Talk:Historicity of King Arthur

Ideas

Either this article is mislabelled, or it needs more work. At the time of this comment, all it contains are various personages who have been suggested as either the basis of the Arthurian legend or have been identified with Arthur. (This is not to say this information should be removed; it is important in its own right.)

What this article should address is the following:

• Lack of contemporary evidence. Arthur's flourit was between AD 480 & 540, which is not one of the best documented periods of European history. The closest primary sources in time & space -- Gildas' essay, Procopius, Gallic & Hispanic chroniclers -- do not mention him. But Gildas does mention the Battle of Mons Badonicus.

• The historical evidence that does mention Arthur has problems with reliability. Many of the accounts of Arthur were not only written centuries later, but were written with the intent to entertain, not to document events accurately. Further, their importance is limited to proving that there was a folk tradition about Arthur, in which a seed of truth may lie, & disproving the theory that Arthur was created entirely out of thin air by Geoffrey of Monmouth or an unknown a generation or 2 before him.

• What few documents that mention Arthur, & have been defended as sincere attempts to record history, have many of the same problems. And, from off the top of my head, these documents are:
  • Gildas' De Excidio Britanniae -- this does not mention Arthur, but as I noted above mentions the Battle of Mons Badonicus & provides us with many of our few clues about the period.
  • The Historiae Britonum -- which does mention Arthur, & many of the same personages that Geoffrey of Monmouth later writes about, but the date of its composition & the origin of its information has been the subject of a long controversy. David Dumville (who BTW does not believe in Arthur's existence), has done much work in determining the facts of this document's transmission & rewriting -- which is a start. But anyone who uses the information about Arthur from this work must address a number of difficult problems.
  • The Gododdin of Aneirin has a brief mention of Arthur is his early persona of a fierce warlord, not the later wise & benevolent king. However, our single manuscript of this early Welsh poem was written in the 11th or 12th century, so it is possible that this passage is a later interpolation.
  • The Annales Cambriae, which is a chronicle containing events from 445 to 997 has 2 entries mentioning Arthur. The internal evidence suggests that it may have originally been created in the mid to late 8th century, but our earliest manuscript dates from the 12th century.
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which has dates for this period, has no notice of Arthur. However, it has been argued that a scribe's error in compiling the original document may have left out any entries for the period in question; in any case, the fate of one of Arthur's likely contemporaries, Aelle, is unrecorded in the ASC.

• The landmarks associated with Arthur -- Mons Badonicus, Camelot, etc. -- cannot be located with absolute certainty. The local traditions that would help locate them were long forgotten by the time antiquaries took interest in this period.

• Archeological evidence, while valuable in its own right, cannot connect people or names to their findings without inscriptions -- & even then the burden of proving a connection between the two is on the archeologist or scholar making it.

• As a result, there are by far more theories about the historical Arthur than facts; & it does not help matters that some scholars accidentally accept some theories as solid facts. And some scholars too readily value late traditions or records as equal to the earliest, without making a suitable argument to defend their opinion.

As a result, the theories about the historical Arthur boil down to these:

1. A real person, whose accomplishments have been embellished over the centuries, but not otherwise documented by a reliable historian.
2. A real person, whose accomplishments have been embellished over the centuries, but can be identified with a person documented by a reliable historian.
3. A mythological personage that was associated with certain historical events, & became a mere mortal in the retelling.
4. An entirely ficticious personage; none of the events associated with him ever happened.
5. The very real person exactly as described by (pick one or more of the following: Geoffrey of Monmouth, de Beroul, Thomas Malory, etc.)

(The last option IMHO, is the least likely, but many naively hold to it.)

This subject is a very complex one, & I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few flamewars over ths article before it becomes worth nominating as a Featured Article. -- llywrch 18:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I believe you forgot an important possibility: A mythological personage whose mythology was coopted by a real person to further his rise to power. This would be sort of a combination of your #2 and #3. Chuck 20:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch, your arguments seem to be the result of a good research of the subject. Perhaps they could form the basis of an article similar in intent to Historicity of Jesus. Presenting arguments for and against the existance of an at least semi-legendary figure.

But I hope you will find some time to address some counter-arguments.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, but I just stumbled over what you have written. My first question is "Counter-arguments? My point is that the historical material has a lot of problems & can be interpreted in a number of ways." For the record, I could make what I believe is a plausible argument for Arthur's existence -- but haven't offered it because that would be original research. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

1)The given period (480 - 540) is indeed not among the best documented periods of European history. But not exactly a "dark age". As it includes the reigns of at least two celebrated rulers: Clovis I (reigned 481 - 511) and Justinian I (reigned 527 - 565).

Yes, but the historians for this period are not particularly interested in what happens on a cold, damp isle at the ends of the world -- which is how they viewed Britain. Once the curtain of recorded history goes down on the Roman provinces of Britain, it doesn't really rise again until Pope Gregory the Great decides to send missionaries that way. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

2)The "contemporary" would-be sources Gildas and Procopius are somewhat problematic:

• Gildas only mentions his own birth as occuring in the same year as the Battle of Mons Badonicus. He mentions none of the participants.

His reference is not unlike Nick Mason or Bob Marley referencing their own births occuring on the same year/s as the Battle of the Bulge. A passing reference with no detail.

Vortigern Studies] gives the translated text as follows:

"From that time on now the citizens, now the enemy, were victorious ... right up until the year of the siege of Badon Hill, almost the last, not the least, slaughter of the villains, and this the forty-fourth year begins (as I know) with one month already elapsed, which is also [that] of my birth."

And your point is? I'm being frank here: all you have done is explain exactly what is said in this passage. It doesn't mention Arthur, but then why should it? Still, some who argue against Arthur's existence emphasize that he is not named here. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Procopius is mainly interested in the court of Emperor Justinian. He references a reported migration from an apparently overcrowded Britain to desolated northern Gaul. Told to him by a delegation of Franks and Angles c. 553. He mentions the island ruled by three Kings but names none of them. He mentions a King of the Franks but does not name him. Art a time where there were actualy three of them: Childebert I, Clotaire I, Theodebald.

Vortigern Studies] gives the translated text as follows: "Three very populous nations inhabit the Island of Brittia, and one king is set over each of them. And the names of these nations are Angles, Frisians, and Britons who have the same name as the island. So great apparently is the multitude of these peoples that every year in large groups they migrate from there with their women and children and go to the Franks. And they [the Franks] are settling them in what seems to be the more desolate part of their land, and as a result of this they say they are gaining possession of the island. So that not long ago the king of the Franks actually sent some of his friends to the Emperor Justinian in Byzantium, and despatched with them the men of the Angles, claiming that this island [Britain], too, is ruled by him. Such then are the matters concerning the island called Brittia."

Neither author sets to detail the history of Britain during this period. And Procopius gets the name wrong.

So, are you saying that this should be added to the scanty collection of facts about this period? I'll concede that; Wendy Davies has done a fascinating job redeeming the Llandaff Charters, & showing how they could substantially add to this list. The reason I did not mention either of these items was because they do not address the question whether there was an Arthur or not. (FWIW, our article Battle of Mons Badonicus includes this passage from Procopius.) -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

3)The texts interpritated as historical evidence of Arthur indeed date from at least two centuries after his supposed death. But the same probably is true about Hengest and Horsa. This does not proove the texts to be completely false but cast doubt on their accuracy.

Again, my point. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

4)One could argue that few works of ancient and medieval history were written with the intent to "document events accurately".

Herodotus was often unsure of the actual course of events and resolved to offer competing versions for them, presenting his own conclusions at the end. He lists as historical figures Io and Europa. His dialogues between Solon and Croesus seem to be instructions on morality and happiness. Not unlike the intentions of Plutarch. And several tales were apparently included for the sake of entertainment.

Thucydides and Suetonius feature "heroes" in the forms of cunning politicians such as Pericles and Caesar Augustus.

Court historians such as Manetho, Eusebius of Caesarea and Procopius tend to read as propaganda.

Unbiased presentation of events seems a rather modern goal for historians.

Well, I'm not sure how to answer that objection. Most of the ancient historians offer a narrative & descriptions of place & persons that can be read with care to produce a result acceptibly close to what modern historians expect to read. And the various rhetorical touches (& the knack of telling their version of what happened) are well-known & have been taken in consideration for longer than I have been alive. However, to my knowledge few serious historians made up, invented -- lied -- about their subject. IIRC from reading his Histories, Herodotus honestly believed that Io & Europa existed -- or admitted that this was a story he had been told. Thucydides might have glossed over facts that made Pericles look bad, but he did not invent facts to make him look good.

And modern historians write with complete absence of bias; those who say they do are the ones most likely to be the most biassed. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

5) Actually the theories may not be mutualy exclusive. The complex traditions included in the Matter of Britain may equally contain historical traditions, forgeries by nobles claiming descent from figures such as Bors and Morgan le Fay, religious tales of paganism and Christianity alike and naturally the fictions of such worthies as Geoffrey of Monmouth and Thomas Malory. Arthur may be a composite figure rather than a singular historical or fictional character.

A possibility I tried to include with the word "embellished"; but you are right that the poets weren't the only ones embellishing. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

6)Who does seriously believe that any of the romance writers accurately depicted 6th century Britain? User: Dimadick

You'd be surprised. Probably the most surprising example is an article Geoffrey Ashe published in the journal Speculum: a very sober, trustworthy academic journal that has been around forever. The article, for 98% of its content, is a very insightful survey of the evidence for Arthur; the 2% that fails this mark is the last paragraph or two in which he allows himself to be carried off on wings of fancy, arguing that Geoffrey of Monmouth was right, & Arthur did invade France just as he said.

But the others who believe this don't get published in quite as prestigious of journals for very good reasons. Many of them do, on the other hand, have access to the Internet, & are likely to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect their POVs. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Apart from that Joseph of Arimathea myth, what links Glastonbury in any way, shape or form to Avalon before the advent of the Plantagenets' propaganda machine? I doubt there's much that can be described as definitive.

Do we also need to mention all later additions (like the Grail) that distract from the earlier elements which are closer to being genuine; it's an article on the HISTORICITY of Arthur.

And can you explain why you believe this, in a calm manner, citing appropriate sources? -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The main problem I see with Glastonbury is that it comes from a time of dire financial problems for the abbey (fire in 1184, refusal from the king to increase funding because of the Crusades), with an abbot whose main claim to fame while in Fécamp was the discovery of a Holy Blood relic in similar circumstances as he later discovered the fake tombs. Between 1189 (his nomination) and 1191 (the discovery as established by Giraud de Barri), Henry de Sully had plenty of time; it's a period were fake charters flourished in Anglo-Norman monasteries to make them appear older than they were.

On a linguistical point of view, I also have the problem that Avallon is a plausible Brythonic word and that Giraud du Barry didn't seem to believe that it was a corruption from the Welsh when he wrote that thing about it meaning Isle of Glass.

To most of Europe, Arthur's popularity is fairly recent, probably not much earlier than the onset of the Crusades.

I have a problem that the earliest mention of Glastonbury in Arthurian legend comes from a monk of the abbey (the Welsh Caradoc of Llancarfan) by making it the last rest of Gildas and by setting Arthur's rescue of Guenevere from the king of the Somersetae there, therefore presenting it as Frisian land.

I have a problem that this association appears at a time when the house of Anjou is also playing at faking its genealogical tree to seem rooted in the Arthurian legend

I have a problem that mere decades earlier, people were not searching in Glastonbury and Norman chronicles reported that 1) no one knew where he was buried and 2) the Welsh believed he would come back as some sort of saviour, the all of a sudden two Welsh bards appear and tell Henri II that they know where the tomb is and tell him, conveniently at a time where the resistance to Anglo-Norman invasions is increasing (three defeats in the space of a few years)

Now, I mainly use one source (L'Empire des Plantagenets, by Martin Aurell, professor of medieval history at the university of Poitiers), with elements of his 29 pages bibliography. I am also a bit influenced by amateur historian Jean Claude Even, who has one thing going for him: his refutation of the Paimpont myth (he has the problemt that he is an evhemerist to some degree, but by partaking in such an article, we probably all are)

Finally, I got around to typing it. Please, take it also as my objections regarding Fécamp and the like on the other page, at least until I get around to repairing my PC (this is what makes me cranky). D.D.M. Snapdragonfly

The bit about Merlin mentions Myrddin Emrys but dates both Merlins to well after the Arthurian period. This ignores the identification of Emrys with Ambrosius.

Get things moving...

I'm very much in agreement with llywrch. This article should give an account of the various sources for Arthur, and then deconstruct each of them. I don't see a problem keeping all the "might have beens", but if this is an article on historicity it should focus on the sources. Harthacanute 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Praetorian?

"The location of Riothamus’s army was betrayed to the Visigoths by the jealous Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, and Euric defeated him in a battle in Burgundy. Riothamus was last seen retreating near a town called Avallon"

Praetorian prefect? I was under the impression that the Praetorians were disbanded in the 4th century. Fred26 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Praetorian prefect was a civil rank in the late Empire (insofar as there were any civil positions): someone in charge of a praetorian prefecture. Viceroy I suppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Áedán mac Gabráin & Artu(i)r mac Áedáin

I am currently rewriting Áedán mac Gabráin, so I have perused Zeigler's article on Artuir, which struck me being built on rather shaky foundations, but the sections in this article would be improved by following Zeigler. I have also changed to the "normal" orthography for their names, as above. The variants "mac Gabran" and "mac A(ei)dan" are barbarisms, but Artuir is more debatable: if editors prefer Artur then that is a perfectly acceptable form. The date of Artuir mac Áedáin's death is uncertain, but the one source which gives it - the Annals of Tigernach - has 594: "Iugulacio filiorum Aedan .i. Bran & Domungort & Eochaid Fínd & Artur ...". Artuir is also mentioned by Adomnán and is given as a son of Áedán in the Senchus fer n-Alban. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this piece before noticing that there was another piece below dealing with the same figure! D'oh! Anyway you can make use of it as you feel fit....all the information is from the the Legend of King Arthur website and Michael Wood's In Search of Myths and Heroes.

Sorry, but I was dumbfounded at how utterly shoddy, inaccurate and ill-informed this section was. A complete rewrite is imperative. For example, much is made of Columba as the bringer of Christianity to Scotland. a) Christianity was already well established in Scotland for 200 years by the time Columba arrived b) the time and place of the mission of Ninian is surely more relevant c) I am not aware of anyone anywhere else attempting to equate Iona with Avalon. It is worth mentioning the Isle of May in the Firth of Forth if you are looking for northern protoypes for Avalon - an ancient island burial site for the Kings from Manau (Clackmananshire roughly) - c.f. Mannanan, the god who presided over Emain Afallach, the mythological precursor of Avalon. 82.12.121.166 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Artuir, eldest son of Aedan mac Gabrain

The key problem with identifying a historical Arthur is the date and the name. It is generally agreed that all the early sources date the historical Arthur to a time after the end of the British Roman Empire, and before the Angles and the Saxons stabilised their power and begain what is now known as Anglo-Saxon Britain: i.e a period between the 4th and the 6th century. The key problem, thereofore, is that there is only one historical figure (noted in contemporary historical documents) who has the name Arthur (as the name would have been written at the time: Artuir). This is Artuir, the eldest son of Aedan mac Gabrain, King of Dalriada which was a Scottish Gaelic speaking (but probably Christian) Kingdom "between the walls" i.e. located between the Antonine Wall and Hadrian's Wall. This tribe was most active between the end of the 6th century BC and the beginning of the 7th century BC.

Interestingly, this is the same part of Britain that the earliest records of Myrddin (now known as Merlin come from). Moreover, the very earliest references to Arthur's last battle describe it as being at Camlann. Assuming that this is not simply an invented name (and this is of course a possibility) this has been tentatively identified as Camboglanna near Hadrian's Wall. There is also some even more tentative evidence showing that this historical Arthur may have had a sister named Morgen (who became Morgan Le Fay), and even, perhaps, a wife whose name was etymologically related to Guinevere.

The disadvantage of this theory is that one loses almost all the legend. This Arthur did not die fighting the Angles or the Saxons but the Picts. Nor was he King (or even leader) of the Britains: Dalriada was a small Kingdom even by the standards of the day. On the other hand it has been argued that Camelot could be identified with the Roman Fort of Camelon: thereby creating genuine historical analogues for Morgan le fay, Guinevere, Camelot, and possibly Merlin and Mordred.

The vast advantage of this theory is that, to repeat, there is literally only one genuine historical figure from the correct time period who has the name Arthur and it is Arthur of Dalriada. Of course it is likely that over the years, elements from other historical figures (such as Lucius Castus) were added to make up the legend as we have it today. This is the solution to the mystery favoured by Michael Wood in his book "In Search of Myths and Heroes". See also [1].' User:BScotland 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory -- but it is still just one of many possible solutions. Remember, the historical evidence in the period 410-590 is very incomplete for Britain, so basing your argument on the absense of evidence (an argument from silence) is not conclusive. -- llywrch 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is true, of course, but the article overleaf needs clean up (as regards Artuir) and people can feel free to cannibalise what I wrote when they do this. One thing that has to be sorted out, however. According to the website http://www.legendofkingarthur.com there is ONE and ONE ONLY Arthur in this period (i.e. that is represented in more or less contemporary documents). However, other sites claim that this is not correct. Which of these claims is true? If it's not true that the idea that Artuir is 'our' Arthur becomes much less strong. This should be cleared up by someone who knows what they are talking about, I think BScotland, 8th April 2006

It should be pointed out that Dalriada is not "between the walls" as is stated above. The northern wall reaches the sea at Old Kilpatrick (surely a good candidate for "bennaven taburniae") in the territory of the Northern British kingdom of Strathclyde. It should be noted that a Strathclyde Arthur could plausibly have fought Scots though. Strathclyde would have been vulnerable to raids from the north west (Dalriada) by two routes. One is up the Firth of Clyde. The other is via the portage from Loch Long ("the loch of the ships") to Loch Lomond on the Arrochar - Tarbet line. This portage is outflanked by another longer route via Glen Douglas, which is named after the Douglas river. Nennius battle list mentions battles by Douglas water in "Linnuis". Loch Lomond, Glen Douglas etc is in fact in a district called Lennox. The Loch Long end of the Arrochar - Tarbet portage and also Glen Douglas is overlooked by a mountain called Ben Arthur (also known as "the Cobbler"). 82.12.121.166 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I should point out that Artur mac Aedan fell fighting the "Miathi", possibly near their citadel at Dumyat Hill ("the fortress of the Miathi") which overlooks Stirling, and also the river Allan. A bend in the river Allan would be rendered in Gaelic something like "Cam Allan" (sound familiar?). Calling the Miathi Picts is a bit of an over generalisation - the Miathi are attested in Roman sources from around the mid 2nd century CE (Maeatae), over a hundred years before the first use of the word "Pict".82.12.121.166 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Sarmatian connection and Artorius Castus theories

These webpages offer critiques of these theories:

• The Historicity and Historicization of Arthur - in the "Arthur was _originally_ a mythical personage" camp; quite convincing if you ask me. Look in the section "The Origins of Arthur?"

Excerpts:

The main problem with this theory is, however, the 1000 years of silent transmission of these Scythian folktales as central to the Arthurian legend that the authors require us to accept, both in Britain and on the continent -- all the 'Scythian' elements appear in the post-Galfridian works, from Chrétien de Troyes onwards, and some of the most striking apparent parallels between the Arthurian legend and the eastern Batraz story make their very first appearances in Malory's Le Morte Darthur!

...none of the "most important of Arthurian themes" are even hinted at in the reasonably large body of insular Arthurian traditions that we have preserved in Culhwch, Pa gur?, the Triads etc. -- Arthur, as he appears in non-Galfridian [ed. deriving from Geoffrey of Monmouth] tradition, looks like an entirely insular figure with an insular cycle (see Padel, 1994, 1995; Bromwich and Evans, 1992; Ford, 1983; Edel, 1983; etc.) and it is only in post-Galfridian materials that he gains what Littleton and Malcor see as the 'essential elements' of his legend when making him simply Batraz by another name...

• ‘King of the who?’ - a critique of the recent King Arthur film, Linda Malcor and related theories

Excerpts:

She [Malcor] submits that Artorius commanded the Sarmatians in Britain in the late second century. As far as I can tell, the reason for believing this is that Artorius served on the Danube frontier, and was probably involved in dealing with the Sarmatians there. Yet if you look at what she says about his earlier career, she argues that he must have got to know the Sarmatians when he was on the Danube [The author says the Sarmatian recruiting and placement as depicted in the film were totally wrong - well, read the piece], because we know he later took command of them! Can we say 'circular argument', children?

...[Malcor's] second article [ [1] ] is equally circular in its logic, demonstrating that Artorius' life has parallels with Arthur's by reconstructing the Roman's biography from Arthurian sources! She even includes Badon in Artorius' battles, despite the fact that we know this battle took place in the post-Roman period. And I do wonder, if Artorius had such a glorious career, why is it that his name leaves no trace in the historical record, only being known from epigraphy.

Someone should probably read and integrate them into the article; I don't have the time right now. Uthanc 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As some Arthurian literary material passed through Breton hands it may be worth adding a piece on the Alan settlement in Armorica (Brittany) in the Late Roman period. Many counts of Brittany were named Alan, so their impact on Breton culture was not negligible. It is therefore possible that Iranian steppe traditions entered the Arthurian corpus through Alan influence in Brittany not Sarmatian influence within Britain itself.

Urselius 12:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bear of Britain

King Arthur was supposedly referred to by some writers as the Bear of Britain (Mythological basis section) Supposedly? Either a writer did (so the reference can be found) or did not. What's the source? Totnesmartin 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Split?

I think that the bottom section about the Historical basis for other parts of Arthurian legend may do better as a separate article Historical basis for Arthurian legend. This would allow for expansion of the section and better organization, as well as being another step towards removal of the cleanup tag on this article. This article would be a sub article summarized in the newly-created article with a link provided. Wrad 05:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Kuralyov 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about just cutting it? Is there anything there that isn't in List of Arthurian characters, and which deserves to be preserved? Mike Christie (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? List of Arthurian characters does nothing but note whether a character had a historical base. It goes into absolutely no detail at all. You might as well suggest that this entire article get cut because the List of Arthurian characters has Arthur on it. Kuralyov 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the material at the top of the section in this article does need to be preserved somewhere. I do think the table in this article adds very little of value, though; the "Historical basis" column isn't all that informative by itself -- you have to click through in each case, and there's no guarantee that what you see on the other end focuses on the historical basis for that character.

Each of the Arthurian characters in that table has an article, and presumably each article discusses (or should discuss) the historical basis for that character. So a separate article about the historical basis for other Arthurian characters is a duplication. This isn't true for Arthur himself, of course, since there's enough to say about the historical basis for Arthur that a separate article is clearly necessary. But I'm not convinced that we really gain anything by assembling the material about the individual characters into a single article; if you look at the prose material we have now, above the table, it's quite disjointed, because there's very little relationship between the historical information for each character separately.

I'm not suggesting dismissing the information, just that this article isn't the place for it (which I think we agree on) and that we don't gain anything by making a separate article for it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see where this guy comes from. The way the last section is now is really not much more than the list page. It doesn't fit in this article at all. The new article I'm thinking of would be different, it would be a central place to summarize the most significant parts of historical basis for Arthurian legend, not a character by character account. I'm sure there is plenty of literature for it. Wrad 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me; if you have an article in mind with appropriate material, go for it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Llongborth

The Early Welsh poem 'Llongborth,' which describes a battle at a port-settlement mentions Arthur. It also calls him "emperor." The poem is a praise-poem and elegy for a king called Geraint/Gereint (Gerontius), who is often identified with Gereint of Dumnonia. Some reference to this poem would be a useful addition to the early sources section.

Urselius 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant verse from the poem:

In Llongborth I saw Arthur's Heroes who cut with steel. The Emperor, ruler of our labour

The poem is found in The Black Book of Carmarthen, compiled around 1250, from earlier documents. As Yr Gododdin was similarly copied at much the same time, circa 1250, it seems illogical to include the one and not the other. An early date for the poem is supported by the use of the name Llongborth, which means "naval-port," or "port of warships" incorporating part of the Latin term "navis longa" meaning warship.

Urselius 10:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another British emperor

The story of Gerontius the British Magister Militum (Field Marshal) of Constantine III, should be added to the section on emperors. Gerontius was instrumental in securing Gaul for Constantine III, but then rebelled in Spain and elevated his son Maximus to the Imperial throne. After the fall of Gerontius, Maximus seems to have joined one of the barbarian groups in Spain, he might be the same Maximus captured in 422, and executed. If so a British born former Roman Emperor was still alive into the 420s. This Maximus is a sort of mirror image to the earlier emperor, Magnus Maximus was born in Spain and elevated in Britain, the later Maximus seems to have been born in Britain and elevated in Spain.

The name Gerontius as Geraint was popular in Britain in the next few generations and is a name which re-occurs in the royal family of Dumnonia, to which tradition connects King Arthur.

Urselius 08:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Arthur of Scotland?

A great many sights in Scotland bare Arthurian names, many of his ancestors and conntemporaries were from that area of Scotland and north England, (Hen Ogledd. Also, the many Welsh legends of him were actually carried there by northern settlers fleeing from Pictish and Irish incursions. Alistair Moffat in his "Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms" makes a very good case for this, and even locates his "Camelot." He is very realistic, pointing out the many false parts of the legends and relying on historical fact. Perhaps this should be one of the subsections. ---G.T.N. (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting?

This thing's getting pretty big, and there is so much more to be said about each theory. Perhaps we ought to split it up into separate articles, such as one on mythological Arthur and one on historical Arthur, or separate ones for each century and a mythological article. We might even make articles on theories by country of origin. Just a thought. Any ideas? ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Budding is probably better than splitting. Any of the historical Arthur theories could form the basis for new articles provided they are sufficiently verifiable and notable. Some of the more detailed information from this article could then be moved into any new articles. This article does not seem too large to me, so I don't think it's an urgent matter. But if you have a lot of new, well-referenced content about any particular theory, please go ahead an start a new article and link it to this one. Nesbit (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthnou inscription

Taken logically the inscription "Arthnou father of a descendant of Coll" would imply that Arthnou's wife and child were the descendants of Coll, not that Arthnou himself was.

Urselius (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Major Chronicle Annals

What is the Major Chronicle Annals? ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 17:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Arthur was an Irishman/Gael

With regards to the following sentence, "Gildas in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (or On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain) does mention a British king Cuneglasus who had been "charioteer to the bear"; the Brythonic word for bear was "Art"," I'd like to point out that "Art" was an Irish name attested to at least as far back as Art mac Cuinn, supposed High King of Ireland and son of Conn of the Hundred Battles (Cuinn = Conn), known mainly because of his more famous son, Cormac. Arthur is first mentioned by name with the qualification that he was not one of the kings of the Britons but "dux bellorum", their field commander. There certainly were enough Irish to go around: the Ulaidh in modern Galloway, the Ui Echach Cobo on the Isle of Mann, the Dal Riata in Earra Gaidheal (East Gaels), Ath Fodhla (New Ireland), the Ui Bairrche, Strath Eireann (valley of the Irish), Gowrie (from Cenel Gabhrain), Angus (Oengus), the Lemnaig, the Eoghanachta Magh Geirginn in Fortriu, the other Eoghanachta in Ceredigion and Dyfneint (Dumnonia), the Laighn in the Lleyn peninsula, the Feni in Gwynedd (Venedotia), the Deisi in Dyfed and Brycheiniog, and the Ui Liathin in Dyfneint. The place-names from the North I mention were in use at the time of Arthur or shortly thereafter and date from that time.

Of course, in earlier centuries numerous groups from Britain had invaded/settled in Ireland and assimilated: Galenga (Galeoin), Gangani, Ui Baircche (Brigantes), Fir Bolg/Belgae, Fir Domnan (Dumnonii), Fir Manach (Manapii), and three groups of Corieltauvi. Meanwhile, the Picts, or Cruithne, or Pretani, had identifiable tribes (Fineachan, Ui Eachach Cobo, Dal nAraidi, Connaill Muirtheimhne, Cineal Foghartaigh, Loigis, Sogain, and Fothairt) surviving to this day in family names (O’Lynch, MacCartan, MacGenis, O’Mannin, O’More, O’Nolan, O’Doran, O’Lawlor, and O’Dowling, among others); the influence went both ways. (Natty4bumpo) 1503 EDT, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, what I mean is that the historical Arthur may have been the son of one of the colonists from Ireland, rather than Irish-born himself. Consider, for example, the early story of his interaction with Brychan (Briocan, son of the Irish Deisi king of Dyfed) of Brycheiniog. He may have even started out with guerrilla warfare much like the later William Wallace, who was himself not one of the "kings" or lords of his country but rather "Guardian of Scotland", then had better luck with more conventional tactics than the latter did, sort of like Robert the Bruce. Natty4bumpo (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Norma Lorre Goodrich

I'll concede from the beginning that other people may be much better informed than I am on this topic, so I'm fully prepared to be corrected here. However, I am unaware of a historians' consensus on Norma Lorre Goodrich. For that matter, I'm unaware of any real consensus on anything regarding the historicity of King Arthur (hence the nature of this article). If there is a conflict between sources, then both views are given their appropriate weights. If Goodrich is a fringe author or not reliable for some other reason, then I agree she's omitted entirely. I'm not aware that's the case though. Is it? DCB4W (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What I have right now is no where good enough to show that she is not a reliable source, as it is some anonymous quotes I've garnered from Arthurian specialists. I will see if I can find anything better:

I've had occasional meetings with one or another of her students, and they have never gotten over their attachment for Goodrich -- but how anyone could ever believe any of those works under any circumstances is more than I can fathom

: Over the years the questions about and analyses of her work on Arthur has helped me to define the very nature of bad scholarship, as opposed to passable fiction, about King Arthur.

By the way, I would like to congratulate my local Waldenbooks for being one of the few bookstores to put one of her books in the proper section. I saw a copy of her "King Arthur" in the science fiction section -- quite appropriate given that this category does seem to include works of sheer fantasy.

Goodrich is fiction masquerading as fact

Please do. What we'd really need are sources explaining why she's useless, rather than conclusory statements of opinion by people who don't like her work. If one of those specialists uses her as the paradigm of bad scholarship, he should be able to articulate specific reasons for doing so. After all, Margaret Murray has had that title for so long, it'd be a shame to dethrone her for a lesser specimen. :) DCB4W (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the case. dougweller (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile though I'd like you either to give us a page number from the book or remove the reference, as the page number is really required so people can verify it. It is for the sentence "Archaeological studies show that during Arthur's alleged lifetime, the Anglo-Saxon expansions do seem to have been halted for a whole generation", right? WP:PROVEIT says "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."

OK, I tracked down my copy and found the appropriate passages. No need to get snippy. DCB4W (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having done the citation, the hilarious thing is that this is probably the least controversial use of Goodrich imaginable. Little to none of what that footnote points to is her original research. It's essentially her collation of existing data-- times of Saxon occupations of various regions, medieval chronicles, and the like-- that, as far as I can tell, is essentially incontrovertible. There does seem to have been a Saxon setback, particularly in the areas she thinks were in Arthur's theater of operations. Even if the rest of her book is horsefeathers, that section is probably still good information.

I'd still like to know if there is a historical consensus about the rest of the book being horsefeathers, though. It's still worthwhile to know if her basic analysis is sound or not. Much of her book seems to be based on linguistic analysis, and I can see how that could be flagged as hopelessly speculative. (That was one of the critiques I recall of Black Athena, for example.) I also notice a penchant for taking medieval chronicles at face value. Still, she seems to have the credentials to make the attempt, so I am interested to see what the peer reviews look like. DCB4W (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If I seemed snippy, I apologise. It was the end of a long day. That bit has two parts, one is the assumed dates (which is a not uncontroversial), the other is the archaeology. I've had a comment from a medieival historianI don't think I have ever found a single statement in Goodrich's work that I could agree with. And her scholarship is deplorable. But that is again not useful, and I asked him for any reviews that say anything similar (or positive). And as a complete aside, are you aware that John Morri's Arthurian work is not exactly revered among historians? dougweller (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodrich is, I'm afraid, not in any way an acceptable academic reference for anything other than her own theory, and needs to be removed. As requested by Doug on-list, I'll cite from one particularly telling review:

What is surprising is that this book claims to be "the first book to have explored very minutely and in the original languages both the historical and the literary material concerning king Arthur" (p. 325). There is medieval material on Arthur in Latin, Welsh, Irish, Breton, French, German, English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Provengal, Dutch and Old Norse. Professor Goodrich has explored only a fraction of this material. Her examination, far from minute, is uneven and erratic; and far from being first in the field, her work is only one of well over 10,000 items which have appeared since serious study of Arthurian matters began in the last century... The book as a whole is about as reliable as the statement from it just discussed. It is so fundamentally unsound that one would take it as an elaborate joke...

...in order to profit from these resources, one must know how to use them; one must understand the nature of one's material, and be skeptical, rational, methodical and perceptive. Goodrich, like an Orwellian doublethinker, is capable at one moment of casting doubt on the plainest fact, and at the next, of believing the grossest absurdity... For an Arthurian expert, reading this book is a nightmare: familiar details are there, but in the grossest confusion. Even a non-initiate will probably find that the book de- nounces itself by innumerable inconsistencies and logical absurdities. To correct every error would be a tedious task, particularly as the author gives few references, so that the sources of her mis-statements have to be laboriously tracked down. It would also be pointless, since many excellent books on Arthur exist as ready-made refutations. I shall limit myself to a few examples which may warn the intending reader.

At times the reader has to grasp desperately after his own departing sanity, as when the author is attempting to rediscover the castle of Blanchefleur from the Perceval romance... Professor Goodrich's linguistics, however, leave her logic in the shade. She claims to be a specialist on the written texts (p. 27), whose difficulty she greatly exaggerates. Anyone with a good knowledge of Modern French can learn to read Old French within weeks. But one may doubt whether Goodrich is a perfect master even of Modern French, since she apparently thinks that " 'o' = the normal masculine ending in French" (p. 173). In linguistics she is lost. Two astonishing examples will suffice... Professor Goodrich regularly mangles the history, literature, and language both of the Dark Ages (which she does nothing to illuminate) and of the High Middle Ages (which she totally fails to understand). But modem critics fare no better. If they agree (?) with her, they are "brilliant," but if they "disagree" they are insulted...

And so on... This is from Rosemary Morris's review of Goodrich's Arthur book, in the well-regarded and learned journal Albion, 19.3 (1987), pp. 391-3 [Morris is a very highly respected academic, incidentally, and author of such widely-cited works as The Character of King Arthur (1985)]. Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not reassuring. Getting panned in a peer review is not a good sign. In any event, anyone with an appropriate replacement citation is welcome to sub it in. Should we expand this thread to a more general discussion of sources? I'm assuming that's why Dougweller brought up John Morris. (It looks as though the citation to him was added in August of 2007.) DCB4W (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Hrothgar. Someone else found this review which I don't have but is likewise negative, but I don't have it:

"Allen J. Frantzen The American Historical Review, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Jun., 1987), pp. 641-642". dougweller (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use Goodrich. But is as noted the statement attributed to her about the wane in Saxon activity in Britain is not particularly controversial, the same statement could be attributed to any number of sources that are actually reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent addition of text, halt to expansion - & 'during his alleged lifetime'?

I've removed Goodrich, again.

'during his alleged lifetime' begs the question. As someone elsewhere has asked, " What document in

the “traditional cycle of legends” states that Arthur was a “Romano”-British leader? Geoffrey states that King Aldroen reigned in Britain fourth after Conan Meriodoc, which might suggest he was fourth in descent and so the brother to the Constantine in Welsh genealogies who was fourth in descent from Kynan. And Conan/Kynan fought for Magnus Maximus according to Geoffrey and Welsh legend. Does that make Arthur “Romano”?"

And another comment from a practising archaeologist about a possible archaeological scenario:

"In the early fifth century (if not slightly before), the provincial governments of Maxima Caesariensis and Flavia Caesariensis began to employ small numbers of mercenary soldiers, initially in coastal locations, to help with defence against increasing sea-borne raids (by Picts, Scots, even Saxons). In the chaos of the economic collapse of the early decades of the fifth century, urban communities (no longer effectively controlled by whatever remnants of provincial government carried on after the administrative staff had ceased receiving their salaries) also began to employ mercenaries against increasing piracy, now reaching inland, and perhaps even localised civil unrest and a return to Iron Age raiding practices. This takes us up to the 440s. Then we have a revolt of at least some of the mercenaries, followed by a generation or so of warfare. The mercenary communities are successful in expanding the areas they control. Perhaps they invite kinsfolk across from north Germany and Scandinavia. But the archaeological correlate of a greater westward distribution of material culture is largely illusory: instead, it's spreading out from urban centres (Dorchester-on-Thames is the example par excellence) and filling in the gaps. Some of this is accomplished by new settlement but some of it is also accomplished by the uptake of germanic ways of doing things by the indigenes (I happen to think that the majority can be attributed to this, but that's something that will continue to be controversial until we have decent DNA analysis of ancient bone, not modern populations).

By the end of the fifth century, the distribution of this germanic style material culture is virtually at its greatest extent, covering an area east of a line from Dorset to the River Trent and from there up the east side of the Pennines to Lindisfarne. It's effectively the three late Roman provinces of Maxima Caesariensis, Flavia Caesariensis and Britannia Secunda; Britannia Prima is untouched by the new material, as is Valentia (if we can identify this with Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria). What I think we've seen in the east is the slow destruction of the infrastructure of Roman (or sub-Roman) government in these areas and its replacement by a more haphazard, locally based and fragmented tribalism. Two two western provinces maintain their coherence (can we portray Ambrosius Aurelianus as a governor of Britannia Prima and Arthur as his magister militum? I know it's been suggested before).

The 'westward expansion' does not come to an end with the fifth century: instead, the processes by which Britannia Prima and Valentia disappear and fragment are those 'civil wars' described by Gildas. There never was a 'westward expansion': instead it was the replacement of a centralised, Roman provincial government by urban local government, slowly infiltrated by soldiers of germanic descent and their war-bands, creating proto-kingdoms whose origin myths were framed around the heroic, militaristic deeds of ancestors (real or imagined) from continental Europe. The spread of germanic material culture is to do with emulation, as I've said before. "

Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug, just to be clear, all I did today was add back in some stuff that was mass-deleted by a vandal earlier today (the earlier revert took away the new stuff added in its place but didn't restore what had been deleted)... Checking the history, the Goodrich stuff was actually re-added back in late November 2008 "pending consensus", and no-one actually went back and took it out again after the discussion on Goodrich's lack of scholarship which is archived above... :-/ All told, the page is not so great atm, but I personally don't have the time to try and fix it just yet... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)