Hey he wanted one reliable source, for one of my claims, I figured that was a pretty good source for 'some Italians advocate this theory', I've had the pleasure of talking with a few Italians before and let me tell you a lot of them are not very well versed in the history of Italy. If you want sources for people in the academic world who propose this theory you will be hard pressed though. Not because of lack of evidence to support this theory, but because King Arthur is viewed as nothing more than a myth, much like how troy was before it was discovered and those who seek to prove king arthur are viewed rather poorly, especially those who seek to find a non-british alternative. King of racist but hey, that's history.
Just Another Casus Belli Rant
- Thread starter Lord Celestine
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Hey he wanted one reliable source, for one of my claims, I figured that was a pretty good source for 'some Italians advocate this theory', I've had the pleasure of talking with a few Italians before and let me tell you a lot of them are not very well versed in the history of Italy. If you want sources for people in the academic world who propose this theory you will be hard pressed though. Not because of lack of evidence to support this theory, but because King Arthur is viewed as nothing more than a myth, much like how troy was before it was discovered and those who seek to prove king arthur are viewed rather poorly, especially those who seek to find a non-british alternative. King of racist but hey, that's history.
I think you are making the wrong argument OP. The Casus Belli for declaring war is fine. I just wish we could have an EU4 style peace system where you can demand more than what you declared for if you have enough war score and are willing to take a piety/prestige or aggresive expansion hit. That would solve a lot of issues.
- 7
That be nice, or say like set how long the TRUCE WOULD BE!
- 3
That's... Not what a reliable source is. Scholarly sources, as you mentioned, are. Also as you said, you're hard pressed to find scholars on Arthur.
It's a pretty safe bet why that is, and it rhymes with "pith."
- 1
You know what else use to be just a myth? Troy.
I would say that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence buuuut well I mean there's plenty of evidence to back up the claim, just not a whole lot of people talking about it. It's as you say, to many people are willing to just brush improbable things off to the side, never giving it a second thought. But then there are those people who play the devil's advocate, and those are the greatest among our kind.
Last edited:
- 1
you can´t quote another maniac off the internet and call it reliable... Just because there´s two doomsdaysayers on a corner doesn´t make it more true, it only makes two crazy people on a corner that agrees...
He wanted a reliable source... Crazy person of a forum from the internet, not reliable... Just a crazy person
Good point, and it have annoyed me a bit that it´s not flexible... It´s all or nothing, in the sense that all is usually quite small ;-)
Troy was never regarded as a myth, they thought it could be since they never found the location, but it has always been regarded as factional
- 1
Well I suppose I'll have to be the first then, I'm already writing a fiction about King Authari, I see no reason why I can't make a compilation of similarities and release it as a book or at the very least an essay.
The first English speaking person I mean, I don't know if anyone's really written about it in italian, I just know that it's been discussed in Italy, and then ignored by the English speaking channels.
Also I like how you're attacking the person and not the argument, it really shows your colors. The person I quoted didn't even say whether he or she supported the claim, just that there were others who claimed it, in the news in italy.
- 1
Hey! Did you know myths are studied in the academics? You want a connection between indo-europeans and King Arthur? I'm sure you could find academic sources if you searched.
A good tool: scholar.google.com (if the featured version of a paper is not available for free, you can sometimes find another free version by hitting the "all x versions" button).
But even using google scholar, you have to check carefully at the sources; some old articles could have been refuted (the "cited by" button allow to find more recent related articles), and some sources can still be unreliable... And you'll want to learn a bit about their research methodology too; Just to estimate how much certainty you can put in one theory or another. Methods and primary sources all have limits and the scholars are well aware of these limits (and how much emphasis they can put in their claims).
I still have absolutely no idea why we're talking about King Arthur but I guess this is the beauty of this thread.
- 4
That's why peer-reviewed journals exist... And academic books are often peer-reviewed too (or based on peer-reviewed work, which they directly cite in their books)
- 2
There's been pretty much all of history covered, from Romans to modern politics...
There's been pretty much all of history covered, from Romans to modern politics...
To Asian elves.
- 6
Covered and thoughtfully revisited ^_^There's been pretty much all of history covered, from Romans to modern politics...
- 4
Maybe it's just me, but an obscure post from an Italian forum is not really going to make me think that King Arthur actually was an Italian, and not as English nationalist propaganda told us before.
Reliable, you know what it means ?
- 1
Perhaps, but I still feel the high mark was calling Indians - Hindi, "just to avoid confusion".
- 2
About as much as you know what 'claim' means and 'one' of. You were not very specific in which claim you wanted me to get a reliable source for. I wasn't trying to prove King Arthur was actually inspired (stolen) from italy. I was just proving that I was not the first one to think about it and that I was also not the only one. In which that post is reliable for that.
I'm sorry did you want me to prove that King Authari was actually King Arthur?
The whole Alfar-Avar
Morganna-Organa
Arthur-Authari
Albion-Alboin
How about that Tiberius II was emperor just two years before Authari became King?
Lucius Tiberius - Tiberius
That really wasn't enough for you?
How about the interregnum often propagated in Arthurian legend? In which Arthur becomes king at the age of 15, often by being elected by the nobles of the land?
Authari became king also after an interregnum, in the 'prime of his youth' (teenager) and he was also elected.
How about the fact that the sword in the stone is KNOWN to be an Italian cop-out?
You won't find a 'reliable peer reviewed source' for this, but you CAN LITERALLY read it in the Historia Langobardorum and you can also read it in Geoffrey of Monmouth's book. You can cross check them for yourself which is much better than a 'peer reviewed source'. Doesn't take a rocket scientist mate, it does not take a rocket scientist, you can put two and two together on your own, you don't need someone to feed you from a bottle. In this world, there are many things we don't know, there are many things that we are not told, there are many things that we are lied to about the best judge isn't going to be some quack getting a paycheck from people who tell him what to write or what to say, it's not going to be me, it's going to be you. You're the one who will have to make the decision on what to believe based on what you find, there aren't always going to be a 'source' of someone with 'authority' to explain things to you, and hell sometimes they'll just flat out lie to your face. Saying that you won't believe something because there isn't a 'reliable source' is just a way for you to stay in your precious safety net.
I've given you the best sources you could possibly ask for (the two historical texts i've mentioned), I've given you the choice whether you want to investigate the matter or not, if not then shut the hell up about this and go back to living whatever glamorous life you were. But if you do read them then you can get back to me on the decision that you came to YOURSELF. Or is that just to much to ask?
Last edited:
- 4
Are you familiar at all with the term "false cognate"? It's a linguistics term for words that are so similar that they sound like they ought to have the same meaning, but actually don't. My personal favorite example is English "embarrassed" and Spanish "embarazada", the latter of which actually means "pregnant".
Just because two words sound similar doesn't mean they're at all related.
- 2
If what you refer to are important primary sources (it seems so), then it will be mentionned and discussed and put in context in reliable modern journals and books (actually, by just typing Historia Langobardorum in google scholar, you find quite a lot of references). You seem to forget (or ignore) the limits of these sources and the job of an historian is to analyse these sources taking into account how they can be biased and taking into account their context as well as many other primary sources related to the same event. Being historian is not knowing thing, it is knowing how you find and analyse things. What I was saying about methodology...
- 1
And you have a failure to take into account that modern 'reliable' sources about anything historical (and a lot of other subjects, especially politics) might also be equally biased, what stops the historian from being biased today that didn't stop the historian from being biased a thousand or two thousand years ago? They're still being paid by their patrons to write good or bad things about certain people.
No we stand at the forefront of discovery! We are always at the forefront of discovery! Some things there just won't be any reliable sources and hell they might not be any sources at all! In terms of Archaeology, Archaeologists discover things which no one has seen for thousands of years sometimes millions.
You gain nothing if you do nothing.
These are not words, these are names, I forgot to include the Alboin-Albion relationship as well.
Names are generally what we search for first when looking for historical characters, I mean honestly can you even begin to imagine trying to search for Julius Caesar without using his name? I need to know about the Roman Emperor who came before Augustus Caesar! (there weren't any Roman Emperors before Augustus but that is just an example) the situation becomes even more dire if we don't use any names at all!
Further more, if there was such a famous king as King Arthur he would have been recorded by historians outside and inside of Britain. Even Authari who is much lesser known today than say King Arthur had many people write about him, and his exploits were well, basically the same as King Arthur's. Instead of uniting the lands of Albion though he simply united the Kingdom under which Alboin had founded.
I mean it's like saying that no one wrote about Alexander the Great until 1,000 years after his passing.
Last edited:
- 2