http://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=honors
a bit superficial in places and quite rambling but an interesting piece none the less
I can see why historians have a problem with discussing the myth because it sort of makes it real.
One of the big objections to Arthur is that the appearance of the name in Nennius is so many centuries later and sources more likely coeval with him mention him not.
There is a reasonable case thatthe Saxons are clearly held back for 50 years and someone must have led at least some of that resistance because the Saxons are penned back, not just held and that someone might as well be Arthur...or Ambrosius, but if we parallel the story of the pist Roman Britons with. the last gasp of Empire and the repkacement by British kingdoms under kings with a sirt of Bretwalda figure then Ambrosius can lead the resistant civitates and Arthur, the fightback by Celtic kingdoms when the Civitates fall.
Roy
I have lately become intrigued by the tradition that Mordred was Arthur's nephew by his sister as this was historically a very strong relationship in Celtic societies. This was because a sister's son would pursue his political ambitions among his paternal kin and therefore could be trusted not to attempt to usurp his maternal uncle and also might grow into a useful external ally. I have no idea when the tradition originated but it reflects a political reality.
Interesting to see Cockburn quoted, one of the last practising journalists.
Arthur is the proverbial jelly, Britain the wall, written sources the nail and Athuriana buffs the hammer
it IS interesting.....just not sure Arthur exists per se
I'm ready to go with Arthur the Soldier beyond that I'm still thinking.
I am not even sure Arthur was 'British' ;)
Quote from: Holly on June 29, 2017, 08:38:01 PM
I am not even sure Arthur was 'British' ;)
Given that a high proportion of soldiers might 'self identify' as 'Roman' or 'German*' there's no reason why he should be ;)
* replace German with ethnic modifier of choice
Quote from: Holly on June 29, 2017, 04:50:43 PM
Arthur is the proverbial jelly, Britain the wall, written sources the nail and Athuriana buffs the hammer
it IS interesting.....just not sure Arthur exists per se
As we have said before, if Arthur didn't exist, we'd need to invent him. The limited evidence we have points to the British (or Westerners) firming up their defence and checking the Germanic (Easterners) advance. Given the nature of societies we are dealing with, this is unlikely to have been a people's committee for the prosecution of the war. The question then becomes whether your "Arthur" is a political person, welding a number of interest groups into an effective alliance, or whether he is just a war-leader, commanding the forces this alliance generates. As Jim points out, he doesn't have to be ethnically British.
The downside of calling this figure Arthur is the baggage that comes with it, both the later romance but the temptation to overstretch our sources to flesh out Arthur's career.
From what we have he was not a polito, no where is he called wledig although the mention in Geraint filius Erbin could be considered.
In the early references he is always a military exemplar and he clearly has a formidable following, he raised and made gifts of horses which seems to have been required behavior.
The battle list causes me no difficulty as a likely career.
He may not have been British but if he was not future generations didn't feel the need to edit him out as happened to the Anglian/half Anglian hero in the Gododdin.
Quote from: Anton on June 30, 2017, 02:33:45 PM
From what we have he was not a polito, no where is he called wledig although the mention in Geraint filius Erbin could be considered.
In the early references he is always a military exemplar and he clearly has a formidable following, he raised and made gifts of horses which seems to have been required behavior.
I must admit my feel for ur-Arthur is on the warlord side, so glad your greater knowledge also leads you in that direction.
Quote
The battle list causes me no difficulty as a likely career.
It wasn't the battle list so much as bringing in later medieval material. And, for that matter, too much of the later Welsh legendary stuff.
Quote
He may not have been British but if he was not future generations didn't feel the need to edit him out as happened to the Anglian/half Anglian hero in the Gododdin.
Interesting. Arthur would have been earlier, of course, and perhaps in a more identity-fluid time? He would obviously have identified with the "British" cause though, wherever he was actually born or where his parents came from.
warleader....yes probably on balance
Arthur...a title rather than a name per se (so that helps us fit him to any number of personages!)
nationality...the Irish in me shouts out that although a longshot he could be Irish but I really do feel he wasnt 'Welsh'/British as such ethnically. Wouldnt it be a bit of a laugh if he was in fact 'English' from an ethnic point of view? ;D
for those interested, here is a link to an article of the veritable Dr Green on a possible linkage of 'Arthur' with the Roman/British deity of Mars/Alator
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:d64323b9-f85b-48d0-b162-fa96d050554a
Dave, why do you feel Arthur was not Welsh/ British?
Roy
I am not even sure he existed but if he did then the main character I would possibly go for is Ambrosius Aurelanus but failing that an Irish warlord 'from Wales'
In support of the Irish War Lord from Wales possibility, there is the fact that Arthur became a popular name with Gaelic dynasties in pretty much the right time frame. Against it, is, that so far as I know no Irish polity claims him in the relentless clerical and bardic propaganda of the age.
I suspect he was British and probably from a lowland people. The "Whelps of mighty Arthur" comparison might support that-or might not.
I've mentioned it before, but Dark's "A Famous Arthur in the Sixth Century?" (https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/GCMS/RMS-2000-04_K._Dark,_A_Famous_Arthur_in_the_Sixth_Century.pdf) article sets out the possible Irish connection.
Thanks Duncan that was a good read, I'd not seen it before.
yes thank you Duncan. Ken Dark is possibly my favourite historian at the minute and does come up with some in depth and thoughtful proposals that are a little left of centre to 'the norm'
Now I want to read Charles-Edwards The Arthur of History referred to in the foot notes.
https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/documents/Arthur.pdf
Reading that its interesting how far we have come in twenty years.
agreed...
so in another 20 years will we see enough 'new information' to change again? I suspect little from picking over the bones of written sources so its the bucket and spade brigade that will possible enhance our enlightenment going forward...
If I'm still here in 20 years I'll be delighted! I suppose there is a slim chance of new texts turning up and and a few more multi disciplinary scholars like Koch would do no harm at all in respect of what we do have.
All in all though I suspect you are right, its the bucket and spade brigade you might bring us more.
Mind you, Storr's military engineering insights were food for thought.
Quote from: Anton on July 03, 2017, 03:57:40 PM
If I'm still here in 20 years I'll be delighted! I suppose there is a slim chance of new texts turning up and and a few more multi disciplinary scholars like Koch would do no harm at all in respect of what we do have.
All in all though I suspect you are right, its the bucket and spade brigade you might bring us more.
Mind you, Storr's military engineering insights were food for thought.
agreed Stephen, his insights are very fresh and he does use his expertise well in a field (no pun) where others havent really spent any time at all
been reading August Hunt's "The Bear King" and although it jumps around a bit, it does also support the 'Irish connection' and I am leaning towards that somewhat now......such is the life of the Arthuriana enthusiast :)
How can you possibly look further than the he was king of Edessa and Jesus theory? :-[
no comment :P