AQATSA Update, No April Fools' Joke!

[inverarity]

I feel like staying off the Internet tomorrow. I know this makes me sound like a humorless grumpy-pants, but I hate April Fools' Day. Yes, it's just so cute when every web site covers their home page with monkeys, tells us they've been bought out by the Russian mafia, changes their color scheme to pink and chartreuse, announces that they've sold your personal information to a finance start-up company in Nigeria, or whatever other clever idea they come up with. Hah hah. So I have to spend all day going "WTF?" and then remembering "Oh yeah, it's April 1."

So anyway, I guarantee this post is 100% April Fools Free.


Current word count: 186,392.

Below is preliminary line art for the cover of Alexandra Quick and the Stars Above. I made a few change requests (like holding her wand in her right hand, and pointing out that Alexandra should be a little bit skinnier), but I like it and am looking forward to the full color painted version.

Comments

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Because he was correct, even more than he knew, in declaring that the behaviour of kings and bishops in his time could not but result in disaster.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

When you receive an argument from anyone, whether or not, you agree with or even respect the argument, you deal with the argument. YOU DO NOT ASK, WHETHER STRAIGHT OUT OR BY IMPLICATION, "WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY SO?" To do so is the height of incivility. It means implying that unless I am of a caste you recognize, you will not consider my views.

I said almost nothing of what you ascribe to me, anyway.

[kerneyhead.livejournal.com]

{b}YOU DO NOT ASK, WHETHER STRAIGHT OUT OR BY IMPLICATION, "WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO SAY SO?"{/b}

Well, up above I asked you, STRAIGHT OUT, whether your religious studies background covers a number of subjects. I've asked you whether you have any background in the Archeology/Anthropology of history. Since you are supposedly a history expert these are areas you should have at least passing knowledge of.

So your who the hell, is utter nonsense. I've asked you exactly what you know, which I've received little but childish tirades.

At the same time, when I've brought my knowledge to bear, you have dismissed it without consideration. Based on the evidence I've seen, it is because you are out of your depth.

As for your interpretation, it is just that, an interpretation and as Inverarity has tried to point out to you, you take offense when none is given way to often.

{b}I said almost nothing of what you ascribe to me.{/b}

Let's see.

I know you have gone batshit crazy several times when someone, not me, has questioned your views or questioned you.

I know that you've made some absurd statements, for example, in our very first conversation I advised someone else about learning history. I recomended Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

I gave an example about competing the geography of China and Europe. You said geography had little to do historical outcomes. I eventually shut up, because I didn't want to waste time with someone who would say something so absurd.
Gee, the English Channel and the vastness of the Steppes of Russia had nothing to do with the outcome of WW2 in your world.

I made a half serious comment about the world seems to be going down the {i}Battlestar Galactica{/i} route for a positive future.
Anyone with half a brain would know this was an off the cuff remark blog opinion from someone who had a bad day.

You cited it as bad scholarship. The fact that you thought it was somehow scholarly speaks ill of your ability to 'get' context.

I have asked questions, politely and reasonably and had you come back with tirades. You have refused to answer mine, or anyone else's questions. While that might be reasonable, it is no reason to be rude.

In conclusion, I say to you stop wasting oxygen. While you will probably read this as a desire for you to commit suicide, it is something different. It is an invitation to stop taking offense when none is given. It is an invitation practice some humility, charity or decency i.e. actual Christian virtues. It is an invitation to try to understand were someone is coming from and why. It is an invitation, in short to practice plain human decency.

In a word. I don't give a shit about your degrees. I do care about your manners. In a word either SHUT UP or GROW UP.

Now you've finally been insulted.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The English Channel was an open road to anyone who had more ships than the British. The Dutch treated it with contempt in the Anglo-Dutch wars, and successfully invaded England in 1688 (the grotesquely misnamed "glorious revolution"). Ditto the steppes of Russia: ask the Mongols, or for that matter the Poles in the 1590 (what? you didn't know that Muscovy collapsed in the 1590s, and that Poland held Moscow for some years?) or the Germans in 1917, whether they gave them any trouble. No geographical feature is worth a damn unless people have technology and organization - and organization trumps technology - to exploit it. One century after the Dutch had treated the English Channel like the front gardent of their own home, Napoleon, wiht all the resources of Europe at his feet, could not cross it; why? because military realities, not geography, had changed. I have nothing but contempt for determinist views, and physical determinissm is one of the dumbest.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

As for the rest, the fact that you are so leaden-fingered, blind and deaf as not to realize that you are being fucking offensive is not an argument in your favour. Incidentally, your attempt at "real" insults is much less successful than your oridnary behaviour. Invective, my dear man, is an artform, and your very lack of sensitivity and insight makes you thoroughly incompetent at it. (Get the point?)

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[(Anonymous)]

But that is the Common Opinion of Saint Gildas, which you said is wrong. Gildas was ina bad mood about the corruption in the British state and guessed that it would all end in tears. Of all the people in 550 A.D. who guessed what would happen next, Saint Gildas is famous for guessing correctly.

Gildas did not have magical powers, he guessed correctly and all the people who guessed wrongly ain't famous.

But that is the Common Opinion about St. Gildas and you said it's wrong.

I skimmed through "de Excidio" a million years ago. You hae studied it thoroughly, so answer me this:

Did Gildas prophecy generic doom and gloom upon the Kings or did he specifically threaten Barbarian invasion?

Did Gildas assert precise dates for the Apocalypse?

Did you notice the pune in sentence #2. "St Gildas was Ina bad mood," referring to King Ina, one of the Saxon tyrants My punes are more infallible than pope Gregory's.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[fpb.livejournal.com]

I would rather you read the books, rather than ask for a summary. However:
1) Gildas was not merely "in a bad mood" about his contemporaries. All his most dreadful charges are confirmed by Gregory of Tours' independent evidence of British princes' behaviour in Brittany, and some specific charges by the decrees of the Council of Tours (567 AD)
2) Gildas did not foresee Saxon invasion, but he was quite clear that if there was no moral renewal in society, something dreadful WOULD happen. He thought this would be a Byzantine invasion, and in fact I give evidence that Justinian I had been thinking of using Ostrogoth armies to invade Britain. Considering the war-fighting methods of Justinian and his generals Belisarius and Narses, a Byzantine invasion would certainly have been an apocalyptic event.
3) However, when the British system of kings and kinglets started collapsing just about at the time Gildas died, his warnings were taken to have been prophetic in that specific sense. Both Bede and Wolfstan describe him as a prophet - Wulfstan as a thiodhvita, a seer of the people/nation.
4) However, the relationship between Gildas' warnings and the eventual catastrophe is less than casual. The disastrous in-fighting and incapacity to sustain any kind of permanent order which he denounced, and which contemporary Gaulish evidence confirms, did in fact lead to the sudden and unstoppable English break-out from the "reservations" of east Anglia and possibly Kent to which they had been confined since Badon. In other words, the Britons would have done themselves a world of good if they had listened to their thiodhvita.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[(Anonymous)]

St. Gildas Correctly guessed that corruption in the British state and church would lead to Doom. He Incorrectly guessed the specifics of that Doom.

He guessed Civilized invasion from Byzantium, we got Barbarian invasion. And with the benefit of hindsight and dialectics, we think that Barbarian invasion is inevitable.

Gildas did NOT have the benefit of hindsight. He earned his saint points by Correctly prophecying Doom even though it was the exact opposite Doom than he expected.

And who was the British dux Bellorum at Badon? Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth say Arthur; Gildas and Giraldus say it was Arthur's uncle Aurelius.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[fpb.livejournal.com]

READ THE BOOKS. Gildas very carefully does NOT say that Ambrosius was the victor at Badon. 'Ambrosius started the cycle of wars of which Badon was the climax. But to establish a chronology and a history I was forced to write half a million words, and there is a limit to how much I can impart in a few answers like these.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[(Anonymous)]

And another thing, how do you judge Gildas' hagiography?

Gildas was contemporary with Arthur, he occasional mentioned Aurelius, Arthur's uncle, but he never mentioned Arthur himself.

Vita resolves the paradox because Gildas' brother was a pirate king hanged by Arthur so Gildas burnt all the pro-Arthur books.

I am a squeeing Arthur fan-boy, I want to believe the Vita. But it was written centuries later.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[(Anonymous)]

I have READ THE BOOKS and the Books say the same thing over and over again, that Nothing was written about Arthur in 600 AD. Arthur got a few mentions by 800 AD and by 1200 AD, the whole world consisted of squeeing Arthur fan-boys.

The BOOKS state that we know the square root of bugger all about the Dark Ages, who do what it says on the can.

It is a proven fact that Gildas does NOT say that Arthur was Dux at Badon. I thought Gildas stood up on his hind legs and deliberately said that Ambrosius was Dux at Badon.

Gildas was Vague about the Dux.
I wanna believe the Vita even though it was written centuries later. I wanna believe in Arthur. I wanna believe that Saint Gildas was an unreliable narrator. That's logical, Captein.

Re: Rhemus de excidio

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Well, it all depends on what you want. You might find that Arthur existed and was a major figure, but then you might find that he was not much like the man in the romances....