Was there an historic King Arthur

[crazy canuck]

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

More evidence than there is for there being a historical David.

[The Minsky Moment]

Basically Sav you have stated the issue -- Nennius is writing many centuries after the fact and his "source" here appears to be Welsh poetry and folk legends.

The legendary Arthur is linked to the battle of Mons Badonicus, which is attested to by Gildas.  That then leads to a whole secondary line of inquiry about the connection between that battle and Aurelius Ambrosius, a Romano-British leader who Gildas refers to be name and praises.  One can speculate as to the legendary Arthur might trace its origin via oral history from some war leader who fought with Ambrosius, or succeeded him or is a composite based on him.  But IMO its a pointless debate.  The Arthur we know about has nothing to do with actual history, but with how we imagine our history and thus ourselves.

[The Minsky Moment]

More evidence than there is for there being a historical David.

Which isn't saying much.

(cue Malthus . . .)

[Strix]

Ask grumbler, he served under Arthur at some point in his military career.

[jamesww]

Basically Sav you have stated the issue -- Nennius is writing many centuries after the fact and his "source" here appears to be Welsh poetry and folk legends.

The legendary Arthur is linked to the battle of Mons Badonicus, which is attested to by Gildas.  That then leads to a whole secondary line of inquiry about the connection between that battle and Aurelius Ambrosius, a Romano-British leader who Gildas refers to be name and praises.  One can speculate as to the legendary Arthur might trace its origin via oral history from some war leader who fought with Ambrosius, or succeeded him or is a composite based on him.  But IMO its a pointless debate.  The Arthur we know about has nothing to do with actual history, but with how we imagine our history and thus ourselves.

I live 15 miles away from the battlesite, well one of the many possibilities; I'll stop by on Wednesday or Friday and see if I can find a druid to give me the gem. 

[Ed Anger]

Ask grumbler, he served under Arthur at some point in his military career.

I thought he was with Aetius at the battle of Chalons.

[Razgovory]

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

More evidence than there is for there being a historical David.

Indeed, and Jesus appears in Egyptian writings 18,000 years ago.

[Razgovory]

I'm actually willing to accept that there is a "kernel of truth". To the story.  There may have very well been a warlord or warrior named Arthur (or some variation of it) who became legendary at some point, but it's entirely possible he was legendary long before the Saxons invaded.  Perhaps he was legendary warrior who fought in some clan war in Briton or possibly else where in the Celtic world.  Perhaps he fought the Romans and poets later adopted him as a hero to fight the Saxons.  The Song of Roland is an example of this.  There seems to have been a Roland who fought a battle at Roncevaux.  However the poem puts him against Moors rather then Christian Basques.  In my opinion it is fruitless to look for the "kernal" of truth in these stories.  It could be anywhere, and very possibly in places you least expect.

[grumbler]

There was an Arthur, but calling him a king is a stretch. That's my thinking.

There were many Welsh kings in that era.  King didn't mean what it means now.  Anyone without an overlord was a king, no matter how small the "kingdom."

[Admiral Yi]

Raz:  If he were a Briton fighting the Romans it would probably have been documented.

[grumbler]

Basically Sav you have stated the issue -- Nennius is writing many centuries after the fact and his "source" here appears to be Welsh poetry and folk legends.

The legendary Arthur is linked to the battle of Mons Badonicus, which is attested to by Gildas.  That then leads to a whole secondary line of inquiry about the connection between that battle and Aurelius Ambrosius, a Romano-British leader who Gildas refers to be name and praises.  One can speculate as to the legendary Arthur might trace its origin via oral history from some war leader who fought with Ambrosius, or succeeded him or is a composite based on him.  But IMO its a pointless debate.  The Arthur we know about has nothing to do with actual history, but with how we imagine our history and thus ourselves.

+1

[Razgovory]

Raz:  If he were a Briton fighting the Romans it would probably have been documented.

Not necessarily.  Documentation from antiquity is much more sparse then most people believe.  The sources we do have are almost all biased as they from the opinions of the Romans.  The idea that some warleader in Briton (or perhaps France or Spain) trounced some Romans and records for it were lost or simply not recorded is not very far-fetched.

[KRonn]

Of course there was a King Arthur. How else would that sword have been taken out of that stone??   

[Caliga]

King Arthur Flour

[grumbler]

In some ways, this debate reminds me of the old joke:

A:  "Did you hear?  Historians have determined that it wasn't Homer who wrote the Odyssey and the Iliad!"

B:  "Really?  I hadn't heard that! who wrote them?"

A: "Turns out it was some other guy with the same name."