King Arthur?

[LEG X EQ]

I dont think Arthur existed. If you believe in Arthur, you believe in Red and Green Dragons, a holy grale, a wizard named Merlin and a stone with a sword stuck in it, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ???

 

Ps: Holy Grale, still is the only thing i kind of believe in, the rest is just fairy tale.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I agree, but I do believe in a Marcus Artorius Castus without the king Arthur stuff associated with him. Hm, the Holy Grail, I believe in it too.

[Primus Pilus]

I dont think Arthur existed. If you believe in Arthur, you believe in Red and Green Dragons, a holy grale, a wizard named Merlin and a stone with a sword stuck in it, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ???

 

Ps: Holy Grale, still is the only thing i kind of believe in, the rest is just fairy tale.

 

Indeed, Le Morte d'Arthur written in the 15th century is the basis for the commonly understood Arthurian legend (based predominantly of course on Geoffrey of Monmouth). I believe it was Mallory's work which introduced such things as Lancelot, Excalibur and the sword in the stone, etc. We can make the assumption that he drew on older texts which in theory have been lost, but its quite obvious that Mallory spun a tale of fiction based partly on legend, partly on old monk texts, and partly on his own imagination. Despite this commonly understood fictional story, it doesn't change the idea that the 'King Arthur' concept came from somewhere.

[longbow]

If you believe in Arthur, you believe in Red and Green Dragons, a holy grale, a wizard named Merlin and a stone with a sword stuck in it, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT ???

No,i dont believe anything Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote,especially the 'Grail' nonsence.In Celtic folk-tales Cauldrons are common,the medieval tales of the search for the 'holy grail' are probably a Christianized re-working of the much older 'cauldron tales.Some of the sources have Arthur down as a enemy of the christians,such as 'life of st padarson' ,in that he (arthur) was supposed to have stolen the saints holy red cloak and Arthur blackmailed him to get the cloak back.In the life of st Carannog's Arthur was supposed to have stolen the saints alter to use as a dinner table.St Cadoc was famous for being an adversary of Arthur and he wrote that Arthur was a thief and a rapist!

Arthurs companions names were changed over the years to become more Christianised so some of the early sources write about characters who dont exist in the later story's,such as, Derfel,Amhar,Loholt,Culhwch,Ceinwyn,Gwenhwyvach,Dinas, Lavaine,Some of the names evolved, Nimue became Vivien,Cei became Kay and Peredur became Perceval.

My point is,Arthur was a Pagan and the new religion of Christianity didnt like pagans,the monks (who did most the writing back then)they wrote there own version of history and changed the true tales to suite there own faith.Merlin,Lancelot and Camelot are historical nonsence,Camelot as a word didnt exist until the 12th century.

IMHO

[rvmaximus]

Perhaps Arthur is real....perhaps not. But it does not seem so unrealistic to me that many Romans stayed in Britain...it has great farm land. So they formed Roamn type fighting methods and easily deafeated Geramnic 'invaders'. So what. Nothing that tough. New evidince looks like that there wasn`t that much germanic blood in Britain compared to Italy. (teeth analysis) In reality much of the Germanic tribe movements seem like that just migrated to destitute areas where they were welcomed,like Rome(rat infested and depopulated late 5th century even). So Arthur was there and handed the Germanics who posed trouble defeats. Most Germanics were blened into the Roman empire and army to be sure anyway. In all honesty small bands of roman/ celt/britons trained in roamn style war fare could easily defeat Germanic tribes. They delt them so many losses throughout the span of the Empire(exception of the Tuetonberg trap...which was a spread out army) in which the Roamns were so heavily outnumbered. So in reality I think the invading Germanics were not in reality inavding that much. Sort of like how history has paintee the Vikings I feel. More show than fight. Remember Caesar even though very little of them...easily deafeating them and basically saying that they looked imposing intially(heavy furs,armore or whatever) but they didn`t have stomach for long fight and ran when wounded. Accounts of Roamn arhers using fleeing Germanics up trees for target prcatice. So I feel Arthur may have deafeated some unruly Geramins (who were not Romanized) and it got magnified in history. So what.

[Valerius]

There are two sources for Arthurian material "the Complaining Book" by Gildas and "History of the British" by Nennius. Gildas was a neo-contemporary of Arthur and probably knew him. However, Arthur was apparently not popular with the early Christian church in Britain and Gildas does not refer to him directly. He talks about "tyrants" and one he describes as "the charioteer of the bear." The bear in latin would be rendered Artorious and it is believed that the king Gildas is describing was a follower of someone called Arthur. Not far from where I live in the West Midlands of England at a place called Atherstone (Arthur's Stone) a stone inscription was recently found which seems to mention Arthur directly. However, curiously enough the stone has been completely ignored by Arthurian scholars in England and, apart from a short article in a magazine, it has not been mentioned since. Several books have been written on the subject but, in my opinion, the best remains "The Quest for Arthur's Britain" edited by Geoffrey Ashe.

Going back to the name Arthur, in Cornwall the constellation of the Great Bear is known as "Arthur's Wain."

[M. Porcius Cato]

The bear in latin would be rendered Artorious

Why? I thought ursus was Latin for bear.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

The bear in latin would be rendered Artorious

Why? I thought ursus was Latin for bear.

Here's a very detailed pdf doc on the origin of Arthurs name and its latin forms, how it relates to bear etc. I believe the "bear" origin had to do with the name of celtic gods which meant bear. Ursus is not a proper noun/name. Just a regular word directly meaning referring to all types of bears, no specification of species.

Link to pdf

[Andrew Dalby]

There are two sources for Arthurian material "the Complaining Book" by Gildas and "History of the British" by Nennius. Gildas was a neo-contemporary of Arthur and probably knew him. However, Arthur was apparently not popular with the early Christian church in Britain and Gildas does not refer to him directly. He talks about "tyrants" and one he describes as "the charioteer of the bear." The bear in latin would be rendered Artorious and it is believed that the king Gildas is describing was a follower of someone called Arthur. Not far from where I live in the West Midlands of England at a place called Atherstone (Arthur's Stone) a stone inscription was recently found which seems to mention Arthur directly. However, curiously enough the stone has been completely ignored by Arthurian scholars in England and, apart from a short article in a magazine, it has not been mentioned since. Several books have been written on the subject but, in my opinion, the best remains "The Quest for Arthur's Britain" edited by Geoffrey Ashe.

Going back to the name Arthur, in Cornwall the constellation of the Great Bear is known as "Arthur's Wain."

 

It might be a bit bold to describe Gildas as a source for Arthurian material, since, as you say, he doesn't name him. Gildas does name a lot of rulers he didn't like one bit, so I don't buy the idea that he didn't name Arthur because he was "apparently not popular with the early Christian church in Britain": I suspect it's a circular argument. The phrase that Gildas uses is auriga currus receptaculi ursus, which in his very British Latin means charioteer of the chariot of the bear's den; and the name of the person so described is given in the next line of the text, it's Cuneglasus, not Arthur.

[Ursus]

As I understand it, Artorious is a corruption of Art-Ursus, Art being an old Celtic word for bear and Ursus being the Latin. The combined Celtic-Latin would make sense for a Celto-Roman warlord who was dubbed "the bear of Brittania."

[phil25]

OK, Arthur...

 

Sorry if i haven't read every post in this thread, forgive me if i repeat anything. But this is my take on Arthur.

 

Someone like Arthur, if not of that name, almost certainly existed in the years around 500AD. Someone or something held up the saxon advance for a period - the likelihood is that the event which did so was the battle of Badon, and that its victor was the original "Arthur". Now that individual may have been Aurelius Ambrosius misremembered, or a successor to that gentleman - whomever he was, was probably not a king but a general serving minor kings, perhas a successor to the Roman officer titled Dux Brittaniorum.

 

He would not have commanded legions of auxiliaries. The legions as fondly remembered were long gone and their form had changed from the classic type represented by (say) the famous IX Hispana. Nor did they leave Britain on a certain day in 410AD. They were drawn away slowly by imperial adventurers like Magnus Maximus (c383AD) remembered in Britain as Macsen Wledig. Those "auxiliaries remaining were by that time local inhabitants, perhaps descendents of the foreign levies brought in during the 300s, but now resident on the Wall and elsewhere.

 

Arthur's force may have been mounted and may have retained some Roman tactics and training. Above and beyond all they were fighting for the Celtic/Romano-British tribes.

 

Cadbury Castle (actually an iron age ring fort) and Wroxeter were both resored around this time - the latter may have been the capital of the overlord known to history as Vortigern (maybe his name was Vitalinus); and may have been re-used by "Arthur".

 

Following the withdrawl of Rome, the old celtic tribes were restored to power. These had never gone away and their "civitas" or territories, had survived within the Roman province. Their aristocracies now took over power. Now it is even possible that the Romans did not withdraw but that the imperial administration was expelled (circa 400) by the Britons, who then took power to themselves. There was a history of British "emperors" including Allectus, and the family of Amrosius may have originated from one of these (his father and mother were stated to have "worn the purple".

 

We do not know whether Mordred (more properly Medraut) was an ally or an enemy of Arthur. the chronices merely say that they both fell at the battle of Camlann.

 

Arthur was probably Christian (sources speak of him carrying the cross - probably painted on his sheild - at Badon). Notwithstanding that, he appears to have offended early Christian writers who do not mention his name. Maybe he was a pelasgian "heretic" or his deeds brushed them up the wrong way.

 

I have no doubt that Arthur was not invented out of whole cloth. He existed and won Badon. I am unconvinced that he was a myth made real; an iron age figure; or that he was many men - though I do think the deeds of others from around his time have have gradually merged with his and been attributed to him. I don't think he fought twelve battles; but he won the key won, on that I am clear. neither am I convinced that he was some Welsh kinglet such as Owain Dantgwen, whose deeds have been magnified. Arthur was a key figure at a key time on the national stage. Everything points to that/

 

Of course, he sleeps now, ready to return to save God's favoured nation in its hour of need.

 

Phil

[Neos Dionysos]

Of course, he sleeps now, ready to return to save God's favoured nation in its hour of need.

 

Reading that reminded me of the story of Constantine XI, who is considered the Immortal Emperor and who will one day rise again to throw out the Turks from his city and refound his empire in God's name.

 

On Arthur... I beleive he existed in a sense. Meaning, he was a hero in a time of darkness when Rome was no longer around and where all over Europe we have this sense of depression, or forbodding sense of existance. A hero of legend to call upon needed to be had, and so, the writers of the story tell us of this 'Arthur' who was the true inspiration, in actually as some have already stated he was probably just a Roman blooded, (I am of the belief he was not pure Britain), man born into a ruling family and assembled what remainded of the native auxilias and fought to save the Romano-Briton culture and society that was created by Roman occupation from the Saxons.