King Arthur(s) were real (Yet another cover-up)

Originally posted by Essan
How can the Welsh be a lost tribe of Israel when they were living in Britain thousands of years before Abraham left Sumeria .......

Just check their DNA

Welsh (Brythonic) is a celtic language with strong similarities to Gaelic - and is no more related to Hebrew than is English or Spanish. Though ultimately all are Indo-European languages and so some basic similarities between will exist.

Remember, these authors make a living writing books on numerous aspects of 'alternative' history and science, knowing they have a ready market of people who want to believe such stuff and who are unlikely to check facts.


As far as the historical basis of Arthur goes, I'm quite persuaded by Alistair Moffat's argument put forward in Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms that he was a Roman trained cavalry leader from the Votadini (Gododdin), based in the Borders - possibly Kelso.

I suspect his name became linked with many older stories over time, as would be natural. Folk always prefer to hear stories about current heros! And likewise, the stories were always based local to wherever the storyteller was telling the tale.

You clearly haven't looked at their research as your still buying the same old pat from MSM. Britain has a long rich history and was briefly interrupted by the Church of Rome nothing more. I suggest you look at their findings as they can easily prove what they say.

Originally posted by Essan
As far as the historical basis of Arthur goes, I'm quite persuaded by Alistair Moffat's argument put forward in Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms that he was a Roman trained cavalry leader from the Votadini (Gododdin), based in the Borders - possibly Kelso.

I suspect his name became linked with many older stories over time, as would be natural. Folk always prefer to hear stories about current heros! And likewise, the stories were always based local to wherever the storyteller was telling the tale.

I find it odd this is something not being taken into consideration by these writers, although perhaps I shoudn't as it undermines their argument. During this period in history it was fairly common for a lot of North European cultures to do this. A variation on this is how chiefs become related to Gods by ancestry. However, I assume this is something else that has to be discarded being part of the conspiracy along with the rest of history.

To be honest, I see this whole argument as just another variant on the 'it was the English what done it!' view.

Look and learn, America! You think you're tired of getting grief now, see how it feels in another 10 years time, or a 100 years time or even a 1000 years time.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Merriman Weir]

reply to post by Merriman Weir


The reason I am facinated by Arthur is that the only real contender put forward to be the Saxon leader he fought at Mount Badon is King Ælle of the South Saxons.

(Notes: I only use the name King Ælle to indicate the leader of the South Saxons)

Given the size and nature of the South Saxon enclave it would have been a real threat to any British leadership at the time

Going by Gildas (400 years later) Ælle had a West to East conquest along the Southdowns aiming towards Anderitum (now Pevensy) killing all the Welsh along the way.

A response from the British leadership would indicate the battle of Mount Badon in all probability (If Ælle is the Saxon leader) happened within Sussex and in all probability on the Southdowns.

Now this is where historical reporting on both sides, and archeology diverge..

All the archology of the area indicates that the Saxons co-existed "within" British communities.. (earliest Saxon Burials in Chichester date to the battle of Mount Badon +- 30 years are all Saxons living within a British community)

So the South Saxons driving out/murdering all the Britons has an element of being complete bollox and so I beleive a false history has been created on both sides.

If the Saxons where an unfriendy invading force then the Britons locally only had a few miles to run to hide in the Andredes weald (Dense forest to the north of, and running the length of the Southdowns) that is just 2 - 10 miles from the Sea.

The physiography of the area and the acheological evidence of co-existance from the earliest Saxon era does not match the written history of brutal murder.

So to recap the only real contender I know of to be the Saxon leader to have fought at Mount Badon is King Ælle of the South Saxons, which could only place the battle of Mount Badon on the Southdowns, while the archeological evidence of co-existance in the area does not marry in with any of that.

All in all, the whole thing smells of a false history created by rulers and religous leaders to keep these lands divided

Originally posted by mlmijyd

You clearly haven't looked at their research as your still buying the same old pat from MSM. Britain has a long rich history and was briefly interrupted by the Church of Rome nothing more. I suggest you look at their findings as they can easily prove what they say.

We do indeed have a long rich history. It's 12,000 years since we arrived here

Sadly, what they say is little more than ill informed conjecture and avoidance of the evidence (a common ploy of such authors - if there are 10 pieces of evidence, one of which could be interpreted as supporting their conjecture whilst the rest disprove it, only one piece will get mentioned in their book)

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Essan]

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

All in all, the whole thing smells of a false history created by rulers and religous leaders to keep these lands divided

I'm not sure about that - I think that if anything the point was to support one or other sides claims to the whole of the land, rather than force an division.

It really was a bit sad the way we fell into petty squabbling after the Romans left. Indeed I blame them for it all

Originally posted by thoughtsfull

So the South Saxons driving out/murdering all the Britons has an element of being complete bollox and so I beleive a false history has been created on both sides.

I'm not sure this is necessarily an orchestrated conspiracy though. There's a reason it gets called the Dark Ages and it's not because people don't want to know or because people are hiding things.

The 'annihilation of Britons' issue is a real problem in this period as there's a lot to consider and not enough hard data to consider it with. I think most people now agree that there wasn't a outright annihilation and that other factors have to be taken into consideration anyway such as the (Justinian?) plague that ravage a lot of Europe at this time. That and differences in landscape between then and now which meant at that time, certain areas would have been very sparsely populated anyway (where I live in England - one of the biggest population centres of the country now - was barely inhabitable then, due to it being marshlands). Place a plague on top of that and you've not got much of population to annihilate anyway.

The annihilation theory is something that's served both sides to an extent. It's certainly helped fuelled anti-English feeling for many years amongst the rest of Britain/UK and, during the romanticism that gave the world the present day notion of Celticness, it probably served the mainly Norman and post-Hanoverian aristocracy too with their own take on 'English' superiority.

One last point: I'm not sure about the need to divide though as it's doubtful that any of Britain and Ireland was genuinely that united: inter-kingdom rivalry and warfare has always been rife and ultimately been the undoing in more ways than one.

Again, it's funny how this always works. The Irish can invade what's now Scotland and kill off the natives and now it's all OK because the Scots (oof!) and the Irish are Celts together. The Irish can raid the western shores of what's now England and it's 'typical of the time' and 'to be expected'. Vikings can invade and ravage Ireland and now it's all OK and it's 'great' that the Celts and the Vikings have a mixed history.

Now throw 'England' and the 'English' into the mix and it's interesting how this suddenly changes. None of it's to be 'expected' or is 'merely typical of the time'.

What's worse is that very often it's not even the English or the 'Anglo-Saxons' involved. The Norman/Viking aristocracy having conquered England, move in on Ireland (partly by invitation)? It's the fault of the English. Henry Tudor (Welsh and French King of England) starts plantations? It's the fault of the English. James VI of Scotland becomes King of England and another round of plantations start? It's the fault of the English. Anything bad that's happened since 1707 and the Act of the Union between England and Wales and Scotland? It's the fault of the English.

Farcical!

Its all Gaelic. What are you on about?

Just like ENGLISH in the area, people get dialects that others who are also speaking english do not understand.

But it is still English. Just like Welsh, Irish, Scottish Gaelic is still all Gaelic.

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by Aeons
It all Gaelic. What are you on about. The "old language" in these areas are all Gaelic. With isolationism causing variations to pop-up.

Really? No P and Q languages arriving at separate times? Or is that part of the 'conspiracy'?

reply to post by Merriman Weir


I was pointing out that the representation of Aelle was one of bloodshed and killing all before him, which does not match the evidence, even tho the evidence does not match, those sereotypes persist, are manipulated, and twisted to suit whatever agenda is being put forward.

Even today on this site is information of a modern Anglo-Saxon mission to wipe out the world, the Europeans use the term Anglo-Saxon banking system to represent the horrid capitalists that messed the world up, France24 was setup to combat the Anglo-Saxon MSM etc..

The use of the term Saxon, or Anglo-Saxon is a divisive one.. But as you say the whole thing is quite farcical...

Oh and that Saxon thing is not entirely true.

The ones who came were mostly men.

So who were the women who contributed to the modern DNA pool of the Brits?

Not Saxons.

Interesting isn't it, how who the women were never matters in these discussions.

This is why you can trace the Saxon mass migration with Y-DNA. But not mtDNA. Because invaders don't bring women along in the last 1000 or so years.

reply to post by Aeons


No, it's all Celtic. Welsh/Brythonic/P-Celtic and Gaelic/Goidelic/Q-Celtic.

The former was the Iron Age language throughout most of Britain, though probably replaced by Belgic/English in southeastern parts by the time the Romans got here.

Gaelic/Q-Celtic was only introduced into Britain by the Irish from around the 4th century onwards, after they established Dalriada in what is now Argyll.

Pictish may be an even earlier form of Celtic language that hung on in the far north, long after it had evolved into Brythonic outside of the Highlands.

Hence placenames throughout Scotland and England which are still Brythonic/P-Celtic.

[edit on 13-3-2010 by Essan]

reply to post by Aeons


In my neck of the woods, in places like Chichester where the south Saxons lived within British communities most of the earliest Saxon burials are of Saxon women, tho there is no way (that I know of) to prove if they where Saxon by birth or marriage.

It is a good point tho...

It is also a good point to remember that the British leadership was split some favoured Rome (and Church of Rome), and the likes of Vortigern pro Independence (Pelagianism, Celtic Christian)

So even at that point within British society both pro and anti Church of Rome Christian movements existed.

S&F
The victor always writes history, even if it isnt true.

reply to post by spmc215


The disaffected always try to rewrite history. Especially when it's not true

reply to post by mlmijyd


Sigh.... just sigh.

That site is basically some "British Israelite" nonsense. Now as to who the Brittons and Gaels were? Linguistically they spoke a “Celtic” Language. Its an Indo-European language. Modern Evidecne suggests that the “Celts” came from Spain not Switzerland. But none the less, the “Celts” of the Isles are “Cetls”. I use “” as to be honest Celt is an abused term these days.

What is most wrong (if I had to pick something) about the site, is that it is hostile to academics. It does not follow any citation process, or logical evidence. It is as if the site owner pulled all of it from his nether regions

reply to post by Yissachar1


barthu 'r dirio is Divide the land to the best of my knowledge. My wlesh is rusty unlike my Gaelic

Reply to post by Noinden

Do you have any evidence to back your claim of of BS, or are you talking out of your nether regions?

In my opinion, the ideas that they put forth seem plausible.

As for the Brutish Israelism . . . what happened to the lost ten tribes? You should do some more research on the subject before making knee jerk reactions.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


i think this might be of question CoelbrenAlphabethere

the fact that they claim all their information comes from a large stone in athens written in a fake language doesn't put their claims in a very good light if you are willing to connect the dots.


[edit on 18-3-2010 by demongoat]

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by Noinden

 

Do you have any evidence to back your claim of of BS, or are you talking out of your nether regions?

In my opinion, the ideas that they put forth seem plausible.

As for the Brutish Israelism . . . what happened to the lost ten tribes? You should do some more research on the subject before making knee jerk reactions.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

You want evidence? Lets see, I have twenty odd years as a Neopagan Druid, which includes learning the histroy of the "Celts" from various sources. Some are academic some are not. My main evidence would be linguistic. The Celtic branch of the Indo-European tree is attached. Hebrew is NOT an IE language.

It's not a knee jerk reaction on my part. It's an educated one.

As for the "Lost Tribes" one would presume there were lost tribes in the first place.

Slan leat don't let the door hit you on the way out

reply to post by demongoat


Yep!

What always confuses me is there is a alphabet in the Isles these smeggers forget. Ogam/Ogham (Old Irish/Modern Irish). It has instances in Western Wales. It's readable, it's real. Oh wait you can not connect any mythical Welsh Heroes to it... my bad, sorry

Originally posted by Noinden
reply to post by demongoat

 

Yep!

What always confuses me is there is a alphabet in the Isles these smeggers forget. Ogam/Ogham (Old Irish/Modern Irish). It has instances in Western Wales. It's readable, it's real. Oh wait you can not connect any mythical Welsh Heroes to it... my bad, sorry

yep you can link ogham to mythical irish heroes!

anyway, i read through that page. it is nothing short of the worst pseudo-scientific revisionist history i've read yet, it even tops the stuff from british-israel believers.
the authors don't even attempt to hide their bias, they don't shy away from bashing mainstream historians. whats worse is they site nothing, they back up their claims with no evidence, relying entirely on the ignorance of the audience about more obscure facts or use historically unverifiable statements while attacking historians.

i guess having something to point to is enough for some people, but i find the fact that they can't back up a single claim they make with any sources outside of mythology, legends, and name similarities(this name kind of looks like that!) goes a long way to show that anyone who believes this stuff wouldn't be budged anyway because they don't find it all intellectually insulting.
i've seen worse fallacy ridden pages in my time, but this ranks highly up there.
tons of attacks on historians, poisoning the well, calling people blind for not agreeing with them, failure to do history checks, the inability to refrain from snide remarks.

those things do not make their beliefs anymore appealing to rational people.
the worst one i found was the attack on historians for calling hadrians wall hadrians wall, they didn't even bother to learn anything about it, they claim it should be named after serverius not hadrian. even though all severus just restored the wall
what a weak grasp of history they have.