Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Alanus]

No one can seriously suggest that Geoffrey of Monmouth's Caliburnus (and, thus Excalibur, which is simply a later rendering of Caliburnus with the Latin intensive prefix ex- added to it by late medieval poets to make the name seem grander) was derived from any source other than Old Welsh *Caletbulc, which meant something like "Hard-breaker" or "Battle-breaker". Yes, Latin chalybs "steel" was borrowed from Greek ?????, which in turn was derived anciently from the Anatolian tribal name Chalybes, but even if Caliburnus was somehow derived from this word (which does not at all seem likely), what possible bearing on anything could this ancient etymological path have? Are folks seriously trying to suggest that a quite ancient etymological origin of a loan word (and common noun) in Latin somehow has somehow influenced the naming of Arthur's sword? It's bizarre!

Are you sure your own argument holds water? You claim that the Old Welsh "Caletbulc" would be the original source, but Old Welsh is far newer than the Latin "chalybis," which in its original context referred to a superior steel-- aka good enough to be a "Hard-breaker." In Geoffrey's time, he called it Caliburnus, which is far closer to "chalybur" than "caletbulc." And how does the "ex" ("from") "make the name seem grander?" Sorry, I don't by it, especially from something as derivitive as Old Welsh. 8)

The same goes for "Arthur." Why would the Britons borrow a derivation that transposed from Etruscan to Latin when their own root language already had "Artos" and "Artios," two forms recorded in Gallic? Gallic was nearly identical to Britonic, and many British still used their old Gallic tribal names. "Arthur" arrived from their own languge, and possibly/probably the "ur" (art-ur) came from the Britonic/Gallic "uer," meaning "great" or "peerless."

Well, to be precise, the language that are referring to was introduced to Hungary in the 13th century by nomadic Jasz tribes from the North Caucasus who were fleeing Mongol invasions and were invited into the region by the Hungarian king Béla IV Árpád. They were relatives of the modern Ossets and their language (as far as we can tell from what little scraps were recorded) was very close (if not identical) to Ossetic.

Thanks for adding to Dashydog's info. It would appear that similar Jasz tribes arrived in Hungary twice, the ealier being the "famed" pet tribe of Littleton & Malcor. Since Ossetic derived from Alanic, then we find a Sarmatian language still extant. Good stuff.

I never said that "Arthur" never existed. Simply, that there is no proof. We cannot tell where the Nennius scribe lapsed from legend to fact. He quoted from two different Bruts, both legendary (possibly ending in historical fact). I maintain that such Bruts were still available when Geoffrey wrote his fabula; and thus he actually did have "an ancient book in the British tongue." To see how easy it was to juggle data in the old days, look at the Annales Cambriae which transfer the facts from the 8th battle (Nennius), sliding them into the 12th battle. These medeival guys were hacks.

This is a digression from the root of this thread, and I would rather we get back to lances and laces and tie our shoes on straight. :wink: