Was King Arthur actually from Russia?
Raven
may not be aware of how much chivalric saga survives in both storytelling
(e.g. "The Three Bogatyri [Heroes]") and real history (e.g. the Cossacks
[kozaki = "free men"] who fought off Turkish slaving raids, much as Arthur's
knights fought off other invaders). Whether or not Arthurian legend truly
comes from this region of Eurasia, there certainly are commonalities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historian: King Arthur Was From Russia
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/04/10/003.html
Historian Howard Reid says King Arthur may be a myth imported by barbarian
invaders.
by Kevin O'Flynn, Moscow Times, April 10, 2001
The quests of King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table have held a
far-reaching grip on imaginations for more than a millennium.
Some claim he was Welsh, others Scottish or Roman -- while others say he
never even existed -- but a new book adds another twist by saying that
much of the legend of King Arthur may come from a band of nomadic tribes
whose descendants now live in southern Russia.
In "Arthur the Dragon King: the Barbarian Roots of Britain's Greatest
Legend," published last month, popular historian Howard Reid draws
parallels between the myths of ancient nomads who moved into Europe from
Central Asia and those that grew up around the court of King Arthur.
Reid believes there may be a link between the Sarmatians and their close
cousins the Alans, ancient nomadic people who rampaged through Europe,
whose horse skills and sword worship echo those of the knights of King Arthur.
Arthur supposedly lived around the sixth century but the legends and tales
of Merlin, Sir Lancelot and Guinevere and the Sword in the Stone only
appeared centuries later in a series of medieval romances. Indeed, there
is very little evidence as to his existence.
In the legends, Arthur, inspired by the magician Merlin, was guided in
battle by a magic sword called Excalibur, which he received from the Lady
of the Lake. The romances tell of the adventures of Arthur and his
fellowship of knights, including their search for the Holy Grail, which
they believed was the vessel used by Jesus at the Last Supper.
The lack of any concrete evidence proving his existence has provided room
for a large number of theories.
Reid himself is not certain that there was actually a king called Arthur
but says that the stories of chivalry and sword imagery did not come from
Britain and had to have come from outside -- namely the barbarian invaders
who were, well, not really that barbarian.
"The nomad tribes were very sophisticated," said Reid in a telephone
interview from London.
"They were a threat from the East," said Reid, "But they brought great myths."
Reid says that his theory is not original.
A documentary filmmaker, Reid says he is merely trying to popularize the
theory of other historians. The book may be made into a television series
for Britain's Channel Four.
Research for the book has included looking at the large stock of jewelry
and swords made by nomadic warrior tribes stored in the State Hermitage
Museum in St. Petersburg.
The barbarians, in this case the Sarmatians, may have reached Britain
after being defeated by the Romans in the second century. Many of the
defeated soldiers were sent to Britain to guard Hadrian's Wall in the
second century.
Reid believes that these Barbarians brought not only their fighting skills
but their myths and beliefs in magic swords, fire rituals and the dragon.
Two Arthurian historians, C. Scott Littleton and Linda Malcor, whose work
Reid draws on, have claimed that a Roman general Lucius Artorius Castus,
who commanded a group of Sarmatian cavalrymen was the real King Arthur.
The distant descendants of the Sarmatians and the Alans are the Ossetian
people.
Reid compares the mythology of the Ossetians with the Arthurian tale,
finding "striking parallels between the two."
The Ossetians' ancient tales, known as the Nart Sagas, tell of a king
called Batraz who had a magic sword.
Other parallels, in these ancient yarns, which were only written down in
the 19th century according to Reid, are a "Chalice of Truth" which hovers
in the air like the Holy Grail in Arthurian legend and as a code of
conduct which ruled the lives of the Ossetian knights.
Although the tales of Batraz are far more supernatural than the Arthurian
-- Batraz's mother is a frog by day, a woman by night -- "there is so much
overlap of content that it is hard to imagine that the two traditions are
unconnected," wrote Reid.
As another slice of proof Reid points to Excalibur. The word Excalibur, he
writes, is derived from the Latin for steel, chalybs, which itself comes
from the Greek word for a group of famous blacksmiths, the Kalybes.
The Kalybes once lived in the same area where Ossetians now live.
The book has had a harsh reception in England with a review in The
Observer scorning Reid's evidence and his prose while a leading Arthurian
expert, Geoffrey Ashe, spluttered his indignation in an interview with The
Express.
"It is so dispiriting to see this kind of hogwash disseminated among
scholarly circles. There are dragon symbols everywhere, from Welsh
mythology and Beowulf to the Old Testament," Ashe said.
But one person who is not pooh poohing Reid's theory is the head of the
descendants of the nomadic tribes, Alexander Dzasokhov, president of the
North Ossetian republic.
That area was under the influence of the Sarmatians from the seventh
century B.C. to the first century A.D., followed by the Alans, who are
believed to be the direct ancestors of the Ossetians.
"Without a doubt this evokes the warmest feelings," wrote Dzasokhov in a
faxed response to questions from The Moscow Times about Reid's book. "I'm
sure that this news will resound throughout the population."
Dzasokhov wrote that the news was not exactly unknown in the republic.
"There is much in common with King Arthur and the Ossetian war hero of the
Batraz era," he wrote, suggesting that the historians of England and his
republic could work together on the subject.
"There are many parallels," said Felix Gutpov, a historian who was asked
by Dzasokhov's office to research the links.
--
Raven | , "Y Gwir yn erbyn y Byd." (Welsh)
| "An Fhirinne in aghaidh an tSaoil." (Irish)
raven @ solaria.sol.net | "The Truth against the World."
| -- Bardic Motto
TANKS
Raven wrote:
>
> My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan culture
> may not be aware of how much chivalric saga survives in both storytelling
> (e.g. "The Three Bogatyri [Heroes]") and real history (e.g. the Cossacks
> [kozaki = "free men"] who fought off Turkish slaving raids, much as Arthur's
> knights fought off other invaders). Whether or not Arthurian legend truly
> comes from this region of Eurasia, there certainly are commonalities.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Historian: King Arthur Was From Russia
> http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/04/10/003.html
>
HAHAHAHAHH !!! THIS IS SOOOO FUNNY !!!
what commonalities ??
there was no russia until 1700+
there was no muscovy till 1400+
did this king arthur have a time machine ??
this 'historian'... do a google search.. i did.. no hits... he must be
REAL famous...
king arthur from russia AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHBWAHAHAHAHAAHHAH !!!!!
russia is so lacking in its own 'glory' it seeks to steal that of
others.. any others.. what next.. sinbad the sailor was russian
HAHAHAHAHAH... ali baba was russian AHAHAHAHAHHAH ... I KNOW......
JESUS CHRIST WAS RUSSIAN BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!
Raven
| Raven wrote:
| ...
|> Whether or not Arthurian legend truly comes from this region of Eurasia,
|> there certainly are commonalities.
|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Historian: King Arthur Was From Russia
|> http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/04/10/003.html
|
| HAHAHAHAHH !!! THIS IS SOOOO FUNNY !!!
|
| what commonalities ??
I had just listed some, namely the heroes both legendary and real.
The article listed more, such as sword-worship and a grail legend.
| there was no russia until 1700+
| there was no muscovy till 1400+
|
| did this king arthur have a time machine ??
Apparently you must also believe that there were no Americas until after
they were named for Amerigo Vespucci, years after Columbus's 1492 visit;
thus "pre-Columbian America" is a contradiction in terms, and there were
no Native Americans before then, as their continents did not exist.
In short, you mistake the date a region was given its current name for
the date the region itself existed. Do you also think "this region of
Eurasia" (as I referred to it) was uninhabited or even nonexistent until
the term "Eurasia" was actually used, even more recently?
--
Raven | "None so blind as will not see;
| Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
raven @ solaria.sol.net | -- The Gospel According to Puck
| Chapter 3, scene 2, verses 114-115
thomas
Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote in article
<3add3e2d$0$42882$39de...@news.sol.net>...
> My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan
culture
> may not be aware of how much chivalric saga survives in both storytelling
> (e.g. "The Three Bogatyri [Heroes]") and real history (e.g. the Cossacks
> [kozaki = "free men"] who fought off Turkish slaving raids, much as
Arthur's
> knights fought off other invaders). Whether or not Arthurian legend
truly
> comes from this region of Eurasia, there certainly are commonalities.
<Snipping for space considerations>
While I won't go quite so far as TANKS did, my immediate, gut-reaction is
that this story is just another attempt to re-write history, most
especially the contributions made to history by white anglo-saxon / north -
western european males.
I will grant you that the region now known as Russia has had a rich
history, though I cannot cite any specifics, that is *not* my area of
expertise. But to say that Arthur was a Russian, whose story was stolen by
the British is nitwittery. It reminds me of some shuck that made the rounds
a few years back (when Disney released Pocahontas) that John Smith was
really a Spaniard, named Jose Ferro.
Sorry, this one just won't wash with me.
Morgan
J.E.F. Godesky
>
> what commonalities ??
Apparently you don't realize that the Sarmatian theory for Arthur is not a new
one, and is in fact quite valid. As for common themes in Russian folklore,
mythology and literature and Arthurian legend, "Raven" is quite right. Russia has
a very rich folklore, including many elements of chivalry.
> there was no russia until 1700+
> there was no muscovy till 1400+
Ah, so we're speaking of the origin of the state now present? In that case,
France didn't exist until after World War II, and French literature before that is
just those damn "Frenchies" taking others' work, yes?
Surely you don't suppose that the land now called Russia was uninhabited, or the
land itself did not exist, before the current nation-state which occupies that
land? Or that other nation-states may have occupied that land before the current
one?
> did this king arthur have a time machine ??
>
> this 'historian'... do a google search.. i did.. no hits... he must be
> REAL famous...
Actually, I have heard of him before. But no, I imagine Google wouldn't bring him
up. In this subject, there is a general presumption that a Google search does not
constitute the breadth and depth of one's research.
> king arthur from russia AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHBWAHAHAHAHAAHHAH !!!!!
>
> russia is so lacking in its own 'glory' it seeks to steal that of
> others.. any others.. what next.. sinbad the sailor was russian
> HAHAHAHAHAH... ali baba was russian AHAHAHAHAHHAH ... I KNOW......
> JESUS CHRIST WAS RUSSIAN BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!
Russia has no lack for "glory." Although, strictly speaking, the Sarmatians are
not directly tied to the current population calling themselves "Russian." The
Sarmatians have more in common with the Alans and Huns, I believe.
Jason Godesky
Editor, The Saxon Shore
http://www.pitt.edu/~jegst61/
P.S. -- Yes, that IS a Russian last name; Cossack, to be specific.
J.E.F. Godesky
> that this story is just another attempt to re-write history, most
> especially the contributions made to history by white anglo-saxon / north -
> western european males.
>
> I will grant you that the region now known as Russia has had a rich
> history, though I cannot cite any specifics, that is *not* my area of
> expertise. But to say that Arthur was a Russian, whose story was stolen by
> the British is nitwittery. It reminds me of some shuck that made the rounds
> a few years back (when Disney released Pocahontas) that John Smith was
> really a Spaniard, named Jose Ferro.
>
> Sorry, this one just won't wash with me.
Perhaps ... except this theory is not a new one. Reid is only elaborating on
an already well-established theory. The most scholarly treatment it's received
is _From Scythia to Camelot : a radical reassessment of the legends of King
Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail_ by C. Scott
Littleton and Linda A. Malcor. You may have heard of Linda Malcor, she has
quite an online presence. I'm a bit surprised she's not here, on this very
thread, in fact....
At any rate, it is quite a valid theory. The Sarmatians had many legends which
greatly resemble the sword in the stone and other legends of the Round Table,
they used dragon-shaped windsocks (as in "Pendragon"), and were expert
horsemen. So good, in fact, that the Late Roman army recruited them in large
numbers, and seem to have based several types of units--including the
cataphractarii (the type of cavalry which Arthur most likely commanded, if he
ever did at all) and cilbanarii. Ribchester and other areas in Britain were
settled with Sarmatians from the Russian steppes by the Roman Empire, so
there's no question of whether or not Sarmatian culture diffused to Britain.
The question is whether or not Arthur was part of that diffusion. It seems
irrefutable that the Arthurian legend was at least affected by the Sarmatian
influence, so the question is really whether or not there was an Arthur apart
from Sarmatian folklore.
The Short Answer: Yup, there is indeed something to it.
pkmb
> russia is so lacking in its own 'glory' it seeks to steal that of
> others.. any others.. what next.. sinbad the sailor was russian
> HAHAHAHAHAH... ali baba was russian AHAHAHAHAHHAH ... I KNOW......
> JESUS CHRIST WAS RUSSIAN BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!
Yeah :)). What's also funny is the fact that he translates: Wszechrus as
All Russia :)) instead of All Rus' :)). Panslavism in one state? :)))
Marcin B.
--
Marcin Bugajski, citizen of Poland - NATO member since 12th March 1999.
This message may not be used for commercial purposes without
the author's written permission
pkmb
> In short, you mistake the date a region was given its current name for
> the date the region itself existed. Do you also think "this region of
> Eurasia" (as I referred to it) was uninhabited or even nonexistent until
> the term "Eurasia" was actually used, even more recently?
Heh :). The region existed, it was called Rus' and it's centre was
today's Ukraine not Russia. Moscow was a peripheral mud hole of that
state. You can't call Rus' Russia without being extremely funny to
anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history.
fd
origin. Being quite educated compare to most people west of Berlin to whom
everything east of Warsaw is Russia he wrote: "place is Eurasia which now is
part of Russia." Moreover he mentioned that modern Russians has very little
connection to Samaritans contrary to popular believe inspired by some
religious scholars in attempt to find Russia (evil empire) in Bible
prophecies.
So, where is all this noise about Russians trying to steal British history
comming from?
Ok, let us say King Arthur was Ukrainian (or Pole:)))))) LOL
Word Russia still excites you that much?
"Noch'iu snilsia mne Abram, ugrojal zaraza.
On derjal v ruke topor, on hotel udarit'
Kak ih terpit do sih por odschestvo Zlopamiat" :)))))))
Relax, NATO is backing you. :)))))))
pkmb wrote in message <3ADD8F2D...@catv.retsat1.com.pl>...
SOLELY FOR NONCOMMERCIAL PURPOSES AND WITHOUT
THE AUTHOR'S PERMISSION
Charles Buckley
>Some British scholar supposed that legends of King Arthur have Samaritan
>origin. Being quite educated compare to most people west of Berlin to whom
>everything east of Warsaw is Russia he wrote: "place is Eurasia which now is
>part of Russia." Moreover he mentioned that modern Russians has very little
>connection to Samaritans contrary to popular believe inspired by some
>religious scholars in attempt to find Russia (evil empire) in Bible
>prophecies.
>So, where is all this noise about Russians trying to steal British history
>comming from?
>
Shakespeare sounds so much better in his native Klingon...
Christopher Gwinn
on
> an already well-established theory. The most scholarly treatment it's
received
> is _From Scythia to Camelot : a radical reassessment of the legends of
King
> Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail_ by C. Scott
> Littleton and Linda A. Malcor. You may have heard of Linda Malcor, she
has
> quite an online presence. I'm a bit surprised she's not here, on this
very
> thread, in fact....
Linda Malcor commented on Reid's book recently on the ArthurNet mailing
list. She basically said that Reid blatantly ripped off her and Littleton's
book (it seems he came just shy of actual plagarism) but that he left out
all the details that they provided in their own book to support their
radical theory - thus Reid's book comes off more as unsupported fantasy.
> At any rate, it is quite a valid theory. The Sarmatians had many legends
which
> greatly resemble the sword in the stone and other legends of the Round
Table,
Most of which are interpolated from a second hand account of Scythian
religion by Herodotus combined with the modern folktales of the Ossets who
are culturally related to the Alans (who in turn are cultural cousins of the
Sarmatians). The theory totally disregards the more likely Celtic infleunce
on the Arthurian legend as well as the fact that the Celts may have shared
much of the same myths and motifs as the Scythians (inherited from Proto
Indo European thought and strengthened by early Celto-Scythian contact on
the Continent in pre-history), even if certain elements are not documented
until quite late (I find it fascinating that Littleton and Malcor will
discount medieval Celtic material that seem to correlate with Arthurian
legend, yet they _will_ accept folklore that is only documented in the 19th
and 20h centiruies in Ossetia!).
> they used dragon-shaped windsocks (as in "Pendragon"), and were expert
> horsemen.
This really proves nothing. The Celts possessed dragons long before they
came into contact with the Sarmatians, as is proved by many Celtic
artifacts. The Britons were also notable horsemen even in Caesar's day - he
commented on how dangerous it was for his men to engage the British cavalry.
> So good, in fact, that the Late Roman army recruited them in large
> numbers, and seem to have based several types of units--including the
> cataphractarii (the type of cavalry which Arthur most likely commanded, if
he
> ever did at all) and cilbanarii. Ribchester and other areas in Britain
were
> settled with Sarmatians from the Russian steppes by the Roman Empire, so
> there's no question of whether or not Sarmatian culture diffused to
Britain.
I think there is a question as to whether or not the culture diffused into
British culture. There were many more ethnic Italians in Britain than
Sarmatians (who only numbered 5,000 or so and were spread out in groups of
500 across the country whose own culturally Celtic population was in the
millions), and Roman paganism was widespread across Britain, yet we detect
no great Roman pagan influence on the early Welsh poetry or myths (there are
no Jupiters or Minervas showing up as kings and queens - yet we do have
native divinities like Mabon [=Maponos Apollo] and Modron [=Matrona]
surviving Christianity to show up in popular tales). If the Romans left no
mark, how are we expected to believe that the Sarmatians left a mark?
> The question is whether or not Arthur was part of that diffusion. It
seems
> irrefutable that the Arthurian legend was at least affected by the
Sarmatian
> influence, so the question is really whether or not there was an Arthur
apart
> from Sarmatian folklore.
As I have said, I would contest "irrefutable" here. I think that almost
every single "Scythian" element in the Arthurian legends suggested by
Littleton and Malcor can also be found in Celtic culture, which has the
benefit of being the dominant culture of the area in which the stories
originated.
- Chris Gwinn
William Underhill
>
> Raven wrote:
> >
> > My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan culture
>
>
Since I'm not an expert in the culture and mythology of the Rus
or pre-Rus peoples, and I've only read four or five versions of
the Arthurian legend, I will refrain from commenting on the
historical basis for these theories. I will, however, request
that "TANKS" (whomever that may be) try to put a little more fact
and a little less ridicule into his or her post. I'm not much
inclined to pay attention to posts which consist largely of
"HAHAHAHAHA !!!" written in uppercase.
I would also like to thank Raven for posting information which
may be of interest to some readers here. I just might follow it
up and do some research on my own, to satisfy my Elephant's
Child.
Yours aye,
William
--
-----------------===========<\ />============-----------------
William Underhill Uilliam mac Aillén vhic Séamus
Royal Canadian Navy Society for Creative Anachronism
Ready, aye, ready Vivite ad clamandum, clamate ad vivendum
tr...@home.com http://members.home.net/trode/
-----------------===========</ \>============-----------------
The usual government employee disclaimer, blah blah blah...
pkmb
> Word Russia still excites you that much?
Nope, but spreading missconceptions about history do.
> Relax, NATO is backing you. :)))))))
Heh :)), we're going to come to Russia and burn the books producing
"knowledge" shared with us by the poster who started the thread ;)))).
With Leos and all ;).
pkmb
>
> TANKS wrote:
> >
> > Raven wrote:
> > >
> > > My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan culture
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHH !!! THIS IS SOOOO FUNNY !!!
> >
>
> Since I'm not an expert in the culture and mythology of the Rus
> or pre-Rus peoples, and I've only read four or five versions of
> the Arthurian legend, I will refrain from commenting on the
> historical basis for these theories. I will, however, request
> that "TANKS" (whomever that may be) try to put a little more fact
> and a little less ridicule into his or her post. I'm not much
> inclined to pay attention to posts which consist largely of
> "HAHAHAHAHA !!!" written in uppercase.
If you had more taste of Russian propaganda you would also react, shall
we say, excitingly to examples of it. His comments was aimed at scu and
scr. At least IMHO :).
Marcin B.
P.S. Aragorn, my name is Aragorn ;)).
kirill
Raven wrote:
>
> My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan culture
> may not be aware of how much chivalric saga survives in both storytelling
> (e.g. "The Three Bogatyri [Heroes]") and real history (e.g. the Cossacks
> [kozaki = "free men"] who fought off Turkish slaving raids, much as Arthur's
> knights fought off other invaders). Whether or not Arthurian legend truly
> comes from this region of Eurasia, there certainly are commonalities.
>
Interesting read. But to keep the thread civilized you should remove
soc.culture.russian, a group which is not about culture and populated
by hate-filled psychopaths.
Christine Leston
fd wrote in message <9bk764$sos$1...@news.tamu.edu>...
>Some British scholar supposed that legends of King Arthur have Samaritan
>origin.
That's "Sarmatian", not "Samaritan".
C.M. Leston.
John Greenall
(it was when we where out shooting once), he said that there where 7 swordes
of excalibur and that they all had a different name (meaning satan).
Also he said he read that he came from germany, i have forgotten what he
said of this but it was mildly interesting.
But of course arthur in one thing i read is said to have come from the
steppe lands of russia.
Today i think that the german version is verry likely, they seem to be just
the modern version of folklore from different contries.
Oh I remember, it was a contingent of cavalry from the steppe lands from
russia, that had a windsock banner in the shape of a dragon, and there
leader was called Artorius (arthur), and they used to stick there swords in
the ground (or a log) and pray to it (a cross?).
This (MAY) be where the sword in the stone myth comes from.
So as for tanks having a laugh at this russian guy (communist hater) you
should think again, the only REAL conclusive thing i have read pointing to
an historical arthur is the russian story and this cavalry.
THis is actually new evidence uncovered in the 80's, a book is available but
i don't need to read them cos im'e so brilliant :-)
I place my bet that if arthur did ever exist, and that is_a_big_if. then he
was ether russian or a roman britton. but then i wouldn't bet anything as if
you read the legend the only name i can say did exist as an historical
figure would be ambrosius auralius, and auralius is indeed a roman name.
But then who is to say that ambrosius auralius did_not have a contingent of
russian cavalry fighting under his command?, with artorias the cavelry
leader?. it is possible thinking in this time anyone could enter brittania,
and they where doing just that.
Auralius was historical and did fight but arthur is shady and a dodgy
character at best, if he existed. and if he did no one can tell where he
came from or his nationality, but roman or russian is a good bet.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
"Raven" <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:3add3e2d$0$42882$39de...@news.sol.net...
fd
pkmb wrote in message <3ADDBAA1...@catv.retsat1.com.pl>...
>fd wrote:
>
>> Word Russia still excites you that much?
>
>Nope, but spreading missconceptions about history do.
>
>> Relax, NATO is backing you. :)))))))
>
>Heh :)), we're going to come to Russia
You mean to England (it is English book). You are welcome. ;))))))))
John Greenall
the romans had cavalry from the steppe land, what more do we need to know?.
yes there is something in the sarmation theory, we all know the theory that
at badon hill auralius was commander but could artorius be the leader in
battles and of the cavalry, and was he russian?.
but ime not stating he was it's just a theory you understand :-)
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
"J.E.F. Godesky" <jef.g...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3ADD874B...@verizon.net...
pkmb
> So as for tanks having a laugh at this russian guy (communist hater) you
> should think again, the only REAL conclusive thing i have read pointing to
> an historical arthur is the russian story and this cavalry.
Jesus... Rus story if anything! It's like mixing up Scottisch and
English...
> I place my bet that if arthur did ever exist, and that is_a_big_if. then he
> was ether russian or a roman britton.
Hmm and maybe he was an American who came from Los Angeles? Or Japanese
who came from the capital city of Japan - Tokyo? btw. I'm being
sarcastic here.
Marcin B.
P.S. Communist hater? Why thank you :).
thomas
If Raven had framed her posting as "isn't this interesting - look at the
parallels" I might, *might* buy it. But, the way I read it was as I stated
- an attempt to denegrate the history of the afforemetioned groups.
As has already been stated, dragon windsock banners have been found in a
heckuva lot of cultures, many insular from each other.
Chivalry - or some other form of martial code is likewise found in many
insular cultures.
It seems to me that saying Arthur was Russina because of the reasons stated
is like saying that Arthur was Japanese because he built an empire and
fought from horseback with lance and sword.
And citing that the original study is "older" does not automatically
disqualify it as historical revisionism. That particular odious practice
has been going on for a long time.
Morgan
frank
Carpatian Mountains) during the sixth century when King Arthur presumably
lived. The Slavic tribes just started migrating in the area which was
scarcely populated. There were no noblemen to speak of. They did not
establish hierarchical social structure
until much later, perhaps the 9th century when the Vikings subjugated them.
According to one of the Russian literary source the Slavs could not govern
themselves because of the constant squabbles
and sent to Norway to ask for a king or a general. That king's name was
Rurik. He established the first Kiev dynasty--the house of Rurik which
lasted a few hundred years. The state affairs in Moscovia have been messed
up ever since. -f
gerald.copp
J.E.F. Godesky wrote:
> The Sarmatians had many legends which
> greatly resemble the sword in the stone and other legends of the Round
Table,
> they used dragon-shaped windsocks (as in "Pendragon") ...
What has the historical Arthur to do with Malory's 'sword in the stone'
legend and any 'Round Table' legends - all of which are literary inventions
of 1000 years after his floruit?
J.E.F. Godesky
> origin. Being quite educated compare to most people west of Berlin to whom
> everything east of Warsaw is Russia he wrote: "place is Eurasia which now is
> part of Russia." Moreover he mentioned that modern Russians has very little
> connection to Samaritans contrary to popular believe inspired by some
> religious scholars in attempt to find Russia (evil empire) in Bible
> prophecies.
SARMATIANS were nomadic steppe peoples contemporaneous with the Roman Empire.
Later in the Empire's history, they became the model of the Roman cavalry.
SAMARITANS are the "peoples of the land," the product of the Assyrians
transplanted into Palestine, the Jews never taken into Babylonian Exile, and
other peoples, who accepted the Torah, but differed with the Jews from the Exile
in certain matters of doctrine, but mostly in their "lineage," leading to a
split under the first Persian administration of Israel.
Note the difference in spelling; these are two entirely different and unrelated
groups. Samaritans do indeed appear in the Bible; Sarmatians do not. No one
has claimed that Arthur was a Samaritan (one of the people in the Bible), what
has been claimed, and is in fact quite reasonable, is that Arthur is a Sarmatian
(one of the steppe people) myth.
J.E.F. Godesky
> every single "Scythian" element in the Arthurian legends suggested by
> Littleton and Malcor can also be found in Celtic culture, which has the
> benefit of being the dominant culture of the area in which the stories
> originated.
Agreed; I'm not a big proponent of the Sarmatian theory, but I do object to the
ridicule it is under here. I may have overstated its strength in objection to
that ridicule. It is a theory, as valid as any other currently in vogue. I
seem to have missed Dr. Malcor's comments on Reid however, although I am on
ArthurNet. Oh, well. Thank you for filling me in on that--not that I was
running out the door to pick up a copy, anyway. :^)
J.E.F. Godesky
> the romans had cavalry from the steppe land, what more do we need to know?.
>
> yes there is something in the sarmation theory, we all know the theory that
> at badon hill auralius was commander but could artorius be the leader in
> battles and of the cavalry, and was he russian?.
>
> but ime not stating he was it's just a theory you understand :-)
Well, he certainly wasn't "Russian." That comes from the "Rus," who don't enter
the scene for another five hundred years. And if he owes more to the geographic
area of Russia than the British Isles, then he's a myth--or else, the Roman
commander Lucius Artorius Castus of c. 200 CE.
I disagree, though, that Aurelianus necessarily had anything to do with Badon,
and also that simply because Arthur _might_ have fit in such a way, we should
insert him there. After all, it could as easily have been Bozo the Clown,
right?
J.E.F. Godesky
> disqualify it as historical revisionism. That particular odious practice
> has been going on for a long time.
True; but, since _From Scythia to Camelot_ has been well-reviewed and accepted
as a scholarly work, that DOES disqualify it as historical revisionism.
Believe me, I've been studying the origins of the Arthurian legend for over a
decade now, and this theory has been around for about half that time. The
experts in the field are debating it right now not as some bunk, off-the-wall
theory, but as a real possibility. I happen to disagree with it, but that
doesn't make it any less valid a theory, and it deserves at least that much
respect, as a valid theory of the origin of the Arthurian legend. Now, whether
or not Reid's book in particular deserves that respect I don't know, but the
Sarmatian theory as a theory does indeed.
J.E.F. Godesky
> legend and any 'Round Table' legends - all of which are literary inventions
> of 1000 years after his floruit?
Not a thing. Which is why I prefer this is an explanation for the development
of the Arthurian legend, and do not agree with it as the legend's origin.
Jean le Bleu
> True; but, since _From Scythia to Camelot_ has been well-reviewed
> and accepted as a scholarly work, that DOES disqualify it as
> historical revisionism.
The fact that something is scholarly doesn't mean it isn't
revisionist. And the fact that something is revisionist doesn't mean
that it's wrong, either.
fd
I meant SARMATIANS which someone like Hall Lindsey likes to call Russian
ancestors.
And so derives Russian coming to Israel...
J.E.F. Godesky <jef.g...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:3ADE3A85...@verizon.net...
Simon Ward
J.E.F. Godesky wrote in message...
> The most scholarly treatment it's received
> is _From Scythia to Camelot : a radical reassessment of the legends of
King
> Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail_ by C. Scott
> Littleton and Linda A. Malcor. You may have heard of Linda Malcor, she
has
> quite an online presence. I'm a bit surprised she's not here, on this
very
> thread, in fact....
Might be because she is currently embroiling Chris Gwinn in the same debate
on Arthurnet. Although he is being ever so nice, I haven't been tempted to
enter the fray. I'm watching from a few miles away!
Actualy, I think there is soemthing to this theory both in terms of the
development of the legend and for the historical aspect of tracing British
developments in the fifth and sixth centuries. Arthur doesn't have to be a
Sarmation, but it is possible that he and other Britons may have learned
some advanced cavalry techniques from the Sarmation presence. I don't think
that arguing about a (Celtic) Iron Age tradition (Chris Gwinn's approach) is
of much relevance in this respect.
Regards
Simon
Raven
| Raven wrote:
|
|> In short, you mistake the date a region was given its current name for
|> the date the region itself existed. Do you also think "this region of
|> Eurasia" (as I referred to it) was uninhabited or even nonexistent until
|> the term "Eurasia" was actually used, even more recently?
|
| Heh :). The region existed, it was called Rus' and it's centre was
| today's Ukraine not Russia. Moscow was a peripheral mud hole of that
| state. You can't call Rus' Russia without being extremely funny to
| anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history.
Care to guess why I crossposted this topic to soc.culture.ukrainian ?
--
raven | names shift in the dreamlands shapes and faces flow |Dreamlands
@@@@@@@ | meanings alter selves blend or fade | (c) 1993
solaria.| from some roads there is no returning | by C.M.
sol.net | unchanged | Joserlin
TANKS
John Greenall wrote:
>
> Crazy as this guy sounds, my brother in law once told me what he knew of it,
> (it was when we where out shooting once), he said that there where 7 swordes
> of excalibur and that they all had a different name (meaning satan).
>
> Also he said he read that he came from germany, i have forgotten what he
> said of this but it was mildly interesting.
>
> But of course arthur in one thing i read is said to have come from the
> steppe lands of russia.
would you claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same
?
TANKS
John Greenall wrote:
>
> you have just stated it youself jef, auralius had foot soldiers and cavalry,
> the romans had cavalry from the steppe land, what more do we need to know?.
>
> yes there is something in the sarmation theory, we all know the theory that
> at badon hill auralius was commander but could artorius be the leader in
> battles and of the cavalry, and was he russian?.
Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
same ?
>
TANKS
William Underhill wrote:
>
> TANKS wrote:
> >
> > Raven wrote:
> > >
> > > My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan culture
> >
> > HAHAHAHAHH !!! THIS IS SOOOO FUNNY !!!
> >
>
> Since I'm not an expert in the culture and mythology of the Rus
> or pre-Rus peoples, and I've only read four or five versions of
> the Arthurian legend, I will refrain from commenting on the
> historical basis for these theories. I will, however, request
> that "TANKS" (whomever that may be) try to put a little more fact
> and a little less ridicule into his or her post. I'm not much
> inclined to pay attention to posts which consist largely of
> "HAHAHAHAHA !!!" written in uppercase.
would you claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same
?
>
TANKS
Raven wrote:
>
> TANK <cr...@headcase.com> wrote:
>
> | Raven wrote:
> | ...
> |> Whether or not Arthurian legend truly comes from this region of Eurasia,
> |> there certainly are commonalities.
> |> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> |> Historian: King Arthur Was From Russia
> |> http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2001/04/10/003.html
> |
> | HAHAHAHAHH !!! THIS IS SOOOO FUNNY !!!
> |
> | what commonalities ??
>
> I had just listed some, namely the heroes both legendary and real.
>
> The article listed more, such as sword-worship and a grail legend.
>
> | there was no russia until 1700+
> | there was no muscovy till 1400+
> |
> | did this king arthur have a time machine ??
>
> Apparently you must also believe that there were no Americas until after
> they were named for Amerigo Vespucci, years after Columbus's 1492 visit;
> thus "pre-Columbian America" is a contradiction in terms, and there were
> no Native Americans before then, as their continents did not exist.
>
> In short, you mistake the date a region was given its current name for
> the date the region itself existed. Do you also think "this region of
> Eurasia" (as I referred to it) was uninhabited or even nonexistent until
> the term "Eurasia" was actually used, even more recently?
Note the title you used to start the thread.
Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
same ?
>
> --
> Raven | "None so blind as will not see;
> | Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
> raven @ solaria.sol.net | -- The Gospel According to Puck
> | Chapter 3, scene 2, verses 114-115
TANKS
"J.E.F. Godesky" wrote:
>
> > HAHAHAHAHH !!! THIS IS SOOOO FUNNY !!!
> >
> > what commonalities ??
>
> Apparently you don't realize that the Sarmatian theory for Arthur is not a new
> one, and is in fact quite valid. As for common themes in Russian folklore,
> mythology and literature and Arthurian legend, "Raven" is quite right. Russia has
> a very rich folklore, including many elements of chivalry.
Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
same ?
>
> > there was no russia until 1700+
> > there was no muscovy till 1400+
>
> Ah, so we're speaking of the origin of the state now present? In that case,
> France didn't exist until after World War II, and French literature before that is
> just those damn "Frenchies" taking others' work, yes?
>
> Surely you don't suppose that the land now called Russia was uninhabited, or the
> land itself did not exist, before the current nation-state which occupies that
> land? Or that other nation-states may have occupied that land before the current
> one?
>
> > did this king arthur have a time machine ??
> >
> > this 'historian'... do a google search.. i did.. no hits... he must be
> > REAL famous...
>
> Actually, I have heard of him before. But no, I imagine Google wouldn't bring him
> up. In this subject, there is a general presumption that a Google search does not
> constitute the breadth and depth of one's research.
>
> > king arthur from russia AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHBWAHAHAHAHAAHHAH !!!!!
> >
> > russia is so lacking in its own 'glory' it seeks to steal that of
> > others.. any others.. what next.. sinbad the sailor was russian
> > HAHAHAHAHAH... ali baba was russian AHAHAHAHAHHAH ... I KNOW......
> > JESUS CHRIST WAS RUSSIAN BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!
>
> Russia has no lack for "glory." Although, strictly speaking, the Sarmatians are
> not directly tied to the current population calling themselves "Russian." The
> Sarmatians have more in common with the Alans and Huns, I believe.
>
> Jason Godesky
> Editor, The Saxon Shore
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jegst61/
>
> P.S. -- Yes, that IS a Russian last name; Cossack, to be specific.
Raven
| Celtic material that seem to correlate with Arthurian legend, yet they
| _will_ accept folklore that is only documented in the 19th and 20h
| centiruies in Ossetia!).
"Medieval Celtic material" seems to describe a period later than Arthur's,
thus the material could be influenced *by* the Arthurian myth, and in turn
influence the versions of it re-told by later writers. The Sarmatian
presence in Britain would predate or possibly be contemporary with the
origin of the Arthur story in Britain, thus might plausibly affect it.
Unfortunate that Ossetian folklore wasn't transcribed much earlier, but,
you know, folklorists are still just getting around to many cultures.
| I think there is a question as to whether or not the culture diffused into
| British culture. There were many more ethnic Italians in Britain than
| Sarmatians (who only numbered 5,000 or so and were spread out in groups of
| 500 across the country whose own culturally Celtic population was in the
| millions), and Roman paganism was widespread across Britain, yet we detect
| no great Roman pagan influence on the early Welsh poetry or myths (there are
| no Jupiters or Minervas showing up as kings and queens - yet we do have
| native divinities like Mabon [=Maponos Apollo] and Modron [=Matrona]
| surviving Christianity to show up in popular tales). If the Romans left no
| mark, how are we expected to believe that the Sarmatians left a mark?
You've just named two Greco-Roman deities the Romans *did* conflate with
Celtic deities: "Mabon = Maponos *Apollo*" and Minerva (as in Minerva Sulis,
patron goddess of Bath). If Maximus (Macsen) and Aurelianus (Emrys, as in
Merlinus Aurelianus / Myrddin Emrys) aren't Roman names that show up in
Welsh poetry and myth, then I've only imagined what I'd thought I'd read.
And all those "Caer ___" cities in Wales on the site of Roman "Castra ___"
encampments leave me questioning your claim that "the Romans left no mark".
If Rome had never been there, do you think Welsh culture would be the same?
The Welsh (at the time of the Saxon invasions) have been called "Romanized
Celts", trying to defend the civil society formed under Roman rule, using
the military methods and even equipment left behind when Rome withdrew its
protection from the borders of the Empire. Legionaries -- usually assigned
to the opposite side of the Empire from their birthplace, so they'd be less
likely to join a local rebellion -- often retired where they served, married
local women, and raised their sons to be soldiers too, so it should not be
surprising that post-Roman Britain had a pool of soldiers with Asian ancestry
and traditions. There seems to be a mistaken impression of "ethnic purity",
when what should be appreciated (and is closer to true) is "hybrid vigor".
Oddly enough, the same sort of mistake is rampant in the modern Ukraine.
Norse "Rus", Slavic, Polish, and a large dollop of Turkic (which has intricate
ties to Mongolian, dating back to the roaming Tu-Chueh -- whose descendants
included a red-haired green-eyed Genghis Khan), in a "Wild West" region sought
out by escapees from empires in all four cardinal directions. What a mix!
I think this strength of diversity is what helped the Cossacks be "free men".
Now there is a Ukrainian political faction for "racial purity". Go figure.
Well, even the USA, that "mongrel nation", has some Pure-Americanists.
Raven
| If Maximus (Macsen) and Aurelianus (Emrys, as in Merlinus Aurelianus /
| Myrddin Emrys) aren't Roman names that show up in Welsh poetry and myth,
| then I've only imagined what I'd thought I'd read.
Well, mis-remembered one of them, anyway. Ambrosius, not Aurelianus.
Emrys = Ambrosius. Myrddin Emrys = Merlinus Ambrosius. Sorry about that!
--
Raven | "Forgive no error you recognize; it will
| repeat itself, increase, and afterward
raven @ solaria.sol.net | our pupils will not forgive in us
| what we forgave." Yevgeny Yevtushenko
Raven
| If Raven had framed her posting as "isn't this interesting - look at the
| parallels" I might, *might* buy it. But, the way I read it was as I stated
| - an attempt to denegrate the history of the afforemetioned groups.
Actually, I *did* post it because it was interesting, and on-topic
(particularly for alt.legend.king-arthur, the first newsgroup listed),
and because I hadn't found it posted anywhere on Usenet (I did check).
And I *did* point at parallels -- or "commonalities", as I put it.
I don't necessarily agree with the author's claim that Arthur came from Russia
(or to keep TANKS happy, from a region roughly around what is now called that)
but then I was not presenting it as my own opinion; I was sharing an article
I'd found and attaching my own comment at the top concerning "knightly" tales
in Russian and Ukrainian myth and history, for those who'd never heard them.
Having grown up loving both the Three Bogatyri and the Knights of the Round
Table, I was delighted by the possibility that they *might* actually have had
some distant historical "kinship" beyond the mere resemblance of theme.
I'm not sure how this "denigrates" any group. Surely, if Welsh culture does
have traces of influence by Sarmatian culture, that only means it is richer
and more diverse in its sources than most of us had previously suspected.
This is not a bad thing.
See my earlier comments about "ethnic purity" vs "hybrid vigor".
And, Morgan, if you had seen my poem "The Dream" (Camelot in Spring),
posted around the same time to the same groups, you would have known
a much better reason for me to post the article than "denigration".
J.E.F. Godesky
> I meant SARMATIANS which someone like Hall Lindsey likes to call Russian
> ancestors.
> And so derives Russian coming to Israel...
More than a spelling mistake ..... where's this talk of Israel and the Bible
coming from?
J.E.F. Godesky
> same ?
Not at all. But, if we take "Russian" to mean "From Russia," and "Russia" to mean the
geographic area, then yes, it would be fair to call Sarmatians "Russian" in that sense.
J.E.F. Godesky
> development of the legend and for the historical aspect of tracing British
> developments in the fifth and sixth centuries. Arthur doesn't have to be a
> Sarmation, but it is possible that he and other Britons may have learned
> some advanced cavalry techniques from the Sarmation presence. I don't think
> that arguing about a (Celtic) Iron Age tradition (Chris Gwinn's approach) is
> of much relevance in this respect.
If Arthur was a Romano-British commander, then it's almost unavoidable that at
least his tactics and units were influenced by the Sarmatians. They had a
profound impact on Roman cavalry units, formations and tactics in Late
Antiquity. I find an interesting possibility (though not very probably) that
Arthur manipulated Sarmatian beliefs in order to ensure the loyalty of Sarmatian
federates in Britain. As I said, not very probable, but a possibility for
things like the sword in the stone, if you want to give it a historical context
(which I don't).
pkmb
> Care to guess why I crossposted this topic to soc.culture.ukrainian ?
Hmm, mind reading is present in old legends but isn't a common trait in
todays societies so I have no idea. Just like I can't understand why you
are using wrong nomenclature in your posts.
Marcin B.
pkmb
>
> > Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
> > same ?
>
> Not at all. But, if we take "Russian" to mean "From Russia," and "Russia" to mean the
> geographic area, then yes, it would be fair to call Sarmatians "Russian" in that sense.
No it wouldn't. AFAIK Sarmatians weren't Slav and they lived rather in
the steppes of today's Ukraine than in today's Russia.
fd
There is a completely silly but yet very popular branch of Bible worms most
prominent of which are Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. Last one wrote once
famous book "Late great planet earth" where he tied Russia to Sarmatians,
them to folks mentioned by Ezekiel and to Gog-Mogog foe. These guys cannot
withstand any critics, they twist Bible words as they want, yet you should
take into account that this book was sold in 35,000,000 copies and in many
American churches was mandatory reading comparable to Bible. Those two guys
still have prime-time several hours a week in national TV channel and
rhetoric of many politicians can be easily traced to Hel's book. So, for
many Sarmatians and even Russia are indeed mentioned in Bible (Mesheck is
just misspelled Moscow). At least every students at our University I talked
(this is in Texas) really believes in that.
J.E.F. Godesky wrote in message <3ADED298...@verizon.net>...
fd
>
>
>
>Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
>same ?
>
>
to distinguish between Asian-savage Russians and real-Europeans -
Ukrainians.
But do I claim that TANKS, babai1 and hollasraka are one and the same?
;))))))))
Christopher Gwinn
> No it wouldn't. AFAIK Sarmatians weren't Slav and they lived rather in
> the steppes of today's Ukraine than in today's Russia.
> Marcin B.
The Sarmatians were culturally and linguistically Eastern Iranian, making
them culturally related not only to the Alans but also to the to the ancient
Scythians, whom the Sarmatians seem to have displaced.
Iranian may be a misleading term to some, since many people have a
stereotypical idea of Iranians being short and dark (some in America even
think the Iranians are Arabs), but the Scythians and their cousins were
noted by ancient authors for being tall and having blonde or red hair. They
don't seem to have been a single ethnicity so much as a mix of several
different ethnicities as one of the policies of these wandering steppe
warriors was to accept foreigners as part of their tribe.
- Chris Gwinn
Cumhail Mac Cumhail
extreme small-mindedness, or contrived to support an argument with little
foundation.
--
Cumhail
--------------------------------------------------------
I think that I am better than those who are trying
to reform me.
--E.W. Howe
pkmb <pk...@catv.retsat1.com.pl> wrote in message
news:3ADD8F2D...@catv.retsat1.com.pl...
> Raven wrote:
>
> > In short, you mistake the date a region was given its current name for
> > the date the region itself existed. Do you also think "this region of
> > Eurasia" (as I referred to it) was uninhabited or even nonexistent until
> > the term "Eurasia" was actually used, even more recently?
>
> Heh :). The region existed, it was called Rus' and it's centre was
> today's Ukraine not Russia. Moscow was a peripheral mud hole of that
> state. You can't call Rus' Russia without being extremely funny to
> anyone with even the slightest knowledge of history.
John Kennedy
fd wrote in message <9bmse8$n83$1...@news.tamu.edu>...
>I guess you are not living in USA otherwise you would know.
>There is a completely silly but yet very popular branch of Bible worms most
>prominent of which are Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. Last one wrote once
>famous book "Late great planet earth" where he tied Russia to Sarmatians,
>them to folks mentioned by Ezekiel and to Gog-Mogog foe. These guys cannot
>withstand any critics, they twist Bible words as they want, yet you should
>take into account that this book was sold in 35,000,000 copies and in many
>American churches was mandatory reading comparable to Bible. Those two guys
>still have prime-time several hours a week in national TV channel and
>rhetoric of many politicians can be easily traced to Hel's book. So, for
>many Sarmatians and even Russia are indeed mentioned in Bible (Mesheck is
>just misspelled Moscow). At least every students at our University I
talked
>(this is in Texas) really believes in that.
attack from Gog and Magog is at the end of the Book of Revelation, but I
guess that a lot of people just overlook that part....
--
"When I first saw you
with your smile so tender,
my heart was captured;
my soul surrendered."
-Elvis Presley
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
John Kennedy
TANKS wrote in message <3ADE9B26...@headcase.com>...
>
>
>John Greenall wrote:
>>
>> Crazy as this guy sounds, my brother in law once told me what he knew of
it,
>> (it was when we where out shooting once), he said that there where 7
swordes
>> of excalibur and that they all had a different name (meaning satan).
>>
>> Also he said he read that he came from germany, i have forgotten what he
>> said of this but it was mildly interesting.
>>
>> But of course arthur in one thing i read is said to have come from the
>> steppe lands of russia.
>
>
>would you claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same
--
"When I first saw you
with your smile so tender,
my heart was captured;
my soul surrendered."
-Elvis Presley
The Unforgiven--Assistant Castle Librarian, Court Loon, Royal Hacker of
the Castle, Knight Protector General, Sir Smooth
ICQ# 78150961
Christopher Gwinn
> Actualy, I think there is soemthing to this theory both in terms of the
> development of the legend and for the historical aspect of tracing British
> developments in the fifth and sixth centuries. Arthur doesn't have to be a
> Sarmation, but it is possible that he and other Britons may have learned
> some advanced cavalry techniques from the Sarmation presence. I don't
think
> that arguing about a (Celtic) Iron Age tradition (Chris Gwinn's approach)
is
> of much relevance in this respect.
Well, as I have stated many times in the past, I do not accept that Arthur
was an historical reality but rather that he was (much like Finn mac Cumall
in Ireland) a late reflex of a pagan Celtic warrior god that has been
euhemerized.
Remember that Finn, while universally accepted today as a mythic semi-divine
figure, was once firmly believed to have been real - he was assigned to the
late 3rd century AD by chroniclers (not to much earlier than Arthur!) but he
was also used in a later period to fight off invading Vikings (much like
Arthur vs. the Saxons)!
In fact, the parallels with Finn are too strong in my mind and Arthur seems
to have too unsecure of a place in history for Arthur to have been anything
other than a mythical defender of the British - he was simply the British
Finn.
When one really examines hard the various motifs associated with the
Arthurian legend, there is next to nothing that can't be explained by pagan
Celtic myth and ritual that we actually have a record of.
Just my opinion, anyway.
- Chris Gwinn
Cumhail Mac Cumhail
know this to be true. Even recent history is full of inaccuracies. I'd
also like to point out the humor in someone laying claim to scholarship, and
threatening book burning in the same conversation (thread). Heh, yourself.
--
Cumhail
--------------------------------------------------------
Wm. MacKenzie, citizen of Sol Three - member of the human race since 21
April, 1958
pkmb <pk...@catv.retsat1.com.pl> wrote in message
news:3ADDBAA1...@catv.retsat1.com.pl...
> fd wrote:
>
> > Word Russia still excites you that much?
>
> Nope, but spreading missconceptions about history do.
>
> > Relax, NATO is backing you. :)))))))
>
> Heh :)), we're going to come to Russia and burn the books producing
> "knowledge" shared with us by the poster who started the thread ;)))).
> With Leos and all ;).
Cumhail Mac Cumhail
'Cause you're just another goof with an agenda?
--
Cumhail
--------------------------------------------------------
I think that I am better than those who are trying
to reform me.
--E.W. Howe
Raven <ra...@solaria.sol.net> wrote in message
news:3ade97e1$0$42883$39de...@news.sol.net...
Cumhail Mac Cumhail
house that walked around on giant duck legs - Now...put Baba Yaga in
white samite, and I think we can accept "irrefutable" .
--
Cumhail
--------------------------------------------------------
I think that I am better than those who are trying
to reform me.
--E.W. Howe
Christopher Gwinn <son...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:l5iD6.5659$l5.2...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> > Perhaps ... except this theory is not a new one. Reid is only
elaborating
> on
> > an already well-established theory. The most scholarly treatment it's
> received
> > is _From Scythia to Camelot : a radical reassessment of the legends of
> King
> > Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail_ by C. Scott
> > Littleton and Linda A. Malcor. You may have heard of Linda Malcor, she
> has
> > quite an online presence. I'm a bit surprised she's not here, on this
> very
> > thread, in fact....
>
> Linda Malcor commented on Reid's book recently on the ArthurNet mailing
> list. She basically said that Reid blatantly ripped off her and
Littleton's
> book (it seems he came just shy of actual plagarism) but that he left out
> all the details that they provided in their own book to support their
> radical theory - thus Reid's book comes off more as unsupported fantasy.
>
> > At any rate, it is quite a valid theory. The Sarmatians had many
legends
> which
> > greatly resemble the sword in the stone and other legends of the Round
> Table,
>
> Most of which are interpolated from a second hand account of Scythian
> religion by Herodotus combined with the modern folktales of the Ossets who
> are culturally related to the Alans (who in turn are cultural cousins of
the
> Sarmatians). The theory totally disregards the more likely Celtic
infleunce
> on the Arthurian legend as well as the fact that the Celts may have shared
> much of the same myths and motifs as the Scythians (inherited from Proto
> Indo European thought and strengthened by early Celto-Scythian contact on
> the Continent in pre-history), even if certain elements are not documented
> until quite late (I find it fascinating that Littleton and Malcor will
> discount medieval Celtic material that seem to correlate with Arthurian
> legend, yet they _will_ accept folklore that is only documented in the
19th
> and 20h centiruies in Ossetia!).
>
> > they used dragon-shaped windsocks (as in "Pendragon"), and were expert
> > horsemen.
>
> This really proves nothing. The Celts possessed dragons long before they
> came into contact with the Sarmatians, as is proved by many Celtic
> artifacts. The Britons were also notable horsemen even in Caesar's day -
he
> commented on how dangerous it was for his men to engage the British
cavalry.
>
> > So good, in fact, that the Late Roman army recruited them in large
> > numbers, and seem to have based several types of units--including the
> > cataphractarii (the type of cavalry which Arthur most likely commanded,
if
> he
> > ever did at all) and cilbanarii. Ribchester and other areas in Britain
> were
> > settled with Sarmatians from the Russian steppes by the Roman Empire, so
> > there's no question of whether or not Sarmatian culture diffused to
> Britain.
>
> I think there is a question as to whether or not the culture diffused into
> British culture. There were many more ethnic Italians in Britain than
> Sarmatians (who only numbered 5,000 or so and were spread out in groups of
> 500 across the country whose own culturally Celtic population was in the
> millions), and Roman paganism was widespread across Britain, yet we detect
> no great Roman pagan influence on the early Welsh poetry or myths (there
are
> no Jupiters or Minervas showing up as kings and queens - yet we do have
> native divinities like Mabon [=Maponos Apollo] and Modron [=Matrona]
> surviving Christianity to show up in popular tales). If the Romans left no
> mark, how are we expected to believe that the Sarmatians left a mark?
>
> > The question is whether or not Arthur was part of that diffusion. It
> seems
> > irrefutable that the Arthurian legend was at least affected by the
> Sarmatian
> > influence, so the question is really whether or not there was an Arthur
> apart
> > from Sarmatian folklore.
>
> As I have said, I would contest "irrefutable" here. I think that almost
> every single "Scythian" element in the Arthurian legends suggested by
> Littleton and Malcor can also be found in Celtic culture, which has the
> benefit of being the dominant culture of the area in which the stories
> originated.
>
> - Chris Gwinn
>
>
pkmb
>
> The inability to see beyond words to the intended idea, is usually either
> extreme small-mindedness, or contrived to support an argument with little
> foundation.
Have you ever been forced upon the ideas of All Russia? Ergo everything
which happened anytime in history on the territories of the late (rot in
hell) USSR happened to Russia and Russians? Have you ever been in a
situation in which you told the truth about history which was different
from the "history" forced upon you in the school by a system introduced
to your country by an occupant and maintained with his guns and brute
force, which resulted in severe punishment from your teacher and a
statement that "back in the old days your parents would be thrown out
from their jobs, put in jail and you would be sent to a correctional
facility for that"? What was the scariest of all was the fact that she
was right, a decade before that could have happened! If not then in your
ignorance don't blame me for reacting actively to a statement which
reflects that misleading and nationalistic mindset! You have no idea
about the circumstances here and things which created characters of the
people in this part of the world and if you had some good sense you
wouldn't be making such statements.
TANKS
John Kennedy wrote:
>
> TANKS wrote in message <3ADE9B26...@headcase.com>...
> >
> >
> >John Greenall wrote:
> >>
> >> Crazy as this guy sounds, my brother in law once told me what he knew of
> it,
> >> (it was when we where out shooting once), he said that there where 7
> swordes
> >> of excalibur and that they all had a different name (meaning satan).
> >>
> >> Also he said he read that he came from germany, i have forgotten what he
> >> said of this but it was mildly interesting.
> >>
> >> But of course arthur in one thing i read is said to have come from the
> >> steppe lands of russia.
> >
> >
> >would you claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same
> Get some new fuckin' material, dude!
kiss my ass doood !!
TANKS
"J.E.F. Godesky" wrote:
>
> > Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
> > same ?
>
> Not at all. But, if we take "Russian" to mean "From Russia," and "Russia" to mean the
> geographic area, then yes, it would be fair to call Sarmatians "Russian" in that sense.
In that sense it would be fair to call you an idiot.
pkmb
>
> Much "history" is comprised of propaganda, myth and misconception. We all
> know this to be true. Even recent history is full of inaccuracies. I'd
> also like to point out the humor in someone laying claim to scholarship, and
> threatening book burning in the same conversation (thread). Heh, yourself.
Have you seen the discussions between myself and Fd in this (scu) ng? If
you would and you knew something about the Russian reactions towards
NATO you would have understood this statement to be a joke (btw check in
your manuals the meaning of multiple ";)" signs at the end of a
statement, it might help). I hope you're not a scientist because you
seem to jump to conclusions without data even resembling the state of
being complete AND you don't seem to give your conclusions proper
thought.
fd
I knew for long time (my wife had a brilliant collection of folk fiery
tells) that all folk stories in Europe-Asia continent are well connected
(African are very different BTW). For example, almost all Russian fiery
tells can be traced to Indian folk tells. And the only original character I
was able to find in Russian tells was Baba-Yaga (I am not professional in
this area though). And you just kicked me behind my back. :^))))))
On a second thought Baba-Yaga as Lady-of-the-Lake it is like dragon
pretending to be a space rocket.. Or better Lady-of-the-Lake as Baba-Yaga it
is like space rocket pretending to be a dragon. ;^)))))))
Cumhail Mac Cumhail wrote in message ...
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:3add3e2d$0$42882$39de...@news.sol.net...
> My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan
culture
> may not be aware of how much chivalric saga survives in both
storytelling
> (e.g. "The Three Bogatyri [Heroes]") and real history (e.g. the
Cossacks
> [kozaki = "free men"] who fought off Turkish slaving raids, much as
Arthur's
> knights fought off other invaders). Whether or not Arthurian legend
truly
> comes from this region of Eurasia, there certainly are
commonalities.
Yes. And there are similarities between Arthur and Barbarossa,
Charlemagne, Fionn, Olgier the Dane, even Jesus Christ. Anyone want to
claim that Arthur was German, Frankish, Irish, Danish, or Jewish?
Luke Goaman-Dodson
news:9bkm79$7pv$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> Auralius was historical and did fight but arthur is shady and a
dodgy
> character at best, if he existed. and if he did no one can tell
where he
> came from or his nationality, but roman or russian is a good bet.
And not British?
Isn't that a bit odd?
delete
to fd, a russian apologist
so are you claiming that Ukrainians are really Russians too. Ugly
adjectives aside, these are two different nations, so stop trying to
steal Ukrainian land and history.
Andrij
delete
you are even trying to steal Baba Yaga from the older Ukrainian
culture.
You are a pervert. What do you want to do to the poor old lady.
Andrij
John Greenall
> Get some new fuckin' material, dude!
You idiot, "new material" on a subject on 6th century myth.
John Greenall
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
"Luke Goaman-Dodson" <bel...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9bn7k2$c72$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
John Greenall
questions auralisus's presence at Badon (and others :-) and that it was
arthur who fought those battles.
Of course goes against the roman name that gyldas tells us.
fd
andrij (delete) <@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
<3adf2acb....@news.v-wave.com>...
>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:26:08 -0500, "fd" <f...@pp.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>>TANKS wrote in message <3ADE9B2A...@headcase.com>...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
>>>same ?
>>>
>>>
>>I know only two guys here (babai1 and hollasraka) who support this
viewpoint
>>to distinguish between Asian-savage Russians and real-Europeans -
>>Ukrainians.
>>
>>But do I claim that TANKS, babai1 and hollasraka are one and the same?
>> ;))))))))
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>to fd, a russian apologist
You mean it is like Hitler apologist?
I do not buy it.
>
> so are you claiming that Ukrainians are really Russians too.
No I do not, Why?
I only claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are not the same even
though .
TANKSs friends babai1 and hollasraka claim the opposite.
>Ugly
>adjectives aside, these are two different nations, so stop trying to
>steal Ukrainian land and history.
Can you please point me when and where did I do that?
>Andrij
fd
>fd, you are really funny
>
>you are even trying to steal Baba Yaga from the older Ukrainian
>culture.
>You are a pervert. What do you want to do to the poor old lady.
You probably do not know but Russian and Ukrainian culture have the same
roots.
But yea, we have Asian-savage nationalistic Russians (=mongols?) and
real-Europeans frendly and open Ukrainians (=Rus). :))))))
Steve Schaper
delete
On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 15:01:46 -0500, "fd" <f...@pp.tamu.edu> wrote:
>
>andrij (delete) <@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
><3adf2bda....@news.v-wave.com>...
>>fd, you are really funny
>>
>>you are even trying to steal Baba Yaga from the older Ukrainian
>>culture.
>>You are a pervert. What do you want to do to the poor old lady.
>
>
>You probably do not know but Russian and Ukrainian culture have the same
>roots.
No, they do not. Russias roots are in the muds of Muscovy and Suzdal
and further east and north. Ukraine's roots are Kyiv and Lviv. How
do you see these as same roots?
>
>But yea, we have Asian-savage nationalistic Russians (=mongols?) and
>real-Europeans frendly and open Ukrainians (=Rus). :))))))
>
Your words regarding Baba Yaga are:
"And the only original character I was able to find in Russian tells
(i think you meant tales) was Baba-Yaga (I am not professional in
this area though)."
I, for one, am willing to share Baba Yaga with anyone who wants her
in their fairy tales but please do not claim exclusive rights to Baba
Yaga. There has been way too much culture and history stolen from
Ukraine by Russia. Build your own culture and traditions without
robbing others.
Andrij
fd
BTW connection between Alans and Ossetians as well as between Kievan Rus and
the Varangians is also doubtful though very popular.
Steve Schaper wrote in message <1es4c3w.1kgeebr1srvm8tN@[10.0.0.2]>...
delete
>
>andrij (delete) <@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
><3adf2acb....@news.v-wave.com>...
>>On Thu, 19 Apr 2001 09:26:08 -0500, "fd" <f...@pp.tamu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>TANKS wrote in message <3ADE9B2A...@headcase.com>...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
>>>>same ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I know only two guys here (babai1 and hollasraka) who support this
>viewpoint
>>>to distinguish between Asian-savage Russians and real-Europeans -
>>>Ukrainians.
>>>
>>>But do I claim that TANKS, babai1 and hollasraka are one and the same?
>>> ;))))))))
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>to fd, a russian apologist
>
>You mean it is like Hitler apologist?
>I do not buy it.
I do not care what you buy and what you do not buy. Your past
writings show any of us here who you are, and above, you have my
opinion of your character.
>>
>> so are you claiming that Ukrainians are really Russians too.
>
>No I do not, Why?
>I only claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are not the same even
>though .
>TANKSs friends babai1 and hollasraka claim the opposite.
>
>>Ugly
>>adjectives aside, these are two different nations, so stop trying to
>>steal Ukrainian land and history.
>
>Can you please point me when and where did I do that?
Read very carefully, I did not say you did any of the above. If you
do want to comment seriously, then respond to the thougth. In all
your posts here i hear this talk of common roots, Scythians and
Sarmatians living in Russia of long ago. Scythians lived on the
present day speppes of Ukraine. They never did live in any area of
today's Russia.
Stealing history and geography again. Caught you red handed.
Andrij
John Kennedy
John Greenall wrote in message <9bng8o$ojp$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>...
>John Kennedy writes-
>
>> Get some new fuckin' material, dude!
>
>You idiot, "new material" on a subject on 6th century myth.
messages....
AV
> I guess you are not living in USA otherwise you would know.
> There is a completely silly but yet very popular branch of Bible worms most
> prominent of which are Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. Last one wrote once
> famous book "Late great planet earth" where he tied Russia to Sarmatians,
> them to folks mentioned by Ezekiel and to Gog-Mogog foe. These guys cannot
> withstand any critics, they twist Bible words as they want, yet you should
Twist the Bible ? The canonical anglican translation of the Bible of 1804 the
word
"Ross" is omitted altogether. Although Tubal (Tobol) is still present.
"Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal".
The rulers in ancient Rus were called 'vieliky kniaz' - chief prince - grand
duke.
Magog = Mogols (not Mongols)
chief prince = veliky knyaz (Grand duke)
Meshech = mosoch, legenday person who gave the name to moscow.
the Bible could read "turn your face to Gog in the land of Mogols, grand duke of
Rus, Moscovie and Tobol".
Ezekiel chapter from Ostrozhskaya Bible printed by Ivan Fedorov in 1581:
"gog knyaza rosska, mosokh and fovel" (fovel = fuval = tubal = tobol).
Knyazya Rosska !
> take into account that this book was sold in 35,000,000 copies and in many
> American churches was mandatory reading comparable to Bible. Those two guys
> still have prime-time several hours a week in national TV channel and
> rhetoric of many politicians can be easily traced to Hel's book. So, for
> many Sarmatians and even Russia are indeed mentioned in Bible (Mesheck is
> just misspelled Moscow). At least every students at our University I talked
> (this is in Texas) really believes in that.
And there also were works of Morozov and later Fomenko. Academician Fomenko
wrote scores of books on the global history chronology including Russian
history.
> J.E.F. Godesky wrote in message <3ADED298...@verizon.net>...
> >> Sorry I just made spelling mistake (as I usually do).
> >> I meant SARMATIANS which someone like Hall Lindsey likes to call Russian
> >> ancestors.
> >> And so derives Russian coming to Israel...
> >
> >More than a spelling mistake ..... where's this talk of Israel and the
> Bible
> >coming from?
> >
J.E.F. Godesky
> attack from Gog and Magog is at the end of the Book of Revelation, but I
> guess that a lot of people just overlook that part....
Gog and Magog are in Ezekiel, not Revelation!
J.E.F. Godesky
> There is a completely silly but yet very popular branch of Bible worms most
> prominent of which are Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. Last one wrote once
> famous book "Late great planet earth" where he tied Russia to Sarmatians,
> them to folks mentioned by Ezekiel and to Gog-Mogog foe. These guys cannot
> withstand any critics, they twist Bible words as they want, yet you should
> American churches was mandatory reading comparable to Bible. Those two guys
> still have prime-time several hours a week in national TV channel and
> rhetoric of many politicians can be easily traced to Hel's book. So, for
> many Sarmatians and even Russia are indeed mentioned in Bible (Mesheck is
> just misspelled Moscow). At least every students at our University I talked
> (this is in Texas) really believes in that.
I actually do live in the US, and occasionally listen to Jack Van Impe for
comedic value. I find it hard to believe, though, that he even knows who the
Sarmatians are. Are you sure he doesn't mean Samaritans?
J.E.F. Godesky
TANKS .... I presume you're from soc.culture.russian? ..... I got into this thread for the
very reason that I found your first message highly obnoxious and offensive. You obviously
haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about here. I've been studying the origins of
the Arthurian legend for over a decade now, and seen many debates with well-known scholars in
the field on the very issue. It is not a bunk theory; it is hardly proven true, but it has
validity to it. You, however, reject it out of hand, without even an understanding of who
the Sarmatians are. I, personally, do not accept the theory. But then, I knew who the
Sarmatians were without being told by someone on an internet newsgroup. You see, that's how
scholars (strange beings that they are) operate; they evaluate the evidence, and then draw a
reasonable conclusion from that. I know it seems strange, but it's true. I've evaluated the
evidence, and decided there are better explanations, but the theory itself is plausible
enough to render its adherents some modicum of respect. You decided the entire theory was
bunk, without knowing a single thing about it save some inadequate news clipping, and
proceeded to ridicule dozens of well-known and respected scholars who adhere to it, including
professors, historians and curators. I guess they're just not as smart as you, or know as
much about Scythian and British history as you, eh?
So, tell me, who is the idiot here?
On second though, don't tell me, I'm finished with this.
J.E.F. Godesky
Oh no, I don't doubt that Aurelianus existed; Gildas puts that question to
rest fairly quickly. However, the sentence which mentions Badon is
probably one of the most obscure thoughts ever put into Latin. It's
unclear whether or not Aurelianus had anything to do with Badon, given how
dense that sentence is. He mentions both in that sentence, but it's
unclear if (and how) they are related.
Whether or not it was Arthur that fought those battles--I've become an
agnostic lately.
bab...@my-deja.com
>According to kavkaz.org they all are Jews :))))))
>
>BTW connection between Alans and Ossetians as well as between Kievan Rus and
>the Varangians is also doubtful though very popular.
??? Ossetians are Scythians. Alans were absorbed into the eastern Slavic
people - the Ante- who took the name of their state from their rulers
(a la the Bulghars-Bulgarians centuries later).
Varangians were of course later absorbed into Rus' society (a famous example
was Aksakyov [sic]).
Babai
"ethnic Varangian" :-)
>
>Steve Schaper wrote in message <1es4c3w.1kgeebr1srvm8tN@[10.0.0.2]>...
>>Since when are Ossetians the same as the Kievan Rus and the Varangians?
>>
>
>
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
John Greenall
And i know he knows more too, he don't know everything (like he seems to)
but more than you.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
"TANKS" <cr...@headcase.com> wrote in message
news:3ADF0C7F...@headcase.com...
John Greenall
are one and the same" QUET A FEW TIMES.
You trying to start a war tanks :-)
?
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
"TANKS" <cr...@headcase.com> wrote in message
news:3ADE9B2B...@headcase.com...
>
>
> William Underhill wrote:
> >
> > TANKS wrote:
> > >
> > > Raven wrote:
> > > >
> > > > My comment on the below: readers not raised in Russian or Ukraininan
culture
> > >
> > > HAHAHAHAHH !!! THIS IS SOOOO FUNNY !!!
> > >
> >
> > Since I'm not an expert in the culture and mythology of the Rus
> > or pre-Rus peoples, and I've only read four or five versions of
> > the Arthurian legend, I will refrain from commenting on the
> > historical basis for these theories. I will, however, request
> > that "TANKS" (whomever that may be) try to put a little more fact
> > and a little less ridicule into his or her post. I'm not much
> > inclined to pay attention to posts which consist largely of
> > "HAHAHAHAHA !!!" written in uppercase.
>
>
>
> would you claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same
> ?
>
>
>
> >
> > I would also like to thank Raven for posting information which
> > may be of interest to some readers here. I just might follow it
> > up and do some research on my own, to satisfy my Elephant's
> > Child.
> >
> > Yours aye,
> > William
> > --
> > -----------------===========<\ />============-----------------
> > William Underhill Uilliam mac Aillén vhic Séamus
> > Royal Canadian Navy Society for Creative Anachronism
> > Ready, aye, ready Vivite ad clamandum, clamate ad vivendum
> > tr...@home.com http://members.home.net/trode/
> > -----------------===========</ \>============-----------------
> > The usual government employee disclaimer, blah blah blah...
John Greenall
Yes there is case here, if you live in the UK as arthurian myth and legend
became popular again for a time, I remember that on UK news read "the
burrial shroud -Shroud if Turin-" has been accuratly dated to no further
back than the 6th century.
The shroud has the supposed face of jesus on it. (or so we are all lead to
belive).
If it is from the 6th century i thought "it isn't jesus's face, it's king
arthurs", and what where the grail knight's looking for?. and why did the
KNIGHTS TEMPLER have it in there possesion, and what is the secret of the
GRAIL ahahahahahahaah :-)
I STILL KNOW WHAT IS TRUE, but consider not to tell too much, after all
there is no evidence for anything, but then we all have our own intelligence
and sence to make sence of myth and mystery.
I fear some will never read this in books.
But i know, and i remember.
--
John
_________________________________________________
homepage - arthurian legend and conisro history -
http://www.angelfire.com/goth/caerconan/index.html
"John Greenall" <john.g...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9bngfh$3vk$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Jean le Bleu
> > Of course, though, if you looked at the Bible, it also says that the
> > attack from Gog and Magog is at the end of the Book of Revelation, but I
> > guess that a lot of people just overlook that part....
>
> Gog and Magog are in Ezekiel, not Revelation!
Actually, they are in both. The author of Revelation is alluding to
Ezekiel.
TANKS
John Greenall wrote:
>
> TANKS has replied with "would you claim that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia
> are one and the same" QUET A FEW TIMES.
Would you mean QUITE ??
I replied to QUITE a few people who inferred that. Why would I pick on
only one and leave the rest off the hook for such an idiot inference.
> > > William Underhill Uilliam mac AillИn vhic SИamus
fd
frequently changed thrones the rest of you message becomes irrelavant.
andrij (delete) <@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
<3adf55ad....@news.v-wave.com>...
fd
they will kill you.
BTW by common roots I mean Kievan Rus, dude. :)))))
Scythians had nothing to do with Rus and hence Ukrainians as well as
Russians.
andrij (delete) <@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
<3adf5a2e....@news.v-wave.com>...
TANKS
It was sent in error and was ment to go the newsgroups. This is the only
apology you will get from me though so enjoy.
"J.E.F. Godesky" wrote:
>
> > In that sense it would be fair to call you an idiot.
>
You are finished alright, along with any other 'scholar' that claims or
infers Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same. Let me
repost the part of your post that you edited out.
"J.E.F. Godesky" wrote:
>
> Not at all. But, if we take "Russian" to mean "From Russia," and "Russia" to mean the
> geographic area, then yes, it would be fair to call Sarmatians "Russian" in that sense.
I stand by my reply. In that sense it would be fair to call you an
idiot.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
delete
Jason, I have not had much do with arthurian legends but i can tell
you where Tanks is comming from. These posts are aslo sent to
soc.culture.ukrainian and on that news group we have to constantly
defend our history, the history of Kivan Rus from being stolen by
Muscovites who these days call themselves Russians
And thus when you wrote
>
> > Are you claiming that Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the
> > same ?
>
> Not at all. But, if we take "Russian" to mean "From Russia," and "Russia" to mean the
> geographic area, then yes, it would be fair to call Sarmatians "Russian" in that sense.
the ancient Sarmatians lived in what is today southern Ukraine and
thus have no connection with Russia.
Now do you understand. Its our Ukrainian national sensitivites. I as
a Ukrainian do not like to see my history and my geographyconstantly
stolen by uninformed academics like yourself, and of course by not so
stupid russians. Now do you understand Tank's passioin.
Andrij
delete
fd, i am laughing out loud where do you see me saying Ukrainians
have Scythian roots? I said that Scythians lived on the territory of
present day Ukraine. The present Ukraines roots go back in antiquity
and may have included some scythians. and maybe not
>You mean that Ukrainians have Scythian roots. Tell it to TANKS and babai -
>they will kill you.
>
>BTW by common roots I mean Kievan Rus, dude. :)))))
Please explain how you or the present Russian nation have common roots
with Kyivan Rus , other than plundering it and conquering it. Go away
you thief of history.
>Scythians had nothing to do with Rus and hence Ukrainians as well as
>Russians.
>
>andrij (delete) <@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
><3adf5a2e....@news.v-wave.com>...
>
>>Read very carefully, I did not say you did any of the above. If you
>>do want to comment seriously, then respond to the thougth. In all
>>your posts here i hear this talk of common roots, Scythians and
>>Sarmatians living in Russia of long ago. Scythians lived on the
>>present day speppes of Ukraine. They never did live in any area of
>>today's Russia.
>>
>>Stealing history and geography again. Caught you red handed.
>>
>
>>Andrij
Andrij
>
>
delete
Since princes of Kyiv, kings of Poland, kings of Hungary, kings of
France were close relatives and frequently changed thrones, does that
mean that Ukraine , the inheritor of the heritage of Kyivan Rus claim
its roots in France, Poland, Hungary etc.
and just because queen victoria was related to the russian tzars are
you going to claim the UK and the former British empire as part of
your Great Russian heritage. Use your brain and think before you
spout idiocies.
Andrij
fd
AV wrote in message <3ADF68FB...@nospam.ru>...
>fd wrote:
>
>> I guess you are not living in USA otherwise you would know.
>> There is a completely silly but yet very popular branch of Bible worms
most
>> prominent of which are Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey. Last one wrote once
>> famous book "Late great planet earth" where he tied Russia to Sarmatians,
>> them to folks mentioned by Ezekiel and to Gog-Mogog foe. These guys
cannot
>> withstand any critics, they twist Bible words as they want, yet you
should
>
>Twist the Bible ? The canonical anglican translation of the Bible of 1804
the
>word
I did compare Hal Lindsey's quotes with original Bible text (modern American
edition). Half of words were changed. And a friend of mine - American
professor of philosophy who knows Hebrew well compared it to original text
(whatever you can call original) - even more different .
>"Ross" is omitted altogether. Although Tubal (Tobol) is still present.
>"Gog, the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal".
>
>The rulers in ancient Rus were called 'vieliky kniaz' - chief prince -
grand
>duke.
>Magog = Mogols (not Mongols)
Why not Madrid?
>chief prince = veliky knyaz (Grand duke)
as well as King, duke, warlord.....
>Meshech = mosoch, legenday person who gave the name to moscow.
Can you give a reference?
There was a rumour that name Moscow came from Finnish "Cow ferry" ....
>the Bible could read "turn your face to Gog in the land of Mogols, grand
duke of
>Rus, Moscovie and Tobol".
Stop, Rus is Ukraine not Russia, may be Mosoch is Mohilev ;)))))
And btw Tobol is another Finnish name which does not mean much for Russians.
Tobolsk is not a major city as you should know. It had for shot period of
time some significance, but mostly nominal and does not ring the bell.
Try: "Ni shagu nazad, pozadi Tobol" ;)))))))) LOL
>
>Ezekiel chapter from Ostrozhskaya Bible printed by Ivan Fedorov in 1581:
>"gog knyaza rosska, mosokh and fovel" (fovel = fuval = tubal = tobol).
>Knyazya Rosska !
(fovel = fuval = tubal = tobol)!!!! This way I can prove that I am the pope.
;))))))))
fd
But you are right, they two (him and that funny woman in his show) are the
best comedians I know. Anyway I am positive. Just check Hal's book(s).
J.E.F. Godesky wrote in message <3ADF6E8A...@verizon.net>...
fd
Bulghars are eastern Slavs! Oops!!!
Varangians absorbed into Rus' society.
Another crative history as I can see. ;)))))
bab...@my-deja.com wrote in message <9bns0u$akc$1...@news.netmar.com>...
>In article <9bnkka$jrs$1...@news.tamu.edu>, fd <f...@pp.tamu.edu> writes:
>>According to kavkaz.org they all are Jews :))))))
>>
>>BTW connection between Alans and Ossetians as well as between Kievan Rus
and
>>the Varangians is also doubtful though very popular.
>
>??? Ossetians are Scythians. Alans were absorbed into the eastern Slavic
>people - the Ante- who took the name of their state from their rulers
>(a la the Bulghars-Bulgarians centuries later).
>
>Varangians were of course later absorbed into Rus' society (a famous
example
>was Aksakyov [sic]).
>
>Babai
>
>"ethnic Varangian" :-)
>
>
>
>>
>>Steve Schaper wrote in message <1es4c3w.1kgeebr1srvm8tN@[10.0.0.2]>...
>>>Since when are Ossetians the same as the Kievan Rus and the Varangians?
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> ----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the
TANKS
AV wrote:
>
> frank wrote:
>
> > There was scant Slavic presence in the present day Ukraine (steppe east of
> > Carpatian Mountains) during the sixth century when King Arthur presumably
> > lived. The Slavic tribes just started migrating in the area which was
> > scarcely populated. There were no noblemen to speak of. They did not
> > establish hierarchical social structure
> > until much later, perhaps the 9th century when the Vikings subjugated them.
> > According to one of the Russian literary source the Slavs could not govern
> > themselves because of the constant squabbles
> > and sent to Norway to ask for a king or a general. That king's name was
> > Rurik. He established the first Kiev dynasty--the house of Rurik which
> > lasted a few hundred years. The state affairs in Moscovia have been messed
> > up ever since. -f
>
> Porvided one can buy this shit from you. The whole chronology is messed up.
> The literary source you mention (radzivil manuscript) says "I idosha za more k
> varyagam, k rusi",
> which means that varyags = russians. "Those varyags were called 'rus', as
> others were called
> 'shvedy'(sweeds), and others 'normans' and angly (english) and gottlands".
> And further on "I ot tekh varyag prozvasya russkaya zemlya" - And those varyags
>
> gave the name to Russia (russian land).
Are you serious AV ?? Prior to 1701 it was called the Principality of
Muscovy. In 1701 Peter I renamed the Principality of Muscovy to Russia.
It was Peter I who gave Russia its name.
>
> Rurik (Yuri or Georgy) was Russian who came to govern slav tribes of Novgorod,
> krivichi, ves', chud'.
fd
relatives of Kiev, Galitch, Chernigov Princes or not?
Was it a territory of ancient Rus' or not? Did they speak the same language?
So what are you bitching about? Who is the thief here?
Btw Lviv was quite possible Polish not Rus' city.
andrij (delete) <@powersurfr.com> wrote in message
<3adf884e....@news.v-wave.com>...
Vladimir Makarenko
1999", why wouldn't you take your political agenda somewhere else? It is
tiresome to see how you cross-breed King Arthur to Soviet Politburo ideological
scams. Get a life, even inside NATO.
VM.
pkmb wrote:
> Cumhail Mac Cumhail wrote:
> >
> > The inability to see beyond words to the intended idea, is usually either
> > extreme small-mindedness, or contrived to support an argument with little
> > foundation.
>
> Have you ever been forced upon the ideas of All Russia? Ergo everything
> which happened anytime in history on the territories of the late (rot in
> hell) USSR happened to Russia and Russians? Have you ever been in a
> situation in which you told the truth about history which was different
> from the "history" forced upon you in the school by a system introduced
> to your country by an occupant and maintained with his guns and brute
> force, which resulted in severe punishment from your teacher and a
> statement that "back in the old days your parents would be thrown out
> from their jobs, put in jail and you would be sent to a correctional
> facility for that"? What was the scariest of all was the fact that she
> was right, a decade before that could have happened! If not then in your
> ignorance don't blame me for reacting actively to a statement which
> reflects that misleading and nationalistic mindset! You have no idea
> about the circumstances here and things which created characters of the
> people in this part of the world and if you had some good sense you
> wouldn't be making such statements.
> Marcin B.
> --
> Marcin Bugajski, citizen of Poland - NATO member since 12th March 1999.
> This message may not be used for commercial purposes without
> the author's written permission
Vladimir Makarenko
fd wrote:
> Is it true?
>
> I knew for long time (my wife had a brilliant collection of folk fiery
> tells) that all folk stories in Europe-Asia continent are well connected
> (African are very different BTW). For example, almost all Russian fiery
> tells can be traced to Indian folk tells. And the only original character I
> was able to find in Russian tells was Baba-Yaga (I am not professional in
> this area though). And you just kicked me behind my back. :^))))))
>
> On a second thought Baba-Yaga as Lady-of-the-Lake it is like dragon
> pretending to be a space rocket.. Or better Lady-of-the-Lake as Baba-Yaga it
> is like space rocket pretending to be a dragon. ;^)))))))
>
Baba Yaga initially was something like totem, regarded as "protection" of women,
and her image didn't have this negative flavor it got late in all the stories. I
would assume she was portrayed differently as well, but has really no idea on
that.
VM.
>
> Cumhail Mac Cumhail wrote in message ...
> >A little know bit of history tells us that the Lady of the Lake lived in a
> >house that walked around on giant duck legs - Now...put Baba Yaga in
> >white samite, and I think we can accept "irrefutable" .
> >
> >--
> >Cumhail
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> >I think that I am better than those who are trying
> >to reform me.
> > --E.W. Howe
> >Christopher Gwinn <son...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:l5iD6.5659$l5.2...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
> >> > Perhaps ... except this theory is not a new one. Reid is only
> >elaborating
> >> on
> >> > an already well-established theory. The most scholarly treatment it's
> >> received
> >> > is _From Scythia to Camelot : a radical reassessment of the legends of
> >> King
> >> > Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table, and the Holy Grail_ by C. Scott
> >> > Littleton and Linda A. Malcor. You may have heard of Linda Malcor, she
> >> has
> >> > quite an online presence. I'm a bit surprised she's not here, on this
> >> very
> >> > thread, in fact....
> >>
> >> Linda Malcor commented on Reid's book recently on the ArthurNet mailing
> >> list. She basically said that Reid blatantly ripped off her and
> >Littleton's
> >> book (it seems he came just shy of actual plagarism) but that he left out
> >> all the details that they provided in their own book to support their
> >> radical theory - thus Reid's book comes off more as unsupported fantasy.
> >>
> >> > At any rate, it is quite a valid theory. The Sarmatians had many
> >legends
> >> which
> >> > greatly resemble the sword in the stone and other legends of the Round
> >> Table,
> >>
> >> Most of which are interpolated from a second hand account of Scythian
> >> religion by Herodotus combined with the modern folktales of the Ossets
> who
> >> are culturally related to the Alans (who in turn are cultural cousins of
> >the
> >> Sarmatians). The theory totally disregards the more likely Celtic
> >infleunce
> >> on the Arthurian legend as well as the fact that the Celts may have
> shared
> >> much of the same myths and motifs as the Scythians (inherited from Proto
> >> Indo European thought and strengthened by early Celto-Scythian contact on
> >> the Continent in pre-history), even if certain elements are not
> documented
> >> until quite late (I find it fascinating that Littleton and Malcor will
> >> discount medieval Celtic material that seem to correlate with Arthurian
> >> legend, yet they _will_ accept folklore that is only documented in the
> >19th
> >> and 20h centiruies in Ossetia!).
> >>
> >> > they used dragon-shaped windsocks (as in "Pendragon"), and were expert
> >> > horsemen.
> >>
> >> This really proves nothing. The Celts possessed dragons long before they
> >> came into contact with the Sarmatians, as is proved by many Celtic
> >> artifacts. The Britons were also notable horsemen even in Caesar's day -
> >he
> >> commented on how dangerous it was for his men to engage the British
> >cavalry.
> >>
> >> > So good, in fact, that the Late Roman army recruited them in large
> >> > numbers, and seem to have based several types of units--including the
> >> > cataphractarii (the type of cavalry which Arthur most likely commanded,
> >if
> >> he
> >> > ever did at all) and cilbanarii. Ribchester and other areas in Britain
> >> were
> >> > settled with Sarmatians from the Russian steppes by the Roman Empire,
> so
> >> > there's no question of whether or not Sarmatian culture diffused to
> >> Britain.
> >>
> >> I think there is a question as to whether or not the culture diffused
> into
> >> British culture. There were many more ethnic Italians in Britain than
> >> Sarmatians (who only numbered 5,000 or so and were spread out in groups
> of
> >> 500 across the country whose own culturally Celtic population was in the
> >> millions), and Roman paganism was widespread across Britain, yet we
> detect
> >> no great Roman pagan influence on the early Welsh poetry or myths (there
> >are
> >> no Jupiters or Minervas showing up as kings and queens - yet we do have
> >> native divinities like Mabon [=Maponos Apollo] and Modron [=Matrona]
> >> surviving Christianity to show up in popular tales). If the Romans left
> no
> >> mark, how are we expected to believe that the Sarmatians left a mark?
> >>
> >> > The question is whether or not Arthur was part of that diffusion. It
> >> seems
> >> > irrefutable that the Arthurian legend was at least affected by the
> >> Sarmatian
> >> > influence, so the question is really whether or not there was an Arthur
> >> apart
> >> > from Sarmatian folklore.
> >>
> >> As I have said, I would contest "irrefutable" here. I think that almost
> >> every single "Scythian" element in the Arthurian legends suggested by
> >> Littleton and Malcor can also be found in Celtic culture, which has the
> >> benefit of being the dominant culture of the area in which the stories
> >> originated.
> >>
> >> - Chris Gwinn
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
J.E.F. Godesky
> infers Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same. Let me
> repost the part of your post that you edited out.
I have not made any such claim. I will admit, I'm no specialist in Russian, Scythian, Ukrainian or
any related history, and I know the geography only in broad strokes. I study anthropology and
history, specifically Late Antique Britain and the first-century Middle East.
Granted, more of the area the Sarmatians came from is in the Ukraine than Russia. Also granted,
the Sarmatians were no more related to the modern-day Russians than they are to the Ukrainians. I
took the subject line to mean from the general area around Russia, which I, having no training in
that area, took to include the steppes. I presumed "Russia" was meant with the usual lack of
precision with which the average person brandishes about such terms. In the popular modern
American vernacular, "My bad."
However, I will not back down from the supposition that the Sarmatian hypothesis is a valid one,
and deserves at least the respect that it is a valid explanation. Maybe not the right one, and if
you want to debate it academically, alt.legend.king-arthur is a wonderful place to do so. But at
least give your opponents the respect that they are at least as intelligent as you.
delete
<jef.g...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> You are finished alright, along with any other 'scholar' that claims or
>> infers Sarmatians, Scythia and Russia are one and the same. Let me
>> repost the part of your post that you edited out.
>
>I have not made any such claim. I will admit, I'm no specialist in Russian, Scythian, Ukrainian or
>any related history, and I know the geography only in broad strokes. I study anthropology and
>history, specifically Late Antique Britain and the first-century Middle East.
>
Your broad strokes stroke passions which you did not intend to upset.
Just think if you would have called some welsh, irish, or scotsh
legend or ancestor as english and you know what would happen. Its
time the likes of you in academia would learn their world geography
and not make mistakes like this.
>Granted, more of the area the Sarmatians came from is in the Ukraine than Russia. Also granted,
>the Sarmatians were no more related to the modern-day Russians than they are to the Ukrainians. I
>took the subject line to mean from the general area around Russia, which I, having no training in
>that area, took to include the steppes. I presumed "Russia" was meant with the usual lack of
>precision with which the average person brandishes about such terms. In the popular modern
>American vernacular, "My bad."
>
Learn and be more carefull when you brandish such generalities. Does
a scholar who is proposing a new hypothesis talk with "the usual lack
of precision".
>However, I will not back down from the supposition that the Sarmatian hypothesis is a valid one,
>and deserves at least the respect that it is a valid explanation. Maybe not the right one, and if
>you want to debate it academically, alt.legend.king-arthur is a wonderful place to do so. But at
>least give your opponents the respect that they are at least as intelligent as you.
>
>Jason Godesky
>Editor, The Saxon Shore
>http://www.pitt.edu/~jegst61/
Actually thanks for explaining for yourself.
Andrij
>