Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Putnam]

What I found more annoying about Merlin was the... inconsistency? even in the same episode.

Ie: in one episode, Arthur gets himself poisoned by some monster. With a totally antidoteless venom. So Merlin goes to ask for the help of some priestess of the Old Religion, who tells him openly that she can solve his problem but that her magic runs on strict life-for-a-life terms. Ie: she can save Arthur, but someone else gets it (caveat emptor). Anyhow the guy says yes, and his mother promptly gets it. Obviously he's not happy with this, so he goes to the priestess *again* who does her hoodo again and the death curse falls upon his mentor. Which makes him very angry and he promptly murder-sacrifices the priestess, which I guess pays the lifedebt?

I mean: you were told OVER AND OVER how it worked. Why exactly is the priestess here the villain? She described *exactly* how her spell worked, and what was the cost, several times, and asked several times if he was sure, and he was OK with that. It was only when it turned out that his actions had consequences for himself that he actually got angry about it.   You get the feeling that if instead of his circle of relationships it had been some random hobo getting whacked by the priestess magic, he wouldnt have given a fudge.

I don't see any inconsistency there? Specifically, your last sentence just seems to be the literal intent?

[hector13]

The inconsistency is the character having the the consequences of the spell explained, twice, and then getting upset about the consequences of the spell, twice.

[Maximum Spin]

The inconsistency is the character having the the consequences of the spell explained, twice, and then getting upset about the consequences of the spell, twice.

Like Putnam said, this doesn't seem inconsistent at all. He knows how the spell works, he just wants to keep trying until someone he doesn't care about gets killed.

[EuchreJack]

The inconsistency only exists if you think Merlin has character...

[JoshuaFH]

- I'm an idiot, I replied to a post in the wrong thread. Fuck my brain is falling apart. -

[EuchreJack]

- I'm an idiot, I replied to a post in the wrong thread. Fuck my brain is falling apart. -

Eh, that qualifies as a WTF. 

[scriver]

I don't think any soldiers got land in Italy by that point. Iirc veteran land grants were mostly given out from conquered lands, so people ending up in Britannia/Gaul/Hispania would not be improbable. There were plenty of land available there after the genocides after all.

On the contrary, the genetic trace of Roman invasion in Britannia is documented to be minimal. Hispania too, for that matter, but I don't really know much about Gaul. Quite the opposite of genocide, there is nearly complete genetic continuity between the pre-Romans and the immediate end of the Roman period (which in the Iberian peninsula, continues to this day with most modern Iberians being essentially Celtic except for aforementioned Arabic settlements, while the Britons were of course heavily mixed with Anglo-Saxons later, although considerable Celtic ancestry obviously remains).

To the bolded sentence: That doesn't mean there wasn't a genocide?

But I was specifically referring to the invasion of Gaul where they murdered or enslaved half of the Gaulish populace (according to their own sources).

Iberia should also be mostly Iberian if that was the case, being that Iberian cultures still existed alongside Celtic and the mixed-up Celt-Iberians when the Romans invaded.

[Maximum Spin]

Iberia should also be mostly Iberian if that was the case, being that Iberian cultures still existed alongside Celtic and the mixed-up Celt-Iberians when the Romans invaded.

Not "mostly", as there were more Celts. But yes, Iberians (which are not the same as Celtiberians, which are Celts), Lusitanians, and other collateral pre-Celtic tribes also have left genetic traces that show their integration into the later societies.

To the bolded sentence: That doesn't mean there wasn't a genocide?

What kind of genocide leaves the same people in place and wipes out all trace of the genociders? I mean, we can speak of attempted genocide, but the point here was to discuss the genetic evidence, which implies a practical definition.

[ChairmanPoo]

Besides, what have the Romans ever done for us?

[Eric Blank]

They conquered shit. Its all theyre good for.

[King Zultan]

I thought they did more than that I mean conquering shit isn't that hard, it just sits there and stinks so all you have to to is say you've conquered it and that's it.

[TD1]

Out of curiosity, is what I said 'regressive' because it used signifying language (social-justice points, truly a regressive's slogan) or because of its content?

I've no interest in making this personal.

Neither do I! Apologies, ahah. My question was not intended to provoke anything - I was genuinely curious.

-snip-

So I came here to make this ^ post, only less intelligibly.

As to the point about widespread trade - yes, there was. But trading partners were more established than today. England exported an incredible amount of wool (indeed, English wool was famous), mostly through Dutch ports like Antwerp where it was woven into cloth. The country was completely reliant on the wool trade.

Additionally, most communities hovered either side of subsistence levels. There was no market system, except in its most rudimentary and local sense. England was an agricultural economy until the late medieval period.

Nevertheless, trade did of course stretch quite far afield. See, for instance, the Russian river trade and international trade in bee-related products. See, also, the trade in silver and gold bullion which could stretch into Africa and Asia. However.... it's probably best to see this as a trade network with many middle men, rather than direct trade with Africa. It would be incredibly unlikely (and incredibly dangerous, considering the huge risk associated with overseas or overland travel) for an African trader to arrive in England.

And, even were one to make the trip, his vessel would be laden with luxury goods like bullion which he'd probably want to sell in London, possibly Bristol or Ipswich, which would limit contact with such individuals considerably.

Besides which, of course, such traders were peripatetic - they wouldn't settle with their families in barbaric England, such as depicted in Merlin. As I said earlier, the situation in Merlin was only possible technically.

They conquered shit. Its all theyre good for.

Architecture, medical theory, political systems (and political theory), poetry and literature, social categories, language, written texts

[Maximum Spin]

Nevertheless, trade did of course stretch quite far afield. See, for instance, the Russian river trade and international trade in bee-related products. See, also, the trade in silver and gold bullion which could stretch into Africa and Asia. However.... it's probably best to see this as a trade network with many middle men, rather than direct trade with Africa. It would be incredibly unlikely (and incredibly dangerous, considering the huge risk associated with overseas or overland travel) for an African trader to arrive in England.

It's also worth adding that "Africa" in this context would mean, just as it did to the Romans, North Africa, settled by fairly light-skinned people who have been shown, by analysis of ancient DNA samples, to have been even more light-skinned before the Arab slave trade introduced substantial sub-Saharan African introgression only a little more than a millennium ago (less in some areas). Although that's long enough ago to cover much of what's thought of as the medieval period, it doesn't reach far enough back to cover the Arthurian legend, and besides, the integration of those migrants into the general gene pool would have been quite gradual over generations.

Trans-Saharan trade is generally held to have been quite minimal and expensive before the Arab invasion widely introduced the camel, which I believe was around the 600s or so, and to have slowly ramped up from there. The Phoenicians are believed to have traded with sub-Saharan Africa in antiquity, and the Romans inherited their trade routes (after delenda-ing Carthago), but it doesn't seem to have left much of a genetic trace, probably due to their totally different cultural priorities (ie, not the wholesale importation of massive numbers of people). Even the impact of Egypt's trade with Nubia, which follows one of the few really good geographical conduits, is quite small in the ancient DNA that I'm aware of.

So even the definition of what we mean by "African" is pertinent.

[TD1]

Very true! Though North Africans would have been noticeably darker-skinned than Britons, they wouldn't have been described as 'Ethiopian' (a blanket-term for black people).

IIRC, analysis of teeth revealed the likely (albeit inconsequential) presence of North Africans at sites across Britain over a long period of time, particularly during Roman times.

Which makes sense, what with the aforementioned delenda-ing.

As an aside, there are some areas of England which are associated with darker complexions than average, such as Birmingham. This likely resulted from the immigration of a darker-complexioned Germanic tribe alongside the Jutes, Angles and Saxons.

[EuchreJack]

You historians need to start talking about Roman Auxillaries and the qualifications for Joining the Empire's Legion, especially in the later era. I won't spoil the fun for you.