Don't go see "King Arthur"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Racer_X
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, Byzcath, I suppose all legend does have some basis in history. In the case of Arthur, there is only a very, very slim relationship between the two.

I guess I’m reacting to the kind of questions I get asked all the time about the “historical Arthur,” and the kind of people who go looking for Camelot (we medievalists get this ALL the time). Most of the time, I expect that when they think they’ve found it, they expect to see Mallory (or T.H.White, for that matter) come to life in front of their very eyes. And that’s just ludicrous.

IF there ever was anyone named Arthur, or something like Arthur, then the actual life and deeds of that person surely bore very little resemblance to the stories that came later.

Naprous
 
As best it can be claimed based on historical and archeological evidence, the Authur of legend was probably Arturius, son of King Aidan, a war leader of 6th century Britain, much in the mold of William Wallace. Here are some essentially undisputed facts about a real person in Britain’s history who is coming to be figured as the real “King” Authur. Judge for yourself. Artur son of Aidan is identical to the Arthur of Legend in the following respects:

He has the correct name, Artur or Arturius, the 6th century version of the name Arthur.
He was the son of a most powerful king.
He was a Christian (a valid point, when half the country was still pagan).
He lived at the correct period. (6th century.)
He was a contemporary and ally of the Northern King Urien, who was a real historical figure and who is mentioned in the legends as an ally of Arthur.
He was an ally of the Kings of the Britons in the wars in the North against the Saxons/Angles and the Picts.
There is also evidence that he was allied with a Celtic leader named Myrrdin, who in modern English would be called Merlin.
He died in battle against the Picts at the Battle of Camlann. (Remember in legend Arthur’s last battle was against Modred, whose mother was the wife of Lot, king of the Picts.)
Artur or Arturius had a sister or half sister called Morgan, as did King Arthur of legend.
He probably used a abandoned Roman fortress known as “Ad Vallum”, also known to the Britons as Camelon, as his base of operations.
He regularly met with his war leaders at a place called Knight’s Knot near Stirling Castle, which eventually became identified with the “Round Table”.

This brings into conflict the concurency of the “real” Author and the movie as the movie makes Arthur a contemporary of Pelagius. However, the “real” Arthur was born around 540 AD, and Pelagius died over 100 years earlier. There is some evidence that Arthur was sympathetic to Pelagius’ teachings however.
 
Apologia100 –

Well, that’s ONE theory. I don’t think many historians would agree with you, however, that there’s “historical and archeological evidence” supporting it.

I’m afraid I’m with the sceptics on this one! I love Arthurian legend (just got back from a lecture on it this morning), but it’s legend, not history.

Naprous
 
ALL legends are based on some form of truth, but the historocity of the Artur, son of Aidan, is much more eminently verifiable than any of the other sources of legend.
 
Apologia, I’m not trying to pick on you, and I really will let this drop eventually, but where on earth are you getting this from? What is your source? Please give me a citation, because no reputable Arthurian scholar I know would agree with you. My husband and I attend a lot of Arthurian conferences, including the triannual conference of the International Arthurian Society, we subscribe to all the reputable journals (from Speculum to Arthuriana and Tristania), and this “evidence” is not attested to in any of the REPUTABLE sources with which I am familiar.

Naprous
 
Sure, no problem. Here you go:

Adomnan’s **Life of St. Columba ** (circa 7th cent. AD)fordham.edu/halsall/basis/columba-e.html

Aneirin’s Gododdin camelot.celtic-twilight.com/poetry/aneirin1.htm

The Annals of Ulster records Artur dying at the battle of Battle of Manu in 582 fighting the Picts.

While it is true that there are no historical documents that directly outline the historical Arthur, it appears he was a war leader, the son of an established king named Aidan, and died fighting the Picts, and had a half-sister named Morgan.
 
I’d like to see a little more about the composition date and manuscript tradition of those texts before taking them as gospel. And maybe I was missing something, but a quick romp through the life of St. Columba didn’t yield much for me. (admittedly, it was a very quick romp! ) And remember, saint’s lives are hagiographical, not historical – the life of St. Columban (with an N) is also the earliest source for the Loch Ness Monster.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/columban.html

I wasn’t particularly impressed by the Celtic Twilight site. Lots of wishful thinking, but not much history.

I think this BBC site does a pretty good job of taking one through the early sources, and showing how one might wish Arthur was historical, but that none of the early sources actually prove that.

bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/arthur_01.shtml

Each page (there are 7) are quite short, but put together, I think they’re quite persuasive.

Naprous
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top