Talk:Caratacus

message: "Although the Severn is visible from British Camp, it is nowhere near it,"
Tacitus describes a stream - the Severn is a big river, of course it starts a stream, but there are hundreds of streams in that area, no doubt in the area of British camp as well.  - why did this author assume Tacitus would be talkign about the Severn ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.208.31 (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: The Severn

message: Hello there, I just stopped by this article for information, and I see from the talk page that there's been some edit war or other going on, and I couldn't care less about that but I did want to point out that one of the paragraphs, under the 'Modern interpretations' heading, is weird and uninformative, and ask whether someone who knows about this subject might change it to something that makes sense. The paragraph reads:
One is Pomponia Graecina, wife of Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of Britain, who as Tacitus relates, was accused of following a "foreign superstition", generally considered to be Christianity.[20] Tacitus describes her as the "wife of the Plautius who returned from Britain with an ovation", which led John Lingard (1771 – 1851) to conclude, in his History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, that she was British;[21] however, this conclusion is a misinterpretation of what Tacitus wrote. An ovation was a military parade in honour of a victorious general, so the person who "returned from Britain with an ovation" is clearly Plautius, not Pomponia. This has not prevented the error being repeated and disseminated widely.
Where do I start? Well, firstly, it should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about Rome that the person receiving the ovation would have been Plautius and not his wife, but I don't see why this is remotely relevant to the question of whether or not his wife was British, whereas the paragraph seems to regard the matter as fatal to any suggestion that she might have been. Secondly, what does the nationality of his wife have to do with the price of fish anyway? I have a suspicion that the suggestion might be that if the wife was both British and Christian, such would represent good evidence that Christianity existed in Britain at a time when Caratacus would have been living there, which in turn gives support to the notion that Caractacus might have been a Christian before he was taken to Rome, which notion the previous paragraph concerns - but if that's the point, why doesn't it just say so? Talk about opaque! I'd correct it myself, but since this is only half a guess as to what on earth half the paragraph might be talking about (and I have absolutely no idea about the other half of it), I hardly feel qualified. If this is where edit wars get us, some people need to spare half a thought for the article's casual readership, but in any case I wonder whether someone else might be able to do something with this. Lordrosemount (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weird paragraph

message: Archive1_16_Jan by LinuxDude
:User:LinuxDude - you're still doing it. I will continue to revert any of your edits that try to supress the fact that Jowett's book is full of deliberate falsehoods and misinformation. Every time he cites a source I'm familiar with he lies about what it says. I've gone out of my way to investigate some of the sources I'm not familiar with and found he's lied about them as well. I should have simply reverted this entirely spurious theory when it was first posted. Instead, I thought I could accommodate it by explaining what its errors were, but unfortunately its advocates aren't interested in the truth. I give an inch and you take a mile. I've requested a third opinion which will hopefully sort this out for the time being, but I fully expect after the dust has died down you'll return with another name and start reposting the same crap as if nothing ever happened. --Nicknack009 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop it. You are wrong. --Nicknack009 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverts

message: Before you revert this again, please check out Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule.
I have read over the diatribe on this discussion page above and checked references to gauge the issue.  From what I can see you are offended by the association of Claudia and Caratacus.  Your opinion has been clearly stated.  However, I have obtained Jowett’s book, and verified that he cites his sources accurately, which he does.
You don’t deny the influence of James Ussher, Cardinal Alford, and Archdeacon J. Williams, or Baronius.    I have checked all except for Alford.  Unfortunately for you, I own a copy of Baronius’ Annales Ecclesiastici because I collect rare books.  I have posted pictures to my  User page.
If your personal problem is with Jowett, debunk him elsewhere.  If your problem is with the connection between Claudia and the early Brits, than find someone who refutes the source of the claims.  Even the CCEL link you provided seems to consider the idea.
Regardless, whether you are right or not, ceases to matter when you resort to dishonest tactics because all credibility is lost .  You are being dishonest by attempting to refute a claim you do not like, by refuting an author you do not like, and by falsely attributing the claim to him.
In verifying these sources I can confirmed that Jowett was simply repeating something that he encountered elsewhere.  Wikipedia has its rules.  Abide by them. (note the rule on the use of weasle words).
LinuxDude 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have provided examples of Jowett's dishonest citations over at The Drama of the Lost Disciples, which you have ignored, as you ignore everything inconvenient. You're also prepared to be as dishonest as it takes, which I'm not, and the lies are halfway round the world before the truth gets its boots on, as usual. Write what you want, life's too short. I'm gone. --Nicknack009 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in your personal problem with Jowett, nor am I interested in defending him.  To me he is a non-issue.  In fact he should probably not even be referenced in this article.  If you cannot grasp that this idea did not originate with him, than I cannot help your shoddy scholarship.  Furthermore, you seem to make it personal when someone corrects your contributions.  I don’t care what you think of me, or how you try to label me, if you cannot justify your edits you should not be making them.  In this article I have shown the source of these ideas and cited them.  I don’t oppose opposition if it has foundation in good scholarship.   I wish you the best.
-- LinuxDude 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE 

message: I request the parts containing waesel words to either (a) be removed or (b) be rewritten citing concrete facts, according to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words policy.---Panairjdde 11:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: The tales of Caratacus may be false or true. Who could ever be certain after almost 2 millenia? The theories are a rollicking good read however so why not let them stand under "Ancient and modern myths(?).."? This alerts the reader to think about the content and does not endanger the reputation of Wikipedia for accuracy. Although the theory could be accurate - but who really knows? loxley 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lets all enjoy the stories

message: I've come across an interesting book by Graham Webster (Rome against Caratacus):
:In Caratacus, Tacitus saw a man of great integrity and dignity and he used the speech to make an ironic contrast between a noble barbarian chief and the virtues lacking in so many Roman senators. 38.
In addition, their does not appear in the book any reference to Linus, Claudia, or of Caratacus converting to Christianity.  Though this does not preclude the possibility, but does make it seem unlikely.
L Hamm 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tacitus Rhetorical Use of Caratacus 

message: Cary rightfully translates the word άρχηγος into Chieftain, however he also acknowledges that the 6th century fragment “Excerpta Vaticana significantly from the 12th century fragment preserved by Joannes Zonaras. U P Boissevain (ed), Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Vol 3 p. 12, 1955; Earnest Cary   The earlier fragment calls him a Christian άρχηγος χριστιανός while the latter calls him a Chieftain (άρχηγος).  I don’t oppose including both translations, however you do, for you constantly refute my edits instead of finding the middle ground and you cite only the translations that use your interpretation.  This is not very honest.  
Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you could show me where  Foster’s translation at Project Gutenberg also says "chieftain".  I believe it fails to shed any light on the translation of the fragments in question.  Again, your efforts are not completely transparent.
Even Bill Thayer’s very own site had “Christian” (from the older fragment), until this debate was pointed out to him, at which time he changes his mind about which translation he liked better.
I am not intolerant of your edits, and I do not remove them in favour of my own, and therefore ask for more objectivity on your behalf as well.
:Both fragments are included on both pages I have posted links to, liar. --Nicknack009 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I had "Christian" not from the older fragment, but because I input the text by rekeying it, using text expanders: in which "chieftain" is "chfn" and "Christian" is "chrn" ▸ I had the "chieftain" text in front of me, but one slip of the finger, and I hit the adjacent key R instead of F, then the expansion. . . finally, sloppy proofreading on my part, and bingo.  BT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.6.157 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  άρχηγος 

message: Your personal efforts to refute British Israeli authors have been cited elsewhere George Jowett.  However George Jowett in no way shape or form has anything to do with this article.  As best as I can tell he uses Dio Cassius as a footnote, just as you do.  His only relationship to any of this is that like me, he contends that Christianity came to Britain earlier than commonly accepted.  If the earlier fragment is correct, than Dio Cassius is supporting this notion.  So what is your incentive for continually raising George Jowett or British Israel?  I suspect that you feel more confident refuting British Israeli’s rather than dealing with source documents.  This above everything else, strikes me as completely contrary to everything Wikipedia is about, and utterly dishonest.  Unless you can show George Jowett has anything more to do with Caratacus than simply expressing an interest in him or citing Dio Cassius, I’m going to remove all of your references to him here as ad hominem and irrelevant. WikiRat1 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Israel 

message: Greetings. I'm new to Wiki and I'm currently editing: Dieu et mon droit. In my research into the origins of the Lion and Dragon supporters on the Royal Arms, I've come across a rare news cutting dated 1841, about Heraldry, Tacitus and Caradoc. Although the historical references from this cutting are valuable to my motto article, the article in its entirety, deviates too much from mottoes. The article is beautifully written and I don't want to break it up into extracts. So, would anyone object, if were to edit the entire news cutting [approx: 700 words] and examples of his coat of arms into "Caratacus," so that I can redirect. Also, is there any genealogical connection between Owen or any Cadwalladr and Caratacus?Stephen2nd (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wimberley Lecture on Caradoc; Doncaster 1841. 

message: I don't know why the IP editor did this, but I've restored it. See  if anyone wants a reference. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On this topic I wonder if we could use his native name as a keyword instead of the latinised variant. Other English Wikipedia articles take pains to render foreign names as correctly as possible, so why not Celtic and Greek ones? Reason for the request is that English Wikipedia is used as a source by many services such as Facebook, and this usage is not bound to decrease. Alternatively a redirection entry could be made for the correct name, but the best would be to have his own name as a keyword instead of the variant used by his enemies. Uttrediay (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Celtic version of name 

message: Caradoc was a form of his name (possibly even the main form, if I remember it right) given in the Encyclopedia Britannia back around 2002. In this article there's only the Battle of Caer Caradoc and an 1841 reference to Caradoc mentioned on this Talk page. Is Caradoc no longer deemed correct? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Caradoc is a middle Welsh version of the name (Caratauc in Old Welsh, Caradog in modern Welsh). It's not the original form that would have been used at the time. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Nicknack.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caradoc? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Caratacus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209231257/http://www.roman-britain.org:80/people/caratacus.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/people/caratacus.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In a television series called "The Roman Invasion of Britain" (of which I found an excerpt on Youtube), hosted by Bettany Hughes, the speech is delivered in a, let's say, more modern translation. I have no idea who is responsible for that translation, but it is well worth mentioning here.
"Noble emperor and people of Rome, 
if I had been less successful in resisting you, 
I might well have come to your city as a friend, 
not as a prisoner. You might well have been glad, 
under those circumstances, to ally yourself 
with someone so nobly born. 
As things are, I face humiliation, 
while you have glory. 
I had horses, men, weapons. 
Are you surprised I am sorry to have lost them?
Just because you want to rule the world, 
you think everyone else is happy to be made a slave?
If I had surrendered without a fight, 
no one would have heard of my downfall, or your triumph. 
If you kill me, they will both be forgotten. 
But if you spare me, I shall stand for ever 
as a symbol of your mercy."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.211.201.66 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caractacus's speech 

message: The court of King Caractacus was just passing by... Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we mention the song?