Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

King Arthur was a 'North Briton' aka a Scot!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • King Arthur was a 'North Briton' aka a Scot!

    Hi

    Hope this is of some interest:-

    The Twelve battles of Arthur listed by the ninth-century Historia Brittonum have been an intractable problem. For all that, they may lose their mystery under analysis, like many things. This paper hence gives an outline of discussion past and present, before offering some unexpected conclusions on where the conflicts were and what they imply for the historical Arthur and for northern history in the sixth century; for it seems that each of these engagements (excepting Mount Badon) can be located in Northumberland or southern Scotland, with the implication that Arthur himself was a North Briton and specifically a Strathclyder
    Full article and Free Access here:- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...5Z.00000000085

    Regards

    Andy H
    "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Churchill

    "I'm no reactionary.Christ on the Mountain! I'm as idealistic as Hell" Eisenhower

  • #2
    If he was from Strathclyde then he wouldn't have been a Scot.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Strathclyde
    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

    Comment


    • #3
      Special pleading I think and some very selective siding with sources that support the author's desired solution. I find for example the argument that Arthur must have existed beyond doubt because he had a Roman name very thin indeed. It is entirely possible that the Arthurian legends encapsulate the deeds of more than one war band leader over a significant period of time and a wide geographical region whilst some are merely fictional. This would explain the many discrepancies. Moreover relying on philological analysis of place names not written down until many centuries after the events are alleged to have taken place is dubious to say the least.
      Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
      Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Andy H View Post
        Hi

        Hope this is of some interest:-


        Full article and Free Access here:- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...5Z.00000000085

        Regards

        Andy H
        Enjoyed that, although the author has made the usual mistake of assuming the Historia Brittonum is fact, and not Welsh propaganda.

        The history of the development of the King Arthur legend is much more about royalist propaganda than as a piece of history. All are at at least one position removed from fact.

        Stage 1. Historia Brittonuim by Nennius for the benefit of King Merfyn Frych. This Welsh royal was the first not to be directly related to male line of Cunedda, and needed a 'history' to help secure his power. HB uses the mythical heroes of various Welsh tribes and 'humanizes' them as individual knights of Arthur. Merfyn is the real face of the Arthur figure of legend.

        Stage 2. Historia Regum Britanniae by Geoffrey of Monmouth for the benefit of the Norman conquerors. The propaganda here is that the Normans are the heirs to King Arthur, and rule by right as well as by might.

        Stage 3. The Anglicisation of King Arthur from Henry II until Edward III, from Arthur's burial found at Glastonbury to the creation of Knights of the Garter. Arthur becomes English.

        Stage 4. Le Morte d'Arthur by Thomas Mallory for the benefit of Henry VII. Henry had just deposed Richard and needed a propaganda piece to help 'prove' his right to rule.

        Stage 5. Arthur's tale is allowed to slip, as the Saxon Hanoverians take charge of Britain, Arthur being seen as the one good 'Celt' amonst many bad apples. It was at this time that Welsh, Scots and Irish Britons became known as Celts instead.

        Stage 6. Victorian revival as fairy stories became popular to counter the real squalor of technological progress.

        Stage 6. Arthur's Golden Age - 1970's, especially with John Morris and Leslie Alcock. Arthur is removed from the world of fable back to reality.

        Stage 7. Today. Arthur is slowly changing from a Welsh warlord to a Scottish prince via an English king character, although these states did not exist when the tale was first written.

        Its worth pointing out that the earliest written Scottish sources portray Arthur as the evil individual of the saga. Arthur became king after his father died, because while he was not of legitimate birth, he was of age, unlike his brothers Mordred and Gawaine. Upon Arthur's death, the line was supposed to revert beck to Mordred, but Arthur made another his heir, which started the civil war. This may well come from the Irish tradition of Arthur which portrays him as a vassal of Ireland, and even a coward at one point.

        To try to state anything concrete about Arthur, without relying on archaeology as a primary source of opinion is probably deluded imho. However, it might make you a great deal of money .
        How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: http://grist.org/series/skeptics/
        Global Warming & Climate Change Myths: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

        Comment

        Latest Topics

        Collapse

        Working...
        X