramatically causing deserts to flood,
forests to burn, penguins to die because of lack of food and causing drought
in Wales :-)
A cometary impact would surely cause such a shift in climatic cycles. As
for the liklihood of poison gas drifting from South America to Europe
without dispersing...of course that could be possible, today we have the
gulf stream which I believe originates in South America. Occasionally we
also get bombarded with sand from the Sahara desert. It's a funny old thing
is nature and anything is really possible.
cheers
Morgan
richard wardle
Yes I agree almost totally. This is B&W's main fault They seem to refuse to
back up claims with substance and source. I would welcome E-Texts from them
as I would on all the main sources. John Morris cites this as one of the
greatest failings in Arthurian research, that most of the texts etc of this
period have not been studied or properly examined and translated let alone
made available to the whole community.Wether this is due to conspiricy or
just past priority of the educational establishment/church etc I dont know.
I would hope that the Welsh Library and the Assembly would fund more in this
area of work but I feel that is a somewhat forlorn hope.The identity having
been suppressed for so long of the Welsh by the English.
BTW the comet theory of B&W is not so far fetched. I saw on BBC TV yesterday
a programme(Horizon) about comets/rocks etc hitting earth and apperently
they do so with amazing regularity,of a sufficient size to do considerable
local damage and interefre with the global weather patterns! Not only that
but evidence of a comet hitting around 540 ad and affecting europe amongst
other area's with severe weather distortion!
It just adds more weight,Ifeel, that B&W should stop crying Foul and supply
verifiable source evidence that we can examine
Regards Richard
sedd...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8oilar$qnm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Richard,
>I feel I should add my own thoughts on this matter. I hope that I can
>do so without resorting to the vilification that has accompanied
>discussion of Blacket & Wilson's work elsewhere and which have led to
>this situation where discussion of their work can only be conducted
>against a background of personal attack.
>Clearly, B&W have not helped their position by mounting attacks on the
>personal creditability of their opponents, but, considering the
>quantity of research and the timescale during which it has been
>undertaken, it doesn't surprise me that they would resort to such when
>criticism of their work come down to methodology rather than substance.
>It's important to remember that, if their "conspiracy" theory is
>correct, then not only are they revealing a history that goes against
>all accepted "factual" histories, but they are also attacking the
>creditability of professional historical work in Britain and elsewhere
>for the past two centuries, and they are doing so on the basis of
>content not reputation.
>It seems clear to me that these debates and quarrels have served to
>draw attention away from the main tenets of their work. Whether this is
>a deliberate ploy by historians is not clear, but it is possible and
>would be understandable within the context of B&W's "conspiracy".
>But surely all this is of lesser importance as far as this forum is
>concerned. B&W have studied documents that haven't been considered
>before. They have pointed to new sites and provided alternative
>interpretations of known sites. Yes, their book includes slightly more
>sceptical explanations at some points (eg a comet/meteorite strike in
>the 6th century as the precursor to famine - better explained by a
>volcanic eruption somewhere in the world), but should these instances
>detract from their central premise. We don't have to believe all they
>say, but we should at least take note and put their theories to the
>test rather than attacking the integrity and methodology of the authors.
>Believe me when I say that I don't want to be anyone's apologist
>(except perhaps my own). B&W, as we have seen, can take care of
>themselves, they don't need me to fight their corner. But if there is
>to be a proper debate, let it be conducted within the bounds of
>history, archaeology, linguistics, genealogy and the other techniques
>that B&W use. They are not professionals, but how could they be experts
>in all those fields. The lack of serious attention paid to their work
>by professionals in these areas says more about the level of
>professionalism in modern academia than it does about the creditability
>of B&W.
>We should be using their work to throw light on areas they don't look
>at. In my own little Arthurian world, I would like to get their
>impressions of Aelle's southern invasion. Others may want B&W's take on
>their own areas of interest.
>I do agree on the issue of whether to publish source documents. I would
>add my (small and insubstantial) voice to calls for Adrian and B&W to
>place translations of the documents on their web sites. I don't know
>about the rest of you, but I think that the availability of e-texts on
>the internet is one the major advances in historical accessability.
>Without spending years of searching in libraries and second hand book
>shops we can have access to the words of contempories. And not only
>that, but it's possible to place these texts within appropriate
>databases for our own use. History for the masses, a brilliant
>development.
>I do suggest and in the kindest terms, that those with an Arthurian
>interest look at B&W's work in its proper light and not to get caught
>up in the hysteria, even if Adrian and B&W are themselves embroiled in
>it.
>Kind Regards
>Seddy
>
>
news_surfer
richard wardle <rich...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:4mwr5.2576$WT1....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Thanks Seddy
> Yes I agree almost totally. This is B&W's main fault They seem to refuse
to
> back up claims with substance and source. I would welcome E-Texts from
them
> as I would on all the main sources. John Morris cites this as one of the
> greatest failings in Arthurian research, that most of the texts etc of
this
> period have not been studied or properly examined and translated let alone
> made available to the whole community.Wether this is due to conspiricy or
> just past priority of the educational establishment/church etc I dont
know.
> I would hope that the Welsh Library and the Assembly would fund more in
this
> area of work but I feel that is a somewhat forlorn hope.The identity
having
> been suppressed for so long of the Welsh by the English.
Richard, if you get hold of a copy of "The Holy Kingdom" (from your library
if necessary) you will find that all the sources used by myself, B & W are
carefully referenced and annotated. There is also a monumental Bibliography
including a huge number of Welsh sources and where these are to be found. I
agree it would be nice to get some of this material published but it is
available and we have done everything we can to back up claims with
references. This is more than many other authors have done when writing
about Arthurian matters. We have done our best.
As regards the Welsh Library and so on, we think there is the beginnings of
movement there. Since the new Welsh Assembly came into being questions are
starting to be asked. I would urge anyone reading this who is Welsh to speak
to their local member of the Welsh Assembly and put it to them that there is
a vast archive of Welsh historical and cultural documents currently
languishing in English libraries. Ask them what they plan to do about this!
Adrian Gilbert.
richard wardle
Of course nature is a perverse thing. I was very sceptical about B&W
originally (mainly because we could not get at their sources) but a
re-appraisal is needed now I think. I have been back to their site and
downloaded all of the material there. I shall have to source libraries for
their books as being a penniless (due to net charges!) retiree I doubt I
shall be buying many of them. I did e-mail them to ask if they could make
texts available on the net but have not yet had a reply
One can live in hope!
regards Richard
morgan wrote in message ...
Joe Jefferson
>
> "Joe Jefferson" <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:39ADB5...@primenet.com...
>
> <snipped>
>
> > This is very interesting, but I'd wonder about the liklihood of poison
> > gas drifting from South America to Europe without dispersing. Have you
> > thought of getting some input from a meteorologist on whether or not
> > this is possible?
> >
>
> Hi Joe,
>
> The force of a cometary impact of the size which is thought to have
> "caused" the dark age would have at least been several megatons (take the
> hiroshima bomband multiply by at least a 1000). Such an impact would have
> thrown a huge amount of dust into the atmosphere, which in turn would have
> affected the "natural" climatic cycles of that time, blocking the sun,
> causing famine,etc etc,
>
> Think of the well publicised El Nino effect, every so often the flow of warm
> water from South America changes dramatically causing deserts to flood,
> forests to burn, penguins to die because of lack of food and causing drought
> in Wales :-)
Well, a blast of only a few megatons would be a very small impact indeed
as such things go.
> A cometary impact would surely cause such a shift in climatic cycles. As
> for the liklihood of poison gas drifting from South America to Europe
> without dispersing...of course that could be possible, today we have the
> gulf stream which I believe originates in South America. Occasionally we
> also get bombarded with sand from the Sahara desert. It's a funny old thing
> is nature and anything is really possible.
There you've lost me. The Gulf Stream is an ocean current, not an
atmospheric phenomenon. And sand is carried from the Saraha in huge
storm systems, hundreds of kilometers across - rather larger than any
amount of a poisonous gas I could see coming from an impact event.
Almost all of the "cloud" thrown up by a meteor strike is just dirt.
Would there be clouds of high-altitude dust after a strike? Certainly.
But not poisonous gasses.
If you're serious about getting this theory accepted, the best thing you
could do is forget (for a moment) about impressing other historians and
try to gain the interest of the scientific community. A meteor impact,
whether it took place in South America or anywhere else, would leave
traces that could be uncovered by archaeologists and geologists, and
once the size and location had been worked out it's impact on the
weather could be modelled by climatologists.
sedd...@my-deja.com
Thanks for your thanks.
Isn't it just bloody typical that I should choose an example of where I
thought B&W may have blundered only to stumble into a position where
there appears to be a fairly good consensus :-)Such is life.
Seriously, I am very pleased that my posting has met with a degree of
acceptance and that there is an indication that we can get down to an
examination of B&W's content. I hope that B&W would concur that this
kind of debate is in all respects a healthy one and whilst I understand
that they wouldn't want to paticipate within the forum, I hope that you
will keep them informed.
Seems we made Morgan happy as well.