King Arthur's Britain on BBC 2 tonight

[Erpingham]

Unfortunately for serious Arthurian scholars, we have to acknowledge that Arthur has a popular face, fed by romantic tales, Victorian histories, modern fiction and film and even modern paganism.  Attempts to cash in on this popular side are pretty inevitable (try visiting Glastonbury or Tintagel).  Against that tide, historians and archaeologists have to battle.  Sometimes they colude - I can't be the only one to have visited South Cadbury because of Alcock's "Camelot" connection.  But often they are reduced to trying to grab viewers or readers and give them a shake up, which i suppose the makers of this programme were doing.  It was far too short and narrow in focus to give nuanced view so focussed on "modern archaeology doesn't support the popular view" approach. 

[Imperial Dave]

The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period

[Jim Webster]

The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period

Yes, try and work out what the world was like before seeing if there was an Arthur to fit into it 

[Imperial Dave]

The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period

Yes, try and work out what the world was like before seeing if there was an Arthur to fit into it 

Exactly Jim, its just too messy otherwise. I've spent too many hours going down rabbit holes before discovering other rabbit holes to explore and ending up with a headache. If Arthur did exist (in whatever shape form or flavour) I prefer to parachute him into the timeline rather than build a world around him

[Erpingham]

The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period

While I agree, this won't sell an archaeology programme to a commissioning editor, or a popular book to a publisher.  Even if you take the approach, best to put Arthur on the cover

[Imperial Dave]

The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period

While I agree, this won't sell an archaeology programme to a commissioning editor, or a popular book to a publisher.  Even if you take the approach, best to put Arthur on the cover

or gets lots of money to flow into Tintagel lol ;-)

[Nick Harbud]

It is however a clusterfuck. And reading can be fascinating but also aggrevatingly dry and repetitive. And that's coming from an historian by education.

...but Dux Bellorum is a fun set of rules.   

[Darthvegeta800]

It is however a clusterfuck. And reading can be fascinating but also aggrevatingly dry and repetitive. And that's coming from an historian by education.

...but Dux Bellorum is a fun set of rules.   

It's the one I'll be using or Kings of War Historical.
Probs Dux.

As for Arthur I'll be portraying him as a Romano Brittish Warlord with a more 'disciplined' Late Roman inspired force bulked out with some traditional Welsh looking militia. Probably.

Gave up on Gidlow's "The Reign of Arthur". Not because it was bad.
But simply because i'm tired of the same circular discussions of interpreting and reinterpreting the same archaelogical findings, sources etc.
I'm sticking with my interpretation.
And what 'my' personal Romano Brittish Warlord will be like.
Same with my Early Saxons.

On a sidenote purely for the wargaming aspect I adore "Warhammer Historical's sourcebook on the Age of Arthur".
Very yummie as inspiration for armies, paintschemes and different scenario's.

[Nick Harbud]

I sympathise with your research.  Many years ago I acquired a copy of King Arthur In Legend and History edited by Richard White, which basically examines how Arthur is protrayed in all the various European sources from Nennius up to about 1600, including the German view of Arthur.

Can you believe it?   

This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.

[Darthvegeta800]

I sympathise with your research.  Many years ago I acquired a copy of King Arthur In Legend and History edited by Richard White, which basically examines how Arthur is protrayed in all the various European sources from Nennius up to about 1600, including the German view of Arthur.

Can you believe it?   

This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.

On the plus side gives  a lot of scope for personalizing the wargame experience!

[Imperial Dave]

exactly!

[Patrick Waterson]

This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.

The truth is out there ... being found is of course another matter.  A search by someone without an agenda might be revealing, but someone without an agenda probably would not make the search.

[Darthvegeta800]

This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.

The truth is out there ... being found is of course another matter.  A search by someone without an agenda might be revealing, but someone without an agenda probably would not make the search.

Well the truth might not be out there.

It'll depend on the proof (material and written) that actually still exists.
A lot of our historical knowledge may remain highly flawed about this but also many other topics purely because... we'll never end up the wiser.
A shame so much what was written and constructed is destroyed.

[Imperial Dave]

There are shades of the truth.....it's just what level we are prepared to accept

[Patrick Waterson]

Well the truth might not be out there.

I think a good, thorough dig in the general vicinity of Colchester castle could be quite enlightening.  If possible, extensive ground radar mapping should precede any such effort.

A shame so much what was written and constructed is destroyed.

Seconded.  These 'peacefully infiltrating' Anglo-Saxons have much to answer for ...