Languish.org

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? 

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?

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.

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.

Yes I bumped into him in Salisbury the other day:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmagickblog.stormjewelsgifts.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2FKing-arthur-the-druid.jpg&hash=deaaacf8a16421d62828256b4c92ee069718b11a)

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

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Quote from: citizen k on 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

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

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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2011, 06:03:42 PM
More evidence than there is for there being a historical David.

Which isn't saying much.

(cue Malthus . . .)

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 05, 2011, 06:25:36 PM
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.  :)

Quote from: Strix on April 05, 2011, 06:33:26 PM
Ask grumbler, he served under Arthur at some point in his military career.

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

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2011, 06:03:42 PM

Quote from: citizen k on 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

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

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

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.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on April 05, 2011, 04:35:24 PM
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."

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 05, 2011, 06:25:36 PM
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

Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 05, 2011, 07:12:45 PM
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.

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

King Arthur Flour :mmm:

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."

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 05, 2011, 06:25:36 PM
The Arthur we know about has nothing to do with actual history, but with how we imagine our history and thus ourselves.

Well yeah that goes without saying.  The question is this a distant folk hero whose story grows over time like George Washington striding across the country chopping down cherry trees with one hand and chopping off Redcoat heads with the other or just a Hercules type myth?

Next somebody is going to tell me of the ancient Minoans had a King named Hercules or something.

Some years ago I read a rather entertaining novel called Men went to Cattraeth. The novel was based on a Welsh poem, Y Goddodin, which was attributed to a Welsh bard Aneirin who flourished in the 7th century. Anyway, the point is that, like Gildas, here w have an early if dubious reference to Arthur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Gododdin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aneirin

Cattraeth = Catterick btw, which is in what is now North Yorkshire. Goddodin was a Welsh "kingdom" in Northern England and Southern Scotland.

The Welsh/Britons all died at Cattraeth, being grossly outnumbered by the Angles of Bernicia and Deira. Perhaps this was the model for later tales of Arthur's final battle against Mordred?

Didn't they recently find an engraving with the Cornish version of Arthur at Tintagel?

What I understood is that archaeological findings showed Saxon graves in central England until around 520 or so, then those stop and are only found in the Eastern side of the country until the 570s, and then the other Saxon graves in Central England date from the 570s and onward.

The usually assumption is that something stopped Saxon expansion into Britannia in the 520s, and it took them about 50 years to recover and resume their push.

This is normally associated with a strong military defeat. I suppose the Romano-British leader who possibly led the locals against the invaders at the time *would* classify as the person we think of today as "Arthur", but that's about it. We don't even know his name, nor his title.

But, in a way, I think the legend has a bit of truth - the [very altered] story of the war leader who stopped the Saxons and was a hope for the locals during a couple of generations.

I think the fact that invaders from across the north sea (Saxons and later Danes) both invade and overrun the same part of England and then stop, make a deal and then one generation later (I refer to the pause between the agreement on the Danelaw and the Kingdom of Knut) conquest is resumed. I'd rather suggest that it has something to do with how far the seafaring boats from Frisia and Jutland could get up the rivers of England (Thames, Humber, Ouse, Tyne etc. etc.) rather than the ambitions or achievements of a historical parallel to Alfred the Great in the 6th century.

I'm surprised, honestly. Three pages in an no one has mentioned the "...an historic King Arthur"

Quote from: Zeus on April 06, 2011, 07:41:59 AM
I'm surprised, honestly. Three pages in an no one has mentioned the "...an historic King Arthur"

Only one page so far, and no one much cares that Brits use "an" before words starting in h.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 06:54:10 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 05, 2011, 06:03:42 PM

Quote from: citizen k on 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

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

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

Btw, I still cant find the reference.  I think your secondary source was inaccurate.

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 06, 2011, 11:21:34 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 06:54:10 PM
Indeed, and Jesus appears in Egyptian writings 18,000 years ago.

Btw, I still cant find the reference.  I think your secondary source was inaccurate.

You didn't fall for that "Egyptian writings that are three times as old as Egyptian civilization" gag of Raz's, did you?

Define "King Arthur". How much of what is known about the legendary/mythical king must be met by the historical person for him to qualify? FWIW I think that it can be fairly misleading to call a person who inspired a legend the legend, if you understand what I mean.

Quote from: grumbler on April 06, 2011, 11:38:54 AM

Quote from: crazy canuck on April 06, 2011, 11:21:34 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 06:54:10 PM
Indeed, and Jesus appears in Egyptian writings 18,000 years ago.

Btw, I still cant find the reference.  I think your secondary source was inaccurate.

You didn't fall for that "Egyptian writings that are three times as old as Egyptian civilization" gag of Raz's, did you?

Raz continually asserts that it is something I believe.  It is a little game he likes to play.

Quote from: Razgovory on April 05, 2011, 07:11:02 PM
There may have very well been a warlord or warrior named Arthur (or some variation of it)

Could also be a variant on a title or position, as opposed to a proper name.

Quote from: Savonarola on April 05, 2011, 04:13:39 PMDid he have a real world counterpart or is he entirely fictional? 

probably.

Quote from: Strix on April 05, 2011, 06:33:26 PM
Ask grumbler, he served under Arthur at some po
int in his military career.

No, you're mistaken.  Arthur did not have a navy.

Quote from: Viking on April 06, 2011, 07:34:15 AM
I think the fact that invaders from across the north sea (Saxons and later Danes) both invade and overrun the same part of England and then stop, make a deal and then one generation later (I refer to the pause between the agreement on the Danelaw and the Kingdom of Knut) conquest is resumed. I'd rather suggest that it has something to do with how far the seafaring boats from Frisia and Jutland could get up the rivers of England (Thames, Humber, Ouse, Tyne etc. etc.) rather than the ambitions or achievements of a historical parallel to Alfred the Great in the 6th century.

and it took them 50 years to resume their march inside the country?

hmm.  It depends on how we see them, were they invaders&conquerers or simply migrants?  Migrants, move to one place, mix the locals, and slowly expand into new territories. If we look at 19th century US history, can we cut a clear mark on where US settlers stopped for a generation then resume moving?  I don't think so (except for the Secession war).  If in Britain the advance of the Saxons was completely stopped for a period of 50 years, I think it's reasonable to think that there was something that stopped them in their tracks.

Maybe it was King Arthur and Merlin ;) .  Maybe it was an epidemic of some sort.  Maybe they simply had enough lands for everyone in this time period.  But I just don't think the inapropriate boat type was the reason, not for 50 years.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on April 06, 2011, 12:20:46 AM
Cattraeth = Catterick btw, which is in what is now North Yorkshire. Goddodin was a Welsh "kingdom" in Northern England and Southern Scotland.

Which puts "Arthur" in the wrong location and the wrong time period from the Arthur in the Historia Brittonum.

Who could guess Languish would hide so many accomplished anthropologists.  :D

Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2011, 12:41:54 PM

Quote from: Viking on April 06, 2011, 07:34:15 AM
I think the fact that invaders from across the north sea (Saxons and later Danes) both invade and overrun the same part of England and then stop, make a deal and then one generation later (I refer to the pause between the agreement on the Danelaw and the Kingdom of Knut) conquest is resumed. I'd rather suggest that it has something to do with how far the seafaring boats from Frisia and Jutland could get up the rivers of England (Thames, Humber, Ouse, Tyne etc. etc.) rather than the ambitions or achievements of a historical parallel to Alfred the Great in the 6th century.

and it took them 50 years to resume their march inside the country?

hmm.  It depends on how we see them, were they invaders&conquerers or simply migrants?  Migrants, move to one place, mix the locals, and slowly expand into new territories. If we look at 19th century US history, can we cut a clear mark on where US settlers stopped for a generation then resume moving?  I don't think so (except for the Secession war).  If in Britain the advance of the Saxons was completely stopped for a period of 50 years, I think it's reasonable to think that there was something that stopped them in their tracks.

Maybe it was King Arthur and Merlin ;) .  Maybe it was an epidemic of some sort.  Maybe they simply had enough lands for everyone in this time period.  But I just don't think the inapropriate boat type was the reason, not for 50 years.

I don't think that the purpose of either "invasion" was to conquer everything. I just think that there is a logical scope of conquest for raiders from the north sea traveling in large boats in England. The reason I think this is that it happens twice within a few hundred years in England. Same areas get conquered by the invaders then the invasion stops, then some time later the invasion gets concluded.

I always wanted the Romano-British to survive to the end of Britannia (AH) but I never saw it happen.  One game they survived till like 800, though. :)

Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2011, 12:21:36 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 05, 2011, 06:33:26 PM
Ask grumbler, he served under Arthur at some po
int in his military career.

No, you're mistaken.  Arthur did not have a navy.

He had to get to Avalon somehow.

Quote from: Solmyr on April 06, 2011, 02:02:51 PM

Quote from: viper37 on April 06, 2011, 12:21:36 PM

Quote from: Strix on April 05, 2011, 06:33:26 PM
Ask grumbler, he served under Arthur at some po
int in his military career.

No, you're mistaken.  Arthur did not have a navy.

He had to get to Avalon somehow.

This is a mysterious part of his past that Grumbler has choosen not to share with us.

Quote from: Caliga on April 06, 2011, 01:51:35 PM
I always wanted the Romano-British to survive to the end of Britannia (AH) but I never saw it happen.  One game they survived till like 800, though. :)

I've seen the Romano-British survive for a while, that cav unit is counter fluff of the worst kind though... They survive when the Romans fizzle, leaving the saxons, welsh and angles to go hammers and tongs after each other... At that point if they survive they suicide themselves to help the dubliners or scots in, depending on where they are... but if they do that you aren't getting any points with them. The point system sort of demands that they suicide themselves on somebody. I once destroyed the saxon invasion with them and then moved north getting them killed going after angles letting the second or third saxon wave get in.

Well, the cav unit is supposed to be King Arthur so th...

...wait, so the thread's question has now been answered.  King Arthur was an actual historical figure. :)

Quote from: Slargos on April 06, 2011, 01:07:46 PM
Who could guess Languish would hide so many accomplished anthropologists.  :D

:lol:

Languish is like a never ending college bull session; don't ever take anything you learn here entirely seriously.  After all I've had Languideshians set me straight on electrical engineering and wireless telecommunication technology.

If I were genuinely interested in an historic Arthur I would have looked in academic journals; but where's the fun in that?