MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Matters Arising (The History of Britain Revealed)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 233, 234, 235
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Any advance on 1850? No? The gentleman in the silver foil hat. Don't take a Bank of Tanzania cheque, Miriam.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am struggling to complete Citadel of the Saxons. This is not a good sign as Rory lectures on this stuff. I fear for his students.

Rory states that nobody refers to the Dark Ages anymore, but I can't help noticing that the text is littered with the use of words such as murky, shadowy etc. In fact, of Rory's 4 stages, the first he states is the "darkest" after the "bright lights" of roman London have gone out. The second stage he sees is the "murky" rise of Lundenwic, which evolves outside the walls of Roman Augusta, and then the third section features the retreat back inside those walls again….I doubt I will reach the fourth stage.

"Citadel of the Saxons" is starting to depress me. I suspect I have got very little for my Waterstone voucher. It is not that I have been mis sold, it's just I worry that if Rory had not assembled the place name, coin and charter “evidence” chronologically to fill the void/gap so cleverly (there are indeed hundreds of footnotes and a selected bibliography to back him up), we would probably not be thinking about a distinct separate Anglo Saxon emporia at all. In fact, if you, like Wiley, have doubts about established chronology, Ludenwic looks much more like the complementary Roman industrial part of the nice walled Roman city. No? Did the Roman legions leave before St Augustine (sic) returned to peacefully convert the barbarians?

Citadel of the Saxons is a trendy book of overly dated facts, and artifacts surrounded by lots of words like mist, murky, shadowy, that has then been made evocatic/poetic. It was the “citadel of the Saxons” etc (really Rory). Oh go on….Are there any actual standing Saxon buildings? Rory thinks he knows of one….. “There is just one place in the city at All Hallows by the Tower” ……"probably”. (damn you can't pin him down)
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
I am struggling to complete Citadel of the Saxons. This is not a good sign as Rory lectures on this stuff. I fear for his students.

Rory states that nobody refers to the Dark Ages anymore, but I cant help noticing that the text is littered with the use of words such as murky, shadowy etc. In fact of Rory's 4 stages the first he states is the "darkest" after the "bright lights" of roman London have gone out. The second stage he sees is the "murky" rise of Lundenwic, which evolves outside the walls of Roman Augusta, and then the third section features the retreat back inside those walls again….I doubt I will reach the fourth stage.

"Citadel of the Saxons" is starting to depress me. I suspect I have got very little for my Waterstone voucher. It is not that I have been mis sold, its just I worry that if Rory had not assembled the place name, coin and charter “evidence” chronologically to fill the void/gap so cleverly (there are indeed hundreds of foot notes and a selected bibliography to back him up), we would probably not be thinking about a distinct separate Anglo Saxon emporia at all. In fact, If you, like Wiley, have doubts about established chronology, Ludenwic looks much more like the complimentary Roman industrial part of the nice walled Roman city. No? Did the Roman legions leave before St Augustine (Sic) returned to peacefully convert the barbarians.

Citadel of the Saxons is a trendy book of overly dated facts, and artifacts surrounded by lots of words like mist, murky, shadowy, that has then been made evocatic/poetic. It was the “citadel of the Saxons” etc (really Rory). Oh go on….Are there any actual standing Saxon buildings? Rory thinks he knows of one….. “There is just one place in the city at All Hallows by the Tower” ……"probably”. (damn, you cant pin him down)
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I am struggling to complete Citadel of the Saxons. This is not a good sign as Rory lectures on this stuff. I fear for his students.

Rory states that nobody refers to the Dark Ages anymore, but I cant help noticing that the text is littered with the use of words such as murky, shadowy etc. In fact of Rory's 4 stages the first he states is the "darkest" after the "bright lights" of roman London have gone out. The second stage he sees is the "murky" rise of Lundenwic, which evolves outside the walls of Roman Augusta, and then the third section features the retreat back inside those walls again….I doubt I will reach the fourth stage.

"Citadel of the Saxons" is starting to depress me. I suspect I have got very little for my Waterstone voucher. It is not that I have been mis sold, its just I worry that if Rory had not assembled the place name, coin and charter “evidence” chronologically to fill the void/gap so cleverly (there are indeed hundreds of foot notes and a selected bibliography to back him up), we would probably not be thinking about a distinct separate Anglo Saxon emporia at all. In fact, If you, like Wiley, have doubts about established chronology, Ludenwic looks much more like the complimentary Roman industrial part of the nice walled Roman city. No? Did the Roman legions leave before St Augustine (Sic) returned to peacefully convert the barbarians.

Citadel of the Saxons is a trendy book of overly dated facts, and artifacts surrounded by lots of words like mist, murky, shadowy, that has then been made evocatic/poetic. It was the “citadel of the Saxons” etc (really Rory). Oh go on….Are there any actual standing Saxon buildings? Rory thinks he knows of one….. “There is just one place in the city at All Hallows by the Tower” ……"probably”. (damn, you cant pin him down)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As this is the third time you (or a gremlin) has posted this up, Wiley, I feel impelled to respond.

Rory states that nobody refers to the Dark Ages anymore

What Rory means is, "No academic refers to the Dark Ages anymore but unfortunately everybody else keeps referring to the Dark Ages so we have to say nobody refers to the Dark Age anymore whenever the phrase comes up even though in the recesses of our souls we know we are fighting a losing battle cf BCE/CE vs BC/AD and litres/kilometres vs gallons/miles."

As usual when a paradigm crash is impending, all sides have got it wrong. As Wiley so gallantly points out, it sure as hell was dark. So are the mob correct? No, it is not dark because it is a Dark Age, it is dark because it didn't exist.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I might try this approach of unintentionally repeating to get your attention.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
No, it is not dark because it is a Dark Age, it is dark because it didn't exist.


Don't know about that, it seems to Wiley that the crazies are right. You can still see a lot of sun worship within Chritianity
jesus wrote:
“I am the light of the world.”
The coin evidence also points to this sun worship.

No, Wiley reckons that there was a historical period best understood by light/dark circular time, despite the best efforts of Christian chrnologists, and all others.

I doubt that Petrarch invented "The Dark Ages", he just gave it rigour to make the case for his Civic Republicanism. (not sure about that bit).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I share your uncertainty. In any case since the non-existence of the Dark Ages is not an original theory of mine I don't make much use of it. Christianity being a Norman invention is my thing. If you want to make the Dark Ages a period of neo-Zoroastrianism using a neo-Hindu chronology that's OK with me.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

If you want to understand the origins of cyclical time, "have a look at a map of China."
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I share your uncertainty. In any case since the non-existence of the Dark Ages is not an original theory of mine I don't make much use of it. Christianity being a Norman invention is my thing.


It could be, as the Normans were cunning enough to invent the Normans.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:

It could be, as the Normans were cunning enough to invent the Normans.


Another cunning Norman ploy was to use the existing moneyers and coinage, having conquered England. This was probaly because there are no Norman minted coins from Normandy with William's actual name on them, prior to or after the conquest. (he was actually a modest sort of chap preferring to keep the fact that he was now King of England to himself within Normandy, a refreshing change from most rulers)

No, the bastard came with the plan of retaining the system of coinage in its entirity using the same moneyers, weights and many designs and lettering. He even kept the mint at Hastings going.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Rory is a well read, clever guy. He manages to be critical of the idea that the restoration of the city of London made Alfred, which he ascribes to Richard of Wendover, and gently debunks elements of Asser.

The problem is there is no archaeology to suggest a mass buiding programme within London during the time of Alfred, and London on the established chronology was not the capital until after a century after Alfred.

Still he reckons that by defeating the Vikings (Rory is a believer in a Great Heathen Army, although (err) it might have not been as integrated as currently thought) and (err) devising an original streetplan "possibly" he can square the Cult of Alfred / origin of London problem.

The lesson is that the Cult has to be reinvented in a more nuanced form. It's a shame as Rory is quite good on how the Alfred cult developed.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The entire history of London-as-capital needs a bit of a going-over. I'm not offering but here's the usual ten point plan

1. It might be Trinovantum, capital of the Trinovantes
2. It presumably was Londinium, the capital of Roman Britannia
3. It seems to disappear after they disappear
4. It fails to appear again when the Anglo-Saxons are surrounding it with Kent, Middlesex and shires of that nature.
4. It makes a comeback of sorts under the Danes
5. And possibly Alfred from what you say, Wiley
6. But mostly capitals appear to be places like Canterbury and York
7. Then suddenly it's Edward the Confessor's capital
8. Then just as suddenly Winchester is the capital under the Normans
9. Then it moves around for a bit (Malmesbury gets a mention)
10. Then it's London for evermore as if it never went away.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
The entire history of London-as-capital needs a bit of a going-over. I'm not offering but here's the usual ten point plan

1. It might be Trinovantum, capital of the Trinovantes
2. It presumably was Londinium, the capital of Roman Britannia
3. It seems to disappear after they disappear
4. It fails to appear again when the Anglo-Saxons are surrounding it with Kent, Middlesex and shires of that nature.
4. It makes a comeback of sorts under the Danes
5. And possibly Alfred from what you say, Wiley
6. But mostly capitals appear to be places like Canterbury and York
7. Then suddenly it's Edward the Confessor's capital
8. Then just as suddenly Winchester is the capital under the Normans
9. Then it moves around for a bit (Malmesbury gets a mention)
10. Then it's London for evermore as if it never went away.


According to Rory, Roman provinces like Britain, or those within Britain, didn't have capitals. In later (?) sources according to Rory Londinium is referred to as Augusta. This fits quite well for me as I suspect that what we think of as the Augustus cult was replaced by the Alfred cult.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

It was London from the German word Landen, which means the Lands.
Why? Because the City of London was founded on the high lands north of the Thames.
The very word London proves that we were speaking a Germanic language two thousand years ago.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 233, 234, 235

Jump to:  
Page 235 of 235

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group