How the Celts saved Britain , part 1 , 9.00 , BBC 4 25/5/09

Latchy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kps7h

How Irish missionairies betwen 400-800AD spread christianity to the future nations of Scotland and England encouraging literacy and technological progress

conchubhar1

do you reckon this will be online anywhere or anytime?

altho i dont neccessarily have to see it - would like to see another take on it

good thread

Latchy

Not sure if it will be online although it's possible it might appear on you tube at some time .If you have a tv on demand service, it allows you to watch programmes for several weeks after first screening .

Ostrom

Recorded on our new (which I still find amazing) digital recording thing. Watched first half this morning, very enjoyable.

Anyone else catch it?

Ponster

REpeated on these dates :


BBC 4 June 1st at 9:00pm

BBC 4 June 2nd at 12:50am

BBC 4 June 3rd at 8:00pm

BBC 4 June 4th at 12:50am

hivizman

efla wrote: »

Recorded on our new (which I still find amazing) digital recording thing. Watched first half this morning, very enjoyable.

Anyone else catch it?

Yep, a very interesting programme with a lot of good scenery in the outdoor shots. Some bits overlapped with one of the programmes in Channel 4's recent series Christianity: A History (discussed here on the Christianity forum). We have to wait, though, until part 2 next week to find out how the Celts really did save Britain.

lostexpectation

so we're an island nation on the edge of europe, nothing special about the irish as such

conchubhar1

lostexpectation wrote: »

so we're an island nation on the edge of europe, nothing special about the irish as such

so and as such

well done my friend, you have made it look as if you are making a point and then you weasel out of it - nice good post there! bravo

draoicht

Latchy wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kps7h

How Irish missionairies betwen 400-800AD spread christianity to the future nations of Scotland and England encouraging literacy and technological progress

Sounds similar to the book "How the Irish Saved Civilization" http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243622675&sr=8-1

The book says that after the fall of the Roman Empire, Irish monks copied and preserved a lot from material from Ancient Greece and Rome and that a lot of this stuff was instrumental in bringing about The Renaissance.

BTW if you want a laugh, have a look at the reviews on Amazon for this book, theres a lot of "no, my country saved civilisation" going on.

Ostrom

draoicht wrote: »

Sounds similar to the book "How the Irish Saved Civilization" http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243622675&sr=8-1

The book says that after the fall of the Roman Empire, Irish monks copied and preserved a lot from material from Ancient Greece and Rome and that a lot of this stuff was instrumental in bringing about The Renaissance.

BTW if you want a laugh, have a look at the reviews on Amazon for this book, theres a lot of "no, my country saved civilisation" going on.

Jaysus its worse than youtube

chughes

I watched this program and I found it to be enjoyable and informative. Fair play to the BBC as I don't think they would have shown a program like this in the past.

Ostrom

hivizman wrote: »

Yep, a very interesting programme with a lot of good scenery in the outdoor shots. Some bits overlapped with one of the programmes in Channel 4's recent series Christianity: A History (discussed here on the Christianity forum). We have to wait, though, until part 2 next week to find out how the Celts really did save Britain.

I'm a bit weak on early Irish history, what are the main sources for the period in question?

hivizman

efla wrote: »

I'm a bit weak on early Irish history, what are the main sources for the period in question?

It's not really my period. The two major sources of English history for this period, though by no means contemporary, are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. These touch on Irish history only indirectly, for example where the Irish make war on the English. Other sources include various lives of the saints, including the Leabhar Breac (life of St Patrick) - material from this, such as the fact that St Patrick's grandfather was a deacon and his father was a priest, cropped up in the BBC documentary.

Hookey

draoicht wrote: »

Sounds similar to the book "How the Irish Saved Civilization" http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Saved-Civilization-Hinges-History/dp/0385418493/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243622675&sr=8-1

The book says that after the fall of the Roman Empire, Irish monks copied and preserved a lot from material from Ancient Greece and Rome and that a lot of this stuff was instrumental in bringing about The Renaissance.

BTW if you want a laugh, have a look at the reviews on Amazon for this book, theres a lot of "no, my country saved civilisation" going on.

That book is a bit rubbish though. If it had been called "How the Irish Saved Britain" he might have had a point; but in Europe the "Dark" Ages were by no means as dark as our old school lessons would have us believe.

MarchDub

Hookey wrote: »

That book is a bit rubbish though. If it had been called "How the Irish Saved Britain" he might have had a point; but in Europe the "Dark" Ages were by no means as dark as our old school lessons would have us believe.

The book is rubbish but not the reasons you cite. It's rubbish because Cahill does not understand the sources he is dealing with - what was actual history and what was myth. There is no line between the two for him. For example, the propaganda surrounding St Patrick - invented hundreds of years after his death - Cahill treats as historic fact.

He is also apparently ignorant of the latest archeological finds in Ireland because he cites none of this and takes the "Celtic" mythology as actual history.

But Irish scholars did play an important role in the European courts of the time. Johannes Scottus Eriugena [served as philosopher/teacher in the French Court of Charles II] was no lightweight - Bertrand Russell called him "the most astonishing figure" of this period. As late as 1681 Scottus' work was still giving trouble to the Pope and his De Divisione Naturae was placed on the Index of Forbidden books by the Vatican. The Irish scholars of this early medieval period displayed a freedom of thought unlike that found elsewhere in Europe - and got censored for it from time to time.

MarchDub

Latchy wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kps7h

How Irish missionairies betwen 400-800AD spread christianity to the future nations of Scotland and England encouraging literacy and technological progress

I do have a question about the title though - why how the "Celts" saved? Seeing as it has been established that there was no such thing as a "Celtic people" [it was a culture not an ethnic group] why not use the world "Irish".

Someone at the BBC have a problem with this, you think?

conchubhar1

they never said it was an ethnic group

it was a cultural group, mostly defined by language in ireland.

MarchDub

conchubhar1 wrote: »

they never said it was an ethnic group

it was a cultural group, mostly defined by language in ireland.

I haven't seen the series - but I wondered about the title. The title "Celts" would seem to indicate a group and not a culture. The Celtic culture is found in many countries and is not singular to Ireland. So, why not name this particular group by their real name - the Irish?

Just a thought as to why not...

MarchDub

hivizman wrote: »

It's not really my period. The two major sources of English history for this period, though by no means contemporary, are the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. These touch on Irish history only indirectly, for example where the Irish make war on the English. Other sources include various lives of the saints, including the Leabhar Breac (life of St Patrick) - material from this, such as the fact that St Patrick's grandfather was a deacon and his father was a priest, cropped up in the BBC documentary.

The Leabhar Breac is not considered to be an original or primary source material. It is a late medieval compilation of various other sources, including myth and propaganda. For Patrick the sole accepted sources are his Confession and Patrick's own Letter to Coroticus. These alone form the primary source material on St. Patrick.

You have his genealogy slightly incorrect - Patrick was the son of a deacon and the grandson of a priest. This is recorded by Patrick himself in his Confession. But this is common knowledge in Irish history circles and certainly nothing new.

Ostrom

MarchDub wrote: »

This is recorded by Patrick himself in his Confession. But this is common knowledge in Irish history circles and certainly nothing new.

Was it not authored a few centuries after Patricks supposed lifetime?

conchubhar1

because if any country could be called celtic at the time it was ireland

i doubt anyone would be confsed by who is meant by celts when taking about 400-800


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/5369864/Dan-Snow-How-Britain-nearly-became-the-Irish-Isles.html

MarchDub

efla wrote: »

Was it not authored a few centuries after Patricks supposed lifetime?

No, there is absolute consensus among Irish scholars that it dates to Patrick - you may be thinking of the two "lives" of Patrick authored in the late seventh century [two hundred years after Patrick died] by two authors - Muirchu and Tirechan. This is where much of the myth - confronting Druids etc and the flagrant propaganda that Patrick was the sole converter of the Irish, comes from.

MoominPapa

I've never got this idea. How did Irish monks preserve more latin texts than, say, the Byzantine empire? What influence did the Irish have on the preservation on scientific knowldge that was greater than, say, the Arabs?
Is it still seriously believed that if it wasn't for the Irish the renaissance wouldn't have happened?

getz

MarchDub wrote: »

No, there is absolute consensus among Irish scholars that it dates to Patrick - you may be thinking of the two "lives" of Patrick authored in the late seventh century [two hundred years after Patrick died] by two authors - Muirchu and Tirechan. This is where much of the myth - confronting Druids etc and the flagrant propaganda that Patrick was the sole converter of the Irish, comes from.

patrick was not the first to bring christianity to ireland

MarchDub

getz wrote: »

patrick was not the first to bring christianity to ireland

Getz - This is precisely the point I was making. He was neither the first nor the only one...