Talk:Historia Brittonum

message: Surely it must be the Historia Brittonum? I'll be moving it in a few days if no-one objects... Edricson 21:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: tunc arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus brittonum, sed ipse erat dux bellorum
"Then Arthur fought against them [the Saxons] in those days with the British kings, but himself was the leader of battle."
Note that this passage is not fluent Latin, but rather Latin written by someone who natively spoke a Germanic (not Celtic) language. The sentence structure gives it away. Note how it follows word-for-word the same sentence in English. This may challenge the fact that the semi-anonymous author, Nennius, was supposed to be Welsh.
Yes, this is original research. But keep an eye on it.
--76.223.221.122 10:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A question of authorship? 

message: (Tongue in cheek) The author (singluar or collective) of the Historia Brittonum might make a good 'patron saint of Wikis' - there are a number of points of resemblence. Jackiespeel (talk) 10:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: (Advocatus diaboli) Does he have any miracles ascribed to him? — LlywelynII 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: This guy (in the notes of that page) seems to think there is a convincing case to be made for the original work having been sponsored by Ffernfael ap Tewdwr, king of Buallt and Gwrtheyrnion. At the very least, that it was written by a native to those parts. Aside from the obvious (there are some nasty bits about g'g'g'g'g'...g'dad), does he have a point? — LlywelynII 08:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This sez even if it was certainly sponsored by Merfyn Frych, the author was &c. — LlywelynII 10:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Sponsorship

message: If the Historia Regum Britanniae is partly derived from the Historia Brittonum, and the HRB's article is categorized as pseudohistory, shouldn't this article also be so categorized? -JohnAlbertRigali (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. The compiler of the Historia Brittonum seems to have been working in good faith with the sources available to him. Geoffrey of Monmouth used sources, including the Historia Brittonum and also Bede's Historia Gentis Anglorum, which I don't think anyone would accuse of being pseudohistory, but what he made of them was so fanciful he must have been aware he wasn't writing accurate history, or even trying to. The Historia Brittonum is a work of scholarship, however flawed; the Historia Regum Britanniae is a work of imaginative literature. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: Addressed the section for flagged copyediting issues. There appeared to be two different subject matters that were being discussed in this section and they were blended in a way that was confusing at best. The remaining text represents the one strand of content that made sense and contributed to the point identified by the sub-heading used. The text that was removed might make sense in another location, or if prefaced with contextual content. Potatowrite (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyedit performed on section