Talk:Túathal Techtmar

message: Its an idea. Any comments? --Dumbo1 23:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Perhaps O'Rahilly's theory of Tuathal as the 1st or 2nd century BC leader of the invading Goidels and the rival theory of Tuathal as a 1st century AD invader could be reconciled if the Goidelic invasion took place in the 1st century AD!
I have heard some people claim that Ptolemy's description of Ireland is singularly devoid of Goidelic placenames and tribal names not because he was relying on out-of-date information (as O'Rahilly believed), but simply because the Goidelic invasion had taken place too recently to have an impact yet on the demographic and toponymic character of the island. (If the invading Goidels were few in number, it would have taken them several generations at least to "make their mark".)
If the Goidels invaded in the 1st century AD, this could explain both Ptolemy's lack of Goidelic names and the traditional dates for Tuathal's reign.
Is there any firm evidence that fixes the Goidelic invasion to one particular century? (Come to think of it, don't some people even question the very notion of a Goidelic invasion?)
O'Rahilly's theory that Mug Nuadat was the leader of the Southern Goidels (the Eoganachta) could also be accommodated. If Mug's date of about 123 AD is accepted as legitimate, would that mean that the southern Goidels invaded about 50 years after the Northern Goidels (Connachta)?
Eroica 14:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Theories into One?

message: I have corrected the word "fictional" to "legendary" in re the discussion of Milesius of Galicia.  A fiction (thus, something fictional) is something which is invented and is known to be invented.  We do not know that Milesius was fictional.  We do know that was legendary - which simply means there are lots of legends about him.  There are legends about Erik the Red, whom we know to have actually existed; and there are legends about Herne the Hunter, whom we are reasonably certain did not exist; and in between the two extremes, there are legends about Yeshua Bar-Yosef/Jesus Christ, whom at least 40% of the world's people (Christians and Muslims) believe existed, and perhaps as many people believe he's fictional - but there can be no denying that he is legendary.  So it is, too, with Milesius.  He might have never existed, in which case he was a purely fictional invention; or he might have been a real person whose exploits were greated elaborated upon over time so that he became incredible (that is, the stories got so wild, they were no longer credible - believable - but became incredible, unbelievable).  We don't know whether he is a real person or a fictional one; but we do know he is legendary; and he is also arguably mythical, though that's a bit of a stretch.
Please be careful when editing Wikipedia, to use words for what they mean - not for what they sound like.</br>
98.210.219.30 (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And equally, take care when reading. The idea that Míl was fictitious is O'Rahilly's argument and presented and sourced as such. I have reverted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Take Linguistic Care