It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Cymry or the true history of Britain.

page: 15
40
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost

originally posted by: Gallowglaich

You see, urbanghost here has already shown some ignorance on the first page when he started talking about how Picts were "Gaelic and from Ireland".



If you had bothered to read the next page you would see that I was quoting what the Welsh manuscripts say about the picts.


I don't give a f*ck about what these Welsh manuscripts say about Picts, some misinformed Welsh conspiracy theorist proclaiming to know everything about British history doesn't mean anything. In fact, in seems you know little outside the history of your own country.

If the Picts came from Ireland, who was there before? Was Scotland magically devoid of a population before the magical "Gaelic Picts" came and magically populated Scotland a few thousand years ago.

Sorry buddy, but you're wrong. There have been people living in Scotland since the first settlers stepped foot on this island. There are archaeological finds from the Mesolithic period proving this. The Scottish people are for the most part descended from the same people who have been living there since pre-history, barring recent Gaelic and Norse genetic input.

Don't speak on countries you know nothing of. I think I will trust archeologists and historians over a conspiracy theorist Welshman getting his information from dubious and (as yet) unverified sources.




posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
I don't give a f*ck about what these Welsh manuscripts say about Picts, some misinformed Welsh conspiracy theorist proclaiming to know everything about British history doesn't mean anything. In fact, in seems you know little outside the history of your own country.


You are getting awful upset over some stories. I am not claiming anything, I am only saying what the manuscripts say. If you don't believe them, then that's your choice. Being abusive and insulting gets you nowhere.



There have been people living in Scotland since the first settlers stepped foot on this island. There are archaeological finds from the Mesolithic period proving this.


The oldest human burial in Britain was found in Wales, 33,000 years old from the Upper Paleolithic. It is the oldest Human find in Western Europe



from dubious and (as yet) unverified sources.

All the manuscripts are online, look for yourself.
edit on 4-5-2014 by urbanghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
I don't give a f*ck about what these Welsh manuscripts say about Picts, some misinformed Welsh conspiracy theorist proclaiming to know everything about British history doesn't mean anything. In fact, in seems you know little outside the history of your own country.


You are getting awful upset over some stories. I am not claiming anything, I am only saying what the manuscripts say. If you don't believe them, then that's your choice. Being abusive and insulting gets you nowhere.



from dubious and (as yet) unverified sources.

All the manuscripts are online, look for yourself.


People presuming to make false claims about my people makes me upset. Go to any Scotsman and tell him he's Irish, and he'll either laugh or get angry.

What you are trying to do is pass these stories off as "true history". It even says so in the title. Those Welsh manuscripts were written by people who had little contact with the other Celts since after the beginning of Roman occupation. They had much closer ties to the Romano-Britons and the Romans than they did to the Gaels or the Northern tribes. To be quite honest, they probably adopted the same Roman view of the other Celts as barbarous savages, little more than animals. The Romans had a remarkable way of causing the people they conquered to adopt their beliefs. Romanization, as it's called.

So really, forgive me if I don't trust those sources. In the same way that historians who study period literature know to take with a grain of salt accounts by one people about another they considered their enemy.

Should we believe the Frankish Crusaders were compelled to victory against the heathen Saracens in the Siege of Antioch, because of the divine power of the "Holy Lance"? Should we believe that the First Crusade succeeded because "God willed it" and the Muslim Saracens were "wicked blasphemers and infidels"?

Obviously not, but the contemporary Christian historical sources say those exact things. Which is why we really shouldn't put too much faith in some Dark Ages Welsh writings and treat them as pure unadulterated truth.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Gallowglaich



It even says so in the title.

These stories and legends are the true history of Britain, there are no other stories before them.



Which is why we really shouldn't put too much faith in some Dark Ages Welsh writings and treat them as pure unadultered truth.


You have obviously never even read any of them. Most of them are not stories, you are thinking of the mabinogion, a book of myths and legends. There are genealogies, books of laws, books of historical fact, astronomy, herbal lore and medicine. All these books correspond with other books written by others who are not Welsh. They are the oldest written records from this country not written by outsiders. Yet you dismiss them and take them with a grain of salt? And you haven't even read them?
I am not saying that they are all word for word fact. You have just assumed that. I am just relaying what they say, which you can check yourself if you doubt the translations I am giving.
edit on 4-5-2014 by urbanghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost
a reply to: Gallowglaich



It even says so in the title.

These stories and legends are the true history of Britain, there are no other stories before them.



Which is why we really shouldn't put too much faith in some Dark Ages Welsh writings and treat them as pure unadultered truth.


You have obviously never even read any of them. Most of them are not stories, you are thinking of the mabinogion, a book of myths and legends. There are genealogies, books of laws, books of historical fact, astronomy, herbal lore and medicine. All these books correspond with other books written by others who are not Welsh. They are the oldest written records from this country not written by outsiders. Yet you dismiss them and take them with a grain of salt? And you haven't even read them?
I am not saying that they are all word for word fact. You have just assumed that. I am just relaying what they say, which you can check yourself if you doubt the translations I am giving.


All I can say is, I have no doubt those writings are 100% accurate concerning the Welsh.

But as far as their accuracy concerning remote tribes like the Picts? I would definitely take it with a grain of salt.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gallowglaich
So they are accurate about the welsh but everything else in them is not? How does that work? Irish manuscripts also concur with the Welsh ones. Are they also incorrect and to be taken with a grain of salt?
Even The Gododdin the oldest work of Scottish literature was written in Welsh. Is that also incorrect about Scotland?
How can you possibly say something is inaccurate if you know nothing about them? Maybe you should read them before dismissing them.


edit on 4-5-2014 by urbanghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost
a reply to: Gallowglaich
So they are accurate about the welsh but everything else in them is not? How does that work? Irish manuscripts also concur with the Welsh ones. Are they also incorrect and to be taken with a grain of salt?
Even The Gododdin the oldest work of Scottish literature was written in Welsh. Is that also incorrect about Scotland?
How can you possibly say something is inaccurate if you know nothing about them? Maybe you should read them before dismissing them.



I am only disputing one thing: grouping the Irish Cruithne with Picts as the same people. As I already explained in a previous post, it comes from an Irish translation for a people they had no other name for. Basically, some Irish settlers from the Northeast (Ulster) came to western Scotland (Argyllshire) and settled there, so the Irish just called all the Caledonians "Cruithne", after the small group of their countrymen who went there.

Either it is a mistranslation by you, or this is an example of period literature being wrong sometimes. Because let's face it, when you said the Picts only "arrived" in the first centuries AD, I almost laughed out loud it was so ridiculous. The Romans first fought with them before the end of 100 AD. In the battle of Mons Grapius the Romans fought them year 83 AD.They were already there. Already had been there for centuries.

So that is the only thing I'm disputing. Nothing else. For all I know, all the rest of it could be correct. I will read it all when I find I few hours to sit down and focus.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:26 PM
link   
You clearly do know far more than me about Welsh history and I wouldn't try to argue with you there. You obviously know more about your country.

However, when you said the Picts spoke Gaelic on the first page of this thread, I knew right away you weren't very well-informed about Scottish history.

So please do not try to refute my knowledge of my own country with vague archaic transcripts that you might not even fully understand.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kester
a reply to: Gallowglaich

You seem jolly well informed. Can you tell us anything about the stone built Irish sweat lodges and the fungi consumed before entering them? Within t and c of course.

I had it from an illiterate Irish prize fighter that in his childhood the old folks would give the visiting youths mushrooms to eat and instruct them in some of the old ways so I won't take denial of that as being fact.

Hope this isn't getting too close to the edge.


This is an interesting thing, it seems the Irish probably had contact with the Americas and may indeed have been voyaging there for thousands of years. It stands to reason, Ireland being an island and the most western country in Europe:

www.heritage.nf.ca...

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Gallowglaich



I am only disputing one thing: grouping the Irish Cruithne with Picts as the same people.


You keep going on about the Cruithne, asying I am mixing them up with the picts. I have never in this thread even mentioned the Cruithne, only you have. So how am I grouping anyone together if I have never even mentioned them? Why make something up and use it as an argument against what I said? Show me where I have said that they and the picts are one and the same. I haven't, you just made that up.
So far you have said I am a nationalist, I have mistranslated and misquoted, I am making up things entirely and I am a conspiracy theorist. All this because you misinterpreted what this thread is about and got upset over something that is not even real outside of your accusations.
So if its ok with you, can we get back to what this thread is about? The welsh manuscripts, true or not.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
You clearly do know far more than me about Welsh history and I wouldn't try to argue with you there. You obviously know more about your country.

However, when you said the Picts spoke Gaelic on the first page of this thread, I knew right away you weren't very well-informed about Scottish history.

So please do not try to refute my knowledge of my own country with vague archaic transcripts that you might not even fully understand.

That was a mistake and duly noted, I meant the scots. Again you are just picking on one genuine tiny mistake to try to discredit me.
Knowledge of your country that hasn't come out of the ground, wether you like it or not comes mostly from Welsh manuscripts, seeing as they were the only ones apart from the irish who wrote anything about them. Digging holes doesn't give you names of kings and princes or customs and legends, where do you think these have come from. A trench?



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost
a reply to: Gallowglaich



I am only disputing one thing: grouping the Irish Cruithne with Picts as the same people.


You keep going on about the Cruithne, asying I am mixing them up with the picts. I have never in this thread even mentioned the Cruithne, only you have. So how am I grouping anyone together if I have never even mentioned them? Why make something up and use it as an argument against what I said? Show me where I have said that they and the picts are one and the same. I haven't, you just made that up.
So far you have said I am a nationalist, I have mistranslated and misquoted, I am making up things entirely and I am a conspiracy theorist. All this because you misinterpreted what this thread is about and got upset over something that is not even real outside of your accusations.
So if its ok with you, can we get back to what this thread is about? The welsh manuscripts, true or not.



My issue is with this:


originally posted by: urbanghost

The picts came via Ireland and the Gaels also. That's why the Scots are Gaelic not Brythonic. The Picts never arrived until the first couple of centuries AD



This is WRONG. This is BLATANT MISINFORMATION, and it got 6 stars.

All it takes is a quick Wikipedia search to see the Picts didn't speak Gaelic. You are spreading false information about my country, and you are getting stars on your posts for doing it.

That makes me angry.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:49 PM
link   
You are spreading misinformation about my country and I take issue with it. Here is a simple article that you could have easily searched yourself:
" They lived to the north of the rivers Forth and Clyde, and spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brythonic languages spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them. Picts are assumed to have been the descendants of the Caledonii and other tribes that were mentioned by Roman historians or on the world map of Ptolemy. Pictland, also called Pictavia by some sources, gradually merged with the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata to form the Kingdom of Alba (Scotland)."
en.m.wikipedia.org...
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Here are more BLATANT LIES:


originally posted by: urbanghost

The picts were a tribe from the north of Ireland, they were constantly at war with the other Irish tribes. In the 4th century they started coming into Britain on raids and attacking the Romans. In 369, Theodosius the roman general fought and defeated them in a great battle and drove them to the north of Britain.



The Picts came to Britain in the 4th century? Hahaha, and here is more evidence contrary to your bullsh*t translation that isn't worth the effort to type:

ROMAN BATTLE WITH THE PICTS IN 83 AD:


en.m.wikipedia.org...


So just keep on lying and quoting some poorly translated Welsh drivel, and I will keep gladly refuting them. I don't appreciate Scotland's history being appropriated by some laughable Welsh historical revisionist and conspiracy theorist.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
You are spreading misinformation about my country and I take issue with it. Here is a simple article that you could have easily searched yourself:
" They lived to the north of the rivers Forth and Clyde, and spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brythonic languages spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them. Picts are assumed to have been the descendants of the Caledonii and other tribes that were mentioned by Roman historians or on the world map of Ptolemy. Pictland, also called Pictavia by some sources, gradually merged with the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata to form the Kingdom of Alba (Scotland)."
en.m.wikipedia.org...

I couldn't care what it says on Wikipedia about the picts, you are not listening. As I have said this thread is about the Welsh manuscripts and what they say, not what Wikipedia says about the picts. I am not spreading misinformation about anything. Do you think I went back in time and changed the manuscripts to what they say just to upset you? Get a grip and stop trying to disrail my thread with your accusations.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost

originally posted by: Gallowglaich
You are spreading misinformation about my country and I take issue with it. Here is a simple article that you could have easily searched yourself:
" They lived to the north of the rivers Forth and Clyde, and spoke the now-extinct Pictish language, which is thought to have been related to the Brythonic languages spoken by the Britons who lived to the south of them. Picts are assumed to have been the descendants of the Caledonii and other tribes that were mentioned by Roman historians or on the world map of Ptolemy. Pictland, also called Pictavia by some sources, gradually merged with the Gaelic kingdom of Dál Riata to form the Kingdom of Alba (Scotland)."
en.m.wikipedia.org...

I couldn't care what it says on Wikipedia about the picts, you are not listening. As I have said this thread is about the Welsh manuscripts and what they say, not what Wikipedia says about the picts. I am not spreading misinformation about anything. Do you think I went back in time and changed the manuscripts to what they say just to upset you? Get a grip and stop trying to disrail my thread with your accusations.


It is misinformation, because it's false, pure and simple. Whatever is in their manuscripts isn't history, it's fantasy. How could the Romans have fought with the Picts in 83 AD, when according to your ridiculous source, they arrived in the 4th century, LOL.


True history my arse. You can piss off with your "true history" when it has anything to do with Scotland.
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Gallowglaich


I have given you the link to read them, if you choose not to and still say that I am lying, then you are going to make yourself look like an angry child who can't get their own way.
This is what I mean, you are misquoting me and using it to try to get your angry point across.


The Picts came to Britain in 369?

It doesn't say that does it. Can you read? This is what it says.


In the 4th century they started coming into Britain on raids and attacking the Romans. In 369, Theodosius the roman general fought and defeated them in a great battle and drove them to the north of Britain.

Notice that thing that looks like a dot after the word roman? That's a fullstop. Again you are twisting what I say to back up your angry tirade. Grow up.



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost
a reply to: Gallowglaich


I have given you the link to read them, if you choose not to and still say that I am lying, then you are going to make yourself look like an angry child who can't get their own way.
This is what I mean, you are misquoting me and using it to try to get your angry point across.


The Picts came to Britain in 369?

It doesn't say that does it. Can you read? This is what it says.


In the 4th century they started coming into Britain on raids and attacking the Romans. In 369, Theodosius the roman general fought and defeated them in a great battle and drove them to the north of Britain.

Notice that thing that looks like a dot after the word roman? That's a fullstop. Again you are twisting what I say to back up your angry tirade. Grow up.



That's all you've got? Yeah, it says they started arriving in the 4th century and the battle was 369. I read too quickly. Doesn't change much, doesn't change the fact that this proves your source is a fantasy.

So basically I just disproved your entire thread and exposed it for the fantasy and storytale it is.

Battle of Mons Graupius, Picts vs Romans: 83 AD

en.m.wikipedia.org...

Your fantasy story: Picts arrived in Britain in the 4th century AD.



You need to accept that your "True history of Britain" has just been exposed as a fantasy.


edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Gallowglaich



That's all you've got?


Every single thing you have accused me of I have proven that you either made it up or misinterpreted, everything. Check and see. Heres another for you.
That link to the battle on Wikipedia. Nowhere on that page does the word PICT appear. Nowhere. You post a link to a battle that has nothing to do with the picts, a battle that might not even have happened as the evidence is scant and you think what I am writing is fantasy? You can't change history to back up your immature rants.
Seriously its getting boring proving everything you say is made up and I am going to ignore you from now on.
edit on 4-5-2014 by urbanghost because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: urbanghost
a reply to: Gallowglaich



That's all you've got?


Every single thing you have accused me of I have proven that you either made it up or misinterpreted, everything. Check and see. Heres another for you.
That link to the battle on Wikipedia. Nowhere on that page does the word PICT appear. Nowhere. You post a link to a battle that has nothing to do with the picts, a battle that might not even have happened as the evidence is scant and you think what I am writing is fantasy? You can't change history to back up your immature rants.
Seriously its getting boring proving everything you say is made up and I am going to ignore you from now on.


Caledonians are Picts:

"The Caledonians (Latin: Caledones, Ancient Greek Καληδώνες), or Caledonian Confederacy, is a name given by historians to a group of indigenous peoples of what is now Scotland during the Iron Age and Roman eras. The Romans referred to their territory as Caledonia and initially included them as Britons,[1] but later distinguished as the Picts. The Caledonians were enemies of the Roman Empire, which was the occupying force then administering most of Great Britain as the Roman province called Britannia."

en.m.wikipedia.org...



Sorry, but your manuscripts have been proven as a fairy tale. I have links and sources to back up my claims, you only have some myths and story tales. Dates don't lie. Here are more links about that battle:

fanaticus.org...

"The Roman historian Tacticus recorded the campaign of his father-in-law Agricola against the Caledonians, which culminated in the Roman victory at Mon Graupius in 84 AD. Agricola had marched his army of 20-30,000 north and west into the foothills of the Grampian Mountains, where he occupied a fortified camp next to a level moor at the base of the rising hills. The exact location is subject to dispute, but may be at Durno, near Aberdeen. When the Caledonian army of 30,000 under the chieftain Galgacus arrived, they lined the surrounding slopes and heights, while their light chariots, horse, and skirmishers forming the van of their army arrayed themselves on the moor below. Agricola deployed his 8,000 auxilia forward with 3000 cavalry in equal divisions on the wings. Four squadrons of horse (2,000) were held in reserve. Agricola's depleted legions formed a thin secondary line behind prepared ditches. To bolster the spirits of his men, who were apparently unsettled by the impressive size and warlike appearance of the Caledonian army, Agricola sent away his horse and joined his legionaries to direct the battle on foot. The battle started at a distance with heavy skirmishing and exchange of missile fire, but the Roman pila made little impression upon the nimble Caledonians. Agricola then ordered five cohorts of Batavian and Tungrian auxilia to close with the enemy, which they did with great enthusiam, engaging the Caledonian foot whose small bucklers and long slashing swords put them at a considerable disadvantage in a tight melee. The Roman tactic of smashing an opponent in the face with the heavy shield boss was apparently quite successful. The Caledonians were pushed back and the balance of the auxilia and the Roman cavalry joined in the pursuit. The Caledonian noble chariots and horse charged fiercely, driving back the Roman horse, but eventually losing impetus and becoming a tangled mass due to the roughness of the ground and the Roman ditch. The remainder of the Caledonian army watched from the slopes as the battle unfolded below them. Seeing an opportunity to engage the Roman line to advantage, they moved along the declivity and descended opposite the left Roman flank. They charged with great impetuosity, scattering the Roman flank horse, only to be counter-charged by the four squadrons of cavalry held by Agricola in reserve. According to Tacticus, the Caledonian flanking force then retired precipitiously, laying open the balance of their army to dreadful rout as the Roman reserve cavalry wheeled and struck the rear of the Caledonians still engaged on the moor. What transpired next was a running battle of individual and group melees as the Caledonian army lost all cohesion. Many "sought the shelter of distant and pathless wilds." Others stood their ground or made suicide charges into the tightly ordered Roman ranks. Some were taken prisoner, only to be slain when their numbers became too great to safely manage in the confusion. Tacticus records that as night fell and the Romans grew weary of pursuit, the moor reeked of blood and was covered with discarded swords and bucklers, mangled limbs and dead bodies. An estimated 10,000 Caledonians perished, compared to only 340 "Romans" (and unnumbered auxilia). Of course, this is the Roman side of the story, based on accounts told to Tacticus by the victor, Agricola. There is no contemporary voice to dispute his account. The only other Roman historian to write on the subject (and whose works survive today) was Cassius Dio, who recorded simply: "Meanwhile, war had again broken out in Britain, and Gnaeus Julius Agricola overran the whole of the enemy's territory there. He was the first of the Romans to discover that Britain is surrounded by water." (Cassius Dio, LXVI 20, 1)"
edit on 4-5-2014 by Gallowglaich because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join