What's the Weave?

[Robert]

LOL. Trem, you picked history, you'll get a good bashing from me.

"ok I may be the only one that saw this.But has any one give any though of the base of this book?Think people....norse myth(ragnarok=devil=the dark one)....english myth"

Ragnorok is applicable, but not in the way you describe. ragnorok wasn't a person, but really, the last battle of Norse mythology. Between the warriors of Valhalla and EVIL. In which everyone lost. Let's just say I hope RJ doesn't base his story on THAT.

"(by the way Arthur paendragon did live. They found his bones but the king at the time was King Henry the second.Took the bones fearing that the Saxons would think he was dead for Arthur had won twelve mighty battles against them."

LOL, he probably was a great warrior king, but 12 huge battles against numerous and vicious invaders? LOL, not even Napoleon (Who won about 7 major ones and lost about 5.) or Alexander (4-0) won that many major battles. Winning that many is almost impossible.

"They (the Saxons) had a passion for hating Arthur.The myth "King Arthur" did not live but Arthur paendragon was a king but the "king Arthur" that slew giants and fought against the magic of morgaina.Was a rumor spread to give fear to the Saxons.Also before Arthur paendragon was dug up from his grave.He was buiered at Glastoinbury church yard between two stone pyramids.After he was mortaly wounded on the feild of battle with his nephew. Who he killed for winning the love of his wife Guenever.While he was on a crusade to get the cross of christ.And bring it to the church.But if he ever found it we will never know. If you did not know this well what are they teaching in school? )"

LMFFAO. Your punctuation and grammar were so bad there I could barely read it a line without saying WTF.

Otherwise, you believe that crap? I can believe the Saxon rumor thing, but all the rest of that crap is pure fantasy. Going on a crusade? LOL. At that time, the Pope wasn't even calling for a crusade, and even if he did, England was so far off and barely christian, so that it probably wouldn't send one. Plus, would he abandon his fight against the Saxons to go on a crusade to a land barely even talked about besides in the Bible?

".........rome gods (there are only hints of this)........african myth(green man="gia" although you may argue with me that "gia" is a women it is never said to be either and you may say the "gia"was tied to the whole planet and the green man was not but! changes can be made to this "gia" be made into the green man such as allowing it a gender,and the green man had no control over the hole world). Am I the only one who see's this?"

No, your not the only one who's seeing this. It's pretty d**n obvious, if you ask me. His whole thing is based on legends of Earth. Don't you realize? It IS Earth's legends, being made.

"Also I wish to say I'm sorry for any miss spelling."

LOL. You have a lot to be sorry for.

[Silvion]

A little harsh, but bob's right.

[trem]

Reply to Bobs statment about Arthur
there will be other replys to his other statments

"You believe that crap? I can believe the Saxon rumor thing, but all the rest of that crap is pure fantasy. Going on a crusade? LOL. At that time, the Pope wasn't even calling for a crusade, and even if he did, England was so far off and barely christian, so that it probably wouldn't send one. Plus, would he abandon his fight against the Saxons to go on a crusade to a land barely even talked about besides in the Bible?"


The crusade was not the CRUSADE'S 1-? it was simply a crusade look up the meaning of the word.But the CRUSADE'S were over the land.The crusade he went on was only the get the cross of christ not to win the holy land back from the infadels.That sold there women as slaves and slew there men in great numbers.See the whole thing behind the CRUSADE'S was nothing but the pope reaching his grip on what he thought "christain" power.Then only to sway the people from going down what they called the "wrong" path.The pope made his reach for power and he failed.Also that is the wrong time period by then what we know call britain was Angol-Saxon but there was a thrid player that no one realy thought about!The celts at that time were just think of themself as Scotts.Can you tell me were 10% of the power of the CRUSADE'S came from? The scotts!It is thought in some areas that they helped.But that is a myth due to the fact that there was no christianity there.But wen they were driven out of britain.They were not the only ones driven out.There were small tribes there of well what we would now call proto celts but some thought that was a style of speaking but it was not!And in fact there they were the ones who were realy the masteres of britain at that time.They gained power while men were dieing on the battle feild of the CRUSADE'S.know if you want me to quote the book on Arthur paendragon's life then ask!And did I say he won all his battles by mear arms? NO he won most of those battles due to the fact that his mean were better armed and he had numbers on his side.Pluse he only attacked raiding partys that struck into his land.Thus by saying he won 12 battles I did not say they were major battles! but a mear thought to add.Know he won 4 of 10 major battles tword the end of his life.Also he was a christian.That is why he gathered a small amount of troops and knights to try quote try! to get the cross of christ back.

and what do you mean fantasy? what part? is it about that he was wounded on the feild of battle against his nephew? Well that is because he nephew cheated and had two swords and brought a small amount of men to hide in the wooden area before the beach ((they were one the cost line to the far west))

or is it that his nephew won the heart of his wife?oh did you think that I said "the "king Arthur"that fought AGAINST morgana's magic,and slew giants" was real?no no that is not what I ment if I said this then I'm sorry.If I did say that then what I ment was the the "king Arthur"that fought AGAINST morgana's magic,and slew giants" was not real.

[trem]

"Ragnorok is applicable, but not in the way you describe. ragnorok wasn't a person, but really, the last battle of Norse mythology. Between the warriors of Valhalla and EVIL. In which everyone lost. Let's just say I hope RJ doesn't base his story on THAT"

I may have not made my point clear here wait here is a better verson of that "Ragnorok=evil then formed into the form of devil=the dark one"

any better?

[trem]

you did not have anthing to say about "gia" = green man?

[Tony]

Trem, keep all your posts in one post, not three.

[trem]

The post's were made at diffrent times.I did not mean to spam,though some call it bumping.Oh and how do you like my sig and the words under my pic.And bob the only reason that I made that mistake about ragnorok was I'm not very found of norse myth.((do to the fact the most of J.R.R tolkens books are based on norse myth))

[Robert]

OK, trem, just remeber the assumption you should have whenever I start goin on about history...

trem said:

The crusade was not the CRUSADE'S 1-? it was simply a crusade look up the meaning of the word.But the CRUSADE'S were over the land.The crusade he went on was only the get the cross of christ not to win the holy land back from the infadels.

And one could come without the other? I hate when people underestimate the Muslim's prowess at war. They couldn't have gotten it back unless they took Jerusalem. They wouldn't have been able to waltz in and capture it, not from an Islamic Army.

That sold there women as slaves and slew there men in great numbers.

Christians did that too, mind you.

See the whole thing behind the CRUSADE'S was nothing but the pope reaching his grip on what he thought "christain" power.

Isn't that what I said?

Then only to sway the people from going down what they called the "wrong" path.The pope made his reach for power and he failed.

He FAILED? ;D Who do you think you are kidding? The Pope was probably the third most powerful man in Europe after the fall of Rome, being the head of the Catholic Church. Only the Holy Roman Emporer and the Byzantine Emporer were ahead of him.

Also that is the wrong time period by then what we know call britain was Angol-Saxon but there was a thrid player that no one realy thought about!

What, wrong time for the crusades? Isn't that what I was saying. And yes, the third power you are about to mention many people have thought about and even written alternate histories about.

The celts at that time were just think of themself as Scotts.

Actually, no. The Scotts at that time were just one of many Celtic tribes, including the Britons, the Welsh, the Picts, the Irish, and many others. the name scots actually comes from the name of a type of Irish raider.

Can you tell me were 10% of the power of the CRUSADE'S came from? The scotts!

LOL, no. The scots had little to no influence on the Crusades, as they were tied up fighting the English. The English, the French, and the Germans made up almost all of the Crusaders.

It is thought in some areas that they helped.But that is a myth due to the fact that there was no christianity there.

I can' even tell what you're trying to say here.

But wen they were driven out of britain.They were not the only ones driven out.There were small tribes there of well what we would now call proto celts but some thought that was a style of speaking but it was not!

Why call them proto Celts? They were right at the end of the prominence of the Celts in history. Not that they were often prominent at all.

And in fact there they were the ones who were realy the masteres of britain at that time.They gained power while men were dieing on the battle feild of the CRUSADE'S.

Winning power? You could say that if you think winning power involves getting beat up by the English, the Vikings, and the Normans.

know if you want me to quote the book on Arthur paendragon's life then ask!And did I say he won all his battles by mear arms? NO he won most of those battles due to the fact that his mean were better armed and he had numbers on his side.Pluse he only attacked raiding partys that struck into his land.Thus by saying he won 12 battles I did not say they were major battles! but a mear thought to add.Know he won 4 of 10 major battles tword the end of his life.Also he was a christian.That is why he gathered a small amount of troops and knights to try quote try! to get the cross of christ back.

If he defeated minor raiding parties, why would anyone fear him? Its like lopping off the fingernail of your foe. Like he'll care. I don't doubt he was christian. I just doubt he would go on any crusade, or any Crusade, for he was fighting the Sxons until his death, if he really did exist.

and what do you mean fantasy? what part? is it about that he was wounded on the feild of battle against his nephew? Well that is because he nephew cheated and had two swords and brought a small amount of men to hide in the wooden area before the beach ((they were one the cost line to the far west))

That's "cheating"? That's called "being an intelligent general".

or is it that his nephew won the heart of his wife?oh did you think that I said "the "king Arthur"that fought AGAINST morgana's magic,and slew giants" was real?no no that is not what I ment if I said this then I'm sorry.If I did say that then what I ment was the the "king Arthur"that fought AGAINST morgana's magic,and slew giants" was not real.

No, I'm saying it is unlikely at best that the likely real Arthur, a British warrior king, would be off fighting for his lady love and/or nephew when there were inmortant things to do. Like Fight the Saxons. People just don't up and abandon a fight for their people that has encompassed quite a bit of their life.

[Robert]

trem said:

I may have not made my point clear here wait here is a better verson of that "Ragnorok=evil then formed into the form of devil=the dark one"

any better?

Ragnorok isn't evil. Nor a person. Nor a place. Nor a thing. It is an idea, the idea of the Last Battle, between good and evil that destroys everything.

And no, I don't have anything to say about your "gia". Africa isn't my area of specialty, in history or in myth. Just about everywhere else is.

[trem]

what I ment about ragnorok you said that was the name of the last battle were the warriors of valhalla fought the evil well as i said in the green man part you can cut apart the myths well new myth but in this case what I ment was "ragnorok's evil made into the devil/demons,ect=dark one.

[trem]

bob said:"And one could come without the other? I hate when people underestimate the Muslim's prowess at war. They couldn't have gotten it back unless they took Jerusalem. They wouldn't have been able to waltz in and capture it, not from an Islamic Army."



well I did say he lost did I not


bob said:"No, I'm saying it is unlikely at best that the likely real Arthur, a British warrior king, would be off fighting for his lady love and/or nephew when there were inmortant things to do. Like Fight the Saxons. People just don't up and abandon a fight for their people that has encompassed quite a bit of their life."

I'm sorry I did not give all the facts on that one.At that time there was a small lul in the battle.This is after he went to try to get the cross back.So that made him more angry wen he got back to find that his nephew was in love with his wife and then married her before he got back.Also wen he got back most of his land was gone and his castle was almost gone but. He rebuilt it and it was only after he got his castle back did he bring the matter under foot.Killing his brother's son starting a war between them.But Arthur died shortly before the war started.Due to the fact that his nephew hid men in the forest and wen they saw there leader fall to Arthurs blade they attacked.Luckly some of Arthurs men were not far of from the shore and the came in time to stop them.Does that fill in the hole(s)?.


bob said:That's "cheating"? That's called "being an intelligent general".


no this was a matter of honor.Acroding to the rules of battle wen a matter arises like this.One of both partys are to start a battle.Also they are not to bring in others to interfer with the battle.Pluse it is unherd of to bring a throwing dagger into play.Wen it is a matter of honor.Thus it was cheating by bringing a dishonorable weapon into battle.


bob said:If he defeated minor raiding parties, why would anyone fear him? Its like lopping off the fingernail of your foe. Like he'll care. I don't doubt he was christian. I just doubt he would go on any crusade, or any Crusade, for he was fighting the Sxons until his death, if he really did exist.


They were not minor raiding partys but seiges on his larger towns.And they feared the rumor "king Arthur" not the real one.


bob said:Winning power? You could say that if you think winning power involves getting beat up by the English, the Vikings, and the Normans.


The proto celts were gaining power.They were gaining political power.Such as moving from a butcher to a ruler of a small keep.Stuff like that is what I ment by gaining power.

[trem]

bob said:Christians did that too, mind you.


Yes they did I just had to say that.About the CRUSADE'S due to the fact that wen people travelled to the city.They were taken and butched like cattle of sold as slaves.


bob said:I can' even tell what you're trying to say here.


What I men to say was that most of the people that were driven out never became christian's and there for would not help with the crusade's

[trem]

bob said:Isn't that what I said?

Yes I think so.But I was very flustered then so sorry about that.


bob said:He FAILED? Who do you think you are kidding? The Pope was probably the third most powerful man in Europe after the fall of Rome, being the head of the Catholic Church. Only the Holy Roman Emporer and the Byzantine Emporer were ahead of him.


no no he failed to bring the word of christ to all people just the ones that flocked to him.((In my personaly opion he was a power hungry old coot no offence intended ))


bob said:Why call them proto Celts? They were right at the end of the prominence of the Celts in history. Not that they were often prominent at all.


I felt like it althought it was true.And there art of war was truely great although they didn't pass all of there knowledge on they did pass some to the celts.((and the way to make good siege weapons ))

[trem]

bob said:LOL, no. The scots had little to no influence on the Crusades, as they were tied up fighting the English. The English, the French, and the Germans made up almost all of the Crusaders.

yes I know what I left out was that it was rumored.That tribes of them were joining the armys of the many rulers that went on the crusade(s)

[Robert]

OK, I think I pretty much said all I need to.