Was Julius Caesar the real Jesus Christ?

[Palinurus]

The above link doesn't seem to work

Both links work absolutely fine with me. I'm using Firefox 27.0 -- maybe it's your browser or its cache?

Oh boy! 134 pages! Looks like a real goody, too!

The Carter article itself consists of 28 pages only.

EDIT: added second quote plus reply.

 

[Eboard10]

The above link doesn't seem to work

Both links work absolutely fine with me. I'm using Firefox 27.0 -- maybe it's your browser or its cache?

Odd, when I used Firefox it gives me the 404 Not Found message. Works fine with Internet explorer though.

 

[Fluffy]

Only 6 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2y3ool6QM

Images of Caesar

youtube says 'video unavailable' (and apologizes for it bahahahahaha) hmmmm, I wonder why that would be ;)

 

[H-KQGE]

Only 6 minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG2y3ool6QM

Images of Caesar

youtube says 'video unavailable' (and apologizes for it bahahahahaha) hmmmm, I wonder why that would be ;)

Tsk. I got "video not found".

 

[Gaby]

I'm proofreading my translation on Petrach's 28th chapter and I found some quotes in this free ebook:

"A general dictionary, historical and critical: in which a new and accurate translation of that of the celebrated Mr. Bayle, with the corrections and observations printed in the late edition at Paris, is included and interspersed with several thousand lives never before published. The whole containing the history of the most illustrious persons of all ages and nations, particularly those of Great Britain and Ireland, distinguished by their rank, actions, learning and other accomplishments. With reflections on such passages of Mr. Bayle, as seem to favor scepticism and the Manichee system"

http://books.google.es/books?id=6G1ZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

The above is actually the title of the book! Found there some of Cicero's quoted orations about Caesar.

FWIW.

 

[Laura]

Who is this Uwe Topper person?

I'm on page 2 and I think we can disregard this person as a nut. I'll explain later.

I am sorry of wasting your time posting the links above.

Here is an article about him in Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uwe_Topper

Don't be sorry. But it would help if, when you post info, you give a quick rundown of who, what, where, why, etc so I can parse it. There MIGHT be something interesting, but so far, as I am reading, it's very shallow research.

 

[Dirgni]

Don't be sorry. But it would help if, when you post info, you give a quick rundown of who, what, where, why, etc so I can parse it. There MIGHT be something interesting, but so far, as I am reading, it's very shallow research.

OK and thank you for the feedback.

 

[Gaby]

Attached as .doc is a first draft of Petrarch's last chapter on Caesar. It has no proofreading other than the one I did with Suetonius writings and other orations which are available in English. Also, the text is in one chunk with no paragraphs. The separations on the document mark each page on the original for later proofreading purposes. Semicolons and periods are crucial to distinguish one "paragraph" and/or concept from the other.

From Suetonius, I found some translation mistakes I made, but it will still be way better than google translate which is impossible to read.

The classical English version of Suetonius changes the structure of the sentences a bit, adding words that don't mean quite the same thing. On other occasions they skip entire things, but this might be because Petrarch used several sources. Nevertheless, I will still use official translations where I can.

A couple of examples of things lost in translation:

When the bones of Capys will be discovered, his descendant Julius will be dead by the hands of his own, and he will be immediately avenged with Italy’s great pestilence [official translation: "Whenever the bones of Capys shall be moved, it will come to pass that a son of Ilium shall be slain at the hands of his kindred, and presently avenged at heavy cost to Italy."]

Am I saved for being dead? [official translation: Saved I these men that they might murder me?]

The Italian and latin text retains some vagueness and a poetic style which gives room for interpretation. Anything that really doesn't make any sense is literally translated to be later fixed on the proofreading.

About Caesar's star:

a comet blazed for seven consecutive days, rising always about eleven o’clock; and it was supposed to be the soul of Caesar, now received into heaven; [...] The poet Virgil makes mention of this star in his Bucolic book, and he shows the image of Caesar and in whose head there is a star.

I'll continue with Chapter 1 and go chronologically if that is okay. It will help immensely if we had a more modern Italian version of the text.

References:

Le vite degli uomini illustri di Francesco Petrarca
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL20592530M/Le_vite_degli_uomini_illustri_di_Francesco_Petrarca

"The Caesars" by Suetonius, Donna W. Hurley
http://books.google.es/books?id=-0EtPxT_z4gC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The Lives of the Twelve Caesars: (De Vita Caesarum)" edited by Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus
http://books.google.es/books?id=cQ27Tb-sytAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Suetonius, Caesar:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html

A general dictionary, historical and critical

http://books.google.es/books?id=6G1ZAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Gaby]

[...]Caesar struck Nennius a blow to the head, but his sword got stuck in Nennius's shield. After they separated in the melée, Nennius threw away his own sword and attacked the Romans with Caesar's sword, killing many, including the tribune Labienus. Fifteen days after the battle Nennius died of his head wound, and was buried at London, near the North Gate. Caesar's sword, named Crocea Mors ("Yellow Death"), was buried with him.

So, supposedly, Caesar's sword got STUCK in Nennius shield, but he was obviously able to REMOVE it and use it.

Let's take a quick look at the Annales Cambriae:

[...]The words for "shoulder" and "shield" were, however, easily confused in Old Welsh – *scuit "shield" versus *scuid "shoulder" [3] – and Geoffrey of Monmouth played upon this dual tradition, describing Arthur bearing "on his shoulders a shield" emblazoned with the Virgin.[4]

What to make of it?

This might be completely unrelated, but it reminded me of Caesar's life:

_http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/death-of-caesar.php

Cimber then grabbed and pulled Caesar's purple robe from his shoulders, the signal to send the conspirators into action. Publius Servilius Casca, who positioned himself behind Caesar, was the first to strike the mark. He stabbed Caesar in the upper shoulder, near the neck, and Plutarch wrote that Caesar said, "Vile Casca" or Casca what is this? Reacting with the tenacity of a grizzled legionary veteran he apparently grabbed Casca's arm, stabbing it with his own writing pen, probably still completely unaware of the scope of the plot. At this point, the ferocity of the attack was revealed in earnest. The assassins stabbed Caesar relentlessly, each taking a shot at the dictator.

That Caesar got stabbed in the shoulder stood out for me in some of the versions of his death. Petrarch's account says that Caesar took that dagger which was used for the first blow he received, and injured Cassius' arm with it.

 

[Laura]

[...]Caesar struck Nennius a blow to the head, but his sword got stuck in Nennius's shield. After they separated in the melée, Nennius threw away his own sword and attacked the Romans with Caesar's sword, killing many, including the tribune Labienus. Fifteen days after the battle Nennius died of his head wound, and was buried at London, near the North Gate. Caesar's sword, named Crocea Mors ("Yellow Death"), was buried with him.

So, supposedly, Caesar's sword got STUCK in Nennius shield, but he was obviously able to REMOVE it and use it.

Let's take a quick look at the Annales Cambriae:

[...]The words for "shoulder" and "shield" were, however, easily confused in Old Welsh – *scuit "shield" versus *scuid "shoulder" [3] – and Geoffrey of Monmouth played upon this dual tradition, describing Arthur bearing "on his shoulders a shield" emblazoned with the Virgin.[4]

What to make of it?

This might be completely unrelated, but it reminded me of Caesar's life:

_http://www.unrv.com/fall-republic/death-of-caesar.php

Cimber then grabbed and pulled Caesar's purple robe from his shoulders, the signal to send the conspirators into action. Publius Servilius Casca, who positioned himself behind Caesar, was the first to strike the mark. He stabbed Caesar in the upper shoulder, near the neck, and Plutarch wrote that Caesar said, "Vile Casca" or Casca what is this? Reacting with the tenacity of a grizzled legionary veteran he apparently grabbed Casca's arm, stabbing it with his own writing pen, probably still completely unaware of the scope of the plot. At this point, the ferocity of the attack was revealed in earnest. The assassins stabbed Caesar relentlessly, each taking a shot at the dictator.

That Caesar got stabbed in the shoulder stood out for me in some of the versions of his death. Petrarch's account says that Caesar took that dagger which was used for the first blow he received, and injured Cassius' arm with it.

Good catch. And of course, this whole excursion into texts and history of texts and libraries, began because I wanted to see if there was any clue that Nennius worked off the bio of Caesar. And, in the middle of it, the Gregory of Tours issue came to the fore. But it seems that none of the Anglo-Saxon libraries had Caesar's "Gallic Wars", though Aldhelm had Sallust, Vergil, Horace and Lucan.

What was also available to them was Gildas' De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae which seems to be what Nennius was following. And De Excidio WAS a 6th century work. Gildas' writing style indicates that he had a classical Latin education that would not have been available to any Britons after the 5th century.

Archbishop Theodore, Aldhelm, and Bede all quote from De Excidio.

Gildas's writing provides a major model for Alcuin's treatment of the Viking invasions, in particular his letters relating to the sack of Lindisfarne in 793. The invocation of Gildas as a historical example serves to suggest the idea of moral and religious reform as a remedy for the invasions. Likewise, Wulfstan of York draws on Gildas to make a similar point in his sermons, particularly in the Sermo Lupi ad Anglos.

Since Gildas was a classically trained reader/speaker of Latin, and considered himself Roman, as is clear from the text, it is altogether possible that he had read Caesar and more and even possibly wrote about him, though it was edited out. What seems obvious to me is that all the "barbarian invasions" weren't exactly that: they were destructions and decimations of population via catastrophe and plague following which, others moved in. And nearly all of those who "moved into" the various destroyed nations were meat eaters.
(Just thought I would toss that in there.)

 

[Arwenn]

Here's an interesting thing I thought I would note down as it happened. Don't know where it might lead, but it IS interesting.

Atriedes came to announce a thought he had earlier: that Caesar was also the model for the story of Arthur. I told him I'd thought of that already, which I had in passing, while reading "The Mantle of Caesar".

What is interesting is that just before he came in to propose this idea, I had just been reading about two of the earliest Latin grammarians, C. Octavius Lampadio and Q. Vargunteius. They did scholarly work on the even earlier works of the earliest known Latin writers, Naevius and Ennius.

Well, "Ennius" was in my head, and when Atriedes mentioned "Arthur", my mind immediately connected to "Nennius."

That's really bizarre, because when Laura first proposed the idea that Caesar was the Christ, & while transcribing SoTT Talk Radio Show #25: Julius Caesar: Evil Dictator or Messiah for Humanity, I had the same thought! His amazing military feats and the Mark Anthony-Cleopatra-Caesar love traingle just reminded me of the legend of Arthur, and the Lancelot-Guinevere- Arthur love triangle. I guess ultimately all legends are based on some dim fact, and mythicised along the way. I didn't post anything about my thoughts because I had read the thread on Opinions, and I really didn't have data (or the time to research the data) to back up my feelings. I won't let that hinder me next time, as it just might be a thread worth pulling on for others here who do have the time to pull on them and see where they lead.

 

[Meager1]

It is not possible to determine with confidence precisely when the great public libraries in Rome were destroyed or dispersed.

Maybe some of you have already seen "The Worship of Augustus Caesar" By Alexander Del Mar, written in 1900.

I`ll post the link at the end in case anyone wants to have a look.

This book goes into some detail about the date changes that occurred during those times, how and why it happened, being it seems, mainly to "create" a proper nativity for Augustus.

For instance..

Under the pretense of piety Augustus ordered the collection and destruction of numerous ancient and contemporary works.
Of these, two thousand perished in a single day, (Suet. Aug. 30.) Of the few that were spared, all have been mutilated. Quintus Ennius is known to us by little more than his name. Polybius is hacked to pieces; the historical works of Cicero have all perished; Cornelius Nepos is in fragments and without dates; of 142 books in Livy`s History of Rome, but 45 remain, and many of these are mutilated or corrupted; of Ovid's Fasti, out of 12 books, but six remain; Manilius has been largely tampered with; many others have been divested of dates; and Varro, the most voluminous of the Augustan writers, is known to us only by two detached and imperfect pieces.

In all these works the chronology, when any chronology appears, is suspicious and bears the look of having been altered. Names, generations and dates fail to agree.
The lives of men are thrown into one age, while their works furnish evidence that they lived in another; and the archaeological remains bear similar testimony. ( if memory serves, I read somewhere that it was Augustus that caused the burning of a particular library, but I didn`t save the book or the quote at the time)



Other interesting pages from this book imply numerous Christian "twists and turns" associated with Augustus..


B. C. 63, Rome. — Elevation of Caius Julius Caesar to the office of Pontifex Maximus. Greswell, F. C, II, 42.

B. C. 63, Rome. — Sept. 23. Nativity of Caius Octavius Caepias, afterwards called Caius J. C. Octavius, and afterwards Augustus, of the gens Maria, the putative son of Caius Octavius, a tradesman and
the son of a baker, by his wife, Atia, or Maia, who was niece to Julius Caesar. In B. C. 59 Augustus was adopted by L. Philippus and in B. C. 47 he was adopted by Julius Caesar, as his own son.

Augustus was born in A. U. 691, in the consulship of Cicero and in the village of Velitre, near Rome. Its walls having been blasted by lightning, the sacred oracle was interrogated, and replied that the future
Ruler of the World would arise from the spot. By this was meant the Advent of the god Augustus.
His advent was also predicted in the Sibylline books and by the astrologer, Figulus.

Julius Marathus reported that five or six months before the Nativity of Augustus, it was predicted by a public miracle that Nature was about to bring forth a Prince to rule the World. Upon this, the Senate enacted that no male child born that year should be suffered to live yet Augustus escaped. His father had designed to sacrifice him. From this danger he also escaped. (Dion Cass.) In the Theologoumenon,
written by Asclepiades of Mendes, it is related that Atia (or Maia) having fallen asleep in the temple of Apollo, a sacred serpent slipped close to her, and afterwards left her. Upon awakening, she seemed
to know what had happened, and purified. When the mark upon her person could not be concealed, she ceased to frequent the public baths. In the tenth month {mense decimo) after this miracle she was
delivered of Augustus, who, for the reason stated, was known as the Son of the god Apollo, or the Sun.

The Conception, therefore, occurred on the winter solstice, now known as Christmas.

Before Maia was brought to bed of him, she dreamed that her body was scattered to the stars and encompassed the Universe. Octavius, her husband, also dreamed that from within her shone the bright beams of the Sun. In the Curia, Augustus, having told P. Nigidius the hour of his Nativity, the latter proclaimed him the Lord of the Universe.
Afterwards Octavius (the putative father) consulted the oracle of Liber Pater (Dionysius) in Thrace, and when wine was poured upon the altar, it blazed into a flame that enveloped the steeple (fastigium)
of the temple and ascended to heaven ; a miracle that had occurred but once before, when Alexander the Great had sacrificed upon the same altar. On the following night, Octavius dreamed that his heaven-born Son grasped the Thunderbolt and Sceptre and wore the triumphant robe of Jupiter, his head surrounded by a radiance of glory, his chariot decked with laurel, whilst yoked to it, were six steeds of purest white.

C. Drusus relates that while yet a babe, Augustus, being left in his cradle, was found next morning upon the turret of the mansion, facing the rising Sun. So soon as he was old enough to speak, he reproved a troop of clamorous animals, and from that moment they were hushed to silence. Q. Catalus dreamed
that Augustus was Jupiter Optimus Maximus. Marcus Cicero dreamed that Augustus was let down from heaven by a golden chain.

Dio.,xlv, 2, says that at the precocious age of 12, Augustus was familiar with Greek and made a funeral oration in public. At 16 he went to study at the temple of Apollonia, in Epirus. When Augustus went
with Agrippa to the studio of Theogenes at Apollonia, and divulged the hour of his Nativity, Theogenes, who was one of the wisest men of his age, fell down and worshipped him as the Almighty (adora
vique eam). In memory of this circumstance, Augustus afterwards struck a coin with the Capricorn ; that being his natal zodion.

Ovid,in the Pontine letters, which are still extant, addresses or alludes to Augustus as God, or, the Living God, (Theos.) He built a shrine to this god in his house at Tomis and there worshipped him, both during the life-time of Augustus and after his Ascension to heaven.
In the Fourth Eclogue Virgil addresses Augustus as the divine Son of God, the Son of the Immaculate Virgin and Prince of Peace ; and in the AEneid, VI, 789-93, as Augustus Caesar, Son of God.

Horace calls him ''Maia's winged Child," ''Father and Guardian of the human race," **The Living God " {praesens divus), etc., while Manilius invokes him as "the colleague of Jove, thyself a God; all of these
writers being contemporaries of this divinity.

Pliny and numerous others of a later age allude to him as God (Theos, or Deos), or the Son of God (Divus filius). The Senate recognized him as the long predicted and expected Sacrosanct, or Messiah, a fact that Augustus mentions in his will, which is carved on the temple of Ancyra, still standing with the inscription upon it. The year of his Apotheosis was B. C. 15, when a tax was laid upon the Roman world. The name
of one of the months, Sextilis, was changed to Augustus, an honor accorded only to gods. At first Augustus only claimed to be the Son of God; afterwards he accepted the title and prayers due to the Cre-
ator and, as such, was addressed in the temples which were dedicated to his worship. He erected near the Tarpeian Rock in Rome, a temple, which was inscribed, "to Augustus, the First Born of God."
Baronius, App., XXVI, p. 447. Frickius, cap. X, p. 98, says that the inscription proclaimed him to be the Son of Apollo and the Virgin Mother.

Many of these temples, called Augusteums, are still standing; and one of them, in Vienne, Dauphiny, has the nail holes of the original block letter dedication cut upon it. In the inscriptions of the recently exhumed public edifices of Ephesus, Augustus is addressed as Tios Oeov, the Son of God. A special corporation of priests. Collegium Sodalium Augustalium, was instituted to conduct this worship, and 11 cities of Asia contended for the honor of erecting a new Augusteum.

With the consular power Augustus acquired lawful command over the army, navy and militia, lawful control over the provinces and the right to deal with tributary or vassal kingdoms; with the censor-
ial power and the suppression of the quaestors he obtained control of the tithes and other revenues, the administration of the treasury, the construction and repair of public works and the right to enquire
into the private affairs of citizens, both by confession and otherwise; the last a most potent instrument of tyranny. With the acquisition of the tribunitian power his person became Sacred and his decrees
Inviolable and Infallible. Tremendous as were these powers, they were increased by the law of sacred treason, or Laesa Majestas, which made it a capital crime even to speak of him irreverently. He also
acquired the lawful right to arbitrarily convene or dismiss the senate.
Through the appointment of praetors he exercised a powerful influence upon the magistracy and the administration of justice.

Finally, with the office of supreme-pontiff he acquired lawful authority over the priesthood, the fiamens, augurs, bishops, curates, vestal virgins, temples, sanctuaries, shrines and monasteries, over the calendar, over the coinage, over the fisc and over all sacerdotal institutes, prerogatives, of his own creation and dependent upon himself, to whom he assigned their execution or enjoyment. In carrying out these measures, Augustus was evidently guided by legal advice. Force was seldom manifested; injustice was not openly displayed; and the rights of property, office, title, privilege, or custom, were rarely violated without a plausible pretext. The forms of law, which had grown up under the republican constitution, were employed to destroy the last vestiges of liberty; and the empire was enchained, subdued and crushed as completely as though its master was indeed endowed with the supernatural powers attributed to him by his sycophants and devotees.

The college of Augusine priests was elevated to the same rank as the four other great religious colleges; the function of the first- named one being to establish rites, offer prayers, chaunt hymns and accept
sacrifices, in the temples sacred to Augustus. The worship of Augustus, Son of God, was officially incorporated into the religion of the empire ; every city of the empire had an augustal fiamen, every house anaugustal shrine; succeeding emperors themselves sacrificed to Augustus, and irreverence to this deity was visited with the severest penalties.

Altars have been found at Ancyra, Lyons, Leon (Spain) and other places, inscribed to him as the Son of God; and numerous coins are extant bearing the same title. Says Tacitus: The reverence due to the
gods was no longer exclusive. Augustus claimed equal worship.


The common people wore little images of Augustus suspended from the neck. Great images and shrines of the same god were erected in the highways and resorted to for sanctuary. There were a thousand such shrines in Rome alone. Augustus wore on his head a pontifical mitre surmounted by a Latin cross, an engraving of which, taken from a coin of the Colonia Julia Gemella, appears in Harduini, de Nummis Antiquis, plate I.

The number of prodigies and miracles related of or concerning him is endless; among others, that the ghost of Julius presaged his victory at Philippi ; that fishes leapt from the sea to do him homage; that a thunderbolt struck the letter C from the title of "Caesar" upon his statue, and thus made it AEsar," or Esus," which, in the Etruscan language, signified the deity (deus). The image of Augustus upon the coins of his own mintage, or that of his vassals, is surrounded with the halo of light which indicates divinity, and on the reverse of the coins are displayed the various emblems of religion, such as the mitre, cross, crook, fishes, labarum, and the Buddhic and Bacchic, or Dionysian monogram of P. His heavenly character was also attested by the miracle of his touch, which was sufficient to cure deformity or disease. So univer-
sally were his divine origin and attributes conceded, that many people, in dying, left their entire fortunes to his sacred (personal) fisc, in gratitude, as they themselves expressed it, for having been permitted to live during the incarnation and earthly sojourn of this Son of God.

In the course of 20 years he thus inherited no less than 35,000,000 aurei, each containing as much gold as the modern English sovereign. Many potentates bequeathed him not only their private fortunes, but also their kingdoms and people in vassalage. Not only was his godship accepted, it was exacted, both during and after his life-time. The senator Afidius Memla, for refusing to take an oath in the name of the god Augustus, was heavily punished; and the ancient city of Cyzicus, for neglecting the worship of Augustus, the Son of God, was deprived of its privileges. For removing the head from an image of Augustus, several persons were put to the torture and others executed. For changing one's clothes in the presence of his image, the penalty was death.

At a private feast which became known as the Supper of the Twelve Gods, twelve intimate friends of Augustus were attired as gods and goddesses, himself personating Apollo. His favorite titles, however, were Janus Quirinus and Dionysius, and as he had been initiated in the mysteries of Ceres, he was commonly worshipped as Augustus Dionysius, a statue of him in this character being depicted in Duruy's **Rome." He gave evidence of his humility and charity by publicly begging alms for the poor once a year, on the New Year day, holding his own hand forth to receive what was offered. As he approached his 76th year his coming demise was foretold by the sacred oracle, and when he sank at last to a peaceful rest, he was mourned by the whole empire.

A stately funeral bore his remains to the mausoleum, his dirge was chaunted by the children of the nobles, the Senate decreed him divine honors, and the Senator Numericus Atticus swore that he saw his
effigy ascend to heaven. A splendid representation of the Ascension, carved upon a huge cameo, was presented by the Emperor Baldwin II. to Louis IX. of France, and is now in the cabinet of France. It is depicted by Duruy, op. cit. Suetonius says that Augustus died on the 14th calends of September.
For sacerdotal reasons and in order to make it agree with a certain ancient festival, both of India and Egypt, his death and Ascension day has been fixed to August 29th, still dedicated to ** Saint Augustine."

The worship of Augustus was not, as the ecclesiastical schools have insinuated, a mere lip-service, a meaningless mode of saluting the sovereign-pontiff, an effusive form of adulation or flattery to the
emperor of Rome ; it was the worship of a personage who was believed to be supernatural, omniscient, all-powerful and beneficent, the reincarnation of Quirinus, the Son of the god Apollo and of the wife-
virgin Maia; "the god whose coming was foretold by the Cumaean Sibyl; whose sway was to extend over the whole earth; whose Conception and Birth were both miraculous; and whose Advent was to usher in the Golden Age of Peace and Plenty and to banish Sin forever. Such was his character in Rome.
In Greece he was worshipped as Dionysos; in Egypt as Thurinus; in Iberia and Gaul as i£sar, or
Hesus; and in Germany as Baldir; for all of these titles and many others will be found on his monuments, or have been preserved by his biographers.


https://archive.org/stream/worshipaugustus00margoog#page/n4/mode/2up

 

[Laura]

The whole Christianity shtick is totally a rehashed scam of a rehashed scam after the assassination of Caesar. Just mind boggling.

Yup. Augustus was a very bad boy.

 

[shijing]

Here's an interesting thing I thought I would note down as it happened. Don't know where it might lead, but it IS interesting.

Atriedes came to announce a thought he had earlier: that Caesar was also the model for the story of Arthur. I told him I'd thought of that already, which I had in passing, while reading "The Mantle of Caesar".

What is interesting is that just before he came in to propose this idea, I had just been reading about two of the earliest Latin grammarians, C. Octavius Lampadio and Q. Vargunteius. They did scholarly work on the even earlier works of the earliest known Latin writers, Naevius and Ennius.

I'm still catching up with a lot of the recent developments in this thread and trying to process it all, but in the meantime I've tried to do a bit of searching on anything that might be related to the above -- I hope there might be something in the below that will be helpful.

First, I tried to find anything related to the Arthur legend in the transcripts, and there are at least these two parts:

Q: (L) Who was Merlin?
A: English jolly fellow.

Q: (L) He wasn’t a great magician?
A: He was the Houdini of his time.

Q: (L) Okay, now: I would like to know if there was a real historic person behind the legend of King Arthur?
A: Close. Sorcerer’s Coven. Secret pact of coven is covenant.

Q: (L) Was this the Nordic Covenant behind the legend of King Arthur?
A: Not really.

Q: (L) I think that implies that there might be a connection?
A: Maybe there is something more like an offshoot.

Q: (L) The Nordic Covenant is an offshoot of the Arthurian Covenant or vice versa?
A: King Arthur story based on an offshoot of Nordic Covenant Root.

Q: (L) Okay, now you say that the Nordic Covenant can be positive or negative. Would the Arthurian Cycle be of the Positive Offshoot?
A: Both.

Q: (L) What period of time did this Sorcerer’s Coven...
A: During the “Dark Ages".

Q: (L) Can you get me closer to a year, or period of years?
A: We will let you do that.

Q: (L) The chief thing I noticed about this period of the Dark Ages is that from the time of the ‘birth of Christ,’ for about 1300 years, there is an incredible lack of documentation. Now, there were some manuscripts written by Monks, such as Gregory of Tours and so forth, but in general, the only things that have survived from this period are things put out by Monks under the control of the church. It is as though the whole world became illiterate. Is this, in fact, the case? Was it that nobody was writing anything down during this period?
A: Close.

Q: (L) Was any part of this because of the control of the Catholic Church over writing and education, and that they opposed everything that did not support their views?
A: Close.

Q: (L) So, what we have to work with is what we have to work with. And, I guess that’s as close as we can get. It isn’t a whole heck of a lot. How many people were in this Covenant?
A: Look for answers, trees will lead you to it.

Q: (L) What literary source could I go to to find the least distorted or corrupted information?
A: Trees.

Q: (L) How long has this Nordic Covenant been in existence?
A: Look for it.

So the reference to the Nordic Covenant and sorcerer's coven is interesting. So is the reference to "trees" in light of the recent talk about dendrochronology, although I don't know if that's what was referred to by that comment.

Here's some background material written by a person named David Nash Ford:

http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/kapopular.html

King Arthur in Literature
by David Nash Ford

The earliest full stories concerning King Arthur and his exploits appear to be the little known Welsh tales of "Culhwch and Olwen" and the "Dream of Rhonabwy". Though dating from before the 11th century, these two stories became a late attachment to a collection of Welsh mythological tales taken from the 14th century White Book of Rhydderch and Red Book of Hergest. Together, they are known as the "Mabinogion": an introduction for aspiring poets. 

Though the stories have a mythological slant, a certain amount of bardic poetic license is to be expected. Their background, however, is clearly an unfamiliar Dark Age society that gives us some idea of what the real Arthur was probably like.


The much-maligned Geoffrey of Monmouth, Archdeacon of Monmouth and later Bishop of St. Asaphs, first popularized King Arthur's story, around 1136, in his "History of the Kings of Britain". Though he was writing some six hundred years after Arthur's death, there is no reason to suppose that Geoffrey's history was "made up...from an inordinate love of lying" as both contemporary and modern historians almost universally insist. Geoffrey claimed he had taken most of his information from an earlier British source (he referred to it as "a certain, very ancient book written in the British language"; ed.), unknown to us today.

The early portion of his history clearly relates the mythology of the Celtic peoples and the stories of their gods, whom his source had turned into early Kings: Bladud, Leir, Belenus, Brennius and so on. Later in his account, however, he turns to real history. From the time of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain in 55 BC, which both Geoffrey and the great man (ie. Caesar), himself, relate at great length, we can no longer be sure that the Archdeacon is reciting mere legend. Much of his information has corroborative historical sources like this. Who is to say that everything he tells us, from then on, is not pure fact? Furthermore, Geoffrey was the only source to hail the existence of King Tenvantius of Britain, until modern archaeologists began finding Iron Age coins bearing his name: "Tasciovantus".

What other gems of Geoffrey's history have been dismissed by today's historians?
It was the French medieval poet, Chrétien de Troyes, however who, not long after Geoffrey, introduced us to most of the characters and tales that we now think of as an integral part of the Arthurian story. He specialized in tales of Arthurian courtly love and thus brought us: Erec & Enid (1160), Lancelot (c.1162), Cligés (1164), Yvain (c.1170) and the Count of the Grail (also known as Perceval) (1180). He transformed the names of Geoffrey's characters from Welsh to the medieval French used today. It was Chrétien and those who followed him who distorted the Arthurian story, so that the true historical Arthur became lost in an amalgam of Celtic myth and literary fantasy. For example, neither Lancelot nor the Holy Grail were part of the Arthurian legend before Chrétien came along. Both do have origins in early Celtic myth, but there is little justification for including them in Arthur's story.

During the early 13th century, the anonymous Vulgate Cycle further embellished the Arthurian stories. This collection of romantic prose was apparently put together by Cistercian clerics between 1215 and 1235, some say at the instigation of their founder, St. Bernard of Clairvaux. The vast work consists of the Prose Lancelot, Queste del Sainte Graal, Estoire del Sainte Graal, Mort Artu and Vulgate Merlin. It is particularly noted for introducing the idea that Mordred was the incestuous son of King Arthur.

Sir Thomas Malory's 15th century work, "Le Morte d'Arthur" is, perhaps, better known than Geoffrey or Chrétien. He took their stories and retold them with an epic unity, creating the Romantic Age of Chivalry. With one stroke of his pen, he transformed Arthur's Court from Dark Age obscurity to the height of medieval pageantry. Being written in English and printed by William Caxton, "Le Morte d'Arthur" was instantly available to the masses, and it remains highly popular, even today, as a classic work of literature.

Malory's work, however, is just that: a work of literature. There is little history left amongst his pages.
Arthur's modern popularity owes much to his re-emergence during the Victorian Age at the hands of Alfred, Lord Tennyson. His huge poetic elegy entitled "Idylls of the King" led to a resurgence in interest in this early monarch, as reflected in much of the pre-Raphælite art of the time. The fascination is still going strong today. However, modern Arthurian students have become much more critical of the romantic picture woven by many of these literary greats. Nowadays, we tend to be much more interested in the real Arthur, drawing upon the Mabinogion, Geoffrey and beyond, to examine historical sources that may just show us a glimpse of the truth behind this strangely compelling character.

http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/kamyth.html

King Arthur, the Myth
by David Nash Ford

Some people believe that King Arthur is so inextricably tied up in Celtic Mythology that he must, in origin, have been, not a man at all, but a god.
Like so many other characters featured in the Mabinogion, Arthur in his earliest form, appears almost entirely mythical. He and his companions have superhuman strength and abilities, and consort with giants and other mythological creatures. 
In the early Welsh poem "Preiddeu Annwfn", Arthur visits the Celtic Underworld, Annwfn, and his adventures closely parallel those of the cauldron-seeking god, Bran the Blessed. Even in Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain," and Sir Thomas Malory's "Le Morte D'Arthur," upon being fatally wounded in battle, Arthur is carried to the mystical Avalon, apparently the Underworld home of the Celtic god, Afallach. Many legends around the country attest to Arthur's immortality. He is said to be sleeping in one of numerous caves waiting to return and lead his people.


The name Arthur itself appears to derive from the Celtic word Art, meaning "bear" {see alternative etymology below}. Could Arthur, like so many other Celtic gods, be merely a personification of the many revered animals of the wild? Later to become humanized like Loucetios, one of several Celtic deities known to be able to transform themselves into birds or beasts of the forest. Many such gods had stellar associations and the constellation of Ursa Major or the Great Bear is sometimes known as Arthur's Wain even today.
Three Bear-gods are known from the Celtic world. Strangely, they acted as both champion of bear-hunters and protectors of the beast itself. The most celebrated was, perhaps, Artio, worshipped near Berne in Switzerland and around Trier in Germany; but she was actually a goddess. A male god, Artaios, was revered in Beaucroissant in Isere, where he was identified with the Roman Mercury. In Britain there is scant evidence for the bear cult, though a number of small jet bear talismans from Yorkshire may have devotional associations. The god to which they probably relate, however, derives his name from the alternative bear word, matus (Gaulish) or math (Irish). Matunus appears to have had a shrine at Risingham, just north of Hadrian's Wall.
Some theorists claim Arthur was a late addition to the Celtic pantheon during a resurgence in pagan worship, or possibly a mythical hero, the offspring of a human and a bear. There is no evidence for either. (See Ashe 1985).


Regarding the origin of "Arthur", there is an alternate explanation on Wikipedia:

The origin of the name Arthur remains a matter of debate. Some suggest it is derived from the Roman nomen gentile (family name) Artōrius, of obscure and contested etymology (but possibly of Messapic or Etruscan origin). Some scholars have noted that the legendary King Arthur's name only appears as Arthur, or Arturus, in early Latin Arthurian texts, never as Artōrius (although the Classical Latin Artōrius became Arturius in some Vulgar Latin dialects). However, this may not say anything about the origin of the name Arthur, as Artōrius would regularly become Art(h)ur when borrowed into Welsh.

Another possibility is that it is derived from a Brittonic patronym *Arto-rīg-ios (the root of which, *arto-rīg- "bear-king" is to be found in the Old Irish personal name Art-ri) via a Latinized form Artōrius. Less likely is the commonly proposed derivation from Welsh arth "bear" + (g)wr "man" (earlier *Arto-uiros in Brittonic); there are phonological difficulties with this theory - notably that a Brittonic compound name *Arto-uiros should produce Old Welsh *Artgur and Middle/Modern Welsh *Arthwr and not Arthur (in Welsh poetry the name is always spelled Arthur and is exclusively rhymed with words ending in -ur - never words ending in -wr - which confirms that the second element cannot be [g]wr "man").

An alternative theory, which has only gained limited acceptance among scholars, derives the name Arthur from the Latin Arcturus (the brightest star in the constellation Boötes, near Ursa Major or the Great Bear), which is the latinisation of the Greek Αρκτοῦρος (Arktouros) and means "Guardian of the Bear", ultimately from ἄρκτος (arktos), "bear" + οὖρος (ouros), "watcher, guardian". Classical Latin Arcturus would also have become Art(h)ur when borrowed into Welsh, and its brightness and position in the sky led people to regard it as the "guardian of the bear" and the "leader" of the other stars in Boötes.

A similar first name is Old Irish Artúr, which is believed to be derived directly from an early Old Welsh or Cumbric Artur. The earliest historically attested bearer of the name is a son or grandson of Áedán mac Gabráin (d. AD 609).

http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/kageneral.html

King Arthur, General of the Britons
A discussion by David Nash Ford

Though Arthur is quite firmly established as an historical figure, there appears to be little evidence that he was the King of tradition. To quote Nennius,

Arthur fought...together with the Kings of the British; but he was Dux Bellorum.

This would seem to confirm the popular view today that Arthur was a professional soldier: a brilliant military leader employed in an official capacity by an alliance of British Kings to carry out their warfare against all coming enemies.
 "Dux Bellorum" translates literally as Duke of Battles. This might be comparable to the Roman "Dux Britannorum" in charge of the Northern British defences. Though many think the Roman "Comes British History Clubrum" a better fit, for he led mobile cavalry forces across the country, as perhaps indicated by Arthur's supposed widespread battles. 

None of this, however, precludes Arthur from also being a King. Nennius may have intended his phrase to imply that Arthur was one of the Kings alongside whom he fought, yet he was the greatest warrior among them. If the more formal title of Dux or Comes was meant, then perhaps a High-Kingship is implied as tradition would suggest. Early sources, no doubt, assumed that everyone already knew Arthur was a King, as with most Royal entries in the Annales Cambriae. There was no need to announce it.

In The Grail Legend by Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz, it also says (p. 23-24):

British national traditions and tribal history, into which the fairy-tale motifs are interwoven like an iridescent thread, provide a further source for the Contes bretons. The tales are set against the historico-legendary background of King Arthur's Court. The first mention of Arthur in literature is in a Historia Britonum, attributed to one Nennius, which very likely appeared towards the end of the ninth century. In this work Arthur is referred to not as king but as dux bellorum, commander-in-chief, who, as leader of the Britons, vanquished the invading Saxons in twelve battles, the last of which took place in A.D. 516. The battles with the Saxons, who invaded Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries and drove the indigenous inhabitants further and further west into mountainous and inaccessible Wales and even as far as Brittany, together with a geographical description and a few legends and genealogies, comprise the main content of the Historia.

In the first half of the twelfth century, around 1135, a cleric, Geoffrey of Monmouth, wrote a history of the British kings of Britain, the Historia regum Britanniae, in the course of which he delved into the older, anonymous Historia of Nennius besides making use of other, oral traditions and, indeed, allowing his own fantasy considerable rein as well. He states that he took his material from a book which Walter of Oxford brought over from Brittany and which he, Geoffrey, translated. This history won great approval and shortly after its appearance was translated into French by a Norman called Wace and published by him under the title Brut. (According to Geoffrey, a descendant of the Royal House of Troy, by name of Brutus, was said to have been the ancestor of the Britons, who derived their name from him.) The translators Wace and Layamon, who rendered Brut into Anglo-Norman, added all sorts of features not included by Geoffrey. Wace, for instance, mentions Arthur's Round Table for the first time ("la table dont les Bretons disent maintes fables"), which was round so that no disputes as to precedence should arise among those privileged to sit at it. Stories about Arthur must therefore already have been popular at that time, even though the historical accounts of him are extremely meagre. As conqueror of the foreign invaders and saviour of Britain he became a national hero and attained an almost mythical importance. This is expressed by the belief, among others, that he did not perish in his last battle but was thought to be spending his time on the fairy Isle of Avalon, from whence at some future date he would return to take up his leadership once again...

There's some additional information by someone named Paul V. Hartman:

http://www.naciente.com/essay87.htm

King Arthur - The Once and Future King

~~ Paul V. Hartman ~~

The most familiar story of Arthur originated with Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain", c.1136. The story, as I distill it, goes like this:

Troy falls. (1200 BC) Aeneas migrates with men to Italy. His great grandson, Brutus, leads a party of Trojans to Albion (Britain), uninhabited except for a few giants. (Descendants of Brutus are called Britons. They will also establish Brittany.) There are about 75 kings that follow, and much nonsense. (One king can fly. King Lear appears, the source of the play.)

Romans arrive in 54 BC (Caesar). Invasions begin, mainly Picts (from Scotland) and Saxons (from Germany.) By the early 6th Century, the King is Vortigern, who is forced to flee west to Wales from the invading Saxons. Merlin appears, helps Vortigern. Princes of an earlier King ("Constantine") arrive from Brittany: Ambrosius, and Uther. Ambrosius conquers, rules briefly, is succeeded by his brother Uther (Pendragon). Uther lusts after Ygerna, wife of Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall. Merlin, now allied with Uther, casts a spell to make Uther resemble Gorlois and mate with Ygerna at Tintagle castle, the resulting child being Arthur. Gorlois dies in battle with Uther's men and Uther marries Ygerna. Uther reigns 15 years after Arthur's birth. 
Arthur carries a sword, Caliburn, forged on the Isle of Avalon, an enchanted place, and has much success against the Saxons. He takes as bride a girl of Roman descent, Guinevere. Arthur builds a cavalry to oppose further invaders, nearly always infantry arriving by ship. Merlin produces the stones at Stonehenge. Arthur conquers Ireland and then Iceland (not too hard; it was uninhabited in 6th Century.) At court in Caerlean, there are tournaments, pageantry, chivalrous things. Arthur gathers kings from other countries, and they sit around a Table and conduct diplomacy, etc. Arthur then conquers Norway, Denmark, and France!

A messenger from Rome informs Arthur that he must pay tribute. Arthur, instead, invades Roman-ruled Gaul, leaving his nephew Modred in charge. Arthur defeats the Romans in Burgundy. Meanwhile, Modred turns traitor, seizes Guinevere. Arthur returns, kills Modred, but, badly wounded, is carried off to Avalon, to be treated by an enchantress, Morgen, this occurring about 470 AD. The Arthur story ends here, but Geoffrey's account continues.

Other mentioned characters are: Gawain, Kay, Bedevere, and a Saxon chief, Cheldric. The Table is described as "round" in a later French translation (1155) of this "history". Geoffrey's story continues with Britain being invaded by Africans (?!), and the remaining Britons retreating to Wales; Angles occupy most of England (Angle-land). The history contains tales of dragons and giants.

What We Know

For millennia, Britain stood at the edge of the inhabited world, an inhospitable land, the weather inclement. Nevertheless it was settled by stone age peoples during interglacial warm periods, arriving over the land bridge from France and Denmark before melting water at the end of the last glaciation covered it to form the English Channel at about 5,000 BC. These people would advance through the Stone Age, Bronze, and Iron (though the steps are delayed significantly by the infrequent interplay of distant travelers, in comparison to other parts of Europe) and as the late Bronze Age runs out (about 1500 BC), Britain's earlier people are gradually blended into migrant western Europeans belonging to the Celts (subgroups: Gauls, Britons, Irish, Picts, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, and others) bands of whom have been arriving for centuries.

The Celts ("kelts") speak Celtic, share cultural features, but are not a distinct people. Stone monuments (ie Stonehenge c.2150 BC) were a part of the Celtic culture. Their religion of human sacrifice and woman (goddess) worship will survive longest in the form of the Druids in Britain, be eliminated by, first the Roman Empire, and, then the emerging Christian movement everywhere. Thus, prior to Roman invasion, the "Britons" (sometimes: "Bretons") are mainly European Celts who arrived and dispersed over the British Isles during an approximate 5,000 year period.

In 54 BC, Julius Caesar arrives to establish Roman hegemony over southern Britain, centered at Londinium. The Romans, of course, dominate the known world in culture, literature, commerce, clothing, and coinage, and are advanced in metal work, sculpture and architecture. Though the Romans have been an Iron Age people for centuries, the Britons are only at the edge of it, and technologically inferior. The Romans will bring masonry buildings and underground plumbing, among other advanced features, to a very primitive land, things that will be forgotten by the people of Britain when the Romans leave.

The Romans are largely bothered by the Irish (whom they call "Scotti" - a word meaning "raider") and the Picts (a word which means "painted people") from the northern part of the country, and Emperor Hadrian will build a wall (120 AD) to discourage the Picts from raiding south. The Romans will also encourage Germanic peoples (Angles, Jutes, Saxons) to migrate to Britain to aid Rome against Scotti, Picts, and other sea-born invaders. (Of note is that the Scotti will invade the western part of Pictland, eventually displace them, and give this part of the country the name Scotland. In essence, the Irish and the Scots derive from the same stock. No surprise - they both favor plaids!)

By 400 AD the Roman Empire is in decline in the west, the east ascendant in Constantinople, and the last Roman emperor will be deposed in 476; the Popes will appear then. But England, at the far range of the Roman empire, will be first to be independent. Prior to 400, however, Roman government and culture predominates in Britain: agriculture is based on the villa model, and there is grain for export. Metals are mined. Latin is the language of court. Coinage is Roman.

In the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, Europe is swept by waves of barbarians, some of which find their way (by boat) to Britain. About 410, Rome abandons Britain forever. The Britons adopt the Irish system of (tribal) Kings and a High King. The Britons must now deal directly with the Picts and Scotti and, like the Romans before them, will bring in Germanic people to assist militarily. The Angles and Saxons (eventually, collectively called the "English") will bring families and settle permanently, upon which they will become the "problem." At least one early High King of the Britons survives in legitimate history: Vortigern.

Meanwhile, in Gaul, (about 465) the Visigoths are on rampage, and the weak Roman authorities invite a powerful British king, called Riothamus ("ree-ATH-ah-mas"), to oppose them. It is thought by some that Riothamus is not a name, but an honorific, meaning "King, High", (in the manner of Octavian always being called Augustus) and may be the source of the Arthur legend, the king thus known as Arthur in Britain and as Riothamus by others, and elsewhere. In any event, this king is badly wounded in a major battle and is carried off to Avalon (a real place in France) whence he disappears! (Ah, the stuff of legend.) This person seems well established in history.

In Gaul, the locals, called Franks, rally under a King Clovis, and drive the Visigoths into Spain. (Gaul subsequently will be known as "France".) By 480, in Britain, any towns or anything Roman is abandoned as the natives revert to timber and earthworks. Coinage disappears. Regions establish dialects - Welsh, Cornish, Gaelic, etc. The Britons will stop the practice of giving Roman names to children.

In the fifth and sixth centuries, the Britons must now face off against the English (Angles and Saxons), and many battles will be fought. The English will eventually triumph (losing out to the Normans in 1066), the Briton residual taking refuge in Wales. The King Arthur question, essentially, is whether a great military leader of the Britons wins a major battle against the English (at Mount Badon or anywhere else) sufficient to convince the Britons, at the time, that they have finally extinguished the English. (That this was only a major reversal for the English, rather than a permanent defeat, was probably recognized within a generation.) On that question the evidence is mixed, as the time period in consideration falls between the reasonably accurate Roman historical accounts (ending in 400 AD) and the suspicious historical accounts afterward.

Written history prior to 1000 AD is scarce. The unknown author of the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle", a sixth century account of wars in Southeast Britain heavily biased in favor of English accomplishments, does not mention Arthur. Another source, Gildas, a monk, wrote "The Ruin and Conquest of Britain" c.540, which is more sermonizing than history, but neither Arthur nor Riothamus are mentioned. The Venerable Bede, writing "Ecclesiastical History of the English People" in the 8th Century, likewise mentions neither.

But a monk in Wales, Nennius, wrote (c.800) a "Historia Brittonum", and does mention Arthur and a great battle at Mount Badon. Since the Briton survivors occupy Wales, this could be either a biased account, or the only accurate one, based on the better information about the Britons available where Britons lived.

We need note that old stories told and sung in Medieval times, during which these accounts were written, were regularly brought up to date (contemporized) as to clothing, living styles, and culture, the writers supposing, erroneously, that these things were always the same. (Later, in the Renaissance, painters would do the same thing in regard to earlier historical events, putting 16th Century European clothing on Biblical characters.) This explains a lot of anachronisms such as armor, stone castles, jousts, etc., which did not actually appear in Britain until centuries after Arthur's time, though they existed in the Mediterranean region for more than a thousand years. (See Note 1)

As to places mentioned in Arthurian legends: 1) Tintagle, a real place, was a stronghold defended by a causeway, in the 5th Century. Stonework would have been of Roman construction. 2) Cadbury castle, an 18 acre plateau surrounded by earthworks, dates from Roman times, and archeology work suggests it was an important administrative/military site c.450-470; it has the best claim to being "Camelot." 3) Glastonbury was a very watery place in the 400's. In 1191 the monks there discovered a grave, covered with a stone, underneath of which was a lead cross, containing the phrase "here lies Arturius in Avalon". (The opposite side was said to mention Guinevere.) Beneath the stone was a coffin made from a hollowed tree trunk, containing the bones of a tall man. Dismissed for centuries as a fake, (the bones and the cross disappeared), the site was re-explored in 1963 and found to contain 5th Century graves. (See note 2)

Much of what is today regarded as the legend of King Arthur was added by later authors, bards, and poets, and most recently, Hollywood. In addition to the Table becoming round, the sword (now called Excalibur) comes from either an enchanted stone, a cold fire, or the hand of a Lady of the Lake, depending on who is telling the story. The Holy Grail, as esoteric Christianity with pagan imagery, becomes a part of the story. The Siege Perilous appears as a chair which no one could occupy except a knight determined to find the Grail.

Although the warriors of 500 AD Britain walked to battle with wooden shields and spears, lived behind wooden palisades for protection, and generally avoided the masonry constructs of the earlier Romans, they are regularly regarded today as having lived a 13th century life: stone castles, drawbridges, metal armor, war horses, jousts, colorful clothing, and a life of chivalry. In a Hollywood film, "Excalibur", all of this is reduced to final absurdity. Not only do Arthur and his knights wear armor that is stainless steel, they wear it in lovemaking, at mealtime, and to bed.

In addition, the armor contains pointed projections (borrowed from illustrations of characters in contemporary "Dungeons and Dragons" fantasy games and tales) that, if actually added to armor, would alter a glancing blow to one of full impact, a decided disadvantage. Although these knights are portrayed as living in a castle at Camelot with stone walls 30 feet high and 20 feet thick, they still feel obliged to assemble leisurely at the Round Table in full battle array!

If there was a real person who became the Arthur legend, which now seems reasonable to believe, the embellishment began almost immediately, and continues apace, today.

* * * *
Note 1. Though it is true that Roman things were generally abandoned, it cannot be concluded that everyone abandoned them. The Romans employed cavalry - perhaps heavily armored - and it is not a fantasy to suppose that a strong ruler, particularly if descended from Romans, might take advantage of weapons, shields, horses, and techniques left behind by the soldiers of Rome. This could be especially important against Anglo-Saxons, who were not horsemen.



Note 2. Though the lead cross has disappeared, its inscription was recorded by 12th century monks on parchment. Modern investigators say that the writing is 10th century Latin, not 5th, 6th, which it should have been if original. Nor was it 12th century, when it was supposedly found. But - in the 10th century the gravesite was elevated and restored, and deteriorating markers may well have been re-made for the restored site. This could explain the curious dating recorded in the inscription. Modern scholars earn PhD's by uncovering this kind of stuff.



Note 3. Revisiting the name "Riothamus", we know that "Ri", "Rea" and other permutations of the sound meant "King." Thus, we have "Ree-Ath-ah-mahs" or "Ree-Ath-ah". King Arthur.

Given what's been written on the past few pages of this thread, at least some of the dates above are probably open to revision. Hartman also links to another site with more information about Arthur that I hope may be useful:

http://www.britannia.com/history/h12.html

Finally, although it may be neither here nor there, I ran across this movie synopsis where the writers try to create a bridge between Arthur and Rome:

http://childrenofarthur.wordpress.com/tag/julius-caesar/

The Last Legion – Film Connects Roman Emperor to Arthurian Genealogy

Of the three recent films about the Ninth Legion in Britain that mysteriously disappeared in the second century, The Last Legion (2007) was the film I was most interested in watching because it took place just prior to the time of King Arthur and was said to provide a link to the Arthurian legend. In that respect, it did not disappoint, and while I think The Eagle was a more intelligent film that raised questions about Rome and its right to occupy Britain, I enjoyed The Last Legion the most. One of my friends said it was more “predictable” than the other films, notably The Centurion, but I feel the film set out to tie the legend to the Roman emperors and successfully did so.

The cast of The Last Legion is more impressive than the other two films. Colin Firth plays the lead role, the soldier who must protect the child emperor after Odaecer of the Goths invades and conquerors Rome. Ben Kingsley plays the wise old man Ambrosinus who has come from Britain seeking Julius Caesar’s lost sword, and the child emperor, Romulus Augustus, is played by Thomas Sangster, who will be known to Arthurian film fans as playing the boy Tristan in Tristan and Isolde with James Franco playing the adult Tristan.

The story begins with mention of the sword of Julius Caesar which is fated to become the sword Excalibur. The boy Romulus Augustus has just been made emperor of Rome. The film is a bit in error timewise by saying it begins in the year 460 when Romulus Augustus reigned from 475-6 (the book the film is based on gets this fact correct–why the change?). The Goths invaded Rome and Romulus was deposed as Caesar after ten short months, although in the film it is the day after Romulus is crowned. The Roman empire then fell with a Goth taking the crown and ruling the empire, while the Eastern (Byzantine empire) would remain in power another ten centuries. History does not state what became of Romulus other than he was sent to live in Campania and then disappears from the historical record. The film takes advantage of this lost information to tie the boy to Britain. But first, he is taken as a prisoner to the Isle of Capri.

General Aurelius is determined to rescue the young emperor, and meanwhile Ambrosinus has come from Britain to Rome to seek the sword of Julius Caesar. It is predictable that the sword will be found on Capri, formerly home to Roman emperors, and then Aurelius, Ambrosianus, Romulus, and a few other companions, including a woman disguised as a male soldier (Colin Firth’s required love interest in the film), manage to escape Capri, make it over the Alps, and eventually reach Britain, where they also discover the remainder of the Ninth Legion (although it would have disappeared three hundred years earlier – the film’s largest historical inaccuracy, while in the book a fictional Twelfth Legion was actually used). Together they join in fighting Vortigyn (the film’s version of Vortigern) and his Saxon mercenaries (in the novel, but not the film, it states that it’s the legendary Battle of Badon Hill where Arthur defeated the Saxons, typically dated to about the year 516).

If you read this article farther, there will be a bit of a spoiler, although any discerning filmgoer will foresee what happens next. Aurelius is typically in legend King Arthur’s uncle, the brother to Uther Pendragon. He is often known as Aurelius Ambrosius, so the film is obviously using a version of Ambrosius for Ben Kingsley’s character. No blood relationship exists between Aurelius, Ambrosinus, or Romulus in the film, but the suggestions behind the familiar legendary names are there. In the film, in Britain there is also a young girl named Igraine who ends up later marrying Romulus, who decides to change his name to Pendragon. Guess who their child is. In the final scene, Merlin (another of Ambrosinus’ names – another big surprise) tells a young Arthur the story of his parents.

The film plays fast and loose with history, but Arthurian works always do, trying to create a historical atmosphere against which the legend could have taken place. I find the way the film links Arthur to Rome to be interesting since Arthur typically claims to be descended from a Roman emperor, although it is usually Magnus Maximus, and in Malory, it is Constantine. Arthur’s lineage also traces back to Rome through, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth in the Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), Brutus from whose name Britain comes. Brutus was a descendant of Aeneas, the founder of the Roman empire and one of the survivors who fled when Troy was destroyed (both the costume designer and swordmaster of the film, interestingly, had worked on the film Troy). Romulus, besides being the historical last emperor of Rome, also has a counterpart who is the founder of Rome in ancient legend.

The film has its moments of corniness and exaggerated action, but most films do, and this film at least is trying to be corny in its romantic and adventurous storylines. It is not a great film. I would not even say it is one of the better Arthurian films (it’s questionable whether there has ever been a great Arthurian film), but it succeeds in what it sets out to accomplish, creating an intriguing storyline that ties Rome and Arthurian Britain together, provides some light moments of comedy, and a lot of magic in creating a sense of wonder about how the legend of King Arthur may have happened. If you like a little myth and wonder woven into depictions of Roman Britain, this may be the film you will most enjoy, while if you like gritty realism, The Centurion or The Eagle may be more your style. I’m not sure that one of these films is better than the other–they are just different. If I had to choose a favorite, it would be The Last Legion. If I had to pick one as the best, I would say The Eagle. Interestingly, The Last Legion may be the film least about the Ninth Legion, yet the only one named for it.

For those interested in Arthurian literature, the film is based on an Italian novel of the same name written by Valerio Massimo Manfredi in 2003. It was translated into English in 2005.

In future posts, I will write about more films that tie Arthurian Britain to Rome, but more specifically in the time of Arthur. I’ll note here that Rosemary Sutcliff, author of The Eagle of the Ninth (upon which The Eagle was based) was the first author to create a novel, Sword at Sunset (1959), based upon trying to place King Arthur within his historical post-Roman world, and that effort along with continued archeological efforts, has contributed to this trend to create a more historical depiction in fiction of King Arthur and his world.

Back to trying to understand precessions, etc....

 

[Gaby]

_http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU

Added: Universe Today had this to say about the video: _http://www.universetoday.com/107322/is-the-solar-system-really-a-vortex/

Is it something like the above?

Not sure myself but your comment made me think of a similar video to the one above that I saw a couple of years back.

That was the concept yeah, and I watched it a couple of years ago as well. The 2 part video on youtube has pretty cool graphics and illustrations, but I see there is controversy.