Probably born

We do? The canonical Robin Hood story includes Richard the
Lionheart and John.

"In popular culture, Robin Hood is typically seen as a contemporary
and supporter of the late 12th-century king Richard the Lionheart,
Robin being driven to outlawry during the misrule of Richard's brother
John while Richard was away at the Third Crusade. This view first
gained currency in the 16th century. It is not supported by the
earliest ballads. The early compilation, A Gest of Robyn Hode, names
the king as "Edward", and while it does show Robin Hood as accepting
the King's pardon he later repudiates it and returns to the
greenwood."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood#History

how risible is that idea over your way?...

Very.

Blame T.H. White.

No, I already blamed him for having young Arthur meet Robin.

And all the depictions of the knights in Camelot
wearing armor and behaving according to codes more suited to the Late
Middle Ages.

I blame Richard I's mother for making the stories popular in that era.

I tend to think of them as being about 800 years apart, with King
Arthur being as long before Robin Hood as Robin Hood was before us.

Not quite, if Robin Hood was 12th century and King Arthur 5th or 6th.

If.

Possibly, I'd guess, as a two-stage process, Arthur being popularized
by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century (when Robin lived),

If.

===
= DUG.
===

John W Kennedy

2012-03-22 14:22:31 UTC

Most of us here in Leftpondia tend to think of Robin Hood and King
Arthur as contemporaries...how risible is that idea over your
way?...
(They both lived in a time historians call "yore")....r

I think there are about 1000 years between the two.

There are about 1000 years between versions of Arthur.

Really? Any version 1000 years later that C5th or C6th is obviously
wrong!

Fiction is fiction.

If you count "Camelot 3000" on the one hand, and the ancient legends of
Samartia that seem to have become attached to Arthur on the other, the
figure is nearer a minimum of 2900.

Still, I'm surprised that a significant number of people confuse Robin
Hood's era with Arthur's, seeing that the only well known version of
Robin Hood is the "Richard on the Third Crusade" story.

--
John W Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

Duggy

2012-03-22 22:09:14 UTC

Post by John W Kennedy
If you count "Camelot 3000" on the one hand, and the ancient legends of
Samartia that seem to have become attached to Arthur on the other, the
figure is nearer a minimum of 2900.

True. And why wouldn't you count Camelot 3000? It's fun.

Post by John W Kennedy
Still, I'm surprised that a significant number of people confuse Robin
Hood's era with Arthur's, seeing that the only well known version of
Robin Hood is the "Richard on the Third Crusade" story.

True... but he's a noble King not really seen until the end and the
representative of a bad lord or king is the main villain... names are
unimportant to most.

As the originator said it's all "days of yore" to most people.

===
= DUG.
===

Mike L

2012-03-22 22:09:38 UTC

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:22:31 -0400, John W Kennedy

Most of us here in Leftpondia tend to think of Robin Hood and King
Arthur as contemporaries...how risible is that idea over your
way?...
(They both lived in a time historians call "yore")....r

I think there are about 1000 years between the two.

There are about 1000 years between versions of Arthur.

Really? Any version 1000 years later that C5th or C6th is obviously
wrong!

Fiction is fiction.

If you count "Camelot 3000" on the one hand, and the ancient legends of
Samartia that seem to have become attached to Arthur on the other, the
figure is nearer a minimum of 2900.
Still, I'm surprised that a significant number of people confuse Robin
Hood's era with Arthur's, seeing that the only well known version of
Robin Hood is the "Richard on the Third Crusade" story.

Hey, it was before 1776, wasn't it? All that olde worlde stuff
happened around the same time.

Meanwhile, over on the right-hand shore, let's not misoverestimate the
British education system. The only history the kids know is WW2. And
they're hazy about that.

--
Mike.

Duggy

2012-03-22 23:12:01 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:22:31 -0400, John W Kennedy

Most of us here in Leftpondia tend to think of Robin Hood and King
Arthur as contemporaries...how risible is that idea over your
way?...
(They both lived in a time historians call "yore")....r

I think there are about 1000 years between the two.

There are about 1000 years between versions of Arthur.

Really? Any version 1000 years later that C5th or C6th is obviously
wrong!

Fiction is fiction.

If you count "Camelot 3000" on the one hand, and the ancient legends of
Samartia that seem to have become attached to Arthur on the other, the
figure is nearer a minimum of 2900.
Still, I'm surprised that a significant number of people confuse Robin
Hood's era with Arthur's, seeing that the only well known version of
Robin Hood is the "Richard on the Third Crusade" story.

Hey, it was before 1776, wasn't it? All that olde worlde stuff
happened around the same time.

Don't be silly. All the Rome/Greek stuff happened a few years
earlier. Cavemen a decade or so before that.

===
= DUG.
===

R H Draney

2012-03-23 04:38:21 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:22:31 -0400, John W Kennedy

Most of us here in Leftpondia tend to think of Robin Hood and King
Arthur as contemporaries...how risible is that idea over your
way?...
(They both lived in a time historians call "yore")....r

I think there are about 1000 years between the two.

There are about 1000 years between versions of Arthur.

Really? =A0Any version 1000 years later that C5th or C6th is obviousl=

Post by Mike L

wrong!

Fiction is fiction.

If you count "Camelot 3000" on the one hand, and the ancient legends of
Samartia that seem to have become attached to Arthur on the other, the
figure is nearer a minimum of 2900.
Still, I'm surprised that a significant number of people confuse Robin
Hood's era with Arthur's, seeing that the only well known version of
Robin Hood is the "Richard on the Third Crusade" story.

Hey, it was before 1776, wasn't it? All that olde worlde stuff
happened around the same time.

Don't be silly. All the Rome/Greek stuff happened a few years
earlier. Cavemen a decade or so before that.

The folks at xkcd underestimate the historical sense of the population at large:

http://xkcd.com/771/

....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Steve Hayes

2012-03-23 05:23:45 UTC

Post by R H Draney
http://xkcd.com/771/

The site doesn't seem to be available.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Snidely

2012-03-23 06:12:10 UTC

Post by R H Draney
http://xkcd.com/771/

The site doesn't seem to be available.

The specific link worked for me, and I am aware of people in England
that are familiar with the site, so I don't know what to tell you if
retrying isn't successful.

/dps "forsooth"

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

Duggy

2012-03-23 07:14:54 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 10:22:31 -0400, John W Kennedy

Most of us here in Leftpondia tend to think of Robin Hood and King
Arthur as contemporaries...how risible is that idea over your
way?...
(They both lived in a time historians call "yore")....r

I think there are about 1000 years between the two.

There are about 1000 years between versions of Arthur.

Really? =A0Any version 1000 years later that C5th or C6th is obviousl=

Post by Mike L

wrong!

Fiction is fiction.

If you count "Camelot 3000" on the one hand, and the ancient legends of
Samartia that seem to have become attached to Arthur on the other, the
figure is nearer a minimum of 2900.
Still, I'm surprised that a significant number of people confuse Robin
Hood's era with Arthur's, seeing that the only well known version of
Robin Hood is the "Richard on the Third Crusade" story.

Hey, it was before 1776, wasn't it? All that olde worlde stuff
happened around the same time.

Don't be silly. All the Rome/Greek stuff happened a few years
earlier. Cavemen a decade or so before that.

http://xkcd.com/771/

+1.

===
= DUG.
===

Steve Hayes

2012-03-23 05:20:01 UTC

Post by Duggy
Don't be silly. All the Rome/Greek stuff happened a few years
earlier. Cavemen a decade or so before that.

Ah yes, I remember learning about cavemen catching fire because safety matches
hadn't been invented yet.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Duggy

2012-03-23 07:19:29 UTC

Don't be silly. All the Rome/Greek stuff happened a few years
earlier. Cavemen a decade or so before that.

Ah yes, I remember learning about cavemen catching fire because safety matches
hadn't been invented yet.

Of course they hadn't. Safety matches were an invention of the nanny
state. And the nanny state didn't start ruining everything ever until
I was a kid.

So some cavemen caught fire and died. But it never did them any harm.

===
= DUG.
===

Skitt

2012-03-23 17:27:21 UTC

Post by Duggy
Don't be silly. All the Rome/Greek stuff happened a few years
earlier. Cavemen a decade or so before that.

Ah yes, I remember learning about cavemen catching fire because safety matches
hadn't been invented yet.

Of course they hadn't. Safety matches were an invention of the nanny
state. And the nanny state didn't start ruining everything ever until
I was a kid.
So some cavemen caught fire and died. But it never did them any harm.

Oh, you made me think of this strip:

http://www.nachshon.org.il/~itzs/Don%20Martin/html/cave2.htm

--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt

Duggy

2012-03-23 23:01:18 UTC

Post by Skitt

Don't be silly. All the Rome/Greek stuff happened a few years
earlier. Cavemen a decade or so before that.

Ah yes, I remember learning about cavemen catching fire because safety matches
hadn't been invented yet.

Of course they hadn't. Safety matches were an invention of the nanny
state. And the nanny state didn't start ruining everything ever until
I was a kid.
So some cavemen caught fire and died. But it never did them any harm.

http://www.nachshon.org.il/~itzs/Don%20Martin/html/cave2.htm

+1.

===
= DUG.
===

John W Kennedy

2012-03-30 15:16:47 UTC

Some years back, I produced this for alt.fairs.renaissance.

Hmmmm....

I didn't know there was any such thing as a Regency Faire. I can see
it in my mind's eye even now....

The Prince Regent opens the Faire, and there's a running plot about his
mad father running around telling everyone that he's Samuel Richardson,
the "true author" of all those books supposedly written by Jane Austen
(who, after all, was a woman, and consequently illiterate). At opening
ceremonies, Napoleon appears, and challenges William Pitt to a duel
with pistols, but the Prince insists that the quarrel instead be
decided by a game of Living Nine-Men's Morris. During the game,
Jonathan Swift (fighting for Napoleon because he's Irish) cheats, but
is defeated by a visiting Natty Bumppo. This annoys everyone so much
that the duel is held after all, with cap-and-nipple pistols (which
every Renaissance Faire is already well equipped with), but when
Napoleon brings out a Puckle gun (represented by a Gatling gun, because
it's almost the same thing), the Prince tears off his mask, revealing
himself to be none other than George Washington. Hijinks ensue, and at
the end of the day, everyone goes off to the Pub to sing "Just Before
the Battle, Mother", "Aura Lee", and a fugal arrangement blending "My
Country, 'Tis of Thee" with "God Save the King".

--
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

Duggy

2012-03-30 23:28:21 UTC

Post by John W Kennedy
Some years back, I produced this for alt.fairs.renaissance.
Hmmmm....
I didn't know there was any such thing as a Regency Faire. I can see
it in my mind's eye even now....
The Prince Regent opens the Faire, and there's a running plot about his
mad father running around telling everyone that he's Samuel Richardson,
the "true author" of all those books supposedly written by Jane Austen
(who, after all, was a woman, and consequently illiterate). At opening
ceremonies, Napoleon appears, and challenges William Pitt to a duel
with pistols, but the Prince insists that the quarrel instead be
decided by a game of Living Nine-Men's Morris. During the game,
Jonathan Swift (fighting for Napoleon because he's Irish) cheats, but
is defeated by a visiting Natty Bumppo. This annoys everyone so much
that the duel is held after all, with cap-and-nipple pistols (which
every Renaissance Faire is already well equipped with), but when
Napoleon brings out a Puckle gun (represented by a Gatling gun, because
it's almost the same thing), the Prince tears off his mask, revealing
himself to be none other than George Washington. Hijinks ensue, and at
the end of the day, everyone goes off to the Pub to sing "Just Before
the Battle, Mother", "Aura Lee", and a fugal arrangement blending "My
Country, 'Tis of Thee" with "God Save the King".

Nice.

===
= DUG.
===

Dr Nick

2012-03-29 07:01:52 UTC

Post by Mike L
Meanwhile, over on the right-hand shore, let's not misoverestimate the
British education system. The only history the kids know is WW2. And
they're hazy about that.

Not if they watch Horrible Histories - which contains a spectacular
amount of accurate history as far as I can tell.

Here, for example, is the War of The Roses report:

--
Online waterways route planner | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities | http://canalplan.org.uk

John W Kennedy

2012-03-30 14:58:34 UTC

Post by Dr Nick

Post by Mike L
Meanwhile, over on the right-hand shore, let's not misoverestimate the
British education system. The only history the kids know is WW2. And
they're hazy about that.

Not if they watch Horrible Histories - which contains a spectacular
amount of accurate history as far as I can tell.
http://youtu.be/rZo_Gn-GqZs

And here in the states we have the inimitable Amy Burvall and Herb
Mahelona ("historyteachers").

--
John W Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it
to Windows?

Mike L

2012-03-30 21:13:10 UTC

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:01:52 +0100, Dr Nick

Post by Dr Nick

Post by Mike L
Meanwhile, over on the right-hand shore, let's not misoverestimate the
British education system. The only history the kids know is WW2. And
they're hazy about that.

Not if they watch Horrible Histories - which contains a spectacular
amount of accurate history as far as I can tell.
http://youtu.be/rZo_Gn-GqZs

Seems entirely convincing to me.

--
Mike.

Duggy

2012-03-23 14:01:04 UTC

I'm just wondering if Ivanhoe has some influence in this?

Scott has some influence on the modern view of Robin Hood - he added
the Locksley (it was previously Earl of Huntington) and features of
Ivanhoe himself were adopted into the character (Noble returned from
the crusades).

Although Scott wasn't the first to move Robin from the 10th century to
the 12th, he may have popularized the move.

Also Ivanhoe is a pseudo-historical romance about knights which
includes Robin. Much of the Arthurian that is seen by the public it
pseudo-historical romance about knights.

===
= DUG.
===

John W Kennedy

2012-03-30 15:06:27 UTC

I'm just wondering if Ivanhoe has some influence in this?

I dare say it nailed down the Richard I version, yes.

Post by Duggy
Scott has some influence on the modern view of Robin Hood - he added
the Locksley (it was previously Earl of Huntington) and features of
Ivanhoe himself were adopted into the character (Noble returned from
the crusades).
Although Scott wasn't the first to move Robin from the 10th century to
the 12th, he may have popularized the move.
Also Ivanhoe is a pseudo-historical romance about knights which
includes Robin. Much of the Arthurian that is seen by the public it
pseudo-historical romance about knights.

And we all know that T. H. White couldn't tell the difference, right up
to copying Scott's fantasies about Normans and Saxons (which he
invented as a comfortable surrogate for English and Scots).

--
John W Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"

caspar milquetoast

2012-03-30 14:10:06 UTC

Most of us here in Leftpondia tend to think of Robin Hood and King
Arthur as contemporaries...how risible is that idea over your
way?...
(They both lived in a time historians call "yore")....r

I think there are about 1000 years between the two.

There are about 1000 years between versions of Arthur.

Really? Any version 1000 years later that C5th or C6th is obviously
wrong!

Fiction is fiction.

If you count "Camelot 3000" on the one hand, and the ancient legends of
Samartia that seem to have become attached to Arthur on the other, the
figure is nearer a minimum of 2900.
Still, I'm surprised that a significant number of people confuse Robin
Hood's era with Arthur's, seeing that the only well known version of
Robin Hood is the "Richard on the Third Crusade" story.

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Steve Hayes

2012-03-30 20:08:11 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Snidely

2012-03-30 20:26:24 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).

(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

Robin Bignall

2012-03-30 21:46:52 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly wore when
they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed Arthur and gave him a
beating, was not around until 1300 or later. Richard the Lionheart was captured
during 1192, so the stories are set at least 100 years apart.

--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

Snidely

2012-03-30 21:58:19 UTC

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly wore
when they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed Arthur and gave
him a beating, was not around until 1300 or later. Richard the Lionheart was
captured during 1192, so the stories are set at least 100 years apart.

You don't seem to be entering into the spirit of the discussion here.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

Robin Bignall

2012-04-01 14:25:42 UTC

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly wore
when they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed Arthur and gave
him a beating, was not around until 1300 or later. Richard the Lionheart was
captured during 1192, so the stories are set at least 100 years apart.

You don't seem to be entering into the spirit of the discussion here.

T H White was required reading on my 9th birthday. Wart's first quest was to
find Merlyn, who then ensured that Robin Wood was firmly added to the dramatis
personae. It's a pity we ever have to grow older than 9.

--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

Nick Spalding

2012-04-01 14:37:53 UTC

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly wore
when they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed Arthur and gave
him a beating, was not around until 1300 or later. Richard the Lionheart was
captured during 1192, so the stories are set at least 100 years apart.

You don't seem to be entering into the spirit of the discussion here.

I was about the same age when I was introduced to The Sword in the
Stone, closely followed by The Witch in the Wood and a little later The
Ill-Made Knight. I still prefer the original version TSitS rather than
as he modified it in The Once and Future King.

--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

caspar milquetoast

2012-03-31 01:06:16 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

They're stories, aren't they? They might as well be on different planets
for all that it matters.

R H Draney

2012-03-31 05:59:20 UTC

Post by Robin Bignall
Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly wore when
they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed Arthur and gave him a
beating, was not around until 1300 or later. Richard the Lionheart was captured
during 1192, so the stories are set at least 100 years apart.

They're stories, aren't they? They might as well be on different planets
for all that it matters.

That logic is fine until the authors start throwing in bits of actual history to
"anchor" the stories to a particular time...then you get stuff like Zorro that
shatters suspended disbelief by asserting that it occurs after one event, but
before another that happened earlier than the first....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Duggy

2012-03-30 22:54:16 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was at the Battle of Mt Badon in 490, which is before 1192. If
he was also around in 1300 then he was around in 1192, meaning Arthur
and Robin were contemporaries.

===
= DUG.
===

John Holmes

2012-04-05 12:20:22 UTC

Post by Robin Bignall
Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly
wore when they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed
Arthur and gave him a beating, was not around until 1300 or later.
Richard the Lionheart was captured during 1192, so the stories are
set at least 100 years apart.

Arthur was at the Battle of Mt Badon in 490, which is before 1192. If
he was also around in 1300 then he was around in 1192, meaning Arthur
and Robin were contemporaries.

If he was that old, it's hardly surprising that he fell off his horse.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Duggy

2012-04-05 23:56:41 UTC

Post by Robin Bignall
Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly
wore when they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed
Arthur and gave him a beating, was not around until 1300 or later.
Richard the Lionheart was captured during 1192, so the stories are
set at least 100 years apart.

Arthur was at the Battle of Mt Badon in 490, which is before 1192. If
he was also around in 1300 then he was around in 1192, meaning Arthur
and Robin were contemporaries.

If he was that old, it's hardly surprising that he fell off his horse.

Or that his wife went after a younger man.

Unless "Once and Future King" means he died on or after 490 and
returned on or before 1300.

So he may not have a contemporary of Robin.

And is also the "Once and Once King."

===
= DUG.
===

R H Draney

2012-04-06 04:23:30 UTC

Post by Robin Bignall
Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly
wore when they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed
Arthur and gave him a beating, was not around until 1300 or later.
Richard the Lionheart was captured during 1192, so the stories are
set at least 100 years apart.

Arthur was at the Battle of Mt Badon in 490, which is before 1192. =A0I=

he was also around in 1300 then he was around in 1192, meaning Arthur
and Robin were contemporaries.

If he was that old, it's hardly surprising that he fell off his horse.

Or that his wife went after a younger man.
Unless "Once and Future King" means he died on or after 490 and
returned on or before 1300.
So he may not have a contemporary of Robin.
And is also the "Once and Once King."

He's the "Once or Twice King"....

(Once a king, always a king, but once a night is enough)....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Duggy

2012-04-07 00:49:10 UTC

Post by R H Draney

Post by Robin Bignall
Plate armour of any complexity, which Arthur and Lancelot supposedly
wore when they first met as adults, during which Lancelot unhorsed
Arthur and gave him a beating, was not around until 1300 or later.
Richard the Lionheart was captured during 1192, so the stories are
set at least 100 years apart.

Arthur was at the Battle of Mt Badon in 490, which is before 1192. =A0I=

he was also around in 1300 then he was around in 1192, meaning Arthur
and Robin were contemporaries.

If he was that old, it's hardly surprising that he fell off his horse.

Or that his wife went after a younger man.
Unless "Once and Future King" means he died on or after 490 and
returned on or before 1300.
So he may not have a contemporary of Robin.
And is also the "Once and Once King."

He's the "Once or Twice King"....
(Once a king, always a king, but once a night is enough)....r

That's a wince and future joke.

===
= DUG.
===

John Holmes

2012-04-07 01:41:09 UTC

Post by R H Draney

Post by Duggy
Arthur was at the Battle of Mt Badon in 490, which is before 1192.
=A0I= f he was also around in 1300 then he was around in 1192,
meaning Arthur and Robin were contemporaries.

If he was that old, it's hardly surprising that he fell off his horse.

Or that his wife went after a younger man.
Unless "Once and Future King" means he died on or after 490 and
returned on or before 1300.
So he may not have a contemporary of Robin.
And is also the "Once and Once King."

He's the "Once or Twice King"....
(Once a king, always a king, but once a night is enough)....r

If we're going through the list...

Every inch a king and every foot a ruler.

--
Regards
John
for mail: my initials plus a u e
at tpg dot com dot au

Peter Moylan

2012-03-31 01:08:03 UTC

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

Of course, the fact that he's fictional makes it difficult to know
whether he understood any English.

--
Peter Moylan, Newcastle, NSW, Australia. http://www.pmoylan.org
For an e-mail address, see my web page.

Mike L

2012-03-31 21:23:39 UTC

On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

Post by Peter Moylan
Of course, the fact that he's fictional makes it difficult to know
whether he understood any English.

On the other hand, being fictitious can liberate one from all that
particularity.

--
Mike.

R H Draney

2012-04-01 00:04:43 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan
Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

Reminding us that while the title character in "Highlander" was French, his
friend played by Sean Connery was a Spaniard...except that he confessed he was
actually Egyptian...except that in the sequel it turns out that both of them
were actually from the planet Zeist....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

Duggy

2012-04-02 00:58:02 UTC

Post by R H Draney
Reminding us that while the title character in "Highlander" was French,

The title character was Scottish, played by a French actor.

===
= DUG.
===

John W Kennedy

2012-04-01 17:00:37 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

Basque, really. But, practically speaking, Arthur was British. That's
one of the reasons that Tolkien created his mythology; he wanted one
that was English, and Arthur wouldn't do. (Robin Hood was too vulgar.)

Post by Mike L

Post by Peter Moylan
Of course, the fact that he's fictional makes it difficult to know
whether he understood any English.

On the other hand, being fictitious can liberate one from all that
particularity.

--
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"

Steve Hayes

2012-04-01 18:20:32 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

All that means is that after they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the
British were Anglicised by Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It's a matter of culture,
not genome.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

James Silverton

2012-04-01 18:23:11 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

All that means is that after they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the
British were Anglicised by Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It's a matter of culture,
not genome.

In my opinion, the Arthurian stories are wishful thinking by a defeated
people, some of whom retreated to Wales. A lot were gradually absorbed
into the "English" by intermarriage. I had grandparents who claimed to
be Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English but I'll bet none could be
racially pure. Robin Hood and Hereward the Wake did not achieve the
status of Arthur.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

Nick Spalding

2012-04-01 20:26:16 UTC

Post by James Silverton

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

All that means is that after they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the
British were Anglicised by Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It's a matter of culture,
not genome.

I only have to go back to my grandparents to get a mixture of all four.

--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE

R H Draney

2012-04-01 20:28:46 UTC

Post by Nick Spalding

Post by James Silverton
In my opinion, the Arthurian stories are wishful thinking by a defeated
people, some of whom retreated to Wales. A lot were gradually absorbed
into the "English" by intermarriage. I had grandparents who claimed to
be Welsh, Scottish, Irish and English but I'll bet none could be
racially pure. Robin Hood and Hereward the Wake did not achieve the
status of Arthur.

I only have to go back to my grandparents to get a mixture of all four.

If going back to your grandparents gets you a mixture of all four, not going
back at all makes *you* the same mixture....r

--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

caspar milquetoast

2012-04-03 14:29:08 UTC

Post by James Silverton
In my opinion, the Arthurian stories are wishful thinking by a defeated
people, some of whom retreated to Wales.

I don't think that's right. The original Arthur stories were told by the
Celts while they still ruled Britannia. They were stories of a Celtic
superhero who battled magical beasts and monsters.

The subsequent medieval romances featuring Arthur had nothing to do with
the Celts but were the cultural business of French and English poets,
with knights, damsels and quests.

Mike L

2012-04-01 20:57:36 UTC

On Sun, 01 Apr 2012 20:20:32 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

All that means is that after they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the
British were Anglicised by Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It's a matter of culture,
not genome.

Ah, you noticed what language we're using, eh?

--
Mike.

caspar milquetoast

2012-04-03 14:25:29 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

All that means is that after they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the
British were Anglicised by Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It's a matter of culture,
not genome.

Were they? I thought recent research had shown that Celtic markers were
missing in modern English genes, meaning the German invaders had pushed
the Celts off the land and completely displaced them.

Peter Duncanson (BrE)

2012-04-03 15:33:09 UTC

On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 22:25:29 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

All that means is that after they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the
British were Anglicised by Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It's a matter of culture,
not genome.

Were they? I thought recent research had shown that Celtic markers were
missing in modern English genes, meaning the German invaders had pushed
the Celts off the land and completely displaced them.

Interesting. I thought that it was the reverse. It used to be thought
that Germanic invaders had displaced the Celts, but recent studies have
cast doubt on this.

One of the researchers active in this field is Stephen Oppenheimer.

He wrote the book _The Origins of the British: a genetic detective
story_. I have a copy of it. One of these days I'll get round to reading
all 600+ pages of it!

He wrote a magazine article which is an introduction to the book:
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/

Myths of British ancestry
Stephen Oppenheimer
21st October 2006

Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our
ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by
the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic
stock of these islands

....
....

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

caspar milquetoast

2012-04-04 01:42:20 UTC

Post by Peter Duncanson (BrE)

Post by caspar milquetoast
Were they? I thought recent research had shown that Celtic markers were
missing in modern English genes, meaning the German invaders had pushed
the Celts off the land and completely displaced them.

Interesting. I thought that it was the reverse. It used to be thought
that Germanic invaders had displaced the Celts, but recent studies have
cast doubt on this.
One of the researchers active in this field is Stephen Oppenheimer.
He wrote the book _The Origins of the British: a genetic detective
story_. I have a copy of it. One of these days I'll get round to reading
all 600+ pages of it!
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/
Myths of British ancestry
Stephen Oppenheimer
21st October 2006
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our
ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by
the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic
stock of these islands

That's the great thing about scientific studies, isn't it? One
impressive academic researcher comes out with grand pronouncements that
settle the issue one way or the other, and a couple of years later
another one comes out with the exact opposite.

I have to say I found it hard to swallow the "complete anglo-saxon
displacement" theory. Even with large scale Celtic (and I now use the
term loosely) migration and outbreaks of plague that probably
depopulated the English lowlands before and during the Germanic invasion
of the 5th and 6th centuries, it seemed unlikely that the newcomers had
completely pushed the original inhabitants off the land westward.

It would seem far more likely that even if they subjugated them all,
they would keep them around as hired help in the time honoured fashion.
And human nature being what it is, that would include a fair amount of
inter-breeding.

Archaeological evidence as I understand it has suggested there was some
cohabitation and not so much rapine and plunder as had earlier been thought.

One that puzzles me though, is the differences between Britannia and
Europe. Germanic invaders in Italy, Gaul and Spain absorbed the language
of the locals, whereas in Britannia, the invaders displaced the
indigenous languages with their own. That says to me they had a much
larger influence over the local population than happened in Europe,
regardless of the genetic outcomes.

Steve Hayes

2012-04-04 04:33:50 UTC

Post by caspar milquetoast
One that puzzles me though, is the differences between Britannia and
Europe. Germanic invaders in Italy, Gaul and Spain absorbed the language
of the locals, whereas in Britannia, the invaders displaced the
indigenous languages with their own. That says to me they had a much
larger influence over the local population than happened in Europe,
regardless of the genetic outcomes.

It might be interesting, however, to compare it with the Arab invasion of
Egypt, where, as in what became England, the language and culture of the
conqueror prevailed, leaving a few pockets of the previous one (as in Wales
and Cornwall etc). I don't know if anyone has done genetic testing, but I
suspect that if they did they would find, even among the Arabised population,
a large component of the genes of the ancient Egyptians. Of course, unlike
Egypt, the English eventually adopted the religion of those they had
conquered, but only after some outside intervention in the form of the
Augustinian mission.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Phillip Helbig---undress to reply

2012-04-04 07:14:21 UTC

Post by caspar milquetoast
I have to say I found it hard to swallow the "complete anglo-saxon
displacement" theory. Even with large scale Celtic (and I now use the
term loosely) migration and outbreaks of plague that probably
depopulated the English lowlands before and during the Germanic invasion
of the 5th and 6th centuries, it seemed unlikely that the newcomers had
completely pushed the original inhabitants off the land westward.

Right. This is obvious even today: English people, especially children,
look completely different than Germanic people in the northwestern part
of the Continent.

Post by caspar milquetoast
It would seem far more likely that even if they subjugated them all,
they would keep them around as hired help in the time honoured fashion.
And human nature being what it is, that would include a fair amount of
inter-breeding.

Right.

Probably two reasons. First, the Celtic languages are harder. :-)
Second, Britain is an island, so in the other cases there was probably a
more gradual contact.

John W Kennedy

2012-04-03 16:39:30 UTC

Post by Mike L
On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 12:08:03 +1100, Peter Moylan

On Fri, 30 Mar 2012 22:10:06 +0800, caspar milquetoast

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

And here I thought that it was English vs English in both stories (the
Black Knight speaks the same language as Arthur and Galahad, innit?).
(well, Saxon vs slightly Anglicized Norman, but well past the initial
Guillamitization.)

Arthur was British, not English.

As, the genome tells us, are almost all the English, not to mention
most of the Scots, Irish, and Welsh...except that all four turn out to
be Spanish.

All that means is that after they were conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the
British were Anglicised by Anglo-Saxon imperialism. It's a matter of culture,
not genome.

Were they? I thought recent research had shown that Celtic markers were
missing in modern English genes, meaning the German invaders had pushed
the Celts off the land and completely displaced them.

The last I heard, there is still a good deal of pre-Celtic DNA in Britain.

--
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"

caspar milquetoast

2012-04-04 01:24:26 UTC

Post by John W Kennedy
The last I heard, there is still a good deal of pre-Celtic DNA in Britain.

But not in the English, presumably. At least, not from the original
invasion.

caspar milquetoast

2012-03-31 01:04:27 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

Idiots who see Arthur as a medieval king are unlikely to imagine him
speaking Welsh.

Duggy

2012-03-30 22:51:56 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

Robin Hood is was just English vs English until Scott's Ivanhoe which
was Anglo-Saxon nobility vs the Norman nobility which got absorbed
into some versions of Robin Hood.

If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Of course, Arthur invaded Rome and (after Scott) Robin was a crusader
(for Rome)...

===
= DUG.
===

caspar milquetoast

2012-04-03 14:32:50 UTC

Hey, both stories include English guys in armour with swords. It's a
mistake any idiot could make.

Except that in one case the English are the good guys and in the other they
are the bad guys.

Robin Hood is was just English vs English until Scott's Ivanhoe which
was Anglo-Saxon nobility vs the Norman nobility which got absorbed
into some versions of Robin Hood.
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Gildas makes it very clear that the siege of Badon was the Romanised
British against the filthy invading German hordes.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention, while
the actual historical hero of the hour, Ambrosius Aurelianus, does.

Duggy

2012-04-03 21:54:36 UTC

Post by Duggy
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention,

Hence his "addition".

===
= DUG.
===

caspar milquetoast

2012-04-04 01:25:50 UTC

Post by Duggy
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention,

Hence his "addition".

Quite, but clearly not, in the only contemporary source, "an unspecified
civil war".

Duggy

2012-04-04 05:40:00 UTC

Post by Duggy
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention,

Hence his "addition".

Quite, but clearly not, in the only contemporary source, "an unspecified
civil war".

No. I never mentioned that near-contemporary source.

===
= DUG.
===

b***@comswest.net.au

2012-04-05 01:54:58 UTC

Post by Duggy
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention,

Hence his "addition".

Quite, but clearly not, in the only contemporary source, "an unspecified
civil war".

No. I never mentioned that near-contemporary source.
===
= DUG.
===

Mate, you're confusing the hell out of me. What evidence do you have
that Mount Badon was an unspecified civil war that would lead you to
believe Gildas was wrong?

Duggy

2012-04-05 04:04:56 UTC

Post by Duggy
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention,

Hence his "addition".

Quite, but clearly not, in the only contemporary source, "an unspecified
civil war".

No. I never mentioned that near-contemporary source.

Mate, you're confusing the hell out of me. What evidence do you have
that Mount Badon was an unspecified civil war that would lead you to
believe Gildas was wrong?

Gildas specified.

A lot of other versions (fictional or "historical") aren't always so
specific.

===
= DUG.
===

b***@comswest.net.au

2012-04-05 04:36:45 UTC

Post by Duggy
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention,

Hence his "addition".

Quite, but clearly not, in the only contemporary source, "an unspecified
civil war".

No. I never mentioned that near-contemporary source.

Mate, you're confusing the hell out of me. What evidence do you have
that Mount Badon was an unspecified civil war that would lead you to
believe Gildas was wrong?

Gildas specified.
A lot of other versions (fictional or "historical") aren't always so
specific.
===
= DUG.
===

So you were just alluding to the existence of these versions, not
supporting them as viable?

Duggy

2012-04-05 04:49:18 UTC

Post by Duggy
If you accept Arthur's addition to the Battle of Mt Badon it was
Briton's vs Anglo-Saxons... but it's usually just unspecified civil
war.

Arthur, not being an historical figure, does not get a mention,

Hence his "addition".

Quite, but clearly not, in the only contemporary source, "an unspecified
civil war".

No. I never mentioned that near-contemporary source.

Mate, you're confusing the hell out of me. What evidence do you have
that Mount Badon was an unspecified civil war that would lead you to
believe Gildas was wrong?

Gildas specified.
A lot of other versions (fictional or "historical") aren't always so
specific.

So you were just alluding to the existence of these versions, not
supporting them as viable?

Yup.

===
= DUG.
===

Duggy

2012-04-05 04:56:06 UTC