|
|
|
|
Is there any prof (not legends), but actual prof that King Arthur ever lived? I just watched the movie Arthur and thought it was pretty good. It was a lot better than the ones built around magic and stuff. Oh and dont these guys who make movies know that Excalibre was NOT the sword in the stone, but was forged by magic and given to Arthur by the Lady of the Lake.
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it the film's story was pulled pretty much out of thin air. It supposedly has some historical basis, but it's so free with the source material that it might as well use magic: it wouldn't make it any less accurate.
(Note: I haven't seen the film. This is what I have heard.)
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_basis_for_King_Arthur
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur_%28film%29
Most Hollywood films go through so many rewrites that there's very little left of the original, even if they were supposed to be based on a true story. I can't think of a single film (except for documentaries -- and even documentaries bend the truth, especially when "reconstructing" an event) that depicts actual, true events as they happened. It's called storytelling, and the point of storytelling is to deceive you.
I'll have another look into the subject tomorrow if someone else hasn't posted some greater wisdom.
Deeej
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well there's his round table set up on a wall in a Winchester museum... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
...well, provided that King Arthur was actually Edward I by another name...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's how he managed to keep everybody guessing, David ! ;-D
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ahhhhh, excuse me. Why would you have a table on the wall? wouldnt that be kinda hard to sit around?;-D
I believe in Karma....what you give is what you get returned........
Affirmation........Savage Garden
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Probably to stop people carving their initials into it...
It's nicely decorated, though. That might have something to do with it -- you couldn't see the decoration otherwise.
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brian1407a wrote:
> Ahhhhh, excuse me. Why would you have a table on the wall? wouldnt that be kinda hard to sit around?;-D<
Brian, it's for people who are laid back.
Hugs
Nigel
I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.
…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ahhh an excuse to talk about one of my favourite subjects! wooo cheers!!!
historical evidence.
of what?
was there a KING arthur? probably not... was there a man called arthur who did a lot of heroic deeds... quite possibly...
ok, so here's what we have for fact
the saxon chronicle records a sudden increase in the use of the name Arthur among britons and saxons alike around and after 500AD.
the chronicle also mentions a Battle of Badon Hill (circa 460-500AD) where a combined british army defeated a combined saxon/angle/jute army and slowed the saxon conquests by about 50 years. Aelle, the saxcon leader at that battle was killed. the british leader isn't name, but whats interesting is that the way the chronicle and sources it mentions have described the event, the kings of britain were present, but did not appear to be the overall leader.
those are, alas, the few solid facts we have.
ok, background
if Arthur lived, then the movie King Arthur hit it head on. he wasn't a knight in shining armour, in a stone castle, he was a dark age warrior, probably living sometime in the 5th century. he fought the saxons, and therefore would be romano-british or irish.
the saxons, first led by Aelle (an Aengle) and later by Cerdic and his son Cynric (the first 2 bretwalda's, or High Kings of britain) lanfded in east anglia and kent, and pushed generally north west along the thames valley, annexing all the land east of the thames, and then turning west and north, pushing the britons into cornwall and wales and the far north.
at some point during the 5th century, the above mentioned battle occured. this has been placed in any number of places... but my favourite location is Mount Badon, near Bath.
the kingdom that bore the brunt of the saxon assault until its collpase was Dumnonia, who did indeed have a king called Urthur (the supposed father of Arthur)
this time period is long enough after the roman withdrawal that i'm guessing arthur wasn't a roman. most likely he was a british warrior, and probably a bastard son of the king... but he must also have been an exceptional warrior. its entirely likely that this man, arthur, led the combined british armies at badon Hill, and slowed the saxon invasion.
King Arthur the movie.
some facts they got wrong
if there was ever an important rich roman family EVER living north of the wall, i'll eat my hat.
sarmation knights did indeed serve in britain though...
the woads as depicted were not british celts, but picts, and stayed firmly north of the wall.
Cerdic and his son did not come from the north, but from the south east.
trebuchets in celtic britain? yeah rite...
King Arthur, the medieval Romance
the modern legends of king arthur can be attributed to the fertile imagination of 1 man. Geoffrey of Monmouth. geoff was a semi decent historian living in the 12th century, and road a book about his masters called the Historica Regnum Britannia (History of the Kings of Britain).
in this book he praised the virtues of William I and II and Henry I... but oops, he didn't dare praise the saxon monarchs, or the recently depatrted usurper Stephen, that only left the current monarch, Henry II. he needed more monarchs! so he invented, pretty much out of thin air, King Arthur, and devoted no less than 12 chapters to him. he had sources for arthur other than the saxon chronicle that don't survive today, so the existance of georffrey's work is further proof that Arthur existed...
the french speaking court of england loved every word of it, lapped it up, and Arthur became a popular subjct for bards in all the various french speaking courts in europe... eventually translated into english by Mallory, and sanitised by Tennyson for the sensitive ears of Victoria, the legends of arthur persist to today, but they are just that, legends.
there are of course many many books about King Arthur
however, i strongly recommend Bernard Cornwalls Warlord Trilogy. he's the only author i know to cast arthur as a dark age warrior, and being a writer of historical fiction he does try to be accurate, whilst including as much of the more traditional legends as can be translated into the 5th century britain.
a final note on merlin
the recent movie portrays merlin as some form of tribal elder, which is entirely possible, but merlin is always always associated with magic and carrying a staff and being very wise, and as such, its much more likely that Merlin was a senior Druid (bear in mind that britain was largely pagan, despite christianity's best efforts). druids of course, could perform magic, and curses... but much of their power... as with most early magicians, derived from knowledge and skill more than actual magic.
druids were still around during the time that Arthur would have lived, though they probably weren't a patch on the Druids on pre-roman britain, thanks to the efforts of Seutonius Paulinus.
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
There are several heroes of English folklore who are difficult to pin down in the historical record. Apart from Arthur, Boadicea (or Boudicca), Queen of the Iceni, who rebelled against the Romans, Hereward the Wake, who resisted invaders in East Anglia and Robin Hood, who resisted the Sheriff of Nottingham and pretty well everyone else, are good illustrations of the problem. The balance of probability very strongly suggests that all of these people actually existed, but as their exploits were told and re-told orally they were embellished with the heroic deeds of others. Robin Hood is a good example. There are historical records of two individuals called 'Robert Hode' or 'Robin Hode' (Robin was at that time an affectionate nickname for someone called Robert) who lived in the appropriate area at the appropriate time in the early Thirteenth Century, but there's no hard evidence to support either of them. The various versions of the story usually feature the Sheriff of Nottingham, and locate the outlaw band in Sherwood Forest in Nottinghamshire, but several accounts locate them in Barnsdale Forest in Yorkshire. The probability is that there were two popular heroes, one in each location, but their escapades were merged with the passage of time.
So it is with 'King' Arthur. As Black Prince says, Geoffrey of Monmouth and, later, Alfred, Lord Tennyson, did more to confuse than to clarify. The best that can be said is that legends of King Arthur survived in Cumbria, Wales, Cornwall and Northern France. The legends are different, but they do have similarities. This would strongly suggest that the prototype 'Arthur' lived in the fifth or sixth century, before thes areas were separated from each other by the Anglo-Saxon advance.
The strong probability is that 'Arthur' is a conflation of several British Celtic heroes, but it is almost certain that a single 'Arthur' did exist, although he didn't do all the things subsequently attributed to him.
You pays your money and you takes your choice, but several legends associate 'Arthur' with Carlisle, near the modern Scottish Border. About 18 miles South of Carlisle, near Penrith, there is an Ancient British circular earthwork known as 'Arthur's Round Table'; bearing in mind the fact that we are in the early Dark Ages, this seems an altogether more likely meeting-place than a castle-chamber with a round, wooden table. After all, stone castles were 600 years in the future! 'Camlann', which features in several legends, might well be identified with 'Camboglanna', the name of a fort on the Roman Wall about 10 miles East of Carlisle, and there is a medieval castle in the Eden Valley, about 25 miles upstream from Carlisle, called 'Pendragon Castle'. Uther Pendragon is the reputed father of Arthur, and although the castle was built very much later, it was named to acknowledge a persistent legend that Uther Pendragon's stronghold was in the area. Nine miles north of Carlisle is the village of Arthuret (in Brythonic Celtic, 'Ardderydd'), where Arthur is reputed to have won a major battle. Finally, there is a frequently-recorded folk-legend across the whole Anglo-Scottish Border area that Arthur and his court lie sleeping beneath Sewingshields Crags, on the Roman Wall about half-way between Carlisle and Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and that they will awake when England is in need.
So, on balance, I favour a Northern Arthur - but other choices are available to suit your taste!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i would say both Boudicca and Hereward the Wake are historical facts.....
the romans recorded that Boudicca of the Eceni was defeated at the battle of Watling Street by Proconsul Seutonus Paulinus, governor of Britannia following the sack of Londinium...
Hereward the Wake was a saxon Thain who led an insurgency against the Norman Conquest from the town of Ely, in the Fens in the saxon earldom of East Anglia... there's even a family tree that links Herewards daughter to Hugh de Evermer, and from there to the barons of Bourne, a title that merged with the crown when Margaret Wake, 3rd baroness Wake of Liddell, married Edmond of Woodstock, earl of kent, and passed the title to their only child, Joan of Kent's, Husband, Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales, whose son was Richard II.
The title of "Wake" is believed to be a later addition to his name, probably by the Wake family, who inherited his lands.
Robin Hood is more fictional, with no factual record of either Robin Hood, Robin of Locksley or Robert of Locksley existing. a place does exist called Loxley however, and suggesting the liklihood of robins existance are written sources dating to the 1200s...
whether he acomplished any of what is now sung and told about him is far more questionable, the existance of the man is probably fact though, even if he was merely a law abiding minor nobleman or freeman...
interestingly Spelling "Robin Hood" backwards yields "Dooh Nibor"—a name that describes the reverse of Robin Hood—a government or politician who "stole from the poor to give to the rich."
Odi et amo: quare id faciam, fortasse requiris.
Nescio, set fieri sentio et excrucior
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
|
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
I didn't mean to imply that either Boudicca or Hereward were not historical figures; I merely cited them as examples of individuals whose exploits were embroidered in the oral tradition. Another example would be King Alfred the Great, of cake-burning fame. He was clearly a charismatic leader, an exceptional scholar and a brilliant military tactician, but the oral tradition certainly exaggerated his day-to-day accomplishments. That, after all, is a fundamental characteristic of any oral tradition; tales are told not simply to inform an audience but to entertain them.
As regards Robin Hood, there are - as I said - two surviving references to Robert or Robin Hoods at approximately the 'right' time and place. A Robert Hode fled from the jurisdiction of the King's justices at York in 1225, and a Hood family - including more than one Robert or Robin - is recorded in Wakefield throughout the thirteenth century. There is no specific evidence to link any of them with the figure of legend. However, by no means all of the records of manor and shire courts survive, so the absence of a written reference doesn't imply that he DIDN'T exist.
In his comprehensive review of the evidence ('Robin Hood' published by Thames and Hudson in 1982) Professor James Holt concludes that the stories began in the Wakefield area, centred on Barnsdale Forest, and that Sherwood Forest and the Sheriff of Nottingham, together with several of the 'Merry Men' were later additions dating from the second quarter of the fourteenth century, possibly based upon the exploits of an entirely different person.
On balance, Professor Holt considers that 'It is more likely than not that Robert Hood, outlaw, the original of the story, was a real person.'
The point is, that though he probably existed he is certainly credited with a sizeable portfolio of exploits which had nothing to do with him. And he certainly was not the Earl of Huntingdon, nor of anywhere else. There is no suggestion of his being of noble birth until the sixteenth century.
So, too, with 'King' Arthur. The circumstantial evidence strongly suggests that the original Arthur actually existed, but his elevation to Kingship and many of his exploits are probably later - in some cases, very much later - embellishments of the original tale.
For those of romantic inclination, the series of five books by T. H. (Thomas Hanbury)White, collectively known as 'The Once and Future King', beginning with the children's classic 'The Sword in the Stone' (1937) and ending with 'The Book of Merlyn' (published in 1977, 13 years after the author's death) provides a gripping and readable account of the whole spectrum of the Athurian Legend. But I still reckon he is sleeping at Sewingshields, a mere thirty miles down the road from where I am sitting!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
