Keltic Cycles

This thread is offered so that some people may understand that what is today called a Keltic Cycle, is a recent literary invention and not an ancient format. These cycles are composed of the synthesis of numerous stories, poems, and pseudo-histories related to a given topic. These cycles are by all means not direct translations of a text and are often highly elaborated on by their modern authors.

Now, then...

The Donn Cycle may have been taken from the Lebor Gabála/Lebor Gabála Érenn/Leabhar Gabhála Éireann in English The Book of the Taking; aka, The Book of Taking Erin's Isle/Erie/Ireland or The Book of the Conquests and also often commonly called 'The Book of Invasions?'

This Milesian character is Eber/Emer Donn mac Miles/Mil Espáine

When alive he was somewhat of a very bad dude, hence the name (Donn means the Dark One in English). I think there also was an old Hebridean story about Donn's pursuit of the Dannan/De'anna from Erie to the Isle of Mull? In one or both stories, after he was killed, I think he became the infamous Donn, king (god) of the dead? There are several additional short-stories just about the KIA Donn. Its been a long time since I've seen these stories, I'll have to check on them?

I've never seen this part of the Leabhar Gabh`ala called a cycle before? But, then again, there may be more to the story than I'm aware of. Maybe whomever connected all the sperate stories into a single thread? Thats how all the other so-called Cycles became Cycles to begin with. Again, maybe there's a knowing Erinite out there that could shed some more light?

I hope this helps...

That's 'Celtic' in English, not 'Keltic'.

So are those old collections or have they been made into cycles by modern philologists for ease of reference?

Kelt Cycles are modern constructs and not ancient devices. And, oudysseos the 'K' is there for a reason. I will not apply Lhuyd's usage here and as this was taken from the Greek, shall I use Κελτοί?

Ἀνερρίφθω κύβος

To use 'Keltic' instead of 'Celtic' seems just a little funny when speaking (writing) in English, since 'Celtic' is the norm spelling of the word and follows the norm with which English words in general are spelled (using 'c' over 'k', unlike for example how words are written in Finnish, which uses 'k').

.
GAH! It just leads to confusion (Seltik :inquisitive:). K is better.
.

Oh dear, I fear I've re-opened a large can of worms. No matter, because it seems the worms had long since set off to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Or something.:drama1:

cmaq: what bothers me most about these cycles isn't so much their putative existence (we don't know how large they are, or whether they are really cycles in the sense of the matter associated with the Tain Bo Cuailgne etc.) it's that the language used isn't Irish. It seems to be a weird mixture of Welsh with Irish. For instance, try and find any reference to this "Entata uiManawydan"... you can't? Not surprising - the name is gibberish. There is no Irish or Welsh Entata. The supposed patronymic makes no sense - Manawydan is a character from the Welsh Mabinogion; here's a quick reference to who he is from Wikipedia. There's no reference in the Mabinogion to a son or daughter called Entata and moreover "ui" is Irish, but it's the plural form of the familiar O we find in many surnames (the older form is Ua) and is only used collectively.

Similarly "Telam duaNam"... try searching for the name Telam; you'll only find it as a name in Azerbaijan, not in any Celtic source. What's "dua"? It's placed as if it's meant to be a patronymic prefix like Ua or Mac or Ni, but there's no such word. "Muirran ta Breahain" - who is that? What's "ta"? Tá is the 3rd person singular of the verb "to be" in Irish (and in some dialects the 1st and 2nd person also) but it makes little sense in a name and you can't have a median H in Irish or in Scots Gaelic orthography. "Breahain" looks like a mistake for "Breitheamh" the (later) original form of the anglicised "Brehon" - a subdivision of Irish Druids (probably) who acted as judges and lawyers.

An inscription on an "idol" of Andrasta? No such animal. Presumably this is supposed to be Andraste, said to have been invoked by Boudicca... what a shame whoever it was had to make stuff up, when you can click on actual quotation attributed to her by Dio Cassius :no:

I'm afraid an elaborate hoax has been perpetrated at some stage.

What perplexes me about those unpublished cycles is that no one has heard of them; I can understand that if they are unpublished no one would know what they are about, but that someone would be working on them and yet they wouldn't appear as "manuscript xyz" in a catalogue of work to be done, I find it a bit hard to swallow. Even unpublished material (and I have worked once on an unpublished papyrus fragment, a receipt from some village in Egypt) has reference numbers. And it isn't as if it would be one of the 500.000 papyric fragments (mostly shopping lists, receipts and random notes) awaiting publication, this should be something major that should at least appear in a catalogue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

Nothing has changed since this came up four days ago.

---

Guys, give it a rest already. We're debating it internally.

This is our current say on the matter. It is quite clear, but apparently has been missed. We are attempting to expedite the matter, though if that is not enough for some they are free to deny our application for tenure.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...t=95156&page=2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blacksnail

Your concerns are appreciated. There is debate backstage. Bringing it up again has added nothing to the issue beyond another jumping off point to a rumble in the forum, which is counterproductive. We will either keep them or get rid of them, and you'll very likely need to wait until the next release to find out what we've done.

Sorry, that's just how it is.

---

For those who are wondering "gee, why do the EB team members get so testy when all I'm doing is asking a question?" - this specific thread is a perfect example. Same topic, three times, five days. The previous two threads are locked and - as if by magic - a new thread appears discussing the exact same topic.

This thread is also a perfect example of why EB team members stop posting on the public forums. It is not criticism that drives us away, but the same point repeated twelve different ways that we have addressed over and over again. We have a high opinion of the intelligence of our fans, which is why we don't often attribute threads like this to ignorance of the issue - unfortunately that leaves willful ignorance, which we aren't required to humor.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, this argument about the cycles is getting out of proportion. You are on the Internet discussing possible forgery of historical quotes on a forum for a free-for-all modification of a retail game. You are arguing about one of the most trivial aspects of the mod, one of the least concentrated areas, and you have made several threads about it in the recent time. I understand if you find certain aspects dubious, and I can understand it if you wish to discuss the topic, but this is just silly. You are, in laymen terms, wasting time discussing a bullshit thing. This modification is not about cramming in the most impressive quotes ever conceived by man. Understand that modifying the quotes is at the bottom of the bedrock that represents our priorities, and with the team moving over their efforts to the M2TW platform, these kind of threads are grating on our nerves, mildly speaking.

Why don't you guys move over and criticize my Middle Persian translations instead? I don't hold a degree in linguistics. I am pretty sure I have botched up the grammar considerably and in many places. With work in a Middle-Persian voice-mod, I am sure the problem gets even worse. It is even in late Sassanian rendition. C'mon, why don't you guys come over here with your planks, hammers and nails? This is important. This will bug the hell out of you if you play the Pahlava. You will see those errors constantly, on the campaign map, or even on the battlefield. Why don't you guys question the authenticity on that?

I'll tell you guys this much: When you are out to break new grounds in multimedia, with a set goal and with all the creativity in the world, you are bound to break a few things along the road. Our goal is clear, and it has been stated many times, but this mod is not about peer-reviewed history. We must allow some conjecture, we must allow ourselves many liberties, and in many times against our will and in most times imposed by us because of the game's basic structure. I use Middle Persian because for what it is worth, it changed very little between the Parthian rendition and the late Sassanian incarnation as written by Medieval Zoroastrian scribes; The bi-lingual inscription of Shâpûr I proves its similarity, and the Manichaean "Parthian" texts of Turfan gives all of it another weight.

It is a small sacrifice along the road of a huge improvement, very unorthodox, but a true pioneer's move in breaking new grounds. I do not speak the old Pârnî language. I do not know a terrible lot of Old Persian, and I am not a specialist in discovering the grammatical difference between Parthian Pahlavî and Sassanian Pahlavî (Even though they belong to slightly different branches). But I need a core, a bedrock until I can bring about the chisel and the sculptor's hammer.

So pay some respect and complain about things that matter. I am almost flabbergasted that no one has uttered anything about the Persian translations. Just recently we have a handful of threads about Celtic quotes. What kind of signals does that send to me? Could I just put any kind of garbage into the mod without people noticing? People don't question why there is an Achaemenid bodyguard cavalry with xyston in the game (As accurate as it can get, yet somewhat unorthodox due to how recent the idea of Achaemenid "proto-knight" is), or why there is for instance a completely inaccurate portrayal of a Hyrcanian hillman with a rope for a belt.

Or why there still are Pajama foot-archers wearing the tiara of the old Immortals' regiment. Or why the old Iranian archer-spearmen was once named "Arshtibara" as if they were royal spear-bearers. These were significant things! Partho-Hellenic infantry, and elephants... It's silly, "most" people think of Parthians as being strictly light horse and knight in its military structure.

This is silly. You are arguing about obscure cycles, when the efforts could be better concentrated on healthy observation of more important things.

Here, Here. Well said sir. Can we all agree to let this issue rest and let the EB team do what they do best? Which is make a great game which we all play?! Thank you.

ps. Don't make me send Pez after you!

Wait, Elmet, are you seriously using Wikipedia as proof for anything?! come on... wikipedia?! talkabout non-academic. if wikipedia tends to have anything right it is only by chance, not essence. for instance, if i looked at their Proto-Germanic entry I would get pissed off really quick because it's outdated information and it's simply not correct even in the context of old information. don't believe me? it's very apparent after consulting free online materials such as Fick, Falk, Torp- part of the problem is the generalization aspect of wikipedia in relation to a concept that encompasses a longer timeline than can be generalized. also, modern Irish does not dictate Proto-Celtic by virtue of Celtic-ness... it SHOULD be so that a reconstructed Celtic language does not match what you'd expect- now if you argue phonemes/morphemes and Primitive Irish roots (or even PIE) that is something different. modern Germans shouldn't understand Proto-Germanic either and I expect the same complaints (although i admit i am surprised nobody has done so yet).

I am sorry, it seems I have misunderstood the purpose of this forum; see I thought it was a forum where to discuss matters about the game no matter how trivial, and when I posted I did it with this in mind, to get opinions from other users. It seems the EB team regards this forum as a complaint box though and anything said in doubt of something in the mod is immediately a complaint/whine/bitching/etc and to be treated accordingly. Sorry, I didn't mean to bitch personally, just to discuss, probably with other users not necessarily members of the team. And yes I would have posted in another thread, if it hadn't been locked by the time I noticed, sorry again.

Persian Cataphract: I don't know anything about Hyrkanian hillmen's belts, or whether the voice mod is spoken in late Sassanian Persian with a Shiraz regional accent instead of a Parthian accent. I couldn't tell you. But what I can tell you is that the Celtic quotes are pure fantasy, so I was curious about them. Therefore, when I joined the forums the other day, I asked about them.

If someone like you suggests that we have set the bar a little too high for what is, after all, just something being done for fun, fair enough, I can't disagree. But that isn't what other people have said on the matter.

I expected to be told, "Well, we're not really bothered that much - let's face it, what concrete material could we have on 3rd Century BCE Britain or Ireland? We just put those quotes in because they sound cool."

But instead I was told that this matter had provoked a storm on the forums and pointed to previous threads which said that the quotes were what someone called Ranika had submitted and they could be trusted, on account of his impeccable credentials as a Celtic scholar and a professional translator and as an archaeologist.

I was a bit surprised.

Then, searching the forums showed me that someone else called Riadach remarked on the same things. His knowledge of Irish specifically goes deeper than mine. He was shouted down, not to put too fine a point on it, even though he was pointing out what were schoolboy errors that would be fairly obvious to anyone with a fairly rudimentary knowlege of Irish and/or Welsh.

I'm sorry if this is upsetting or hornet's nest poking... it's no fun being told you have been hoaxed, especially when you're told it wasn't even a particularly good hoax. It's even worse when you realise that you can't trust people, even when you're engaged in a co-operative project for a hobby like this, but what else can I say?

Blitzkrieg: I know it's fashionable to attack Wikipedia. I'm not relying on it, merely using it to illustrate how quickly and easily the information can be accessed. To turn this on its head - are you seriously suggesting that because it's in Wikipedia, it's wrong and so Manawydan is not a character in the Mabinogion and Dio Cassius did not quote Boudicca...? Good luck with that.

I think this does it for me and this forum. Good luck all.

:no:

I was not specifically addressing a certain person; I am talking about common courtesy, and general nitpicking. I would be the last person on this planet to speak against open discourse. Do by all means discuss, discuss anything to your heart's content. Discuss! Please do discuss! But there is a fine line between high-lighting a certain aspect, and doing this multiple times in a short time-span Improvement brought upon this modification is almost solely driven by observation and experience from our fans. This is a very good thing and has ensured for us a great privilege, and that is a loyal fan-base.

This has nothing to do with hoaxes; Hoaxes are inevitable even in the world of academia. Dogmas, misconceptions and all of the sorts exists within all forms of academia. In all possible alignments, agendas and in both antagonistic and in propagandistic forms. We are not a filter, in spite of the best of efforts. We appreciate when the community outside, especially with a fine quality and a fine sense of recognizing anomalies, notifies us about things we may have missed. In this case, we have brought about an internal debate. Fine and dandy...

...Until we see yet another thread about it. And another. Ever seen "Family Guy"? In some episodes there is this annoying guy who calls the protagonist a "phoney". He'll pop up at a random a handful of times and yell "Hey everyone! Here's a phoney! A real phoney! A big fat phoney!". It's hilarious in Family Guy, but on the forums, in mildly put terms, it sucks donkey's nuts to see a trivial issue pop up more than twice in less than a week. Not just that, with the two others locked down. It's a major difference.

We appreciate your concern... But we pathologically and in unison find nothing worse than whining. This thread is the same as whining.

I didn't know about the other threads. I've not been here more than a couple of days. Anyway, I've said my piece. The facts are there and I shall say no more on this matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Wait, Elmet, are you seriously using Wikipedia as proof for anything?! come on... wikipedia?! talkabout non-academic. if wikipedia tends to have anything right it is only by chance, not essence. for instance, if i looked at their Proto-Germanic entry I would get pissed off really quick because it's outdated information and it's simply not correct even in the context of old information. don't believe me? it's very apparent after consulting free online materials such as Fick, Falk, Torp- part of the problem is the generalization aspect of wikipedia in relation to a concept that encompasses a longer timeline than can be generalized.

---

Bitzkrieg80 do you have any idea what you have just said there? If Wikipedia has anything correct then it is only by chance? Hmm not quite sure you are correct there, Wikipedia has a policy where references are needed to back up submitted data, therefore if you disagree with the articles submitted then go and find a reference or two which proves it wrong and visit the discussion page with your issue. You are generalising Wikipedia on your oppinion of one article. I detest people who attempt to downgrade Wikipedia, thankfully for you, you did not use the fact that it can be edited by anyone as part of your argument. That would have made me laugh.

Guys, this must be a painful issue for the team, as Ranika is a respected member and not here to defend himself. So I hope you understand why the team is curt, especially since the topic was revived three times this week.

As should be clear from TA's response, the team is aware something is wrong, and are discussing it. What more do you expect?

If only Ranika were here.

But he is not. So this issue is best left to internal debate.

(My two cents.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wandering Scholar

Bitzkrieg80 do you have any idea what you have just said there? If Wikipedia has anything correct then it is only by chance? Hmm not quite sure you are correct there, Wikipedia has a policy where references are needed to back up submitted data, therefore if you disagree with the articles submitted then go and find a reference or two which proves it wrong and visit the discussion page with your issue. You are generalising Wikipedia on your oppinion of one article. I detest people who attempt to downgrade Wikipedia, thankfully for you, you did not use the fact that it can be edited by anyone as part of your argument. That would have made me laugh.

---

Nope. I have the books listed as references under Proto-Germanic and the content does not have anything to do with what is in that entry- there are some good things in it, based on Lehmann (although outdated) and Voyles (as well as other authors) So if those references listed do not contain the information listed, then how academic is that? Makes ones wonder...

I like wikipedia and use it alot- but not for academic data. One DOES need scholarly articles and authorities in THIS world, if one wants to use the common ground of high standards we call academia. For this reason, we all agree we need to have sources for those quotes- but not because Ranika is wrong, but because he is not here to provide them. nobody is saying that we're perfect or unwilling to change something, especially when an argument is made which has good logic and proper sources. i have YET to see a single legitimate source against the quotes, other than a lack on our part, which as noted, isn't the best proof of positive. let's see some citations from scholarly articles, otherwise it's your word against anyone elses- that's how citation and sources work. I for one am not unhappy to see people questioning them- i like it when that happens- some people might note my own inquiry into certain Celtic portrayals, just like I do with certain Germanic portrayals. The disrespect made on a language reconstructed by Ranika which nobody has shown themselves more knowledgable on is what I dislike. The jump from 'i think this might be an error' to 'this shit is pure fantasy' is what pisses everyone off and maybe it is hard to get criticism heard sometimes, but we are working on it- and I can guarantee that if you don't act like an ass and insult people you will have much better luck. I am an ass so I don't expect anybody to be convinced :grin: but I am sure going to let you know what I think anyways

modern Irish and Welsh has NOTHING to do with what is spoken in 272 BC other than the linguistic lineage of those languages. if we visit the holy wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Irish and we look at the date, we might notice that the EARLIEST written literature concerning the culture was 800 years later and Modern Irish is even further removed... nobody is saying this isn't useful information. it is a fact that no academic institution uses wikipedia for sources

Quote:

---

Nope. I have the books listed as references under Proto-Germanic and the content does not have anything to do with what is in that entry- there are some good things in it, based on Lehmann (although outdated) and Voyles (as well as other authors) So if those references listed do not contain the information listed, then how academic is that? Makes ones wonder...

---

Then by all means challenge the article, or go even better and reword it.

Quote:

---

modern Irish and Welsh has NOTHING to do with what is spoken in 272 BC other than the linguistic lineage of those languages. if we visit the holy wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_Irish and we look at the date, we might notice that the EARLIEST written literature concerning the culture was 800 years later and Modern Irish is even further removed...

---

What are you getting at here? Not you personally but what is the whole debate about? It seems to be annoying the people who do the hard work and actually provide our pleasure. I think that angering them is a bad idea..

Well I concede that you have a point and I SHOULD do that ~;) instead I think I will currently get the ProtoGermanic voice mod implemented into 1.1- I am very selfish in that way and I want to hear it.

Btw, i am not attacking anyone in particular, so I hope nobody feels that I am attacking them- I am asking for facts (citations) and defending what otherwise is a respectable contribution to the mod (Proto-Celtic in its land/faction-based variations). I must say, other than from PIE, there isn't a lot of information on Proto-Celtic (I've found from my own studies) and that it's a challenge regardless, so Old Irish/Welsh and modern usages do help, I'm definitely not saying that it doesn't- I merely want to reinforce that it might not match as they are different timelines and context of a language.

also, i am definitely not the official spokesman for EB and take responsibility for any irritation caused ~:)

Quote:

---

i have YET to see a single legitimate source against the quotes, other than a lack on our part, which as noted, isn't the best proof of positive. let's see some citations from scholarly articles, otherwise it's your word against anyone elses- that's how citation and sources work.

---

Perhaps I misunderstood this part, but what you are saying is:

1) person a says x exists, but has no obvious way of proving it does, and no one else has heard of x's existence
2) person b doubts x's existence and he has to back up his/her doubt with proof.

There is some fault in this logic, the burden of proof is on the one who makes the positive assertion, not on the one who doubts. If I claim I have the diary of Moses on my book shelf, it is up to me to prove it, not up to you to disprove it.

that is valid, but the lack of accessible authority (as in published sources) on both sides makes it a difficult situation. this kind of thing will be resolved in the future as a wiki for eb2, hopefully- because we truly want to share what we know and what we use- it's just a lot of work (kudos to wikipedia on that ~:) actually). we also can't do everything flawlessly and welcome discussion and input from all of you. the newest Germanic word for mercenary (PGmc drug [verb root] + ul [derivational noun suffix] + az [nominative inflection] similar to flugul 'bird') comes from an idea of a fan (Swabian) which i loved but cannot take credit for, replacing the older term 'guest', which wasn't terrible- constructive criticism is great like that- things become better. thus, we look into the comments on said subject and take an appropriate action- we are a team though and so no one gets to remove something 'just because' even if there is a good reason for it. all of you who contribute to the forum are teammembers too (sorry- no special permissions) and we truly appreciate your interest and the time you all take to write stuff, even the criticism.

a funny story, awhile back when i was not a member, I got the impression that criticism wasn't welcome [back when overpowered Rebels were the routine threads]. i went ahead and posted and said 'i know nobody cares what i think but' and had an attitude and yet still Foot, Kull and others responded to the comment despite my attitude... I was surprised at how reasonable everybody was... I obviously still have attitude problems ~;) but my point is that most if not all EB members really do care about the work, gameplay and historical accuracy, so don't hold back on the constructive criticism, but let's all try and be more friendly about it. Give us some time too... Romina was not built in a day (bad inside joke :grin: concerning a recent review and mistype).

I think this doesn't come down to people lying; its universities being ****ing lazy and letting things rot in their basements for years on end, with no attempt for peer reviewing, or at least, releasing a statement that allows for things to be changed heavily once the peer reviewing is completed.


Thats my two cents.

Back in town now, and I can see we have been some very busy (biz-eeee) little bees; very busy indeed. The intent of this thread was to suggest that one may want to think more than twice about getting too tightly wound around this particular axletree. For example, the literary core that would much later come to form these Irish Cycles was not composed until about 500 hundred years after the end of the EB time frame. A point I'm sure others have made and on many more this significance is not entirely lost.

russia almighty, as far as the review system goes; in my experience (archaeology) if one follows the three trier system, it seems fairly expedited. However, if I may add, there are by far, more lazy authors, of who's number, I count myself as one.

Elmetiacos,

Right, to tell the truth I find the Quotes difficult to read, particularly
those attributed to the Irish Cycles, as they tend to be somewhat long (another bone of contention no doubt). In fact, I've only noticed the Donn reference. Yet, I'm somewhat familiar with the welsh form of Manawydan (the Irish Manannan) which I assume is the same as the Hebridean personage called the Sea Rover (Muirannach??? as I heard it said) the king of the sea.

As I understand in Hebridean tradition the Dark One (Donn) was promised the inheritance of all the islands as he pursued the people across the sea to Mull's Isle. Yet, in doing so Donn's boasting insulted the Sea Rover who took him down below to drownd in the clear cold waters immediately offshore of Mull. Still, he was buried on Mull under a huge cairn which still bares his name. In this way the Sea Rover fulfilled the promise, as Donn inherited all the land of the Islands, although as the king of the dead. Thats the rub and this is how I understand the tradition, which is no Irish Cycle.

Again, my advice to all on this subject is to take a grain of salt and chill a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

Romina was not built in a day (bad inside joke :grin: concerning a recent review and mistype).

---

Ah, not like the Italians will be getting away with it, eh? ~;)