Talk:Caratacus

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2021 and 6 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nathangooi. Peer reviewers: MikeEK1998.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The Severn

"Although the Severn is visible from British Camp, it is nowhere near it,"

Tacitus describes a stream - the Severn is a big river, of course it starts a stream, but there are hundreds of streams in that area, no doubt in the area of British camp as well. - why did this author assume Tacitus would be talkign about the Severn ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.208.31 (talk) 07:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Weird paragraph

Hello there, I just stopped by this article for information, and I see from the talk page that there's been some edit war or other going on, and I couldn't care less about that but I did want to point out that one of the paragraphs, under the 'Modern interpretations' heading, is weird and uninformative, and ask whether someone who knows about this subject might change it to something that makes sense. The paragraph reads:

One is Pomponia Graecina, wife of Aulus Plautius, the conqueror of Britain, who as Tacitus relates, was accused of following a "foreign superstition", generally considered to be Christianity.[20] Tacitus describes her as the "wife of the Plautius who returned from Britain with an ovation", which led John Lingard (1771 – 1851) to conclude, in his History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church, that she was British;[21] however, this conclusion is a misinterpretation of what Tacitus wrote. An ovation was a military parade in honour of a victorious general, so the person who "returned from Britain with an ovation" is clearly Plautius, not Pomponia. This has not prevented the error being repeated and disseminated widely.

Where do I start? Well, firstly, it should be obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about Rome that the person receiving the ovation would have been Plautius and not his wife, but I don't see why this is remotely relevant to the question of whether or not his wife was British, whereas the paragraph seems to regard the matter as fatal to any suggestion that she might have been. Secondly, what does the nationality of his wife have to do with the price of fish anyway? I have a suspicion that the suggestion might be that if the wife was both British and Christian, such would represent good evidence that Christianity existed in Britain at a time when Caratacus would have been living there, which in turn gives support to the notion that Caractacus might have been a Christian before he was taken to Rome, which notion the previous paragraph concerns - but if that's the point, why doesn't it just say so? Talk about opaque! I'd correct it myself, but since this is only half a guess as to what on earth half the paragraph might be talking about (and I have absolutely no idea about the other half of it), I hardly feel qualified. If this is where edit wars get us, some people need to spare half a thought for the article's casual readership, but in any case I wonder whether someone else might be able to do something with this. Lordrosemount (talk) 21:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"Christian" Caratacus

Previous versions of the article claimed that Cary's edition of Dio stated that Caractacus was a "barbarian Christian". Straight from the horse's mouth — although I'm not Dio of course — I can tell you (a) that it's not true; and (b) how it happened that on my site, in my own transcription of Dio, it did for a while say that.

First, I have the Loeb edition in front of me; it says "chieftain", not "Christian".

The error came about because I hand-type the texts on my site. To do so as quickly as possible, I make use of a program (TypeIt4Me) in which I can set abbreviations for whatever I like: I type the abbrev, and the program expands it. In my TypeIts, "Christian" is chrn, and "chieftain" is chfn. I simply mistyped chrn instead of chfn: the F and R keys are adjacent....

Sorry! It's now corrected in Dio on my site; and I very strongly suspect no source states that C was a C. This should be carefully checked, and almost certainly removed. Thanks to Patrick Brown for alerting me to the problem. Bill 22:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Archive1_16_Jan by LinuxDude

User:LinuxDude - you're still doing it. I will continue to revert any of your edits that try to supress the fact that Jowett's book is full of deliberate falsehoods and misinformation. Every time he cites a source I'm familiar with he lies about what it says. I've gone out of my way to investigate some of the sources I'm not familiar with and found he's lied about them as well. I should have simply reverted this entirely spurious theory when it was first posted. Instead, I thought I could accommodate it by explaining what its errors were, but unfortunately its advocates aren't interested in the truth. I give an inch and you take a mile. I've requested a third opinion which will hopefully sort this out for the time being, but I fully expect after the dust has died down you'll return with another name and start reposting the same crap as if nothing ever happened. --Nicknack009 20:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop it. You are wrong. --Nicknack009 20:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

NOTE

Before you revert this again, please check out Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule.

I have read over the diatribe on this discussion page above and checked references to gauge the issue. From what I can see you are offended by the association of Claudia and Caratacus. Your opinion has been clearly stated. However, I have obtained Jowett’s book, and verified that he cites his sources accurately, which he does.

You don’t deny the influence of James Ussher, Cardinal Alford, and Archdeacon J. Williams, or Baronius. I have checked all except for Alford. Unfortunately for you, I own a copy of Baronius’ Annales Ecclesiastici because I collect rare books. I have posted pictures to my User page.

If your personal problem is with Jowett, debunk him elsewhere. If your problem is with the connection between Claudia and the early Brits, than find someone who refutes the source of the claims. Even the CCEL link you provided seems to consider the idea.

Regardless, whether you are right or not, ceases to matter when you resort to dishonest tactics because all credibility is lost . You are being dishonest by attempting to refute a claim you do not like, by refuting an author you do not like, and by falsely attributing the claim to him.

In verifying these sources I can confirmed that Jowett was simply repeating something that he encountered elsewhere. Wikipedia has its rules. Abide by them. (note the rule on the use of weasle words).
LinuxDude 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have provided examples of Jowett's dishonest citations over at The Drama of the Lost Disciples, which you have ignored, as you ignore everything inconvenient. You're also prepared to be as dishonest as it takes, which I'm not, and the lies are halfway round the world before the truth gets its boots on, as usual. Write what you want, life's too short. I'm gone. --Nicknack009 18:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your personal problem with Jowett, nor am I interested in defending him. To me he is a non-issue. In fact he should probably not even be referenced in this article. If you cannot grasp that this idea did not originate with him, than I cannot help your shoddy scholarship. Furthermore, you seem to make it personal when someone corrects your contributions. I don’t care what you think of me, or how you try to label me, if you cannot justify your edits you should not be making them. In this article I have shown the source of these ideas and cited them. I don’t oppose opposition if it has foundation in good scholarship. I wish you the best.

-- LinuxDude 04:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Weasel words

I request the parts containing waesel words to either (a) be removed or (b) be rewritten citing concrete facts, according to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words policy.---Panairjdde 11:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Lets all enjoy the stories

The tales of Caratacus may be false or true. Who could ever be certain after almost 2 millenia? The theories are a rollicking good read however so why not let them stand under "Ancient and modern myths(?).."? This alerts the reader to think about the content and does not endanger the reputation of Wikipedia for accuracy. Although the theory could be accurate - but who really knows? loxley 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Tacitus Rhetorical Use of Caratacus

I've come across an interesting book by Graham Webster (Rome against Caratacus):

In Caratacus, Tacitus saw a man of great integrity and dignity and he used the speech to make an ironic contrast between a noble barbarian chief and the virtues lacking in so many Roman senators. 38.

In addition, their does not appear in the book any reference to Linus, Claudia, or of Caratacus converting to Christianity. Though this does not preclude the possibility, but does make it seem unlikely. L Hamm 23:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Christianity and Jowett

Well, Wikirat's back. It has been established (see #"Christian" Caratacus above) that the reference to Caratacus as a "barbarian Christian" comes from a mistranscription on the Lacus Curtius website, which has now been corrected. Also, Jowett does regularly cite Morgan, his classical cites are wildly inaccurate, and he is a British Israelite, so the stuff you have removed is relevant and not "ad hominem". --Nicknack009 09:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone has to keep your unsupported assertions and personal agenda in check. I've been travelling and reading, on a sabatical of sorts. And I see, since I've been away, that you have dutifully edited out all of my (cited) contributions that you could not refute. No worries. I'm back and I haven't lost my vigour. I see your tactic hasn't changed either. You still try to portray ideas you don't like through Ad Hominem attacks. Well here's a concession, I've read over some of the British Israel sites and I'm willing to concede that they do cite similar references. Regardless, that doesn't change the fact that the original references are NOT British Israel, and it does also not less the merit of the original reference. Please note, that just because the Mormons are not mainstream, does not mean that they are bad at Geneology.

Thanks for missing me. However, I've seen that Bill (who does have some credibility because of the work he has done with his site) has edited his own very own site after having been informed that it supported my assertion, doesn't exactly change the fact that other translations other than Cary's say "Christian" not Chieftain. I haven't actually checked Cary's edition, but still, Bill's own site had "Christian" originally not Chieftain, and his edit is rather dubious having been prompted. Furthermore, his edit relies on a single translation. This is debate is starting to really look like someone is preserving comfortable ideas rather than actually resolving historically valid questions. Perhaps we should look at the Latin, or at least at editions other than Cary's to see what they say.

I'm going to re-add my edits because Cary's translation is one translation, and other translations verify my assertion. If you want to remove it again, please cite peer reviewed authors that support Cary's translation as being definitive.

I'm also going to remove you the comments you've made about Jowett in this article, because you efforts to debunk him are recorded elsewhere, and your ad hominem attacks don't apply to his references in this article as shown above.

Finally, I think you and I should really consider taking this to arbitration because, your efforts to remove my edits is really starting to try my patience. I'd certainly be willing to trust a third party to mediate. Would you agree to that?WikiRat1 00:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be willing to let anyone who is familiar with the sources mediate, as I am confident they would back me up. There is no translation of Dio that says "barbarian Christian". I have checked. I spent quite some time in Queens University Library looking this up. I originally put that into the article because it said so on Bill's site, but have since discovered it was Bill's error, and am very contrite at promulgating that error. If you "haven't actually checked Cary's edition" then you have no business changing the edit. Claiming that "other translations verify my assertion" is incorrect. We're not relying on a single translation because there are two English translations of Dio that I've been able to find, Carey's and Foster's (which is here at Project Gutenberg) and they both say "chieftain". If you can find a single source, other than Bill's transcription error and my edit to this article that followed it, that supports the "barbarian Christian" translation, then cite it. If not, then accept this was an error (my error) which has now been corrected. The requirement for a "neutral point of view" does not require us to be neutral between fact and error. Errors which are identifed should be removed.

We can't "look at the Latin" because it's in Greek. I don't know any Greek, sadly. I did look up Boissevain's edition of the Greek. I have a photocopy of the passage in question somewhere, which I'll dig out and scan, and I would welcome the input of anyone who knows the language.

As for Jowett, the article is clear that he didn't originate the ideas in his book. However, whether he did or not, they are based on faulty reasoning and inaccurate citations, as anyone with any familiarity with the sources would tell you on reading his book. His major source, on his own testimony, is Morgan's St. Paul in Britain, which is cited throughout the book, but which unfortunately I haven't been able to find. However it does seem to be the origin of the spurious Caratacus-Claudia connection (Claudia was British, and she may have been a Christian, but no ancient source makes any connection whatseover between her and Caratacus, and neither do Usher or Conybeare or Baronius or any of the others cited - they just comment on whether the Claudia of Martial is the same as the Claudia of 2 Timothy. Again, I have checked). Morgan is therefore relevant. If I or anyone else can track down a copy then this can be expanded or clarified. --Nicknack009 10:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have requested a third opinion as you suggested. --Nicknack009 10:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Passage from Dio scanned and uploaded here. --Nicknack009 10:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have also scanned the relevant passage from Cary, in response to WikiRat's ouright lie on the third opinion page that "Cary himself acknowledges that there are actually multiple fragments which differ significantly and the earliest fragment calls him a "Christian" (άρχηγος χριστιανός) , not simply a Chieftain." I have now come to the conclusion that WikiRat is nothing more than a wind-up merchant who it is not worth engaging with. --Nicknack009 16:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

άρχηγος

Cary rightfully translates the word άρχηγος into Chieftain, however he also acknowledges that the 6th century fragment “Excerpta Vaticana significantly from the 12th century fragment preserved by Joannes Zonaras. The earlier fragment calls him a Christian άρχηγος χριστιανός while the latter calls him a Chieftain (άρχηγος). I don’t oppose including both translations, however you do, for you constantly refute my edits instead of finding the middle ground and you cite only the translations that use your interpretation. This is not very honest.

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you could show me where Foster’s translation at Project Gutenberg also says "chieftain". I believe it fails to shed any light on the translation of the fragments in question. Again, your efforts are not completely transparent.

Even Bill Thayer’s very own site had “Christian” (from the older fragment), until this debate was pointed out to him, at which time he changes his mind about which translation he liked better.

I am not intolerant of your edits, and I do not remove them in favour of my own, and therefore ask for more objectivity on your behalf as well.

Both fragments are included on both pages I have posted links to, liar. --Nicknack009 17:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I had "Christian" not from the older fragment, but because I input the text by rekeying it, using text expanders: in which "chieftain" is "chfn" and "Christian" is "chrn" ▸ I had the "chieftain" text in front of me, but one slip of the finger, and I hit the adjacent key R instead of F, then the expansion. . . finally, sloppy proofreading on my part, and bingo. BT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.6.157 (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

British Israel

Your personal efforts to refute British Israeli authors have been cited elsewhere George Jowett. However George Jowett in no way shape or form has anything to do with this article. As best as I can tell he uses Dio Cassius as a footnote, just as you do. His only relationship to any of this is that like me, he contends that Christianity came to Britain earlier than commonly accepted. If the earlier fragment is correct, than Dio Cassius is supporting this notion. So what is your incentive for continually raising George Jowett or British Israel? I suspect that you feel more confident refuting British Israeli’s rather than dealing with source documents. This above everything else, strikes me as completely contrary to everything Wikipedia is about, and utterly dishonest. Unless you can show George Jowett has anything more to do with Caratacus than simply expressing an interest in him or citing Dio Cassius, I’m going to remove all of your references to him here as ad hominem and irrelevant. WikiRat1 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

List of sources

OK, this is very convoluted. Can both parties just list their sources right here and we can work through them? I've seen some sources which indicate "chieftain" is an appropriate translation and so far none with "Christian". If it turns out both have reliable sources we can put both in the article. Fagstein 17:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. The passage in question is Dio Cassius, Roman History, Epitome of Book 61, 33.3c.

• • The passage from the Loeb Classical Library edition is scanned here, including Greek text and Earnest Carey's translation of both variants. Cary's translation of the first variant is also online here.
  • Boissevain's Greek edition of both variants of the same passage is scanned here.
  • Herbert Baldwin Foster's translation of the same passage is in Vol 4 of Dio's Rome, which is online here. It's a plain text file so I can't link to the particular passage, but, copying and pasting, it reads: "Carnetacus, a barbarian chieftain who was captured and brought to Rome and received his pardon at the hands of Claudius, then, after his liberation, wandered about the city; and on beholding its brilliance and its size he exclaimed: "Can you, who own these things and things like them, still yearn for our miserable tents?"

--Nicknack009 17:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede that Nicknack009 is correct on this issue. I was only able to find two of the fragments in Greek, and neither calls Caratacus a "Christian". The two fragments are as follows:

The Joannes Zonaras fragment reads as such:

οτι των Βρετταυωυ ό άρχωυ Καρτάκηζ κατασχεδείς εις `Ρώμηυ άνεπέμφδη.όντιυκ έπιι βήματος ό Κλαύδιος χλαμύδα φορών εισύγαγεν …

While the Excerpta Vaticana (Petr. Patr. Exc. Vat. 42) reads as such:

Καράτακος δέ τις βαρβάρων άρχηγος άλούς και εις τήν `Ρώμηυ άχδείς, τού Κλαυδίου τυχών, είτα περινοστήσας τήυ πόλιν μετά τήν άφεσιν,...

Both fragments confirm Nicknack009's assertion that this was a transcription error (the first using the Greek word άρχωυ, while the second using the word άρχηγος). The translation at upenn by Bill is based solely upon Excerpta Vaticana. There are two other fragments in existance, which I was not able to get my hands on. Nonetheless, I'm not willing to press the point.

However, when I asked for for arbitration it wasn’t specifically on this point. I think that Nicknack009 and have disagreed upon just about every edit I've made, and just about every edit I've contributed has been reverted (likewise, I've have rarely agreed with the edits he has made). I think that somehow this has to be arbitrated because this hostility cannot continue if we want to make progress in this and other articles. Specifically, Nicknack009 has accused me of 'making stuff up', and levied other ad hominem attacks in speaking about me. Though we do disagree, to attack my honour, or my honesty, is beyond acceptable and is NOT called for. Our disagreements should remain in the realm of academic discussion, and NOT become personal. WikiRat1 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

-----

You've got them the wrong way round! "βαρβάρων άρχηγος" is from Zonaras, and the other one's from Exerpta Vaticana. And, you know, throwing in some unsupported possible doubt (your "two other fragments") and then closing the discussion is a very dishonest debating tactic (just like your practiced bait-and-switch technique over Claudia and Pudens). If you can't find these fragments, perhaps you can tell me where you read about their existence? I'd be very interested to find out what they say. Put up or shut up, and stop playing the victim. --Nicknack009 18:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bait and switch over Pudens? You are unbelievable! I concede the point, and you still make this personal! If you could ever get beyond your bugbear Jowett, and look at Ussher, Coneybeare, or Morgan (all of whom predate British Israel), you'd see that my posts on Pudens and Claudia have a long tradition (Ussher cites his work also, which I have yet to track back (i.e. Thomas Dempsterus, and Halecæ (Eleca), Bishop of Zaragoza, whose fragment as best as I can tell is now lost)). This would actually work better if you didn't try so hard to offend. Clearly you have no intention of being civil or cooperative, which is why I ask that arbitration continue. So please keep your venom to yourself. WikiRat1 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

-----

Exactly my point. I have never disputed that many people over the years have identified the Claudia and Pudens of Martial with the Claudia and Pudens of 2 Timothy: but that's all you have any support for, and you keep acting as if that proves the rest of your nonsense. As for being "personal", you'd get more sympathy if you hadn't, from the start, done nothing but accuse me of having agendas and attempting to suppress "facts" I don't like, and now you've gone and cast cast nasty aspersions about Bill Thayer's honesty as well. Don't try and paint yourself as the wounded party: you're the one who made it personal. --Nicknack009 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I’m willing to accept the claim that you have no agenda, though it's hard to not see one when looking at this article. Let us work towards making some long overdue corrections by correcting some distortions of the truth, as you say:

You correctly assert in The Drama of the Lost Disciples that the Jowett’s narration (on page 33) about Joseph of Armithea coming to Britain doesn’t appear in year AD 36 of Baronius’ book. Is there any reason you don't point out that it does actually appear in year 35 AD, in a chapter entitled AD 35 DISPERSIO DISCIPVLORVM in a subsection entitled Magdalena Cum Sociis in Gallias? Perhaps we can correct the implication that Jowett intentionally distorted the truth.

Let us not impute poor Jowett’s honour since he was not the only one who made the mistake; it also appears in the 1922 book by Lionel Smithett Lewis (Vicar of Glastonbury), who Jowett correctly cites on page 66, just as it appears in Rev Morgan’s 1860 book who Jowett also cites on page 73. The mistake you use to prove Jowett distorted the truth, isn’t even Rev Morgan’s, its actually Ussher’s mistake who mis-cites Baronius. Incidentally Baronius cites two sources as evidence for this story being; ‘’Hist. Angl. M.S. que habetur in Bib. Vatic.’’ and ‘’Act a Magdal. Et socio rum, ap. Sur22 Iul. Sigeb. In Chroan. 745’’. Since Jowett correctly narrates the story but gets the year wrong, lets give him the benefit of the doubt. At worst he is guilty of failing to check his citations.

You also assert that Jowett claims Julias Ceasar mentions British cities, architecture or universities. The quote you are referring to appears in page 46 and again on page 87, where he only writes:

Julius Caesar wrote in 54 B.C: The Druids make the immortality of the soul the basis of all their teaching, holding it to be the principal incentive and reason for a virtuous life (Gallic War, VI 41).

This quote which Julius Caesar wrote appears here. The only other mention Jowett makes of Julias Ceasar is on page 41 where he talks about Ceasars visit to Spanish tin mines, and on 45 where he talks about Ceasars comments on Celtic worship. Even if Jowett had claimed that Julius Caesar wrote about British Universities, he would not have been distorting the truth since Julius Caesar did write about the institution of learning devised in Britain and exported to Gaul in Gallic 6:13 Any reason we shouldn't correct this bit also?

If we can make the above corrections, let us also correct the assertions about Jowett's claims on Arviragus, since he no where claims Arviragus’s name abounds. Jowett names Arviragus on page 68, 73, 83, 102, 104, and he cites all of his sources accurately. As well as mentioning Junvenal, he also identifies as sources of his knowledge about Arviragus, the Domesday Book by way of Ussher, William of Malmesbury, and Hardynge’s Chronicle.

Finally, poor Jowett cites Tacitus Annals 12:36 [1] in stating that his daughter voluntarily walked by his side up the marble steps into the senate. Poor Jowett is hardly mis-using his sources.

If you truly have no agenda, than let us correct some of your work on Jowett. Or better still, let us not credit Jowett with ideas that he didn’t have, or weren’t his own to begin with, or credit him with crimes he hasn’t commited. By correcting the assertions made about him we can correct the false implications that these are his ideas or those of British Israel for that fact.

I’m not exactly sure why you felt it necessar to misaligned Jowett since his book was actually about the Disciples ante Christii, and where they evanglized than about British Israel theories, but as long as you don't have an agenda you won't mind fixing this article and others giving the proper credit where credit is due? Nonetheless, I’m willing see these corrections as evidence of a desire to remain strictly academic. WikiRat1 00:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My criticisms and quotations of Jowett are accurate, and your attempts to suppress those inconvenient facts are noted. I went after him because his book is the immediate source of all the claims on the internet that connect Caratacus to Claudia and cite any source, and he cites Caesar, and Tacitus as saying things they do not say, and overstates how often Arviragus is mentioned in classical literature. If, and it's a very big if, you are right that the passage about Joseph of Arimathea appears in Baronius but not where he says it does, then that merely convicts him of not doing his own research. His book is therefore worthless as a historical source. Your use of Morgan to defend Jowett undermines your attempt to remove any reference to Morgan in this article and once again exposes your dishonesty. Incidentally, your statement that Jowett's book "was actually about the Disciples ante Christii, and where they evanglized than about British Israel theories" is a lie because "British Israel theories" are a big part of the book, and your attempt to suppress that inconvenient fact is noted. You may deny being a British Israelite yourself, but you rely entirely on British Israelite sources. You, like Jowett, don't do your own research, you merely lift cites from other books that have used them without reading the sources cited yourelf, and don't reveal what books you have lifted them from until pressed, because you know those books are disreputable. You insist that Jowett is irrelevant and not the source of your ideas, and now you defend him. You insist that Morgan is irrelevant, and now come clean to using him.

My "agenda" is historical accuracy. Your agenda is to present an entirely unsupported crackpot theory as historical fact, suppress any inconvenient facts that undermine it, and slander those who uncover those inconvenient facts. When your dishonesty is exposed, you drop mendacious hints about other sources which you then refuse to discuss, and change the subject. Rob117 was entirely correct when he warned me that fringe theorists "don't play by the rules" (see archive). I should never have tried to constructively engage you - give an inch and you take a mile.

Any sign of that mediation? --Nicknack009 07:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to acknowledge yet another ad hominem attack as evidence that you are frustrated. I do in fact do my own research, but that's not really the basis of our argument is it? It is easier to attack me than the issues. I forgive you.

I've just shown above that the points found in the article are loaded, misleading, and wrong, which is probably why you chose not to refute them. Furthermore, though you may wish to discredit Jowett, your efforts to include him in this article and others, is a slight-of-hand trick to divert attention from Baronius, Morgan, Ussher, and those who are really responsible for the ideas. By the way, I agree that Jowetts book is worthless as a historical source, and this is what I've been saying all along, but at no point did I cite Jowett, I've always stuck to those responsible for the ideas originally. Presumably, you feel more comfortable bashing Jowett, than Ussher. (I'm glad, at least, you have integrity enough to admit your tactic). Unfortunately, (and this is the part that bothers me), we cannot falsely attribute ideas to someone who did not first suggest them, even if it seems easier to refute those who echo an idea, rather than those who originate them.

Fortunately, I was able to expose the errors in the article listed above, and will make an effort to correct it, once it is clear, that you haven't the resolve to do so yourself. Jowett does get the year wrong, but you make it seem as though he makes stuff up, which isn't the case. You intentionally omit to mention that his narration does appear in Baronius (as well has his other sources) and is a reflection of earlier authors who wrote before British Israel even existed, and you fail to mention that he does actually cite his sources correctly. Not only, but these ideas that you object to, were demonstrably popular before British Israel even existed, which doesn't leave much wiggle room to falsely credit them to someone else. I don't see how you can possibly claim to have an agenda of historical accuracy. Check Baronius year 35AD. WikiRat1 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I reiterate, my quotations and criticisms of Jowett are accurate. You are a very determined liar. --Nicknack009 07:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll take that to mean that you haven't checked Baronius year 35 AD, nor confirmed the sources. Furthermore, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you did not mean to offend. WikiRat1 05:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I have been called in as the second opinion, though I think we may be on 4th or 5th by now! :-) As a classicist and a early church historian, I can testify that Dio's original gives chieftain not Christian and that therefore the correction from the latter to the former is correct. Also it is not, as User:WikiRat1 asserts above, 'rewriting an inconvenient historical fact' - no other ancient sources assert or evidence that Caratacus was a Christian, nor that Christianity had even reached Britain by AD43 or before, a mere 10 years or less after the crucifixion (first indications are with the martyrdom of Saint Alban). Hope that clears things up once and for all. [[User:Neddyseagoon|Neddyseagoon | [[Usertalk:Neddyseagoon|talk]]]] 13:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to resolve this issue. L Hamm 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

References

The song *shudder*

1. I hesitate to raise the point (for obvious aesthetic reasons..) but some mention should be made of the song, as popularised by Rolf Harris, "The Court of King Caractacus". [2] and [3] have a little relevant background info; but nothing on it's connection, if any, to the historical figure.
2. also, simply because it gets corrected to in google: [4], Caracatus might be mentioned as a common misspelling? Thanks :) --Quiddity 02:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the song, but if the only connection with this article is a mispelling of the name, the song should not be referenced by the article.--Panairjdde 14:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Nono, completely seperate issues.

The song [5] is simply how many people (like me. my grandfather used to sing it) will have heard of the person, and will arrive here looking for info on its background. It predates Rolf Harris, but was most recently (relatively speaking) popularised by his recording of it. -Quiddity 17:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

1. The other song. For the same reasons, mention should be made of the Gilbert and Sullivan lyric from the Modern Major General who "knows every detail of Caracticus's uniform" SMWatt (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wimberley Lecture on Caradoc; Doncaster 1841.

Greetings. I'm new to Wiki and I'm currently editing: Dieu et mon droit. In my research into the origins of the Lion and Dragon supporters on the Royal Arms, I've come across a rare news cutting dated 1841, about Heraldry, Tacitus and Caradoc. Although the historical references from this cutting are valuable to my motto article, the article in its entirety, deviates too much from mottoes. The article is beautifully written and I don't want to break it up into extracts. So, would anyone object, if were to edit the entire news cutting [approx: 700 words] and examples of his coat of arms into "Caratacus," so that I can redirect. Also, is there any genealogical connection between Owen or any Cadwalladr and Caratacus?Stephen2nd (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Celtic version of name

I don't know why the IP editor did this, but I've restored it. See [6] if anyone wants a reference. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

On this topic I wonder if we could use his native name as a keyword instead of the latinised variant. Other English Wikipedia articles take pains to render foreign names as correctly as possible, so why not Celtic and Greek ones? Reason for the request is that English Wikipedia is used as a source by many services such as Facebook, and this usage is not bound to decrease. Alternatively a redirection entry could be made for the correct name, but the best would be to have his own name as a keyword instead of the variant used by his enemies. Uttrediay (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Caradoc?

Caradoc was a form of his name (possibly even the main form, if I remember it right) given in the Encyclopedia Britannia back around 2002. In this article there's only the Battle of Caer Caradoc and an 1841 reference to Caradoc mentioned on this Talk page. Is Caradoc no longer deemed correct? Tlhslobus (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Caradoc is a middle Welsh version of the name (Caratauc in Old Welsh, Caradog in modern Welsh). It's not the original form that would have been used at the time. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Nicknack.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caratacus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209231257/http://www.roman-britain.org:80/people/caratacus.htm to http://www.roman-britain.org/people/caratacus.htm

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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Caractacus's speech

In a television series called "The Roman Invasion of Britain" (of which I found an excerpt on Youtube), hosted by Bettany Hughes, the speech is delivered in a, let's say, more modern translation. I have no idea who is responsible for that translation, but it is well worth mentioning here.

"Noble emperor and people of Rome, if I had been less successful in resisting you, I might well have come to your city as a friend, not as a prisoner. You might well have been glad, under those circumstances, to ally yourself with someone so nobly born. As things are, I face humiliation, while you have glory. I had horses, men, weapons. Are you surprised I am sorry to have lost them? Just because you want to rule the world, you think everyone else is happy to be made a slave? If I had surrendered without a fight, no one would have heard of my downfall, or your triumph. If you kill me, they will both be forgotten. But if you spare me, I shall stand for ever as a symbol of your mercy." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.211.201.66 (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Should we mention the song?

The court of King Caractacus was just passing by... Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)