PDA

View Full Version : Was King Arthur Really King McArthur?



Blutw÷lfin
Tuesday, February 14th, 2006, 03:55 PM
Most people associate him with southwest England, a region steeped in Arthurian tales of wizards, sword-wielding aquatic ladies, and knights in shining armor. This version of the legend has been popularized since medieval times, particularly by English kings, poets, and noblemen who regarded Arthur's Camelot and his Knights of the Round Table as the ideal chivalric court. King Arthur, the new Hollywood movie, takes a different direction. This Arthur, played by Clive Owen, is based on a historical figure, Lucius Artorius Castus, who was born in Samaria, an ancient region in what is now Ukraine.

The location, too, is different, with the action moving to Hadrian's Wall in northern England, where our hero battles against pagan tribes. This interpretation is an improvement, according to Hugh McArthur, a Scottish historian from Glasgow. "The film brings the story much closer to home," he said. "If they had just extended it a bit further north then you're probably in the right geography." McArthur also approves of the depiction of Guinevere, Arthur's queen, as a Pict. The Picts were an ancient north-Scottish people.

McArthur says the real-life Guinevere was a Pictish noblewoman, born and bred in Scotland. (However, he's not so sure about the leather bikini worn by Keira Knightely, the actress who plays her.) Other than that, he says, Hollywood has got it wrong. McArthur is one of a growing number of Arthurian experts who believe the legend belongs north of the English-Scottish border. He says historical evidence points to Arthur coming from what is now Scotland, not from Cornwall in southwest England, or, indeed, anywhere else.

"There's a large number of place-names in the region which can be linked to Arthur," he said. "At Dumbarton itself there's Arthur's Castle, and just to the west of Loch Lomond, there's a mountain called Ben Arthur, which includes a site known as Arthur's Seat." McArthur says it's just one of seven "Arthur's Seats" he has uncovered in Scotland. "There are 40 to 50 place-names in Scotland with the name of Arthur in them," he added. "I can't say they are all Arthurian, but there's an awful lot of them that are."

And he says the most likely location for Avalon (the holy island where Arthur received his sword Excalibur and was later taken when mortally wounded) is on Loch Lomond. Historians believe Arthur's main battles—chronicled by Nennius, a ninth-century Welsh monk—were fought nearby. McArthur, who claims his clan is directly descended from the Strathclyde Arthur, says the king's bloody struggles to convert pagan tribes were later airbrushed out of accounts of the Christianization of Scotland. "Christians didn't want to write themselves up as a bloodthirsty crew," he explained.

"Another problem was that Strathclyde was a Welsh-speaking nation," he added. "As the language retreated into modern-day Wales and Cornwall, the story went with them." McArthur's theory has support from Edinburgh-based Scottish historian Stuart McHardy, author of The Quest for Arthur. Though McHardy believes Arthurian legend is probably largely mythological, he added, "There's a very good argument for saying there was an historical character in the sixth century. He was leading a Christian crusade against the pagans in the bottom half of Scotland, which is the best match for all the battles mentioned by Nennius."

He says Guinevere is buried in Meigle, Perthshire. "And Merlin is thought to be buried not that far from here," he added. As for Arthur being part of the Roman occupying force in northern England, as portrayed in the new movie, McHardy said, "The Roman connection is complete rubbish as far as I'm concerned." The Romans left Britain at the start of the fifth century—about a hundred years before Arthur is said to have led a resistance campaign against invading Germanic tribes.

For instance, ancient accounts refer to a major battle at Badon Hill, an unknown location where Arthur's forces defeated the Anglo-Saxons in around A.D. 500. Like McArthur, McHardy thinks stories associated with King Arthur filtered south as Welsh-speaking Britons were gradually pushed out of Scotland by the Picts. These stories were then interwoven with local English landmarks. "They were set within the known environment, so that people could absorb them," he said.

Tintagel, an ancient castle on the north coast of Cornwall, is perhaps the most familiar Arthurian setting. It's been claimed as Arthur's birthplace since medieval times. Likewise, Glastonbury, in Somerset, has long been associated with Avalon. Similar historic sites are promoted by tourism offices around the country. Given the mythology surrounding Arthur, and the difficulty in pinning him down historically, it's not surprising so many places now claim him as their own.

Indeed, the legend is multinational these days, with Arthur's origins linked to countries including France, Iceland, Italy, Norway, and Hungary. Given Arthur's ability to cross national borders so readily, maybe it doesn't really matter who Arthur was or where he came from. "Stories exist where they are told and are as relevant in that place as any other," McHardy concedes. So the story is in the telling, even if the latest one does come from Hollywood.


Source: Source (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0728_040722_kingarthur.html)

Sigrid
Saturday, March 11th, 2006, 05:17 PM
The Saxon portrayal in this film was absolutely appalling. :mad:

Sigurd
Sunday, October 29th, 2006, 06:21 PM
King Arthur

Traditionally, he has been associated with Wales, Cornwall and south-western England, but southern Scotland is increasingly being seen as a rival setting for the real Arthur story.

The first mention of Arthur comes in the sixth-century Welsh poem Y Gododdin where a great warrior is described as being "no Arthur" - a good fighter, but not as good as the great man. However, this poem is not actually set in Wales, instead telling of a tribe setting out from what is now Edinburgh and fighting in a glorious defeat at the hands of the Anglo-Saxon Northumbrians.

Britonic tribes living in Scotland at the time spoke a Welsh-style language and the theory is that the story of Arthur became part of the shared cultural traditions of other such people living in Britain. As Welsh died out in Scotland, the setting for the stories moved south to the language's last remaining strongholds - in Wales, Cornwall and even Brittany.

Scotland is littered with Arthurian place-names, from Edinburgh's famous Arthur's Seat to Ben Arthur and Camelon at Falkirk, which is similar to the famous castle of Camelot and also Camlann, where, according to some accounts, Arthur was killed in battle in 537 AD. It also has the only historical candidate: Artur mac Aiden, the son of a Scottish king and a Welsh-speaking Briton from the ancient kingdom of Strathclyde. However, he did live during the latter half of the sixth century, which is seen as too late by some experts on the legend.

Guinevere is said to have been buried at Meigle and a Pictish standing stone showing a figure surrounded by four animals has been interpreted as depicting her gruesome execution - by being thrown into a pit of hunting dogs - in punishment for betraying Arthur.

Stuart McHardy, the author of The Quest for Arthur, says: "If there was a real figure - and that's not 100 per cent - he was here [in Scotland]. I've no doubt about that.

"What people have been looking at for many years is trying to locate the battles. If you can get a good fit for the battles, that kind of proves it.

"If the stories are right - and the point of a story is not to be historically accurate - then after the final battle at Camelon, he was taken to Avalon. There's a good fit for Avalon in the Forth - the Isle of May."

The Isle of May was historically associated with stories of "nine maidens", and Arthur is said to have been borne away by Morgan le Fay and her eight sisters.

Arthur, if he was real, is not thought to have actually been a king, but an early Christian who, as the leader of a war-band, fought many battles against pagan tribes. Much of the modern-day story about a chivalric court of knights seated at a round table stems from Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain, a mix of fact and fiction which starts with Britain being settled by Brutus, a descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas.

Geoffrey is thought to have been of Celtic Breton descent and, in Norman times, celebrating and perhaps embellishing the stories of a hero who fought the recently-conquered Saxons would have been politically astute.

The first historic record of Arthur is merely a passing mention. The poet Aneirin, who lived from about 535 to 600, wrote in Y Gododdin that one warrior "fed black ravens [killed people] on the ramparts, although he was no Arthur".

McHardy says: "Probably the most telling point [that Arthur lived in Scotland] is the earliest reference to him being from Edinburgh in Y Gododdin. The people up here spoke the same kind of language as people in Wales and Cornwall and people who share a language generally tend to share other cultural things, like mythology."

Guinevere's supposed grave at Meigle is actually known as Vanora's Mound, but the story goes that she changed her name before being executed for betraying Arthur with Mordred. Her death may even have been recorded on the carved Pictish stone found at Meigle. "It shows a gowned figure surrounded by four animals. They have been interpreted as lions because they have powerful shoulders and some people say it is Daniel in the lion's den," McHardy says. "Other people say it is Vanora. She was torn to pieces by a pack of wild dogs and they [the animals] could just as well be hunting dogs."

The name Merlin first appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's book as Merlinus, a character thought to have been based partly on a wild-man called Myrddin. Geoffrey apparently changed the name because it was too similar to the vulgar French word merde.

Myrddin, who is not specifically linked with Arthur in the earliest stories, is portrayed in medieval Welsh-language poems as a prophet who lived in the Caledonian forest in the sixth century. While not much hard evidence of Arthur is to be found anywhere - France and Italy both claim him, in addition to Scotland, England and Wales - the clan McArthur claims to be descended from him.

Clan historian Hugh McArthur believes Artur mac Aiden is the source of the stories, but that his role in forcing people to convert to Christianity was left out of written church records and only survived in the oral storytelling tradition. "The information we have about Arthur is pretty vague. It's almost as if he's been written out of history and you find the same about the historical Artur mac Aiden," he says.

"Christianity was delivered at the point of a sword in Scotland, but it was written down as being handed over a lot more peacefully. There is an old proverb in Argyll that there's none older than the hills, the devil and McArthur. That dates it. The devil arrived with Christianity and so McArthur is as old as Christianity in Scotland. It all kind of fits together."

Source (http://heritage.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1502&id=1413402006)

Gorm the Old
Sunday, October 29th, 2006, 11:47 PM
Whatever became of the hypothesis that King Arthur was , in reality, a Romanized Briton named Quintus Artorius Priscus ?

Jonathan Eells
Monday, November 10th, 2008, 03:06 AM
I can't even remember where I heard this, but it took the name "Arthur" and drifted linguistically back in time to the title "Herr Thor", and then took the obvious run at it from there.

I kind of like the idea of "Herr Thor" being a beloved "king" and then a legend. All sorts of interesting ways to go with the story. Reality, of course, doesn't enter into it whatsoever.

weland
Friday, December 12th, 2008, 06:31 PM
what evidence is there that Guinevere was from Scotland? come to think of it what evidence is there that she existed? she seems to be the typical french romance type.

Most if not all the Arthur place names in Scotland date to the middleages well after his time frame.
Most scholarly research would place Arthur around north western England-south western Scotland area around Hadrians wall.
Its likely that Arthur was connected to the Roman legions, if he existed and they wer,nt really a presence as far north as is being suggested.
According to some his name is derived from latin Arcturus= Bear.

There is some reason to think that Merlin was a historical figure called Myrrdon or some such derivative who also lived around Hadrians wall or south western Scotland but perhaps a hundred years earlier than Arthur.


One thing that puzzles me is the English fascination with Arthur and Merlin,when old English epic literature was repleat with such heroes as Horsa and Hengist, Beowulf, Weland tha smithas, Wade,etc, it just shows how all culturally dominating the influence of the Norman conquest was in that when English reappears as a literary language it looks to French romance and an imagined Celtic past that never was, this shows a concerted attempt which was succesful in destroying a native English identiy.

Its curious that so many things we consider typically Arthurian and therefore Celtic are in many ways suspiciously Germanic,the child Arthur washed a shore at tintagel recalls authentic Germanic tradition far older than the Arthur stories, of Frodi, Sceaf, Scyld, and even traditions of Ing,
the mysterious child washed a shore in a boat full of treasure who brings peace and prosperity and fertility to the land, this is a genuine Anglo-Saxon/ Germanic motif, compare Sceaf/ frodi Ing/Freyr being cast back into the sea after there deaths to return presumably to the mysterious land from which they came ,with Arthurs journey by boat to Avalon after his death.Indeed Hilda Elliss Davidson sees a link between boat burials, the cult of the Vanir and Scyld, Sceaf, Ing/Freyr.

Look at the authentic Germanic legend of the volsungs known to the pre-viking age Anglo-Saxons where the hero pulls a sword out of a tree/hall pillar as a test of strength connected to the cult of Woden/Odin.

Look at the figure of Merlin far more like Woden/Odin than a Celtic bard,the hooded wise old man who lives in the woods, whose magic through beguilment
recalls Woden/Odin the trickster, Odins magic specialised in magical deceit, the Norse Ginnungagap from whence creation emerged is often translated Yawning gap, but infact as Ellis Davidson points out, Ginnunga or ginning in old Norse means deceit through magic, magical beguiling so Ginnungagap really means Gap of magical beguiling,the same word is used in Gylfaginning, the beguiling of Gylfi, it is precisely this kind of magic, things not being what they seem, which characterises Odins magic, and also to some degree Merlins magic, hence, pen dragons woeing of Arthurs mother through the magic of Merlin where Uther appears as igrains husband when he certainly was not.

BeornWulfWer
Friday, December 12th, 2008, 09:46 PM
One thing that puzzles me is the English fascination with Arthur and Merlin

Not that puzzling if you were to look at the puzzle from the perspective of England still being populated by the people latterly known as 'Celts'.

Just to bring a different piece to this puzzle, I have always found the West to be more enthralled by the legend than the East.

Concerning Arthur; I believe him to be an amalgamation of many characters and many myths and legends rolled into one.

Who was King Arthur? We will never know.

weland
Friday, December 12th, 2008, 11:34 PM
Not that puzzling if you were to look at the puzzle from the perspective of England still being populated by the people latterly known as 'Celts'.

Just to bring a different piece to this puzzle, I have always found the West to be more enthralled by the legend than the East.

Concerning Arthur; I believe him to be an amalgamation of many characters and many myths and legends rolled into one.

Who was King Arthur? We will never know.

Respectfully Beornwulfwer, i do not see England having a substantial Celtic population in the 12th century when the Arthurian Grail romances were being written, and it is really this period that the King Arthur legend got going, before then it was apparently an obscure dis-connected collection[small] of welsh material.
I think it is true that in Wales and Corwall the tradition was and is strongest but this due to more native Celtic elements being present away from the Saxon east, and in modern times of course neo-Celtic fantasies about the Celtic twighlight, in anycase there is in my opinion a strand of Germanic input in the stories as we now have them, where that came from i am not sure, infact to be blunt i do not know, but they are there.
I think Arthur is an amalgamation as you said of different people and different literary sources , i tend to think that there maybe a main character behind the legend/myth but of course who can ever really know.


In the days of the great Prince Arthur, there lived a mighty magician,called Merlin, the most learned and skilful enchanter the world has ever seen.

This famous magician, who could take any form he pleased, was travelling about as a poor beggar, and being very tired, he stopped at the cottage of a ploughman to rest himself, and asked for some food."

The moment I read those words, I was thunderstruck. The realization hit me: Merlin is Odin.

I almost wanted to stop reading just to let this, and its implications sink in, but I didn't, because there are few sins greater than to interrupt a child's fairy tale.

Now, I know I could probably find this notion in any number of dusty tomes by scholars of literature, mythology or folklore. But I don't recall ever having read this. No, I don't even feel like looking it up. In that one moment, the energy of the archetype reached through several levels of being and zapped me right where I sat among my pajama-clad children.

And from that moment forward, I will always be certain: Merlin is Odin.
by Theo Huffma

­as VIIII magon wi­ nygon attrum.
Wyrm com snican, toslat he man;
­a genam Woden VIIII wuldortanas,
sloh ­a ■a nŠddran, ■Št heo on VIIII tofleah.
■Šr geŠndade Šppel and attor,
35

BeornWulfWer
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Respectfully Beornwulfwer, i do not see England having a substantial Celtic population in the 12th century when the Arthurian Grail romances were being written, and it is really this period that the King Arthur legend got going

You say they were not 'Celtic', but perhaps you should think more along the lines of a population which was regaled and handed down legends and traditions from long forgotten 'Celtic' ancestors.

The population of England may definitely not have thought themselves Celtic, even the populations of the 'Celtic fringe' probably never once thought themselves to be 'Celtic', but the oral and written traditions would have stuck, albeit with certain influences sneaking in.


I think it is true that in Wales and Corwall the tradition was and is strongest but this due to more native Celtic elements being present away from the Saxon east

Hmm! I wouldn't regard that to be the reason behind it.

Merely because the Anglo-Saxon/Norman culture was more influential in the East of England does not mean to say that the tradition of Arthur was therefore not as strong or prevalent.


a strand of Germanic input in the stories as we now have them, where that came from i am not sure, infact to be blunt i do not know, but they are there.

Anglo-Saxon input through culturalisation of Eastern natives.

weland
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 10:02 PM
You say they were not 'Celtic', but perhaps you should think more along the lines of a population which was regaled and handed down legends and traditions from long forgotten 'Celtic' ancestors.

The population of England may definitely not have thought themselves Celtic, even the populations of the 'Celtic fringe' probably never once thought themselves to be 'Celtic', but the oral and written traditions would have stuck, albeit with certain influences sneaking in.



Hmm! I wouldn't regard that to be the reason behind it.

Merely because the Anglo-Saxon/Norman culture was more influential in the East of England does not mean to say that the tradition of Arthur was therefore not as strong or prevalent.



Anglo-Saxon input through culturalisation of Eastern natives.

I wouldnt agree bro, i think the stories of Arthur may not have been widely known at all until the 12th century, there are almost no Arthur traditions in eastern England none i believe in East Anglia.
The elements of the original Arthur story are slight indeed surviving in only a few brief references in Welsh sources not even stories really.
The figure of Arthur must have had something going for him though because why else would Anglo-Norman writers make a such a big deal about him in the 12th century.

I,m not sure if i understand what you mean by Anglo-Saxon input through culturalisation of Eastern natives.If you mean the similarities in Anglo-Saxon sources is due to borrowing from the Brits, i would say no because the evidence shows these motiffs are found in Denmark such as stories of Frodi/Freyr/Ing, and the widely circulated traditions of the Volsungs,
On the other hand if you mean Anglo-Saxon elements influenced some of the Arthur stuff , well i think thats true but whether that happened in Saxon times or some how found a way in to the Arthur material at a later date , i do not know.Mallory i believe self consiously used elements of Danish Frodi and Anglo-Saxon Sceaf in his story of Arthur being washed up as a child at Tintagel. Anyway just some of my thoughts , who knows but its all fascinating stuff to ponder, maybe i,m right maybe i,m wrong, carry on the quest.

BeornWulfWer
Saturday, December 13th, 2008, 11:37 PM
i think the stories of Arthur may not have been widely known at all until the 12th century

You think? Or do you know?

You seem to underestimate the power of oral traditions.


there are almost no Arthur traditions in eastern England none i believe in East Anglia.

Almost? Or none at all?

The absence of evidence, or evidence which is not withstanding, should not resign you to assume that no traditions or knowledge was present.


The elements of the original Arthur story are slight indeed surviving in only a few brief references in Welsh sources not even stories really.

Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places or searching for the wrong name.

We all assume the name 'Arthur' did not start to incorporate the 'h' until the 12th Century. Previous to this, the name which became synonymous with our Great king were 'Artur' or 'Artorius'.

With that little knowledge under your cap you suddenly find yourself illuminated with a veritable wealth of evidence for people to consider for the King Arthur character.

In Adomnan's 'Life of Columba', there was the son of a Scottish King named Arturius in the 7th Century who died in battle whilst fighting the Picts.(One of many invaders being suffered upon the lives of the Britons.)

Indeed, in the Domesday book the names of Artur and Artorius are present suggesting the name was still prevalent within the English psyche.

The evidence is there alright.


The figure of Arthur must have had something going for him though because why else would Anglo-Norman writers make a such a big deal about him in the 12th century.

Cultural ties with the Celtic past? Attempts at establishing lineal rights over the subjugated English?

Who knows really, but the fascination was fuelled, I'm sure.


I,m not sure if i understand what you mean by Anglo-Saxon input through culturalisation of Eastern natives.

.....


On the other hand if you mean Anglo-Saxon elements influenced some of the Arthur stuff , well i think thats true but whether that happened in Saxon times or some how found a way in to the Arthur material at a later date , i do not know.

Bingo! :thumbup


Mallory i believe self consiously used elements of Danish Frodi and Anglo-Saxon Sceaf in his story of Arthur being washed up as a child at Tintagel.

When did Mallory write 'Le Morte d'Athur'? About the 15th 16th Century?

It's very possible that he may have been influenced by certain myths and legends of Germanic origin, although to counter the argument, alot of speculation goes into criticising him for the book being a very neat and well composed social critique of the War of the Roses and the drama which was medieval monarchical struggles.

So either way, the book holds no true interpretation of a historical character even if the confusion is just as ferocious without it.


but its all fascinating stuff to ponder

It certainly is. :)

weland
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 05:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
i think the stories of Arthur may not have been widely known at all until the 12th century
You think? Or do you know?<<

Not being around in the 12th century or earlier none of us know, but going by literary evidence which tells us nothing of course of oral traditions, it does appear that the 12th century is a key date for Arthurian lore.

You seem to underestimate the power of oral traditions.<<

I dont underestimate oral tradition, the problem is if its not recorded we dont today have any evidence as to what that oral tradition may have been or even if there was any , its just speculation, furthermore oral traditions tend not to survive very long when the host culture is surpressed, thats why there arnt any Anglo-Saxon stories that we can see in later medieval literature they went out of fashion and were seen as crude.


Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
there are almost no Arthur traditions in eastern England none i believe in East Anglia.
Almost? Or none at all?

The absence of evidence, or evidence which is not withstanding, should not resign you to assume that no traditions or knowledge was present.<<

None that i know of but because i dont know of any i said almost, so as not to lay the law down over something that i,m not sure about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
The elements of the original Arthur story are slight indeed surviving in only a few brief references in Welsh sources not even stories really.
Perhaps you are looking in the wrong places or searching for the wrong name.

We all assume the name 'Arthur' did not start to incorporate the 'h' until the 12th Century. Previous to this, the name which became synonymous with our Great king were 'Artur' or 'Artorius'.

With that little knowledge under your cap you suddenly find yourself illuminated with a veritable wealth of evidence for people to consider for the King Arthur character.

In Adomnan's 'Life of Columba', there was the son of a Scottish King named Arturius in the 7th Century who died in battle whilst fighting the Picts.(One of many invaders being suffered upon the lives of the Britons.)

Indeed, in the Domesday book the names of Artur and Artorius are present suggesting the name was still prevalent within the English psyche.

The evidence is there alright. <<

I,m not sure that anything you said there contradicts what i said, it seems very slight to me and circumstantial, also we dont know if the afore said individuals you mentioned fit into the Arthur story, they appear to be different induviduals from different periods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
The figure of Arthur must have had something going for him though because why else would Anglo-Norman writers make a such a big deal about him in the 12th century.
Cultural ties with the Celtic past? Attempts at establishing lineal rights over the subjugated English?

Who knows really, but the fascination was fuelled, I'm sure.<<

Who knows indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
I,m not sure if i understand what you mean by Anglo-Saxon input through culturalisation of Eastern natives.
.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
On the other hand if you mean Anglo-Saxon elements influenced some of the Arthur stuff , well i think thats true but whether that happened in Saxon times or some how found a way in to the Arthur material at a later date , i do not know.
Bingo! <<

Glad thats sorted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
Mallory i believe self consiously used elements of Danish Frodi and Anglo-Saxon Sceaf in his story of Arthur being washed up as a child at Tintagel.
When did Mallory write 'Le Morte d'Athur'? About the 15th 16th Century?

It's very possible that he may have been influenced by certain myths and legends of Germanic origin, although to counter the argument, alot of speculation goes into criticising him for the book being a very neat and well composed social critique of the War of the Roses and the drama which was medieval monarchical struggles.

So either way, the book holds no true interpretation of a historical character even if the confusion is just as ferocious without it

Indeed.,still the point i made about Germanic influence; was the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by weland View Post
but its all fascinating stuff to ponder

It certainly is. <<

I second that.

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, December 14th, 2008, 11:10 PM
Not being around in the 12th century or earlier none of us know, but going by literary evidence which tells us nothing of course of oral traditions, it does appear that the 12th century is a key date for Arthurian lore.

....


I,m not sure that anything you said there contradicts what i said, it seems very slight to me and circumstantial, also we dont know if the afore said individuals you mentioned fit into the Arthur story, they appear to be different induviduals from different periods.

It may not confirm the speculation, but it is very interesting to note that the precedence of the legend is firmly rooted in many reliable sources. The Goddodin(albeit more poetic), the Annals of Tighernac and Adomnan's 'Life of Columba', all show and seem to corroborate the very historical root from where the King Arthur legend was later to come.

One more interesting point is the connection of Scotland I stated earlier is confirmed by the 8th Century 'Martyrology of Oengus the Culdee', where the King Aidan previously mentioned had a daughter who would have been Arturius' half sister.

Her name? Morgan.

It could go on. He's mentioned in the 'Annals of Ulster' and it isn't much to speculate that the Brythonnic speakers ceding ground and getting further and further into the nations we now know as Wales and Cornwall, would not have kept this glorious, legendary leader, 'Dux Brittanorum' alive through oral traditions.

It isn't much to also speculate that the subjugated Britons under Anglo-Saxon rule would have kept this figure to the fore in their stories and legends.

Walterina
Saturday, March 28th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Though there maybe some shred of historical truth to a tribal chieftain named something like Arthur, the legend of Arthur was created by Norman writers in the 12th century. The legend was used to create a backdrop for the plots of the new courtly romances and form part of their new 'British' political legitimacy. Apparently they also created a mythical founder of Britain, Brutus from the pre-Classical period who travelled to Wales. Anything but English ;)

It was probably not a strong cultural influence in the life of the Nation until the Victorians revived it again, as part of their new British Empire mythology.

forkbeard
Sunday, March 29th, 2009, 01:35 AM
My view is that there is no Roman link with Arthur. The Anglo Saxon chronicle does mention two important military Pictish leaders exactly at the right time in the 4-5th century. The father Cuther, the son Cather. (Son of the bear)
Now celts do have a habit of missing off the Mac bit. The welsh surname MapRichard condensing to the surname Pritchard.

Since Arthurs father was Uther, the link is re-enforced.
http://i415.photobucket.com/albums/pp234/wilhelmII/benviestone.jpg
Again the Picts had their own highly developed horse culture and were locked in a defensive war against the incoming Angles.
In fact there is an excellent Pictish stone showing a cavalry war against incoming Anglian footsoldiers. The Angles wearing the same kind of helmet as found down the well at Yorvik (York).
Undoubtedly the story of Pictish resistance to the Anglian takeover spread far south.
It needs to be added that the folklore-ish Welsh tales of Arthur have an ancient quality to them are quite different to the "Morte' d'arthur" medeival romance.
In fact the whole tale of pulling a sword from a stone may go back as far as the bronze age. "Who pulls the sword from the stone will be king". I.e "Who can find copper deposits for sword making will be king".

Cynewulf
Sunday, May 24th, 2009, 07:04 PM
It could be that looking for Arthur as a historical character has been the wrong approach. In a very convincing book ĹConcepts of Arthurĺ (Tempus Publishing 2007) the writer, Thomas, Green argues that the earliest Welsh literature mentioning Arthur portray him as a supernatural figure who defends Britain against giants, witches, and an assortment of other demons and creatures. He is often found in the company of (other?) Gods like Lugh and Mabon in his adventures. As a ĹMighty Defenderĺ of Britain he then became ĺhistoricizedĺ into the role of a freedom fighter against the Saxons.

Wodens Day
Wednesday, August 12th, 2009, 10:42 AM
I'm not interested in Aurthur, I'm interested in the Anglo-Saxons.

RedJack
Saturday, August 15th, 2009, 11:25 PM
So why did you click on this thread, then? :P