Discussion:
Geoffrey of Monmouth and the history of the kings of britain.
(too old to reply)
John292965
2009-11-03 00:51:13 UTC
Permalink
I found a copy of Geoffrey of Monmouths ‘History of the kings of
Britain’ on google books. I started to read from before the battle at
Kearconan, and then to the part where Merlin saw the dragon/star in
the sky and then Merlin burst into tears, knowing Auralius had died,
(and then foretold Uther a prophecy).

Then I got to the part where The stones from Ireland where brought
over, (The Giants Dance) by Uther, Merlin, and 15 thousand men.

At that point I stopped reading, and I clicked the page off saying
“It’s fiction’,

What gave his game away is this, firstly, he mentions stone castles,
that, to be honest, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest
anything like those existed in the 6th Century.

I also read on the Vortigern Studies, and in Geoffrey’s Work, about
EOPA, the supposed Saxon monk who poisoned Ambrosis, it did not
happen, the writer on the Vortigern Studies pointed out, no one would
have go anywhere near Auralius, let a lone a mysterious unknown Saxon,
and I think I know where Geoffrey is coming from, in his clever piece
of work.

To me, EOPA is a fictional character, in essence it is Geoffrey
himself, (A Monk) who is feeding the poison to the reader, in the form
of lies.

Nice try Geoffrey, people in the centuries of long ago probably
believed everything he wrote, as for me, I’ve read too much about
gritty modern history and archaeology.

Geoffrey of Monmouths work does nothing but poison the history of
Auralius, almost to the point where he has some vengeance against him,
(Understandably).

It is a political piece of work, I still think ‘Arthur’ existed, and
that judgement is from modern history and archaeology. A good thing to
base judgement on.

In the 1960’s, Cadbury Castle was excavated, and they found it had
been heavily refortified during the 6th Century, that’s evidence, The
Hillfort I wrote of, with the two carved dragons upon the wooden
gates, it’s the site of Cadbury Castle. The other place I wrote of,
The castle or monastery near the sea, would be the site of Tintagel
Castle, more than likely a refortified monastery., and again, it was
excavated to prove a Christian monastery existed there at the time,
and prior of Arthur.

Geoffrey’s work is too far fetched to be believable. Nothing to do
with life In the 6th century., much of what Geoffrey wrote has been
proved wrong by archaeology, and archaeology in itself does not prove
Arthur existed, but it proves certain elements of the legend may have
been true. There are Many coincidences., There is also the burial at
Stonehenge that Archaeologists uncovered, a burial of a religions
leader dating to ‘roughly’ the times of Arthur, it has been put
forward that it may have been Bran the Blessed, could it have been
Merlin Ambrosius?. Geoffrey seems have forgotten who was buried
there, for some reason. Or saw fit not to answer the question.

Geoffrey of Monmouth, you’re a liar.

John.
Jallan
2009-11-27 20:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John292965
I found a copy of Geoffrey of Monmouths ‘History of the kings of
Britain’ on google books. I started to read from before the battle at
Kearconan, and then to the part where Merlin saw the dragon/star in
the sky and then Merlin burst into tears, knowing Auralius had died,
(and then foretold Uther a prophecy).
Then I got to the part where The stones from Ireland where brought
over, (The Giants Dance) by Uther, Merlin, and 15 thousand men.
At that point I stopped reading, and I clicked the page off saying
“It’s fiction’,
Yes. All Arthurian tales are fiction, in the sense in which you are
using
the term. If you got as far as the removing the stones from Ireland
without realizing that Geoffrey’s account was not fully historical,
you
must have be extremely credulous.
Post by John292965
What gave his game away is this, firstly, he mentions stone castles,
that, to be honest, there is no archaeological evidence to suggest
anything like those existed in the 6th Century.
Quite wrong. Romans often built forts (castles) of stone, in Britain
and
elsewhere.
Post by John292965
I also read on the Vortigern Studies, and in Geoffrey’s Work, about
EOPA, the supposed Saxon monk who poisoned Ambrosis, it did not
happen, the writer on the Vortigern Studies pointed out, no one would
have go anywhere near Auralius, let a lone a mysterious unknown Saxon,
and I think I know where Geoffrey is coming from, in his clever piece
of work.
Your grammar makes this incomprehensible. In the story Eopa never did
go near Aurelius when doing the poisoning. What of it? The point
raised
on the Vortigern Studies website is that it is supposedly not possible
to poison a spring (and also have it not noticed). Which is nonsense.
Say that at regular intervals servants come from Ambrosius to the
spring to get more water. If the spring makes a pool somewhere, then
they would naturally go to the pool to dip out the water as dipping
would be easier. So Eopa would have waited by the pool until he
saw the servants coming and poured in his poison at that point. Just
think a little.

I don’t claim that this really happened. The account is probably
fictional. But the account is also plausible enough.
Post by John292965
To me, EOPA is a fictional character, in essence it is Geoffrey
himself, (A Monk) who is feeding the poison to the reader, in the form
of lies.
Forced allegory. You might as well equate Geoffrey with Hengist
who treacherously slaughtered the Britons on the night of the
long knives. Geoffrey of Monmourth, so far as is known, was
never a monk.
Post by John292965
Nice try Geoffrey, people in the centuries of long ago probably
believed everything he wrote, as for me, I’ve read too much about
gritty modern history and archaeology.
Yet you don’t believe there were stone fortresses in Britain in the
6th century. And some medievals were quite skeptical of
Geoffrey’s history.
Post by John292965
Geoffrey of Monmouths work does nothing but poison the history of
Auralius, almost to the point where he has some vengeance against him,
(Understandably).
It does a lot more than that. It tells of many supposed rulers of
Britain besides Aurelius. And Geoffrey’s fiction generally praises
Ambrosius. What vengeance?
Post by John292965
It is a political piece of work, I still think ‘Arthur’ existed, and
that judgement is from modern history and archaeology. A good thing to
base judgement on.
No it isn’t. T

That you “think” Arthur existed doesn’t prove anything. Perhaps you
should
give your reasons.
Post by John292965
In the 1960’s, Cadbury Castle was excavated, and they found it had
been heavily refortified during the 6th Century, that’s evidence,
It is, if Arthur were the only person in 6th century Britain capable
of
doing this. That seems very doubtful. So what is your evidence?
Post by John292965
The
Hillfort I wrote of, with the two carved dragons upon the wooden
gates,  it’s the site of Cadbury Castle.  The other place I wrote of,
The castle or monastery near the sea, would be the site of Tintagel
Castle, more than likely a refortified monastery., and again, it was
excavated to prove a Christian monastery existed there at the time,
and prior of Arthur.
Your information is grievously outdated, The monastery theory has
been disproved. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintagel_Castle and
other articles on the web.
Post by John292965
Geoffrey’s work is too far fetched to be believable.  Nothing to do
with life In the 6th century., much of what Geoffrey wrote has been
proved wrong by archaeology, and archaeology in itself does not prove
Arthur existed, but it proves certain elements of the legend may have
been true.  There are Many coincidences.,
That Geoffrey’s work is too far fetched to be believable is well
known.
As to Many coincidences, it they are really coincidences, they
indicate
nothing at all.
Post by John292965
 There is also the burial at
Stonehenge that Archaeologists uncovered, a burial of a religions
leader dating to ‘roughly’ the times of Arthur, it has been put
forward that it may have been Bran the Blessed, could it have been
Merlin Ambrosius?.  Geoffrey seems have forgotten who was buried
there, for some reason.  Or saw fit not to answer the question.
Bran is usually believed to have been a god. In any case, the story
in the Mabinogion makes him a giant human king of Britain just
before the attempted invasion by Julius case. Neither case fits a
human burial dating to ‘roughly’ the times of Arthur. Could it have
been Merlin Ambrosius? Merlin Ambrosius is first mentioned by
Geoffrey of Monmouth and is generally believed to have been
invented by Geoffrey of Monmouth from traditions of Myrddin Wyllt,
from the fatherless boy Ambrosius in the “Historia Brittonum”, and
scraps of other tales. See http://www.maryjones.us/jce/merlin.html
for a quick summary of this theory.

Why so ready to believe Geoffrey of Monmouth?

Perhaps you should cite your source for this religious burial.
Post by John292965
Geoffrey of Monmouth, you’re a liar.
That is well known.

Loading...