Talk:Lugaid Riab nDerg

Unlikely Timing

I realize when you get back to BC it is hard to find accurate records, however, it is worth pointing out this guy is the incest child of the Triplet Brothers and their Sister. They died in battle with their father and by all accounts the father walked away from the battle. Eochu their father is estimated to have died around 130BC so that puts the Triplet Brother's deaths on or before 130bc and hence The birth of Lugaid on or before 130 or 131 BC. So clearly his reign cannot end in 54AD but even if you look at the other two sourced at 9BC or 13BC that puts this guy around 120-130 years old. Combine that age with the stories of his death and the average life of others in that time period and it just does not work.Justify265 (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't. None of these characters, in all likelihood, ever existed, and even if they did, any dates are complete fiction born out of various attempts, starting no earlier than the 8th century, to force disparate traditional material into a coherent chronology derived from Christian sources, often to flatter the ancestors of those who were politically powerful at the time. Different recensions of the Lebor Gabála, never mind texts that represent separate traditions, give different reign-lengths to the same king, sometimes reign-lengths that exceed the human lifespan. The fact that, so often, king A is succeeded by an unrelated king B, who is then succeeded by the son of king A (eg Conn of the Hundred Battles, a Connachta king, is succeeded by the Munster king Conaire Cóem, who is succeeded by Conn's son Art, who is succeeded by another Munster king, Lugaid mac Con, who is succeeded by Art's son Cormac, who is succeeded by the Ulster king Eochaid Gonnat, who is succeeded by Cormac's son Caipre Lifechair, and so on), makes it obvious that separate genealogies and king-lists are being combined into one. It's interesting to know what the various traditions said about chronology, but those chronologies are artificial. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The unfortunate side effect of course is it becomes difficult to trace ancestry with any degree of certainty. My ancestry traces back to this line on genealogy sites but rather than take their word for it I have tried to cross reference with more factual sources. If any of your ancestors come from royalty it is easier to trace back than if they were peasants and of course literacy also plays a role in tracing family names. This was the first line of ancestors I at least traced back to bible times but it gets sketchy at best then as you noted.Justify265 (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you've traced it back to the actually historical members of the line you're doing very well indeed! --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The Lebor Gabála synchronizes his reign with Claudius

But all 3 just before him are synchronized with Augustus? Caligula had a short reign, but where is Tiberas? Who according to The Lebor Gabála ruled at time of Jesus's ministry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.144.34.210 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't say - and in any case the chronology of the Lebor Gabála is completely artificial and unreliable. For example, it says Christ was born in the reign of Eterscél, and the Virgin Mary was born two kings later during the reign of Conaire Mór. However, what it does say is:

• • Eterscél ruled for 5 years in the time of Augustus. If he took power in 27 BC, when Augustus' reign began, he would have died c. 23 BC.
  • He was succeeded by Nuadu Necht, who only ruled six months, so he would also have died c. 23 BC.
  • Conaire Mór ruled 70 years. If he took power in 23 BC, he would have ruled through the reigns of Tiberius and Caligula and died and been succeeded by Lugaid in AD 47, during the reign of Claudius.

So the chronology, however artificial, is at least consistent in that sense, and the king during Jesus' ministry, according to the Lebor Gabála, would have been Conaire Mór. Assuming Jesus died c. AD 30, then according to the Annals of the Four Masters it would have been Feradach Finnfechtnach, and according to Geoffrey Keating it would have been Fíachu Finnolach. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)