Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Duncan Head]

Only , Patrick, that there is no evidence for such large armies being involved in Britain.

Except the evidence of our sources ...

Or "later works of historical fiction", as we call them.

Except where they cite earlier sources, e.g. 'The Frensshe Booke'.

Especially then:

By now, critics of Malory know that the statement "the Frensshe book maketh mencyon," is deeply suspicious; indeed, it has become something of a cliché to note that when Malory says "the French book sayeth," often the French book "sayeth" no such thing. But Malory's attempts at misdirection are particularly important in a reading of the Morte Darthur because they emphasize those cruces when the author felt most compelled to alter his source material, and was most concerned about what those changes meant.

- http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2120&context=oa_dissertations

Although Malory cites his "Frensshe book" as the source for what he tells us about the final destination of Lancelot's knights, these details do not appear in his French sources or in any of the English ones either, and he is here trying, as he often does, to conceal his addition of information not in his sources ...

- here

[Imperial Dave]

dipping into Gildas again reminds me of how frustrating he can be. He gives us tantalising info mixed up with a few anachronistic red herrings, some very clear detail and then silence on other stuff (oh that and warbling on about morals etc). Sometime I wonder with Gildas if we get almost as much information about things that he doesnt mention as much as with things he does. As per earlier, he doesnt mention 'Arthur' but does mention Ambrosius in the past and 5 kings in the present. When we refer to 'Arthur' is it because there is the possibility of it being a cognomen that Gildas is silent? Having said that, his five Kings from the present all have potential cognomens in that they can be potentially 'broken down' into component elements.

I am not saying that 'Arthur' (1,2 or 3) is there in the people he does mention but we could reasonably infer that there is at least a possibility. If 'Arthur' existed before Gildas's time (and we have to at least acknowledge there is a possibility that the 'real' Arthur is someone who comes along after Gildas but gets all the good bits attached by the time he is mentioned centuries later) wouldnt it be reasonable to assume he would mention him by name (real or cognomen)? After all he is happy to mention good guys (Ambrosius) and equally bad guys (5 kings, Maximus etc). Or look at it the other way, why wouldnt he mention 'Arthur' somewhere either to illustrate his godliness and virtues or to denigrate him as a heathen or lacking in morals?

[Jim Webster]

Interesting point Holly

So it's possible in Gildas's day that Arthur was just a workaday general, nothing special, kept his nose clean and won the occasional battle but wasn't morally good enough to be a good king or bad enough to be a bad king

[Erpingham]

So it's possible in Gildas's day that Arthur was just a workaday general, nothing special, kept his nose clean and won the occasional battle but wasn't morally good enough to be a good king or bad enough to be a bad king

The logical arguments, if we assume Arthur was around :

1. He was a relatively minor character in Gildas' eyes, neither good enough or bad enough to warrant a mention
2. He was one of the mentioned people under a different name
3. Gildas didn't mention Arthur, despite him being a major figure, because they didn't get on

Of these, there is a tradition of no.3 (something about Gildas' brother) but I would suggest 1 or 2 are more likely.  If 3, why didn't Gildas paint Arthur as the lowest of the low?  He wasn't shy of preaching to the powerful.

[Imperial Dave]

So it's possible in Gildas's day that Arthur was just a workaday general, nothing special, kept his nose clean and won the occasional battle but wasn't morally good enough to be a good king or bad enough to be a bad king

The logical arguments, if we assume Arthur was around :

1. He was a relatively minor character in Gildas' eyes, neither good enough or bad enough to warrant a mention
2. He was one of the mentioned people under a different name
3. Gildas didn't mention Arthur, despite him being a major figure, because they didn't get on

Of these, there is a tradition of no.3 (something about Gildas' brother) but I would suggest 1 or 2 are more likely.  If 3, why didn't Gildas paint Arthur as the lowest of the low?  He wasn't shy of preaching to the powerful.

absolutely...!

if its 1. then that tends (not absolutely but a good way towards) to support the amalgamation theory of 'Arthur' being a composite of different figures who all fought different battles/campaigns in different generations
if it 2. we have narrowed the field down somewhat! It also doesnt exclude the possibility of further amalgamation of others/others battles mind
if its 3. then I suggest he is going against the (his) grain by not painting him is a really bad light. It doesnt fit his 'MO' to coin a phrase and although I would never reject something utterly without compelling evidence I would take Occams razor on this one and say its unlikely

[Imperial Dave]

of course there is a 4th variable ie the true first Arthur comes after Gildas. However, this does seem unlikely as after Gildas (ie late 6th C onwards) there are not very many 'stunning' British victories that could give someone a hero status. That doesnt stop it occuring and of course there is always the chance that if there was an Arthur after Gildas, he could have been 'English'  Very unlikely but it there it is......(another elephant in the room)

[eques]

Huh?

Thought I'd already answered this. 

Twice!

Again, Gildas was writing a political tract, not a school textbook.  Therefore, he wouldn't feel the need to mention information he knew his readers would be familiar with.  He would mention the more contemporary leaders on whom he had decided to concentrate his ire because he had to in order to complain about them.

The reference to Badon was only a passing one.  If I made a passing reference to the Battle of Waterloo in the course of making an argument about something else I wouldn't feel the need to add "which was won by the Duke of Wellington"

Add to this the possibility that Gildas disapproved of Arthur and did not want to ascribe to him an achievement, or that Arthur was Ambrosius, and it is entirely feasible that he would not mention him.

I am not saying this is definitely the case, but it's a completely feasible possibility.

[Erpingham]

Huh?

Thought I'd already answered this. 

Twice!

Well, you obviously answered it to your satisfaction, which is good.  Unfortunately, others are still making their minds up.  Please humour us

[eques]

Huh?

Thought I'd already answered this. 

Twice!

Well, you obviously answered it to your satisfaction, which is good.  Unfortunately, others are still making their minds up.  Please humour us

That's fine, but it was asked as if it was a new question, and without referring back to my previous answers!  Even saying "good points" to someone else, about points I had previously made! 

[eques]

Anyway, by way of example here is a thread from this forum about the Battle of Bannockburn which does not mention Robert the Bruce, (though it does mention Arthur funnily enough!)

http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2454.0

If, in 1500 years' time, a printed version of that thread is all the information anyone has about the Battle of Bannockburn, imagine how confusing and bewildering they would find it.

[Imperial Dave]

sorry Harry,

its my age! 

[Patrick Waterson]

Especially then:

By now, critics of Malory know that the statement "the Frensshe book maketh mencyon," is deeply suspicious; indeed, it has become something of a cliché to note that when Malory says "the French book sayeth," often the French book "sayeth" no such thing. But Malory's attempts at misdirection are particularly important in a reading of the Morte Darthur because they emphasize those cruces when the author felt most compelled to alter his source material, and was most concerned about what those changes meant.

Although Malory cites his "Frensshe book" as the source for what he tells us about the final destination of Lancelot's knights, these details do not appear in his French sources or in any of the English ones either, and he is here trying, as he often does, to conceal his addition of information not in his sources ...

Or rather, that there existed an additional book of which they have no knowledge, which would more easily explain why Malory introduces discordant material at certain junctures.

Again, Gildas was writing a political tract, not a school textbook.  Therefore, he wouldn't feel the need to mention information he knew his readers would be familiar with.  He would mention the more contemporary leaders on whom he had decided to concentrate his ire because he had to in order to complain about them.

And had he not been so keen to jam-pack his diatribe with quotations from scripture, he might have remembered to leave space to mention who was behind the upturn in British fortunes.  But then again, Harry's next point gives us a clue why he might not have done.

Add to this the possibility that Gildas disapproved of Arthur and did not want to ascribe to him an achievement, or that Arthur was Ambrosius, and it is entirely feasible that he would not mention him.

Gildas seems to disapprove of everyone who is not a monk, Hebrew priest or prophet, New Testament apostle or Gildas, so to him 'Arthur' may just be another fundamentally sinful king who, perhaps being dead at the time of writing, would be omitted because he cannot be castigated in person.

When we look at our sources, we need to take account of their world view and perspective.  I think Harry is on the right track here.

[Imperial Dave]

definitely need to take into account Gildas (and others) world view and perspective Patrick. We can at times inadvertently view these things for a 21st C perspective.

re omitting Arthur from castigation because he is dead didnt stop him doing it to Magnus Maximus. This then leads us to a possibility that he  is a minor king/leader and too far removed from Gildas timeframe. This then creates a problem that this possible 'Arthur' isnt the all conquering hero the later writings make him out to be. After all if he won all those battles and stopped the Saxons/Picts/Scots/other internal enemies in their tracks his fame surely should demand a response from Gildas?

If we are to try and assign a reasonable portion of the 'Arthur' fame to an individual then I agree it is most likely Ambrosius. I am not saying it is mind, I am just following the flow of reasoning and how Gildas has reported other individuals

[Patrick Waterson]

re omitting Arthur from castigation because he is dead didnt stop him doing it to Magnus Maximus.

Good point.

This then leads us to a possibility that he  is a minor king/leader and too far removed from Gildas timeframe. This then creates a problem that this possible 'Arthur' isnt the all conquering hero the later writings make him out to be. After all if he won all those battles and stopped the Saxons/Picts/Scots/other internal enemies in their tracks his fame surely should demand a response from Gildas?

In Gildas' preface, he writes:

"... for it is my present purpose to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the field"

This, to me, looks like the true explanation.

[Erpingham]

In Gildas' preface, he writes:

"... for it is my present purpose to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the field"

This, to me, looks like the true explanation.

Fair point.  Combining with Harry's comment about it being too obvious who won the battle, we should expect our proto-Arthur to be a well-known fighter/military leader, rather than one of the generally immoral political figures he likes to lay into.  The later reputation as dux bellorum would fit with this.

As to "Arthur by other names" I am a little surprised no-one has brought up the Geoffrey Ashe theory that equated him to Riothamus.  I'm particularly surprised that Patrick has not hit on this, as it involves yet another large Breton army and a name co-incidence, as Avallon features in the tale.