Just Another Casus Belli Rant

[Alfy]

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?

So, basically, you want to restart here that whole thing you had on Historum 6 months ago, video and all? Because that went well, right?

Look, I get it. You think you've made an amazing discovery, and you're pissed no-one listens to you. Of course, tone was a bit of an issue there (starting with "a year in the making, enjoy and relish in this awesome discovery" is usually not a great opener unless you've found a cure to cancer), and it is still here. But seriously, you might want to chill a bit.

No, a few names that sound the same (I'm being nice, that's only by modern English pronunciation, and do you have any idea how common the name Tiberius was?) and a couple of similitudes aren't enough to make me believe a 12th century Welsh cleric based his propaganda-fiction construction on the life of an 8th century Lombard king (and then some of the legendary bits that were added afterwards still followed the trend?). Feel free to continue digging, and maybe you'll prove us all wrong one day, but no, it's not enough.

Just don't get mad over it.

 

[StarSword]

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.

Wrong. Names are words, too: a bunch of given names and surnames came from descriptions of what people did for a living or places they lived near. Jesus is actually a Latin variant of Joshua (Yeshua in Hebrew). The Russian word for king or emperor, tsar, is a derivative of Caesar via word-of-mouth about Rome. But they can have false cognates just as easily as words that aren't used for names.

The current theory on Arthur, which is backed by archaeological evidence from Tintagel in Cornwall (traditionally Arthur's birthplace), is that the man behind the legend was a Briton (Celtic people of southern Britain later subjugated by the Saxons) chief named Arthnou whose stories got alternately blown out of proportion, conflated with later history, and even completely made up (e.g. the ridiculous story in the tale of IIRC Sir Gareth about Arthur sacking Rome and killing Emperor Lucius rather than pay tribute).

 

[CaptainPolyp]

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.

Having a large database of materials from different eras and locations, and from different disciplines allow to reduce bias. Then you can check the facts from different independant sources and get a glimpse of what's true. Yesterday, historians had a reduced scope for investigation compared to what they have today. Accumulation of small pieces of evidence allow to reduce uncertainty. There will always be uncertainty... But we can fight it.
(from one of the best TV stuff your country ever produced: "aaaaall the pieces matter")

 

[Iron Chariots]

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.

Stop posting random off-topic crap. This thread is about Chinese Elves and Italian King Arthur.

 

[shiro the bushi]

Stop posting random off-topic crap. This thread is about Chinese Elves and Italian King Arthur.

some people just like to cause trouble

 

[Lord Celestine]

Wrong. Names are words, too: a bunch of given names and surnames came from descriptions of what people did for a living or places they lived near. Jesus is actually a Latin variant of Joshua (Yeshua in Hebrew). The Russian word for king or emperor, tsar, is a derivative of Caesar via word-of-mouth about Rome. But they can have false cognates just as easily as words that aren't used for names.

The current theory on Arthur, which is backed by archaeological evidence from Tintagel in Cornwall (traditionally Arthur's birthplace), is that the man behind the legend was a Briton (Celtic people of southern Britain later subjugated by the Saxons) chief named Arthnou whose stories got alternately blown out of proportion, conflated with later history, and even completely made up (e.g. the ridiculous story in the tale of IIRC Sir Gareth about Arthur sacking Rome and killing Emperor Lucius rather than pay tribute).

Well if we're gonna play fiddlesticks with words then I can't resist this one.

The German language also has the word Gift, in German unlike in English, Gift means POISON.

Also that last part about Arthur sacking Rome, not entirely ridiculous if Arthur is actually Authari, I mean Arthur is also have supposed to have gone to war with the Franks too, as well as the Romans, and this is something that Authari did in abundance.

 

[A Swedish Goat]

The sacking of Rome by a King (pagan or Christian) would have been well documented at that time though; see Lombardy during Charlemagne's rule.

 

[wobbit]

OK. I'm going to throw you a bone here. Don't make me regret this:

There is a tiny bit of merit to some of your theory. Some elements of Historia Regum Britanniae may have been influenced by the Historia Langobardorum. If I could, I would underline may a couple more times. To demonstrate this, you'll need to look at the original Latin of both works and see if any phrases are carried over wholesale or if there are fundamental narrative schemes present in both works. Saying that the names are the same is not sufficient. You'll also need to consider if it's possible that Geoffrey of Monmouth could have got hold of the work of Paul the Deacon. Then you'll need to look further back and see if both Geoffrey and Paul could have been influenced by an earlier author. Finally, you'll need to read through the academic work produced on the topic previously to make sure that this really is a new idea and to see if it was rejected. This isn't just the anglophone material: you'll need to look at the stuff in Italian, French and German too. If all of this is the case then you can make the argument that Geoffrey's vision of Arthur was based in part on Paul's account of Authari.

This is not the same thing as demonstrating that Arthur was Authari. Arthur, or an Arthur-like figure appears in literature well before Geoffrey was writing. Hell, he appears before Paul the Deacon. So while Geoffrey may have been influenced by Paul, this was only one of a large number of influences. Godfrey may have taken elements of Paul's account of Authari and used them in his account of Arthur. This was standard practice for classical and medieval authors - you take a big set piece from someone else's work, switch some of the names and locations around and use it for your own piece of writing. If you go through the Historia Regum Britanniae carefully with a good knowledge of classical, medieval and biblical litterature you will find dozens of things like this.

In short: Geoffrey's account of Arthur may be influenced in part by Paul's account of Authari. This does not mean that Arthur was Authari. This reduced theory is still interesting, but from a litterary rather than a factual standpoint. It also needs significantly more examination. As numerous others have stated: "name's the same" is not a valid argument by itself.

 

[Iron Chariots]

OK. I'm going to throw you a bone here. Don't make me regret this:

There is a tiny bit of merit to some of your theory. Some elements of Historia Regum Britanniae may have been influenced by the Historia Langobardorum. If I could, I would underline may a couple more times. To demonstrate this, you'll need to look at the original Latin of both works and see if any phrases are carried over wholesale or if there are fundamental narrative schemes present in both works. Saying that the names are the same is not sufficient. You'll also need to consider if it's possible that Geoffrey of Monmouth could have got hold of the work of Paul the Deacon. Then you'll need to look further back and see if both Geoffrey and Paul could have been influenced by an earlier author. Finally, you'll need to read through the accademic work produced on the topic previously to make sure that this really is a new idea and to see if it was rejected. This isn't just the anglophone material: you'll need to look at the stuff in Italian, French and German too. If all of this is the case then you can make the argument that Geoffrey's vision of Arthur was based in part on Paul's account of Authari.

This is not the same thing as demonstrating that Arthur was Authari. Arthur, or an Arthur-like figure appears in literature well before Geoffrey was writing. Hell, he appears before Paul the Deacon. So while Geoffrey may have been influenced by Paul, this was only one of a large number of influences. Godfrey may have taken elements of Paul's account of Authari and used them in his account of Arthur. This was standard practice for classical and medieval authors - you take a big set piece from someone else's work, switch some of the names and locations around and use it for your own piece of writing. If you go through the Historia Regum Britanniae carefully with a good knowledge of classical, medieval and biblical litterature you will find dozens of things like this.

In short: Geoffrey's account of Arthur may be influenced in part by Paul's account of Authari. This does not mean that Arthur was Authari. This reduced theory is still interesting, but from a litterary rather than a factual standpoint. It also needs significantly more examination. As numerous others have stated: "name's the same" is not a valid argument by itself.

That's all very interesting, but you still haven't proven that Chinese people aren't actually elves!

 

[StarSword]

The sacking of Rome by a King (pagan or Christian) would have been well documented at that time though; see Lombardy during Charlemagne's rule.

The other big clue being that according to Roman records, Lucius was never emperor.He in fact died of a sudden illness (believed by some sources to be poison) while campaigning in Gaul in 2 CE, when Augustus was still emperor. Also it would be logistically impossible for the Britons of the time to perform such an extended military campaign as to reach Rome from Britain: the far more capable Romans had a hard enough time going the other direction. The tale has zero historical merit.

 

[Quaade]

I'm already writing a fiction about King Authari

I´ll just put the emphasis on fiction, you know what that means? that it didn´t happen in reality...

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.

Sorry if you feel crossed by it, the argument still stands... Just because there´s two lunatics agreeing on doomsday at a corner, doesn´t make it more true... It´s not a personal attack, it´s a reflecting on sources and how reliable they are, and also how numbers doesn´t really matter in that regard... There could be hundreds of crazies saying that, it doesn´t make it more right, does it

Stop posting random off-topic crap. This thread is about Chinese Elves and Italian King Arthur.

Damn... this made me laugh got the joke... At least I hope it was a joke, else I´m a bad person :-/

In short: Geoffrey's account of Arthur may be influenced in part by Paul's account of Authari. This does not mean that Arthur was Authari. This reduced theory is still interesting, but from a litterary rather than a factual standpoint. It also needs significantly more examination. As numerous others have stated: "name's the same" is not a valid argument by itself.

Was Arthur ever confirmed? I mean... The last I heard (a couple of years ago though) he was deemed fully fictional but with inspiration of Britain history? Much like Ragnar Lodbrok who´s not a real person (as far as we know) but is made up from fairy-tales and actions of multiple kings

Just saying... If he is based on fiction, there´s the slim chance that the source could be from Authari... Though I don´t get behind it, since there´s enough to support he was from Britain

 

[Quaade]

The other big clue being that according to Roman records, Lucius was never emperor.He in fact died of a sudden illness (believed by some sources to be poison) while campaigning in Gaul in 2 CE, when Augustus was still emperor. Also it would be logistically impossible for the Britons of the time to perform such an extended military campaign as to reach Rome from Britain: the far more capable Romans had a hard enough time going the other direction. The tale has zero historical merit.

Have you ever seen King Arthur (the movie)... It can so happen that they beat the romans and sacked Rome without any historical trace... Well besides that he would apparently have had to travel east, march his army south and then west in order to attack like that...

 

[Alfy]

Was Arthur ever confirmed? I mean... The last I heard (a couple of years ago though) he was deemed fully fictional but with inspiration of Britain history? Much like Ragnar Lodbrok who´s not a real person (as far as we know) but is made up from fairy-tales and actions of multiple kings

Just saying... If he is based on fiction, there´s the slim chance that the source could be from Authari... Though I don´t get behind it, since there´s enough to support he was from Britain

If I understood well what Wobbit said, and certainly an alternative that crossed my mind, is that an equally unprovable theory was that Geoffrey had a copy of the History of the Lombard in his bedroom and used it as a source when he was looking for a bunch of names for his fiction. This of course does not make Authari any more Arthur than any of the previous stuff on this thread, but at least it's not nearly as contrived.

 

[Quaade]

If I understood well what Wobbit said, and certainly an alternative that crossed my mind, is that an equally unprovable theory was that Geoffrey had a copy of the History of the Lombard in his bedroom and used it as a source when he was looking for a bunch of names for his fiction. This of course does not make Authari any more Arthur than any of the previous stuff on this thread, but at least it's not nearly as contrived.

might be... but just because they have similar names doesn't make them the same... just wondered, if Arthur wasn't confirmed as true, like Ragnar... then sure as he'll they can't be the same person if one exists and the other doesn't

 

[StarSword]

Have you ever seen King Arthur (the movie)... It can so happen that they beat the romans and sacked Rome without any historical trace... Well besides that he would apparently have had to travel east, march his army south and then west in order to attack like that...

LOL!

Full disclosure, though, I realized just now that I googled the wrong name: there actually was an Emperor Lucius from a different dynasty two centuries later during the Roman occupation of Britain, but again, the death circumstances don't remotely match (he was campaigning out in the eastern empire when he died of either food poisoning or the Antonine Plague).

 

[Quaade]

LOL!

Full disclosure, though, I realized just now that I googled the wrong name: there actually was an Emperor Lucius from a different dynasty two centuries later during the Roman occupation of Britain, but again, the death circumstances don't remotely match (he was campaigning out in the eastern empire when he died of either food poisoning or the Antonine Plague).

a few differences in ancient texts is to be expected... they either over empathize or under empathize depending on their personal view... so just because a death isn't exactly the same, it could be because it was written by someone who wasn't there but heard it or simply didn't know exact cause... it's like Vikings, both how we are described by Christians and how our sagas were told and retold until written, there can be a number of the same story even though they derive from the same

 

[Alfy]

might be... but just because they have similar names doesn't make them the same... just wondered, if Arthur wasn't confirmed as true, like Ragnar... then sure as he'll they can't be the same person if one exists and the other doesn't

King Arthur, as described by Geoffrey, did not exist, I think no one argues that now. The question is about whether he is based on a true person, and if yes, who and to what extent. Theories are still competing even today on this (a not so serious book came out in the UK not long ago saying he was actually a Northerner and sold reasonably well I believe), and any "definite" proof would be seismic. This is what Celestine is gunning for, according to what he said on some other history website (I believe it's the same guy, he's free to disagree), hence the whole "Arthur is Authari" line of incredibly convoluted reasoning.

But no, similar names mean nothing. Or rather, they can mean something, perhaps, maybe, and still not in any way support the line of reasoning Celestine is trying to peddle. So anyway, maybe it's time to stop feeding the troll, I believe we have wandered quite far from the original rant...

 

[Quaade]

King Arthur, as described by Geoffrey, did not exist, I think no one argues that now. The question is about whether he is based on a true person, and if yes, who and to what extent. Theories are still competing even today on this (a not so serious book came out in the UK not long ago saying he was actually a Northerner and sold reasonably well I believe), and any "definite" proof would be seismic. This is what Celestine is gunning for, according to what he said on some other history website (I believe it's the same guy, he's free to disagree), hence the whole "Arthur is Authari" line of incredibly convoluted reasoning.

Much like Ragnar... Personally I believe a name was picked, just because he needed a name And he´s on other sites too ;-) oddly, celestine is the same name on both :-D

But no, similar names mean nothing. Or rather, they can mean something, perhaps, maybe, and still not in any way support the line of reasoning Celestine is trying to peddle. So anyway, maybe it's time to stop feeding the troll, I believe we have wandered quite far from the original rant...

I believe it´s grasping for straws... Trying to fit things into a theory instead of trying to have theory based on things... If you get my meaning

 

[Lord Celestine]

If I understood well what Wobbit said, and certainly an alternative that crossed my mind, is that an equally unprovable theory was that Geoffrey had a copy of the History of the Lombard in his bedroom and used it as a source when he was looking for a bunch for names for his fiction. This of course does not make Authari any more Arthur than any of the previous stuff on this thread, but at least it's not nearly as contrived.

Much like Ragnar... Personally I believe a name was picked, just because he needed a name And he´s on other sites too ;-) oddly, celestine is the same name on both :-D
I believe it´s grasping for straws... Trying to fit things into a theory instead of trying to have theory based on things... If you get my meaning

Celestine is a universal name for me. Lord Celestine is my gaming name however.

You're the ones who take great interest in this Arthur-Authari relation, I was merely passing on crumbs. No my big debut on that was quite a while ago. Did not go over as well as I thought it would so now I'm just waiting to finish my book, get it published and see how people like it if they do like it, then they'll give my little theory a thought or two, and it'll slowly come to the attention of others.

Here's some more crumbs, Geoffrey DID say that he got his source of information about Arthur from a man (walter) who was well versed in 'foreign histories'. The Historia Langobardorum was popular in medieval europe, given that people had to copy it by hand back then, that says something because it was 'worth' copying to them.

There might not be a camelot, but there sure in the hell is an andelot
And though there is no Excalibur, there was a Rex Calabria! (how is that for a false cognate?)
To all who seek this blond haired boy king, there is but one name that rings
King Authari, whose deeds and tales match extraordinarily
To the invention of the Britons who stole his glory

 

[CaptainPolyp]

No my big debut on that was quite a while ago. Did not go over as well as I thought it would

Well, maybe a forum about history was not the best choice to publish your discovery. :-/
Too bad since anything can take root when published in the appropriate corner of the internet.