• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Reckon There's Truth In King Arthur Legend?

A

Anonymous

Guest
I was wondering if anyone had any ideas about the origins and/or plausibility beyond the King Arthur legends?
 
Briefly a warlord/minor ruler of the Fifth century AD, who led some successful campaigns against the Anglo-Saxons.

There's a list of 12 battles and a couple of entries in chronicles that could refer to the historic figure.

Whoever he was he rapidly acquired a lot of mythological baggage, and his stories were conflated with those of other mythical and legendary figures. Some people suggest that there were actually two Arthurs, but like much about Arthur the evidence is ambiguous or absent and speculation takes its place.

Culhwch and Olwen is one of the earliest literary rather than historic sources.

Useful link to an old (19C) translation of the Mabinogion where the tale is collected:

sacred-texts.com/neu/mab/
Link is dead. The MIA webpage (and its linked sub-sections) can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030621161018/https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mab/

Later romantic elements were added to the tales, and every period has expanded and built on them.

Thomas Malory's Morte d'Arthur (15C) is the greatest and most complete of the English version of the tales.

More later, if other people don't beat me to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It depends what part of the King Arthur stories you are talking about.

The first written version that still survives is Geoffery of Monmouth, who seems to have woven a story around an earlier document (which I have a copy of somewhere, and will post a likn to if I can find it). This earlier document itself seems to be a compilation of lots of other documents, and there is probably a good amount of factual info in it.

When the Romans pissed off and left us to it at the beginning of the 5th century, there were a series of Kings of Britian. The first was Constantine, then his son Constans, then Vortigern, who seems to have been responsible for the deaths of both Constantine and his son. Vortigern brought large numbers of Saxon mercenaries from Germany to defend against raids from the Picts, Irish, and other less friendly Germanic tribes. Around 440, the Saxons rebelled over payment (the money economy had collapsed, and Romanised farmers in the west country were refusing to supply grain) and the Saxons effectively took over the South East of England. Control of the country went first to Vortigern's son, Vortimer, then to Ambrosius Aurelianis, leader of the Pro-Roman British, then to Uther Pendragon.

This story has been trashed by orthodox historians, because a British or possibly Breton soldier called Constantine was declared Emperor of Britain, and soon afterwards was killed. Because his story doesn't square with GOM's Constantine (who ruled for about 15 years and was then assassinated), the whole story has been dismissed. However, if you accept that the two Contantines were different people (it was a very popular name at the time), then the story doesn't seem so daft, and there is actually quite a lot of supporting evidence to suggest that the story is reasonably accurate.

After Ambrosius, the supporting evidence dries up. Part of the problem is that British society was gradually falling apart, and people were pre-occupied with just trying to survive.

What probably happened it that Uther and a Cornish Nobleman called Gorlas started fighting for control. Uther won, and as spoils of war he 'took' Gorlas' wife. Their son grew up to be a warrior, and took the name Arth-Ursus, which is the British & Latin words for "Bear". He commanded the British troops at Baddon, which seems to have been a major battle between the British & English, which he won. The Bear became king, held the British together for a couple of decades, then gradually lost control as his noblemen began fighting amongst themselves.

Since then the story has been re-told, mixed up with loads of old Celtic/British folk tales, re-invented by the Normans as political propoganda (because they reminded the English that they themselves were invaders), re-invented by medieval courtiers, re-invented again by the Victorians, and lampooned by Monty Python.

I'm sure I can supply much more info (it's a bit of a pet subject of mine), but I'm in the office and I'd better get some f***ing work done.
 
Good post Emrys, same here, trying to post from office when I should be working..
 
Thanks for that. Very informative. But I suppose the Holy Grail was prob a Christian addition with the blood of Jesus stuff?? And where do u think Merlin could have come into it? A local druid perhaps?
 
The Holy Grail is probably a medieval addition, but there is something of a homegrown grail legend here - Joseph of Arimathea is supposed to have brought it to Glastonbury, but the legend may only be as old as the addition to the Arthur story. There have been attempts to link it to a celtic Grail or cauldron, but it's highly speculative. I think the clincher is that none of the old stuff mentions it, or even alludes to it.

Merlin is mentioned in GOM's source document (I have it at home, so I'll dig it out & try to post something on Tuesday), and he seems to be some sort of druidic advisor. He first appears as a young man who becomes Vortigern's fortune teller, and was still around as an old man when Arthur was young. He probably got mixed up with Ambrosius Aurelianis, who may have still been around at Baddon as a senior king, and Arthur fighting as a General.

The Round Table is mentioned in the Mabignon, and may refer to a council of Kings set up by the British at the end of the Roman period in an attempt to govern the country.

As with all myths and legends, if you dig deep enough you usually find a true historical story that has suffered re-telling, conflation and deliberate alteration. The bible makes much more sense if it's treated like this.

Anyway, I must get some f***ing work done before my boss puts me over her knee and spanks me.
 
Merlin's story and the powers attributed to him reflect many of the qualities of a celtic sun-god, especially in some of the very old variants on the story.

There was a radio show on the holy grail quite recently (here, in fact) which is very worth listening to. I believe it is not heard of before Chretien De Troyes account of Percival. Aside from the Christian connection, it's role seems to be in some way similar to the cauldron of plenty, which it is often described as deriving from. Of course, there always always needs to be room for creativity as well- never assume that an idea is directly descended from another without good evidence for it. I don't believe the grail found it's way into the Arthurian cycle for a long time after that.

If I recall correctly there are records of a scottish king arthur that fitted some of the historical/legendary accounts quite well. The fact that the stories are associated with Wales and Cornwall particularly, which were also the areas associated with the Brythonic celts does suggest to me that the arthurian stories are probably old stories that came in with them and got the arthurian characters, probably based on a well known leader at the time, dropped in as the previous characters were forgotten. They have survived as the Arthurian cycle because they were the current stories when they started to be written down and thus gained a type of permenance the older oral traditions never attained. All wild and largely uninformed speculation on my part, of course.
 
The High History of the Holy Graal

As Breakfast says there's a possible connection between the Grail and the celtic tales of magic cauldrons.

There's a sort of proto-grail quest in a Welsh Poem of the 9-12th century, preserved in the Llyfr Taliesin (Book of Taliesin), Prieddu Annwn: the Spoils of Annwn, where Arthur and his men sail to Annwn, the Celtic otherworld, for a magic cauldron belonging to the prince of the otherworld.

Cryptic is probably as good a way as any to describe it.

The Spoils of Annwn

I will praise the Lord, the Sovereign, the King of the land,
who has extended his rule over the strand of the world.
Well equipped was the prison of Gwair in Caer Siddi
according to the story of Pwyll and Pryderi.
None before him went to it,
to the heavy blue chain’ it was faithful servant whom it restrained,
and before the spoils of Annwn sadly he sang.
And until Judgement Day our bardic song will last.
Three shiploads of Prydwen we went to it;
except for seven, none returned from Caer Siddi.

I am honored in praise, song is heard
In Caer Pedryfan, four-sided,
my eulogy, from the cauldron it was spoken.
By the breath of nine maidens it was kindled.
The cauldron of the Head of Annwn, what is its custom,
dark about its edge with pearl?
It does not boil a coward’s food; it had not been so destined.
The sword of Lluch Lleawg was raised to it,
and in the hand of Lleminawg it was left.
And before the door of the gate of hell, lanterns burned.
And when we went with Arthur, renowned conflict
except for seven, none returned from Caer Feddwid.

I am honored in praise, song will be heard.
In Caer Pedryfan, island of the strong door,
noon and jet-black are mixed.
Bright wine their drink before their warband.
Three shiploads of Prydwen we went to the sea;
except for seven, non returned from Caer Rigor.

I, lord of learning, do not deserve lowly men.
Beyond Caer Wydr they had not seen Arthur’s valor.
Three score hundred men stood on the wall;
it was difficult to speak with their watchman.
Three shiploads of Prydwen wen went with Arthur;
except for seven, none returned from Caer Goludd.

I do not deserve lowly men, slack their defense.
They do not know what day…,
what hour of the midday God was born,
who…
They do not know the Speckled Ox, thick his headring,
seven score links in his collar.
And when we went with Arthur, disastrous visit,
except for seven, none returned from Caer Fanddwy.

I do not deserve lowly men, slack their attack.
They do not know what day…,
what hour of the midday the lord was born,
what animal they keep, silver its head.
When we went with Arthur, disastrous strife,
except for seven, none returned from Caer Ochren.

Monks crowd together like a choir of whelps
from the battle of lords who will be known.
Is the wind of one path? Is the sea of one water?
Is fire, irresistible tumult, of one spark?

Monks crowd together like a pack of wolves
from the battle of lords who will be known.
They do not know when darkness and dawn separate
or the wind, what is its path, is its onrush,
what does it destroy, what land does it strike?
How many lost saints and how many others?

I will praise the Lord, the Great Prince.
May I not be sad, Christ will endow me
Click to expand...

And a version with the Welsh Text at:
http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/annwn.htm
 
Breakfast said..
If I recall correctly there are records of a scottish king arthur that fitted some of the historical/legendary accounts quite well. The fact that the stories are associated with Wales and Cornwall particularly, which were also the areas associated with the Brythonic celts does suggest to me that the arthurian stories are probably old stories that came in with them and got the arthurian characters, probably based on a well known leader at the time, dropped in as the previous characters were forgotten...


Another possiblilty is that Arthur had bases all over the country, and thats why he's asscociated with places in Scotland, Cornwall, Wales etc.

The Lotian region is very important because of Cunedda.

Magnus Maximus (Masgen Wledig) was a British General who was proclaimed Roman Emperor in the late 380's. He set off to invade Rome, taking his legion, who were based in North Wales, effectively leaving the region without a standing army. A few decades later, Irish pirates had set up bases on Anglesey & the Llyen Peninsula, and were becoming a real problem in Western Britain.

Vortigern was already using Saxon mercenaries to protect the south-east, and needed some way to protect the west against the Irish. The solution seems to have been to relocate Cunedda, a very powerful General from the Lotian area into North Wales.

He settled there, (Gwynedd is named after him) and his sons established kingdoms there after him. Cuneddas standard is thought to have been the Red Dragon that still graces the Welsh flag. Now it's a bit tenuous, but the most powerful of his sons was Enion The Impetuous - in British, Enion Yrth. Pendragon is a title - "Head Dragon", so it's possible that Enion ap Cunedda was actually Yrth Pendragon.

One character who pops up in the Arthurian story is Lot, King of Lothian. If Arthur was the grandson of Cunedda of Lothian, then he would have had very strong dynastic links to the area, and if that's so, could have held his northern military base in what's now Edinburgh, a strategically important site.
 
Just bought "The Keys to Avalon-the true location of Arthur's Kingdom revealed" in a charity shop. I will report back when I've read it. (it appears, from flicking through to place all of the battles and other places[rheged etc.] within Wales)
 
More stuff

I mentioned earlier that there’s a couple of possible historical references to Authur,


Year 72: (probably around 518 CE)

‘Bellum badonis in quo arthur portavit crucem domini nostri jesu christi tribus diebus & tribus noctibus in humeros suos & brittones victores fuerunt.’

‘The Battle of Badon in which Arthur carried the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders for three days and three nights and the Britons were victors.’

Year 93: (539 CE)
Gueith camlann in qua arthur & medraut corruerunt, et a mortalita s in brittannia et in Hibernia fuit

‘The Battle of Camlann in which Arthur and Modred perished, and there was plague in Britain and Island.’

These are from some Easter Annals, sometimes called the Annales Cambrae, which run from the mid 400s to around 950 CE, and were used to record and calculate the date of easter and are annotated in places with significant events. The documents were copied and recopied over the years and though the entries were mainly in Latin there’s the odd old Welsh word in there e.g. Gueith for battle instead of Bellum in the second entry.

Its been argued that these are fictional interpolations, but since all the other entries deal with real people and events, it’s difficult to see why only these two should be considered unrelable.

In the first entry it’s suggested that the original entry may have been in Welsh and the word Welsh word scuit; shield misread as scuid; shoulder, in which case the first entry sounds less of a fantasy and indicates that Arthur had a cross painted on his shield.

Another early source is a Historia Brittonum found in a compilation of documents going back to the 9C (British Museum manuscript Harley 3859, folio 187A) which gives a list of Arthur’s battles and also tells us something about his status.

‘Tunc Arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum redibus sed ipse dux erat bellorum, Primum bellum fuit in ostium fluminis quod dictur glein…’

‘Then Arthur fourght against them in those days with the kings of the Britons but he himself was leader (Duke) of battles .

The first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein

The second third and third and fourth and fifth upon another river which is called Dubglas and is in the district Linnius.

The sixth battle upon the river which is called Bassas. The seventh battle was in the Caledonian wood

The eighth battle was in the Fort Guinnion in which Arthur carried the image of St Mary, ever virgin, on his shoulder and the heathens were turned to flight that day and a greater slaughter was upon them through the virtue of our Lord Jesus Christ and through the virtue of St Mary the Virgin his mother.

The ninth battle was waged in the City of the Legion.

The tenth battle he waged on the shore of the River called Tribruit[i/]

The eleventh took place on the mountain which is called Agned.

The twelth battle was in mount Badon, in which nine hundred an sixty men fell in one day form one charge by Arthur, and no-one overthrew them except himself alone.

And in all battles he stood forth as victor.
Click to expand...


The problems with this list of battles, is that it probably a summary in Latin of an older Welsh poem about battles and that the repeated battles at Dubglas suggest a bit of padding to get up to the magic number 12.

The greater problem is where the battles are supposed to be ‘the City of the Legion’ has been suggested to be Caerleon or Usk, or Chester. ‘Dubglas, ‘dark water’ could be any of dozens of rivers. The Caledonian wood, somewhere in Strathclyde?

There have been numerous books written on the subject as to where these battles are and identification depends on whether you favour a Northern Arthur, a West country Arthur, a peripatetic Arthur, the last of the Romans.….

One interesting point, that’s raised almost as much argument is the description of Arthur as ‘Dux bellorum’ rather than as king. Was he some sort of warlord appointed by the kings and princes, had he revived an old Roman concept, were he and his war band freelance soldiers of fortune?

The fun of it all is that it’s all ambiguous, but one day someone may turn up the final bit of evidence

References:
Leslie Alcock. Arthur’s Britain, history and archeology AD 367-634 Penguin Books, 1971, p20–71

Richard Barker, King Arthur, in legend and history, Cardinal, London; 1973, P14-22

The typos are all my own.
 
Found the name of the document that I was going on about last week. Its called "Jesus College MS LXI", and here is a link

http://www.write-on.co.uk/history/chronicle_of_the_early_britons.htm

This document is popular with the creationist brigade (the website is God-Squad), because it supports their argument that historical documents that don't fit the orthodox/acedemic framework are passed off as myth. They have a point I suppose (Homer's Illiad), but it's probably best not to judge a manuscript by the company it keeps.

A couple of contributors have mentioned books that place Arthur in specifically in Scotland / Wales / Cornwall etc, and there are a lot of those theories about. IMHO, these all support my personal theory that Arthur was a pan-British leader.

The Romans ran all of Britain south of Hadrians wall, and indirectly controlled Southern Scotland with the help of the Votadinii (Lothain) tribe. The migration of part of the Lothians into North Wales, and the drafting of Germanic mercenaries to defend the Eastern shores is evidence of a centralised British command that lasted at least until the Saxon rebellion in the 440's.

In all the 'regional Arthur' books I've read, there seems to be an underlying idea that hairy Celtic savages couldn't possibly have run the whole of Britain after the Romans left, so Arthur must have been Scottish / Welsh / Cornish / Manx / lived in a cave at the bottom of the authours' garden.

In fact, the Romans left behind a network of roads, which meant it would have been easier to get around the country in 450 than it was in 1750.

The other problem with accepting any one of the Regional Arthur theories is that you then need to reject ALL the others. Since none of them seem to hold any more or less water than the others, that suggest either a pan-British Arthur with connections to many British locations, common myths being added to local folklore, or a combination of the two.
 
A case for the historic Arthur was made by Leslie Alcock in his
1971 book, Arthur's Britain. By the time a second edition was
published in 1989, the author conceded that scholarship between
those dates "have largely undermined the case which I had advanced
for the historic Arthur: indeed some scholars would claim that they
have destroyed that case completely."

That second edition contains a useful Supplementary Bibliography which
attempts to summarize the scholarly state of play in 1987. What
seems certain is that the figure of Arthur remains a potent magnetic
centre around which debates about history and myth continue
to revolve. I think nearly everyone would now concede that any "real"
Arthur would be far removed from the myths.

No doubt scholarship has moved on again greatly since 1987 but nobody
expects the Round Table to be unearthed. :(
 
Here's something I have never heard of before; a theory that says that many of the earliest elements of the Arthurian matter were brought here by Roman soldiers from Scythia:

mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2tf.htm
Link is dead. The MIA webpage can be accessed via the Wayback Machine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20030803001034/https://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2tf.htm

pretty wacky stuff, but well researched.

The only thing I know about the Scythians offhand is that they used to build little tents to inhale marijuana in (according to Herodotus IIRC)
interesting people...

Unfortunately you have to accept that these things will remain mysterious-
there will be no dicovery of Camelot by archaeology, and no Schliemann to prove the old legends true (he was wrong in most respects about Troy anyway).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Figured I'd whack my two cents in.
Yes.
End of two cents

<edit> You know, there are a lot of stories that have been discounted as mere legends simply because they've been told for centuries. I think it's stupid to believe something is false just because there is nothing like it now.
I do believe in faeries, dragons etc. Maybe I'm just a complete child but it's not beacsue of them that I believe in the legends of Arthur. I see it as a legend based in facts that we no longer remember. Long after memories are gone, stories remain. These are what's left of our past. Our ancestors. Our pagan roots. It's our history, we just don't remember it.
 
All I know is that something held up the Saxon invasion for around 50 years in the 5th century. There is a certain amount of evidence that it was a Celtic warlord, possibly in league with any remaining Roman troops in the area, but it's almost certain that his name wasn't Arthur.

There is a distinct possibility that he became known as Arthur, however, which is where the legend comes from.

Arthur wasn't even a name back then. It's actually a conglomeration of the Celtic and Latin words for bear. Just the sought of thing a great war-time leader might be equated with.
 
The Saxons were probably turned back at the battle of Baddon in around 490. This is when Saxon warrior cemeteries dissapear from the archeology in the West Country / Thames Valley, and don't re-appear until the 540's.

A good contender for Baddon is Little Solsbury Hill in Bath. The 'dd' in old British is pronounced like the 'th' in the. If the Saxons had marched west along the Thames Valley (maybe in an attempt to take over the productive farms that were still running on the old Roman villa system, or to split Cornwall / Devon from the rest of the country), then any battle to stop them would have been fought in this area.

Another bit of supporting evidence is that Ambrosius Aurelianis is sometimes credited as the commander of the British forces at Baddon. If, as his name suggests, he was leader of the Roman British (whose culture survived for some time after the Romans themselves pissed off), perhaps he was defending his home patch against the Saxons.

However, Ambrosius was supposed to have been the son of King Constantine, which places his birth no later than 424. He also seems to have fought against Vortimer (Vortigern's son) around 437, which puts his DOB back a little further (depending on how young a commander you can believe the British would accept)

If we take a DOB of 415, and Baddon was about 490, then he'd be 75 years old. Not impossible, but that's quite an age, and he certainly couldn't have been a field commander. Maybe 'The Bear' was a Field Commander.

One reference to Arthur (which I remember, but I'll need to dig out the reference for) says that Arthur fought with the British kings. Two possible interpretations are that either he wasn't British (the Lothains were considered more Pictish than British) or he wasn't a King.
 
I've always been fascinated by the arthur legend and the idea that his real name wasn't arthur after all. geoffrey ashes theory about riothamus seems to me to be quite plausable.

one thing i've always wondered.. whos got the "LEADEN CROSS" that was found in his grave. is it sitting on someones bookshelf somewhere?

in the link posted earlier.. http://camelot.celtic-twilight.com/infopedia/g/glastonbury_grave.htm

it says that a former chancellor of wells had it.
Anyone seem it lately?

Dan
 
I've always thought it possible that Stonehenge may have been the Round Table referred to in the Arthurian legend.
It may well have been a meeting place of kings and chieftains from a time before Arthur, and he may well have used it for a similar purpose. OK, a round table exists in Winchester, but it's not very big.

Stonehenge is ideal as a meeting place for knights and their pages - they don't have to dismount, they just ride straight in. There may well have been a roof of some kind over the top to keep them dry.

Just a wild theory, you understand.
 
Well good old Geoffrey of Monmouth was sure that Merlin had supervised it's construction, wasn't he?
 
welsh (brythonic) was spoken in the straithclyde area so that might suggest why arthur is also known there
 
melf said:
welsh (brythonic) was spoken in the straithclyde area so that might suggest why arthur is also known there
Click to expand...
Easier, and faster, getting around the coast of Britain by boat, rather than by land, in those days. ;)
 
Mythopoeika said:
I've always thought it possible that Stonehenge may have been the Round Table referred to in the Arthurian legend.
It may well have been a meeting place of kings and chieftains from a time before Arthur, and he may well have used it for a similar purpose. OK, a round table exists in Winchester, but it's not very big.

Stonehenge is ideal as a meeting place for knights and their pages - they don't have to dismount, they just ride straight in. There may well have been a roof of some kind over the top to keep them dry.

Just a wild theory, you understand.
Click to expand...
There's certainly a good possibility that some of these big, megalithic sites were built on important crossing points of ancient (truly ancient) trading routes, meeting points that reached across millenia, from the earliest days of mesolithic hunter gatherers, right up to near historic times.

There may have been many changes of use and function, but the very proximity of these sites to the most geographically accessible routes ensured their continuing importance.

The trouble is that some myths and legends may have become so fractured, and splintered, over time, that it's like looking into shards of mirror glass.
 
A question about the Arthur Burial

At this site previously linked, it seems to be saying that the inscription on either Arthurs grave or the lead cross they have an etching of is translated 5 ways:

"Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the isle of Avalon"
"Here lies buried the famous King Arthur with Guinevere his second wife in the isle of Avalon"
"Here lies interred in the isle of Avalon the renowned King Arthur"
"Here lies Arthur, the famous King, in the isle of Avalon"
"Here lies buried the famous King Arthur with Guinevere his fortunate wife in the isle of Avalon"


But if they have the actual etching (reprinted on the above page) shouldn't it have a single translation? And if the 5 mismatched inscriptions are about another portion of the grave (the tombstone?) then what can that etching tell us about when it was made & what's it's translation? Does it support an authentic script from a particular time or does it indicate hoax?
 
Hello Mythopoeika,

I too associated STONEHENGE with King Arthur and the Round table, mainly because many of the accounts I read regarding King Arthur, always spoke of his immense size. Supposedly he was a giant. So, in context with STONEHENGE that would make sense, seeing as, perhaps the KNIGHTS were immense in size too, being highly compatible with the size of STONEHENGE.
Just a thought.


WW
 
Well, as for Arthur being a giant, IIRC in Welsh folklore he's actually a dwarf. Who rides a boar.
 
Also sometimes a giant, though. Arthur's stone on Cefn Bryn on the Gower is a stone from his shoe, and that is a very large burial chamber cap.

I was reading "Sword at Sunset" by Rosemary Sutcliff the other day, which is a brilliant fictional account of a possible historical arthur.

I was also looking at the legends of Charlemagne and wondering to what degree they influenced the chivalric arthurian accounts, or how they grew up together.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Re: More stuff

Timble said:
The greater problem is where the battles are supposed to be ‘the City of the Legion’ has been suggested to be Caerleon or Usk, or Chester. ‘ Dubglas, ‘dark water’ could be any of dozens of rivers. The Caledonian wood, somewhere in Strathclyde?
Click to expand...

sorry to be pedantic timble

but

"dubglas" trans'd. would be "black blue" or "dark blue"

which might confuse things even more, in locating the right river.

[edit] ‘Dubglas, ‘dark water’ would be written as "dubdwr"

this is a very tenious link(?)but "dubdwr" could be read as "black pool" [edit]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top