Talk:Ambrosius Aurelianus: Difference between revisions

Untitled

I have removed the statement:

Perhaps Gildas' statement inspired -- or is explained by -- the Welsh tradition that he was one of the sons of the emperor Magnus Maximus and his Celtic wife, Helen.

I do not remember ever encountering this and am dubious that the tradition exists.

I also removed:

In speculating about this conflict, one must admit that it is very likely the historical Ambrosius and Vortigern never even heard of one another during their real lives, let alone actually met.

Why must one admit something so dubious? Certainly, if Vortigern actually lived, then Ambrosius certainly would have heard of him, even if their careers did not overlap and even if Vortigern was rather unlike the figure that tradition provides. jallan 01:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed the following (saved here for comments):

McCarthy's Synchronised Irish Annals include the entry "Ambrosius duc" for the year 479, implying that 479 was when Ambrosius took over from Vortigern as leader (became "wledig" or Overlord) of the Romano-British.

I'm not sure just who McCarthy is, but unless he has access to a primary document discovered within the last 10 years, what he writes is just one more theory to explain the facts; had the original Irish Annals mentioned Ambrosius, I would have heard of it.

Apparently Pachiaammos wrote:

Italic textBold text He is and he does. He is a precise scholar who has re-examined the various annals and used the ferials in their margins to co-ordinate them.

So you believe this McCarthy is a reliable source. Would you be so kind as to provide his full name & the necessary information to identify his book (such as title, publisher, date)?

(P.S. Please sign your comments; you can do this by adding three tildes -- ~~~ -- to append your name, or four tildes -- ~~~~ -- to add both your name & the time of your post.) -- llywrch 01:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have put back a shorter, less controversial, reference to the date 479. McCarthy published his Chronological Synchronisation of the Irish Annals from the Dept of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin in 1999. The web reference is <<www.cs.tcd.ie/Dan.McCarthy/chronology/synchronisms>>. The author gives his own email for enquiries as <mccarthy@cs.tcd.ie>. ||||

I type 4 tildes and I just get 4 vertical lines, but yes this is Pachiaammosand it's 22 April at 9.05am BST

The more-precise meaning, "grandfather" is probably intended, for Gildas is addressing his contemporary (in c547) King Cynan of Powys whose Latin name, Conanus Aurelius, suggests direct descent from Ambrosius Aurelianus.

While some would argue this, it assumes that Aurelius & Aurelianus were the same family name -- much like Johns & Johnson. This assumption might be credible were it not for the fact both Aurelius & Aurelianus were very common family names in Late Roman times; thus to state this similarity (which just as easily can be argued is coincidence) tips the scales is POV.

The name 'Aurelianus' means (at least during earlier Roman times) that he was originally from gens Aurelia, and was adopted into some other family (an example: Gaius Octavius being adopted into gens Julia and thus being named Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus). Therefore, it is entirely possible (even if not definitive) that 'Aurelianus' and 'Aurelius' refer to the same family. Kuralyov 20:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be worth bringing up that the Bishop of Milan known in English as St. Ambrose was named Aurelius Ambrosius; and his father had been Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls, that is a noble of the highest rank below the Tetrarchs themselves, and administrator of a quarter of the Empire, including Britain. Solicitr (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Guoloph, according to Nennius, is Wallop in Hampshire, and the battle took place 12 years into the reign of Vortigern, said elsewhere to have begun in 425. The Ambrosius who fought there is surely, by inference, the father of Ambrosius Aurelianus, the one who wore the purple, or an earlier ancestor. Elsewhere, Nennius indicates that Aurelianus was still a lad when he was called to lead the Britons.

"Nennius" (as this contributor calls the Historia Britonum) is quoted to give this period a reliability that does not exist for this period, & Nennius' details raise as many questions as they appear to answer. If we are to spend the time extensively discussing Aurelianus in Nennius, then we should devote similar space to Aurelianus in Geoffrey of Monmouth, de Boron & the Welsh legends.

I've also had to fix some errors in the translation from the Latin (which is based on Michael Winterbottom's translation), where the orginal use of the singular has been replaced by plural forms for reasons I don't understand. -- llywrch 20:00, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The parents of Ambrosius Aurelianus “wore the purple”. Statistically, it is far more likely that his father wore the purple in the capacity of a Magistrate, rather than him being a direct descendant of a common soldier such as Constantine III.

The fact that Gildas praises him so highly makes it inevitable that Ambrosius Aurelianus was a devout and conformist Christian and that “Vortigern”, who is treated scornfully, perhaps represented the British Pelagians .

I think that the evidence points to Ambrosius Aurelianus being spirited away to Brittany following the death of his father. The resultant affinity to Brittany might well explain why a British Army was subsequently sent to Brittany under Riothamus (around 470 AD), by which time we must assume that A A was firmly in control in Britain. 10:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)10:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)~~ User: Black Death — Preceding unsigned comment added by British Pelagian (talk • contribs)

The Location of the Battle of Guoloph

I hadn't known there was a Wallop in Wilshire; from my reading, I had assumed the only place identified as the location for this battle was Norton Shrubs, a village near Cirencester. (Admittedly it's an old identification, but when it's the only guess one has, one goes with that guess.) And I'd add this to the article, but I've misremembered the reference I had found this in. -- llywrch 18:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Aurelianus in modern (as opposed to Monmouthian) fiction

Supposition about medieval sources is one thing, but it seems off to make unreferenced suppositions about a 2004 film. Surely the movie makers know whether they based the movie "King Arthur" on Aurelianus or not, and we could find out which if anyone actually cared enough to put the effort in. So including guesses in the article, even if they're reasonable guesses, seems inappropriate. I've revised the paragraph accordingly. Have cleaned up the rest of the section a bit as well, to fix punctuation and remove a bit of commentary. I would recommend (but have not done) removing anything from the fiction summaries that is not directly relevant to Aurelianus.--Bedawyn 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Other accounts of Aurelianus

The last two paragraphs of this section are problematic. First, what connection is there between the Welsh Emrys Wledig and Robert de Boron's version? If none, why are they in the same paragraph? "This is probably a confusion that entered oral tradition" -- Probably? Is there a source that validates this supposition? "someone has taken an early mention of Uther's epithet" -- Someone? Who? After several rereadings, I think that the writer meant this as a possible origin for the confusion (i.e., someone long ago made a mistake, leading others to repeat the mistake), but it's not really clear from the sentence structure. The final paragraph also includes editorial comment: "This makes Appelbaum's suggestion more likely. If we combine [Applebaum's?] etymology with ... then it is extremely tempting to connect this shadowy figure with Amesbury." If no one else does so and there's no further discussion here to the contrary, I'll remove these sentences the next time I stop by (whenever that may be). I'm hesitant to do so without giving the author(s) a chance to fix them first because the sentences in question do contain worthwhile content as well.

Finally, I'd love to see at least dates, if not dates and titles, for the Applebaum and Myres references.

The above was me, back in April.--Bedawyn 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just stumbled across your request now. I'm the one who wrote that back in the early mists of Wikipedia, but haven't had the time or the prodding (as in a nudge, not a delete ;) to find my source for Applebaum's statement. (I think it may have been in his contribution to The Agrarian History of Britain.) As for Myres & Vortigern's Pelagianism, I'll try to find the time to dig thru my pile of photocopied articles & reconstruct this scholarly myth; it's a fascinating tale, but one I didn't want to include because it was tangential to the subject of this article. -- llywrch 20:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If it's a fascinating tale, does that mean there's enough content to justify an article of its own? (Of course, in the 4+ years intervening between our 2 posts, you may have already written it, but I don't know the link -- or moved on to other subjects.) Jmacwiki (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Chronicon Maiora

I have removed the citation to the Chronicon Maiora because there's no reference to Ambrosius in this work at all.

Using Richard Fletcher's "Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England" as a source

I'm using Richard Fletcher's "Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England" as a source and adding a few things from it; it's not the best source for Ambrosius, but the article is largely unsourced now and it's a start. Mike Christie (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stonehenge?

How could Ambrosius be linked to building Stonehenge in post-roman Britain when Stonehenge is more than a thousand years older than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattle (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's fiction. The story appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae; the author didn't know how old Stonehenge was and made up the story.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Amesbury hill fort?

I do not understand the (psychological) connection to the Amesbury hill fort. Why is the hill fort a temptation in relating AA and Amesbury? Making up the Stonehenge connection [see above] seems unmotivated on Geoffrey's part, but it would hardly be his first fictionalization. But why would he -- or, more to the point, we -- but "tempted" to connect the hill fort to AA, any more than to someone else?

Conversely, the hill fort article states that there are more than 2000 in Britain. So even if AA were believed to have used any in his battles, why should we be "tempted" to connect Amesbury's in particular?

I realize that the entire article, including this section, is very weak on citations. So perhaps this entire section will disappear when we have citations. But not so far. Jmacwiki (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wledig = Rural

I do not understand how the Welsh epithet 'wledig' (rural) was earned by Ambrosius exactly. Does anyone have any insight? I am taking Emrys Wledig to mean 'Ambrosius of the county'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.153.175 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It's one of those rather baffling titles that feature in Old Welsh sources. Wledig is "rural" (approximately) in modern Welsh, but in medieval and early Welsh (so the reasoning goes) it can be title - "[of] the land", "Country" (or the nation, roughly), "landholding", "territory" etc, implying authority over the same. Thus, in vague terms, as in Macsen Wledig, something like "Emperor". Haploidavey (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Constantine III "wore the purple" ?

Constantine III was recognized co-Emperor, by Emperor Honorius, in 409 AD. Constantine was the ancestor of Ambrosius Aurelianus. Ipso facto, Constantine was the ancestor who had "worn the purple". Perhaps someone could cite a source, so improving the present article. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"Constantine was the ancestor of Ambrosius Aurelianus." Citation needed. Seriously, what? Pseudo-history is significantly more dangerous than admitting we know nothing.88.90.184.135 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

The article started out as completely unsourced and one-sided. It needs expansion and further sources. This is neither fringe nor POV pushing. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The article could definitely use some refinement, but you are basing your edits on the work of fringe authors like Peter Korrel, Mike Ashley, and Frank Reno; none of them are reliable sources and much of what they write is spurious nonsense. Another problem with your edits is that you are padding the article with too much tangential, fluffy details that do not need to be here. Cagwinn (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. All of them are published authors, none of them seems to be fringe and in this case there is no dominant view to make them fringe. Details are hardly "fluffy" when needing to get a bigger picture of the 5th century. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can be a "published author" today; that means nothing! None of these authors are mainstream scholars - they are fringe nutjobs are their work is utterly worthless. Cagwinn (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

How are they nutjobs? They don't offer outlandish theories, base their theories on established facts, and 5th century Britain is hardly the domain of "mainstream scholars". Stop edit warring and provide alternative sources. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

They are nutjobs because they are not acknowledged specialists in the field (in fact, they are considered jokes), they employ poor scholarship, and push fringe theories. Their hypotheses do not belong on Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahhem. Not all sources have to be "specialists" to be reliable and I have yet to see you offer a specialist on the subject. These authors provide primary and secondary sources, and they offer a variety of viewpoints on the primary sources. They could hardly be considered "jokes" when they they don't contradict any established theory on the subject. Poor scholarship? Point me to a source evaluating them, not just your opinion. And again for a fringe theory to exist, a mainstream view has to exist and be contradicted. In this case there is actually none, since anything tangentially connected to Arthurian legend is actively debated and disputed. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

YOU ARE PUSHING FRINGE SCHOLARSHIP!!! This is not permitted according to Wikipedia guidelines. Go ahead and prove that these authors are anything other than jokes in the field. Cagwinn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You are pushing your extreme POV and have nothing to support it. Find at least one source and actually add to the article, contradict them. I don't have to prove that they are better than no sources at all. Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You just don't know what you are talking about and are being highly obnoxious.Cagwinn (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Last I checked, I have added sources on Gildas and all our primary sources, added references for each edit and new material, and have never insulted you. You have yet to add a single source, shouted at me for supposedly adding "fringe scholarship" (nonsense) and violated a very important aspect of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

You are being absolutely ridiculous! You are pushing fringe scholarship, which is equally forbidden by Wikipedia. Just because someone has published a book, does not mean they represent scholarly consensus - or are, in fact, even scholars. I will repeat for you, Korrel, Ashley and Reno are not reliable sources and their books are riddled with factual errors.Cagwinn (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is being ridiculous now? Point me to an author who does represent scholarly consensus on the same subject matter. For the time being these scholars are the ones who have written comprehensively on the matter and their views do not have to be the objective truth. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." ... "Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources".

In matters of social science like history, the essay points out: "there are no universal truths in social sciences. As said earlier, there are facts, opinions, facts about opinions and opinions about opinions." ... "As history is about things that took place in the past, there's the temptation to think that it is composed of truths, but it isn't. History is the politics of the past, same as today's politics is tomorrow's history."

Even works like the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire list sources who are not always reliable or infallible. "Individuals who are known only from dubious sources (e.g., the Historia Augusta), as well as identifiable people whose names have been lost, are included with signs indicating the reliability." Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Page protected for 3 days

Both of you are very lucky you weren't blocked. I see I accidentally reverted before protecting, which would be improper, so I've undone that. I'm not endorsing either version. Settle it or ask me to extend protection. Go back to edit warring and you'll almost certainly be blocked. Maybe tomorrow I'll look and see how far past 3RR you both got. Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me help you with that. 16 straight reversions from Cagwinn, 13 straight reversions from me, and 4 times when the "reversion" was actually me saving the version I was working on. As far as I know, the incident only involves this article and has not involved other articles that we have recently edited. Dimadick (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Doug, I really wish you wouldn't leave the article in its current state with Dimwitdick's edits, which are absolutely terrible. There are now blatant factual errors in the article and absolute loons with no standing in the field of Arthurian studies are given equal footing with genuine, peer reviewed scholars. The article is now an abomination. Cagwinn (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what's got to be discussed here. I can't protect and choose which version I want to protect. Lay out your argument. Doug Weller (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)