Well I never.
Why does that guy shout BUNCH?
What language are you talking about, Walter Hinteler? Setanta is said to be another name for Cuchulainn- EATER OF DOG MEAT. Setanta has taken a good name!
It does not refer to anyone who is learned!!!!
He does a lot of shouting . . . i guess he thinks it makes his argument more effective . . .
Some folks will believe anything . . .
You do know, of course, Setanta, Old Dog Meat eater, that the OED means the Oxford English Dictionary. If they will let you in the Library, you can look it up.
Cu Chulainn is the name Setanta took after guarding the rath of the smith of Ulster--and it means the hound of Culian, not eater of dog meat.
But it is common to see Italmassamortgato dispaly such ignorance of things which are commonly available on the internet . . .
set, I guess your avatar picture wasn't enough of a hint.
You don't know what you are talking about. Cuchulainn did eat dog meat and died as a result. He is an eater of Dog meat. He did eat dog meat since he would not refuse what was offered to him as a meal. Don't you even know the story of your own cognomen
My cognomen is Setanta, and yes, i know that legend, and far better than you.
Irish Cuchulainn--the Hound of Ulster wrote:"A fair price indeed," said Conor. "I could have given no better award myself," said Cathbad the Druid, " and from this night forth you have earned a new name, no longer will you be the lad called Setanta, but instead your name will be CuChulainn, the Hound of Cullan."
The Hound of Ulster
I am sure you know the legend far better than I do. It is the legend of an Irish idiot. When the Irish and British idiots were confronted with the Roman legions, they soiled their clothing in fear.
And you still did not admit, which anyone who has ever read about CU cu knows, that he did eat dog meat. You have not denied it so it stands.
The Romans never invaded Ireland--you demonstrate once again a complete lack of any reliable knowledge of history. Your specious contentions stand only in the hollow, echoing halls of your mind.
It was the Vikings that attacked Ireland.
The Romans were in England, however.
I bet the Irish were in England as well.
Setanta wrote:The Romans never invaded Ireland--you demonstrate once again a complete lack of any reliable knowledge of history. Your specious contentions stand only in the hollow, echoing halls of your mind.
The Romans did invade Ireland though there is little lasting Roman influence on the Irish culture. From the British Archaoology Homepage
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba14/ba14feat.html
There was no England at the time of the Roman invasion. The Irish, known in the other island as Na'Scotta, and known to the Romans as the Ascottii, were in what is now Scotland, and hence the name.
The Clan MacKay Dalriada page
What Fox failed to note is, that the Romans did invade Ireland, in the opinion of Richard Warner. Funny that Roman sources are mute on the subject.
Whatever the land mass was called at the time, the Celtic and Roman invasions of what is now Ireland are clearly recorded as Irish history. And if you have archeological evidence that disputes Warner, let's see it.
This is what you call evidence?
Taken from fox's link:
It is not acceptable to dismiss this concatenation of evidence simply on the grounds that neither a Roman stone fortress nor straight road have been found. Nor may we easily dismiss the extraordinary fact that the material and, to a great extent, social culture of the upper class Irish from the 6th century on owes far more to Roman than to native Irish precursors. To give just two examples among many: the favoured Irish cloak-fastener from the 4th-11th century, the penannular brooch, evolved from a Romano-British brooch; and the early medieval Irish sword was, both in form and in name, a borrowing from that of the Roman army.
Let's show another example why this is "poppycock." (timber's word)
Japan's culture is greatly influenced by China, but China never invaded or controlled Japan ever. I'm sure there are many more examples of this in the world history.
Nonsense--read your own link again, even Mr. Warner is not arguing for a military invasion--his hobbyhorse is cultural influence.
Tacitus wrote The Agricola, and he is one of the most careful Roman historians. Agricola was his father-in-law. You can bet that if Agricola had actually invaded the island, Tacitus would not have failed to record it. This is another prime example of the fuzzy-thinking which passes for knowlege on your part.
There is a bay in Brazil called the Bay of Jars. It is said that Roman amphorae have been found there. By Fox's criterion, we can say that the Romans invaded Brazil.
BBC 4 wrote:Following on from a discussion about the possibility that the Romans travelled to China, a listener asks whether it is true that they also sailed to Brazil.
The evidence comes from amphorae found on the sea-bed in the so-called Bay of Jars near Rio de Janeiro. Amphorae are long, narrow clay containers, wider at the top than at the base, with two handles, and were used in ancient times especially for storing oil or wine.
Making History consulted Professor David Peacock, archaeologist at the University of Southampton.
BBC Radio 4: Making History
