I think the scepticism comes from the fact that near 410 A.D. Britain was a land ruled by hundreds of "little" lords from various nations, Saxons, Germans and so on. All of those lords wanted power and wealth because Roman ruling had crashed in about 409 A.D. They fought from scratches of the great Imperium and they really had no time or need for one ruler. I think that chaos is the answer for the scepticism. No man could have unified all of those different nations with different backround and ambitions. This is of course just a thought because i dont know history that well. Just read from a book that describes that period of time in Britain.
King Arthur
- Thread starter The King
- Start date
hoitsu wrote
I don't think that kintire was suggesting that the migrants were unified under a single ruler but that a large proportion of the native tribes were easily overseen by a centralised authority because this was what they had been used to under Roman rule. If some portion of the social hierarchy remained intact then it is not unreasonable to think that the romanised British factions would come together under a single authority.
I don't think that kintire was suggesting that the migrants were unified under a single ruler but that a large proportion of the native tribes were easily overseen by a centralised authority because this was what they had been used to under Roman rule. If some portion of the social hierarchy remained intact then it is not unreasonable to think that the romanised British factions would come together under a single authority.
Is this book not supposed to be a really, really bad bit of history with a very dubious use of the sources?
If not I have a lot of egg on my face but I am pretty sure that this is the book. A pity really as it is very useful for gaming the period. Now I need to find out where it was that I read the hatchet job.
If not I have a lot of egg on my face but I am pretty sure that this is the book. A pity really as it is very useful for gaming the period. Now I need to find out where it was that I read the hatchet job.
I found something. Good, at least it shows I am not imagining it.
Unlike some of the other theories of a historical Arthur discussed here, few would now be tempted to describe Morris’s ‘Arthur the Emperor’ theory as a respectable work of scholarship in its totality and especially with regards to Arthur. As has been argued at length by two distinguished reviewers, it is “an outwardly impressive piece of scholarship” which “crumbles upon inspection into a tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided.” (Kirby and Williams, 1975-6). This view is supported to some very large degree by Professor David Dumville in his justly famous attack on both Morris and Alcock (1971), ‘Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend’, where he demonstrates the utter invalidity of Morris’s approach to the sources which renders his ‘reconstruction’ of events almost completely worthless (Dumville, 1977). Another reviewer, Professor James Campbell, is slightly more generous, recognising the good hidden in among the bad, but he too admits that The Age of Arthur is a book so misleading, so idiosyncratic, so full of problems, difficulties, and traps for the unwary, that it should be used only by professional scholars – already familiar enough with the ongoing debates and the primary sources to ignore the many unreliable theories and passages in the book –, and that it is manifestly not a work appropriate for amateurs or newcomers to the subject (Campbell, 1975). Unfortunately, this seems to be just the category of readers who make most use of the book nowadays, with very few professional scholars ever now returning to the tome due to these immense problems.
From
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthurappendix.htm
Unlike some of the other theories of a historical Arthur discussed here, few would now be tempted to describe Morris’s ‘Arthur the Emperor’ theory as a respectable work of scholarship in its totality and especially with regards to Arthur. As has been argued at length by two distinguished reviewers, it is “an outwardly impressive piece of scholarship” which “crumbles upon inspection into a tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided.” (Kirby and Williams, 1975-6). This view is supported to some very large degree by Professor David Dumville in his justly famous attack on both Morris and Alcock (1971), ‘Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend’, where he demonstrates the utter invalidity of Morris’s approach to the sources which renders his ‘reconstruction’ of events almost completely worthless (Dumville, 1977). Another reviewer, Professor James Campbell, is slightly more generous, recognising the good hidden in among the bad, but he too admits that The Age of Arthur is a book so misleading, so idiosyncratic, so full of problems, difficulties, and traps for the unwary, that it should be used only by professional scholars – already familiar enough with the ongoing debates and the primary sources to ignore the many unreliable theories and passages in the book –, and that it is manifestly not a work appropriate for amateurs or newcomers to the subject (Campbell, 1975). Unfortunately, this seems to be just the category of readers who make most use of the book nowadays, with very few professional scholars ever now returning to the tome due to these immense problems.
From
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthurappendix.htm
rurik wrote
Its what I call "pacing the admirers".......getting onto the level of you lot so you get comfortable with me. This will allow you to absorb my advice more readily (see forthcoming advce on the STREET CRED thread). Its a big sacrafice. But its worth it. i don't want you guys suffering from the illusion that you're uncool a moment longer.
Its what I call "pacing the admirers".......getting onto the level of you lot so you get comfortable with me. This will allow you to absorb my advice more readily (see forthcoming advce on the STREET CRED thread). Its a big sacrafice. But its worth it. i don't want you guys suffering from the illusion that you're uncool a moment longer.
The King
Cosmic Mongoose
It would be probably possible to use both settings then as was done with Pendragon (with the land of the giants sourcebooks).burdock said:
As to the Myth, I consider it more a retelling of the clash of civilisation between a waning Roman empire, the emergence of local powers and the rise and spread of Christianism among Pagan culture which was still very strong on the British Isles.
The story of the knights is the mythic fights of Christians against all paganism and its fairy mysteries.
This is typical to the spread of a religion in a strange land with the power of the One God against the many.
We also have something very similar with the tales of the Arabian Nights (with the islamic culture) in that these are tales of faith above all.
The Arthur=Ambrosius theme isn't new, nor is it terribly supportable; it seems that Arthur (Arddur) may have been Ambrosius' general, or one of his assisting warlords... There was an Arddur mentioned in several documentary sources as a warleader.
I subscribe to the General theory, myself.
Arthurian, Beowulfan... both would be decent IF DONE WELL
I subscribe to the General theory, myself.
Arthurian, Beowulfan... both would be decent IF DONE WELL
kustenjaeger
Mongoose
Greetings
I think an Arthur (and possibly Beowulf) game would be quite do-able and if it is 5th-6th century AD based then one could tailor it to whatever picture of Britain one wishes.
Regards
I think an Arthur (and possibly Beowulf) game would be quite do-able and if it is 5th-6th century AD based then one could tailor it to whatever picture of Britain one wishes.
Regards
Theorising asside, these are the main sources for a real historical person called Arthur:
The Gododdin (ca. AD 594), the poet Aneirin (ca. AD 535-600) writes of one of his characters that 'He was no Arthur'.
Historia Britonum, by Nennius C.830: Refers to Arthur as the 'Leader of Battles' and lists several battles he fought, including Mons Badonicus which is also mentioned by Gildas in De Excidio Britanniae.
Annales Cambriae: Arthur killed at the battle of Cammlan in 537.
Now it's possible these sources are talking about different people, but it all adds up to convincing evidence that there was at least one heroic war leader called Arthur knocking about in the 6th Century. Bear in mind, these are the core sources for the majority of what we known about the people and events of these times. They're considered credible on everything else, so why not about Arthur?
Beyond these sources, everything else is realy open to speculation.
The Gododdin (ca. AD 594), the poet Aneirin (ca. AD 535-600) writes of one of his characters that 'He was no Arthur'.
Historia Britonum, by Nennius C.830: Refers to Arthur as the 'Leader of Battles' and lists several battles he fought, including Mons Badonicus which is also mentioned by Gildas in De Excidio Britanniae.
Annales Cambriae: Arthur killed at the battle of Cammlan in 537.
Now it's possible these sources are talking about different people, but it all adds up to convincing evidence that there was at least one heroic war leader called Arthur knocking about in the 6th Century. Bear in mind, these are the core sources for the majority of what we known about the people and events of these times. They're considered credible on everything else, so why not about Arthur?
Beyond these sources, everything else is realy open to speculation.
Loz
Mongoose
indrodar said:
More than just that, there's the underlying religious tensions between a fledgling Christianity and the decline and death of paganism. Cornwell's saga does a very good job of creating a believable socio-religious society as well as describing the (nerve shredding) battles and shield-wall clashes. There are inevitable liberties taken with the history and mythology (Cornwell admits this in his notes concluding each book, and describes how and why he made his choices), but as the basis for a strong Dark Ages campaign, 'The Warlord Chronicles' are an absolute must.
It doesn't really matter whether there was a historical Arthur or not.
Mongoose's Arthurian game is as much about reality as a Gloranthan game or Lhankmar game. Similarly, it should be just as enjoyable.
The great thing about periods such as the Arthurian one is that you can use it however you want. So, you can base it on the Arthurian Cycle of stories and have knights gallivanting around. Or, you can base it on an early Dark Ages theme, with Saxon invaders, Celtic defenders and no Arthur. Or you can take bits of the Arthurian legend, bits of Dark Age history and bits from other Arthurian novels and blend them all together to make an interesting background/campaign.
I know that King Arthur and Robin Hood both stir up a lot of dissent, especially between the historians who deny they existed and romantics who would have liked them to have existed. Personally, I am of the opinion that both may have existed in some form but their exploits have been changed over the years.
As for the Age of Arthur not being an accurate scholarly work, so what? It's very readable, very clear, immensely believable and a cracking good source for a RPG Background. Who cares if it is accurate? When I am setting out a campaign, I want sources that give me dates, personalities, background, timelines and political structures in an approachable way, which Age of Arthur does in droves. Show me anything that is as easy to read and as easy to use and I'll be happy.
I'd sooner use an inaccurate easy to use book than an accurate difficult to use book for a RPG campaign.
Mongoose's Arthurian game is as much about reality as a Gloranthan game or Lhankmar game. Similarly, it should be just as enjoyable.
The great thing about periods such as the Arthurian one is that you can use it however you want. So, you can base it on the Arthurian Cycle of stories and have knights gallivanting around. Or, you can base it on an early Dark Ages theme, with Saxon invaders, Celtic defenders and no Arthur. Or you can take bits of the Arthurian legend, bits of Dark Age history and bits from other Arthurian novels and blend them all together to make an interesting background/campaign.
I know that King Arthur and Robin Hood both stir up a lot of dissent, especially between the historians who deny they existed and romantics who would have liked them to have existed. Personally, I am of the opinion that both may have existed in some form but their exploits have been changed over the years.
As for the Age of Arthur not being an accurate scholarly work, so what? It's very readable, very clear, immensely believable and a cracking good source for a RPG Background. Who cares if it is accurate? When I am setting out a campaign, I want sources that give me dates, personalities, background, timelines and political structures in an approachable way, which Age of Arthur does in droves. Show me anything that is as easy to read and as easy to use and I'll be happy.
I'd sooner use an inaccurate easy to use book than an accurate difficult to use book for a RPG campaign.
simonh
Some of these sources are very dubious....transcribed or even invented long after the events in question. I'm suprised you don't include the Anglo Saxon Chronicles in the list there. And no reference to Gildas? Gildas was almost a contemporary.
While you are citing evidence for the existence of a warlord with the name "Arthur", there is plenty of other evidence for the existance of an unspecified war leader/leaders. I think that this is still usable and well above the level of "theorizing" (especially where archaeology is concerned).
Some of these sources are very dubious....transcribed or even invented long after the events in question. I'm suprised you don't include the Anglo Saxon Chronicles in the list there. And no reference to Gildas? Gildas was almost a contemporary.
While you are citing evidence for the existence of a warlord with the name "Arthur", there is plenty of other evidence for the existance of an unspecified war leader/leaders. I think that this is still usable and well above the level of "theorizing" (especially where archaeology is concerned).
soltakss wrote
I agree with this. For me the game will be about playing in Dark Age Britain.....not about being Arthurs chum.
Also I think a lot of words can be exchanged over the "name" of the hypothesised personage. Coming from an archaeological rather than historical background I'm not so interested in names. From the archaeological evidence (and from some of the more reliable historical evidence) it is almost certain that a (or some) native warlord (or warlords) was (were) at large during this period. It seems likely that stories of their exploits were told and eventually transcribed. I don't care what we call him/her/them.....but why not Arthur?
I agree with this. For me the game will be about playing in Dark Age Britain.....not about being Arthurs chum.
Also I think a lot of words can be exchanged over the "name" of the hypothesised personage. Coming from an archaeological rather than historical background I'm not so interested in names. From the archaeological evidence (and from some of the more reliable historical evidence) it is almost certain that a (or some) native warlord (or warlords) was (were) at large during this period. It seems likely that stories of their exploits were told and eventually transcribed. I don't care what we call him/her/them.....but why not Arthur?
"Several documentary sources?" like what? I was under the impression Gildas was pretty much the only documentary source on Ambrosius we have.
Also, the derivation of the name is uncertain. Another possibility is Arth fawr, or Artos, both meaning Great Bear (British and Latin respectively). As such, it may well have been an epithet rather than a proper name (Arthur as a given name doesn't occur in the period). Hence the problems in finding him!
burdock said:
Have another look at my post, Gildas is in there. He doesn't mention Arthur himslef, but does mention the battle of Mons Badonicu (it happened the year he was born, apparently)s. I mention him to the extent that he is relevent.
As for the Anglo Saxon Chronicles they don't mention Arthur IIRC, and anyway he wasn't a Saxon.
If these sources are dubious, bang goes about half of the broadly accepted body of information we have about the period.
Ah....sorry I missed that Gildas reference.
simonh wrote
The Anglo saxon chronicles give reference to a chap with the epithet "Artos" doing a load of battles (unless my memory is truly mangled)...
Dudes! The spirit of The Great Bear is still amongst us!!!! One little reference to a king Arthur game and look at us!! We explode with information and discussion.
simonh wrote
The Anglo saxon chronicles give reference to a chap with the epithet "Artos" doing a load of battles (unless my memory is truly mangled)...
Dudes! The spirit of The Great Bear is still amongst us!!!! One little reference to a king Arthur game and look at us!! We explode with information and discussion.
homerjsinnott
Mongoose
There was a piece of stone/pottery? found fairly recently (within the last 3 years) in the west country. With a date and and the name Arthur on it.
Anyone else have any information about it? Wish I could remember more.
Opps! It was yonks ago and it was at Tintagel and it wasn't Arthur it was Art something or other. Never mind.
Anyone else have any information about it? Wish I could remember more.
Opps! It was yonks ago and it was at Tintagel and it wasn't Arthur it was Art something or other. Never mind.
