I just happened to cross

[Epona]

Originally posted by 250: the king arthur isn't real???? you kidding me. people can fiction heros, fiction mages, fiction dragons, but how can one fiction a king? especially it is tales of Europe. it wouldn't spread out if the king is "fictioned" there must be some background to it. and I believe there is a real king which king arthur is dedicated to.

There may have been a LOCAL warlord called Arthur, on which part of the legend is based. There is no hard evidence for this. At the time Arthur was supposed to rule (6th Century AD) there WAS NO ENGLAND. So there could have been no King of England. England at this time was made up of small local 'kingdoms' which were not under centralised rule. Northumbria was for example an area under local rule.

BTW, I'm an archaeologist who specialises in Roman and Early Medieval Britain. I'm not saying that you can't have a different viewpoint to me, of course you can, but I can assure you that I DO know what I'm talking about. You have picked my specialist subject.

Also, the reason so many people know about the story is that Malory's book is widely published around the world, and WALT DISNEY made a cartoon which was loosely based on the book which was shown worldwide.

Hope this clarifies things.

------------------

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

[250]

King Arthur ruled after the Dark Age began.


Rome first came to Britan in the late republican period, thereafter, Roman empire Gaius Julius Caesar orginazied another raid over the Briton until British king was captured. However, Britan was not a Rome province until 1st century AD.

Later, Rome faced invasions of germanic tribes on its west. that left Briton faced new dangers from tribes such as Jutes, Angles and Saxon

(i forgot the time) eventually, Saxon set its foot on Briton, doing a lot of damage before it was driven out by a rome general.

When Rome fell, the Dark Age began. Many germanic empires sprout all over the western europe, and that left Briton facing the constant invasion.

Then, a decisive battle happened at Mont Badon led by a warlord. Briton defeated Saxon once for all. There was Welsih historian recorded this battle, mentioned the leader was King Arthur...

and the history goes on...

[Sorcerer Dave]

Fact: There was a King called Auther in Wales. I am not sure of the time period. He had a small band of Nights with him. However he used gurila tactics to take on his enemys. It is beleved that this may have been the King Auther of Legend.

Fiction Info: Merlin Aged Backwards.

[Jimbo]

http://www.britannia.com/history/h12.html

Here is a link I have its got alot of what Epona mentioned, and some links from there. Epona can comment on how accurate it is better than I ever can, but basically its like the taking of a person in your culture, and as time goes on we tend to make them super heros. I can talk about how Rogers Rangers from the French and Indian war was incredible, I can talk about what is imperical data that we do know about him.

Basically Arthur might have been a King of early Britian, and he might have had a celtic adviser named Merlin, but we do not know for sure. Plus the ledgends do say that Merlin was a spawn of a devil (what ever a sucubus is), and so was his sister. Heck one of the wild things was that Merlin was sudecued by his sister, and they had a son who lead the revolt against Arthur. That is consider largely fiction. Arhtur can be consider an Epic story in the vein of Beuwolf, he is a hero, he might have been, he has a journey to get somewhere, something happens, and then the journey back (in a nut shell, I know you english and literay majors will rip it apart ).

Another set of ledgens of English, would be Ivanhoe, King Richard, and Robin Hood. Those are great tales of what could of happened with people we did know to exsist (well we know King Richard did).

Good reading to you.

------------------
Drink and be merry
Jimbo
"Renegade, Rebel, and Rogue"

[250]

there was, in fact a king of Britan named Arthur ruled in the beginning of Dark Age. though, if he was the warlord won the battle of Mont Badon, I do not know. gosh, I am tired

[Melusine]

Epona, thanks for those posts! My fingers were just itching when I read the first post, but you took all need for an answer out of my hands with your accurate and expert post!
I get to read quite a lot of the research on the subject as well in my study of English Literature. BTW Sir Gawaine and The Green Knight is highly recommendable, there are also modern english translations available. (however if anyone is brave enough to read the original text they earn my respect and can always contact me for help with understanding it!)

------------------
Melusine

Your voice is ambrosia

[Epona]

Originally posted by Melusine: Epona, thanks for those posts! My fingers were just itching when I read the first post, but you took all need for an answer out of my hands with your accurate and expert post! I get to read quite a lot of the research on the subject as well in my study of English Literature. BTW Sir Gawaine and The Green Knight is highly recommendable, there are also modern english translations available. (however if anyone is brave enough to read the original text they earn my respect and can always contact me for help with understanding it!)

I have ploughed my way through the Green Knight - with A LOT of help from a basic glossary of terms.

In answer to all the posts about the Dark Ages, the reason it is called the Dark Ages is because we do not know much about it. As I stated in an early post, there MAY have been a warlord called Arthur (you can translate warlord as King if you like - it does mean a slightly different thing though) and this figure appears to be linked with the areas we now know as Wales and Cornwall. As far as Britain, well Britain did not exist in the Dark Ages. The area we now call Britain (which of course comes from the Roman name for the province, Britannia) was largely broken up into areas of local control by about the 6th Century.

So if Arthur was a king/warlord, he was certainly not King of Britain, but was more like a tribal leader.

What Thomas Malory did, was place ancient legends about this warlord, mixed with some French legends, into a much later time period - the 'age of chivalry' with knights in shining armour and damsels in distress, when there WAS a king of England, to create the legend we now know of King Arthur. It is Malory who made the figure of Arthur into King of England. This account was written in 1470.

The reason Malory was so interested in notions of Chivalry, was because he was in prison for committing rape. What he claimed had happened was that he was having an affair with a married woman, which if either of them had admitted to would have resulted in her death. He admitted to rape in order to spare her, which he considered a courtly, chivalrous thing to do.

He was therefore in some way was writing about his own life when he was writing about Lady Guinevere, her marriage to his fictional King Arthur, and her affair with Sir Lancelot, one of the Knights of the Round table (he saw himself as Lancelot).

I really would recommend everyone read this book, it is an excellent story, and what all the films and later novels are based on. That version of King Arthur as king of England has no historical or factual basis though, and is set several centuries after the period of tribal warlord/kings.

I hope that many of you find this as interesting a legend as I do - I am just trying to provide a bit of historical framework to all the possible interpretations.

------------------

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

[Fljotsdale]

The King Arthur/Merlin scenario is virtually pure legend. But great stories! EVERY nation has it's own ancient fictional heroes 'cos we all love a bit of Magic! Specially us! Why else do we play ad&d games, hey?
F.

[Epona]

Originally posted by Fljotsdale: The King Arthur/Merlin scenario is virtually pure legend. But great stories! EVERY nation has it's own ancient fictional heroes 'cos we all love a bit of Magic! Specially us! Why else do we play ad&d games, hey? F.

Absolutely Fljotsdale - I can't think of a single other place where I could actually bring up this subject, let alone have such a cool discussion about it!! And don't get me started on Robin Hood - he's my favorite!

------------------

Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.

[Kellin da Mage]

You do know about Santa Claws right bro?

History tells us that their can't be an Arther, but it can't totally tell us that their was not one. I personally doubt it. After all Arther was supposed to come back in Englands darkest hours of need. I would call WWII about as dark as one can hope to get. If not I really don't want to be around to see worse.

Their proabaly was a great king who, to his people, seemed to be King of the world (after all the world was as far as you could walk in those days). Druids were seen as wizards. It's all possiable. His legend however has grown kinda big. I doubt that even he could live up to it now.

Excaliber (or however you spell it) was said to protect the weilder, makeing him unable to be cut, or killed in battle. Proabaly one of the first magic items. It's what a Holey Avenger is modled from.

I was really bumbed when I found out that there might not be a Robin Hood. He had to be by far my favorite hero. Though I think I would just rob the rich, skip the poor.

O well, the beauity of books is that reguardless of fact or fiction, they can be real somewhere. Even if it was a long time ago.

------------------
--Kellin da Mage--

[This message has been edited by Kellin da Mage (edited 03-16-2001).]