RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Mons Graupius
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3
Now, children: how many cliches can you cram into one short 'news' article? The BBC is carrying a story about how Historic Scotland are not adding Mons Graupius to their list of registered battlefields because they don't know where it is (Duncan, have you hidden it again?!). The estimable Mr Dando-Collins' book Legions of Rome is cited as an authority and they manage to bring in (surprise surprise) Eagle of the Ninth/The Eagle (cue picture of that pouting American actor with interchangeable first names with an understandably puzzled-looking Billy Elliot). The best quote from Lesley McInnes is 'The research outcome for Mons Graupius will be clarified by the end of the financial year' which makes it sound as if HS will make it a battlefield if they have enough money left over! What we need is a publisher like, oooh, I don't know, Osprey(?), to produce a book on Mons Graupius.

In England we know exactly where all our battlefields are. Take Bosworth Field, for instance. Oh, hang on, not a good one... Catraeth, perhaps. Hmmm, that one's tricky too...

Mike Bishop
Well, as the droll American, I'd have to suggest they look in Edinburgh. No, there's no mountain there, but everybody knows it's a lot easier to search on flat land than mountainsides. How hard was that? :grin:
Quote:Well, as the droll American, I'd have to suggest they look in Edinburgh. No, there's no mountain there, but everybody knows it's a lot easier to search on flat land than mountainsides. How hard was that? :grin:
Loath though I am to pick nits (despite the sig line), I feel driven to point out that mons doesn't necessarily mean mountain (think of Trimontium, Three Hills). Since Edinburgh has two perfectly serviceable montes (Castle Rock and Arthur's Seat, both volcanic plugs) it can't be ruled out quite so quickly. However, Gordon Maxwell's A Battle Lost (ominous title, that!) suggests that not even the loopiest of Scots antiquarians thought of locating the battle in Auld Reekie.

Mike Bishop
So apparently no one knows or remembers that Mons Graupius is the Brecon Beacons ?

That is so silly !!!

Wink

M.VIB.M.
Isn't the main point that the BBC has become quite unreliable for information about ancient history? Several months ago, they also offered attention to the theory about "Maundy Wednesday" by quack historian Colin Humphreys; I discussed it here.
Quote:Isn't the main point that the BBC has become quite unreliable for information about ancient history?

I think that, overall, the BBC is the best news organisation in the world. Mistakes are certainly made, though, and everything needs to be taken in context.

Quote:By Steven McKenzie

BBC Scotland Highlands and Islands reporter

I would suggest the article is more about a modern issue - discussing where the site is located - than a historical issue. This is a news story regarding modern uncertainty about Mons Graupius. McKenzie's "beat" doesn't seem to be ancient history at all.
Quote:Isn't the main point that the BBC has become quite unreliable for information about ancient history?
Certainly in this case. It seems odd that the BBC should cite a dodgy Dando-Collins book and an equally erratic web site, when they have several acknowledged experts on their doorstep.
Quote:I think that, overall, the BBC is the best news organisation in the world. Mistakes are certainly made, though, and everything needs to be taken in context.
But no longer on ancient history... over the past months, they have made too many unnecessary mistakes.
You are absolutely right Jona, it seems like the BBC is going too much on popularity and less on scholarly solid information...

M.VIB.M.
This is the section of the article that caught my attention:


"In his book, Dando-Collins connects Mons Graupius with the disappearance of the 9th after it was later posted to Carlisle.

He said Caledonians had sought revenge for the defeat and ambushed and slaughtered the legion along with its affiliated units."
Confusedhock:

On what evidence does he base this wild assumption?

:?

Narukami
Quote:On what evidence does he base this wild assumption?

Stephen Dando-Collins requires no evidence. He is above such trifling things.
Quote:
Narukami post=294957 Wrote:On what evidence does he base this wild assumption?

Stephen Dando-Collins requires no evidence. He is above such trifling things.
Only gets in the way, in my experience (cf. leather segmentata :roll: ).

Mike Bishop
Next you'll be telling me that the Seal people didn't exist Confusedhock:

...and I have been working SO hard on my be-woaded Mohican impression Cry Cry Cry
Hmmm, funny how amazingly the lie of the land at Oyne resembles Tacitus description of the battlefield....he must have read about it in one of Dando's books.
Quote:Stephen Dando-Collins requires no evidence. He is above such trifling things.
Unfortunately, he's not the only one... There's to much prolefeed about classics.
Pages: 1 2 3