Talk:Brutus of Troy

Legendary descendant

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)

Brutus of Britain vs. Brutus of Troy

I am thinking this article should be renamed to Brutus of Troy. Although he is known under both names I believe that Brutus of Troy is more common. A quick search of google reveals 160 results for "Brutus of Troy" and 82 for "Brutus of Britain". The results for "Brutus of Britain" are inflated by the several Wikipedia clones. I'll attempt to do some more research. Any suggestions from others are welcome. -- Popsracer 03:24, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This may be one of those rare cases where calling him "of Britain" is more important than tracking which is the more common usage. First, "Brutus" is a common enough enough in ancient times, that there might be a non-mythical "Brutus of Troy" -- I don't have quick access to a copy of Pauly-Wissowa's Realencyclopaedie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft, so I'm admitting this is just a guess. Secondly, this legendary personage is more closely associated with the island allegedly named for him (Britain), than with the city where he was allegedly born. Which leads to the last point, that someone who knows about this personage (like me) would not readily associate "Brutus of Troy" with the individual Geoffrey of Monmouth describes in his book.

If a search in Pauly-Wissowa's exhaustive work fails to turn up another "Brutus of Troy", why don't we create a redirect to this article under that name & see which one attracts more traffic? -- llywrch 04:43, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Another Brutus of Troy was said to be one of the companion of Aeneas on the journey from Troy to Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Britain v. Troy

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)bhaar

Lifetime?

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

Brutus was not of Troy, but was descended from Trojan royalty. He lived from circa 1250 bc, born in Latium (Rome) until 1210 bc, died in Britain.

He most certainly wasn't a historical person. 78.51.114.96 (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Brutus Stone

the Brutus Stone in Totnes

In Totnes, Devon it said that he first landed in Britain there. there is a stone in the high street called the Brutus Stone commemorating this. Totnesmartin 17:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There is also the London Stone in Cannon Street, London, which has a rich history in the scheme of the city's development. What remains is but the cap of the stone. The body of the London Stone is said to have once borne an inscription in the ancient British-Celtic tongue which was a dedication to the goddess Diana / Artemis who inspired the first king to come to these shores.

Legacy

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)

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)

Christianising?

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)

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)

Move to Brutus of Britain

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)

Historia Britonum

...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)

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)

Summary of Historia Regum Britanniae

Towards the end of the Historia Regum Britanniae section the present text includes details that AREN'T in Geoffrey of Monmouth's original - Brutus's palace on the site of the Guildhall, Temple of Diana at St Paul's, London Stone as altar are all much later elaborations. They don't belong in this section. Perhaps part of "Legacy"? John O'London (talk) 00:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

These details, plus the one about Brutus being buried in a temple on Tower Hill (never heard of that one, may be a mistake for the burial of Bran's head at the "White Hill"?) are not in the Historia. Although interesting, they are later additions to the story, and since this section is headed Historia Regum Britanniae it should be restricted to what Geoffrey of Monmouth actually wrote

They were added to this page in May 2007. I've deleted them. John O'London (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

brutus of troy edits

How can my edit be inaccurate when the "table of nations" wikipedia page states the same thing I am? It is confusing to have 2 wiki pages say 2 different things.

1-Did the tradition start in the middle ages? NO. 2-Did Josephus tabulate a "table of nations" in the 1st century? YES. 3-Is the University of Chicago a good source? YES

You can add whatever you like without removing the reference to Thea Summerfield's important article (highly relevant to this Wikipedia article), which you clearly have not read. Cagwinn (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I have added details on the 6th century Frankish Table of Nations - which is the text that this article should have been referring to from the beginning - to the main Table of Nations article, along with cites to Summerfield and Goffart (who is the leading expert on the Frankish Table of Nations today).

To show you why the Josephus reference is valid. From Hoeh's compendium of human history

"The story of the famous Trojan kings is little known to history students today. It begins in the days of Jasius, or Jason, who became king of Celtica in 1601bc. The halfbrother of Jasius is Dardanus, whom Josephus declares to be Darda or Dara (See II Chronicles 2:6). Dardanus fled to Asia Minor, married the daughter of a native king, and founded the vital fort of Troy. Thus the Trojan line of kings were able to dominate Western Asia Minor. The Trojans were generally supported by the Assyrians in all their wars against the Greeks. The line of Trojan kings may be found on page 12 of Enderbie's "Cambria Triumphans, or Brittain in its Perfect Lustre".

Dardanus (Compare the date 1477 with Eusebius' account of Dynasty XV in Egypt) "

http://www.herbert-armstrong.org/Miscellaneous/Compendium%20Vol%201.pdf

Stop removing perfectly valid material that is sourced from the work of respected modern scholars!!! You clearly do not understand how Wikipedia operates and if you continue to edit war, you will be reported and blocked from editing. Cagwinn (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You are the only one with the problem. Your "perfectly sourced information" is a dead end to the Byzantine era whilst the table of nations and history of Troy was documented well before that.

You don't know what you are talking about at all and are breaking Wikipedia rules by edit warring. I am reporting you. Cagwinn (talk) 04:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

You don't know what you are talking about. Your premise that the "table of nations" began in the byzantinian era is untrue.IT is NOT TRUE. Thats why you can not debate it you just delete and replace with your opinionated contribution.

LOL, no - I am saying that the British legend of Brutus of Troy, as found in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, stems back (via the 9th century Historia Brittonum) in part to the Frankish Table of Nations, which Goffart demonstrates was most likely originally composed in Constantinople. Do the honorable thing and read the articles that you keep trying to remove reference to before making further edits to this article. I guarantee you that the facts are on my side and you are not going to "win" this ridiculous edit war. Cagwinn (talk) 04:23, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Read your own words, "in part" "Goffart demonstrates" "most likely". Do you really think you have done the research by quoting someone who is unsure themselves? And you pay no attention to, for example, Enderbie's "Cambria Triumphans". Have you even heard of it? Do the honorable thing and include the real history of the "table of nations" tradition which includes the lineage from Josephus. Furthermore everything I am writing was backed up by the Wikipedias own "table of nations" page until you edited it today to fit your narrative.

This is pointless. You are going to get yourself blocked from Wikipedia - you should quit while you're ahead. Cagwinn (talk)

Report me, get me blocked but you have nothing to say about the facts. Nothing to back you up but your ego. This is why wikipedia can never be sourced in research. People like you.

You are going to get yourself blocked. Meanwhile, I have added even more sources for the link between the Historia Brittonum and the Frankish Table of Nations. Cagwinn (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I saw it. A laughable attempt at relevancy. It still does not mean that your premise is correct. That being that the "table of nations" tradition began in the Byzantine era. You remind me of how most mainstream historians manipulate the facts and relics to their modern and mainstream interpretation. Such as all the highly educated people that considered Troy itself as fictitious until it was discovered. And how you edited the other page to match your premise.

How many times are you going to threaten me and not even once explain how my facts are irrelevant? Maybe you will be the one reported and "blocked". Also there was no "frankish table of nations tradition". Its not a fact. Just 1 document. Check your own source. Even the term"frankish table of nations" was not used until goffarts book which was 1983 . Seems to me that is the only book you have ever read on the subject.

I have deleted the majority of my edits. But I still have issue with the page. The table of nations tradition did not first appear in the 6th century as well as the fact you have not cited any link between Isadore of seville to the document "frankische volkertafel". I have left the reference regarding the nexus of works by Isadore and Josephus.