View Full Version : King Arthur
Did he really exist?
Does his legend still have a unifying effect on what it means to be British?
Does he symbolise the strength and frailty on what it means to be British?
I like King Arthur whoever he is supposed to be!
I've never really thought about it until now, and now that I've thought about it I don't really see the point of thinking about it too much because I don't think it's relevent to modern Britain. :eek:
Alice in Blunderland
02-Sep-09, 22:15
.............and if he did exist what about that man Sir Lancelot was he the womaniser we all know him to be. :lol:
I believe there was a 'King Arthur'.
.............and if he did exist what about that man Sir Lancelot was he the womaniser we all know him to be. :lol:
I believe there was a 'King Arthur'.
Well it's definitely true about the round table because I've seen it.:lol:;)
..........or Sir Galahad........the Knight who never had any...........
Typical Fairy Story, Good V Evil
Well it's definitely true about the round table because I've seen it.:lol:;)
The table was only round so it would fit in Stonehenge. :Razz
Metalattakk
02-Sep-09, 23:16
Did he really exist?
Does his legend still have a unifying effect on what it means to be British?
Does he symbolise the strength and frailty on what it means to be British?
As you can see, the people of Caithness demand answers to these most relevant questions!
As you can see, the people of Caithness demand answers to these most relevant questions!
I don't believe that!! :lol:;)
It cannot be proved that he did or he did n't exist but as his legend extends all the way from Cornwall to Scotland it would seem likely there was a person who was either a unifying factor and a clever strategist in matters of war around whom the myths grew up.
The Victorian stories are nothing but a phantasy and bear little relationship to the truths that would have existed around the time he was supposed to be alive.
He has little if any relevance to being British as appart from a name that is derived from the roman, there was no Britain as such until quite recently.
Whilst most might like to believe the magical mystery that has grown up around the name,it is purely romance and should be treated as such.
tonkatojo
03-Sep-09, 14:37
Did he really exist?
Does his legend still have a unifying effect on what it means to be British?
Does he symbolise the strength and frailty on what it means to be British?
I like King Arthur whoever he is supposed to be!
Aye he certainly did , was he not the head/chief of the NUM and the bloke that thatcher shafted. :cool:
Certainly the legends still remain. Camelot is the famous castle associated with King Arthur. The magical Lady of Shalott was supposed to live on an island up stream from King Arthur. Loreena McKennitt's Lady of Shalott link below.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ5Z04PSBtg&feature=related
northener
04-Sep-09, 09:35
Arthur existed.
The legends surrounding Arthur are many, and most can be traced back to actual places, people and events in Briton folklore. The modern interpretation of Arthur is based upon the Historia Britonum by geoffrey of Monmouth - written just before 1147. Geoffrey combines history with Briton legends, leading to an amazing mix. Most of his works are drawn from previous documents or legends and can be corroborated with works by Gildas, Nennius, Bede (? I think), the Welsh Annals and the Anglo Saxon Chronicles
Many of the legends can be traced back to actual events and places, unfortunately, the chronology of these events means that some people could not have been in some of the places described at that time. However, there is a lot of verifiable truths in the story of Arthur.
Arthur, it is agreed by modern historians, was not a King but a warlord or senior commander...and apparently a ruthless one. In Nennius's margin notes there is a reference to Arthur as being 'the Dreadful Bear' or Iron Hammer'. An alternative name for him is allegedly 'Mab Uter', which, in Briton meant 'The Dreadful Son' "because from his boyhood he was bloodthirsty".
Merlin, Guinevere, Gawain, Mordred and all the others are all there in one form or another. Even Arthurs sword 'Calibar'.
The battle of Mount Badon (Badonicus) which is the climactic battle in the legends was around 505 AD and is well documented. Along with other aspects of the Arthurian 'legend'.
So, very briefly, we have a skilled and ruthless commander who can mobilise a relatively large force of Britons to fight against the onslaught of the Anglo-Saxons in a period following the withdrawal of the Roman Empire from Britain.
Although ultimately he was beaten, his impact was certainly big enough for his name, and the names of those people and places around him to live on in folklore, history and legend.
Fascinating subject. All information lifted and condensed (very briefly) from 'Dark Age Britain' by Henry Marsh (now o.o.p. I would assume).
i do belive that arthur existed, even today they search for evidence of camelot.
have read that it could be in wales even. no matter how big a legend or blown out of proportion most myths have a begining in truth.
just think how many years down the road will it be that things that we know for fact today is held as legend and things of myth.
kmahon2001
04-Sep-09, 12:37
It cannot be proved that he did or he did n't exist but as his legend extends all the way from Cornwall to Scotland it would seem likely there was a person who was either a unifying factor and a clever strategist in matters of war around whom the myths grew up......
Somehow I doubt that a king capable of being a unifying factor in Britain would have been based at one extreme end of the country or another. I tend to believe the Welsh claim that Arthur was based in their neck of the woods, more than the Cornish or Scottish....if he existed at all. :p
Green_not_greed
04-Sep-09, 12:59
King Arthur?
Great bloke. Great film. All of it quite believable too
http://www.pittsfield-ma.org/images/cleint_images/monty-python.jpeg
Mind you. I've never trusted a rabbit since I saw it.
kmahon2001
04-Sep-09, 13:04
i do belive that arthur existed, even today they search for evidence of camelot.
have read that it could be in wales even. no matter how big a legend or blown out of proportion most myths have a begining in truth.
just think how many years down the road will it be that things that we know for fact today is held as legend and things of myth.
Imagine the myths and legends that would have built up over a millennium or so about President Salmond, the first president of the independent nation of Scotland!:eek:
You've only got to look at how the Americans revere the memory of their first president, George Washington, who gained their independence from the British to see how Alex Salmond could be viewed way into the future if he gains independence for Scotland from the rest of the UK.;)
Green_not_greed
04-Sep-09, 13:09
You mean he could get even smugger? I don't believe it!
You mean he could get even smugger? I don't believe it!
Ability, political astuteness, willingnes to serve the country and the constituency, loyalty and a confience that he is doing what he thinks is right and what I know is right should not be confused with smuggness.
northener
04-Sep-09, 14:04
Somehow I doubt that a king capable of being a unifying factor in Britain would have been based at one extreme end of the country or another. I tend to believe the Welsh claim that Arthur was based in their neck of the woods, more than the Cornish or Scottish....if he existed at all. :p
As pointed out, a unified 'Britain' did not exist. My refernce to 'Briton/s' is the Celtic Britons who were the native people prior to the Roman invasion - and who were left behind with no long-term coherent administration or government when they left. Not 'Britons' or 'Britain' in the modern sense.
All the references to Arthur point to Wales and Southern England being the loose power base for him.
But, as I said, he was no King. Simply a ruthlessly effective warlord. It's difficult sifting legend from reality, but, as I said earlier, what I am talking about here is references to a man called Arthur who existed at the right time and who can be linked to other people and places at that time.
For example the writer Gildas was born in AD517, the year of the crushing defeat of the Saxons by the Britons at Badon (not AD505 as I earlier said). So we can say with certainty that Gildas is not using legend or folklore when he talks about Arthur.
Gildas makes references to Arthur, who, it appears he did not like and who was described by one of his contempories as a rebel and a tyrant. Other documents place Arthurs death in AD 537 during a civil war.
Arthur was Briton, not a Scot or Irish Celt and surviving documents place him strongly in the Welsh provinces and South West. These are the areas that the Britons fought for and grimly hung onto during the Saxon invasions.
kmahon2001
04-Sep-09, 15:45
As pointed out, a unified 'Britain' did not exist. My refernce to 'Briton/s' is the Celtic Britons who were the native people prior to the Roman invasion - and who were left behind with no long-term coherent administration or government when they left. Not 'Britons' or 'Britain' in the modern sense.
All the references to Arthur point to Wales and Southern England being the loose power base for him.
But, as I said, he was no King. Simply a ruthlessly effective warlord. It's difficult sifting legend from reality, but, as I said earlier, what I am talking about here is references to a man called Arthur who existed at the right time and who can be linked to other people and places at that time.
For example the writer Gildas was born in AD517, the year of the crushing defeat of the Saxons by the Britons at Badon (not AD505 as I earlier said). So we can say with certainty that Gildas is not using legend or folklore when he talks about Arthur.
Gildas makes references to Arthur, who, it appears he did not like and who was described by one of his contempories as a rebel and a tyrant. Other documents place Arthurs death in AD 537 during a civil war.
Arthur was Briton, not a Scot or Irish Celt and surviving documents place him strongly in the Welsh provinces and South West. These are the areas that the Britons fought for and grimly hung onto during the Saxon invasions.
Ah, so you mean Oliver Tobias in the 1970s, as opposed to Sean Connery in the 1990s. No round table, no knights in shining armour, no Merlin etc. Simply a tribal warlord.
northener
04-Sep-09, 16:50
Ah, so you mean Oliver Tobias in the 1970s, as opposed to Sean Connery in the 1990s. No round table, no knights in shining armour, no Merlin etc. Simply a tribal warlord.
Never knew about the Tobias vesion, but I think we can say that Arthur was a tribal warlord.
Bit of background history:
After the withdrawal of the Romans (around AD440) Vortigern became the 'King' of the Britons. However, it must be stressed that there were other powerful regional leaders throughout what is now England and Wales who saw themselves as 'Kings' too.
Vortigern decided to employ Saxon mercenaries under Hengist and Horsa to help fend off constant attacks by the Scots (tribe) and the Picts, who were taking advantage of the lack of powerful cohesion surrounding the withdrawal of the legions. He rewarded them for their services with a grant of land - Kent..... unfortunately, this opened the floodgates for the Saxons to come in and attempt to wrest the land from the Britons. Despite some notable victories (this is where Arthur comes in), the Britons were forced back into Wales and the West Country, leaving the Saxons in control of most of England.
Gildas, writing from Wales in the midst of this upheaval, lays the blame for the Britons defeat squarely at the feet of the Briton Chiefs, who were more intersted (he says) in following their own agendas and settling their own scores, rather than uniting against the Saxons. So it is hardly suprising that a warlord with the ability to hit hard at the Saxons and rally Britons to his cause became the stuff of folklore and legend as well as fact.
kmahon2001
04-Sep-09, 20:10
Never knew about the Tobias vesion, but I think we can say that Arthur was a tribal warlord.
Bit of background history:
After the withdrawal of the Romans (around AD440) Vortigern became the 'King' of the Britons. However, it must be stressed that there were other powerful regional leaders throughout what is now England and Wales who saw themselves as 'Kings' too.
Vortigern decided to employ Saxon mercenaries under Hengist and Horsa to help fend off constant attacks by the Scots (tribe) and the Picts, who were taking advantage of the lack of powerful cohesion surrounding the withdrawal of the legions. He rewarded them for their services with a grant of land - Kent..... unfortunately, this opened the floodgates for the Saxons to come in and attempt to wrest the land from the Britons. Despite some notable victories (this is where Arthur comes in), the Britons were forced back into Wales and the West Country, leaving the Saxons in control of most of England.
Gildas, writing from Wales in the midst of this upheaval, lays the blame for the Britons defeat squarely at the feet of the Briton Chiefs, who were more intersted (he says) in following their own agendas and settling their own scores, rather than uniting against the Saxons. So it is hardly suprising that a warlord with the ability to hit hard at the Saxons and rally Britons to his cause became the stuff of folklore and legend as well as fact.
Don't remember much about it - bit too far back in the mists of time for me, but there was a TV programme called Arthur of the Britons in the 70s in which Oliver Tobias played the young warlord Arthur. I remember Jack Watson was in it, as some kind of mentor for Arthur, Michael Gothard was in it as a Saxon friend of Arthur's and Brian Blessed was another warlord or some such, that was the main cast as I remember it. Can't even remember the story lines, but it does sound like it was meant to be a bit closer to what you're describing rather than the old Camelot legends.
northener
04-Sep-09, 20:35
Just had a ferret around t'web.
It looks like you can download episodes via torrent (which I can't do), unfortunately there's nothing on youtube...oh, well.
George Brims
05-Sep-09, 21:20
Do you know the exact title? I might check Netflix to see if it ever made it to DVD.
Aaldtimer
05-Sep-09, 21:31
Is this the one? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068041/ :)
kmahon2001
05-Sep-09, 21:49
It definitely made it onto DVD. Amazon is stocking it, amongst others. The complete seasons 1 & 2.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Arthur-Britons-1-2-Complete-DVD/dp/B00113NWZ0/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1252183125&sr=8-1
Can't find any downloads though, except a couple of brief fan compilation clips on YouTube.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.