kor Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 As the topic says, please remove the article "Ancient Britain". It appears to be not a historical article but a propaganda piece advocating creation. Of course there is nothing wrong with that but this subject has nothing to do with ancient Britain. Apart from that, the author bases his arguments on a swamp. In this post I will disprove all the main arguments he makes.Basically, the article says:After the fall of Troy, a group of Trojans moved to Britain where they established "New Troy". King Lud renamed Troy to Caer-Ludd, which was later changed into London. This is bad because it makes us forget our Trojan past.This is proven because in three medieval history books (Tysilio's Chronicle, Nennius' History of Britain, and Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain) all state this. Historians discredit Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth because they say that the Trojans were descended from Noah. These historians are evolutionists, and are afraid that acknowledging these sources as accurate will prove the flood and subsequently the existence of god and the truth of creation. Since the ancient Britons had no way of knowing about Noah yet still claim to descend from him, this proves he existed.Well, that's the article in brief. I've linked to the full article at the top, it's best if you'll read it along with my article to see what I mean exactly.1. On the Trojans and Britain. There is no real, archaeological evidence to prove that some Trojans moved to Britain. It is in fact illogical, considering the following: in the ancient period cities were small. Troy was a big city for its day, 1200BC, but we cannot logically assume that it would've had more than a few thousand inhabitants. Considering the Greeks successfully captured the city and then razed it to the ground, killing whoever they came across, it is unlikely to assume that many escaped. According to the original legend Aeneas escaped with his son, father and some followers.According to the aforementioned sources Britain was quite empty when some Trojan refugees, led by Aeneas' grandson Brutus (a distinctly Roman name, not Greek/Trojan at all) reached Britain (there were giants, but no "normal" people).If we take this literally, as CelticHeart52 does, this means that all ancient Britons were Trojans. Are we to assume that a handful of refugees populated all of Britain?This is disproven by the fact of neolithic settlements and other indications of habitation by humans, long before 1000BC, the date the Trojans supposedly arrived. Nor are there any signs of a distinct change of leadership (from Ancient Briton into Trojan hands) as Geoffrey of Monmouth suggest. Besides, this does not matter; CelticHeart assumes that no people whatsoever lived in Britain before the Trojans. This is blatantly untrue.(And if it was true that the Britons descended from the Trojans, it's hardly likely to still be so; Celtic, Germanic, Norman and Flemish waves have severely changed the population).2. Discarding CelticHeat52's statementsGeoffrey is despised and discarded by many historians, because he claimed that his "History of the Kings of Britain" was a translation of a "very ancient book" which (supposedly) no-one can find. [...] However, this rash treatment is unjustified, because Tysilio's Chronicle is very likely to have been Geoffrey's source material, and he wasn't just making it up.Geoffrey is not despised and discarded because of this very ancient book. Geoffrey of Monmouth is despised because he wrote a bunch of garbled nonsense about the Kings of Britain. For example, he claims that Arthur conquered Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Gaul, etc. Because Geoffrey's description of "recent" (ie Arthurian) history is so inaccurate, we have no reason to assume that his "older" history (ie Trojan settlement) is accurate either. If Geoffrey of Monmouth had stayed a bit closer to the facts, there is more chance that he would've been somewhat believable.Of course it is convienient for the purposes of evolution to discard all these histories, because Nennius gives us, not just the history of the Britons and their descent from the Trojans and Dardanians, but also their descent from Noah. CelticHeart52 seems to interpret historical manuscripts in the same way he interprets the bible: taking everything literally. This is of course no problem with the bible, since it's supposed to have been the word of God. However, these historical manuscripts are written by normal "mortals". There is no reason to assume they know everything that happened. Often they wilfully changed history when they wrote it down. Nennius was living in a Christian Age; Christianity had to be spread and it had to be argumented too. By claiming that the people descended from Noah, this would "prove" (without any facts to back it up) that the Bible was true, and would make a tighter link between God and the British (which would make it easier for the British to abandon their original gods).The pre-Christian pagans knew that they had descended from someone who built a boat and survived a Flood while the rest of the world perished. None of these sources come from either Judaism or Christianity. They come from people who never saw a Bible, never knew that such a book existed, and have their own histories which are as old as the Bible itself. Wrong. Nennius wrote in the 8th Century. He was a Christian. Tysilio died around 630. He became a saint for a reason (ie he was a Christian). Geoffrey of Monmouth lived in the 12the century. He was a Christian.There is no pagan source that states that the Celts descend from Noah. There is no reason to assume that there are pre-christian sources used in writing the aforementioned histories. CelticHeart52 himself says that the "ancient" book that Monmouth uses, was Tysilio's Chronicle, which is Christian in origin and therefore cannot be counted as a Pagan book (nor do I know if in Tysilio's Chronicle it mentions a link between Noah and the Britons). Not a bit of CelticHeart52's argument can remain standing. There is no reason to come to the conclusion that he came to. His article is not based on history and I'm afraid all it'll do is make the rest of your articles seem questionable, as it seems no standard is required to your articles. Or perhaps this one just slipped through. I hope so, in any case, and I hope this error can be repaired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wijitmaker Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I'll see if I can contact the author to defend him/herself. In the likely event that I won't be able to contact them... Would you be willing to write one in its place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
irishstag Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Fight the power! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaas Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 There is nothing to defend since what the author wrote is just a legend, not historical facts. It's like saying that the Romans decended from Aeneas and his fellow survivers, which is a legend too. Amateur historians simply like taking legends as true stories because they are much more exiting and more open to the broad public. But a legend remains a legend, not a historical fact.In this case what the author wrote is far from the truth. Brittons have no relationship with Troy, nor Noah. They are just mesolithic people or from the early copper or bronze age, just like with most people living in Europe back then. They must have had a relation with the eastern civilisations, but not much more than exchanging some goods. People even hint that a Greek architect helped designing Stonehenge which is utter nonsense as well, it's a style very common to mesolithic and early bronze age societies in the west, it has nothing to do with the east.So, whatever the author may say, this article should either be removed or it should be clearly stated this is just a legend. I believe we don't want to make stupid mistakes like ES did with the history section of AoK (eg. Celts built the megalithic monuments) I'll write one in his place unless kor wants to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kor Posted January 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Thanks for backing me up, Klaas I indeed think that the author of the article took legend a little bit too literally. It should either be classified as legend or not be in a historical article section.And I am willing to write an article about Ancient Britain, I can't let all that knowledge go to waste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wijitmaker Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 Ok great, please do so... untill I have it though, I'll leave that one up for motivation for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paal_101 Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 LOL a little historian competition. Now obviously there are a couple legends in the Roman section, clearly marked. Anyone object to those? IMHO I think the legends help us understand how the ancients thought and what they valued Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kor Posted January 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 There is a difference between acknowledging the cultural background and value of legends, and taking them as accurate descriptions of the past, what the author of the article does.Bah Wijit, now I'll have to work fast, grrr! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wijitmaker Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 lol, Oh BTW kor... I'd appreciate it if while your looking through history on the Celts, could you keep your eye open for a name and history behind a briton druid. I'm looking for a replacment for Saint Patrick as a hero if possible, but having a hard time finding one... Closest thing I've found was Pendaren Dyved which isn't quite as good as I'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kor Posted January 3, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 You mean a personal Druidic name? I'll look into it. Using a saint would be a bit incorrect since these fervently battled the druidic practices. There's a few possible druidic names that might be used, the most obvious being Taliesin. I'll look into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childhood Trauma Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I wouldn't argue with Kor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wijitmaker Posted January 3, 2004 Report Share Posted January 3, 2004 I just need a historical druid that would be prominent enough to mention in the game. The name would be attatched to a hero unit in the game, like Coel Hen and Boudicca. Patrick was Christian not pagan, so it would be better if we could find a pagan figure, but being that Britain wasn't introduced to Christianity till 1st century AD, I'd rather have a true Celtic Druid to feature in part I of the game. Patrick can go in the map editor if we can find a replacement Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDE_Taliesin Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 look at thsi:http://www.write-on.co.uk/history/trojan_london.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kor Posted January 4, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 Wow, that's exactly the same article How did it get there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom_rider2 Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 I was wondering how this one got here...Either way you should write a replacement kor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngelBGE Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 What the hell is going on ? Jason you probably gotta ask the author who "wrote" it for us ?Yeah kor, admiring your historical knowledge, it would be great if you helpedo ut with this article. It will be some currency and reputation worth at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythos_Ruler Posted January 4, 2004 Report Share Posted January 4, 2004 I personally wouldn't defend the original Ancient Brittain article either. If the author was simply writing about legends and giving his opinion, then why is it on a webpage about history? However, he presents the mythology as fact, making it a double mistake for its inclusion in our group of articles.Just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wijitmaker Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 Interesting link SDE_Taliesin, makes me wonder if CelticHeart wrote it in the first place. Anyway, I got a responce from him yesterday. He was a little disgruntled that you guys read his article for history when he clearly states in his first paragraph he says 'legends', and this particular legend was his favorite. He also said, that he wouldn't want to defend this as history, because nothing pre-roman could be taken for anything but myth.In any event, he says he is looking forward to your article kor. Oh, and just so you guys know, that articles been on the 0ad website for over a year now... I'm glad so many of you take time to read them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaas Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 because nothing pre-roman could be taken for anything but mythIsn't really right Well it surprises me that the author now states he didn't write something he thinks truely happened. He does state it's his favourite legend but it's written as if it really happened, and the title sais 'history of ancient brittain' which is quite misleading. Doesn't mean it wasn't a good article though, but if you write a history article you have to be as clear as possible, especially with your title.So I asume the article on that other website is by the same author?Oh and the author of the website where this article is found clearly states that he's taking this legend for truth, he's a creationist. Stupid website btw (sorry if this sounds harsh), written by someone who's quite frustrated that today's historical practice is far superior compared to the pre-1950 period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kor Posted January 5, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 I think CelticHeart didn't write the article at all; he just collected it and showed it to show the "Trojan legend", forgetting that it wasn't merely a description of the legend but also an argument in favour of creation.Anyway, expect an article by me soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkAngelBGE Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 W00t! Yeah, seems like a plagiat (sp?) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paal_101 Posted January 5, 2004 Report Share Posted January 5, 2004 If a member of 0 AD is caught plagarising, I assume they would be kicked off of the team? That would really stink if someone did that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wijitmaker Posted January 6, 2004 Report Share Posted January 6, 2004 Yeah Legion_XXIX doesn't have any of 'his' old articles up for that one reason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeru Posted January 13, 2004 Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 Wow, that's exactly the same article How did it get there? It's called "copy-paste" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kor Posted January 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2004 I was giving him the benefit of the doubt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.