King Arthur
- Thread starter The King
- Start date
arkat wrote
There is evidence of the arising of a native "aristocracy" during the period of the early migrations from the germanic homelands. The extensive refortification of some of the hillforts couldn't have been done without a centralised body managing the resources. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles have been proved fairly accurate in many of their details - why not also (to some extent) in their entries on the battles conducted by a native warlord? (or warlords).....
There is evidence of the arising of a native "aristocracy" during the period of the early migrations from the germanic homelands. The extensive refortification of some of the hillforts couldn't have been done without a centralised body managing the resources. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles have been proved fairly accurate in many of their details - why not also (to some extent) in their entries on the battles conducted by a native warlord? (or warlords).....
For a very thorough analysis of the sources on the historical Arthur, check out The reign of Arthur by Chris Gidlow, historian and long-time Gloranthan gamer.
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
burdock said:
Sorry, can you cite references?
I'm not sure this is the view held by the majority of historians and/or archaeologists.
It's a very, very vague statement.
homer wrote
At the risk of losing my coool:
My degree was in Medieval Archaeology (specialising in "Dark Age" Britain). I didn't think this was the place to go into very much depth on the subject...and I'd have to nose around in a few books to remind myself of the extant evidence.
But for now suffice it to say that the fairly extensive 5th century earth and building works at Cadbury would have required a great deal of manpower. Considering the general political trends of the time I doubt whether these people were congregating under a communist system or as anarchists. There was a leader/leaders. As for the Hillforts deeper into the South West, well, they contain quantities of type E-pottery which is representative of this period (whether they were occupied by natives in defence against Irish raiders or by the Irish raiders themselves is another question though!).
And the Anglo Saxon Chronicles? Well they are one of our most valuable sources as - though in their present form they are transcribed from copies written in the time of Alfred of Wessex - few historians (I think) would doubt that they originally date from much earlier (on philological grounds). And while the dates of the entries are to be viewed with skepticism, the entries themselves yield plenty of useful data. (I may go and look into entries within them that have been archaeologically corroborated).
While history cant really prove didley squat about anything archaeology can....The name "Artos" could have been made up later. The battles referenced in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle could also have been made up. But during this period Defences WERE erected at Cadbury and a great hall WAS built within their confines.
At the risk of losing my coool:
My degree was in Medieval Archaeology (specialising in "Dark Age" Britain). I didn't think this was the place to go into very much depth on the subject...and I'd have to nose around in a few books to remind myself of the extant evidence.
But for now suffice it to say that the fairly extensive 5th century earth and building works at Cadbury would have required a great deal of manpower. Considering the general political trends of the time I doubt whether these people were congregating under a communist system or as anarchists. There was a leader/leaders. As for the Hillforts deeper into the South West, well, they contain quantities of type E-pottery which is representative of this period (whether they were occupied by natives in defence against Irish raiders or by the Irish raiders themselves is another question though!).
And the Anglo Saxon Chronicles? Well they are one of our most valuable sources as - though in their present form they are transcribed from copies written in the time of Alfred of Wessex - few historians (I think) would doubt that they originally date from much earlier (on philological grounds). And while the dates of the entries are to be viewed with skepticism, the entries themselves yield plenty of useful data. (I may go and look into entries within them that have been archaeologically corroborated).
While history cant really prove didley squat about anything archaeology can....The name "Artos" could have been made up later. The battles referenced in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle could also have been made up. But during this period Defences WERE erected at Cadbury and a great hall WAS built within their confines.
THere is a good amount of evidence pointing to the existience of some sort of Ramanized-Celtic form of power on the island at the time, and that bits of older myths were used to build up these "Romano-Brits" into the legens of King Arthur. There are a suprising number of legends similar to King Arthur that all come from Britian, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. Heres from Conarie More to Lugh Lamfada all have some strong similarilies with Arthur.
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
burdock said:
Yes I agree with the things you have said here to a greater extent, (I have a degree in arch too) but this is very different to saying that there was "a centralised body managing the resources".
Perhaps this isn't exactly what you meant. If you meant localised power bases or even confederacies of tribes, I can only agree. But this is a long way from Arthur King of all Britain, which a centralised body of power would seem to suggest. Don't get me wrong, there is very little doubt that there was an Arthur.
P.S I was hoping that you had some data that I hadn't come across.
that you didn't.Hey le'ts be honest, everybody wants "Athur, King!" to exist and to be writ large in history, I know I do.
homer wrote
Oh yes! I agree with this! When I said "centralised bodies" I was thinking on a fairly local level. My view is that fairly powerful leaders arose with exceptional social status. (Maybe there WAS just one of them....who knows?) But the folklore sprouted out of these leaders (or maybe some of it was older folklore that was superimposed onto them.)
And presumably a Historical Arthur Runequest wont be about "Arthur King of all Britain" but about a charismatic warlord who manages to bring a few of the south western and (perhaps) northern tribes into a confederacy.
No I don't have any new data for you I'm afraid. I wish I could tell you that they had dug up Arthurs sword and it glowed dully with a latent magic.
Oh yes! I agree with this! When I said "centralised bodies" I was thinking on a fairly local level. My view is that fairly powerful leaders arose with exceptional social status. (Maybe there WAS just one of them....who knows?) But the folklore sprouted out of these leaders (or maybe some of it was older folklore that was superimposed onto them.)
And presumably a Historical Arthur Runequest wont be about "Arthur King of all Britain" but about a charismatic warlord who manages to bring a few of the south western and (perhaps) northern tribes into a confederacy.
No I don't have any new data for you I'm afraid. I wish I could tell you that they had dug up Arthurs sword and it glowed dully with a latent magic.
atgtx wrote
Yes I agree with this. Much of the social strata probably remained intact after the Roman armies left. And I also think that myths linger through the ages and morph around history like sticky fog.
Speaking of archaeological accuracy: Aaaah what I'd REALLY like is a Mesolithic Age Runequest.
Yes I agree with this. Much of the social strata probably remained intact after the Roman armies left. And I also think that myths linger through the ages and morph around history like sticky fog.
Speaking of archaeological accuracy: Aaaah what I'd REALLY like is a Mesolithic Age Runequest.
There is limited documentary evidence of some regional government during the "dark ages" in Britain. Nenius, writing in the 9th century, has many references to some fairly strong kingdoms. There are also evidences of a 6th century "Arddur ap Udder" in welsh myth, a Breton warlord.
I've seen many historical and archaeological assertions that the hillforts system was evidence of some unifying force post Boudicca.
I've seen many historical and archaeological assertions that the hillforts system was evidence of some unifying force post Boudicca.
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
The King Arthur featured by Mongoose Runequest is to be based on B. Cornwall version whose saga I didn't read but I heard there that it was quite very historical-like.Arkat said:Realistic view of a mythological character eh?
Perhaps Mongoose will revamp Pendragon for you with the new RQ rules.
The King said:
I've said it before (and no doubt will say it again) go out and get a copy and read it. It's an excellent read - fast-moving "boy's own" adventure with a "historical" bent. Excellent descriptions of shieldwall fighting and a few lovely takes on Arthurian cliches. Especially Lancelot...
the King wrote
Sounds good. But for me I find it a shame that the game isn't being constructed from the ground up and compiled from the actual evidence and then fleshed out with such stories.
I heard somewhere the idea of a Runequest Beowulf game (which interests me more than the Arthur one)......I'm wondering though whether this would be a supplement for the king Arthur game as surely such a game would have to make it possible to play one of the Germanic migrants? (which would be amazing - we could actually map out Feddersen Wierde and base a scenario around it called "The Drowning Town")
Sounds good. But for me I find it a shame that the game isn't being constructed from the ground up and compiled from the actual evidence and then fleshed out with such stories.
I heard somewhere the idea of a Runequest Beowulf game (which interests me more than the Arthur one)......I'm wondering though whether this would be a supplement for the king Arthur game as surely such a game would have to make it possible to play one of the Germanic migrants? (which would be amazing - we could actually map out Feddersen Wierde and base a scenario around it called "The Drowning Town")
kustenjaeger
Mongoose
Greetings
While it's true we do have evidence from the hypothetical Arthur period it is pretty fragmentary and scholars often disagree. The reference earlier in this thread to Morris' Age of Arthur is a good example as this was savaged by Dumville.
Regards
burdock said:
While it's true we do have evidence from the hypothetical Arthur period it is pretty fragmentary and scholars often disagree. The reference earlier in this thread to Morris' Age of Arthur is a good example as this was savaged by Dumville.
Regards
I reccomend Jack Whyte's historical fantasy novels based around Arthur. Regardless of the existance of forts dating back to the period, the legend of King Arthur is still widely considerd just that. A legend. Some historical facts can be tied into the legend but you could do the same for Beowulf or Roland.
I must admit, I've never quite been plugged in to the whole Arthur debate. It always seemed so obvious to me: Arthur is the warlord who was victorious at Badon. Gildas tells us this warlord was called Ambrosius. Arthur = Ambrosius. Maybe I have to literary a mind!
Also, I've never understood the reluctance to believe in a unified Britain at that date. After all, it had been a single unitary province up to 410; its not as if there was no precedent. Similarly with the battles across the country. People seem to think its unlikely that a single warlord could travel the country: but there was a network of Roman military roads designed exactly for the purpose of delivering a mobile reserve to support the border defences in as short a time as possible. Why the scepticism?
Also, I've never understood the reluctance to believe in a unified Britain at that date. After all, it had been a single unitary province up to 410; its not as if there was no precedent. Similarly with the battles across the country. People seem to think its unlikely that a single warlord could travel the country: but there was a network of Roman military roads designed exactly for the purpose of delivering a mobile reserve to support the border defences in as short a time as possible. Why the scepticism?
