|
Paulywallywalrus posted:GF, could you please tell me about the level of superstition in Rome? I am predisposed to consider Romans to be rather rational but to what degree did Elites believe the myths of Rome? I.e. Brutus family being part of the overthrow of the Roman kings, other patricians seeking to link themselves to the founding of the Republic and 200 senators from Latin and Sabine states. Also, a pet questions, vestal virgins, "7" kings of Rome, and Romulus' mother...the town wolf that everyone knows how to "treat" right? (haha) Depends. I mean, our political elite includes people who legitimately think Jesus rode dinosaurs. You also need to be careful about the difference between how we think about history (VERIFIABLE FACT THAT SOMEONE WROTE DOWN A LONG TIME AGO AND WE CARBON DATED IT) and myth (made up stories for barbarians), and how ancient people did (Myth/very old history = essentially same thing, actual literal truth is immaterial). Some historians are more up to modern standards than others. Livy tends to include rationalizing explanations as well as mythical ones and for the really mythy ones he says things like "They say..." and "It is believed that..." rather than directly stating some things as fact. They had the concept of actual sources but most of what they were doing was necessarily based on oral tradition & performative/artistic representations of history rather than, like, Romulus' autobiography. They knew something was up though; Ennius had to invent the "Alban kings" in order to fill the gap between Aeneas (c. 1174 BC since it should be about 10 years after the fall of Troy which they dated to 1184 BC by our reckoning) and Romulus (753 BC). Some myths had Romulus being Aeneas' grandson which um doesn't work. It probably depended on people's personal interest in this stuff- even modern people don't really give too much of a gently caress about history unless forced to, and that's with a widespread public educational system. I don't know what you mean with "Also, a pet questions..." what? I have no idea what that "sentence" is supposed to mean. tables posted:Were romans/greeks/etc aware of the effects of alcohol to the child while it was in the womb? No I don't think so, but I'm guessing. Watered wine is better than dirty water, anyway, since the alcohol kills a certain amount of the bad stuff. Eggplant Wizard fucked around with this message at 15:38 on Dec 18, 2012 |
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:
Ill just pull the stick out of your own rear end on this one. What the gently caress was up with vestal virgins and why are they so loving important? "7" Kings of Rome, why 7, why only 2 actually seem to get talked about in the history of Rome. Romulus's mother; the idea that the she wolf thing could just be a clever word for prostitute. (The farmers wife being a prostitute to suckled Romulus and Remus rather than an actual loving wolf) How does that work in Romans building a view of what it means to be Roman and how does this fit into their world view? Ethnographically speaking how does this history with virgins and made up kings affect the common citizenry. Atheism, is it in Rome in any noticeable way or is religion and the state too intertwined to allow open atheism? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
brozozo posted:What do we know about ancient music? A fair bit, or practically nothing, depending on how you look at it. The basic information is there, if only via scant examples i.e. we know certain things like how the Greeks tuned their various lyres, we have a few hymns decyphered, we know what Plato (oh how we know!) thought about music in general and modes in particular, of contest between kitharodes and between aulos players and so on and so forth. Lots of site on the net offer information and interpretations*. Which leads to the "almost nothing" part: there's no way we can even begin to form an representation of ancient music without actually hearing it; having their instruments and cracking their notation simply isn't enough. Imagine an archeologist 2000 years from now digging up a violin: he or she has the information on how to tune it, hold it, that the bow is scraped across the strings etc. Do you think his or her best effort is going to come remotely close to this? Yet for us this is what we mean when we say "violin". The same goes for execution, or stylistic expectations: no amount of notated jazz music is going to give you the merest inkling of what Charlie Parker or Dizzie Gillespie actually sounded like, so much rests on the fact that we share a common agreement of what constitutes jazz (generally speaking!), the harmonies, the rythm, the "groove", something that is unknowable to someone never having heard it. Even worse: to an outside ear a cover band playing Beatles is going to sound virtually indistinguishable from the original whereas we, being so familiar with the Beatle sound would find them to be worlds apart. So, even if quite a bit is known of when, why and how music was played, and how it was perceived ("your band sucks", Plato) and so on, but we can only speculate on what it actually sounded like. Take the aulos, a double reed instrument: was its sound carefully cultivated like on the oboe or the duduk, or was it appreciated for its stridence as with the bombarde? These Kitharodes competing, accomplished professionnals of the highest level, was it sparkling showmanship à la Yngwie Malmsteen, the dedication of a classically trained guitarrist, or the bearer and renewer of tradition that is Paco de Lucia? Quite possibly none of the above. * Prepare yourself for a frustrating experience though as they'll invariably offer interesting information, such as the use of quarter tones in hymns and then provide an example on the piano, assert that the double aulos (diaulos) never used its dual capacity to accompany itself yet in the example it does just that, or appollonic hymns sung with modern Greek pronounciation, or a pean (hoplite marching song) sung in the most timid of manners, the list goes on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
Paulywallywalrus posted:Ill just pull the stick out of your own rear end on this one. Gonna quote this for posterity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Paulywallywalrus posted:Ill just pull the stick out of your own rear end on this one. They were priestesses who had to remain virgins. That's not so terribly unusual in the ancient world, think of them like super-nuns. They had important ceremonial functions in the days of the kings and the republic. Sure, the penalties for a vestal virgin that wasn't seem very harsh, but the Romans had harsh punishments for everyone. It was one of their things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:22
|
|
|
sullat posted:They were priestesses who had to remain virgins. That's not so terribly unusual in the ancient world, think of them like super-nuns. They had important ceremonial functions in the days of the kings and the republic. Sure, the penalties for a vestal virgin that wasn't seem very harsh, but the Romans had harsh punishments for everyone. It was one of their things. On that note; were there opposites to this? Like temple "prostitutes" and were there any male religious virgins? I recall reading something awhile back that hinted at the possibility of Catholic priestly celibacy being linked to some kind of Roman male virgin thing. I read that maybe 4 years ago so but it worth asking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Paulywallywalrus posted:Ill just pull the stick out of your own rear end on this one. The Vestal Virgins tended a sacred fire in the center of Rome, which was never supposed to be put out. Essentially, it was a ritualized contract between man and gods. If it was put out, it was one of the superstitious ways the city would fall. This became an issue as Christianity grew, I think that the later sack of Rome (and some famines) were linked by pagan writers to reducing the privileges provided and later ending it entirely. I remember that at some point they relit the flame in the ruins of the temple in the Forum, but I might have misunderstood that. 7 has mystical properties, a bit like saying, "forty days and forty nights". Historical evidence for the kings is basically nonexistant. All of that sort functions as a foundation myth, like King Arthur or Charlemagne: some parts are real, some imagined. It's like in the United States with myths about the Founding Fathers. These people existed (probably) but the stories convey more how the people see themselves and their culture as distinct than actual truth. As far as religion goes, the Roman state was so tied into ritual religion that every action, from opening a meeting to declaring peace had multiple steps that had to be fulfilled before business could be done, like a benediction or sacrifice. Someone who knows more than I should write on how the Romans declared war: it's actually pretty neat and I don't think has been described. I've heard Cicero and Caesar described as atheists before, or at least as agnostic, although I don't really trust the sources I read. It was along the lines of, "Well, I don't really believe that sacrificing a bull to Jupiter will mean this law will pass, but I'll do it because the plebs believe it and they're the ones voting."
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Paulywallywalrus posted:On that note; were there opposites to this? Like temple "prostitutes" and were there any male religious virgins? I recall reading something awhile back that hinted at the possibility of Catholic priestly celibacy being linked to some kind of Roman male virgin thing. I read that maybe 4 years ago so but it worth asking about. Catholic priests and even Popes were allowed to be non-celibate for quite a long time. Basically took til the Middle Ages for celibacy to become expected. Bonus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
Thanks for all the great responses about music!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:As far as religion goes, the Roman state was so tied into ritual religion that every action, from opening a meeting to declaring peace had multiple steps that had to be fulfilled before business could be done, like a benediction or sacrifice. Someone who knows more than I should write on how the Romans declared war: it's actually pretty neat and I don't think has been described. I've heard Cicero and Caesar described as atheists before, or at least as agnostic, although I don't really trust the sources I read. It was along the lines of, "Well, I don't really believe that sacrificing a bull to Jupiter will mean this law will pass, but I'll do it because the plebs believe it and they're the ones voting." Yeah, rituals were extremely important. In many cases, performing them incorrectly before opening a meeting would mean you would have to cancel that whole day's work and postpone it for the next day. The Roman calendar was full of days that were considered nefas--no official business could be conducted on them because they were considered unlucky, basically. Rome declared war by having a priest of Jupiter (I believe) ritually hurl a javelin over the borders of the country they were declaring war on. If the priest couldn't make it to the border, they would instead ritually mark a line on the Field of Mars (I think) as the border and have the priest throw the javelin over that line.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 21:43
|
|
|
Are you sure it was Jupiter? I don't know how it evolved over time, but Julius Caesar didn't became a soldier until he was forced out of his job as high priest of Jupiter, as the high priest had to follow a lot of odd superstitious rules that would have prevented him from traveling with an army. (It's almost as if the superstitions were deliberate attempts to keep a priest from acquiring military and political power.) Maybe that didn't apply to lesser priests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:16
|
|
|
Paulywallywalrus posted:On that note; were there opposites to this? Like temple "prostitutes" and were there any male religious virgins? I recall reading something awhile back that hinted at the possibility of Catholic priestly celibacy being linked to some kind of Roman male virgin thing. I read that maybe 4 years ago so but it worth asking about. I thought that Catholic priestly celibacy was to prevent bishops, popes, etc. from passing their titles/positions on to their kids (e.g. primogeniture inheritance). Iseeyouseemeseeyou fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
A Flamen Dialis could not sleep outside of Rome, touch a horse, or touch iron. Sort of a hamper on a military career. \More important for Julius Ceasar is that a Flamen Dialis could not be consul. So, even if Sulla didn't strip him, he probably would have left anyway. euphronius fucked around with this message at 22:25 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
Indeed. One of the tastier morsels of irony in Western history.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:23
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Catholic priests and even Popes were allowed to be non-celibate for quite a long time. Basically took til the Middle Ages for celibacy to become expected.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Iseeyouseemeseeyou posted:I thought that Catholic priestly celibacy was to prevent bishops, popes, etc. from passing their titles/positions on to their kids (e.g. primogeniture inheritance). There were in fact Popes prior to the imposition of celibacy that had sons that went on to be Pope. Pope Innocent I was the son of, and directly succeeded in the year 401, Pope Anastasius I.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:54
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:What was the reason that ended again? Wasn't it the church didn't want to lose property if the sons of Priests/Popes/Bishops would inherit the property and not the Church? Well, not so much the inheritance issue as the succession issue. A bishop would want his son to succeed him, while the Pope wanted to control the succession of the bishopric, since it's a valuable commodity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 02:23
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:Are you sure it was Jupiter? Not super sure; it's been a number of years since I was in school, so my memory may be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
achillesforever6 posted:What was the reason that ended again? Wasn't it the church didn't want to lose property if the sons of Priests/Popes/Bishops would inherit the property and not the Church? I was always under the impression that it was also a fear that the papacy could become essentially hereditary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 14:53
|
|
|
Eggplant Wizard posted:(Myth/very old history = essentially same thing, actual literal truth is immaterial). Interesting you should say this; as I've been thinking a lot about my country's (Ireland) place in this whole rigmarole. As I'm sure you know what we know of Gaelic culture is drawn from practically nil-historical account; which sucks but the highly canted historical allegories of the Táin Bó Cuailgne et. al are pretty interesting in themselves. They reveal fun stuff about Gaelic culture like ritualized warfare with seasonal militias/ hunting groups, along with the emphasis on male beauty and pride in appearance; and also bizarre poo poo like the population of the country being enslaved and taken to Greece to work maintaining terraced garden slopes by moving earth in big leather bags. I understand Ireland's place as the far west frontier of the Roman Empire,I always loved Conrad likening the British Isles being to the Romans what the Congo was to Europe in the 19th Century in Heart of Darkness; but I'm curious as to whether any account exists outside of the common ones in relation to a Roman presence in Ireland; or vice versa. From my understanding they had a limited trading presence, but the factionalism of Gaelic society and harshness of the landscape precluded any actual colonization or relations with any depth.Have I taken the wrong thing away here? Also, Asking as a native speaker of Gaelic; does anyone know of the links Latin and Gaelic linguistically? My father always told me the vocabulary of tools, weapons and metallurgy were very similar, but I can't find any particular examples. I always found the derivation of 'Scoti' as a name for the Irish raiders of Roman Britain interesting; 'Scuit' even in modern Gaelic is a generic term for a "bad" person; literally broken or cast-off. Gaelic society was based on pseudo-caste regimented extended families; and later examples of 'half breeds' or people of mixed parentage being ostracized from the rule and protection of law kind of lends weight to some of these raiders being the outcasts of the Gaelic houses; exempt from the responsibilites of the culture and thus free to take up piracy and slave trading. The word has obviously since lost it's weight; but it's strange how I use a word that is not only something you'd now use to admonish your three year old for pulling up flowers is also the misunderstood epithet hurled at bloodthirsty raiders. tl;dr: Does anyone know anything about Ireland and Rome in the Classics era? Also etymology and books are good. danquixotic fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
There was an Ireland post earlier. I'm just gonna copy it because I'm busy!Grand Fromage posted:
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:This matches up with the archaeology and also a legend of an Irish king that was banished to Britain, then returned with some foreign soldiers. Using an alliance with an exiled king as a pretense for conquest is the kind of thing the Romans did all the time. That kind of sounds a lot like Strongbow and the first English invasion of Ireland! It's a popular strategy. There must have been a fair amount of trade and "trade" between Ireland and Britain, because St. Patrick was a Roman who was kidnapped by Irish raiders before he did his missionary work in Ireland.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply; as to why Ireland was never conquered I think the clue might be in the name, 'Hibernia' was a 'Wintry place'; which may not have been the most desirable place to be doing any colonization. In spite of this Rome definitely did have an effect; archaeologically there was an outpost of some sort near Sandymount in Dublin. Along with that the copper mines of the Beara peninsula were at their peak of production during the heyday of the empire; lending weight to the idea that trade in raw materials was a definite thing. Ireland didn't have a latinate alphabet (Ogham) till after 400 AD; and even then it was a cryptographic equivalent, used almost solely on monuments (the titular Ogham stones); which might mean that it was a cipher of an earlier alphabet. Following this period; Irish influence on post-Roman Europe is pretty profound. The remoteness of Ireland from the vast upheavals taking place everywhere else, which meant that monks could get their heads down and get on with the work of copying and understanding classical texts; then later the information was dissemninated throughout Europe through the Peregrinari Pro Christi; wandering monks made welcome in the courts and towns of the continent. One of them taught Charlemagne to read! A long with that the monks produced illuminated manuscripts; which everyone should know about. The Book of Kells is probably the most famous; and with good reason as it was probably the outstanding example of devotional art to come out of the Dark Ages. Seeing it in person is an experience; the colour and detail in the Illustration pages and the text is ludicrous; some of the colours used are dyes that came from as far away as Afghanistan and North Africa. To give you an example of how intricate it is; here's perhaps a 10th of one page which in itself only depicts one letter: The Chi Rho  You can (and many have) spend hours looking through the manuscript and uncovering details so tiny and well hidden that it's probable that only you and the monk who authored it know it's there. It really is one of my favourite Things, ever. As an aside; the Secret of Kells is an amazing movie; animated in a style that mimics Insular Art; the tradition which The Book of Kells was a part of. Also the only major film that contains actual, unexaggerated Irish accents, which gets a thumbs up from me. edit for trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw2_HZTuQBE danquixotic fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Dec 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 15:54
|
|
|
These celtic motives are really a joy to look at. You just made me pick up Cunlife's "The ancient celts" again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
danquixotic posted:Following this period; Irish influence on post-Roman Europe is pretty profound. I'm curious - do you have a source on a monk teaching Charlemagne to read? I have always heard that he was never really able to reliably read or write, but the emphasis is always on his inability to write (the famous wax and stylus under the bed story); his inability to read is just assumed or briefly mentioned. I'm definitely not saying you're wrong, just that this is a question that is obscure and undecided enough that I'd love to see evidence either way concerning it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
I was just watching a documentary and they had a few Justinian coins found in Wales, which I had no idea about. More evidence of how Rome may have officially pulled out of Britain, but the people living there were still Romans and it didn't stop being that way for a while. They're still on the Roman trade network a century and a half after the supposed end of the Roman period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 15:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I was just watching a documentary and they had a few Justinian coins found in Wales, which I had no idea about. More evidence of how Rome may have officially pulled out of Britain, but the people living there were still Romans and it didn't stop being that way for a while. They're still on the Roman trade network a century and a half after the supposed end of the Roman period. A little anecdote that ties into this is that there were multiple King Constantine's of Scotland in the 9th and 10th centuries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
What was so different about the germanic invasions of Britain that led to England acquiring a germanic language and so on, while Gaul and other places didn't? Was it just not as romanized at the time of Rome's withdrawal (I think most people still spoke british?), or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
Well French is influenced by the germanic Frankish language brought in by the Franks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Well French is influenced by the germanic Frankish language brought in by the Franks. Yeah, they influenced it, which you would expect, but they didn't cause it to die out and be replaced by something else, which is what I was getting at.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Cause what to die out? VVV Sorry I think I am having some reading comprehension problems. euphronius fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Dec 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 22:14
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Cause what to die out? Whatever Latin based language/languages they were speaking in Gaul at that time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 22:22
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:I'm curious - do you have a source on a monk teaching Charlemagne to read? I have always heard that he was never really able to reliably read or write, but the emphasis is always on his inability to write (the famous wax and stylus under the bed story); his inability to read is just assumed or briefly mentioned. I think the book that referenced it was a pop-history thing called 'How the Irish Saved Civilization'by Tom Cahill, which made direct reference to it, but I've heard one of my lecturers mention the same. I apologise for being imprecise but I did in fact mean that his efforts to become literate were under the tutelage of an Irish monk, unsucessful as they may have been. His biographer Einhard wrote that Charlemagne "Amabat Peregrinos" (loved the wandering Irish monks) Content: The foundation of the Carolingian schools; the first real effort to reintroduce literacy to Europe was built on the back of the monks and their classical texts as a knowledge base. Charlemagne knew many of the more famous of the Peregrines personally;my favourite being John Scotus Eriugena( John the Irish Irishborn', the Erigenua distinguishing him from any John Scotus's born in then-Irish areas outside of Ireland; like Scotland, confusing I know.) Not everyone in the Europe liked the Peregrineri, often senior members of the Church would have difficulty dealing with these strange dirty men who the emperor was so fond of; often with no formal church titles or auspices; interfering with the way Latin was taught and read. The then bishop of Rheims, Hincmar, was notoriously anti-Irish; and on his death John wrote this little ditty: Hic jacet Hincmarus, cleptes vehementer avarus, Hoc solum gessit nobile: quod peritt 'Here lies crooked Hincmarus, but savage greed aside, He did one noble thing in life: he died'  He was a personal favourite of Charles the Bald, Charlemagnes successor; and there is a record of John shooting down what might have been the first 'Stupid Irishman' joke to ever have been recorded.The emperor quizzed John at dinner with: "Quid distat inter sottum et Scottum?" ("What's the difference between an idiot and an Irishman?") John, sitting opposite replied: "Tabula Tantum." ("Only the Table")  On top of being the king of one (or two) liners; John also was one of maybe 2-3 people in continental Europe who could understand Greek, and not just understand but comprehend the subtleties of Platonics and pretty much every discipline he cared to look into. Reading his Teacher=pupil dialogue on the structure of the universe De Divisione Nature after reading other contemporary stuff is mindblowing; he really stood alone in his time in the whole 'thinking about thinking' business. Along with that he claimed the Eucharist was purely symbolic (which got later thinkers killed) and was possibly stabbed to death by his students with pens. All in all a pretty cool dude. danquixotic fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Dec 22, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:What was so different about the germanic invasions of Britain that led to England acquiring a germanic language and so on, while Gaul and other places didn't? Was it just not as romanized at the time of Rome's withdrawal (I think most people still spoke british?), or what? Franks lived close to & inside the imperial borders for a couple of centuries before starting their own kingdoms. Maybe they had started to adopt the dominant language during that time. Now why did Dalmatian language disappear next door to Italy while Romanian made it to this day?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
Mr.Hell posted:What was so different about the germanic invasions of Britain that led to England acquiring a germanic language and so on, while Gaul and other places didn't? Was it just not as romanized at the time of Rome's withdrawal (I think most people still spoke british?), or what? Norman French was never adopted by the majority of the population despite the take over in 1066; and the loss of continental possessions especially in France by the Kings of England contributed heavily to the nobility needing to bother with French less. Despite that, Norman French remained the language of the courts for an extremely long time, I believe up until the late 17th century the majority of court and law proceedings were still in French. PS thats why legal speak often sounds so weird - a lot of it derives pretty directly from the French that remained in use in law. Remember, the Germanic invasions of Britain happened several centuries before the Normans came in. Also the Norman invaders were a relatively small population which is why native Germanicizied British folks eventually ended up in charge again. Edit: also the language of most of the people in England before the Germanic invasions was a Celtic one known as "British".. not Latin or something based on it. So if they hadn't been taken over by Germanic invaders you wouldn't have a Romance language in England, it'd be a Celtic one. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 00:43 on Dec 23, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Franks lived close to & inside the imperial borders for a couple of centuries before starting their own kingdoms. Maybe they had started to adopt the dominant language during that time. This makes sense, thanks. euphronius posted:VVV Sorry I think I am having some reading comprehension problems. No problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 00:49
|
|
|
Lets not forget that Latin was a spoken and written language in England until modern times.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 01:38
|
|
|
Install Gentoo posted:Edit: also the language of most of the people in England before the Germanic invasions was a Celtic one known as "British".. not Latin or something based on it. So if they hadn't been taken over by Germanic invaders you wouldn't have a Romance language in England, it'd be a Celtic one. Isn't Welsh supposed to be pretty close to what the indigenous British language was like before the Anglo-Saxons? Also, was there any continuation between pre-Roman Celtic nobility and the Sub-Roman British nobility that gave rise to legends about King Arthur? I'm talking about the first kings of the post-Roman British kingdoms, before the Anglo-Saxons took full control of Britain. Also the "Old North". Did any of those guys claim (or try to claim) descent from someone like Boudica or Prasutagus?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
Modern Welsh is a descendent of the Brythonic spoken on the British isles at the time of the Germanic invasions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
danquixotic posted:there is a record of John shooting down what might have been the first 'Stupid Irishman' joke to ever have been recorded.The emperor quizzed John at dinner with: "Quid distat inter sottum et Scottum?" ("What's the difference between an idiot and an Irishman?") John, sitting opposite replied: "Tabula Tantum." ("Only the Table") That took me a few seconds, but holy poo poo what a burn. This guy sounds like he was stellar!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 02:15
|
|
