tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080051275665594538.post7612529859947403022..comments2024-03-28T12:37:52.967-05:00Comments on All The Book Blog Names Are Taken: Finding Arthur: The True Origins of the Once and Future KingSarah @ All The Book Blog Names Are Takenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12507006809241347635noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080051275665594538.post-9047695381792522582020-01-25T16:17:37.710-06:002020-01-25T16:17:37.710-06:00It truly was all a bunch of rubbish. He has zero u...It truly was all a bunch of rubbish. He has zero understanding of any of this complicated history, as you rightly called it. What we think of as Scotland, England, and Ireland today is not at all similar to what would have be known of the places in 'Arthur's time'. I have read several books on the Picts and the Scots, specifically, and the fact that they are identified as different groups might give this guy pause, if he understood what that meant. Or the term 'Scots-Irish'. Or literally any other term used to refer to the various groups of people living in that period.<br /><br />The whole thing about Arthur not possibly being a Christian was so beyond absurd. The author went on about how Arthur could not have carried a cross into battle. He is absolutely literal in this sense, how and why would Arthur have dragged a cross around. Yet when we go back to the name nonsense, he makes that absolute biggest leaps that he possible can just to get them to kind of fit together.Sarah @ All The Book Blog Names Are Takenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12507006809241347635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5080051275665594538.post-25820973549469050522020-01-25T15:41:58.894-06:002020-01-25T15:41:58.894-06:00Yeah, I totally see where you're coming from. ...Yeah, I totally see where you're coming from. All the books I've read on the Early Middle Ages really suggest the situation in Scotland was really very complicated then. There were a couple of British Kingdoms there. Called Strathclyde and Goddodin as I recall (there's an epic poem about one of them),and the Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria took up parts of what is now the Southeast, perhaps as far as Edinburgh. <br /><br />So, its quite possible that even if Arthur hailed from within the geographical region of what is now Scotland, he can't really be called 'Scottish', since many of the people living there at that time were Romano-Britons who basically spoke Welsh, and the Scots then were basically Irish tribe. Its true- look up the origin of the word Scottish. They're named after an Irish tribe who settled there in the 5th and 6th centuries. The ancient people of Scotland were the Picts. <br /><br />And the whole thing about him not being a Christian just sounds: slightly insane quite frankly. Even early writers who were hostile to the Romano-Britons said that they embraced Christianity REALLY early. By really early they usually mean whilst the Romans still ruled. <br /><br />I'm literally no expert, but I've read several books on Early Medieval England and Scotland, and even a few on what would be called the Arthurian period. Even with that, I can see what this guy is saying is tosh. To use the Britishism. <br /><br />It really reminds me of the story that came out a few years ago of how the leader of the Scottish National Party wanted to claim the Lewis Chessmen for Scotland, because they were 'Scottish'. He was informed that at the time they were made, the Isle of Lewis was ruled by Norway, and they were almost certainly made in Scandinavia. Not Scotland. Really quite embarrassing in all. <br /><br />Just goes to show that what might seem Scottish now, was not 'Scottish' or English 1000 years ago. Or 1500 years ago. English Ladyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17806974885775295349noreply@blogger.com