Posted on 11/06/2005 7:31:28 AM PST by Hacksaw
Explorations in Arthurian History
The figure of Arthur begins as a war hero, the praises of whom are sung in war poems by the Celts and the Welsh. Y Gododdin celebrates one particularly brave warrior, then says he "was no Arthur." The Triads are full of wonderful, courageous things Arthur did.
The most important early source for Arthur's deeds is Historia Brittonum, written by the monk Nennius in the 9th century. Nennius calls Arthur dux bellorum and tells us of 12 great battles Arthur fought. Although Nennius tells us the location of each battle, those locations are hard to come by these days. Scholars are still arguing over the locations. Even the agreed-on locations suggest that Arthur got around--literally--from Scotland to the lowlands of Wessex to Wales.
He fought everywhere. He won great victories. A strong tradition has him a Roman heldover who uses his knowledge of cavalry to rout the Saxons time and again, counting on their inexperience in fighting mounted men.
And even though the authors likely have exagerrated his deeds (killing 960 men single-handedly, for example), Arthur is likely to have been a bona fide war hero, a man who led his countrymen to victory time and again. It is certain that the Battle of Badon Hill, wherever and whenever it was, set the Saxon occupation back for a good many years. Whether Arthur fought at the battle is still not proved, but is generally believed.
Arthur was conceived amidst a war and was mortally wounded in a particularly bloody battle. His life was full of battle; it was the word of the times.
But was he a king in the traditional sense? The legends name him High King of Britain, a title held by his father, Uther Pendragon, and his uncle, Ambrosius Aurelianus. Noted historian Geoffrey Ashe identifies Arthur with Riothamus, who was called the King of the Britons even though he operated mostly in Gaul (Breton territory). A recent book by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman identifies Arthur as the King of Powys and Gwynedd, two powerful kingdoms in Wales. The northern tradition has Arthur king of some or all of Scotland.
But these identifications would seem to point toward a man who held regional sway but not national advantage.
Beginning with Geoffrey of Monmouth, we see authors embellishing the tales to fit their own purposes. In Geoffrey, Arthur has a magical sword, Caliburn, and a powerful fortune-teller on his side, Merlin. Geoffrey tells us that Arthur conquers half the known world, including defeating a Roman emperor along the way. Much of Geoffrey has been proven to have been made up; is the rest fiction as well?
A conclusion can probably not be made on this subject because the evidence is just too sketchy. Arthur's being a battle commander is somewhat easier to prove, but again we suffer from too little reliable information.
Uh...you mean Khazâd, my FRiend. ;-)
Narsil was from Khazâd?
Yes...Telchar of Nogrod.
Ahh, yes. Of course.
The local PBS station is going to broadcast Michael Wood's program (since it's BBC, "programme") about King Arthur at 9 PM on Wednesday. It doesn't show up on the PBS program search for my zip code though. :')
On the day of the week schedule, it sez search for Shangra La and Jason and the Golden Fleece.
http://www.wgvu.org/tv/index.html?display_date=2005-11-23&display_format=fullday&feeds=224&station=WGVU&zipcode=&transport=&provider=0&channelsuppress=f
In those days, wasn't a battle commander a king (and vice-versa)?
Rotten flick -- completely false. Firstly, it states that Pealgius was tried for heresy and exectued -- absolutely factually false -- Pelagius died of old age. Next, the time between the first Saxon attacks ant the battle at Baden hill is separated by quite a while of time. Next, who the heck were the "woads"? tehre was never any tribe in England called that -- there were the britons in what is now england (they were the ancestors of the Welsh and their bloodlines are in the English as well) and there were Picts in what is now Scotland. the Britons were as Roman as you could get, the Picts, some speculate, weren't even Celtic.
Her title/name translates simply as:
Bo ~ Mac
Ad ~ Arthur
Dic ~ Ruler/King/Queen
Ca ~ And if you weren't sure, there is the feminine form.
Not only have we lost track of the names of the people described in the Annals we also lost track of Boudicca herself.
Now, to answer a question raised in a latr post, most appropriately two years later (on yet another night with a showing of King Arthur, with Arturius as a male Roman officer) it's entirely possible that the Picts were not Celtic, nor, in fact, even related to any of the other known Western, Central or Eastern European groups.
Instead, it's now hypothesized they were essentially the same in origin as the modern Sa'ami in Scandinavia, or the first European modern human population.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Just updating the GGG info, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
