MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Critical Moments (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The question is who is the herald?

Who is the messenger?

Who is it that starts the lineage the linear?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ishmael wrote:


I have a feeling that you and I are headed to the same point (though your posts are as esoteric as the subject matter).


As Coyote normally ends up in the canyon, this might not be a good omen for you. But I wish you a safer, speedier journey.


I appear to have detected something like this in British chronology. Dates for key events are chosen by the historians for numerological reasons. Those events did not actually occur in those years (if they occurred at all). The association of such "critical events" with numerologically-significant dates is meant to be seen, by the reader of these histories, as auspicious or ominous, depending on the nature of the event. The reader then interprets contemporary events accordingly.



I would say that dates and events were chosen, by ancient scribes, post facto (Hat Tip Harpo), to commemorate things that did not occur.

An example would be the fictional death of Thomas a Becket. A Becket cult was set up, in 1220, on the Jubilee (1+7x7) of his fictional death, the death and events still dated by ortho as 1170 .
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It is nice that our modern scribes are keeping both the cult and the jubilee going. https://becket2020.com/event/1
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
The question is who is the herald?

Who is the messenger?

Who is it that starts the lineage the linear?


Herald (n.)
"messenger, envoy," late 13c. (in Anglo-Latin); c. 1200 as a surname, from Anglo-French heraud, Old French heraut, hiraut (12c.), from Frankish *hariwald "commander of an army" or a similar Germanic source, from Proto-Germanic *harja "army" (from PIE root *koro- "war;" see harry) + *waldaz "to command, rule" (see wield).


The simplest and most obvious candidate for the Harold/herald is.

Harald Hardrada


wiki wrote:

Harald Hardrada

Harald Sigurdsson (Old Norse: Haraldr Sigurðarson; c. 1015 – 25 September 1066), given the epithet Hardrada (Old Norse: harðráði, modern Norwegian: Hardråde, roughly translated as "stern counsel" or "hard ruler") in the sagas,[2] was King of Norway (as Harald III) from 1046 to 1066. In addition, he unsuccessfully claimed the Danish throne until 1064 and the English throne in 1066.


Harold is used to trace out circular time and space.


Before becoming king, Harald had spent around fifteen years in exile as a mercenary and military commander in Kievan Rus' and of the Varangian Guard in the Byzantine Empire.


He was an army commander within this space and time.

Modern historians have often considered Harald's death, which brought an end to his invasion, as the end of the Viking Age.


He brings to an end the Old Age. (paradigm). It is a critical moment.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The substitution of Harold Godwinson for Harald Hardrada by the insertion of the fictional battle of Stamford Bridge (Stamford Bridge is not even recorded in Domesday) does not change the Herald narrative.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
The substitution of Harold Godwinson for Harald Hardrada, by the insertion of the fictional battle of Stamford Bridge (Stamford Bridge is not even recorded in Domesday) does not change the Herald narrative.


Harold Godwinson is the original William the Conqueror! Harold hasn't been substituted for Harald. William has been substituted for Harold.

Two historians. One made the herald of the new age be the OLD king; the other made the herald of the new age be the NEW king. The two narratives later get combined and one herald/Harold gets written over.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In 600 years, England is successfully invaded just twice.

Both times by William.

First time is ten sixty six.

Second time is sixteen eighty-eight.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The herald narrative did not stop with Harold Godwinson, but developed into two further myths based on the belief that the original calculation of circular time was wrong.

1) The Herald ie Harold was not dead. ie Harold was not killed at Hastings.
2) There would be a new Herald, who was called Hereward the Wake. Hereward forms the later basis of the Robin hood myth. The ex army commander (Herald) leads to the true king.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
That's not bad though you should show your working.


Most of the circular thinking comes from ideas in "Going Round in Circles"

Critical moments firstly accepts conventional chronology. You have to hang your history, rote learning on something......

Critical moments secondly rejects conventional chronology. You have to notice the anomalies in conventional chronology which are pointed out by New Chronologists.

Wiley doesn't see much point in repairing something that is broken. Wiley does not see the point of knowing the unknowable or dating the undateable by a fictional chronology based on the birth of Christ, or the year Mohammed migrated to Mecca. Hiding the origin of the start date by the use of Common era terminology doesn't help either.


Critical moments have occurred because scribes, both ancient and modern, have concluded there were starting or finishing points of eras from which actors could not turn back.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

You can't have historians without history and you can't have history without chronology and you can't have chronology unless you have an agreed starting point. But for real history you have to agree how your starting point tallies with other people's starting point. Thus Muslims agree that their start point is six hundred and ten years after the Christians' start point. Both can have learned arguments about whether the dates should vary by a few years either way but neither dispute the general relationship.

But then comes the problem of plugging these start points into other start points. The Christian story features various aspects of the Roman story so they can be theoretically dovetailed (birth of Christ occurring in the thirtieth year of the reign of Augustus, plus or minus) but then we are relying on Roman chronology's start point which even they acknowledge is somewhat shaky. Except to Livy who confidently puts it as April 21st, 753 BC – though he wouldn’t have put it quite like that – when Romulus killed Remus. Talking of circularities, Romulus Augustus is credited (?) with being the last Roman Emperor (476 AD), leastways in the West, when as it were Byzantine chronology takes over. [That's a nest of worms too.]

The Romans in turn can sort of plug into Carthaginian history (because of the Alba Longa business and before that the Queen Dido business) and therefore presumably into Phoenician history (which is opaque and a half in itself), which plugs into Israelite history which ... um ... gives rise eventually to Christian history! Meanwhile Greek chronology is starting with the first Olympic Games in 776 BC. Our own first Olympic Games are dated 1896 AD but how many actual years elapsed between the two is more likely to be radically challenged by us than by them. Livy himself, for instance, is looking decidedly unClassical. Plus there's two imaginary Dark Ages -- ours and the Greek one -- to be factored in. Or rather out. What larks!
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
Wiley doesnt see much point in repairing something that is broken. Wiley does not see the point of knowing the unknowable or dating the undateable, by a fictional chronology based on the birth of Christ, or the year Mohammed migrated to Mecca. Hiding the origin of the start date by the use of Common era terminology, doesnt help either.

However the fact that modern scribes are concealing "post facto" the origin of their chronos (they are attempting to globalise ortho history in the name of political correctness), tells us that the Ancient Scribes post facto would have done exactly the same.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hold up! Muslim history from 610 AD to 2019 AD might in itself be internally correct irrespective of whether the Jesus date is valid. Though I think it is generally circumspect not to go into Muslim history too closely. Including, I suppose, the place of Jesus in Muslim theology, and when he needed to be spatchcocked in, even though that might be helpful from our perspective.

This 'Common Era' business is mere modish fad and should, in my opinion, be ignored. Even the wallies agree that BCE/CE is identical to BC/AD.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The simplest and most obvious candidate for the Harold/herald is.

Harald Hardrada


The source for the saga of Hardrada is said to be "the poet and historian Snorri Sturluson (1178/79–1241)". Snorri attributed his history of Norwegian kings to earlier sources that were as usual 'lost' (not to mention our old friend, 'oral tradition').

Heimskringla is a collection of sagas about the Norwegian kings, beginning with the saga of the legendary Swedish dynasty of the Ynglings, followed by accounts of historical Norwegian rulers from Harald Fairhair of the 9th century up to the death of the pretender Eystein Meyla in 1177. The exact sources of his work are disputed, but included earlier kings' sagas, such as Morkinskinna, Fagrskinna and the twelfth century Norwegian synoptic histories and oral traditions, notably many skaldic poems.

For events of the mid-12th century, Snorri explicitly names the now lost work Hryggjarstykki as his source.


The problem is scholars only have the first page of something that may or may not be written by Snorri. The extant manuscript is 17th century.

The earliest parchment copy of the work is referred to as Kringla. It voyaged from Iceland to Bergen, Norway and was moved to Copenhagen, the University Library. At that time it had lost the first page, but the second (the current beginning of the Ynglinga Saga) starts Kringla heimsins, "the Earth's circle" of the Laing translation.

In the 17th century copies were made by Icelanders Jon Eggertson and Asgeir Jonsson. Eggertson's copy went to the Royal Library at Stockholm. The Copenhagen manuscript was among the many valuables destroyed in the Copenhagen Fire of 1728. Only one leaf of the manuscript survived and it is now kept in the National and University Library of Iceland.

There was a pressing need to come up with a glorious past in the seventeenth century, the age of Swedish prominence. Old Norse was unintelligible to sixteenth-century Norwegians. The first translation was only completed in 1600 and printed in 1633

...the Stockholm manuscript was translated into Swedish and Latin by Johan Peringskiöld (by order of Charles XI) and published in 1697 at Stockholm under the title Heimskringla, which is the first known use of the name. This edition also included the first printing of the text in Old Norse. A new Danish translation with the text in Old Norse and a Latin translation came out in 1777-1783 (by order of Frederick VI as crown prince). An English translation by Samuel Laing was finally published in 1844, with a second edition in 1889. Other English translations followed.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Hold up! Muslim history from 610 AD to 2019 AD might in itself be internally correct irrespective of whether the Jesus date is valid.


Really? I notice you translated the dating to Christian chronology, to help make the point.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
The simplest and most obvious candidate for the Harold/herald is.

Harald Hardrada


The source for the saga of Hardrada is said to be "the poet and historian Snorri Sturluson (1178/79–1241)". Snorri attributed his history of Norwegian kings to earlier sources that were as usual 'lost' (not to mention our old friend, 'oral tradition').


Yes. All history is myth unless proven otherwise.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 4

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