[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

There's more to being a good leader than winning wars. Kublai promoted cultural exchange, religious tolerance, and foreign trade.
That’s not exceptional on Kublai’s part. Genghis this started all of that well before him, and Kublai’s military failures were significant economic expenditures and also key signs that he was not the military equal of his forebears. Mandukhai, on the other hand, was victorious more often, and arguably under more dire circumstances with fewer resources.

I think Firaxis should go with someone other than Kublai, but if he’s in, I hope we get Marco Polo-related and Hojo Tokimune-related achievements to compensate.
 
That’s not exceptional on Kublai’s part. Genghis this started all of that well before him, and Kublai’s military failures were significant economic expenditures and also key signs that he was not the military equal of his forebears. Mandukhai, on the other hand, was victorious more often, and arguably under more dire circumstances with fewer resources.

I think Firaxis should go with someone other than Kublai, but if he’s in, I hope we get Marco Polo-related and Hojo Tokimune-related achievements to compensate.
I still want his mom instead. :D
 
As an enormous Tolkien nerd, it's my duty to point out that very little "Tolkienesque fantasy" even remotely resembles Tolkien. I really think the term should be changed to "Gygaxesque fantasy."


More to the point, Tolkien was trying to create a mythology for England, whom he thought were lacking a native mythology comparable to those of the Welsh (who have Arthur) or the French (who have Charlemagne) or the Norse (who have Norse mythology) or the Finns (who have the Kalevela) or the Greeks, etc

I've taken an interest in folklore recently, and one unexpected thing I've learned is that a lot of the things we associate with Welsh folklore specifically, as well as general themes of Celtic folklore more broadly, were widely shared with Germanic groups and what we think of as Welsh folklore seem in in large part to have been borrowed from the English relatively recently - belief in fairies and the associated rituals being a prime example (similarly, there is presumably Nordic influence on Irish folkloric beliefs). What the English lacked is anything codified - one of the things that speaks to an English origin for a lot of these tropes is their heterogeneity in England. In areas where they're recent borrowings there's a relative lack of diversity, while the English and Scots have numerous highly regionalised variations on the same mythical creatures under different names - goblins, fairies, brownies, pixies, elves and many others are all much the same thing, which was initially a frustration to me coming from a fantasy tradition that expected these to be discrete 'races' of beings. Something similar is the case for the Norse - the traditional folklore doesn't make the rigid distinctions between trolls, elves and dwarves that we're familiar with from formalised renditions of stories with folkloric origins.

England also has copious tales of the Wild Hunt and is especially associated with ghost folklore, as well as lots of stories of witchcraft - oddly, if Tolkien was trying to create an 'English' folklore, none of these characteristically English myths play any significant role in his own stories.

In terms of overall religion we don't have records of pre-Christian beliefs from the Anglo-Saxons because writing was associated with Christianity, but we have much less than is imagined for the Norse. We would have little or nothing without the Eddas, and we don't know how much of that - ultimately a Christian-era retelling - is authentic to actual pre-Christian Norse beliefs. It's unlikely the original Anglo-Saxon mythology was much different. And, of course, while much of Arthurian legend has roots in the west of Britain where it's set, the elements we can trace back to the Mabinogion are, again, preserved in a Welsh text through an accident of history but were probably common to the area of England where the story was set. The closest we have for England is A Midsummer Night's Dream, which incorporates themes from the local folklore of Shakespeare's area some of which apparently still survives today, or at least did into the 20th Century.

Tolkien's own efforts may have somewhat backfired in the popular imagination: for instance Magic the Gathering produced a set which it claimed to be based on 'Celtic mythology', and yet much of this "mythology" included treefolk, Tolkienesque elves and hobbit analogues - inventions of Tolkien that don't have any precedent in Celtic myth, but are now popularly seen as part of the very mythology he was trying to distinguish his work from.
 
Tolkien's own efforts may have somewhat backfired in the popular imagination: for instance Magic the Gathering produced a set which it claimed to be based on 'Celtic mythology', and yet much of this "mythology" included treefolk, Tolkienesque elves and hobbit analogues - inventions of Tolkien that don't have any precedent in Celtic myth, but are now popularly seen as part of the very mythology he was trying to distinguish his work from.

Well, I'm not at all an expert in folklore or mythology so stop me if I say something wrong or ridiculous, but myths and folklore are based around shared "faith" in some shared history or tales that we continue to share between each other.

Knowing the popularity of Tolkien's work and how people saw it and saw celtic folklore, would that be that wrong to say that, seeing some sort of geographical, linguistic, historic continuity, that Tolkien just add some stuff to the celtic folklore, expanding it beyond what was accepted as celtic? I don't know what true celtic people think about Tolkien in general, but I have a britton friend who's a fan of Tolkien and consider it as part of his heritage as a member of a celtic nation, so... yeah, maybe what Tolkien wrote wasn't part of the celtic folklore at the time when he wrote it, but nowadays it has been incorporated... no?
 
I've taken an interest in folklore recently, and one unexpected thing I've learned is that a lot of the things we associate with Welsh folklore specifically, as well as general themes of Celtic folklore more broadly, were widely shared with Germanic groups and what we think of as Welsh folklore seem in in large part to have been borrowed from the English relatively recently - belief in fairies and the associated rituals being a prime example (similarly, there is presumably Nordic influence on Irish folkloric beliefs).
Germanic elves and Celtic fairies are certainly cognate and certainly influenced each other, but I don't think you can say the Welsh got them from the English or the Irish got them from the Norse. They're far older than either influence on either culture. Also worth noting that the Germanic peoples were profoundly influenced by the Celts--to the point that the Norse have been called the most prominent successor to Classical Celtic culture. The myth of Baldr seems to have been lifted wholesale from the Gauls, for instance.

oddly, if Tolkien was trying to create an 'English' folklore, none of these characteristically English myths play any significant role in his own stories.
Worth recalling that Tolkien was 1) Catholic and was therefore not interested in establishing a religious, and particularly a pagan, context for his mythology and 2) was keenly interested in Norse mythology, as well as Celtic to a lesser extent. These things influenced him.

Tolkien's own efforts may have somewhat backfired in the popular imagination: for instance Magic the Gathering produced a set which it claimed to be based on 'Celtic mythology', and yet much of this "mythology" included treefolk, Tolkienesque elves and hobbit analogues - inventions of Tolkien that don't have any precedent in Celtic myth, but are now popularly seen as part of the very mythology he was trying to distinguish his work from.
Eh, Tolkien's Elves are straight up the Tuatha De Danann, the Sidhe, or the Tylwyth Teg. Treefolk are also present in Celtic as well as Germanic folklore. Hobbits weren't supposed to be part of his mythos; that's just a story he told to entertain his kids that ended up being entwined into the greater mythos, as happened frequently to Tolkien.

Hojo Tokimune-related achievements
We need a "Tocky Moon" achievement: build Big Ben next to a Spaceport as Japan. :mischief:
 
The one thing that would sadden me a little if Kubilai Khan is an alt leader for China and Mongolia is that Qin Shi Huang and Kubilai Khan were already the two leader for China in Civ IV.

Having the same leader representing the same civ from iteration to iteration is already kind of sad, but two times exactly the same leaders? Especially for China, one of the country/culture/civilization that truly had one of the most rich and long history of all?
Kublai wasn’t a leader of China in Civ 4: Qin and Mao were.

Kublai was a co leader of Mongolia in Civ 4

Agreed! King Arthur, Theseus, Gilgamesh, and others could be the mythology-based leaders, and there could be cool uses of magic and RPG elements for heroic quests, etc. Fall from Heaven in Civ IV was a nice glimpse at what a fantasy Civ game might look like too, and it was featured in Beyond the Sword as part of that expansion pack.

Agreed Mongolia seems more likely. For better or ill, Kublai Khan is popular in these forums based on recognition, but he failed almost all of his foreign wars (including vs. Hojo Tokimune, who is in the game).
At least Gilgamesh was a real person while the others may not have been.


In regards to Kublai, i’m very sure that he’ll be like Eleanor, but for China and Mongolia
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kublai wasn’t a leader of China in Civ 4: Qin and Mao were.

Kublai was a co leader of Mongolia in Civ 4
Of course, civs didn't really mean as much in Civ4, either. I don't have much memory of any civ in Civ4 because they were all more or less the same. :p

At least Gilgamesh was a real person while the others may not have been.
Would it matter if the leader is historically real in a Mythology spinoff?
 
Here's a dumb idea: a civ whose ability is new cities are 100% loyal only if they are more than 9 tiles away from another city you own. Cities closer than 9 tiles lose X loyalty.

Would lead to an interesting, wide empire with consequences I can't think about :p
 
Kublai wasn’t a leader of China in Civ 4: Qin and Mao were.

Kublai was a co leader of Mongolia in Civ 4

I was sure of the contrary... To be fair, I'm have the vague but certain memory than before BTS Kubilai was leader for China and it changed after BTS... But it was more than 10 years ago so my memories are probably completely messed up (man, if Civ 7 get out in a year or two, I'll feel really old... You know you're old when the first Civ you played was 3 numbers ahead the current version).
 
Here's a dumb idea: a civ whose ability is new cities are 100% loyal only if they are more than 9 tiles away from another city you own. Cities closer than 9 tiles lose X loyalty.

Would lead to an interesting, wide empire with consequences I can't think about :p
Might work for some Polynesian civ like Tonga.
 
I was sure of the contrary... To be fair, I'm have the vague but certain memory than before BTS Kubilai was leader for China and it changed after BTS... But it was more than 10 years ago so my memories are probably completely messed up (man, if Civ 7 get out in a year or two, I'll feel really old... You know you're old when the first Civ you played was 3 numbers ahead the current version).

In the original release of Civ 4, the leaderheads for Qin and Kublai were the wrong way round. This was fixed in a later expansion..
 
Might work for some Polynesian civ like Tonga.
aren’t tonga’s cities close together, just separated by ocean? i’d rather see tonga take the maori start at sea bonus and get bonuses towards 1-tile island cities
 
In Civ VI, the idea behind the city-States (IMO) is not to represent IRL city-States but IRL "lesser" powers that would not make it as a civilization. Rapa Nui never was a city-State but was interesting enough to be worthy of an inclusion, but not "world-changer" enough to be made into a civ, therefore a city-State. Vilnius is not here to represent Vilnius but rather Lithuania on its own I feel. Nazca is more to represent a people rather than a true IRL city-State. Ngazargamu was the capital of an empire, and I think it's the empire that is represented in the game, not the city on itself. Lisbon could have stand on its own but without Portugal it was nothing, and I feel like Lisbon is here to represent Portugal rather than Lisbon on itself.
Yeah that is what I think too, you've said it more clearly that I would.

Having France represented by Napoleon would be like having Russia represented by Stalin: a fierce and strong leader that managed to put the country on a better spot on the map, but also an incredible tyrant, that completely betrayed a somewhat fined ideology for personal purpose.
Well, inclusion in Civ is not necessarily a recognition of grandeur, but rather an addition of a character to a roster. I do think they should prioritise good leaders, because there's a matter of national representation here, but having some leaders chosen purposefully from "bad guys" (to an extent! No Hitler, please!) makes the roster more interesting to me.

Agreed Mongolia seems more likely. For better or ill, Kublai Khan is popular in these forums based on recognition, but he failed almost all of his foreign wars (including vs. Hojo Tokimune, who is in the game).
That is a bit unfair, what Kublai set out to do, and what really mattered to him, was conquering China, and that he did. Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, these were all less important to him. Note that he also conquered Korea and Burma, and won a civil war against the most powerful force in the world of the time, the Mongols themselves. Laughing at Kublai for not conquering Japan is like laughing at Caesar for not conquering Britain, after he conquered Gaul and Pontus, won the Civil War and put Cleopatra on throne in Egypt.
 
aren’t tonga’s cities close together, just separated by ocean? i’d rather see tonga take the maori start at sea bonus and get bonuses towards 1-tile island cities
Polynesia is not by any means my specialty. They're just the only thing I can think of that would justify that kind of spread out settling. Even colonial civs colonized from a well-established, tight-knit core.
 
Yeah that is what I think too, you've said it more clearly that I would.


Well, inclusion in Civ is not necessarily a recognition of grandeur, but rather an addition of a character to a roster. I do think they should prioritise good leaders, because there's a matter of national representation here, but having some leaders chosen purposefully from "bad guys" (to an extent! No Hitler, please!) makes the roster more interesting to me.


That is a bit unfair, what Kublai set out to do, and what really mattered to him, was conquering China, and that he did. Japan, Vietnam, Indonesia, these were all less important to him. Note that he also conquered Korea and Burma, and won a civil war against the most powerful force in the world of the time, the Mongols themselves. Laughing at Kublai for not conquering Japan is like laughing at Caesar for not conquering Britain, after he conquered Gaul and Pontus, won the Civil War and put Cleopatra on throne in Egypt.
agree on city states, agree on kublai, disagree on who makes the civs.

Generally even the ‘bad’ people had some redeeming qualities, or are generally considered heroes by their descendants (Victoria being considered a good monarch despite her terrible policy towards colonies, especially India, or Genghis Khan not only being considered a Mongolian Hero, but often perceived and portrayed as a much worse person than he actually was—he was very lenient towards practitioners of religions other than tengriism, and always gave targets for expansion the option to join peacefully or act as vassal states, and only invaded them if they refused. He also didn’t do a lot of the bad things attributed to him)

There haven’t been unequivocally bad (or at least obviously controversial) people in civ since civ 4, I would argue. Stalin, if not Mao is considered a bad person universally, and despite there being propaganda and misinformation which both condemns and supports both leaders as good or bad people, I would say that generally stems from the leaders being more recent to begin with.

Any modern leader will always be criticized more deeply because their actions are more readily embedded in the general populaces’ mind. That’s why despite FDR being an amazing president and literally saving the US, his controversy over the Japanese Internment has precluded him from being represented as a leader in civ since IV. The same is true for Charles De Gaulle, Mao and Stalin.

it’s also present, to a lesser degree, with Teddy Roosevelt, John Curtin, Gandhi, Queen Victoria, Wilfred Laurier and Wilhelmina, all of whom are more recent leaders and have been criticized for decisions they made which are perceived as immoral in the present, even if it’s less obvious than the anger over the inclusion of Mao or Stalin.
 
Well, I'm not at all an expert in folklore or mythology so stop me if I say something wrong or ridiculous, but myths and folklore are based around shared "faith" in some shared history or tales that we continue to share between each other.

Knowing the popularity of Tolkien's work and how people saw it and saw celtic folklore, would that be that wrong to say that, seeing some sort of geographical, linguistic, historic continuity, that Tolkien just add some stuff to the celtic folklore, expanding it beyond what was accepted as celtic? I don't know what true celtic people think about Tolkien in general, but I have a britton friend who's a fan of Tolkien and consider it as part of his heritage as a member of a celtic nation, so... yeah, maybe what Tolkien wrote wasn't part of the celtic folklore at the time when he wrote it, but nowadays it has been incorporated... no?

Oh, it's absolutely the case that folklore emerges and changes rapidly - it's not likely much of our current folklore has direct origins that go back to Anglo-Saxon or Celtic times, but the recurrence of certain specific stories and ideas suggests a pretty widespread ancestral European belief in certain basic themes. One thing that emerges that the division between Germanic peoples and 'Celts' - which is based largely on artefacts and linguistic differences - is probably not very meaningful as far as cultural mythology is concerned: all the localised differences from and elaborations on the broader European themes are far more recent than the 'split' between these groups. "Celtic" in particular is not a very meaningful term in the ways it's popularly used today - at least in the British Isles, the term is used to encompass three or four loosely-related groups and tends to neglect mainland cultures that are closer to the Welsh and Cornish than those cultures are to Scots or Irish.

If you're interested in way folklore is transmitted and adopted, the Folklore Podcast has good coverage of several recent to very recent folkloric ideas including Slender Man (early 21st Century), chupacabra (1990s) and the bunyip (19th and 20th Centuries).

Germanic elves and Celtic fairies are certainly cognate and certainly influenced each other, but I don't think you can say the Welsh got them from the English or the Irish got them from the Norse.

Celtic fairies and Welsh fairies aren't necessarily the same thing - it does seem that fairies are not traditionally a significant part of Welsh tradition as they are in England, judged by such evidence as landmarks named for them, or regional differences in belief that suggest a long local history of divergence and are all but absent in documented tales from Wales. This of course carries the caveat that this is what we have from documented interviews since folklorists started collecting stories, which is a pretty short period by the standards of folklore. Local fairies with older origins could certainly have been supplanted by English ones if there was no strong cultural attachment to them.

Worth recalling that Tolkien was 1) Catholic and was therefore not interested in establishing a religious, and particularly a pagan, context for his mythology

That does rather run against the point of creating a mythology for the English - their Christian-era beliefs are relatively well-documented. Snorri Sturluson was a Christian but what we know of Norse mythology, outside some references to practices in the sagas (themselves Christian-era retellings of oral traditions), is almost entirely drawn from his codification and retelling of stories that may have been treated very differently by the people who actually believed them or told them on a day-to-day basis.

Eh, Tolkien's Elves are straight up the Tuatha De Danann, the Sidhe, or the Tylwyth Teg.

Again, that presumes a continuity to the presentation of these entities that isn't really there in folklore, at least as far back as we can go. 'Sidhe' is just the Irish word for 'fairy' and is understood to include a class of folklore creatures as varied as the English word. The Victorian creation of small winged beings with a penchant for flowers has nothing to do with English folklore, but has led people into thinking that 'fairies' and 'elves' are different classes of being. All the cultural traits Tolkien gave his elves, and his presentation of them as a distinct stratified society, and that are synonymous with the modern notion are his own

Treefolk are also present in Celtic as well as Germanic folklore.

Do you know of specific sources for this? I always imagined they had an older existence than Tolkien but haven't found anything concrete when I've looked (admittedly not in great detail). There are talking trees, but not perambulating ones that I'm aware of. Treefolk seem to be one of those things that feel as though they should be part of a real, older folklore, along with some other of Tolkien's inventions - I recall when I was younger I imagined that Old Man Willow and the trolls in the cave from The Hobbit were actual stories from folklore adapted by Tolkien, but they seem to have been his creations.
 
Oh, it's absolutely the case that folklore emerges and changes rapidly - it's not likely much of our current folklore has direct origins that go back to Anglo-Saxon or Celtic times, but the recurrence of certain specific stories and ideas suggests a pretty widespread ancestral European belief in certain basic themes. One thing that emerges that the division between Germanic peoples and 'Celts' - which is based largely on artefacts and linguistic differences - is probably not very meaningful as far as cultural mythology is concerned: all the localised differences from and elaborations on the broader European themes are far more recent than the 'split' between these groups. "Celtic" in particular is not a very meaningful term in the ways it's popularly used today - at least in the British Isles, the term is used to encompass three or four loosely-related groups and tends to neglect mainland cultures that are closer to the Welsh and Cornish than those cultures are to Scots or Irish.

If you're interested in way folklore is transmitted and adopted, the Folklore Podcast has good coverage of several recent to very recent folkloric ideas including Slender Man (early 21st Century), chupacabra (1990s) and the bunyip (19th and 20th Centuries).



Celtic fairies and Welsh fairies aren't necessarily the same thing - it does seem that fairies are not traditionally a significant part of Welsh tradition as they are in England, judged by such evidence as landmarks named for them, or regional differences in belief that suggest a long local history of divergence and are all but absent in documented tales from Wales. This of course carries the caveat that this is what we have from documented interviews since folklorists started collecting stories, which is a pretty short period by the standards of folklore. Local fairies with older origins could certainly have been supplanted by English ones if there was no strong cultural attachment to them.



That does rather run against the point of creating a mythology for the English - their Christian-era beliefs are relatively well-documented. Snorri Sturluson was a Christian but what we know of Norse mythology, outside some references to practices in the sagas (themselves Christian-era retellings of oral traditions), is almost entirely drawn from his codification and retelling of stories that may have been treated very differently by the people who actually believed them or told them on a day-to-day basis.



Again, that presumes a continuity to the presentation of these entities that isn't really there in folklore, at least as far back as we can go. 'Sidhe' is just the Irish word for 'fairy' and is understood to include a class of folklore creatures as varied as the English word. The Victorian creation of small winged beings with a penchant for flowers has nothing to do with English folklore, but has led people into thinking that 'fairies' and 'elves' are different classes of being. All the cultural traits Tolkien gave his elves, and his presentation of them as a distinct stratified society, and that are synonymous with the modern notion are his own



Do you know of specific sources for this? I always imagined they had an older existence than Tolkien but haven't found anything concrete when I've looked (admittedly not in great detail). There are talking trees, but not perambulating ones that I'm aware of. Treefolk seem to be one of those things that feel as though they should be part of a real, older folklore, along with some other of Tolkien's inventions - I recall when I was younger I imagined that Old Man Willow and the trolls in the cave from The Hobbit were actual stories from folklore adapted by Tolkien, but they seem to have been his creations.
i don’t know much about this topic but i will say that early (christian) english culture and stories aren’t as well understood as many people think. For example, the story of Beowulf, is a pre-christianized english story retold by a christian writer. We don’t know how much of the story was changed by the writer to fit the author’s christian narrative, which means we can’t know how the pre-christian and post-christian english myths compare.
 
i don’t know much about this topic but i will say that early (christian) english culture and stories aren’t as well understood as many people think. For example, the story of Beowulf, is a pre-christianized english story retold by a christian writer. We don’t know how much of the story was changed by the writer to fit the author’s christian narrative, which means we can’t know how the pre-christian and post-christian english myths compare.

Exactly my point. For all we know what we think we know as Norse mythology was Snorri Sturluson's version of The Lord of the Rings, taking a few names of existing mythological characters to add authenticity.

It's more probable that it's somewhat more authentic, although retold in a Christian worldview that may change some of the meanings of the moral of certain tales, and that we can broadly take it on faith as a more-or-less accurate account of Norse mythology. But the point is we don't have any real way of knowing for certain, and we certainly know of cases from elsewhere (including Anglo-Saxon England) where accounts intended to have been historical are believed to have entirely invented leaders or imagined deities based on a common convention at the time of assuming place names that seem to include proper names are named after real people or the gods they believed in.

As you say, people tend to imagine we know these things from more than one or two sources and that the history of European societies in that period in general is much better-documented than is in fact the case.
 
Last edited:
Celtic fairies and Welsh fairies aren't necessarily the same thing - it does seem that fairies are not traditionally a significant part of Welsh tradition as they are in England, judged by such evidence as landmarks named for them, or regional differences in belief that suggest a long local history of divergence and are all but absent in documented tales from Wales. This of course carries the caveat that this is what we have from documented interviews since folklorists started collecting stories, which is a pretty short period by the standards of folklore. Local fairies with older origins could certainly have been supplanted by English ones if there was no strong cultural attachment to them.
Sure. But I think it's very fair to say that Irish fairies are far older than any recorded Germanic tradition of elves.

That does rather run against the point of creating a mythology for the English - their Christian-era beliefs are relatively well-documented. Snorri Sturluson was a Christian but what we know of Norse mythology, outside some references to practices in the sagas (themselves Christian-era retellings of oral traditions), is almost entirely drawn from his codification and retelling of stories that may have been treated very differently by the people who actually believed them or told them on a day-to-day basis.
I can't say I agree. I will say that the only flaw I can find in Tolkien, whom otherwise I regard as having a sacredness just below Scripture, is that it feels strange that his world is so empty of religion. However, I don't think creating a Christian mythology is in any way strange. He wasn't trying to found a new sect of neo-paganism.

Again, that presumes a continuity to the presentation of these entities that isn't really there in folklore, at least as far back as we can go. 'Sidhe' is just the Irish word for 'fairy' and is understood to include a class of folklore creatures as varied as the English word.
Irish mythology is old. It was written down by monks, yes, but it remarkably retained its pagan nature. Yes, Sidhe is vague; Tuatha De Danann is not.

The Victorian creation of small winged beings with a penchant for flowers has nothing to do with English folklore
Worth noting that Tolkien absolutely detested those.

Do you know of specific sources for this? I always imagined they had an older existence than Tolkien but haven't found anything concrete when I've looked (admittedly not in great detail). There are talking trees, but not perambulating ones that I'm aware of. Treefolk seem to be one of those things that feel as though they should be part of a real, older folklore, along with some other of Tolkien's inventions - I recall when I was younger I imagined that Old Man Willow and the trolls in the cave from The Hobbit were actual stories from folklore adapted by Tolkien, but they seem to have been his creations.
Not off the top of my head--I'm thinking it was a Brythonic source--but if I find it I'll let you know. I think I ran across it when I was doing research for a paper on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.

For example, the story of Beowulf, is a pre-christianized english story retold by a christian writer.
If you don't have experience with literary criticism or Anglo-Saxon studies, you have no idea what a bold statement you just made. :p There are a number of theories about Beowulf: it was an oral story written down by a monk; it was a bit of historical fiction written by a monk; whether original or traditional, it was written by a pagan who had a knowledge of Christianity (if you're familiar with the tortuous history of Christianization in England, that's not so strange); among others. (For what it's worth, I believe you're correct, that it's a traditional story--or more than one--that was recorded by a Christian monk. But I'm not an expert, and the topic is still hotly controversial.)
 
Back
Top Bottom