| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
 |
|
Fake History Hunter who I came across on Twitter did a pretty neat job of obliterating oubliettes
| Fake History Hunter wrote: |
So, what about the Oubliette? If you've been to a castle you've probably been shown a hole in the floor with the claim that it was an oubliette; a dungeon you were thrown in from the top and then LEFT TO DIE.
Truly the stuff of nightmares, I remember shivering when told this..
BUT... were they really a thing?
Some castles didn't even have regular dungeons, they needed basements for storage, space is precious!
And some rooms that people once thought were dungeons or oubliettes are now speculated to have been storage rooms, ice cellars or maybe cisterns, part of a water system (!), like this one at the Paris La Bastille |
Reluctance to forego ingrained assumptions can lead to citing the usual suspect sources. The mention of the Bastille prompted René Seindal, a Danish historian who leads history walks in Venice, into referring us to Caesar
| In Roman times the Mamertine prison was such a dungeon. Vercingetorix stayed there some ten years before Caesar has time to get him strangled in public. |
The earliest written mention of Vercingetorix is in De Bello Gallico but we've been down that Roman road. More to the point, it turns out Mamertine prison was a Roman cistern originally with a number of underground chambers. The lower chamber contained a central circular structure called a ‘tholos’. The water spring was found to be part of the original flooring with what are said to be votive offerings (ceramic shards, fauna, burnt small animal bones). According to the report
| "We have confirmed the religious aspect of the site and this was linked to a water spring, traces of which have been found along with votive deposits from the sixth to the third centuries BC." |
http://heritage-key.com/blogs/bija/excavations-mamertine-prison-find-evidence-pre-christian-cult-and-cult-saint-peter/
The spring may or may not have given rise to a religious cult but it would suit later builders in stone. A series of Christian wall frescoes painted and repainted from the 11th to 14th century still remain
| In the 11th-century, the Santi Pietro e Paolo in Carcere (St. Peter & St. Paul in Prison) Church was built here over the Mamertine Prison, which by legend was the incarceration site of Saint Peter and Saint Paul |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Giuseppe_dei_Falegnami
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Brutus.
| Roman surname of the Junian gens. Its association with betrayal traces to Marcus Junius Brutus (c. 85 B.C.E.-42 B.C.E.), statesman and general and conspirator against Caesar. The Brutus (Englished as Brute) who was the mythological eponymous founder of Britain in medieval legend was said to be a descendant of Aeneas the Trojan. |
Brutish=British. Oh dear. Don't tell the Welsh.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| the Mamertine Prison, which by legend was the incarceration site of Saint Peter and Saint Paul |
Two of the three criminal founding fathers is a proud record.
"What are you in for?"
"Founding a religion. You?"
"Drunk and disorderly."
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Some have suggested that attributing the origin of 'Britain' to the Latin 'Brutus' may be ultimately derived from Isidore of Seville's popular 7th-century work Etymologiae, in which it was speculated that the name of Britain comes from bruti, on the basis that the Britons were, in the eyes of that author, brutes, or savages.[1] |
Not just the author.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boreades
In: finity and beyond
|
|
|
|
| Wile E. Coyote wrote: | | Brutish=British. Oh dear. Don't tell the Welsh. |
We need not trouble them.
First recall where Brutus is supposed to have landed. Totnes. Although how he landed at the top of the steep hill is a mystery.
Then recall how William of Orange became King of Britain. He could have just sailed from Holland across the Straits of Dover and up the Thames. But no. To gain legitimacy, he sailed hundreds of miles further west, against the prevailing winds, and landed in Brixham in Devon.
Then recall where the folk emigrated from to give "Little Britain" its name. If you want to learn to speak original Brittonic Cornish, go to Brittany.
Another of the clues is hidden in plain site. The River Brit.
https://www.openstreetmap.org/?mlat=50.7336&mlon=-2.7584&zoom=12#map=17/50.71710/-2.76221
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Gosbecks Archaeological Park Country: England Topic: Multi-period
Tours of Gosbecks Archaeological Park - the story of Iron Age and Roman Colchester - Sunday 17th September 2023. Also other Roman remains open in Colchester, more in the comments on our page. Situated on land formerly part of Gosbecks Farm, the Archaeological Park is recognised as one of the most significant Iron-Age and Roman sites in the Essex. Excavations in the fields surrounding the farm (named after the 13th century land owner, Rodger de Gosebek) began in the 19th century with the discovery of a Roman temple by Reverend Henry Jenkins, an amateur archaeologist. However the true scale of the site wasn't known until archaeologists examined aerial photographs of the area in the 1930s. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=25202 |
It occurred to me when idly perusing this that if our theory that most Roman history was made up in the period 15th-18th centuries AD is correct, those made-up histories will mention places known about in the 15th-18th centuries but not others discovered since. As the latter are legion (no pun intended) this will provide a statistical argument that would be unanswerable. Someone do it, can they?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | It occurred to me when idly perusing this that if our theory that most Roman history was made up in the period 15th-18th centuries AD is correct, those made-up histories will mention places known about in the 15th-18th centuries but not others discovered since. As the latter are legion (no pun intended) this will provide a statistical argument that would be unanswerable. Someone do it, can they? |
Brilliant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I thought so. Now work out why it took me so long think of it. But as an exercise in wishful thinking, imagine
1. A team of specialists at, say, the Max Planck doing it
2. They publish it in an unanswerable welters of statistics
3. How do Classicists react?
4. How do historians react (if different to (3)?
5. How do future students react (with their feet)?
6. How does the general public react?
Yes, we know, nothing will happen but we must be left with our dreams.
7. How would we react when we have been shown conclusively to be wrong across the board.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
There have been a couple of articles recently, along the lines of did the Romans invade Ireland?
Wiley doesn't like invasion theory, in fact there is nothing to suggest that Caesar had a crack at invading Britain if it was not for the lucky discovery of Caesar's first hand account, written in the third person.
Still, given historians' (story tellers') adoption of the invasion narrative, why was Ireland not invaded by the Romans?
Let's take look.
Ortho has it, by the end of the 1st century CE the Romans had incorporated the tribes of Britain (and Gaul) into their empire. There is no archaelogy at all to support this as being done firstly by Caesar, but heyho, there is a fair bit of archaeology to suggest actual Roman presence. So, conventionally you have evidence (if you are looking to support scripts) that the southern part of Britain gets pacified and then protected by Hadrian’s wall.
That's the ortho case, that for 400 or so years, the Romans have invaded the southern part and, yes, (for lovers of battles) also had a crack at the northern part that was occupied by Caledonii and Picts, but (somewhat bizarrely to Wiley) didn't also have an invasion try at the bit across the Irish Sea.
It's a bit of a mystery, as there is Roman archaeology in Ireland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
There is? Before you regale us, let me remind you of the ground rules. We know the Romans occupied Britain because of the staggering amounts of archaeology saying they did. We do not rely on (a) written sources or (b) the odd gewgaw that was the result of contact with the Romans not occupation by the Romans. The difference is pretty stark.
Just marking your card.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
According to that famous story teller, Tacitus, Hibernia (Ireland) could have been conquered by a legion along with a few auxillaries and, again according to Tacitus (and nobody else), the Romans twice invaded the island of Anglesey (located between Roman Britain and Hiberrnia), once under Suetonius Paulinus, who led a successful assault on the island in 60–61 CE but had to withdraw because of the Boudican revolt. The second time the Romans invaded under Agricola. On both occasions the Roman were able to get across the Menai Strait, the second time actually without boats! The Romans then administered, so they say, Anglesey for 300 years.....
Why didn't they then invade Hibernia? It seems most unlike the Romans not to try?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
The question. Did they invade Hibernia?
Feels like there should be an easy refutation to it. It's easier to start with and less speculative than the: Why did they not? It looks a tempting ancient target.
My first thought was: Where are the Roman military roads?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
I'm not clear what the beef is here, Wiley. The orthodoxy is that the Romans had an arm's length relationship with Ireland as they did with any territory contiguous with but outside the empire. This would involve trade, diplomacy and maybe a bit of meddling with domestic politics, even hiring mercenaries. But no more than that. In Ireland's specific case, this would seem practically unavoidable because (a) there was nothing in Ireland of consuming Roman interest and (b) the Irish did not pose a threat to the empire. All you've said so far to disturb this cosy state of affairs is
(1)There have been a couple of articles recently, along the lines of did the Romans invade Ireland?
(2) It's a bit of a mystery, as there is Roman archaeology in Ireland.
(3) Why didn't they then invade Hibernia? It seems most unlike the Romans not to try? |
which doesn't really disturb the state of affairs. You've forced me to line up behind orthodoxy. I hope you're proud of yourself.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
So far so good. Those Irish roads are winding. The Romans so they say, were good at logistics. The Romans were good at invasions. You want to pack your soldiers, you want speed, so you don't want them marching long distances overloaded as they will suffer exhaustion. Even today we get accidental soldier deaths. You want straight military roads. You don't want exhausted soldiers.
Yet......something seems not quite right with the refutation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
