He was born to a family in a village which is fact as he showed RA, it was way after as they had agriculture, dogs had been domesticated, they had mud huts, clay pots. they also had bronze swords etc so it was the bronze age at the time of his childhood.
“The boy who would be king held his father’s skull in his hands. He turned it slowly, running his fingertips across the contours of skinless bone. A thumb, still browned with field dirt, traced across the blunt ivory pegs of the gap-toothed death smile. He lifted his eyes to the stone shelf where the other skulls sat in silent vigil. They stared into the hut’s gloomy confines, their eyes replaced by smooth stones, their faces restored with the crude artistry of clay. It was the boy’s place to remake his father’s face in the same way, sculpting the familiar features with wet mud and slow swipes of a flint knife, then letting the skull bake dry in the high sun. The boy thought he might use sea shells for the eyes, if he could barter with the coastal traders for two that were smooth enough. He would do this soon. Such things were tradition. First he needed answers. He turned the skull once more, circling his thumb around the ragged hole broken into the bone. He didn’t need to close his eyes and meditate to know the truth. He didn’t need to pray for his father’s spirit to tell him what happened. He simply touched the hole in his father’s head, and at once he knew. He saw the fall of the bronze knife from behind; he saw his father fall into the mud; he saw everything that had happened leading to this moment in time. The boy who would be king rose from the floor of his family’s hut and walked out into the settlement, his father’s skull clutched in one hand. Mud-brick huts lined both sides of the river. The wheat-fields to the east were a patchwork sea of dark gold beneath the eye of the setting sun. The village was never truly quiet, even after the day’s work was done. Families talked and laughed and fought. Dogs barked for attention and whined for food. The wind set the scrubland trees to singing, with the hiss of leaves and the creak of branches forming their eternal song. A ragged dog growled as the boy passed, yet fled yelping when he gave it no more than a glance. A carrion bird, hunchbacked and evil of eye, cried out above the village." - master of mankind
Plus he planned to go to the cradle of civilisation, the city of Uruk (the first city) which is 5000 BC, after that village.
"The boy’s momentary silence told Ra that he had guessed wrong. ‘We are not far removed from those
beginnings, Ra, either in distance or time. You could walk to the cradle of civilisation from here, where
men and women made the very first city. When I leave this village, that is where I will go. That journey is
coming soon. But no, that is not what I mean when I speak of beginnings.’
The boy turned the skull over in his hands, just as he had done in the hut before. ‘This is where I first
learned the truth behind our species. This very eve, as I held my father’s skull and considered how to
restore his features according to our burial rites. When I learned of his murder, it was a revelation into the
heart of all of mankind. This is a world that has no need of you yet, Ra. It has no need for Imperial
bodyguards, for it is a world that knows nothing of emperors, or warlords, or conquerors. And therefore it
knows nothing of unity. Nothing of law."
Tonnes of evidence showing that he lived during the bronze age so actually after the rogue trader 8,000 BC. 3000-1200 BC is when he would have been born. Depending on accounts of the first bronze knife probably around 1900 BC.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: It's almost like GW is intentionally presenting us with contradictory information about Emps to keep up the mystery.
GW don't tell black library writers what to write. This isn't conflicting as it replaces the rogue trader lore plus it comes from the Emperor so its fact in the lore now. You can't just dismiss it because, the Emperor is mysterious. Are you also going to dismiss his interaction with Drach'nyn because he's mysterious. You'll just need to accept it.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: It's almost like GW is intentionally presenting us with contradictory information about Emps to keep up the mystery.
GW don't tell black library writers what to write. This isn't conflicting as it replaces the rogue trader lore plus it comes from the Emperor so its fact in the lore now. You can't just dismiss it because, the Emperor is mysterious. Are you also going to dismiss his interaction with Drach'nyn because he's mysterious.
Actually isn't that text you quoted from BL? If GW doesn't tell what to write that means BL isn't ultimate source for canon and thus GW written text trumps BL text.
Aaand of course. Wasn't that scene Emperor showing RA rather than Emperor's internal thoughts? If so that actually is zero proof. After all Emperor never ever EVER lied about anything oh no! You can obviously take his words at face value. Not at all previous record of lying for his purpose oh no.
We have actually zero direct undisputable evidence one way or another.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: It's almost like GW is intentionally presenting us with contradictory information about Emps to keep up the mystery.
GW don't tell black library writers what to write. This isn't conflicting as it replaces the rogue trader lore plus it comes from the Emperor so its fact in the lore now. You can't just dismiss it because, the Emperor is mysterious. Are you also going to dismiss his interaction with Drach'nyn because he's mysterious.
Actually isn't that text you quoted from BL? If GW doesn't tell what to write that means BL isn't ultimate source for canon and thus GW written text trumps BL text.
Aaand of course. Wasn't that scene Emperor showing RA rather than Emperor's internal thoughts? If so that actually is zero proof. After all Emperor never ever EVER lied about anything oh no! You can obviously take his words at face value. Not at all previous record of lying for his purpose oh no.
We have actually zero direct undisputable evidence one way or another.
Yeah but the person I replied to called it GW, so I just made things simple rather than explaining something he already knows. Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL. The Emperor says himself and you are not taking that as proof, this just incredibly ridiculous. Why on earth would the Emperor lie in this case. If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong. Until a writer writes a new novel in which the Emperor said 'ah I just lied about that', its fact. Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k. I already regret this thread because here comes the 'nothing in the lore is concrete' 'nothing about the Emperor us true because he's mysterious, even when he shows people his past.' facile logic. The Emperor could literally say, I was born to shamans in the bronze age and show his birth certificate and tell people his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries and people would say 'we can't take that as concrete' lol
BaconCatBug wrote: All this thread did for me was to wish we'd hurry up and adopt the Holocene calendar already.
The what?
The Holocene calendar, also known as the Holocene Era or Human Era (HE), is a year numbering system that adds exactly 10,000 years to the currently dominant (AD/BC or CE/BCE) numbering scheme, placing its first year near the beginning of the Holocene geological epoch and the Neolithic Revolution, when humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture and fixed settlements.
BaconCatBug wrote: All this thread did for me was to wish we'd hurry up and adopt the Holocene calendar already.
The what?
The Holocene calendar, also known as the Holocene Era or Human Era (HE), is a year numbering system that adds exactly 10,000 years to the currently dominant (AD/BC or CE/BCE) numbering scheme, placing its first year near the beginning of the Holocene geological epoch and the Neolithic Revolution, when humans transitioned from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to agriculture and fixed settlements.
Yeah but bronze technology was between 3000-1200BC so nope.
Yeah but the person I replied to called it GW, so I just made things simple rather than explaining something he already knows. Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL. The Emperor says himself and you are not taking that as proof, this just incredibly ridiculous. Why on earth would the Emperor lie in this case. If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong. Until a writer writes a new novel in which the Emperor said 'ah I just lied about that', its fact. Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k. I already regret this thread because here comes the 'nothing in the lore is concrete' 'nothing about the Emperor us true because he's mysterious, even when he shows people his past.' facile logic. The Emperor could literally say, I was born to shamans in the bronze age and show his birth certificate and tell people his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries and people would say 'we can't take that as concrete' lol
Eh BL being separate means BL doesn't actually automatically override...
And Emperor says himself BUT HE SAYS ITTO ANOTHER PERSON! Emperor says many things to many people. He claims to primarch they are his truest followers. Then he goes and says same thing to custodes. Both statements CANNOT be true. That means he LIED to one person.
I can say I am god. Does that mean I am god? Or does that mean I'm lying?
"Third person omiscient novel". Okay so Emperor says always the truth even when he's clearly lying. Good logic you have.
We have multiple instances of Emperor flat out LYING TO PEOPLE yet you take whatever he says to another person at face value. Okay I hope you don't get Nigerian letters seeing how you buy up instantly whatever story you are told to without thinking that "maybe known lier is lying once more"
Whole point of 40k fluff is that it's not set in stone. IT IS MEANT FOR PLAYERS TO DO THEIR OWN STORIES! Why you are looking at definities with zero mysteries when that goes against the root concept of the whole 40k setting?
Yeah but the person I replied to called it GW, so I just made things simple rather than explaining something he already knows. Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL. The Emperor says himself and you are not taking that as proof, this just incredibly ridiculous. Why on earth would the Emperor lie in this case. If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong. Until a writer writes a new novel in which the Emperor said 'ah I just lied about that', its fact. Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k. I already regret this thread because here comes the 'nothing in the lore is concrete' 'nothing about the Emperor us true because he's mysterious, even when he shows people his past.' facile logic. The Emperor could literally say, I was born to shamans in the bronze age and show his birth certificate and tell people his mother was a hamster and his father smelt of elderberries and people would say 'we can't take that as concrete' lol
Eh BL being separate means BL doesn't actually automatically override...
And Emperor says himself BUT HE SAYS ITTO ANOTHER PERSON! Emperor says many things to many people. He claims to primarch they are his truest followers. Then he goes and says same thing to custodes. Both statements CANNOT be true. That means he LIED to one person.
I can say I am god. Does that mean I am god? Or does that mean I'm lying?
"Third person omiscient novel". Okay so Emperor says always the truth even when he's clearly lying. Good logic you have.
We have multiple instances of Emperor flat out LYING TO PEOPLE yet you take whatever he says to another person at face value. Okay I hope you don't get Nigerian letters seeing how you buy up instantly whatever story you are told to without thinking that "maybe known lier is lying once more"
I didn't say BL automatically overrides, I said it trumps 30 years lore.
"And Emperor says himself BUT HE SAYS ITTO ANOTHER PERSON! Emperor says many things to many people. He claims to primarch they are his truest followers. Then he goes and says same thing to custodes. Both statements CANNOT be true. That means he LIED to one person." So what, just because he lied there doesn't mean he always lies lol Many characters lie in HH and 40k, but just because the Emperor is mysterious oooohhhhhhhhh, you can't take what he says on face value, jesus you must be fun debating the lore. The Emperor told Magnus not to use sorcery, ah he always lies therefore Magnus was right to do what he did. The Emperor wanted the webway destroyed.
I can say I am god. Does that mean I am god? Or does that mean I'm lying? Yes it means you are lying. The Emperor never said he was a god.
Again just because he lied doesn't mean he is always lying lol Explain why he would lie about that. You logic is 'if someone lies, they always lie' if you gave me a reasonable and logic example of why he would lie to Ra then I might take you seriously. Do you know how you know he lied, because its in the lore. Show me lore where the Emperor says he is lying or tells a Primarch that he was born Jupiter to his mother Zeebo and his father Zog.
Previous lore says 8000BC, this lore says 300-1200BC - that is the most insane thing I've ever heard, he's lying. He wanted Ra to know he was born then, even though Ra has no ability to tell what time he is born in because pretty much all earth history is lost as it is 32,000 AD. I mean Ra is an old earth historian and all.
Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL.
That's not how it works. There is no defined method of what overrides what. It is all canon, and canon may be contradictory. Nolan's Batman films did not override Burton's Batman films, they're just a different versions of the same basic story. It is canon that Emperor was saved on Horus' flagship by a guardsman named Ollanius, it is also canon that he was saved in that same situation by a Imperial Fist terminator, it is also canon that he was saved by a Custodian. So take your pick, or embrace the ambiguity!
If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong.
It's a story. The format of the story does not make it any less or more true. Iliad is not more accurate account of ancient Greece than history books even though it written from character level.
Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k.
Yes its BL, but GW only trumpes BL if it proceeds BL.
That's not how it works. There is no defined method of what overrides what. It is all canon, and canon may be contradictory. Nolan's Batman films did not override Burton's Batman films, they're just a different versions of the same basic story. It is canon that Emperor was saved on Horus' flagship by a guardsman named Ollanius, it is also canon that he was saved in that same situation by a Imperial Fist terminator, it is also canon that he was saved by a Custodian. So take your pick, or embrace the ambiguity!
If it was so the author would have implied as such, its a third person omniscient novel, so no you are wrong.
It's a story. The format of the story does not make it any less or more true. Iliad is not more accurate account of ancient Greece than history books even though it written from character level.
Otherwise everything you've read is implicit and there are no facts in 40k.
Now you're getting it!
No its not, GW said the codex lore trumps BL lore. Its not all cannon, Space Marines used to feel fear, they now don't. You have to have common sense and be logical about lore or there is no point in talking to a person like that about the lore. Its fine to say, yeah but rogue trader stated this etc. Its only all relative if there is no definitive answer like Oll and the IF terminator or what the Emperor looks like. The Illad was never a defined piece. It was written probably as history, though we know obviously its mythology. We don't live in the time of the Illiad so we know if a book is fiction or fact, or third person or omniscient.
No I'm not getting it, that is just incredibly stupid. If its all implicit why read it. Its like reading a novel that all the way through it says a. happened then b happened but c also said that d happened but could either have happened, then e. happened and f. but again either could have happened. The Dannans invaded Troy, or did they.
When has GW said that codex lore trumps BL lore? (I mean it definitely does in my head canon, but I don't remember ever hearing anything official about that.)
But your mistake is thinking that 40K has one consitent continuity, it does not. The thing about Emperor's past may be one way in one book and another way in other book. Studio fluff seems to be pretty consistent with itself, so you can probably treat it as one whole. Things like BL books, RPGs and computer games are adaptations though, and are not necessarily consistent with the studio fluff. BL books from different authors are not even consistent with each other.
This is why I make these comic book comparisons, it is kinda like that. MCU is not consistent with X-Men films and neirher are consistent with Marvel Comics. So a things that are 'true' in HH books are not necessarily true in GW studio fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the actual passage, yes a bronze knife would
place it in 5th millennium BC in the earliest. Then again, maybe it was a mistake and it was a copper knife? And this is Emperor reminiscing much later right? If it has really been tens of thousands of years, his memory may not be that accurate...
Then again, maybe it was not that long time ago at all. The description could fit a primitive society in any era, perhaps during the Age of Strife...
Crimson wrote: When has GW said that codex lore trumps BL lore? (I mean it definitely does in my head canon, but I don't remember ever hearing anything official about that.)
But your mistake is thinking that 40K has one consitent continuity, it does not. The thing about Emperor's past may be one way in one book and another way in other book. Studio fluff seems to be pretty consistent with itself, so you can probably treat it as one whole. Things like BL books, RPGs and computer games are adaptations though, and are not necessarily consistent with the studio fluff. BL books from different authors are not even consistent with each other.
This is why I make these comic book comparisons, it is kinda like that. MCU is not consistent with X-Men films and neirher are consistent with Marvel Comics. So a things that are 'true' in HH books are not necessarily true in GW studio fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for the actual passage, yes a bronze knife would
place it in 5th millennium BC in the earliest. Then again, maybe it was a mistake and it was a copper knife? And this is Emperor reminiscing much later right? If it has really been tens of thousands of years, his memory may not be that accurate...
Then again, maybe it was not that long time ago at all. The description could fit a primitive society in any era, perhaps during the Age of Strife...
No, you like to view the lore as interchangeable. But you don't even believe that, because you know fine well that you hold 'definitive and explicit' lore. You know the Emperor is on the golden throne and you would never dispute that. See people that try and push this, its all interchangeable; there is no concrete lore, only say that when they have been proven wrong on something in the past and use this as an excuse, because where you would get logic like that is beyond me. You hold concrete beliefs but when you don't like the lore or someone proves you wrong you decide its all subjective and implicit.
Are you also going to be skeptical of the Emperor sitting on the throne because some author could write a novel disputing that, saying it was a dream.
Yeah, Black Library and GW just don't have a consistent continuity, nor do they have any sort of overarching guidance for their authors. Looking for internal consistency is a fool's errand.
Also, taking historical evidence from that scene isn't proof of anything when you consider the author may well have been unaware of the inconsistencies in his description.
Slipspace wrote: Yeah, Black Library and GW just don't have a consistent continuity, nor do they have any sort of overarching guidance for their authors. Looking for internal consistency is a fool's errand.
Also, taking historical evidence from that scene isn't proof of anything when you consider the author may well have been unaware of the inconsistencies in his description.
Yes there is consistency and we ally it ourselves nearly all 40k fans will agree that really old lore like rogue trader is out of date and will go with current lore unless that lore hasn't been replaced. Most people take a logical approach of new lore trumps old lore. Are toy going to follow 4th edition fluff in the codex when the 8th edition codex contradicts it? No, yeah because that's the logical thing to do.
No, you like to view the lore as interchangeable. But you don't even believe that, because you know fine well that you hold 'definitive and explicit' lore. You know the Emperor is on the golden throne and you would never dispute that. See people that try and push this, its all interchangeable; there is no concrete lore, only say that when they have been proven wrong on something in the past and use this as an excuse, because where you would get logic like that is beyond me. You hold concrete beliefs but when you don't like the lore or someone proves you wrong you decide its all subjective and implicit.
Yes, there are some core facts that are basic building blocks of the setting that are effectively immutable. Just like Bruce Wayne's parents are killed and he eventually becomes a vigilante wearing a funny costume and is called Batman. But with each adaptation the details differ. Do you have a problem with this too? Do you agonise over how details from Gotham TV series line up with Nolan's Batman films?
Are you also going to be skeptical of the Emperor sitting on the throne because some author could write a novel disputing that, saying it was a dream.
And about that spcific thing, the core fact is that the Imperium's populace believes that the Emperor sits on the Golden Throne. But who knows, maybe the original Emperor died seven thousand years ago. Since then the Custodes have been changing powerful psykers to the throne like one changes a lightbulb. There is a giant unmarked pile of bones behind the Imperial Palace containing the remains of all the occupants of the Trone. The original Emperor's bones lie at the bottom of it.
Despite GW's past cop-out statement, it is clear there is a de-facto unofficial canon of sorts in use by GW and BL, even if the boundaries of that are indistinct. For example, you will never see a bolter portrayed as shooting "laser bolts" as opposed to what are effectively gyrojets. If somehow someone did write that, they would be told they got it wrong rather than they gave a valid interpretation of what Space Marines fire from their guns. Having immutable facts is the definition of canon. It is a loose canon because it is riddled with errors, inconsistencies, and retcons. The cop-out statement was more an excuse of editor laziness and sloppiness.
However any information given by any in-character in-universe source is always inherently suspect because they are fallible sources and may have other motives for not portraying the truth assuming they know what it is. The Emperor is an in-universe source. Visions are also potentially fallible sources as well.
The Emperor had a past...but what that is we as readers are not entirely certain because aside from the old Rogue Trader information (which was conveyed in OOC narrator format), all the rest of it has been in the form of in-character in-universe sources. At most we can say the Emperor showed or claimed certain things about himself, but whether that is really the truth, we cannot say. Having canon does not mean everything has to be known or revealed.
The only thing in the passage you quoted that doesn't fit with the old lore is the bronze knife. Everything else was around in the Neolithic. The earliest bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (yes, humans made arsenical bronze artefacts before the 'official' start of the Bronze Age).
Master of Mankind also refers to the 'First City' being near to the Emperor's birthplace (i.e. in Anatolia) and having just recently been founded. This would probably be Çatalhöyük, which might have existed as far back as 8000 BCE (or maybe Göbekli Tepe, which was certainly around by then but probably wasn't big enough to be called a city). By the Bronze Age, though, there were lots of cities and nobody would be likely to remember which one was the 'first'. The 'First City' thing is strong evidence that we're still in the Neolithic.
I actually think ADB just made a mistake and it was supposed to be a copper knife (copper was already in use in 8000 BCE).
The only thing in the passage you quoted that doesn't fit with the old lore is the bronze knife. Everything else was around in the Neolithic. The earliest bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (yes, humans made arsenical bronze artefacts before the 'official' start of the Bronze Age).
Master of Mankind also refers to the 'First City' being near to the Emperor's birthplace (i.e. in Anatolia) and having just recently been founded. This would probably be Çatalhöyük, which might have existed as far back as 8000 BCE (or maybe Göbekli Tepe, which was certainly around by then but probably wasn't big enough to be called a city). By the Bronze Age, though, there were lots of cities and nobody would be likely to remember which one was the 'first'. The 'First City' thing is strong evidence that we're still in the Neolithic.
I actually think ADB just made a mistake and it was supposed to be a copper knife (copper was already in use in 8000 BCE).
That seems the most likely thing to me as well. Black Library don't exactly fact check everything they do. Hence why we have Tyranids and casualties for planet wide war being a few million.
Also, IIRC, the old lore actually gave the Emperor's birth date as "the 8th millennium BCE", not specifically 8000 BCE. So that could be anything from 8000 to 7001, which means Çatalhöyük could certainly be the 'First City' mentioned without having to fudge the chronology at all (archaeologists date its founding to c.7500 BCE).
Yeah, I'm even more certain that bronze knife is just a mistake. Literally everything else the Emperor shows Ra indicates he was born in the 8th millennium BCE in Anatolia.
The only thing in the passage you quoted that doesn't fit with the old lore is the bronze knife. Everything else was around in the Neolithic. The earliest bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (yes, humans made arsenical bronze artefacts before the 'official' start of the Bronze Age).
Master of Mankind also refers to the 'First City' being near to the Emperor's birthplace (i.e. in Anatolia) and having just recently been founded. This would probably be Çatalhöyük, which might have existed as far back as 8000 BCE (or maybe Göbekli Tepe, which was certainly around by then but probably wasn't big enough to be called a city). By the Bronze Age, though, there were lots of cities and nobody would be likely to remember which one was the 'first'. The 'First City' thing is strong evidence that we're still in the Neolithic.
I actually think ADB just made a mistake and it was supposed to be a copper knife (copper was already in use in 8000 BCE).
And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin. As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.
No, you like to view the lore as interchangeable. But you don't even believe that, because you know fine well that you hold 'definitive and explicit' lore. You know the Emperor is on the golden throne and you would never dispute that. See people that try and push this, its all interchangeable; there is no concrete lore, only say that when they have been proven wrong on something in the past and use this as an excuse, because where you would get logic like that is beyond me. You hold concrete beliefs but when you don't like the lore or someone proves you wrong you decide its all subjective and implicit.
Yes, there are some core facts that are basic building blocks of the setting that are effectively immutable. Just like Bruce Wayne's parents are killed and he eventually becomes a vigilante wearing a funny costume and is called Batman. But with each adaptation the details differ. Do you have a problem with this too? Do you agonise over how details from Gotham TV series line up with Nolan's Batman films?
Are you also going to be skeptical of the Emperor sitting on the throne because some author could write a novel disputing that, saying it was a dream.
And about that spcific thing, the core fact is that the Imperium's populace believes that the Emperor sits on the Golden Throne. But who knows, maybe the original Emperor died seven thousand years ago. Since then the Custodes have been changing powerful psykers to the throne like one changes a lightbulb. There is a giant unmarked pile of bones behind the Imperial Palace containing the remains of all the occupants of the Trone. The original Emperor's bones lie at the bottom of it.
Yeah and how do 'you' decide what are core facts I decide by making sure there are no contradictions, that it is written explicitly and is not written as a belief or something that might or might not be true, or is implied as a lie etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Any other subject other than the Emperor or the Warp and everyone has the same outlook. Mention the Emperor or Chaos and we stop talking about the lore and start debating the fundamentals of epistemology.
Someone writes a thread, 'Kruze told Sevatar that he hated his legion." everyone looks up Shadows of Treacheries and concludes 'yep he certainly did,' Change the name to the Emperor and the subject to his birth etc. 'he's lying, cause mystery' I literally only get this kind of feedback when its the Emperor or the Warp.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.
Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.
As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.
You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.
This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.
Crimson wrote: There was a wrist watch in Ben-Hur so it must be set in the 20th century... Or you know, sometimes mistakes happen.
I doubt the people writing for GW, FW or BL have the knowledge available to write consistently and catch minor details like this. I mean as pointed out they fudge their army and war numbers terribly when all it would take to add some realism is type WW2 into wikipedia and look up some numbers. Now we're expecting them to open multiple wikipedia pages to look up bronze and copper when they seem to be incapable of even opening one. Its fiction, not gospel, they can't keep up with their own writing half the time.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.
Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.
As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.
You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.
This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.
Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?
Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.
HoundsofDemos wrote: I'd go more likely that the author got a relatively minor detail wrong.
If its a mistake why is a bronze knife constantly mentioned. If it was a mistake he would have only mention the bronze knife once. He's smart enough to research these things as they were purposely put in there, flint knife, trading, agriculture, dogs, bronze knife etc. and some of them were pretty randomly thrown in there.
Considering that most details seem to match the original date and the changing it couple of thousand years would not matter at all so changing it would be pointless, I find it far more likely that it is a mistake than an intentional change.
So why does he plan to go to the cradle of civilisation, the city of Uruk (the first city) which is 5000 BC, after that village.
"The boy’s momentary silence told Ra that he had guessed wrong. ‘We are not far removed from those
beginnings, Ra, either in distance or time. You could walk to the cradle of civilisation from here, where
men and women made the very first city. When I leave this village, that is where I will go. That journey is
coming soon. But no, that is not what I mean when I speak of beginnings.’
The boy turned the skull over in his hands, just as he had done in the hut before. ‘This is where I first
learned the truth behind our species. This very eve, as I held my father’s skull and considered how to
restore his features according to our burial rites. When I learned of his murder, it was a revelation into the
heart of all of mankind. This is a world that has no need of you yet, Ra. It has no need for Imperial
bodyguards, for it is a world that knows nothing of emperors, or warlords, or conquerors. And therefore it
knows nothing of unity. Nothing of law."
How many hints do you need, how many times could the writer be wrong. He's have to know the date of Uruk.
Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Saying the cradle of civilisation and the first city. Absolutely means he knows what Uruk is. The cradle of civilisation was Mesopotamia and Sumeria was where the first city was and the first city was Uruk. Its classical education. Its like saying I will go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the salt pillar. Plus the Epic of Gilgamesh has some cool stories about autocratic gods and seeking of immortality, which has some nice parallels and Utnapishtim seems like the deal on Molech.
You do realize there Uruk isn't necessarily the oldest city, and that chances are we don't know the exact first one since time makes it hard to keep track of such things. As for him knowing when Uruk was around or the exact date of bronze daggers, it would not surprise me if he didn't. I think your over estimating how much research an author would do for a relatively small detail. Finally like almost anything the emperor says to anyone who isn't Malcador, i'd take it with a grain of salt.
What's the point of this thread? You obviously have your mind set on your beliefs. Besides, didnt big Emp show Ra all that so he could seal that deamon in him? That was the point right? To show Ra the first murder of mankind so he would have an emotional connection to that Deamon.
Ah, another DC vs. the rest of Dakka thread; because he's totes right and you shouldn't even bother to argue.
40k's own history goes back further than our own currently recorded history. The Emp's (alleged) birth is even further back than that. I personally sub to the theory that he's a fraud. A Techno Barbarian Psyker from a few thousand years before The Age of Strife (where was he when the Men of Iron came, hm?) that used his powers and tech to take over.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Saying the cradle of civilisation and the first city. Absolutely means he knows what Uruk is. The cradle of civilisation was Mesopotamia and Sumeria was where the first city was and the first city was Uruk. Its classical education. Its like saying I will go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the salt pillar.
But there are multiple cradles and "first cities", as first city was used by people in ancient Mesopotamia as well. So maybe the Emperor refers to another city as the first city and not the archaeological first city! Maybe ABD is so clever he realized the use of 'first city' in Mesopotamia and uses the term to have Empy refer to Jericho or Eridu! Its ABD inception! Does ABD distinguish between proto-cities and the first 'true' cities? Nobody has a clue, you're just reading into it what you want to read.
Now to think about it, if Grand Goldilocks is supposed to be so awesome and cool and clairvoyant that he not only figured out his need for AdMech during the Middle Ages but also managed to deliver the Dragon to a safe location on Mars - Why didn't he just store some STCs away in equally safe locations?
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: Now to think about it, if Grand Goldilocks is supposed to be so awesome and cool and clairvoyant that he not only figured out his need for AdMech during the Middle Ages but also managed to deliver the Dragon to a safe location on Mars - Why didn't he just store some STCs away in equally safe locations?
Because as I said, he wasn't alive at that point in history.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: Now to think about it, if Grand Goldilocks is supposed to be so awesome and cool and clairvoyant that he not only figured out his need for AdMech during the Middle Ages but also managed to deliver the Dragon to a safe location on Mars - Why didn't he just store some STCs away in equally safe locations?
Because as I said, he wasn't alive at that point in history.
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: Now to think about it, if Grand Goldilocks is supposed to be so awesome and cool and clairvoyant that he not only figured out his need for AdMech during the Middle Ages but also managed to deliver the Dragon to a safe location on Mars - Why didn't he just store some STCs away in equally safe locations?
He seemed to have gotten blindsided quite a bit, maybe it was the Chaos Gods that made him unable to see the Age of Strife coming (if he can even see the future)? He didn't see it coming when they scattered the Primarchs or all the other crap that got throw at humanity and even the GC.
40k's own history goes back further than our own currently recorded history. The Emp's (alleged) birth is even further back than that. I personally sub to the theory that he's a fraud. A Techno Barbarian Psyker from a few thousand years before The Age of Strife (where was he when the Men of Iron came, hm?) that used his powers and tech to take over.
You do realize there Uruk isn't necessarily the oldest city, and that chances are we don't know the exact first one since time makes it hard to keep track of such things. As for him knowing when Uruk was around or the exact date of bronze daggers, it would not surprise me if he didn't. I think your over estimating how much research an author would do for a relatively small detail. Finally like almost anything the emperor says to anyone who isn't Malcador, i'd take it with a grain of salt.
Jesus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Morgasm the Powerfull wrote: If we reject the idea that ADB could be wrong, then the only other possibility is that those inconsistencies are intentional.
Either ADB got stuff wrong or Emps is spinning a yarn, intentionally or otherwise.
No, those are not the only two possibilities at all. Explain how you rule out he was telling the truth.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
kinratha wrote: What's the point of this thread? You obviously have your mind set on your beliefs. Besides, didnt big Emp show Ra all that so he could seal that deamon in him? That was the point right? To show Ra the first murder of mankind so he would have an emotional connection to that Deamon.
Whats the point in your comment. No he just sealed the daemon in him, no where does it say he showed Ra all that to seal the daemon, some things he showed him, but even the Emperor said he told him to illuminate him, you don't do that by telling lies.
"The Custodian fell to his knees, hands curling around the impaling blade. The thwarted rage of the
daemon sent nerve pain lightning-bolting through his fingers.
‘Why?’ Ra asked his king.
The Emperor stood tall once more, looking down, eyes cold.
In that moment, Ra knew. The Emperor’s words, spoken what felt like an eternity ago, flashed through
his blackening mind, infusing his thoughts with red revelation.
To illuminate you, the Emperor had said, as they looked upon the wonders and sins of the galaxy’s past.
You will fight harder once you understand what you are fighting for.
And now he knew. Ra Endymion, the one living soul shown the entirety of his master’s dreams and
ambitions. An enlightenment not gleaned for the purpose of waging war, but… for this. To know the truth
when all others believed in shadows and fragments, and to suffer that truth until it tore him apart.
Ra rose on shaking limbs, leaning on his spear for support. The sword was gone now. The daemon was
within him, caged by his flesh, bound by his agony-drenched will. He felt its tendrils circling his bones,
wrenching at them, thrashing in its need to reach the Master of Mankind. The creature tunnelling through"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grimtuff wrote: Ah, another DC vs. the rest of Dakka thread; because he's totes right and you shouldn't even bother to argue.
40k's own history goes back further than our own currently recorded history. The Emp's (alleged) birth is even further back than that. I personally sub to the theory that he's a fraud. A Techno Barbarian Psyker from a few thousand years before The Age of Strife (where was he when the Men of Iron came, hm?) that used his powers and tech to take over.
More like people love to argue with me because of my sparkling personality. Most people aren't that intellectually gifted, so if everyone is disagreeing with me, I take that as a compliment.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Saying the cradle of civilisation and the first city. Absolutely means he knows what Uruk is. The cradle of civilisation was Mesopotamia and Sumeria was where the first city was and the first city was Uruk. Its classical education. Its like saying I will go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the salt pillar.
But there are multiple cradles and "first cities", as first city was used by people in ancient Mesopotamia as well. So maybe the Emperor refers to another city as the first city and not the archaeological first city! Maybe ABD is so clever he realized the use of 'first city' in Mesopotamia and uses the term to have Empy refer to Jericho or Eridu! Its ABD inception! Does ABD distinguish between proto-cities and the first 'true' cities? Nobody has a clue, you're just reading into it what you want to read.
Again I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Saying the cradle of civilisation and the first city. Absolutely means he knows what Uruk is. The cradle of civilisation was Mesopotamia and Sumeria was where the first city was and the first city was Uruk. Its classical education. Its like saying I will go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the salt pillar.
But there are multiple cradles and "first cities", as first city was used by people in ancient Mesopotamia as well. So maybe the Emperor refers to another city as the first city and not the archaeological first city! Maybe ABD is so clever he realized the use of 'first city' in Mesopotamia and uses the term to have Empy refer to Jericho or Eridu! Its ABD inception! Does ABD distinguish between proto-cities and the first 'true' cities? Nobody has a clue, you're just reading into it what you want to read.
Again I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
More like people love to argue with me because of my sparkling personality. Most people aren't that intellectually gifted, so if everyone is disagreeing with me, I take that as a compliment.
Oh, so you're one of those people that ends up on r/iamverysmart frequently.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Saying the cradle of civilisation and the first city. Absolutely means he knows what Uruk is. The cradle of civilisation was Mesopotamia and Sumeria was where the first city was and the first city was Uruk. Its classical education. Its like saying I will go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the salt pillar.
But there are multiple cradles and "first cities", as first city was used by people in ancient Mesopotamia as well. So maybe the Emperor refers to another city as the first city and not the archaeological first city! Maybe ABD is so clever he realized the use of 'first city' in Mesopotamia and uses the term to have Empy refer to Jericho or Eridu! Its ABD inception! Does ABD distinguish between proto-cities and the first 'true' cities? Nobody has a clue, you're just reading into it what you want to read.
Again I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
More like people love to argue with me because of my sparkling personality. Most people aren't that intellectually gifted, so if everyone is disagreeing with me, I take that as a compliment.
Oh, so you're one of those people that ends up on r/iamverysmart frequently.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Saying the cradle of civilisation and the first city. Absolutely means he knows what Uruk is. The cradle of civilisation was Mesopotamia and Sumeria was where the first city was and the first city was Uruk. Its classical education. Its like saying I will go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the salt pillar.
But there are multiple cradles and "first cities", as first city was used by people in ancient Mesopotamia as well. So maybe the Emperor refers to another city as the first city and not the archaeological first city! Maybe ABD is so clever he realized the use of 'first city' in Mesopotamia and uses the term to have Empy refer to Jericho or Eridu! Its ABD inception! Does ABD distinguish between proto-cities and the first 'true' cities? Nobody has a clue, you're just reading into it what you want to read.
Again I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
Cradle of civilization is the Richat structure. Fight me IRL.
More like people love to argue with me because of my sparkling personality. Most people aren't that intellectually gifted, so if everyone is disagreeing with me, I take that as a compliment.
Oh, so you're one of those people that ends up on r/iamverysmart frequently.
Duly noted.
Far smarter than you and its satisfying to know that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Or more likely ABD doesn't name it Uruk but the first city because he doesn't know what the first city was, saying first city is just convenient without having to know more.
Saying the cradle of civilisation and the first city. Absolutely means he knows what Uruk is. The cradle of civilisation was Mesopotamia and Sumeria was where the first city was and the first city was Uruk. Its classical education. Its like saying I will go to Sodom and Gomorrah to see the salt pillar.
But there are multiple cradles and "first cities", as first city was used by people in ancient Mesopotamia as well. So maybe the Emperor refers to another city as the first city and not the archaeological first city! Maybe ABD is so clever he realized the use of 'first city' in Mesopotamia and uses the term to have Empy refer to Jericho or Eridu! Its ABD inception! Does ABD distinguish between proto-cities and the first 'true' cities? Nobody has a clue, you're just reading into it what you want to read.
Again I'm not going to dignify that with a response.
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
Cradle of civilization is the Richat structure. Fight me IRL.
More like people love to argue with me because of my sparkling personality. Most people aren't that intellectually gifted, so if everyone is disagreeing with me, I take that as a compliment.
Oh, so you're one of those people that ends up on r/iamverysmart frequently.
Duly noted.
Far smarter than you and its satisfying to know that.
That's.... that's not a good thing.
Did you pretend to read a book in order to come up with that? Pistols at dawn.
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
Pro tip, in modern academia there are cradles of civilization. China is a cradle of civilization, are you arguing ABD is telling us the Emperor is Chinese?
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
Pro tip, in modern academia there are cradles of civilization. China is a cradle of civilization, are you arguing ABD is telling us the Emperor is Chinese?
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
Pro tip, in modern academia there are cradles of civilization. China is a cradle of civilization, are you arguing ABD is telling us the Emperor is Chinese?
There is a guy that said Jesus was Chinese. Big E could have totally been Jesus in one of his previous lives.
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
Pro tip, in modern academia there are cradles of civilization. China is a cradle of civilization, are you arguing ABD is telling us the Emperor is Chinese?
Its as valid as you reading into ADB's knowledge on Mesopotamia and ancient metallurgy based on two throwaway words.
No its just stupid, especially when he is talking about the cradle of civilisation.
Pro tip, in modern academia there are cradles of civilization. China is a cradle of civilization, are you arguing ABD is telling us the Emperor is Chinese?
There is a guy that said Jesus was Chinese.
Big E could have totally been Jesus in one of his previous lives.
Uruk isn't "the very first city". There had been cities and proto-cities for at least a couple thousand years by the time Uruk was founded. It's not even the first 'true city' (i.e. with central planning, unlike proto-cities) in Mesopotamia. That would probably be Eridu.
Also, the rather well-described burial practices of the Emperor's people in MoM, with the clay-covered skulls and stone eyes? That's specifically a Neolithic practice. Nobody was doing that any more by the Bronze Age. To be fair, though, it was a Levantine thing. AFAIK, it wasn't done in Anatolia at any time.
If the bronze knife isn't simply a mistake, another possibility is that it's like Cornelius Blayke from Fulgrim: a clue that the 40K setting's history is not necessarily our history. Some 'historical' details are deliberately askew.
If the bronze knife isn't simply a mistake, another possibility is that it's like Cornelius Blayke from Fulgrim: a clue that the 40K setting's history is not necessarily our history. Some 'historical' details are deliberately askew.
Wonder when we're gonna get the "Doombreed was totally Hitler/Ghengis Khan/Stalin/Mao/Atilla the Hun etc." thread?
Delvarus Centurion wrote: And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.
Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.
As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.
You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.
This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.
Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?
Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.
Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.
As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.
You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.
This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.
Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?
Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.
What makes it obviously not a mistake?
DC's unswerving desire to be "proved" correct? I dunno, your guess is as good as mine at this point. I have no idea why anyone would focus only on the knife and not the other details. Nothing in the passage in question would indicate one is any more important than the other. I also really don't get why it's so hard to grasp that the author may simply not have known exactly what he was talking about as far as ancient history goes. I have no problem with that since these details really aren't important, no matter how much emphasis certain posters seem to put on them.
Duskweaver wrote: Uruk isn't "the very first city". There had been cities and proto-cities for at least a couple thousand years by the time Uruk was founded. It's not even the first 'true city' (i.e. with central planning, unlike proto-cities) in Mesopotamia. That would probably be Eridu.
Also, the rather well-described burial practices of the Emperor's people in MoM, with the clay-covered skulls and stone eyes? That's specifically a Neolithic practice. Nobody was doing that any more by the Bronze Age. To be fair, though, it was a Levantine thing. AFAIK, it wasn't done in Anatolia at any time.
If the bronze knife isn't simply a mistake, another possibility is that it's like Cornelius Blayke from Fulgrim: a clue that the 40K setting's history is not necessarily our history. Some 'historical' details are deliberately askew.
I've always interpreted that as most lost and confused history then anything, for example Prosperio Burns refers to them having recovered "all three of shakespears plays"
You have a history of being rude, and you can't seem to help yourself. You violate Rule #1 along the traditional lines of "just saying it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth". You're not the first, and is not a reason to act like a jerk.
You seem to take great pride in your level of education, so you should realize that these are discussions. You don't convince people by saying, "Nuh-uh, YOU'RE wrong!". Give them evidence. Provide proof. If they don't agree, then either they have a fully formed opinion based on the evidence OR you're not doing a good enough job and convincing people that you're correct.
You should also realize that there are quite a few very intelligent people on Dakka Dakka. Assuming that people are below you doesn't strengthen your position, or make people believe you. They just think you're a jerk, and don't want to hear what you have to say.
Also, if you're not going to actually listen to people's points and properly debate them, why are you here? Just go to the park and yell at squirrels.
If you continue this behavior, it will result in a temporary suspension from Dakka Dakka.
Keep in mind that archology isn't a precise science, all we can do is look at the remnaints we can find and make con jecture. new finds are being made all the time, tomorrow we could find a bronze knife and a new city that dates back to the time of neanderthuls.
I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.
Therefore, even this example of Ra seeing the aftermath of the first murder, to give him a deeper understanding of Drach'nyen, could be a fabrication, to do just that: give Ra an "understanding".
The problem with the Emperor is that we've seen nothing definitely from his point of view yet, and I kinda doubt we ever will.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.
Therefore, even this example of Ra seeing the aftermath of the first murder, to give him a deeper understanding of Drach'nyen, could be a fabrication, to do just that: give Ra an "understanding".
The problem with the Emperor is that we've seen nothing definitely from his point of view yet, and I kinda doubt we ever will.
I agree about the Emperor and think it's more interesting to not see things from his point of view. How others react and relate to him is more interesting IMO.
Small point of clarification: the murder the Emperor shows Ra is him murdering his uncle, not the first murder, which was much earlier.
Sgt_Smudge wrote: I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.
Therefore, even this example of Ra seeing the aftermath of the first murder, to give him a deeper understanding of Drach'nyen, could be a fabrication, to do just that: give Ra an "understanding".
The problem with the Emperor is that we've seen nothing definitely from his point of view yet, and I kinda doubt we ever will.
I agree about the Emperor and think it's more interesting to not see things from his point of view. How others react and relate to him is more interesting IMO.
Small point of clarification: the murder the Emperor shows Ra is him murdering his uncle, not the first murder, which was much earlier.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.
Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.
As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.
You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.
This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.
Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?
Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: And yet there is the bronze knife. The rest still gives light to when he was born but the bronze knife puts the nail in the coffin.
Everything else in Master of Mankind suggests it's the Neolithic. So you can ignore everything else and fixate on the knife, or you can regard the knife as anomalous / a mistake. I know ADB's a smart guy, but he's not infallible. Occam's Razor says the bronze knife was a goof-up.
As for the first creation of bronze forging, If you are going to ague about history in order to argue that the Emperor is not born in the bronze age then you are on your own.
You claimed the bronze knife proves the Emperor was born after 3000 BCE. Even if the bronze knife is not a mistake, your claim is still wrong. The earliest (arsenical) bronze artefacts date from the 5th millennium BCE (arsenical bronze is still a type of bronze), even though that's usually considered to still be the Neolithic (actually the Chalcolithic, but we're getting pretty technical now). The dates usually given for the Bronze Age (the 3000-1200 BCE dates you appear to be using) are based on the use of tin bronze, not arsenical bronze, though of course archaeologists vary in where they draw the line.
This is all well-attested stuff, you know. We're not talking ancient aliens here.
Nothing suggested Neolithic, if there is a bronze knife end of. Its obviously not a mistake and regardless you can't apply 'a mistake' to something that you don't like. Occams' Razor suggests it was not a goof-up as there is no evidence whatsoever that it is a goof-up, you just don't want the original lore to change. ADB is a smart guy so he knows that a bronze knife would be in the bronze age. Who cares if he's a few thousand years younger, I mean why are 'you' set on it being a mistake even there is no evidence for it being a mistake?
Arsenical bronze is still made after 8000BC so why are you still saying its a mistake but looking for reasons to contradict the OP. He didn't say Arsenical bronze, he said a bronze knife, he didn't bother to specify, so he was most likely talking about bronze as in the bronze age, to give a hint at how old he was. Regardless he's still not born in 8000BC.
What makes it obviously not a mistake?
DC's unswerving desire to be "proved" correct? I dunno, your guess is as good as mine at this point. I have no idea why anyone would focus only on the knife and not the other details. Nothing in the passage in question would indicate one is any more important than the other. I also really don't get why it's so hard to grasp that the author may simply not have known exactly what he was talking about as far as ancient history goes. I have no problem with that since these details really aren't important, no matter how much emphasis certain posters seem to put on them.
Nonsense I actually admit that I'm wrong when I am, I'm absolutely right in this case.
You have a history of being rude, and you can't seem to help yourself. You violate Rule #1 along the traditional lines of "just saying it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth". You're not the first, and is not a reason to act like a jerk.
You seem to take great pride in your level of education, so you should realize that these are discussions. You don't convince people by saying, "Nuh-uh, YOU'RE wrong!". Give them evidence. Provide proof. If they don't agree, then either they have a fully formed opinion based on the evidence OR you're not doing a good enough job and convincing people that you're correct.
You should also realize that there are quite a few very intelligent people on Dakka Dakka. Assuming that people are below you doesn't strengthen your position, or make people believe you. They just think you're a jerk, and don't want to hear what you have to say.
Also, if you're not going to actually listen to people's points and properly debate them, why are you here? Just go to the park and yell at squirrels.
If you continue this behavior, it will result in a temporary suspension from Dakka Dakka.
I always act civil, when people act like an ass, I act tike an ass and when I do I'm the biggest ass. But I'm the only one that ever gets warnings and bans, no one else gets warnings. So I'll end up getting perma banned and the mods can continue either being biased or protecting their friends, its either of those two.
Wait, you always act civil but you you're also the biggest ass? Didn't you just contradict yourself? Also, it says a lot about your lack of self awareness if you somehow see yourself as the victim here. Maybe, just maybe, if everyone disagrees with you (and for the most part more politely, no one has been nearly as rude or haughty as you have been, like you said, you take great pride in being ass), there might be something they're saying that's worth considering?
Then again, with you being so smart all this must come off as drivel to you. I'd be glad to be proven wrong.
Del, if your argument is swaying no-one, have you actually considered that you are either wrong, or need more evidence to sway people over?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but your arguments aren't compelling, and when they essentially boil down to "because I said so", or "you're stupid if you think this because you are", then it's really not very civil.
Lorek isn't coming in to "defend his friends", and doesn't seem biased - if you think that someone calling you out for being confrontational and obtuse is "bias", then maybe that says more about your own security.
BrianDavion wrote:I've always interpreted that as most lost and confused history then anything, for example Prosperio Burns refers to them having recovered "all three of shakespears plays"
The Shakespeare thing is plausible as that. All but three of his plays being lost, so that nobody knows any longer that he wrote more, is something that could happen over time. Likewise, his name being misspelled as (IIRC) 'Shakespire' could happen. If Fulgrim had called the ancient poet 'Guillim Blayke', of course that would just be William Blake with his name mangled by the ages. But 'Cornelius'? That's not a plausible effect of time mangling someone's name, that's a different guy. Who nevertheless wrote some of the poems that William Blake wrote in our history. Cornelius is also described as having lived in a time of particular oppression, which doesn't fit 'our' Blake (who lived in an age of revolution and romanticism in the most liberal country in the world at that time).
I'm not strongly attached to this theory, BTW. I just think it is something that someBL authors seem to want to suggest.
Sgt_Smudge wrote:I think that, coming from something ADB said about his process of doing Master of Mankind, the general gist of it was less about the Emperor himself, but more how other people perceived him.
This is a really good point, and something I'd not thought of before. Ra might have seen a bronze knife in that scene simply because he doesn't know the Emperor's childhood predated bronze knives.
Memory doesn't work like a photograph. You conjure scenes up afresh in your mind each time you remember them, so details can change. If it were actually possible to psychically project a memory into someone else's mind so that they could 'experience' it (as the Emperor is doing here), that would insert yet another layer of potential error. Ra would see things filtered not just through the Emperor's memory (which for the sake of argument we can say is as perfect as memory can ever be), but also through Ra's own psyche and limited knowledge. He's not seeing the scene like a perfect video recording, but rather as his own interpretation of ideas projected into his brain by the Emperor.
BrianDavion wrote:I've always interpreted that as most lost and confused history then anything, for example Prosperio Burns refers to them having recovered "all three of shakespears plays"
The Shakespeare thing is plausible as that. All but three of his plays being lost, so that nobody knows any longer that he wrote more, is something that could happen over time. Likewise, his name being misspelled as (IIRC) 'Shakespire' could happen. If Fulgrim had called the ancient poet 'Guillim Blayke', of course that would just be William Blake with his name mangled by the ages. But 'Cornelius'? That's not a plausible effect of time mangling someone's name, that's a different guy. Who nevertheless wrote some of the poems that William Blake wrote in our history. Cornelius is also described as having lived in a time of particular oppression, which doesn't fit 'our' Blake (who lived in an age of revolution and romanticism in the most liberal country in the world at that time).
Why isn't "Cornelius" plausible? Remember that what they speak in the 40K or 30K universe is not modern English, but many thousands of years distant. A mutation of William to Guillim is a nod and wink to English readers, but that does not mean it literally was a few letters in the word mutating. The script could be entirely different. The English rendering of Gilgamesh is very different from cuneiform for example. Things only get rendered as English or faux Latin because Low Gothic is to High Gothic as English is to Latin. Is Gothic even alphabetic? Over thousands of years, the names of writers can be mis-remembered, forgotten, or their works might be mistakenly attributed to others perhaps with similar names or that have more fame.
In the novels, things have to be different enough yet similar enough for readers to be able to catch the reference. If instead of Guillim Blayke, it was Gargl Fargl or something alien to modern English reader eyes, how many people would catch the reference?
Cornelius Blake could also represent an amalgamation of historical figures, much like like Robin Hood is a single figure whose feats are actually attributed to several real individuals. A huge amount of accurate detail is bound to be lost over 28000 years, especially with ages of strive and darkness factored in.
They've previously conflated Albert Einstein and Sergei Eisenstein into being the same individual as far as 40k history is concerned - the ship Eisenstein is named after a famous scientist and remembrancer of old Earth. Cornelius Blake could well be the same phenomenon.
Over the thousands of years in the setting the histories get distorted as they naturally would. The onager dune crawler is based on the MULE designed by Land. He modelled it on insect like beasts of burden from ancient terra, mules. In the history they have been distorted in to insects. And why not. 40000 years have passed. We get history wrong from 50 years ago. So not a great deal of what we hear in 40k is reliable. It’s the nature of the setting and a great part of it. Del will always think he’s right and everyone else is wrong beacaue only he can read. Can’t believe the conversations are still going on.
'William Blake' to 'Cornelius Blayke' is not a plausible phonetic shift in the way 'Shakespeare' to 'Shakespire' is.
It's totally possible that Cornelius Blayke is meant to be an amalgam of William Blake and some other poet, though.
I still think some BL writers want us to at least consider the possibility that 40K isn't actually our future, but the future of a history parallel to ours. And logically, you'd expect the existence of the Warp and the Chaos Gods to have had some influence on Earth's history that would make things different to our reality.
I can't imagine the Western liberal democracy we're all used to living under in this world working in a setting where there are literal daemons whispering in people's souls, magnifying their selfish desires and dark impulses, for example. And that in turn makes the Emperor's favoured style of enlightened despotism seem a lot more reasonable.
I always act civil, when people act like an ass, I act tike an ass and when I do I'm the biggest ass.
You realise you just managed to contradict yourself within the space of one sentence, right? The reality is, you don't debate at all. What tends to happen in threads you're involved in is there's an argument between you and everyone else, then eventually people end up ignoring you, at which point an interesting discussion often breaks out. If you constantly find yourself being the only one defending a point in an argument that's not a good sign and maybe you need to re-evaluate how you debate? The discussion about the bronze knife is a great example. Other posters have logically laid out their reasons for believing the timeframe for that passage is earlier than the Bronze Age, while also admitting there are a bunch of contradictory details in the passage. You assert that the knife means it's the Bronze Age but you never provide anything substantial to back up this point, despite others in the debate providing reasoning for their conclusions. When this is pointed out you insult people's intelligence and simply keep making the same assertion without any evidence to back up your claim. It's frustrating and, as Lorek says, pointless. If you're not interested in debate and discussion why not start a blog instead?
As for the William/Cornelius Blake thing, it's an interesting theory that we're operating in some sort of alternate timeline. There's nothing to disprove it but not really much backing it up either. I think the immense amount of time that's passed since Blake lived makes it more likely the history has become confused and maybe his works and those of other poets have been conflated over the millennia. It's almost impossible for us to really understand how a span of 30,000 years would affect our understanding of the past, even when that past is recorded in some way.
Delvarus Centurion wrote: I always act civil, when people act like an ass, I act tike an ass and when I do I'm the biggest ass. But I'm the only one that ever gets warnings and bans, no one else gets warnings. So I'll end up getting perma banned and the mods can continue either being biased or protecting their friends, its either of those two.
Anachronism can also be explained away by time travel.
Alternatively bronze may have been invented earlier than current archaeology suggests. If the technology was lost shortly after it was discovered there would be little chance of finding evidence 10k years later.
Indeed, iron had many false starts. it was repeatedly discovered, but it was manufactured with inappropriate methods, such as casting instead of beating, so it didn't catch on.
Considering the false starts iron had it would be suprising for bronze not to suffer similar teething problems and have a few false starts before being lost again in preference for better understood technology.
nareik wrote: Anachronism can also be explained away by time travel.
Alternatively bronze may have been invented earlier than current archaeology suggests. If the technology was lost shortly after it was discovered there would be little chance of finding evidence 10k years later.
Indeed, iron had many false starts. it was repeatedly discovered, but it was manufactured with inappropriate methods, such as casting instead of beating, so it didn't catch on.
Considering the false starts iron had it would be suprising for bronze not to suffer similar teething problems and have a few false starts before being lost again in preference for better understood technology.
Steel is also similer too, I recall reading somewhere that all those stories of "super light and strong swords" (the archtypical fantasy Mithril) owe their orgin most likely to smiths who when making iron impleiments created steel at the forge in a freak accident
Time travel isn't a very in-universe type explanation for 40k - sure it happens when star ships go through the warp, but thats hardly the situation on Neolithic/Chalcolithic Terra.
if you need a hand wavy explanation akin to time travel why not just call it the Emperor's genius? Of course he has a bronze weapon - the most consistant trait about the Emperor's character is that he LOVES shiny military status symbols that are a tier above what anyone else could possibly attain.
nareik wrote: Anachronism can also be explained away by time travel.
Alternatively bronze may have been invented earlier than current archaeology suggests. If the technology was lost shortly after it was discovered there would be little chance of finding evidence 10k years later.
Indeed, iron had many false starts. it was repeatedly discovered, but it was manufactured with inappropriate methods, such as casting instead of beating, so it didn't catch on.
Considering the false starts iron had it would be suprising for bronze not to suffer similar teething problems and have a few false starts before being lost again in preference for better understood technology.
That's a very good point. Our understanding of the progress of ancient technologies is based entirely on what we have been able to find and date. We have a pretty good idea of how technology must have progressed (bronze before iron, for example) but there's always the chance we're centuries out on when these were first developed.
Fight me 
