MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
The Troy Game (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What I don't understand is why a dispute over this shitty bit of dusty land by two unpleasant groups of people should be so massively important to our leaders and to our media companies. Actually I do know and so do we all.


Yes. We do. Israel has been made the whipping boy by which effete Europeans imagine to absolve themselves of their white, liberal, post-colonial guilt.

Or are you suggesting that even antisemitism is just another Jewish conspiracy?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Ten thousand million people can't be wrong, Ishmael.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Look. The whole Arab-vs-Jew thing is just a morality play acted out by the Arabs for a western audience. As long as the *struggle* is imagined to continue, Europe remains intensely focused on the region and America has to continue buying "peace" by sending billions in military aid to Egypt and Saudi. The conflict ended in 1978. It's been over for 30 years! They just don't tell anybody.

Nobody cares about the Palestinians. No one wants them in their country and no one wants them to have their own country. They are ungovernable and can't govern themselves either. But they have found their only useful purpose: Making a racket to attract American dollars to the governments of their neighbors.

Persia is the real enemy of the Arabs and everybody there knows it -- though they're not allowed to say it aloud. Israel is already a de facto ALLY of the Gulf States. Having Israel do the fighting is simply less expensive for the Arabs than their having to do it themselves -- and the Israelis are better at the job.

Trust me. If Israel were in any real danger of being betrayed by the real western powers (as opposed to the effete Euros), Saudi and Egypt would be the first to speak up on its behalf. Israel is INDISPENSABLE. It's the linchpin keeping the region from total chaos.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

As you may recall I pointed out long, long ago that the Middle East was the usual Five-Power pentagram, and that Israel (as the Central Power) has always been propped up by Saudi Arabia (as the other Conservative Power) to be just as constantly, originally anyway, opposed by the two Revisionist Powers (Syria and Egypt). The Balancing Power being provided at various times by Jordan, Iraq, the Palestinians themselves and by Iran (via cut-outs).

It is the latter instability that turns the whole melange into a powder-keg but the bit that you, Ishmael, never quite get (because in this matter you are a partisan rather than an AE-ist) is that it is Israel that needs the powder-keg status of the region most, partly for reasons of internal cohesion and partly because (being a bunch of pushy Jews) they rather like being the Central Power.
Send private message
Grant



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Look. The whole Arab-vs-Jew thing is just a morality play acted out by the Arabs for a western audience.


It's also played out by Jews for a diaspora audience. That's why the USA gives Israel billions of aid.

Having Israel do the fighting is simply less expensive for the Arabs than their having to do it themselves -- and the Israelis are better at the job.


Used to be, but they weren't very good at fighting in the last couple of escapades even with the weaponry supplied by the US.

You just don't get it. If one side fights with slingshots against the other's helicopter gunships, the effete Europeans will always back David against Goliath.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
You just don't get it. If one side fights with slingshots against the other's helicopter gunships, the effete Europeans will always back David against Goliath.


I thought that's what I said. Post-colonial...yadda yadaa yadda....
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Grant wrote:
Look. The whole Arab-vs-Jew thing is just a morality play acted out by the Arabs for a western audience.


It's also played out by Jews for a diaspora audience. That's why the USA gives Israel billions of aid.


Is it?

I think the conflict with Persia is sufficient and the only real reason for the military support Israel receives. It's all about Persia.

Israel doesn't need billions to defend itself from Saudi and Egypt. Saudi and Egypt get billions to pretend they won't finally follow through with their pretend threat to go to pretend war with Israel -- leaving Israel free to confront Persia on behalf of everyone -- much to everyone's relief.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
As you may recall I pointed out long, long ago that the Middle East was the usual Five-Power pentagram, and that Israel (as the Central Power) has always been propped up by Saudi Arabia (as the other Conservative Power) to be just as constantly, originally anyway, opposed by the two Revisionist Powers (Syria and Egypt). The Balancing Power being provided at various times by Jordan, Iraq, the Palestinians themselves and by Iran (via cut-outs).


How rigorously systematic!

/sarcasm
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Did you wish to engage with my argument, Ishmael?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Did you wish to engage with my argument, Ishmael?


You do not have a thesis until you can make predictions. This is why your 70 year rule for permanent nation-state status is quite a valuable concept and why your great-power analysis is not.
Send private message
Donmillion


In: Acton, Middlesex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
I have still not had a sensible explanation for why there is

a) Troyes (i.e. Troy) in France
b) Paris (i.e. the Hero of Troy) next to it in France and
c) The Trinovantes (i.e. New Trojans) just over the Channel in Britain.

I wonder what senseless explanations you've encountered in what I'm sure is very wide reading, Mick. Here's my two-cents-worth, none of which I'm committed to, but which makes sense to me so far, and which sort of answers Hatty's later query about the link with London ('New Troy').

It also may get this forum subject back on track ....

    a) French Troyes in Roman times was Augustobona Tricassium, the 'capital city' of the Tricasses, a Gallic tribe (let's avoid 'Celtic' for the moment). By Late Empire times, the city name was reduced to Tricassium or Tricassae, the (presumed?) origin of French Troyes: the usual mediaeval spelling of modern trois, "three". The name 'Tricasses' has a perfectly satisfactory 'Celtic' [oooops] etymology of 'three coils' or 'three plaits', a hair-style strikingly described for the Irish hero Cuchulainn in the Táin Bó Cúailnge ("Cattle Raid of Cooley").

    (As someone noted, the English term, 'troy weight', is said to be probably from a weight used at the Troyes fair. Troyes, by the way, is about 150 km ESE of Paris, as Hugin and Muninn fly. Whether this is "next to it" is a matter of judgment.)

    b) i) Paris in France is named for the Parisii, the Iron Age people who were living on the banks of the Seine from the middle of the third century BC until the Roman era. The etymologies normally given are all very unreliable: 'Celtic' pargwys 'boatmen' (reflected in the city coat of arms); Greek baris, also 'boat'; and Aramaic/Egypto-Greek (!!!) Bar-Isis, 'Son of Isis'.

    The most likely (in my opinion) 'Celtic' (or even 'Indo-European') origin is shown by the alternative spelling, Quarisii: Goidelic Celtic q(u) is equivalent to Brythonic Celtic p (as in Old Irish maq versus Old Welsh map, now mac and ap respectively, both meaning 'son of').

    This points to a meaning along the lines of 'makers' or 'people of the maker' (Old Irish cruth, 'smith', related to Welsh pryd and Latin creator). But based on Welsh models (prydaf, prydu), it could mean something like 'poets'--compare Late Middle English 'makers'. Smiths and poets had magical powers, and 'cognate' forms in Slavonic languages acquired the meaning, 'magician', but this was probably not the primary meaning of Quarisii.

    b) ii) With regard to Paris of Troy (Ilion or, earlier, Wilion): Traditionally, the name is derived from Greek parienai, to pass by or escape, because he escaped danger in infancy. Alternatively, though, the name is said to be a Trojan dialect word for 'warrior', which is why he has the alternative Greek name Alexandros ('defender'). This strongly recalls the Alaksandu of Wilusa who was a west Anatolian ally of the Hittite king Muwatallis II; but Paris' father Priam seems to have been a successor of that Alaksandu named as Piyama-Radu in the Hittite correspondence. The name 'Paris' is definitely ancient Greek (found in the Aegean islands, Attica, the Peloponnese, and elsewhere besides Troy), and I can't see it being related to the name of the Quarisii.

    c) That leaves us with the Trinovantes (a.k.a. 'Trinobantes'), the 'new Troy people' who founded London, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth. Despite Geoffrey's imaginings, I note immediately that the initial element is Tri-, not Troi-, which points to 'Three' rather than 'Troy'. Novantes means 'those being new', 'the New People'. Tri- as a prefix in the 'Celtic' languages may be a numerative, as in Tri-Casses, but also has a general intensive function, similar to its use in other ancient languages. 'Thrice-Great Hermes' (Hermes Trimegistus), for example, simply means, 'Hermes the Very Great'.

    Tri- is found with this sense in, for instance, Truro, 'intensely boiling' (tri-berow), supposedly referring to the winter spate of the Truro River. Novio- means 'new', but may have an applied sense of 'vigorous, lively,'--so the name would mean "the triply (i.e., very) vigorous people." On the other hand, a more prosaic explanation would simply see them as just the latest arrivals in the territory north of the Thames.

    Either way, a connection with 'Troy' can't be traced earlier than Geoffrey of Monmouth, who was the first we know of to make the connection. That was about 2250 years after the Trojan War (or only about 1850 years by Velikovsky's chronology). As far as I am aware, there is no scrap of evidence to bridge this gap (I would hardly count Nennius' fable of Brutus from only 300 years earlier), and given Geoffrey's aggrandising political motives, I see no reason to believe his account.


I have presented no evidence for my own assertions, many of which are drawn from my recollections of research in Celtic languages and in comparative mythology. (I did do some Internet research as well, and consulted such of my language library as I have in the UK.) Still (seeing an opportunity for a dig), is "evidence" also "knowledge", which is the enemy of thinking? Is uninformed opinion preferable anyway?

This all seems rather negative in terms of what Mick was hoping for, but if nothing else, it gives a target for shooting back at!
_________________
-- Don

"Eveything is deeply intertwingled" (thankyou, Danny Faught)
Send private message Send e-mail
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hi Don, and bienvenue.

Donmillion wrote:
a) French Troyes in Roman times was Augustobona Tricassium, the 'capital city' of the Tricasses, a Gallic tribe ....By Late Empire times, the city name was reduced to Tricassium or Tricassae, the (presumed?) origin of French Troyes: the usual mediaeval spelling of modern trois, "three". The name 'Tricasses' has a perfectly satisfactory 'Celtic' [oooops] etymology of 'three coils' or 'three plaits'.

Is it usual for a town to be called after a tribe? And would, even a French, tribe be called after a hair-do?

Troyes, by the way, is about 150 km ESE of Paris, as Hugin and Muninn fly. Whether this is "next to it" is a matter of judgment.

There does seem to be a link in legend if not in geographical distance. The patron saint of Paris, Genevieve, sailed off to the rescue of her besieged Troyes comrades.

Paris in France is named for the Parisii, the Iron Age people who were living on the banks of the Seine from the middle of the third century BC until the Roman era. The etymologies normally given are all very unreliable: 'Celtic' pargwys 'boatmen' (reflected in the city coat of arms); Greek baris, also 'boat'; and Aramaic/Egypto-Greek (!!!) Bar-Isis, 'Son of Isis'.

Interesting about boatmen and boats, Paris is also Par-ys, i.e. like an island or Ile de Paris.

This points to a meaning along the lines of 'makers' or 'people of the maker' (Old Irish cruth, 'smith', related to Welsh pryd and Latin creator).

If smith is related to pryd, does that mean Britain means 'tin-smithy' since the name allegedly derives from Welsh Prydain?

But based on Welsh models (prydaf, prydu), it could mean something like 'poets'--compare Late Middle English 'makers'. Smiths and poets had magical powers, and 'cognate' forms in Slavonic languages acquired the meaning, 'magician', but this was probably not the primary meaning of Quarisii.

Quarisii or quarriers? Part of the team of magic-makers? Perhaps all tied up with 'core' and 'coeur' words, disembowelling and so forth.

I note immediately that the initial element is Tri-, not Troi-, which points to 'Three' rather than 'Troy'. Novantes means 'those being new', 'the New People'. Tri- as a prefix in the 'Celtic' languages may be a numerative, as in Tri-Casses, but also has a general intensive function, similar to its use in other ancient languages. 'Thrice-Great Hermes' (Hermes Trimegistus), for example, simply means, 'Hermes the Very Great'.

So très in French means both 'three' and 'very', similar to Welsh (tra and tair).

given Geoffrey's aggrandising political motives, I see no reason to believe his account.

Geoffrey's history is no more trustworthy than any other historical account but it's a bit reckless to dismiss his entire oeuvre as fantasy. There was certainly a lot of toing-and-froing between traders looking for tin and copper etc., no doubt including 'Trojans'.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I was convinced by Don's arguments (by the way, old chap, we don't brag about our incomes here) and then by Hatty's.
Send private message
Donmillion


In: Acton, Middlesex
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:

by the way, old chap, we don't brag about our incomes here.

Sorry; just as well it was only two cents'-worth, I wouldn't want to promote envy by contributing a dime's-worth.
Send private message Send e-mail
Chad


In: Ramsbottom
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Donmillion wrote:
Sorry; just as well it was only two cents'-worth, I wouldn't want to promote envy by contributing a dime's-worth.


Two penneth is the going rate.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 12, 13, 14  Next

Jump to:  
Page 13 of 14

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