MovieChat Forums > The Mists of Avalon (2001) Discussion > King Arthur in actual history

King Arthur in actual history


So, I have a question about King Arthur. I read TMOA over the summer and wanted to learn more about the real King Arthur. However, after doing some research, I came across various internet sites saying that the original King Arthur (the one from actual history; not from the movie or the book) did not even exist but was based upon another king who ruled during the Middle Ages. So, my question is: does anyone know of any good websites and/or books that could clear this up for me? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


Sir! Is that a coded reference to the mythical dangers of self-abuse?

reply

Oh Goddess yes.
The internet Medieval Sourcebook has some very good primary source postings about the Arthuriana Period. Look for Gildas-De Exicido Et Conquestu de Britanniae, Nennius- Historia Brittionium, and the Annales Cambriae.

Good books are Christopher Hibbard-The Way of King Arthur
Richard Barber-Arthur of Albion
Richard Morris-Age of Arthur
Lesile Alcock- something about Arthurian archeology
The Samartian Connection?
Sorry for the abstruseness for the last two. You see, I wrote a paper about the historical King Arthur, and since I do not have access to my source page right now, am doing this all from a memory of which this information is already a year old. However, I could also give you a sketch of my thesis and paper.

When the Romans left Britian, he left her pretty much in a shambles and unable to protect herself against Picts and Celts, so the High King Vortigern---in the mid 400s---sent for the Saxons to act as mercenaries assuming, that they would leave soon after. The Saxons did not. It took an old Romanized Brition named Ambriosius Arealanus (sorry for the spelling) to defeat them. According to Gildas, he was the one whose family "wore the purple"---in other words, was noble Romans. Then in the Battle of Badon Hill in the year 500 according to Gildas (because as he is writing this in the year 540 and is the same year as his own conception and he is about 40, so do the math), the Saxons are defeated but by whom did the Britions get led by? Gildas is ambiguous. My theory is that Gildas is too biased and pro-Roman and Anti-Tribesman (any tribesman) for his own good, so when a Britonic chieftain and not a Roman nobleman defeats the Saxons, he is so humiliated that he "neglects" to mention it. However, Nennius and the Annales Cambriae mention that Arthur was the defeator of the Saxons at Badon and led many other Battles against the Saxons and the Picts. The presence of Arthur is even strenghtened by the increase of boys named Arthur at the time, and by the reference that a certain warrior was not as strong as Arthur in a poem called the Y Goddodin by Aneirn the Bard. Which could mean that Arthur was real.

The sources that you may be reading may be that it supports a long standing theory of pro-Gildasers (of which I am not), which states that Ambrosius is the basis for Arthur. The reason for this is Gildas is the earliest (the straight from the "horse's mouth" source) so that his word must be law. However, this is logically unsound because the stories then should be Ambrosius and the Knights of the Round Table. Or you may have heard the Riothamus theory; well Riothamus just means high king---the king had to have a name now. Therefore, logically there has to be a real Arthur.

Now he was probably not King Arthur in what we see as king. He may have been a Britonic Chieftain that was also a dux bellorum or "high lord of wars." Therefore he is a ruler just not with the stone castle or even a round table. And the Guenivere and Lancelot thing, forget it centuries later and much removed from the orginal source material. The only knights that may be real are Kay, Bors, and Gawain. The only other characters are Merlin (though it is still debateable whether or not he or Arthur actually knew each other) and Mordred. Sorry to burst bubbles.

reply

Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you very much Azna! You are my new hero!! Good luck with your thesis paper, I hope it goes well. I'll be sending you good vibes your way.

Sir! Is that a coded reference to the mythical dangers of self-abuse?

reply

[deleted]

You forgot to mention one thing - There was also the 'Artorious' debate over whether 'Arthur' was just the britianized version of the roman name, such as with the 'Samatian' legends, or if 'Artorious' is the Romans name change, if you will, so that he could be more identifiable to the roman people, or even to help claim that he WAS Roman.
The ancient epic poem "The Spoils of Annwyn", (pronounced Anoon) speak of Arthur, and describes him of both Roman and British decent. The author of this poem is unknown, but historians believe this poem to be circulated during the time, or shortly after the 'Real Arthur' existed.


And about Merlin - There is a connection suggested between the Jews and the Britains. It is said that Merlin was a direct decedent of the Biblical Aaron, first priest of Israel when they were led out of Egypt. Now, the Levites were given special privileges with God, and were a specifically blessed people. Merlin, in these stories, is supposed to possess Aaron's staff, the wisdom of God, and the blessings that God bestowed on his people.
The Reason they say this is, that when many of the Jews were scattered (one of those many, many time :D) they left for Greece. Although some, most being Levites who fled to that area, decided to wait for their return back to Israel, many decided to stay, and settle. When they were given to chance to 1) start a new life in a bountiful land or 2)take a journey for profit on a trading ship, that they came to Britain. The only things that really support this though is Herbert Armstrong's "Anglo-Judaism" (research him on google.)

There are MANY MANY more legends about Arthur, the round table, the truth of ANYTHING associated with the legends.

But you know, when you boil it down, there is only one 'FACT' in the whole Arthurian Legends. Only 1 thing that most historians agree on.
That Arthur existed. In one form or another, whether a Roman, a Britain, or both--in one time frame a certain Arthur, or various men who were combined and given the 'noble, catchy' name of Arthur (Bear combined w/ man), existed.
That's it.
Everything else can go on the myths section. Only that, can sit on the shelf of FACT.

reply

actually the poem of Annwn was written in medieval times, a welsh poem. By that account you're suggesting that arthur was a medieval king which would coincide with mallory's account of the king. This, however, is simply just not true.
When one reads mallory's books one can't help but notice that it's a complete metaphor. This being that each knight and even the king himself represent something in each of us.
I.E. Gawain the chaste, Lancelot the brave... all qualities in mankind which show us that to attain that certain something we HAVE to go through strife.
It's almost like reading the bible... alot of teachings through parable, alot of metaphorical teaching.
If arthur did exsist it wouldnt be the hollywood arthur, that was created in medieval times to basically keep people in check.
you see?

reply

The name Arthur is of Briton origin fact there is evidence of it's basic Root origin present before Roman contact with Britain even started.


if anything Artorius is probably the Latinization of it, since the Latin Artorius I'm not aware of appearing anywhere else in the Empire.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

It's worth noting that the common legend of "King Arthur" has everything to do with Eleanor of Aquitaine and the Normans, circa 1150 AD or so. Eleanor was all about pushing the virtues of courtly love and chivalry, and so she took a character from folklore and completely rewrote the story.

A bit of historic trivia. When the Saxons finally conquered Britain (maybe 550 AD or so), some of the Romanized Brits were pushed back into Wales, others into Cornwall, and still others were displaced onto the continent, where they settled in "Brittany" of all places. Now, fast forward to 1066 AD, and William the Conqueror preparing to wrest Britain from the Saxons. Among the people he called upon for his invasion force were the residents of Brittany, and on the way to England, they were singing their songs about Arthur, Beater of Saxon Ass.

(Eleanor of Aquitaine was married to one of William the Conqueror's descendants; I suppose it makes sense that she'd want to rewrite the Arthur legend so that it wasn't so much about protecting England from conquerors, and more about the legitimacy and awesomeness of a chivalrous king.)

As to whether Arthur was a Celtic chieftain or a Roman Britain, personally I would have to lean towards him being Roman. If we were talking about the year 60 AD, I'd be more inclined to think "Celtic"; but by 500 AD, Britain had been culturally integrated into the Roman Empire, such that Britains were very Roman and not a people under Roman oppression. Even assuming Arthur were an anomalous Celtic tribal holdout (in the mold of Asterix and Obelix), he would have been considered a "barbarian". I'd further add that the Roman Empire had officially gone Christian in the year 380 AD, so Arthur could not have "worn the purple" while remaining pagan.

"The Mists of Avalon" confuses me, because it's impossible to place it in time and space: did it take place pre-Roman (20 AD), pre-Christian (320 AD), pre-Saxon (520 AD)? Five hundred years is a lot of historical wiggle room. Imagine if, in the year 2200, the common legend about Thomas Jefferson were that he was a teenager with a jet pack and a ray gun and a black computer programmer girlfriend. Now imagine that someone wanted to "correct" the legend by bringing it back to the original roots: TJ was an Iroquois Indian with a jetpack and a tomahawk that shot laser beams, and his girlfriend was a dark-skinned Chippewa. That's "The Mists of Avalon".

reply

Your parable about Thomas Jefferson was really amusing! But while Thomas Jefferson lived in a time, when people had started writing things down, so we're 99 % sure about what happened back then, there weren't anything being written down like that back in the 5th and 6th centuries, when king Arthur is supposed to have lived. So it's hard to know what's fiction or not in the legend.

Yes, it's true! IMDB has reached Sweden!

reply

Actually he could have been Both, lots of Intermarriages between Romans and the Native Population likely took place in Britan just like other places.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

"However, Nennius and the Annales Cambriae mention that Arthur was the defeator of the Saxons at Badon and led many other Battles against the Saxons and the Picts. The presence of Arthur is even strenghtened by the increase of boys named Arthur at the time, and by the reference that a certain warrior was not as strong as Arthur in a poem called the Y Goddodin by Aneirn the Bard. Which could mean that Arthur was real."

Firstly, you forget top mention that the Anglo-Saxons actually won against the Britons; despite one obvious jarring feature...THE ENGLISH EXIST!

Second of all the first version of the 'Y Goddodin' was recorded in the 12th century and virtually all scholars agree that it could not have been created earlier than the 10th century. Therefore, unlike Gildas or even the English St. Bede, it is not a good source for history.



"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

reply

The Angles and Saxons took over the Island slowly, Arthur represents a momentary setback in their colonization of the Island, but they didn't fully entrench themselves till the 7th Century. When Augustine converted them to "Christianity' and then mascaraed the Briton Christians for not submitting to the Papacy.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

Arthur seems to fall into the same sort of gray area as Wyatt Earp. He might have been real, but almost everything ever written about his false. He's first mentioned in the sixth century.. Even from the first mention of his name, he's already dead. Interestingly enough, his wife is named Guenevere from e very second time Arhtur is mentioned and his mortal enemy is always some variation on Mordred.

Anyone who writes about who Arthur might have really been is working with a tiny tiny bit of evidence, so any conclusions are really conjecture. A lot of the early Arthur storied all seem to involve things that could never have happened, but he does seem to show up at a very specific time. During the late six and early seventh centuries, for example, every king seems to be called Arthur. Of course, that only makes things more confusing. It's also important to keep in mind that what exactly a King was is different from what we might think of today. England had about twenty-five kings back then, and had a much smaller population.

reply

Arthur is also theorized to be a mix of many British Kings rather than just one man. Like a living legend for the people at the time. Saying that there was this one good king, so maybe the monarchy isn't all that bad.

reply

"Arthur is also theorized to be a mix of many British Kings rather than just one man. Like a living legend for the people at the time. Saying that there was this one good king, so maybe the monarchy isn't all that bad."

Indeed. Ironically he is a mix of Pictish kings and after the Normans finally forced King Arthur onto England (not the folklore though, more the literature) all the great achievements of the English king Alfred The Great were stolen to fill in these Arthurians myths. King Arthur is seen as a noble king fighting for freedom but ironically the only reason the English know about him was because he was used as a symbol of oppression by the Norman-Frankish kings of England.

"Namu-myoho-renge-kyo"

reply

I found the follwing internet ressource extremely well documented and helpful as an introduction to early Arthurian literature and the diverse hypotheses as to the historical Arthur(s). Good reading (especially the page "the monstrous regiment of Arthurs).
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

reply

A real King Author existed in my opinion, but his history is far removed from our traditional lore.

There was originally no Lancelot, no Grail quest, and Mordred was just his Nephew.

Rome pulled out of Britain in 425, The Angles and Saxons had been Migrating into the Island already before then, slowly displacing the original population, but there was a brief period in the late 5th and early 6th century where they where for awhile beaten back and the Native Britons had some brief established Independence, this started under Aurelius Ambrosius, but it continued at least a Generation or so after his after his Death.

This era Archeology and recorded history knows next to nothing about for certain, but just after this era, in the mid to late 6th Century Arthur has suddenly become a very popular name, as though many kids were named after some Arthur who'd recently been very notable.

The 1st step to Decipher the Real Arthur is to go back to the original Welsh/Breton/Cornish folk tales, Triads and chronicles.

"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

As a point of historical accuracy, the Romans left Britain in 410 CE. On the last day of December 406, the Alans, Vandals, and Suebi living east of Gaul crossed the frozen Rhine River and began a widespread devastation of the country. In that there was no effective Roman response, remaining Roman military in Britain feared that a Germanic crossing of the Channel into Britain was next, and dispensed with imperial authority; an action that may have been made easier by the likelihood that troops had not been paid for some time and their loyalty was thus questionable. The Roman intent at this time was to choose a commander who would lead them in securing their future but their first two choices, Marcus and Gratian, did not meet their expectations and were killed. Their third choice was the soldier Constantine III. In 407 Constantine rallied remaining troops in Britain, led them across the Channel into Gaul, rallied support there, and set himself up as Western Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire south of the Alps was preoccupied with fending off the Visigoths and was unable to put down the rebellion, giving Constantine the opportunity to extend his new empire to include Spain. In 409 Constantine's control of his empire fell apart. Part of his military forces were in Spain, making them unavailable for action in Gaul, and some of those in Gaul were swayed against him by loyalist Roman generals. The Germans living west of the Rhine River rose against him, perhaps encouraged by Roman loyalists, and those living east of the river crossed into Gaul. Britain, now without any troops for protection and having suffered particularly severe Saxon raids in 408 and 409, viewed the situation in Gaul with renewed alarm. Perhaps feeling they had no hope of relief under Constantine, both the Romano-Britons and some of the Gauls expelled Constantine's magistrates in 409 or 410. The the sixth-century Byzantine historian-scholar Zosimus blamed Constantine III for the expulsion, saying that he had allowed the Saxons to raid Britain, and the Britons and Gauls were reduced to such socioeconomic straits that they were forced by circumstances to revolt against the Roman Empire, reject Roman law, revert to their native customs, and arm themselves to ensure their survival. It has been suggested that when Zosimus records that natives expelled Roman civilian administration in 409 he might have been referring to the Bacaudic rebellion of the Breton inhabitants of Armorica since he describes how, in the aftermath of the revolt, all of Armorica and the rest of Gaul followed the example of the Brettaniai). A later appeal for help by the British communities was, according to Zosimus, rejected by the Emperor Honorius in 410 AD. In the text called the Rescript of Honorius, the Western Emperor Honorius tells the British civitates to look to their own defence. The first reference to this rescript was mentioned by Zosimus and is located randomly in the middle of a discussion of southern Italy; no further mention of Britain is made, which has led some, though not all, modern academics to suggest that the rescript did not apply to Britain, but to Bruttium in Italy.
Historian Christopher Snyder wrote that protocol dictated that Honorius address his correspondences to imperial officials, and the fact that he did not implies that the cities of Britain were now the highest Roman authority remaining on the island. At the time that the Rescript was sent, Honorius was in Ravenna surrounded by Visigoths and he was unable to prevent their Sack of Rome in 410. He was in fact in no position to offer any relief to anyone. As for Constantine III, he was not equal to the intrigues of imperial Rome and by 411 his cause was spent. His son was killed along with those major supporters who had not turned against him, and he himself was assassinated. There are various interpretations that characterize the events in a way that supports a particular thesis without taking issue with the basic chronology. The historian Theodor Mommsen (Britain, 1885) famously said that "It was not Britain that gave up Rome, but Rome that gave up Britain ...", arguing that Roman needs and priorities lay elsewhere. His position has retained scholarly support over the passage of time. Michael Jones (The End of Roman Britain, 1998) took the opposite view, saying that it was Britain that left Rome, arguing that numerous usurpers based in Britain combined with poor administration caused the Romano-Britons to revolt. Regarding the events of 409 and 410 when the Romano-Britons expelled Roman officials and sent a request for aid to Honorius, Michael Jones (The End of Roman Britain, 1998) offered a different chronology to the same end result: he suggested that the Britons first appealed to Rome and when no help was forthcoming, they expelled the Roman officials and took charge of their own affairs. One theory that occurs in some modern histories concerns the Rescript of Honorius, holding that it refers to the cities of the Bruttii (who lived at the "toe" of Italy in modern Calabria), rather than to the cities of the Britons. The suggestion is based on the assumption that the source (Zosimus) or a copyist made an error and actually meant Brettia when Brettania was written, and noting that the passage that contains the Rescript is otherwise concerned with events in northern Italy.
Criticisms of the suggestion range from treating the passage in the way it was written by Zosimus and ignoring the suggestion, to simply noting its speculative nature, to a discussion of problems with the suggestion (e.g., 'why would Honorius write to the cities of the Bruttii rather than to his own provincial governor for that region?', and 'why does far-off southern Italy belong in a passage about northern Italy any more than far-off Britain?'). The theory also contradicts the account of Gildas, who provides independent support that the reference is to Britain by repeating the essence of Zosimus' account and clearly applying it to Britain. E. A. Thompson ("Britain, A.D. 406–410", in Britannia, 8 (1977), pp. 303–318) offered a more provocative theory to explain the expulsion of officials and appeal for Roman aid. He suggested that a revolt consisting of dissident peasants, not unlike the Bagaudae of Gaul, also existing in Britain, and when they revolted and expelled the Roman officials, the landowning class then made an appeal for Roman aid. There is no textual proof for these events but it might be plausible if the definition of 'bagaudae' is changed to fit the circumstances. There is no need to do this, as any number of rational scenarios already fit the circumstances. There is the possibility that some form of bagaudae existed in Britain, but were not necessarily relevant to the events of 409 and 410. Among the works that mention but skirt the issue is Koch's Celtic Culture (2005), which cites Thompson's translation of Zosimus and goes on to say "The revolt in Britain may have involved bacaudae or peasant rebels as was the case in Armorica, but this is not certain."

The point being all written evidence support Rome's departure from Britain in 410 CE.

reply

A real King Author existed in my opinion, but his history if far removed from our traditional lore.

There was originally no Lancelot, no Camelot, no Round Table, and Mordred was just his Nephew.

Rome pulled out of Britain in 425, The Angles and Saxons has been Migrating into the Island already before them, slowly displacing the original population, but there was appeared in the late 5th and early 6th century where they where for awhile beaten back and the Native Britons had some brief established Independence, this started under Aurelius Ambrosius, but it continued at least a Generation after his or so after his Death.

This era Archeology and recorded history know next to nothing about for certain, but just after this era, in the mid to late 6th Century Arthur has suddenly become a very popular name, as thou many kids were named after Some Arthur who'd recently been very notable.

The 1st step to Decipher the Real Arthur is to go back to the original Welsh/Breton/Cornish folk tales, Triads and chronicles.


"It's not about money.... It's about sending a Message..... Everything Burns!!!"

reply

To e who said Arthur may be the one good king, so maybe the monarhcy isnt so bad, I think your approachign this with a Modernist Bias agaisnt Monarhcy. Today, especially in America,w e think of Monarhcy as a form fo Tyranny, and that peopel never liked to live under it is taken fror GRanted. But, in the Middle Ages, there were numerous Good Kings. The idea that most iof not all Kings had been bad is more or less a Myth created durign the ENlightenment, much liek the whole Dark Ages rule dby Religion.

It was designed to promote the much superior Utopia that woudl be create donce all Kings had been overthrown and the world embraced a Republican Governance. John Locke came up withhte idea of Perpetual peace and prosperity emergign via a Republic in the 1600's, durign the Reing of Oliver Cromwell the "Lord Protector" of the Republic of England.

However, living today we ee that our modern Dmeocracies aren't all that had been promised. Corruption is rampent, and popel arent really mroe Free or Perosperous. Yet we stull tend ot think that, as bad as our Government is, a Monarhcy woudl be Ten Times worse.

But is this true? Not really. Monarchy is not by any means a Guerenteeor of Liberty, but it is also not a Gurentee of Tyranny, and the Monarchs of the Middle Ages actually had very little real Power. They werent hte all Powerful Autocrats we think fo them as. They had power struggles beteen themselves and their Lords, or the CHurhc, and always had the fear of an uprising. They had to placate everyone. They didnt just sit on thrones and bark orders, nor were the peopel slaves.

In fact, the Feudal Society of the Middle Ages is were our ideas of Inaleinable and Indivisible righs came from. The Feridal Systsem was not a time of Centralised and sweepign Government. Near all Governance was on the Local Level, wiuththe King basiclaly existign to Ensure the rights of people under him and to mediate disputes between Lords, or to protect the Kigndom. In Feudal SOcity, there was a compelxe heirarhcy of Rights that event e PEasants had.


Also, many of the kigns sacrificed themselves for their people, or else cared deeply for htem and attmeoted to rule Justly and fairly. THey werent all Tyrants, nor most of them Tyrants.Like today most were just sort of average, wutg many good men, and onkly a few Tyrants, on Thrones.


It was nothign like we think.

Incidentlaly, if we had a Time Mahcine and went backwards, we woudl find a Situaiton in Europe much liek Modern THialanmd. Rather htan peopel slavign away under the King, and hatign it because they had no reedoms, we'd see peopel with basic right and Freedoms. Rather htan them hatign the Monarhcy, and beign intereste din our Modern Views of Democracy, they'd likly lauhg themselves sneseless that we'd beleive such a system of Governance is good. We have a form of Government in which peopel who rule over us ar epicke dby a Popularity contest from amongst Crooks and liars. They'd argue that the King rules by right of ineherrritance, and that God picks the King. They' also likely have an unwaverign Loyalty to him, and be Devoted to his Caudse and THrine as a matter of Honour.

They'd be just a dedicated to Monarhcy as we are to Democracy.

They didnt hate it but where forced to lie under it, they loved Monarchy. This was what made sence to them.

Its not liek they hadnt heard of Republcis, ROme had been oen not too logn before, and look how well that worked out.

reply

[deleted]

I think the preface you're referring to is William Caxton's (Malory's "publisher", so to speak: he was a printer). Malory did not write a preface to his work.

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

reply