Talk:Brutus of Troy

message: The previous version suggested that Brutus was a legendary son of Aeneas. This was misleading, as Aeneas himself was not a real person. But if anybody finds a better phrasing, please change it.  Sponsianus (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendary descendant

message: What you say is true and I have moved Brutus for the time being.  I had decided to call him "of Britain" since his namesake is rumoured to have named the island and since Brutus was never in Troy, it seems.  He was, however, a Trojan exile and was among Trojan collegues first before he founded Britain, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth.  Therefore I will accept your request and have properly moved Brutus over to his proper place in this list. -- KuatofKDY, 17:02 (PDT), 1 Jul 2004
My name is Richard Darlow, I have written a book about the man you are discussing as Brutus. He was born in Latium, according to Geoffrey, the grandson, or poss great grandson of Aeneas of Troy, who escaped the sacked city with his life, then took his people to Latium (modern Rome). I would agree that "Brutus of Britain" is thus a far better reference to him, although I am certain there was no historical or mythical figure in Troy called Brutus - ie. in record, our Brutus of Britain was the first to bear that name. I contend it is only a version of his name, the Latin version, which is elsewhere expressed Brut, Brwth, Brythe - the latter being nearest phonetically to the name of Britain, alongside the Trojan-Celtic tendency to end names "-os", as opposed to the Latin "-us", brought me to re-express his name as "BRYTHOS". You can read more about his story, as I have planted it in history, on my website at "thecreativeuniverse.org". There you will find lengthy extracts from my non-fictional investigative account of his life and times, called "King Brythos, Founder of Britain, First of the Arthurian Dragons" - the website extracts recall the more than the bones of the story, but they are deliberately brief for easy reading. My book goes into far more detailed discussion of the historicity of the first king of the Britons. I could thus go on to say more, but hoe you will perhaps install a link to my website so the curious may follow their noses? You have another link to a separate area of my website regarding the historicity of Moses in Egypt. Hope that is helpful.
A link to Sara Douglass would be appropriate. Her fantasy series the Troy game is based on this legend.  Bhaar 23:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Britain v. Troy 

message: When did Brutus of Troy live? JIP | Talk 18:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifetime? 

message: What exactly is the purpose of quoting the Act in Restraint of Appeals? It doesn't say anything about whether or not Brutus was regarded as fact or fiction. 78.51.114.96 (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right - there's nothing whatever in the passage quoted that even mentions Brutus. Quite apart from that, who says that Sir Gawain and the Greene Knight is "written in a historical fashion"? I'm going to be ruthless with this stuff. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: I'm not sure I agree with the commentary, "These Christianising traditions...", on the tracing of Brutus' ancestry to Noah (through Japeth or Ham). How is it "Christianising" to trace one's ancestry to Noah?
My point is, let us assume that Nennius (or possibly Geoffrey of Monmouth) wanted to "Christianize" Brutus by creating a spurious ancestry for him based on the Bible. If this assumption is true, then Nennius did a very poor job of it. After all, according to the Bible, Noah and his sons were the only survivors of the flood. Therefore by making Brutus the descendant of Noah, Nennius has only succeeded in proving that Brutus was human, not that he was a Christian. The Bible itself is replete with people who were descendants of Noah who nevertheless were not Christians (or even Jews).
If Nennius truly desired to "Christianize" Brutus, surely he would have come up with something better, like making him the descendant of David, for example. But instead he merely traced him back to Noah, something every human can do. In my opinion, this makes it much more likely that something much simpler is true: that Nennius was reporting the truth (as he understood it). This is surely easier to believe than the alternative: that Brutus was descended from the Greek gods.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roachmeister (talk • contribs) 09:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the article is not that it talks about Christianising traditions, it is that it mentions the idea at all without at least one reliable source. That is what you really should be dealing with, as it is not up to us as editors to put our own view forward in articles but to report but reliable sources have written.  Doug Weller (talk) 20:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianising? 

message: Having this article at Brutus of Troy is like having William I of England at William of Normandy. WP:NCNT tells us to use the naming convention "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}". Brutus was king of Britain (albeit legendary) and his article should be at "Brutus of {his domain}" rather than "Brutus of {his place of birth}".--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Brutus of Britain 

message: ...I did a search of Charles I of Brittany with concern of one of his sons named Guy. It brought me to the this Brutus and a marriage concerning a high profile of Germania. My following here concerning the Trojans. 
King of Celtic Gaul ~ Astyanax or had been changed to Francus I as the 64th descendant of Hector of Troy. He may have arrived at Crete and falls in love with Princess Hyanthe. Brutus of Troy - the legendary founder of Britain >(related information - Benoit de Saint-Maure, in his chronique des duos de Normandie, linked the Plantagent family to Aeneas.
Francus, the Invention of Merovingian scholars, is a legendary eponymous king of the Franks, a descendant of the Trojans, founder of the Merovingian dynasty and forefather of Charlemagne. In the Renaissance, Francus was generally considered to be another name for the Trojan Astyanax (son of Hector) saved from the destruction of Troy. Researchable Data can be found at www.geni.com/projects/cleaning-the-lineages-between-FRANCUS -and-CHARLEMAGNE.
My research has connected these particulars, the Lombards, the Vikings, the Germans, the area considered Italy and the people of Troy which through connection are really the matter of Brutus the connection of Alba Longa and after the creation of Rome. Long spread culture of Lombard, Viking, Germania, and Britian by connection of Italia has a mix with Charles I of Brittany and it is, perhaps by his time a resembling connection to Britain as well. It appears though allot of Germania is in connection to the French dealing with male line, all others as to the Vikings, Lombards, are through marriage. While Germania and the area of Italy are also through marriage but still hold a longer and yet continued connection of both relations of the male and female gender. All these connection are truly by Dukes, Kings, Countesses, Queens in another marriage and few connection due to preventing wars. I will redo this message through more research and better explanation. My original search during the part-week of 9-26-29-2011 was Gaucher de Chatillon, Comte de Ponthieu at www.Geni.com My first search started with of course Charles I Duke of Brittany at yahoo.com Geni.com showed and seemed to be very reliable, I ended with the lineage of Gaucher connected to the Trojans factor. I will clean this up a bit more later. I was just trying to find a connection of Brutus of Britain to the French. This category I have with Gaucher seems to marry a male to a female of Britain. I shall confirm this and put it more together as to understand the connections in near future. Thank You Again this why I appreciate the talk page. It is for sure I will not be found on any Article, then again.David George DeLancey (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you understand that this is not a forum to discuss the subject of the article, particularly our own original ideas about it (see WP:NOR.  If you have sources that discuss Brutus, great, if you are using sources to build an argument about Brutus, that's not appropriate here. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historia Britonum 

message: This has gone back and forth a few times now. If someone wants to claim Brutus was or may have been real, they're going to need to edit the article to include reliable sources that agree with that assertion. We can't just keep fighting over the lede instead of improving the rest of the article. Apcynan (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fictional or Real