The Dresden Files > DF Reference Collection
Dresden Files: Series Timeline
MonaLS:
--- Quote from: Uilos on January 06, 2008, 01:48:23 AM ---I noticed a typo in Malcolm Dresden's timeline. Aneurysm is spelled with a "y" not an "i"
--- End quote ---
Either way seems to be acceptable, my dictionary lists both.
Quantus:
Question #1: When was the original Merlin around? Or if thats a little vague given the lifespan of wizards, when did the whole Arthur and the round table Amoracchius as Excalibur go down?
Historians as far as I know cant agree and place it anywhere from a few centuries AD in the decline of the Roman Empire all the way up to the 12th century or so during the time of chivalry.
Question #2: When where the nails of the Cross first forged into Swords.
I ask because of what Michael said about how Amoracchius had never been reworked like th other two swords, and how it was once in the stewardship of the Original Merlin. Now if that happened only of few centuries AD, it would make a bit of sense because the sword could have been on its first iteration when the Merlin got a hold of it (and presumably did something to make it last more than the other two). But if Merlin was on the latter end of things, it would mean that it had already lasted near a millennium before he got it, and might indicate a more philosophical difference between the sword of Love and the swords of Faith and Duty. Im working on a Fidelacchius theory, but I wont clutter this thread up with it ;)
the neurovore of Zur-En-Aargh:
--- Quote from: Quantus347 on January 14, 2008, 07:59:41 PM ---Historians as far as I know cant agree and place it anywhere from a few centuries AD in the decline of the Roman Empire all the way up to the 12th century or so during the time of chivalry.
--- End quote ---
This is not really a subject for debate among serious historians any more, because there are Arthur stories going back to the early sixth century (Nennius' Historia Brittonum, the Annales Cambriae, a fair bit of indirect stuff in Gildas, who was born the year of the Battle of Badon); something held up the Saxons for two generations after the Romans left Britain, but, well, they call it a Dark Age because people are too busy staying alive to document it properly.
--- Quote ---But if Merlin was on the latter end of things, it would mean that it had already lasted near a millennium before he got it, and might indicate a more philosophical difference between the sword of Love and the swords of Faith and Duty. Im working on a Fidelacchius theory, but I wont clutter this thread up with it ;)
--- End quote ---
All depends on how well the sword was taken care of, and the Knights do seem inclined to take good care of their swords; staying in good shape over a millennium with a sequence of careful owners does not to me scream out some specific magical intervention causing this to happen.
Quantus:
--- Quote from: neurovore on January 15, 2008, 09:29:53 PM ---This is not really a subject for debate among serious historians any more, because there are Arthur stories going back to the early sixth century (Nennius' Historia Brittonum, the Annales Cambriae, a fair bit of indirect stuff in Gildas, who was born the year of the Battle of Badon); something held up the Saxons for two generations after the Romans left Britain, but, well, they call it a Dark Age because people are too busy staying alive to document it properly.
--- End quote ---
Sweet, Thanks.
--- Quote ---All depends on how well the sword was taken care of, and the Knights do seem inclined to take good care of their swords; staying in good shape over a millennium with a sequence of careful owners does not to me scream out some specific magical intervention causing this to happen.
--- End quote ---
But they weren't careful owners; two thousand years of constant active use will wear and chip even the strongest of blades. Sharpening alone would take its toll after that long. And that doesn't explain why Amoracchius is the only one never to have been reworked when the other two have been many times.
Ill write up my reasoning and post it with the theory on the spoiler boards, so as to not have a tangent here.
Uilos:
Yes, at the oldest, Amoracchius is roughly 7-8 centuries old at least as long/broadsword's were not developed until the 1300's.
I know this isn't the place for this, but since it's being discussed, is Amoracchius a broadsword or a longsword?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version