Talk:Tower of Hercules

Inside the city

The tower is inside the city. There is no statue of breogan nowhere nearby and the tower has entirely nothing to do with breogan whatsoever. It was no "rebuilt" by the romans, there was nothing previously there.

Disagreement.

I must disagree. It is true that the tower is inside the city, but the nearmost buildings lay at a distance of somewhat 300 m. from the tower. There IS a statue of Breogan, at the bottom of the road leading to the tower, and, according to Ireland's legends, it was from an ancient tower in this place that Breogan's son, Ith, saw Ireland to go and inhabit it. I agree with your last statement, there is no evidence that there was anything there before the tower, but there is neither evidence that there wasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.52.8 (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Filled-in windows?

Anybody know if those marks on the walls were windows that got filled in, or simply ornamental? --24.21.149.124 (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was there once and I can tell you that there is no trace of such big windows in the interior. I doubt the structure could support them either, they'll had to be enormous. I assume they were added in the 18th cent restoration as purely ornamental but I don't have the required written source to back it.--Menah the Great (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

"Brigantia" part should be deleted

As it is currently written, I fail to see any relevant relation between the Tower and the "Brigantia" thing. In my opinion it should be deleted. By the way, the asseveration that Corunna comes from Clunia enters in conflict with the one that it's derived from Columna, stated in the first paragraph. I suggest to add a written source for any of them. If there isn't any available, both etimologies should be deleted.--Menah the Great (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It is all a huge amount of nonsenses. Columna is no way to yield "Crunha" (or "Crunna", as you like it, it is the same phoneme) both in Galician-Portuguese nor Spanish. A back-reconstruction maybe Crunha < Clunia (cfr. Coruña del Conde, Burgos Province, from Latin Clunia), maybe not. Another insanity is Brigantium > Breganzo (??) > Betanços (???), absolutely impossible. Maybe there were two "Brigantiums", Flavium Brigantium (Betanzos surely) and another "Something" Brigantium (the Lighthouse of A Coruña). Anyway, Brigantium states clearly the people of the Brigantes (other peoples with the same name lived in Britannia and Helvetia), hence (this time correctly) Brigantinos > Breganti~ios > Bergantinhos > Bergantiños (a region in A Coruña province, more or less from current A Coruña until 50 km west). By the way, it would be better for all not to do credit to people very interested in the "spanishzation" of vernacular non-Spanish toponyms in Spain (and abroad).83.53.125.28 (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've just read the parallel Galician and Spanish articles. The Galician one is strictly correct and makes no mention at all of Brigantium. The Spanish one is another amount of barbarities. I don't know what kind of sick invented the theory of Caronium > Crunha but it is totally absurd. Caronium > Caronho or > Queronho, and almost surely Caronho > Caranho. And, as I live in A Coruña, I can state that the Lighthouse is almost a km away from the roman settlement and a bit less from the Mediaeval walled town. The current cementery (dating from 1800) was the more recent human structure nearest to the Lighthouse, and it is really a good walk far.83.53.125.28 (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

A Coruña was called Brigantium until the 12th century, there are documents, maps and documentation of all kinds that prove it, then it was called Faro or city of the lighthouse for a year and later Crunia, La Coruña or A Coruña, it is crazy to eliminate this information of its past due to a Spanish nationalist nonsense, is that even the legend of Hercules was designed in the center of Spain to cover up the culture and history so distant from Galicia that it is not so Spanish. Until the 19th century in certain Spanish books and publications it put that the Galicians were fools (this phrase has survived to this day as a mockery) because they descended from the Celts and not from the Romans or the Hispano-Romans. Galicia was a land apart from Spain and isolated by its mountains

There are period texts as well as the one left by the architect of the tower where it is certified that Coruña is Brigantium, it is not known if Coruña is Brigantia but it is known that it is Brigantium, however the name Brigantium is a lationalization of brigantia.

Although today the most accepted theory is that Brigantium was A Coruña and Brigantia from Carballo to A Coruña, even the Brigantia castro is in A Coruña, it is believed that its location is in the old city of A Coruña, the plans and ancient texts that they are preserved thus demonstrate it. It is known for sure that the Brigantes inhabited the lands from A Coruña to Carballo, but the most important center or place of the same was A Coruña and had a notable and important port, this tribe of Brigantes was related to the British tribe of Bigantes , which were very bellicose https://web.archive.org/web/20160311233428/http://roman-britain.co.uk/tribes/brigantes.htm

There is a Roman map of Brigantia or Brigantium, you just have to compare it with the current A Coruña and you can see that it is the same place and the same peninsula

https://web.archive.org/web/20080918140839/http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/brigantium/brigantiumcity.htm

In principle, the Brigantes lighthouse fits more on the coast of Coruña, which was inhabited by this tribe, than in Betanzos (which was inhabited by the Nemeti tribe). It must also be taken into account that the Betanzos we know today is a city of medieval base, there is no archaeological evidence that speaks of an important Galai-Roman settlement, while this does occur in A Coruña. The Brigantium Lighthouse also appears in classical texts as a lighthouse that looks towards Armorica, and it is quite true, if you go by the tower of Hercules (or rather Breogan) you will realize that it looks towards Brittany. I rather said Breogan lighthouse because at the end of the 13th century a general chronicle resorted to Mediterranean mythology to elaborate a history of the Brigantia lighthouse. The myth takes the Greek hero Hercules. The Castilian myth says that these people were brought from Galatia, in Anatolia, and that "that is why that land was called Galicia". This legend inspired by Mediterranean mythology will be promoted during the 19th and 20th centuries, when the Brigantium lighthouse is renamed "Tower of Hercules" changing Breogan to Hercules.

Also in the first place, about Falvium; there are many researchers (Barreiro, Bello, Monteagudo) who believe that Fravium should be read, since the Greek form phlaouion only appears once, all other references being closer to this last form. Ptolemy is also the only one who puts the Flavium in front of Brigantium. The truth is that the thing smells like singe. The normal thing would have been for it to go behind, apart from not leaving a place name residue: Iria Flavia, Chaves (Interaconium Flavium)... that Fravium Monteagudo identifies it with Brabío, near Betanzos, but that identification is highly debatable. And that Fravium, where would it come from? Perhaps a derivation from Pharum. If the suffix -ium were that of the genetic plural of the third declension, Pharum Birgantium would be the Lighthouse of the Brigantes (conflictive people of Britain) that would receive such a name because it was the last stop before reaching the British Isle. -Coruña or Betanzos: Brigantium cannot give Betanzos as a result, since it is an unlikely phonetic evolution. In addition, in Betanzos there are no Roman remains (in A Coruña there are, and they denote a very important port activity). Orosio relates in his Histories (I, 2, 71-72) Brigantium with a lighthouse (= The current Tower of Hercules) which reinforces the Coruña thesis. The main argument for rejecting the location from A Coruña is that in the Antonino Itinerary it is said that there are 35 miles between Brigantium and Lugo (more or less, 52 km). Obviously, the distance between the city of the walls and A Coruña is greater, but there is a possible explanation. In the itinerary, the fact that a place name goes in the accusative without a preposition would mean that upon reaching the indicated milestone, it could mean that a road branch begins that leads to that place. Thus, the distance of 35 miles would not be the existing one between Lucus and Brigantium, but would mean that after 35 miles had been traveled when leaving Lugo, a detour would be opened that would lead to Brigantium. The vast majority of authors today opt for the Coruña option. As José María Bello commented, even the local soccer team has changed its name (Brigantium is now Betanzos).

Now, officially today Brigantium is the second name of A Coruña and its inhabitants are known as Coruñes or Brigantinos, as escertified by the Royal Spanish Academy, Rae 139.47.48.8 (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

But what was it for?

One of the things this article is missing is some indication of the current view of the purpose of the lighthouse, which is not at all clear.

Out of interest all the articles relating to navigation in Roman or pre-Roman times could reasonably be said to be weak (not through want of effort) for example, although the lighthouse is said definitely to be Roman, in the article on the lighthouse itself it is still said to have been built OR REBUILT by Trajan, and is probably based on the architecture of the Alexandrian lighthouse. However the attractive, large natural harbour which lies close by is said to be perhaps originally pre Roman.

Turning to a modern pilot (Royal Cruising Club Pilotage Foundation - Atlantic Spain and Portugal Imray, Laurie etc 2000) the book says of a passage up the Portugese Coast (with IMV good reason) "The passage Northwards is tedious even in early summer, and if it must be made it is worth considering taking a dog leg out to the Azores" (In an historical context that brief comment gives rise to considerable thought) Coming South the book advises "and many take advantage of the prevailing Northerly winds to slide past the whole coast as quickly as possible."

Thus if the lighthouse at A Coruna was approached up the Portugese coast the vessels must have been capable of sailing into wind, not as frequently depicted, and the lighthouse itself is in a rather odd position, being on the East West coast of Northern Spain and nowhere near Cabo Finistere where it would provide indication of safe haven for those travelling Northwards. For anyone who has even considered navigaiton up that coast in a relatively small vessel any suggestion that the passage may have been regularly attempted by a rowing vessel such as a galley is almost laughable.

For those approaching along the Northern Spanish coast it is again in the wrong place, being invisible until relatively close at hand.

It would however provide a most useful guide for those approaching from the West or North West, being both in a meaningful position and clearly visible.

Since the building of the lighthouse must have been a considerable labour, and keeping it alight no small task, ISTM that the question of it's purpose belongs in the article.

Drg40 (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The lighthouse is pre-Roman, Roman modernized what already existed but was called up to the nineteenth century lighthouse Brigantia also noteworthy that this oriented boats coming Atlantic, its purpose at the time is unclear, but Roman origin is not. Is a celtic tower that was modernized by the Romans, but not Roman. Even we do not know if it was a lighthouse before, but if it was tower of Brigantia

--Bretema7 (talk) 21:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tower of Hercules. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://personal.telefonica.terra.es/web/brigantium/brigantiume.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060409192509/http://www.estudioshistoricos.com/articulo/jlv/jlv_06.htm to http://www.estudioshistoricos.com/articulo/jlv/jlv_06.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)