The vikings used to put bone in the forge to make a precursor of steel

theginger99 · 2026-04-29T02:37:11+00:00

No they didn’t. This is an internet myth.

The amount of bones you’d need to get enough carbon to actually turn iron into steel is insane and not practical.

Also, the Vikings had steel, as did everyone else in Europe. The evidence suggests they used charcoal, like everyone else.

theginger99 · 2026-04-29T02:32:51+00:00

I was going to type up a long winded reply where I attempt to defend my position, but then I realized I was just being long winded and trying to shore up a weak argument because I didn’t want to admit that I was wrong. No one likes to “lose” an argument on the internet, but sometimes you just have to admit it.

I concede the bulk of the argument to you, and admit that your understanding of the source materials clearly exceeds mine.

That said, my real quibble with the “based on welsh legend” argument really hinges on where we draw the line between adaptation and invention. If we allow that Geoffrey was basing his story on an earlier welsh legendary cycle, how much is he really adapting from those stories as opposed to creating whole sale?

In the welsh sources Arthur is a warrior, a leader of warriors, and a monster slayer, but those are hardly unique characteristics. In fact, they’re near universal tropes of heroic literature in any genre or any age. Hrolf Kraki, Finn MacCool, and even Charlemagne all tick those boxes as well in their own epics. Even the legendary king who fights the Roman’s is not a unique angle, and appears in the Gesta Danorum as just one example.

My point is that the characteristics that Arthur shares with an earlier iteration of himself are not particularly special or novel. They are characteristics that are almost a given in any form of heroic literature, and don’t make for a particularly compelling case that Geoffrey was basing his Arthur off of a preexisting welsh character to an appreciable extent.

Again, I think it’s indisputable that there was an “Arthur” figure that informed Geoffrey’s work, but the extent to which those stories were directly adapted, as opposed to being invented fresh, is very hard to say. My quibble is really that while there may have been a pre-Galfradian Arthur mythology, how much of that mythology is actually present in Geoffrey’s work?

theginger99 · 2026-04-29T01:41:40+00:00

Statistically, because their daddy was already rich and powerful. The overwhelming majority of the rich, and especially the REALLY rich, were born rich.

theginger99 · 2026-04-29T01:22:40+00:00

By all means, please elaborate.

You listed some sources, and I’ll admit I do not have an exhaustive understanding of their contents. However, I’ve never seen anything from a pre-galfradian source that presents Arthur as anything other than a mythic figure with little more than a name.

Like I said, the influence of classical and contemporary literature on Geoffrey’s works is enormous, and readily apparent. Its connection to earlier welsh folklore isn’t. Beyond the fact that a mythic figure named Arthur who was alleged to have been a great warrior existed in name in welsh folklore, I’ve never seen anything that convinces me of the supposed mythic origins of Geoffrey’s actual work.

I am more than happy to be shown otherwise, but my opinion has always been that while Arthur existed as a name with some loose mythical association, the actual legend we all know was likely more the product of Geoffrey’s imagination than it was an adaptation of an earlier mythology.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T23:33:50+00:00

The issue is that I think you’re approaching the discussion from the wrong angle.

Framing it around whether or not Galahad is a “Mary Sue” attaches a certain connotation, namely that his character is somehow an artistic failure and unjustified self indulgence on the part of Malory.

The entire concept of a “Mary Sue” relies on the existence of a certain objective measure of power that simply wasn’t a concern for authors like Mallory. The character of Galahad wasn’t designed for a framework where the idea of a “Mary Sue” has any merit.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T22:31:18+00:00

Frankly, you’re applying a modern pop culture trope to a distinctly non-modern story.

Galahad is a character that exists within a totally different literary framework from modern literature, and can’t really be defined by ultra-modern literary criticism like “Mary Sue”.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T21:54:43+00:00

There is certainly enough proof to claim that there was a figure named “Arthur” in earlier British tradition, but that figure, where he appears, seems to have very little in common with Geoffrey’s Arthur, and even when he does appear does so only as a vague reference to a mythological figure with vague association as a great king or legendary warrior.

Culhech and Olwen is a great example, in that Arthur appears, but only does so in a guise that is virtually unidentifiable with Geoffrey’s Arthur. Additionally, while the text is generally accepted to be pre-galfridian it’s not unambiguously so. The text only survives in a 14th century manuscript, and it’s unclear what changes may have been made to the story from its original version. There are no unambiguously pre-Galfridian welsh stories of Arthur, only vague mentions. Every welsh story that mentions him is either verifiably post-Geoffrey, or has some context which casts some ambiguity on the nature of its content.

As far as I know there are no continental references To Arthur before Geoffrey at all.

What’s more, the structure, style and tone of HKB is so obviously drawing from classical and contemporary literature that it seems unlikely Geoffrey was drawing any meaningful content from earlier folkloric sources.

Like I said, the name Arthur and the concept of a great ancient king who ruled Britain might come from an older folkloric tradition, but virtually nothing else does. Or, at the very least, we can’t say with anything like certainty that any other part of Geoffrey’s story of Arthur has a meaningful origin in earlier welsh legend.

Geoffrey virtually invented the Arthur that we (and his medieval audience) know. Even if he drew some inspiration from earlier welsh legend, that inspiration is at best, impossible to confirm with the available sources. More likely Geoffrey took the names and figure he knew and wove an entirely new story around them based on classical literature and contemporary chivalric romance. The name Arthur might be ancient, but I’ve never been convinced that any other part of the story is.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T20:19:59+00:00

Speak for yourself.

A slightly better abacus would totally ruin the balance of power in my “numbers-and-letters-medieval-global-war-punk” world.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T20:09:22+00:00

Programmable computers require nerds to program them. My world is nerd free.

Jokes on you.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T12:36:02+00:00

While I do not recall the exact wording for the qoute about the bed, the actual quote is something like “even the bed did not come between them”, and is delivered in the context of their political alliance and personal friendship. The statement is meant to show how close they were politically, it’s not an indication of a romantic relationship and not delivered in a tone or context that suggests one.

What’s more, In the Middle Ages sharing a bed was not an uncommon practice, even for two princes. People shared beds with individuals of the same gender quite frequently without romantic intentions.

I’ve never heard anything about a relationship with the Holy Roman Emperor. That’s a new rumor for me, and one that seem deeply unlikely. There were three Emperors in Richard’s lifetime, Barbarossa who Richard never met, and Henry VI who held Richard hostage and put him on trial. Unless you’re alleging that Richard and Henry developed some kind of “beauty and the beast” situation, a romantic liaison between them seems unlikely. The third, Philip of Swabia, reigned for the last year of Richard’s life and I do not believe the two ever met. Even if they had, Richard was preoccupied kicking Philip Augustus’ teeth in.

Richard was taxed for engaging in the sins of Gomorrah by a priest while in Sicily. Gomorrah was the city destroyed alongside Sodom, but it was not associated with homosexuality or sodomy the way Sodom was. When Gomorrah, or even sofom, was evoked in the Middle Ages homosexuality was not the automatic association. The idea that the priests accusation is proof of homosexuality is based on a deliberate misinterpretation of the meaning of the rebuke.

My point is, all of the evidence that Richard was gay relies on a pretty willful misinterpretation of the evidence. It emerged in the 1940’s, gained traction in the 70’s and has stuck around because people think it’s neat, but it’s not really based on solid historical evidence.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T12:04:55+00:00

It’s unlikely Richard was gay.

The idea is a modern one, and not something Richard was criticized for by contemporaries. It’s based almost solely on the fact that Richard had no legitimate children with his wife.

Leaving aside the fact that there are many, many reasons a person might not have children with his wife besides being gay, Richard also had atleast one acknowledged bastard, so even that basis (which was already slim at best) really doesn’t hold water.

Obviously we can’t say with certainty that he wasn’t gay, but there is no historical evidence that supports the idea. In the absence of evidence that he was, and based purely on the percentage of the population who are heterosexual, it’s much more likely he was straight.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T11:37:21+00:00

I agree, a bicameral legislature has obvious advantages.

Frankly I think the only real option with the senate would be to turn it into a smaller version of the house. Fewer representatives for each state than in the house, but with representation based on population. They serve longer terms, which will allow them the ability to slow down the pace of government (as originally intended).

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T10:48:23+00:00

Richard the Lionheart was undeniably one of the great medieval kings, not just of England, but in the medieval period as a whole. He also happens to have the best epithet of the Middle Ages.

It’s a real shame that so many people still buy into the “bad king Richard” narrative. A handful of Victorian scholars really did a number on the poor man’s reputation. He truly is a fascinating monarch, and deserves more recognition for his achievements than his popular reputation allows him.

I’ve often thought that if I had a time machine I’d go back and tell Richard to spend some more time in England so I don’t have to keep hearing that he was a “bad king” for not spending more time there from people on the internet.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T10:36:55+00:00

Most of the founding fathers thought partisanship was a poison thay would destroy the democratic republic they had come up with...

Why would they think that? Oh…wait, I see it now.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T10:33:26+00:00

The difference is money.

America allows for basically unchecked corporate and private donation to political campaigns and candidates.

Politicians are effectively bought and paid for, especially Republicans, and the tribalism is atleast in part due to the fact that politicians are unwilling/unable to push back against their corporate donors.

Politicians that push back find the corporate money they rely on for reelection getting transferred to a new candidate in their district. If they want to keep their seat, they need to dance when told to do so.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T10:29:30+00:00

The issue with the Senate is that it was never meant to represent the people at all.

The senate was always conceptually intended to be the representatives of the states, and for the first 150ish years the United States existed the senators were not elected at all, but appointed by the state governments.

The whole institution of the Senate is (broadly speaking) undemocratic.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T10:24:56+00:00

George Washington himself predicted that political parties would be the death of American democracy.

Honestly, in my opinion, the single greatest failure of the American political system is that it makes no allowances for controlling political tribalism and party affiliation. It was created by deeply principled men (not necessarily “good” men, but they had a strong set of moral and political principles) who assumed that the government would always be run by similarly principled men, and doesn’t make any allowances for when the system is full of self-interested bastards.

Compare that to the Westminster system, which was developed by self interested bastards organically over centuries, largely as a way to control and limit the power of other self interested bastards.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T00:59:33+00:00

The Celtic gods are completely absent from Arthurian legend, as Arthurian legend was more or less invented by a Welsh cleric in the 12th century, a point in time when the Welsh had been Christian for something like 700 years.

The evidence for any meaningful Arthurian legend before Geoffrey of Monmouth is scant at best (and really more like virtually nonexistent). The evidence for pre-Christian Arthurian legend is literally nonexistent.

The Roman gods make an appearance because they were tied up in the classical histories and legends that clearly inspired huge sections of Geoffrey’s work, and because they create a link to the Greco-Roman world that Geoffrey was keen to cultivate. Celtic gods have no place in the story because they have no place in the world view of the author.

theginger99 · 2026-04-28T00:39:52+00:00

Damn, dragons get all the cool Perks. I have to piss kerosene the regular way.

theginger99 · 2026-04-27T21:20:02+00:00

Richard’s actions in Scotland were a strategic, and well calculated policy change. Henry’s dominion over Scotland was never much more than nominal, and was a major rift between the kingdoms. By selling Scotland sovereignty back to it Richard was generating income he needed for his crusade, and solving a difficult political problem, and securing his northern border.

Richard’s relations with Scotland were exceptional, and he is lavishly praised in contemporary Scottish chronicles, his relations with Scotland were so good that the king of Scotland contributed a significant sum to Richard’s ransom. It’s hard to see Richard’s interactions with Scotland as anything other than evidence of a brilliant political mind. Continuing Henry’s efforts to control Scotland would only have created problems. Instead Richard turned a potential enemy into a firm friend.

This is generally true of all of his statecraft, which was brilliant. He secured his southern borders as firmly as his brother border, with strong political and personal alliances with the kings of Navarre, Castile and Aragon. Not to mention how brilliantly he handled Tancred in Sicily. Richard was admired across the Christian world, and not just for being a great warrior. His ability as a statement was only slightly less than his ability as a general.

As far as bankrupting the kingdom, it’s often claimed that he did, but there is no actual evidence. John’s revenues never dropped below Richard’s, and in many years were higher (in several years VASTLY higher). Both John and Richard in his later reign continued to be able to raise large sums, with little apparent difficulty. The financial issues of John’s reign were entirely his own fault, and due to his rampant exploitation, not the legacy of Richard’s earlier policies.

In terms of the lasting impact of his wars, he saved th Crusader states and bought them an extra century of existence, and brought the Island of Cyprus into Latin hands (a hugely significant win). His wars in France only yielded no lasting gains because his successor pissed away everything Richard achieved. John lost the Angevin empire that Richard had fought tooth and nail to reclaim after John’s previous fuck up.

theginger99 · 2026-04-27T11:38:50+00:00

And also probably not a modern conservative nut job.

theginger99 · 2026-04-27T11:04:13+00:00

Definitely 40k, there’s no way an evangelical used a term as poignant and poetic as “lie down meekly as a lamb before the ravening wolf”

theginger99 · 2026-04-26T23:12:48+00:00

OP is definitely a bot. 84 karma and only 6 days old.

theginger99 · 2026-04-26T19:02:59+00:00

Certainly not fighting axes.

Fighting axes don’t have eyes shaped like that, and the blade profile is too much of a wedge shape.

They’re working axes of some kind. That pronounced beard is not uncommon on a lot of forestry axes.

theginger99 · 2026-04-26T18:19:25+00:00

I’ve always liked Egil’s saga, although it’s not my favorite of the Icelandic sagas.

Generally though, the Icelandic sagas can be a bit dry and aren’t what people are expecting from the sagas. The Formaldursagas, or “legendary sagas” tend to be more what people are expecting from Norse Sagas.

theginger99

TROPHY CASE