News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Was there an historic King Arthur

Started by Savonarola, April 05, 2011, 04:13:39 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Was there an historic King Arthur?

Yes
24 (68.6%)
No
4 (11.4%)
Ni!
7 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 35

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4
User actions

Savonarola

April 05, 2011, 04:13:39 PM
Nennius, writing in the ninth century, mentions a warrior called Arthur who won 12 battles; the Welsh Annals from the same period also mention an Arthur.  Nennius recorded mostly oral history; but a lot of what he recorded seems to be just stories.  Bede who wrote in the 8th century doesn't mention Arthur, but he wrote an ecclesiastic history rather than a military or political one.  King Arthur became the great myth of the English speaking people; every generation retells the story in its own way.  Did he have a real world counterpart or is he entirely fictional? 
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Slargos

#1
April 05, 2011, 04:20:51 PM Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 04:25:20 PM by Slargos
Is this a trap?

The answer is solidly "yes!".

Edit: Answering the thread question, not the poll question. I guess it's a bit vague, yeah?

Razgovory

#2
April 05, 2011, 04:26:44 PM
Nah.  I think he was a myth.  It is a bit ironic that he the great figure of the English Speaking world, as he his legend was promoted heavily in an effort to suppress the English.  Bastard Bill was part Breton and the legend of Arthur was used to show that his line rather then the an English one should rule Britain.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

Savonarola

#3
April 05, 2011, 04:29:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 04:26:44 PM
Nah.  I think he was a myth.  It is a bit ironic that he the great figure of the English Speaking world, as he his legend was promoted heavily in an effort to suppress the English.  Bastard Bill was part Breton and the legend of Arthur was used to show that his line rather then the an English one should rule Britain.

Plus, if he did exist, then he would have fought against the Old English speakers.
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

jamesww

#4
April 05, 2011, 04:34:48 PM
Yes I bumped into him in Salisbury the other day:

MadImmortalMan

#5
April 05, 2011, 04:35:24 PM
There was an Arthur, but calling him a king is a stretch. That's my thinking.
"Stability is destabilizing." --Hyman Minsky

"Complacency can be a self-denying prophecy."
"We have nothing to fear but lack of fear itself." --Larry Summers

Viking

#6
April 05, 2011, 04:38:29 PM
It's a 13th century invention without historical bases that latter day revisionists try to shoehorn into any historical data. The best case anybody can make is that Arthur is a composite of invention and certain historical characters.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

Valmy

#7
April 05, 2011, 04:39:47 PM
How common a name was Arthur in Wales back in the day?  Could it be just a coincidence there are a few warlords named Arthur?
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Valmy

#8
April 05, 2011, 04:41:39 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2011, 04:38:29 PM
It's a 13th century invention without historical bases that latter day revisionists try to shoehorn into any historical data.

How dare people interpret historical data!
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

merithyn

#9
April 05, 2011, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2011, 04:38:29 PM
It's a 13th century invention without historical bases that latter day revisionists try to shoehorn into any historical data. The best case anybody can make is that Arthur is a composite of invention and certain historical characters.

So Nennius and Bede were fiction writers?

I voted yes, though I agree that it's a stretch to call him King. Warlord probably fits better.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

merithyn

#10
April 05, 2011, 04:43:51 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2011, 04:39:47 PM
How common a name was Arthur in Wales back in the day?  Could it be just a coincidence there are a few warlords named Arthur?

It's Wales. If one person is named something, you can guess that 100 others carry the same name. They have zero imagination when it comes to naming.
Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...

Savonarola

#11
April 05, 2011, 04:46:29 PM
Quote from: Valmy on April 05, 2011, 04:39:47 PM
How common a name was Arthur in Wales back in the day?  Could it be just a coincidence there are a few warlords named Arthur?

He could have been an amalgamation of several figures, not even necessarily named Arthur.  Also there's some speculation that he was actually a warlord in the north (Lady Weston's From Ritual to Romance expands on this and the battles Nennius mentions seem to correspond to northern towns.)  The Welsh / Western England connection may be a later invention that came about because that's where the Britons were driven to by the invading German tribe.
In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace—and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock

Sophie Scholl

#12
April 05, 2011, 04:54:24 PM
He was only prince.  Died before his pops, Henry VII, so was never King.  For the actual one you're referencing, yeah.  Odds are pretty good there is some legitimate historical figure that is the basis for the legends.
"Everything that brought you here -- all the things that made you a prisoner of past sins -- they are gone. Forever and for good. So let the past go... and live."

"Somebody, after all, had to make a start. What we wrote and said is also believed by many others. They just don't dare express themselves as we did."

Viking

#13
April 05, 2011, 05:03:28 PM
Quote from: merithyn on April 05, 2011, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: Viking on April 05, 2011, 04:38:29 PM
It's a 13th century invention without historical bases that latter day revisionists try to shoehorn into any historical data. The best case anybody can make is that Arthur is a composite of invention and certain historical characters.

So Nennius and Bede were fiction writers?

I voted yes, though I agree that it's a stretch to call him King. Warlord probably fits better.

Well, yes. They are writing centuries after the relevant events. What they write is not only full of obvious invention you also need to be very selective to shoehorn Arthur into this history.

Basically the best and only argument for "Arthur" is that some random warlord who actually had a different name who we only know one fact about is the source for a tradition. Basically this is just as reasonable as another great legend/history where Thorismund son of Theoderic I (of Chalons fame) was actually Sigfried of the Nieblungering.

The legends of Sigfried, Robin Hood, Arthur etc. are just that, legends. There is no relation to real people apart from the desire of people living at the time of the legendmaking wanting to associate legendary characters with their ancestors.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

citizen k

#14
April 05, 2011, 05:11:56 PM
There was a tv program about myths and legends with Michael Wood. Found some Roman-era grave on some Scottish farm.

http://www.pbs.org/mythsandheroes/video_arthur.html

Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4
User actions