North British Warrior

[Ron Andrea]

This thread has always operated under the sufferance--if not the grace--of they who fight in order. But, after all, we have no less word than the Emperor himself that the Britons must look to their own defenses. :lol:

[Conal]

Should we ask for a separate Arthurian section?

[Medicus matt]

Should we ask for a separate Arthurian section?

Only if we don't have to call it 'Arthurian'. It'd fill up with crystal hugging hippies in no time at all.

Or Dark Age.

[Medicus matt]

"Celtic" "chiefs" were more or less elected based on a support base and with a limited tenure, and without any ownership of the land, which belonged to the tribe. They would be expected to bow out at the end of their term. .

Monty Python...being more historically accurate than they realised since 1975.

King Arthur: How do you do, good lady? I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?
Woman: King of the who?
King Arthur: King of the Britons.
Woman: Who are the Britons?
King Arthur: Well, we all are. We are all Britons. And I am your king.
Woman: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
.....
King Arthur: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.

[Ron Andrea]

There does seem to be a conection, even if we agree that the movie Arthur got it wrong, between Roman Britannia and the Arthur legends. Somewhere in the fog of history after the last legion pulled out, the seed sprouted that grew into the Arthurian legend. And while Arthur and everything about him may owe as much to Celtic and Anglo-Saxon antecedents, the soil the myth grew in had been trod for three centuries by the hob-nailed caligae.

[Conal]

Should we ask for a separate Arthurian section?

Only if we don't have to call it 'Arthurian'. It'd fill up with crystal hugging hippies in no time at all.

Or Dark Age.

Agree with that hock:


"Post Roman Britain & Europe" ?

"Barbarian MIgrations" ?

[Medicus matt]

Call it what it is.

Early Medieval.

[Medicus matt]

There does seem to be a conection, even if we agree that the movie Arthur got it wrong,

Yeah, that Dudley Moore was rubbish. I'd never have followed him. :wink:

Whatever my personal opinions on the non-existence of one individual who fits the bill, 'Arthur' and 'Arthurian' just has too many negative or at least wildly inappropriate associations, as was seen when that bloody film was released. The howls from those of us bemoaning the many and various innacuracies where drowned out by the groans from those who wanted to know why they weren't all in plate armour looking like Pre-Raphaelite paintings and wondering where the wizard was.

[Conal]

Call it what it is.

Early Medieval.

Yuk ... doesn't do it for me

[Robert Vermaat]

Should we ask for a separate Arthurian section?

Only if we don't have to call it 'Arthurian'. It'd fill up with crystal hugging hippies in no time at all.
Or Dark Age.

Dark Age hippies? Hmm... Long-haired Goths, right?

[Medicus matt]

Yuk ... doesn't do it for me

In what way? Not accurate enough for you?

See, this is the problem. "Arthurian" is a popular term because of it's romantic associations, much as 'Celtic' and 'Viking' are, despite the fact that nobody referred to themselves as being either Celts or Vikings.

Depends what you want then. A basically accurate but unromantic term or something that...does it for you.

Post Roman Britain and Europe doesn't work because if you CAN define the point at which Britain becomes 'Post Roman', the same date can't be applied to Europe.
You can't even have one date for post-Roman Europe on it's own.

Whilst you can apply the same argument to a term like 'Early Medieval' it does at least put the period at the start of a new 1000 year period in European history, rather than consigning it to the fag-end of the previous one.

[Conal]

In what way? Not accurate enough for you?

It's an ugly looking word Med-Evil :wink: ... men in tights etc :oops:

I see what you mean ... I still get lost in LaTene variations :|

Late Antiquity circa 400 to 600 AD :roll:

[Medicus matt]

Late Antiquity circa 400 to 600 AD :roll:

Does the job.

It's still putting it down as the dying light of the old rather than the nascence of something new though.

[Ron Andrea]

Early post neo classic revival? :lol:

Twilight of Britannia?

Dawn of England?

Revenge of the Celts? Return of the Germans?

Migrations and New Nations?

[Alanus]

Until the 12th century, the word 'Brythoniaid' is just as (if not more) common than Cymry. And Combrogi may still be in use as it's a Brythonic word rather than a welsh one.

Do you think we're allowed to keep going with all this early medieval stuff here? Won't the guys with little swords and toothbrushes on their helmets come to throw us out? :wink:

Combrogi! Right on. That's the old old word in itself! And we see a common ethnos that welded a culture. Chieftains/kings had no property, it was "in common" with the extended Combrogi. Strangely enough, the Brythonic social structure was recorded in great detail in the Institutional Triads, NOT the legendary Triads. They don't even contain a Christian pollution, although written down in the medieval era.

Return of the Revenge of the Celts, Part II, starring Peter Sellers.

I know what you mean. The Roman Tradition-Keeping Police may be gearing up for a raid. hock: