historical identities of uther and arthur.

[Doc Martian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelle_of_Sussex uther?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex arthur?

points of argument...

aelle and uther both use seigecraft.
gap between reigns of aelle and ceawlin parallels gaps between uther and
arthur
aelle recorded as the first bretwalda
aelle's death in battle?
ceawlin frequently mentioned with companions.
battles within anglo saxon tribes parallel to battles within 'family' of
arthur?
succeeded by nephew. arthur succeeded by cousin.
ceol succeeded by brother and later his son. legendary constantine succeeded
by son. regency?
defeat at woddesberg a year prior to death of ceawlin, chronicles of arthur
indicate he didn't die immediately.
now.... would a king of the period be described in allegory rather then by
his christian name? power of names and magic?
note: the annales cambria the earliest known reference to the battle of
camlann date from 970 ad

other points
wessex and cornwall both of west country... regional drift of legend?
healing of wounds in avalon after camlann indicative of lapse of time before
death of ceawlin after woddesberg?
claims of cornwall and wessex arthur/ceawlin locations of birth and court?

would the first recorded kingship 'the bretwalda' parallel the stories of
the first king (uther)? my answer? i'm in the bully pulpit. prove me wrong.

cheers!
Doc

[solitaire]

Post by Doc Martian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelle_of_Sussex uther?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex arthur?

They were _SAXONS_, dimwit.

[Thur]

Post by solitaire

Post by Doc Martian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelle_of_Sussex uther?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex arthur?

They were _SAXONS_, dimwit.

But, were they mecenaries who had been living in Britain
for several generations, or were they the leading invasion
force?

The link to Aelle mentions the use of siegecraft - against
Pevensey I think. This might suggest a knowledge of military
craft differing from other AngloSaxons, since they didn't
use them.

The occurrence of a couple of Welsh names in Alfred's lineage
at the very beginning of the invasion has never been fully explained.

Another question that always bugs me is the "three ships" or "three
keels" both for "Hengiest" and "Horsa" and for Aelle which may be a
coincidence, or a fondness for the number for religious reasons by
the author, or even stranger, that 3 ships were a common arrangement.

We'll forget Arthur since there doesn't exist proof of anything worth
noting.

[Doc Martian]

triads are common in ancient welsh and briton storytelling.

cheers!
Doc

Post by Thur
Another question that always bugs me is the "three ships" or "three
keels" both for "Hengiest" and "Horsa" and for Aelle which may be a
coincidence, or a fondness for the number for religious reasons by
the author, or even stranger, that 3 ships were a common arrangement.

[hippo]

"Thur" wrote in message

"solitaire" wrote in message

Post by solitaire
They were _SAXONS_, dimwit.

But, were they mecenaries who had been living in Britain
for several generations, or were they the leading invasion
force?
The link to Aelle mentions the use of siegecraft - against
Pevensey I think. This might suggest a knowledge of military
craft differing from other AngloSaxons, since they didn't
use them.
The occurrence of a couple of Welsh names in Alfred's lineage
at the very beginning of the invasion has never been fully explained.
Another question that always bugs me is the "three ships" or "three
keels" both for "Hengiest" and "Horsa" and for Aelle which may be a
coincidence, or a fondness for the number for religious reasons by
the author, or even stranger, that 3 ships were a common arrangement.
We'll forget Arthur since there doesn't exist proof of anything worth
noting.

Don't get excited about the three keels. Just as with the earlier Viking
raids, the Germanic social organization at the time of the Saxon invasions
wasn't advanced enough to manage large seaborne raids. A hundred men would
strip most of the manpower away from several of the Wuerten or raised
villages in which the coastal Saxons lived and not a good idea given the
avarice of near neighbors once the weakness was noticed. It took kings or
semi-perminant armies of freebooters which didn't come in until later to
manage really big shows. -the Troll

[Doc Martian]

cultural drift.

cheers!
Doc

Post by solitaire

Post by Doc Martian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelle_of_Sussex uther?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex arthur?

They were _SAXONS_, dimwit.

[Doc Martian]

p.s. the tale of arthur gathering every child born on may day and abandoning
them at sea.... sound like a welshman to you?

cheers!
Doc

Post by solitaire

Post by Doc Martian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelle_of_Sussex uther?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex arthur?

They were _SAXONS_, dimwit.

[solitaire]

Post by Doc Martian
p.s. the tale of arthur gathering every child born on may day and abandoning
them at sea.... sound like a welshman to you?
cheers!
Doc

Post by solitaire

Post by Doc Martian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelle_of_Sussex uther?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceawlin_of_Wessex arthur?

They were _SAXONS_, dimwit.

Child abandonment is fairly common _today_, son, in EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY ON THIS
PLANET. Babies are thrown away in dumpsters, stuffed into plastic shopping bags
and hidden in closets, buried in landfills, abandoned at fire stations and
hospitals, and left out in the cold to freeze to death. Others are beaten to
death or shaken so hard their neck snaps.

Many children were killed out of hand during the time in question. Illness got
at least 25% of all babies before their 3rd birthday. Abuse undoubtedly did in
another 10% or more. Those born deformed were abandoned for the local wildlife
to dispose of. Some were child sacrifices to the gods, or abandoned due to the
decree of a local shaman/priest who had some vision or presentiment that the
family was cursed or the child would be a curse on the local community. Others
were simply dropped off at the local monastery (in those areas in which
Christian monastic foundations were established; they were few and far between
in the north) for the monks to either bury or raise; whether they survived or
not, they were undoubtedly later claimed as saints.

So exactly what about the "Welsh" (who weren't "Welsh" at the time, they were
_Britons_ or Cymry) makes them so peculiarly saintly that they couldn't possibly
be responsible for this apocryphal atrocity (which, by the way, looks
suspiciously like the Herod/babies thing in the Bible -- please note that the
authors of the early Arthurian texts were ONE AND ALL _CLERICS_ with their own
agenda to push: the painting of Arthur as an evil man who abused the church and
its priests/bishops).

[Doc Martian]

there are a number of stories about 'arthur' that would fit in very well
with a band of nomadic chieftains that wouldn't fit in as well with an
agricultural tribe... BUT... i believe that ceawlin may have been the child
of a briton as well as a saxon... say his name a few times.... compare it's
softer sibilants to the harsher aelle or cerdic.

also consider that the bretwalda claimed overlordship of the britons....
something even the britons didn't claim. that fits well with the legend as
well.

with mythical interpretations of history.... you have to consider that the
figures involved have had their character traits accentuated and or altered
to fit more recent standards or regional characteristics... you also have to
consider that their names have been changed somewhat.... ceawlin means
something close to bald-headed.... arthur means bear-man... but by the
centuries following ceawlin with some comfort in the centralized
rule/protection provided by the bretwalda.... a less military name would be
appropriate... maybe ceawlin was known for being bearlike in appearance.....
this kind of softening of martial names can be seen in the modern day harry
truman.... how many people refer to president truman as 'give 'em hell
harry' these days.... not many.

what I have done is realize that the figure of arthur has never stood
alone.... always he's been associated with his father, his enemy and his
successor. aelle and ceawlin fit the bill... as do the rival bands at the
time and the succession by his nephew although it's more likely his nephew
was referred to as his 'sister's son' nephew being more of a latin
concept.... there also may have been some misinterpolation of relationships
where a cousin's son became a sister's son.... regardless though.... unlike
ambrosious aurelianus, ceawlin has an entirely british origin, i doubt
'arthur's' latin ties were obscured by a latin priesthood, when it would
have helped cement the catholic faith as part of the backbone of the british
isles.

the earliest reference of the man known as 'arthur' comes from shortly after
the reign of ceawlin, something tells me that his loving memory would not
have referred to him as bald-guy but bear-man... whatever other elements of
the 'arthur' myth remain, he does appear to have been loved by the subjects
of his realm.

Post by solitaire
So exactly what about the "Welsh" (who weren't "Welsh" at the time, they were
_Britons_ or Cymry) makes them so peculiarly saintly that they couldn't possibly
be responsible for this apocryphal atrocity (which, by the way, looks
suspiciously like the Herod/babies thing in the Bible -- please note that the
authors of the early Arthurian texts were ONE AND ALL _CLERICS_ with their own
agenda to push: the painting of Arthur as an evil man who abused the church and
its priests/bishops).

[solitaire]

Post by Doc Martian
there are a number of stories about 'arthur' that would fit in very well
with a band of nomadic chieftains that wouldn't fit in as well with an
agricultural tribe... BUT... i believe that ceawlin may have been the child
of a briton as well as a saxon... say his name a few times.... compare it's
softer sibilants to the harsher aelle or cerdic.
also consider that the bretwalda claimed overlordship of the britons....
something even the britons didn't claim. that fits well with the legend as
well.
with mythical interpretations of history.... you have to consider that the
figures involved have had their character traits accentuated and or altered
to fit more recent standards or regional characteristics... you also have to
consider that their names have been changed somewhat.... ceawlin means
something close to bald-headed.... arthur means bear-man... but by the
centuries following ceawlin with some comfort in the centralized
rule/protection provided by the bretwalda.... a less military name would be
appropriate... maybe ceawlin was known for being bearlike in appearance.....
this kind of softening of martial names can be seen in the modern day harry
truman.... how many people refer to president truman as 'give 'em hell
harry' these days.... not many.
what I have done is realize that the figure of arthur has never stood
alone.... always he's been associated with his father, his enemy and his
successor.

Considering that he was not only a king in his own right, but successor to the
Roman title of DUX, that would be perfectly reasonable, and describes _ANY_
royal succession. So, hot shit!

Post by Doc Martian
aelle and ceawlin fit the bill...

What "bill"? You are making no sense at all.

as do the rival bands at the

Post by Doc Martian
time and the succession by his nephew although it's more likely his nephew
was referred to as his 'sister's son' nephew being more of a latin
concept....

And just exactly how are you an expert on kinship terms in the various languages
of the time?

there also may have been some misinterpolation of relationships

Post by Doc Martian
where a cousin's son became a sister's son.... regardless though.... unlike
ambrosious aurelianus, ceawlin has an entirely british origin,

ONE MORE TIME, CEAWLIN WAS A FUCKING _SAXON_. _NOT_ _BRITISH_!!!



Why don't you try to intelligently quote/answer a post and then I'll come back
and finish your education in logic.

[Doc Martian]

haven't you read ANYTHING about saxons taking briton wives? obviously not.
as for the rest of your oh so reasoned response. it is equally lacking in
knowledge. as far as my credentials? i've read more history books then
you've ever touched. it's been a passion of mine for nearly 20 years. you
tend to learn a little something after the 15th year of studying history...
you tend to learn more after a few years of human rights work... especially
when you habitually deal with the dipshit whores of israel.

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?q=author%3Adocmartian%40verizon.net%20i
srael%20dipshits&num=100&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&biw=754&sa=N&tab=wg

p.s. and no duh.... you don't live in israel.... and they've never given you
any money... and you're just a 'concerned scholar'. but..... your wee-wee is
still widdle.

cheers!
Doc

Post by solitaire
ONE MORE TIME, CEAWLIN WAS A FUCKING _SAXON_. _NOT_ _BRITISH_!!!

[Doc Martian]

btw.... where you blew your cover is in the first line you posted to me....
"They were _SAXONS_, dimwit." such hostility demonstrates an ulterior
motive.... and by your lack of awareness of intermarriage between saxons and
britons that motive obviously isn't a pure love of history.

so.... barf in my direction all you want.... all it does is demonstrate that
you're a puke.

cheers!
Doc

p.s. the u.s. and israel is putting belladonna in the settler's water
supply.... hope you DO live in israel.

Post by solitaire

Post by Doc Martian
there are a number of stories about 'arthur' that would fit in very well
with a band of nomadic chieftains that wouldn't fit in as well with an
agricultural tribe... BUT... i believe that ceawlin may have been the child
of a briton as well as a saxon... say his name a few times.... compare it's
softer sibilants to the harsher aelle or cerdic.
also consider that the bretwalda claimed overlordship of the britons....
something even the britons didn't claim. that fits well with the legend as
well.
with mythical interpretations of history.... you have to consider that the
figures involved have had their character traits accentuated and or altered
to fit more recent standards or regional characteristics... you also have to
consider that their names have been changed somewhat.... ceawlin means
something close to bald-headed.... arthur means bear-man... but by the
centuries following ceawlin with some comfort in the centralized
rule/protection provided by the bretwalda.... a less military name would be
appropriate... maybe ceawlin was known for being bearlike in

appearance.....

Post by solitaire

Post by Doc Martian
this kind of softening of martial names can be seen in the modern day harry
truman.... how many people refer to president truman as 'give 'em hell
harry' these days.... not many.
what I have done is realize that the figure of arthur has never stood
alone.... always he's been associated with his father, his enemy and his
successor.

Considering that he was not only a king in his own right, but successor to the
Roman title of DUX, that would be perfectly reasonable, and describes _ANY_
royal succession. So, hot shit!

Post by Doc Martian
aelle and ceawlin fit the bill...

What "bill"? You are making no sense at all.
as do the rival bands at the

Post by Doc Martian
time and the succession by his nephew although it's more likely his nephew
was referred to as his 'sister's son' nephew being more of a latin
concept....

And just exactly how are you an expert on kinship terms in the various languages
of the time?
there also may have been some misinterpolation of relationships

Post by Doc Martian
where a cousin's son became a sister's son.... regardless though.... unlike
ambrosious aurelianus, ceawlin has an entirely british origin,

ONE MORE TIME, CEAWLIN WAS A FUCKING _SAXON_. _NOT_ _BRITISH_!!!
Why don't you try to intelligently quote/answer a post and then I'll come back
and finish your education in logic.

[Doc Martian]

so... how many hundred years up the line is this bit of information from?
btw.... the 'title' dux bellorum ("war leader") is very similar in meaning
to the anglo-saxon word Bretanwealda, "Lord of Britain"/"wide-ruling", it
also is very likely that a catholic monk might use the words
interchangeably.... especially a few hundred years later when latin and
anglo-saxon have less immediacy.

cheers!
Doc

Post by solitaire
Considering that he was not only a king in his own right, but successor to the
Roman title of DUX, that would be perfectly reasonable, and describes _ANY_
royal succession. So, hot shit!

[Doc Martian]

p.p.s. bede uses the term 'imperium' to describe the bretwalda... he's only
100 years up the line from ceawlin.

cheers!
Doc

Post by Doc Martian
so... how many hundred years up the line is this bit of information from?
btw.... the 'title' dux bellorum ("war leader") is very similar in meaning
to the anglo-saxon word Bretanwealda, "Lord of Britain"/"wide-ruling", it
also is very likely that a catholic monk might use the words
interchangeably.... especially a few hundred years later when latin and
anglo-saxon have less immediacy.
cheers!
Doc

Post by solitaire
Considering that he was not only a king in his own right, but successor

to

Post by Doc Martian
the

Post by solitaire
Roman title of DUX, that would be perfectly reasonable, and describes

_ANY_

Post by solitaire
royal succession. So, hot shit!

[Doc Martian]

the anglo-saxons were just one big happy family and NEVER fought one
another.

cheers!
Doc

[Doc Martian]

However, Arthur may not have actually been his name. Phillips & Keatman
argue that Arthur was a title meaning "Bear", (p.154), so the legendary king
probably had quite a different name. This is important to remember when
using contemporary sources to find out about him, because they may have used
his real name, rather than the title Arthur. In fact, most of the stories,
poems and songs about Arthur didn't come into circulation until the eleventh
and twelfth centuries.

http://www.dicksonc.act.edu.au/Showcase/ClioContents/Clio1/arthur.html

cheers!
Doc