Talk:Armorica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

untitled

Please, can you never use, the word of "Gaul", to speak about ARMORICA. It's the most great mistake of 90% of the historians with a roman mind, not very busy to write the true, and often priests or officers in the Catholic Apostolic Roman Church. This wrong name of "GAUL" is given by the invader Jules Caesar during his military conquest of CELTIE, AQUITANIA, and ARMORICA, for the french part. No "Gaul" in these celtic countries. It's the same for the word "Gaulish". We havn't never been Gaulish, only in the imagination of stupid historians who never want to learn the CYMRIC language and just to crush the Armorican culture. You don't know that all the books past by the censorship, surpervised by the church or the politic of franks kings?

16 centuries of errors and mistakes it's enough!

ARMORICA, at 600 years BC, was not only the actual Brittany, but this important Cynmric confederation of some 20 armorican tribes was composed with : ANJOU, BRITTANY, MAINE, NORMANDY, PERCHE and TOURAINE. These 6 regions of France formed the Confederation of ARMORICA, a little like the existing model of HELVETIA.

Thanks you to correct your article full of errors, or go deeper in your study about my Land on the Sea. That will be the time to restore and reestablish the truth in the historical facts. The word of a conqueror is not the truth of the people who has been slated by thousands and who has hold out against the invader during 500 years.

A last thing; BRITTANIA (latin word again) = GREAT-BRITAIN (ENGLAND was LLOCGYR), and "BRYTHON" is a Cymric plural word that means "THE WARRIORS", not and never "BRITTONS" or "BRETONS". So Please work your subject before to go on to diffuse wrong interpretations of the history.

HOMINN, Arvorig prydydd, write Monday 23 june 2008.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.25.1.139 (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Alanbo 21:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Martin Henig is quoted (review, 2003) suggesting that in Armorica as in sub-Roman Britain, "there was a fair amount of creation of identity in the migration period. We know that the mixed, but largely British and Frankish population of Kent repackaged themselves as 'Jutes', and the largely British populations in the lands east of Dumnonia (Devon and Cornwall) seem to have ended up as 'West Saxons'. In western Armorica the small elite which managed to impose an identity on the population happened to be British rather than 'Gallo-Roman' in origin, so they became Bretons. The process may have been essentially the same."

Some Wikipedian has added "However, his arguments are rather from someone looking back from now to the past rather than looking at the past in its own terms." A look at the linked article will show that this amateurish dismissal is irrelevant to Henig's suggestion of how "the past" came to define itself in its own terms. --Wetman 17:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another of a similar type has selected a sentence he didn't like from within Henig's sourced quote and subtracted it, with the edit summary: "sounds bogus, uncited". This is incompetent. We need more adult supervision at this article.--Wetman 10:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a website, I read that Armorica was a continent across the Atlantic ocean, according to a Greek legend. The Greeks were said to intermarry with the natives. And that America was named after the Greek legend of Armorica, rather than named after Amerigo Vespucci. Vespucci's first name was not Amerigo, contrary to popular belief, and he was the ship's scribe, not the captain. 67.150.4.179

Armorica is also the name commonly used by geologists to describe a Palaeozoic era micro-continent which comprised parts of northern France and surrounding territories, the exact extent of which has varied from author to author but has included parts of the Low Countries, Germany, Spain and even Italy. It has given its name to the Armorican Orogeny - a mountain-building period resulting from the collision of Avalonia with the former continent of Laurussia to its north. This orogeny is now more generally referred to as the Variscan Orogeny.

Maps & Their Color Coordinates

For the applicable map in the article (since I apparently can't copy & paste it directly here), is there any chance that someone can reassign its color coding so that it is applicable to the populations that it is referring to?

Map of the Gallic people of modern Britanny : 

 Osismii
 Veneti
 Coriosolites
 Redones
 Namnetes

If anyone can do that, it would help increase the sensibility of the article... Regards... Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

additional source

In my study of ancient astronomy and myth, I was directed to this website some years ago.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). 

  I will add this.  I have noticed at times a rather trivial treatment of works such as these, that run contrary to current assumptions.  For instance, in the Wikipedia biography of Barry Fell, a comment is cited that at first seems to fully call into question Fell's handling of the interpretation of a location in West Virginian where some of this Ogam writing has been found.

'David H. Kelley, an archaeologist at the University of Calgary who is credited with a major breakthrough in the decipherment of Mayan glyphs, complained about Fell in a 1990 essay: "Fell's work [contains] major academic sins, the three worst being distortion of data, inadequate acknowledgment of predecessors, and lack of presentation of alternative views." In the same essay, however, Kelley went on to state that "I have no personal doubts that some of the inscriptions which have been reported are genuine Celtic ogham." Kelley concluded: "Despite my occasional harsh criticism of Fell's treatment of individual inscriptions, it should be recognized that without Fell's work there would be no [North American] ogham problem to perplex us. We need to ask not only what Fell has done wrong in his epigraphy, but also where we have gone wrong as archaeologists in not recognizing such an extensive European presence in the New World."[10]'

So Kelley at first dismisses Fell's rather remarkable interpretation, but I wonder if he was introduced to the interpretation outside of the context presented in the book. I have not read other works by Barry Fell to this date, but it is an understatement to say that Fell should be recognized for introducing the "ogham" problem to scholars. America BC is well worth reading, and to return to the topic of Armorica supports the provocative idea that the Bronze age was fueled by copper from the Great Lakes. SvetAustin if 6were9 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Armorica. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armorica&oldid=1205343621"