Talk:Historicity of King Arthur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Ideas

Either this article is mislabelled, or it needs more work. At the time of this comment, all it contains are various personages who have been suggested as either the basis of the Arthurian legend or have been identified with Arthur. (This is not to say this information should be removed; it is important in its own right.)

What this article should address is the following:

• Lack of contemporary evidence. Arthur's flourit was between AD 480 & 540, which is not one of the best documented periods of European history. The closest primary sources in time & space -- Gildas' essay, Procopius, Gallic & Hispanic chroniclers -- do not mention him. But Gildas does mention the Battle of Mons Badonicus.

• The historical evidence that does mention Arthur has problems with reliability. Many of the accounts of Arthur were not only written centuries later, but were written with the intent to entertain, not to document events accurately. Further, their importance is limited to proving that there was a folk tradition about Arthur, in which a seed of truth may lie, & disproving the theory that Arthur was created entirely out of thin air by Geoffrey of Monmouth or an unknown a generation or 2 before him.

• What few documents that mention Arthur, & have been defended as sincere attempts to record history, have many of the same problems. And, from off the top of my head, these documents are:
  • Gildas' De Excidio Britanniae -- this does not mention Arthur, but as I noted above mentions the Battle of Mons Badonicus & provides us with many of our few clues about the period.
  • The Historiae Britonum -- which does mention Arthur, & many of the same personages that Geoffrey of Monmouth later writes about, but the date of its composition & the origin of its information has been the subject of a long controversy. David Dumville (who BTW does not believe in Arthur's existence), has done much work in determining the facts of this document's transmission & rewriting -- which is a start. But anyone who uses the information about Arthur from this work must address a number of difficult problems.
  • The Gododdin of Aneirin has a brief mention of Arthur is his early persona of a fierce warlord, not the later wise & benevolent king. However, our single manuscript of this early Welsh poem was written in the 11th or 12th century, so it is possible that this passage is a later interpolation.
  • The Annales Cambriae, which is a chronicle containing events from 445 to 997 has 2 entries mentioning Arthur. The internal evidence suggests that it may have originally been created in the mid to late 8th century, but our earliest manuscript dates from the 12th century.
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which has dates for this period, has no notice of Arthur. However, it has been argued that a scribe's error in compiling the original document may have left out any entries for the period in question; in any case, the fate of one of Arthur's likely contemporaries, Aelle, is unrecorded in the ASC.

• The landmarks associated with Arthur -- Mons Badonicus, Camelot, etc. -- cannot be located with absolute certainty. The local traditions that would help locate them were long forgotten by the time antiquaries took interest in this period.

• Archeological evidence, while valuable in its own right, cannot connect people or names to their findings without inscriptions -- & even then the burden of proving a connection between the two is on the archeologist or scholar making it.

• As a result, there are by far more theories about the historical Arthur than facts; & it does not help matters that some scholars accidentally accept some theories as solid facts. And some scholars too readily value late traditions or records as equal to the earliest, without making a suitable argument to defend their opinion.

As a result, the theories about the historical Arthur boil down to these:

1. A real person, whose accomplishments have been embellished over the centuries, but not otherwise documented by a reliable historian.
2. A real person, whose accomplishments have been embellished over the centuries, but can be identified with a person documented by a reliable historian.
3. A mythological personage that was associated with certain historical events, & became a mere mortal in the retelling.
4. An entirely ficticious personage; none of the events associated with him ever happened.
5. The very real person exactly as described by (pick one or more of the following: Geoffrey of Monmouth, de Beroul, Thomas Malory, etc.)

(The last option IMHO, is the least likely, but many naively hold to it.)

This subject is a very complex one, & I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few flamewars over ths article before it becomes worth nominating as a Featured Article. -- llywrch 18:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I believe you forgot an important possibility: A mythological personage whose mythology was coopted by a real person to further his rise to power. This would be sort of a combination of your #2 and #3. Chuck 20:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Llywrch, your arguments seem to be the result of a good research of the subject. Perhaps they could form the basis of an article similar in intent to Historicity of Jesus. Presenting arguments for and against the existance of an at least semi-legendary figure.

But I hope you will find some time to address some counter-arguments.

Sorry for the long delay in responding, but I just stumbled over what you have written. My first question is "Counter-arguments? My point is that the historical material has a lot of problems & can be interpreted in a number of ways." For the record, I could make what I believe is a plausible argument for Arthur's existence -- but haven't offered it because that would be original research. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

"Llywrch, your arguments seem to be the result of a good research of the subject. Perhaps they could form the basis of an article similar in intent to Historicity of Jesus. Presenting arguments for and against the existance of an at least semi-legendary figure." We can be sure that a mindset like that (with an obvious agenda and 'intent') will probably not make a very productive addition on such issues, especially when trying to connect the historicity of Jesus (accepted by virtually all scholars except a few who obviously have axes to grind) with the historicity of Arthur (who apparently is not at all certain to have been historical). Cornelius (talk) 13:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

1)The given period (480 - 540) is indeed not among the best documented periods of European history. But not exactly a "dark age". As it includes the reigns of at least two celebrated rulers: Clovis I (reigned 481 - 511) and Justinian I (reigned 527 - 565).

Yes, but the historians for this period are not particularly interested in what happens on a cold, damp isle at the ends of the world -- which is how they viewed Britain. Once the curtain of recorded history goes down on the Roman provinces of Britain, it doesn't really rise again until Pope Gregory the Great decides to send missionaries that way. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

2)The "contemporary" would-be sources Gildas and Procopius are somewhat problematic:

• Gildas only mentions his own birth as occuring in the same year as the Battle of Mons Badonicus. He mentions none of the participants.

His reference is not unlike Nick Mason or Bob Marley referencing their own births occuring on the same year/s as the Battle of the Bulge. A passing reference with no detail.

Vortigern Studies] gives the translated text as follows:

"From that time on now the citizens, now the enemy, were victorious ... right up until the year of the siege of Badon Hill, almost the last, not the least, slaughter of the villains, and this the forty-fourth year begins (as I know) with one month already elapsed, which is also [that] of my birth."

And your point is? I'm being frank here: all you have done is explain exactly what is said in this passage. It doesn't mention Arthur, but then why should it? Still, some who argue against Arthur's existence emphasize that he is not named here. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• Procopius is mainly interested in the court of Emperor Justinian. He references a reported migration from an apparently overcrowded Britain to desolated northern Gaul. Told to him by a delegation of Franks and Angles c. 553. He mentions the island ruled by three Kings but names none of them. He mentions a King of the Franks but does not name him. Art a time where there were actualy three of them: Childebert I, Clotaire I, Theodebald.

Vortigern Studies] gives the translated text as follows: "Three very populous nations inhabit the Island of Brittia, and one king is set over each of them. And the names of these nations are Angles, Frisians, and Britons who have the same name as the island. So great apparently is the multitude of these peoples that every year in large groups they migrate from there with their women and children and go to the Franks. And they [the Franks] are settling them in what seems to be the more desolate part of their land, and as a result of this they say they are gaining possession of the island. So that not long ago the king of the Franks actually sent some of his friends to the Emperor Justinian in Byzantium, and despatched with them the men of the Angles, claiming that this island [Britain], too, is ruled by him. Such then are the matters concerning the island called Brittia."

Neither author sets to detail the history of Britain during this period. And Procopius gets the name wrong.

So, are you saying that this should be added to the scanty collection of facts about this period? I'll concede that; Wendy Davies has done a fascinating job redeeming the Llandaff Charters, & showing how they could substantially add to this list. The reason I did not mention either of these items was because they do not address the question whether there was an Arthur or not. (FWIW, our article Battle of Mons Badonicus includes this passage from Procopius.) -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

3)The texts interpritated as historical evidence of Arthur indeed date from at least two centuries after his supposed death. But the same probably is true about Hengest and Horsa. This does not proove the texts to be completely false but cast doubt on their accuracy.

Again, my point. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

4)One could argue that few works of ancient and medieval history were written with the intent to "document events accurately".

Herodotus was often unsure of the actual course of events and resolved to offer competing versions for them, presenting his own conclusions at the end. He lists as historical figures Io and Europa. His dialogues between Solon and Croesus seem to be instructions on morality and happiness. Not unlike the intentions of Plutarch. And several tales were apparently included for the sake of entertainment.

Thucydides and Suetonius feature "heroes" in the forms of cunning politicians such as Pericles and Caesar Augustus.

Court historians such as Manetho, Eusebius of Caesarea and Procopius tend to read as propaganda.

Unbiased presentation of events seems a rather modern goal for historians.

Well, I'm not sure how to answer that objection. Most of the ancient historians offer a narrative & descriptions of place & persons that can be read with care to produce a result acceptibly close to what modern historians expect to read. And the various rhetorical touches (& the knack of telling their version of what happened) are well-known & have been taken in consideration for longer than I have been alive. However, to my knowledge few serious historians made up, invented -- lied -- about their subject. IIRC from reading his Histories, Herodotus honestly believed that Io & Europa existed -- or admitted that this was a story he had been told. Thucydides might have glossed over facts that made Pericles look bad, but he did not invent facts to make him look good.

And modern historians write with complete absence of bias; those who say they do are the ones most likely to be the most biassed. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

5) Actually the theories may not be mutualy exclusive. The complex traditions included in the Matter of Britain may equally contain historical traditions, forgeries by nobles claiming descent from figures such as Bors and Morgan le Fay, religious tales of paganism and Christianity alike and naturally the fictions of such worthies as Geoffrey of Monmouth and Thomas Malory. Arthur may be a composite figure rather than a singular historical or fictional character.

A possibility I tried to include with the word "embellished"; but you are right that the poets weren't the only ones embellishing. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

6)Who does seriously believe that any of the romance writers accurately depicted 6th century Britain? User: Dimadick

You'd be surprised. Probably the most surprising example is an article Geoffrey Ashe published in the journal Speculum: a very sober, trustworthy academic journal that has been around forever. The article, for 98% of its content, is a very insightful survey of the evidence for Arthur; the 2% that fails this mark is the last paragraph or two in which he allows himself to be carried off on wings of fancy, arguing that Geoffrey of Monmouth was right, & Arthur did invade France just as he said.

But the others who believe this don't get published in quite as prestigious of journals for very good reasons. Many of them do, on the other hand, have access to the Internet, & are likely to edit Wikipedia articles to reflect their POVs. -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments: Apart from that Joseph of Arimathea myth, what links Glastonbury in any way, shape or form to Avalon before the advent of the Plantagenets' propaganda machine? I doubt there's much that can be described as definitive.

Do we also need to mention all later additions (like the Grail) that distract from the earlier elements which are closer to being genuine; it's an article on the HISTORICITY of Arthur.

And can you explain why you believe this, in a calm manner, citing appropriate sources? -- llywrch 04:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The main problem I see with Glastonbury is that it comes from a time of dire financial problems for the abbey (fire in 1184, refusal from the king to increase funding because of the Crusades), with an abbot whose main claim to fame while in Fécamp was the discovery of a Holy Blood relic in similar circumstances as he later discovered the fake tombs. Between 1189 (his nomination) and 1191 (the discovery as established by Giraud de Barri), Henry de Sully had plenty of time; it's a period were fake charters flourished in Anglo-Norman monasteries to make them appear older than they were.

On a linguistical point of view, I also have the problem that Avallon is a plausible Brythonic word and that Giraud du Barry didn't seem to believe that it was a corruption from the Welsh when he wrote that thing about it meaning Isle of Glass.

To most of Europe, Arthur's popularity is fairly recent, probably not much earlier than the onset of the Crusades.

I have a problem that the earliest mention of Glastonbury in Arthurian legend comes from a monk of the abbey (the Welsh Caradoc of Llancarfan) by making it the last rest of Gildas and by setting Arthur's rescue of Guenevere from the king of the Somersetae there, therefore presenting it as Frisian land.

I have a problem that this association appears at a time when the house of Anjou is also playing at faking its genealogical tree to seem rooted in the Arthurian legend

Whatever the Angevin Kings hoped to achieve, it can be no coincidence that around this time Henry II's son Geoffrey married Duchess Constance of Brittany; they named their (ill-fated) son Arthur. Many of the 12th century additions to the Arthurian tales reflect the recent history of the Breton House of Rennes: e.g. Count Alan Rufus's 11th century affair with Gunhild, daughter of Harold Godwinson, finds an echo in the story of Lancelot and Guinevere. Zoetropo (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

During Alan's time, the Counts of Anjou claimed descent from a Roman soldier (reading between the lines, in the employ of the western emperor Gratian) who was expelled from Lower Brittany by Conan Meriadoc under a general order by Magnus Maximus; this soldier settled in Rennes, in Upper Brittany. So the Angevins at that stage were only claiming descent from a Gallo-Roman speaking commoner with a floruit around the year 383. Zoetropo (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem that mere decades earlier, people were not searching in Glastonbury and Norman chronicles reported that 1) no one knew where he was buried and 2) the Welsh believed he would come back as some sort of saviour, the all of a sudden two Welsh bards appear and tell Henri II that they know where the tomb is and tell him, conveniently at a time where the resistance to Anglo-Norman invasions is increasing (three defeats in the space of a few years)

Now, I mainly use one source (L'Empire des Plantagenets, by Martin Aurell, professor of medieval history at the university of Poitiers), with elements of his 29 pages bibliography. I am also a bit influenced by amateur historian Jean Claude Even, who has one thing going for him: his refutation of the Paimpont myth (he has the problemt that he is an evhemerist to some degree, but by partaking in such an article, we probably all are)

Finally, I got around to typing it. Please, take it also as my objections regarding Fécamp and the like on the other page, at least until I get around to repairing my PC (this is what makes me cranky). D.D.M. Snapdragonfly

The bit about Merlin mentions Myrddin Emrys but dates both Merlins to well after the Arthurian period. This ignores the identification of Emrys with Ambrosius.

Get things moving...

I'm very much in agreement with llywrch. This article should give an account of the various sources for Arthur, and then deconstruct each of them. I don't see a problem keeping all the "might have beens", but if this is an article on historicity it should focus on the sources. Harthacanute 23:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Praetorian?

"The location of Riothamus’s army was betrayed to the Visigoths by the jealous Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, and Euric defeated him in a battle in Burgundy. Riothamus was last seen retreating near a town called Avallon"

Praetorian prefect? I was under the impression that the Praetorians were disbanded in the 4th century. Fred26 20:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Praetorian prefect was a civil rank in the late Empire (insofar as there were any civil positions): someone in charge of a praetorian prefecture. Viceroy I suppose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Áedán mac Gabráin & Artu(i)r mac Áedáin

I am currently rewriting Áedán mac Gabráin, so I have perused Zeigler's article on Artuir, which struck me being built on rather shaky foundations, but the sections in this article would be improved by following Zeigler. I have also changed to the "normal" orthography for their names, as above. The variants "mac Gabran" and "mac A(ei)dan" are barbarisms, but Artuir is more debatable: if editors prefer Artur then that is a perfectly acceptable form. The date of Artuir mac Áedáin's death is uncertain, but the one source which gives it - the Annals of Tigernach - has 594: "Iugulacio filiorum Aedan .i. Bran & Domungort & Eochaid Fínd & Artur ...". Artuir is also mentioned by Adomnán and is given as a son of Áedán in the Senchus fer n-Alban. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote this piece before noticing that there was another piece below dealing with the same figure! D'oh! Anyway you can make use of it as you feel fit....all the information is from the the Legend of King Arthur website and Michael Wood's In Search of Myths and Heroes.

Sorry, but I was dumbfounded at how utterly shoddy, inaccurate and ill-informed this section was. A complete rewrite is imperative. For example, much is made of Columba as the bringer of Christianity to Scotland. a) Christianity was already well established in Scotland for 200 years by the time Columba arrived b) the time and place of the mission of Ninian is surely more relevant c) I am not aware of anyone anywhere else attempting to equate Iona with Avalon. It is worth mentioning the Isle of May in the Firth of Forth if you are looking for northern protoypes for Avalon - an ancient island burial site for the Kings from Manau (Clackmananshire roughly) - c.f. Mannanan, the god who presided over Emain Afallach, the mythological precursor of Avalon. 82.12.121.166 23:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Artuir, eldest son of Aedan mac Gabrain

The key problem with identifying a historical Arthur is the date and the name. It is generally agreed that all the early sources date the historical Arthur to a time after the end of the British Roman Empire, and before the Angles and the Saxons stabilised their power and begain what is now known as Anglo-Saxon Britain: i.e a period between the 4th and the 6th century. The key problem, thereofore, is that there is only one historical figure (noted in contemporary historical documents) who has the name Arthur (as the name would have been written at the time: Artuir). This is Artuir, the eldest son of Aedan mac Gabrain, King of Dalriada which was a Scottish Gaelic speaking (but probably Christian) Kingdom "between the walls" i.e. located between the Antonine Wall and Hadrian's Wall. This tribe was most active between the end of the 6th century BC and the beginning of the 7th century BC.

Interestingly, this is the same part of Britain that the earliest records of Myrddin (now known as Merlin come from). Moreover, the very earliest references to Arthur's last battle describe it as being at Camlann. Assuming that this is not simply an invented name (and this is of course a possibility) this has been tentatively identified as Camboglanna near Hadrian's Wall. There is also some even more tentative evidence showing that this historical Arthur may have had a sister named Morgen (who became Morgan Le Fay), and even, perhaps, a wife whose name was etymologically related to Guinevere.

The disadvantage of this theory is that one loses almost all the legend. This Arthur did not die fighting the Angles or the Saxons but the Picts. Nor was he King (or even leader) of the Britains: Dalriada was a small Kingdom even by the standards of the day. On the other hand it has been argued that Camelot could be identified with the Roman Fort of Camelon: thereby creating genuine historical analogues for Morgan le fay, Guinevere, Camelot, and possibly Merlin and Mordred.

The vast advantage of this theory is that, to repeat, there is literally only one genuine historical figure from the correct time period who has the name Arthur and it is Arthur of Dalriada. Of course it is likely that over the years, elements from other historical figures (such as Lucius Castus) were added to make up the legend as we have it today. This is the solution to the mystery favoured by Michael Wood in his book "In Search of Myths and Heroes". See also [1].' User:BScotland 17:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting theory -- but it is still just one of many possible solutions. Remember, the historical evidence in the period 410-590 is very incomplete for Britain, so basing your argument on the absense of evidence (an argument from silence) is not conclusive. -- llywrch 16:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is true, of course, but the article overleaf needs clean up (as regards Artuir) and people can feel free to cannibalise what I wrote when they do this. One thing that has to be sorted out, however. According to the website http://www.legendofkingarthur.com there is ONE and ONE ONLY Arthur in this period (i.e. that is represented in more or less contemporary documents). However, other sites claim that this is not correct. Which of these claims is true? If it's not true that the idea that Artuir is 'our' Arthur becomes much less strong. This should be cleared up by someone who knows what they are talking about, I think BScotland, 8th April 2006

It should be pointed out that Dalriada is not "between the walls" as is stated above. The northern wall reaches the sea at Old Kilpatrick (surely a good candidate for "bennaven taburniae") in the territory of the Northern British kingdom of Strathclyde. It should be noted that a Strathclyde Arthur could plausibly have fought Scots though. Strathclyde would have been vulnerable to raids from the north west (Dalriada) by two routes. One is up the Firth of Clyde. The other is via the portage from Loch Long ("the loch of the ships") to Loch Lomond on the Arrochar - Tarbet line. This portage is outflanked by another longer route via Glen Douglas, which is named after the Douglas river. Nennius battle list mentions battles by Douglas water in "Linnuis". Loch Lomond, Glen Douglas etc is in fact in a district called Lennox. The Loch Long end of the Arrochar - Tarbet portage and also Glen Douglas is overlooked by a mountain called Ben Arthur (also known as "the Cobbler"). 82.12.121.166 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Also I should point out that Artur mac Aedan fell fighting the "Miathi", possibly near their citadel at Dumyat Hill ("the fortress of the Miathi") which overlooks Stirling, and also the river Allan. A bend in the river Allan would be rendered in Gaelic something like "Cam Allan" (sound familiar?). Calling the Miathi Picts is a bit of an over generalisation - the Miathi are attested in Roman sources from around the mid 2nd century CE (Maeatae), over a hundred years before the first use of the word "Pict".82.12.121.166 23:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Sarmatian connection and Artorius Castus theories

These webpages offer critiques of these theories:

• The Historicity and Historicization of Arthur - in the "Arthur was _originally_ a mythical personage" camp; quite convincing if you ask me. Look in the section "The Origins of Arthur?"

Excerpts:

The main problem with this theory is, however, the 1000 years of silent transmission of these Scythian folktales as central to the Arthurian legend that the authors require us to accept, both in Britain and on the continent -- all the 'Scythian' elements appear in the post-Galfridian works, from Chrétien de Troyes onwards, and some of the most striking apparent parallels between the Arthurian legend and the eastern Batraz story make their very first appearances in Malory's Le Morte Darthur!

...none of the "most important of Arthurian themes" are even hinted at in the reasonably large body of insular Arthurian traditions that we have preserved in Culhwch, Pa gur?, the Triads etc. -- Arthur, as he appears in non-Galfridian [ed. deriving from Geoffrey of Monmouth] tradition, looks like an entirely insular figure with an insular cycle (see Padel, 1994, 1995; Bromwich and Evans, 1992; Ford, 1983; Edel, 1983; etc.) and it is only in post-Galfridian materials that he gains what Littleton and Malcor see as the 'essential elements' of his legend when making him simply Batraz by another name...

• ‘King of the who?’ - a critique of the recent King Arthur film, Linda Malcor and related theories

Excerpts:

She [Malcor] submits that Artorius commanded the Sarmatians in Britain in the late second century. As far as I can tell, the reason for believing this is that Artorius served on the Danube frontier, and was probably involved in dealing with the Sarmatians there. Yet if you look at what she says about his earlier career, she argues that he must have got to know the Sarmatians when he was on the Danube [The author says the Sarmatian recruiting and placement as depicted in the film were totally wrong - well, read the piece], because we know he later took command of them! Can we say 'circular argument', children?

...[Malcor's] second article [ [1] ] is equally circular in its logic, demonstrating that Artorius' life has parallels with Arthur's by reconstructing the Roman's biography from Arthurian sources! She even includes Badon in Artorius' battles, despite the fact that we know this battle took place in the post-Roman period. And I do wonder, if Artorius had such a glorious career, why is it that his name leaves no trace in the historical record, only being known from epigraphy.

Someone should probably read and integrate them into the article; I don't have the time right now. Uthanc 23:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As some Arthurian literary material passed through Breton hands it may be worth adding a piece on the Alan settlement in Armorica (Brittany) in the Late Roman period. Many counts of Brittany were named Alan, so their impact on Breton culture was not negligible. It is therefore possible that Iranian steppe traditions entered the Arthurian corpus through Alan influence in Brittany not Sarmatian influence within Britain itself.

Urselius 12:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Geoffrey of Monmouth was a contemporary of Stephen, Count of Tréguier, a younger brother and eventual heir of Alan Rufus, and of Stephen's second son Alan, 1st Earl of Richmond. The high status of their family in Norman England is probably a significant factor. That Arthur I, Duke of Brittany was a descendant of the latter Alan must also be considered when understanding the later Angevin connection to Arthurian mythology. Moreover, two fifteenth century descendants of Earl Alan were the financiers and editors of Caxton's press. Zoetropo (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This section has a lot of irrelevant and nonfactual information - I will try to clean this up a bit. Cagwinn (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bear of Britain

King Arthur was supposedly referred to by some writers as the Bear of Britain (Mythological basis section) Supposedly? Either a writer did (so the reference can be found) or did not. What's the source? Totnesmartin 17:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Split?

I think that the bottom section about the Historical basis for other parts of Arthurian legend may do better as a separate article Historical basis for Arthurian legend. This would allow for expansion of the section and better organization, as well as being another step towards removal of the cleanup tag on this article. This article would be a sub article summarized in the newly-created article with a link provided. Wrad 05:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Kuralyov 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How about just cutting it? Is there anything there that isn't in List of Arthurian characters, and which deserves to be preserved? Mike Christie (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? List of Arthurian characters does nothing but note whether a character had a historical base. It goes into absolutely no detail at all. You might as well suggest that this entire article get cut because the List of Arthurian characters has Arthur on it. Kuralyov 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the material at the top of the section in this article does need to be preserved somewhere. I do think the table in this article adds very little of value, though; the "Historical basis" column isn't all that informative by itself -- you have to click through in each case, and there's no guarantee that what you see on the other end focuses on the historical basis for that character.

Each of the Arthurian characters in that table has an article, and presumably each article discusses (or should discuss) the historical basis for that character. So a separate article about the historical basis for other Arthurian characters is a duplication. This isn't true for Arthur himself, of course, since there's enough to say about the historical basis for Arthur that a separate article is clearly necessary. But I'm not convinced that we really gain anything by assembling the material about the individual characters into a single article; if you look at the prose material we have now, above the table, it's quite disjointed, because there's very little relationship between the historical information for each character separately.

I'm not suggesting dismissing the information, just that this article isn't the place for it (which I think we agree on) and that we don't gain anything by making a separate article for it. Mike Christie (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see where this guy comes from. The way the last section is now is really not much more than the list page. It doesn't fit in this article at all. The new article I'm thinking of would be different, it would be a central place to summarize the most significant parts of historical basis for Arthurian legend, not a character by character account. I'm sure there is plenty of literature for it. Wrad 17:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me; if you have an article in mind with appropriate material, go for it. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Llongborth

The Early Welsh poem 'Llongborth,' which describes a battle at a port-settlement mentions Arthur. It also calls him "emperor." The poem is a praise-poem and elegy for a king called Geraint/Gereint (Gerontius), who is often identified with Gereint of Dumnonia. Some reference to this poem would be a useful addition to the early sources section.

Urselius 08:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The relevant verse from the poem:

In Llongborth I saw Arthur's Heroes who cut with steel. The Emperor, ruler of our labour

The poem is found in The Black Book of Carmarthen, compiled around 1250, from earlier documents. As Yr Gododdin was similarly copied at much the same time, circa 1250, it seems illogical to include the one and not the other. An early date for the poem is supported by the use of the name Llongborth, which means "naval-port," or "port of warships" incorporating part of the Latin term "navis longa" meaning warship.

Urselius 10:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another British emperor

The story of Gerontius the British Magister Militum (Field Marshal) of Constantine III, should be added to the section on emperors. Gerontius was instrumental in securing Gaul for Constantine III, but then rebelled in Spain and elevated his son Maximus to the Imperial throne. After the fall of Gerontius, Maximus seems to have joined one of the barbarian groups in Spain, he might be the same Maximus captured in 422, and executed. If so a British born former Roman Emperor was still alive into the 420s. This Maximus is a sort of mirror image to the earlier emperor, Magnus Maximus was born in Spain and elevated in Britain, the later Maximus seems to have been born in Britain and elevated in Spain.

The name Gerontius as Geraint was popular in Britain in the next few generations and is a name which re-occurs in the royal family of Dumnonia, to which tradition connects King Arthur.

Urselius 08:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The Dumnonia connection is interesting, because, according to Breton king lists, Riothamus was Prince of Domnonea, a strong northern state in Brittany which was settled from Dumnonia (approximately Devon). Britons and Bretons were and are renowned sailors, so it is possible that he ruled on both shores of the Channel. Zoetropo (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You are thinking of Riatam, not Riothamus. Yes, the names have the same origin, but they lived at different periods of time (Riatam was later). There is zero evidence that Riothamus had any connection to Domnonee. Cagwinn (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Zero evidence"? In the purported Breton "king" lists I've read (two of which are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domnon%C3%A9e and http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsBritain/ArmoricaDomnonia.htm), Riotham (reigned from circa 420 until 500/520) is the son of Prince Deroch I of Domnonea and Riwal Deroc "Ferox" (Deroch II) is Riothamus's son. If you have different and more reliable information, please present it with references. Zoetropo (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, zero evidence! The sources you linked to are not scholarly ones. I repeat, Riothamus and Riatam were two different people who lived at different times (unless the genealogies on Riatam are totally off) and the is zero - yes zero - evidence from any primary source on Riothamus that he had any connection to Domnonee. Cagwinn (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Arthur of Scotland?

A great many sights in Scotland bare Arthurian names, many of his ancestors and conntemporaries were from that area of Scotland and north England, (Hen Ogledd. Also, the many Welsh legends of him were actually carried there by northern settlers fleeing from Pictish and Irish incursions. Alistair Moffat in his "Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms" makes a very good case for this, and even locates his "Camelot." He is very realistic, pointing out the many false parts of the legends and relying on historical fact. Perhaps this should be one of the subsections. ---G.T.N. (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Splitting?

This thing's getting pretty big, and there is so much more to be said about each theory. Perhaps we ought to split it up into separate articles, such as one on mythological Arthur and one on historical Arthur, or separate ones for each century and a mythological article. We might even make articles on theories by country of origin. Just a thought. Any ideas? ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Budding is probably better than splitting. Any of the historical Arthur theories could form the basis for new articles provided they are sufficiently verifiable and notable. Some of the more detailed information from this article could then be moved into any new articles. This article does not seem too large to me, so I don't think it's an urgent matter. But if you have a lot of new, well-referenced content about any particular theory, please go ahead an start a new article and link it to this one. Nesbit (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Arthnou inscription

Taken logically the inscription "Arthnou father of a descendant of Coll" would imply that Arthnou's wife and child were the descendants of Coll, not that Arthnou himself was.

Urselius (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Major Chronicle Annals

What is the Major Chronicle Annals? ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 17:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Arthur was an Irishman/Gael

With regards to the following sentence, "Gildas in his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (or On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain) does mention a British king Cuneglasus who had been "charioteer to the bear"; the Brythonic word for bear was "Art"," I'd like to point out that "Art" was an Irish name attested to at least as far back as Art mac Cuinn, supposed High King of Ireland and son of Conn of the Hundred Battles (Cuinn = Conn), known mainly because of his more famous son, Cormac. Arthur is first mentioned by name with the qualification that he was not one of the kings of the Britons but "dux bellorum", their field commander. There certainly were enough Irish to go around: the Ulaidh in modern Galloway, the Ui Echach Cobo on the Isle of Mann, the Dal Riata in Earra Gaidheal (East Gaels), Ath Fodhla (New Ireland), the Ui Bairrche, Strath Eireann (valley of the Irish), Gowrie (from Cenel Gabhrain), Angus (Oengus), the Lemnaig, the Eoghanachta Magh Geirginn in Fortriu, the other Eoghanachta in Ceredigion and Dyfneint (Dumnonia), the Laighn in the Lleyn peninsula, the Feni in Gwynedd (Venedotia), the Deisi in Dyfed and Brycheiniog, and the Ui Liathin in Dyfneint. The place-names from the North I mention were in use at the time of Arthur or shortly thereafter and date from that time.

Of course, in earlier centuries numerous groups from Britain had invaded/settled in Ireland and assimilated: Galenga (Galeoin), Gangani, Ui Baircche (Brigantes), Fir Bolg/Belgae, Fir Domnan (Dumnonii), Fir Manach (Manapii), and three groups of Corieltauvi. Meanwhile, the Picts, or Cruithne, or Pretani, had identifiable tribes (Fineachan, Ui Eachach Cobo, Dal nAraidi, Connaill Muirtheimhne, Cineal Foghartaigh, Loigis, Sogain, and Fothairt) surviving to this day in family names (O’Lynch, MacCartan, MacGenis, O’Mannin, O’More, O’Nolan, O’Doran, O’Lawlor, and O’Dowling, among others); the influence went both ways. (Natty4bumpo) 1503 EDT, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, what I mean is that the historical Arthur may have been the son of one of the colonists from Ireland, rather than Irish-born himself. Consider, for example, the early story of his interaction with Brychan (Briocan, son of the Irish Deisi king of Dyfed) of Brycheiniog. He may have even started out with guerrilla warfare much like the later William Wallace, who was himself not one of the "kings" or lords of his country but rather "Guardian of Scotland", then had better luck with more conventional tactics than the latter did, sort of like Robert the Bruce. Natty4bumpo (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Norma Lorre Goodrich

I'll concede from the beginning that other people may be much better informed than I am on this topic, so I'm fully prepared to be corrected here. However, I am unaware of a historians' consensus on Norma Lorre Goodrich. For that matter, I'm unaware of any real consensus on anything regarding the historicity of King Arthur (hence the nature of this article). If there is a conflict between sources, then both views are given their appropriate weights. If Goodrich is a fringe author or not reliable for some other reason, then I agree she's omitted entirely. I'm not aware that's the case though. Is it? DCB4W (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

What I have right now is no where good enough to show that she is not a reliable source, as it is some anonymous quotes I've garnered from Arthurian specialists. I will see if I can find anything better:

I've had occasional meetings with one or another of her students, and they have never gotten over their attachment for Goodrich -- but how anyone could ever believe any of those works under any circumstances is more than I can fathom

: Over the years the questions about and analyses of her work on Arthur has helped me to define the very nature of bad scholarship, as opposed to passable fiction, about King Arthur.

By the way, I would like to congratulate my local Waldenbooks for being one of the few bookstores to put one of her books in the proper section. I saw a copy of her "King Arthur" in the science fiction section -- quite appropriate given that this category does seem to include works of sheer fantasy.

Goodrich is fiction masquerading as fact

Please do. What we'd really need are sources explaining why she's useless, rather than conclusory statements of opinion by people who don't like her work. If one of those specialists uses her as the paradigm of bad scholarship, he should be able to articulate specific reasons for doing so. After all, Margaret Murray has had that title for so long, it'd be a shame to dethrone her for a lesser specimen. :) DCB4W (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the case. dougweller (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile though I'd like you either to give us a page number from the book or remove the reference, as the page number is really required so people can verify it. It is for the sentence "Archaeological studies show that during Arthur's alleged lifetime, the Anglo-Saxon expansions do seem to have been halted for a whole generation", right? WP:PROVEIT says "The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books."

OK, I tracked down my copy and found the appropriate passages. No need to get snippy. DCB4W (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, having done the citation, the hilarious thing is that this is probably the least controversial use of Goodrich imaginable. Little to none of what that footnote points to is her original research. It's essentially her collation of existing data-- times of Saxon occupations of various regions, medieval chronicles, and the like-- that, as far as I can tell, is essentially incontrovertible. There does seem to have been a Saxon setback, particularly in the areas she thinks were in Arthur's theater of operations. Even if the rest of her book is horsefeathers, that section is probably still good information.

I'd still like to know if there is a historical consensus about the rest of the book being horsefeathers, though. It's still worthwhile to know if her basic analysis is sound or not. Much of her book seems to be based on linguistic analysis, and I can see how that could be flagged as hopelessly speculative. (That was one of the critiques I recall of Black Athena, for example.) I also notice a penchant for taking medieval chronicles at face value. Still, she seems to have the credentials to make the attempt, so I am interested to see what the peer reviews look like. DCB4W (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If I seemed snippy, I apologise. It was the end of a long day. That bit has two parts, one is the assumed dates (which is a not uncontroversial), the other is the archaeology. I've had a comment from a medieival historianI don't think I have ever found a single statement in Goodrich's work that I could agree with. And her scholarship is deplorable. But that is again not useful, and I asked him for any reviews that say anything similar (or positive). And as a complete aside, are you aware that John Morri's Arthurian work is not exactly revered among historians? dougweller (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Goodrich is, I'm afraid, not in any way an acceptable academic reference for anything other than her own theory, and needs to be removed. As requested by Doug on-list, I'll cite from one particularly telling review:

What is surprising is that this book claims to be "the first book to have explored very minutely and in the original languages both the historical and the literary material concerning king Arthur" (p. 325). There is medieval material on Arthur in Latin, Welsh, Irish, Breton, French, German, English, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Provengal, Dutch and Old Norse. Professor Goodrich has explored only a fraction of this material. Her examination, far from minute, is uneven and erratic; and far from being first in the field, her work is only one of well over 10,000 items which have appeared since serious study of Arthurian matters began in the last century... The book as a whole is about as reliable as the statement from it just discussed. It is so fundamentally unsound that one would take it as an elaborate joke...

...in order to profit from these resources, one must know how to use them; one must understand the nature of one's material, and be skeptical, rational, methodical and perceptive. Goodrich, like an Orwellian doublethinker, is capable at one moment of casting doubt on the plainest fact, and at the next, of believing the grossest absurdity... For an Arthurian expert, reading this book is a nightmare: familiar details are there, but in the grossest confusion. Even a non-initiate will probably find that the book de- nounces itself by innumerable inconsistencies and logical absurdities. To correct every error would be a tedious task, particularly as the author gives few references, so that the sources of her mis-statements have to be laboriously tracked down. It would also be pointless, since many excellent books on Arthur exist as ready-made refutations. I shall limit myself to a few examples which may warn the intending reader.

At times the reader has to grasp desperately after his own departing sanity, as when the author is attempting to rediscover the castle of Blanchefleur from the Perceval romance... Professor Goodrich's linguistics, however, leave her logic in the shade. She claims to be a specialist on the written texts (p. 27), whose difficulty she greatly exaggerates. Anyone with a good knowledge of Modern French can learn to read Old French within weeks. But one may doubt whether Goodrich is a perfect master even of Modern French, since she apparently thinks that " 'o' = the normal masculine ending in French" (p. 173). In linguistics she is lost. Two astonishing examples will suffice... Professor Goodrich regularly mangles the history, literature, and language both of the Dark Ages (which she does nothing to illuminate) and of the High Middle Ages (which she totally fails to understand). But modem critics fare no better. If they agree (?) with her, they are "brilliant," but if they "disagree" they are insulted...

And so on... This is from Rosemary Morris's review of Goodrich's Arthur book, in the well-regarded and learned journal Albion, 19.3 (1987), pp. 391-3 [Morris is a very highly respected academic, incidentally, and author of such widely-cited works as The Character of King Arthur (1985)]. Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's not reassuring. Getting panned in a peer review is not a good sign. In any event, anyone with an appropriate replacement citation is welcome to sub it in. Should we expand this thread to a more general discussion of sources? I'm assuming that's why Dougweller brought up John Morris. (It looks as though the citation to him was added in August of 2007.) DCB4W (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much Hrothgar. Someone else found this review which I don't have but is likewise negative, but I don't have it:

"Allen J. Frantzen The American Historical Review, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Jun., 1987), pp. 641-642". dougweller (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't use Goodrich. But is as noted the statement attributed to her about the wane in Saxon activity in Britain is not particularly controversial, the same statement could be attributed to any number of sources that are actually reliable.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I note that I find it humorous that Goodrich's hypotheses were removed after much deliberation (though I agree with the removal), yet the fantasies of other factually-challenged pseudo-scholars, such as Malcor, Littleton, Blackett and Wilson, are left in. Strict standards of scholarship should be applied to all the hypotheses listed here - this will probably shorten the article by a third, or more, but we will end up with a quality encyclopedia entry, instead of the sloppy hodge-podge of pet theories that currently exists in this space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cagwinn (talk • contribs) 17:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, it's useful to see, for instance, at least a comment refuting Blackett & Wilson's stuff - I see a role for Wikipedia in doing this. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition of text, halt to expansion - & 'during his alleged lifetime'?

I've removed Goodrich, again.

'during his alleged lifetime' begs the question. As someone elsewhere has asked, " What document in

the “traditional cycle of legends” states that Arthur was a “Romano”-British leader? Geoffrey states that King Aldroen reigned in Britain fourth after Conan Meriodoc, which might suggest he was fourth in descent and so the brother to the Constantine in Welsh genealogies who was fourth in descent from Kynan. And Conan/Kynan fought for Magnus Maximus according to Geoffrey and Welsh legend. Does that make Arthur “Romano”?"

And another comment from a practising archaeologist about a possible archaeological scenario:

"In the early fifth century (if not slightly before), the provincial governments of Maxima Caesariensis and Flavia Caesariensis began to employ small numbers of mercenary soldiers, initially in coastal locations, to help with defence against increasing sea-borne raids (by Picts, Scots, even Saxons). In the chaos of the economic collapse of the early decades of the fifth century, urban communities (no longer effectively controlled by whatever remnants of provincial government carried on after the administrative staff had ceased receiving their salaries) also began to employ mercenaries against increasing piracy, now reaching inland, and perhaps even localised civil unrest and a return to Iron Age raiding practices. This takes us up to the 440s. Then we have a revolt of at least some of the mercenaries, followed by a generation or so of warfare. The mercenary communities are successful in expanding the areas they control. Perhaps they invite kinsfolk across from north Germany and Scandinavia. But the archaeological correlate of a greater westward distribution of material culture is largely illusory: instead, it's spreading out from urban centres (Dorchester-on-Thames is the example par excellence) and filling in the gaps. Some of this is accomplished by new settlement but some of it is also accomplished by the uptake of germanic ways of doing things by the indigenes (I happen to think that the majority can be attributed to this, but that's something that will continue to be controversial until we have decent DNA analysis of ancient bone, not modern populations).

By the end of the fifth century, the distribution of this germanic style material culture is virtually at its greatest extent, covering an area east of a line from Dorset to the River Trent and from there up the east side of the Pennines to Lindisfarne. It's effectively the three late Roman provinces of Maxima Caesariensis, Flavia Caesariensis and Britannia Secunda; Britannia Prima is untouched by the new material, as is Valentia (if we can identify this with Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria). What I think we've seen in the east is the slow destruction of the infrastructure of Roman (or sub-Roman) government in these areas and its replacement by a more haphazard, locally based and fragmented tribalism. Two two western provinces maintain their coherence (can we portray Ambrosius Aurelianus as a governor of Britannia Prima and Arthur as his magister militum? I know it's been suggested before).

The 'westward expansion' does not come to an end with the fifth century: instead, the processes by which Britannia Prima and Valentia disappear and fragment are those 'civil wars' described by Gildas. There never was a 'westward expansion': instead it was the replacement of a centralised, Roman provincial government by urban local government, slowly infiltrated by soldiers of germanic descent and their war-bands, creating proto-kingdoms whose origin myths were framed around the heroic, militaristic deeds of ancestors (real or imagined) from continental Europe. The spread of germanic material culture is to do with emulation, as I've said before. "

Dougweller (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Doug, just to be clear, all I did today was add back in some stuff that was mass-deleted by a vandal earlier today (the earlier revert took away the new stuff added in its place but didn't restore what had been deleted)... Checking the history, the Goodrich stuff was actually re-added back in late November 2008 "pending consensus", and no-one actually went back and took it out again after the discussion on Goodrich's lack of scholarship which is archived above... :-/ All told, the page is not so great atm, but I personally don't have the time to try and fix it just yet... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

That's what I understood you to be doing. I'd missed the fact that the Goodrich stuff was still there. As you say, it's not very good, but the work involved to fix it... Dougweller (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct self-contradiction

In two different paragraphs, in adjacent sections, the article states flatly that Hengist and Horsa were historicized from two Anglo-Saxon horse gods, and were never real people, and that they were in fact real Saxon leaders. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

section on Lucius Artorius Castus - continued from 2007 discussion above

The section on Lucius Artorius Castus contains way too much hypothetical/speculative information - it is in desperate need of a re-write. For the past several days I have been editing the standalone Lucius Artorius Castus Wikipedia entry and have gotten it into much more cohesive and factual state - it would be great if I could get some feedback on it and maybe we can incorporate some of the information here. Cagwinn (talk) 04:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Your work on LAC here and in his own article is much appreciated - by this editor at least. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Richard - the explosion in popularity on the internet of the LAC=Arthur hypothesis (with its many, and often quite bizarre, permutations) has inspired me to take a back-to-basics approach to studying this rather elusive figure. It's really a shame that so much nonsense has been written about the man in recent years (some of it even spread by otherwise rational scholars), because he does seem to have had an interesting career and is worthy of study, regardless of any alleged associations with Arthur. One issue that concerns me now is that an "Arthurian" LAC is being wielded as some sort of hero figure by nationalists in eastern Europe (who believe they are the descendants of Sarmatians) and by certain right wing groups in the West; another is that the Croatian government, eager for Western tourism dollars, is acting in collusion with publicity seekers such as John Matthews and Linda Malcor to hype up the Arthurian connection; thus potentially interfering with the current study of the Podstrana inscriptions underway in Zagreb. The widespread dissemination of misinformation about LAC and Arthur online certainly makes life harder for serious historians.Cagwinn (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Other Arthurian Characters

This section is in pretty abysmal shape - especially the table - there's a lot of misinformation and mispellings of names. I suggest that it all be scrapped, or at least get a major overhaul, since the majority of these other characters are not really relevant to the historocity of Arthur himself (obvious exceptions being Ambrosius and Medraut, who are at least mentioned in early histories or chronicles. -Cagwinn66.28.99.139 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Magnus Maximus

Why is there a section on Maximus here? No serious scholar has suggested that he was the "real Arthur", so it seems silly to me that he is even mentioned here.Cagwinn (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Meanwhile, can you find some sources for the sections you've edited? We seem to be very low on sources. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I will add sources as soon as I can, though I may be forced to do so in a piecemeal fashion, due to my current work schedule.Cagwinn (talk) 20:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Dougweller (talk) 20:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The point, surely, is that the Arthurian tales draw on many historical, as well as fictional, persons and events. The notion that "Arthur" conquered Rome is far-fetched, but not so the deeds of Constantine the Great and other Roman commanders who used Britain as the launchpad for their attempts to becomer Emperor. These are reasonable candidate influences on the story. The Galician-born Magnus Maximus is an interesting case for many factual and fictional reasons, among which is that a romantic account of him appears in the Mabinogion, in which he is (correctly) associated with the foundation of Brittany. Zoetropo (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Other Arthurian "candidates"

I think this article is flawed in that we jump from discussing the traditional 5th-6th century Arthur to proposing all of these other "real" Arthurs without any explanation as to why the traditional Arthur should be rejected. Also, most (if not all) of these identifications with other "Arthurs" are dubious at best (and only have the support of pseudo-scholars) and I think it is ridiculous to give them all equal billing here, as if they are all valid, alternative candidates (the Athrwys identification, for example, is completely bogus and based on misreadings of old documents and allegedly forged "artifacts" produced by Blackett and Wilson - it does not really belong in this article).Cagwinn (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Offa

The words Sassanian and Sassenachs are the references to the same people,being the tribesmen of Khosroau(Crosroes)Persian Emporer of the modern day Iraq.The Oxford dictionary states that the 'Sassenach' was the German (and Celtic) term of Saxon.When these Sassanian Saxons swarmed into the depopulated area of central Europe they lived in the forests west of the Elbe and South coast of the Baltic between the Engrian tribes (Angles)and the Frisians of the Netherlands.They had no towns or cities and lived in groups in the forests and became mainly pirates as described by Charlemagne's historians.They landed on the shores of Britain occupying Essex, London, Sussex and Hampshire (wessex).Their brutality and merciless slaughter gave the name Assassins to the dictionary.They slaughtered every Briton south of the Thames from Dover to Dorset.as described by Gildas.Due to the collapsing Roman empire, the youth of Britons was removed to the continent, never to return.King Brude and his pictish war parties sent regular forays slaughtering the remaining Romans and Britons nobility. Ambrosius sent several appeals to Rome for assistance. It appears that Marcian a Roman emperor must have initiated a deal with the Engrians. This is the logical explanation as the Engrian,now referred to as Angles, were called Mercians.Bede states that the Angles came in their entirety leaving not a stick behind them.The Engrians gave England its name and kept the detestable Saxons in check at all times until the death of Offa's daughter and the influx of Danes.When Offa's daughter died the Saxons kidnapped her daughter and imprisoned her in Winchester. When the Great King Canute ruled England, he made good laws that were not equalled until the 19th century. When Canute left, there was no one but the Wessex royals to hand over to, causing great concern to English and the clergy.The Normans(northmen) where Saxons and their matrimonial arrangements caused the loss of the nation and a 1000 years of slavery.At one time Offa' warriors along side the Britons went into Somerset area and attacked the army of Egbert and exiled him. Offa's men also went into the Isle of Wight and removed the Sussex Saxons who were attacking the the Jutish inhabiants, and likewise in Kent,and Tyne side. William of Malmesbury in 1130ad, told the story of the great deeds of Offa but it was related either purposely, so not to be accused of treason, or because of the difficulty of pronouncing 'th', Offa was assumed to be Arthur. I rest my case. Brodie MacBrude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.35.157 (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The above appears to be original research, which is not appropriate for WP articles. If evidence has been published in any authoritative peer-reviewed academic articles, please provide the references. Personally, I would be very surprised if it has been, but I'm not an expert. Please do not re-insert it into the article, unless and until a consensus to do so is reached here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all a bunch of nonsense and should be deleted even from here.Cagwinn (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Badon date

As our article Battle of Badon states, this date is uncertain. We shouldn't be adding one specific claim, ie " that might have taken place in 482 AD, according to one recent estimate.Ó Cróinín, Dáibhí and McCarthy, Daniel, pp. 237-8, particrly as this is pretty dubious: Barbarian migrations and the Roman West, 376-568 By Guy Halsall where Halsall says on p 522 "13 McCarthy and O Croinin (15*87-8), pp. 237-S, who argue for a date for Badon of February 482 on the basis of an interpretation of Gildas' statement about Badon as meaning tbat it took place forty-four years and one month into a chronological cycle. The eighty-four-year Easter cycle available at the time would begin the cycle in 438. This is interesting but I am not sure the text supports the reading." (sorry about the OCR errors)

Anglo-Saxon England By Malcolm Godden, Simon Keynes "-' O Croinin, 'barly Irish Annals Irom kaster-1 ables . pp. • i -8 and 80—3. See also, D. McCarthy and 6 D. Croinin, The "lost" Irish 84-year Easter Table Rediscovered", Peritia f>—7 (1087-8), 22"-42. McKittcrick questions O Croiiiin's assumption that extant Easter tables acquired their marginal annal entries from their exemplars rather than being copied retrospectively from another source (all his examples survive in other forms); McKitierick, History end Memory, ." Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - O'Croinin and McCarthy's date (which is certainly not dubious) should be restored and other scholars' suggestions for the date of the battle could be added. By the way, you might want to retype some of the above, Doug - it's very difficult to read.Cagwinn (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's worse than I thought. Not my typing, the OCR. I'm saying it's dubious because the only commentary I can find on it is the above, which seems critical of their claim - why do you say 'certainly not dubious'? And I still think that the dating argument doesn't belong here, but if you are suggesting a range of dates, maybe. Dougweller (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, having read the article in question, I can tell you that it's very well researched and reasoned - in my opinion, their conclusions are just as valid as anyone else's. Halsall dismissal seems rather flippant (the Latin certainly can be read as a reference to an Easter cycle) and I don't think that Godden & Keynes' objection undermines the over all hypothesis.Cagwinn (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Other Arthurs

I inserted some more references to other historical characters with Art- Arth- names during the period of the VI and VII centuries. I located them at the Artuir mac Aedain section, but it can be moved or expanded as well. Galdaran (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

june 2015

I would like to point out that another very credible Arthur figure is given by cerdic of Wessex by Rudmin&Rudmin in http://celtic-twilight.com/camelot/rudmin/index.htm . This paper is being refernced more and more in published books ( for example, Ashley, _The Mammoth_Book_of_King_Arthur_, as well as other research papers available online. As such, it is possible that this deserves a mention under alternative historical Arthurs. Since I am a relative of the authors, I DON'T think it is appropriate for me to insert this to the main page. But perhaps this should be considered. 2600:1003:B10B:D6E4:CC9C:8484:B08C:104A (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)mjr

No, it should not be considered, for it is neither credible nor supported by any serious scholars (the fringe author Mike Ashley does not qualify as a scholar). Cagwinn (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

October 2011 edits

This article has always lacked any clear focus and for too long it has served as a COATRACK collecting various non-notable identifications. The "Debated historicity" section of the main King Arthur article is much better. Ideally, this article should spend less time listing off "alternative" theories and more time discussing the evidence and theories of Arthur's historicity. It should be separated into different sections:

1. A discussion of the evidence for a historical Arthur, including the Historia Brittonum, the Annales Cambriae, etc. Also included

2. A review of the evidence against a historical Arthur

3. A section summarizing the notable theories identifying Arthur as some other historical figure, including Lucius Artorius Castus and Riothamus, and the scholarly consensus on these theories

...preferably in that order. Thoughts?--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've always thought that WP should have a role, not only in setting out the evidence for (and against) academically plausible theories, but also in presenting the evidence against the implausible theories. The big problem is often that there are no clearly set out arguments against the implausible theories simply because academics - reliable sources - find them too absurd and laughable to comment on publicly. That presents a problem in that implausible theories can often be added, without any arguments against them. Is there an equivalent of Snopes.com for debunking pseudo-history and pseudo-archaeology? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the implausible theories hit the notability wall - the theories about Athrwys ap Meurig and Owain Ddantgwyn aren't noteworthy to begin with, so there's no reason for them to be mentioned at all. Of the ones that gain enough traction to pass the notability threshold, such as John Morris' various ideas, there are almost always sources that give them the appropriate scrutiny.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, though there are always going to be arguments over what theories are deemed "noteworthy". The same arguments apply, really, over "notability" as they do over "plausibility". If a book, however implausible, has been published about a theory, and reviewed, and gains popular traction, there is a case that it is therefore sufficiently notable for it at least to be mentioned here. I tend towards the view that references to theories should be included, and where necessary rebutted, rather than being dismissed and excluded from mention in what could be construed by some readers to be a high-handed manner. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The sections that I removed do not belong here - they are about as relevant as a section on the Green Cheese hypothesis would be in the WP article on the moon. The Sarmatian hypothesis section does not belong here because a) Lucius Artorius Castus is already mentioned here, b) it does not really address the historicity of Arthur, and c) it is nearly as fringe as the Artognou and Athrwys hypotheses (Malcor and the late Littleton were/are not serious scholars on this subject). Cagwinn (talk) 21:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quite possibly. But on what authority do you say that? Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

My own authority, which is based on 25+ years of research in the field of Arthuriana, including personal discussions with many of today's top Arthurian scholars (I have also had heated debates - both public and and private - with Littleton & Malcor, and Blackett & Wilson). Cagwinn (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

But, with the greatest respect, anyone could say that. The default position must be to include the theories, and explain why they are at fault - not to remove all mention of them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I challenge you to find any mainstream Arthurian scholars who lend even the slightest credence to the hypotheses that I deleted. I am confident that you will find none who do. It's ridiculous for bizarre, pseudo-scientific fringe hypotheses to be included here! Cagwinn (talk) 00:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to be guided by WP:FRINGE, among other things. This says, for example: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." The problem is that you are simply asserting your opinion on what or is not "fringe", without demonstrating that those theories are not accepted by "mainstream Arthurian scholars". You are simply deleting text based on your own views. No-one is claiming that fringe theories should be given undue weight, but their rejection by the orthodox community needs to be explained. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

We need to make the distinction here between what's credible and what's notable. An idea can be the latter without being the former. I agree with Cagwinn and others on the removal of the Athrwys and Owain Ddantgwyn sections. They are sourced nearly exclusively to the authors' own works rather than independent sources, which violates [[WP:NOTABILITY], WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Obviously, however, both the Sarmatian hypothesis and the "Artognou stone" are notable and appropriate to include here. The Sarmatian hypothesis, for instance, has been discussed in various reliable publications, and has an entry in the New Arthurian Encyclopedia. The "Artognou stone" and its claimed connections to Arthur have also been discussed in a number of sources. The fact that these theories are now rejected has no bearing on their notability to the subject at hand. The Historia Brittonum is also dismissed as reliable for this period of history, should we exclude that too?

As I said in a previous summary, both sections could use improvement (as could the rest of the article), but cleanup is the solution, not outright removal.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. They should be included, but perhaps in a section headed "Theories rejected by orthodox historians", or similar. But, it would be even better if we could provide sources and evidence clearly rebutting them. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the Sarmatian hypothesis will be better dealt with with (or adjacent to) Lucius Artorius Castus, as he is a large part of the hypothesis. The Artognou Stone probably doesn't need its own section, as the commenters weren't saying Artognou was a prototype for Arthur, they were saying the name is Arthur and the stone refers to the legendary king. It might could be dealt with better in an improved section on "historical Arthur".--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It is patently ridiculous to include the Artognou section - all that we have here is a name on an inscription found at a site that was only linked to Arthur by a single author (Geoffrey of Monmouth), who was a notorious fabricator. If the slight similarity of the name Artognou to Arthur is enough to warrant its inclusion here, well we might as well add the dozens of other similar names attested throughout the ancient and medieval Celtic world, as they carry just as much weight as Artognou. I'm sorry, but you folks are way off base here and you are contributing to pseudo-science by protecting a hypothesis that has been all but universally rejected by Arthurian scholars. Cagwinn (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a question of "contributing to" pseudo-science - it's a question of reporting it, which is something that WP should do, and refuting it using reliable sources, which is equally what WP should do. We have articles on Father Christmas and the Loch Ness monster as well. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, the material can and should be be rewritten. It can be made clear that current consensus rejects the Artognou-Arthur connection. Said rejection doesn't change the fact that this is notable fringery, and is perfectly appropriate for inclusion here in some form.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Those articles (Nessie, Father Xmas) are not comparable to what we have here. The Artognou stone only got dragged into the Arthurian sphere due to some ill-informed journalists drumming up a sensational headline in the press (ZOMG, the real Arthur has been found!!!); once the evidence was examined by those in the know, it was determined to be a false alarm and no one bothers talking about it much anymore. Even the archaeologist who discovered the slab was careful to point out that there were no obvious Arthurian connections. So, because of some now debunked, tabloid-style journalism, we are supposed to include the Artognou stone in every discussion of King Arthur? Absolutely bizarre! I mean, just a few weeks back some archaeologists found a circular structure in Stirling that the British press immediately declared was Arthur's Round Table - why is that not included here, too?Cagwinn (talk) 14:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Because the "Artognou Stone"'s claimed connection to Arthur has been discussed with fair regularity in Arthurian scholarship. Here are some works I found in a 2 minute Google Books search.[2][3][4][5][6] If it makes you feel better, the consensus is clearly that the connection is nonsense. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with mentioning a fairly well traveled idea and indicating what the current consensus on it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Two of the articles that you lists are by Norris Lacy, who references in one of them discussions on Arthurnet - well, I am one of the people who has been regularly discussing (and dismissing any Arthurian connection with) this inscription on Arthurnet since 2000 - I would like to think that I had a tiny bit of influence on his opinion in these articles. Anyway, I still say that since the consensus is that the Artognou stone has no bearing on the Arthurian legend (by the way, here is an old interview with two of the archaeologists involved in the Tintagel dig, who go out of their way to play down any Arthurian connections), explain to me why it merits mention in this article? If we are to include every crackpot theory about the historical Arthur, we would have one of the longest - if not one of the most useless - articles on Wikipedia. What's the point? Cagwinn (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

One good reason is that it would simply help create a more stable article. Someone may come across some "crackpot" theory on another site or in the press, want to find out more, and end up at this article. If the theory is not mentioned here, they may well feel that it should be added. If it is already mentioned, discussed briefly and refuted, they would be much less likely to add any mention of it, and would go away better informed. Informing people in such a way is why WP exists. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

It should be mentioned here because it is mentioned in various works on the Arthurian legend. Our mention should reflect the consensus that the Arthurian connection is false. I'm not sure what's hard to understand about that.Cúchullain ^t/c 12:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

King Arthur as a "composite" character

There are some historians who consider "King Arthur" to be a composite of multiple real individuals--possibly over multiple periods--with their separate lives and activities folded by oral tradition into a single legendary individual. This idea should be explored, although I'm not the one to do that.

Personally, I find the positing that Arthur either corresponded to a specific individual or no one at all to be a false dichotomy.

RobertGustafson (talk) 04:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this article never has been very good.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Brittanica not the earliest

on the page it says that arthur's name was not mentioned: 'or any other surviving work until 820,' However the Gogodin by Anerin metions his name. Aneditor (talk tome) 10:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Stupid Question

This is probably a stupid question, but the opening sentence reads

The historical basis for King Arthur It is know that the historian King arthur Had a Bad temper when it can to a knight miss Behavior their is even stories of him Murdering Hundreds of Knights just because they did heir job wrong.Historian can as yet say nothing of value about him"

That sounds just a bit off to me, but I don't have the source. Anyone be able to change that? Vyselink (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

NVM. I checked the edit history and some idiot IP screwed with things. I've since reverted. Vyselink (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Cuneglas

See Talk:King Arthur#Cuneglas and his article. We've probably completely established what the line in Gildas meant,—it's simultaneously equating Cuneglas with Boötes driving the Great Wain (Ursa Major) and "Arcturus" guarding the "Bear" (alt names for both figures at the time, though now Arcturus is usually only one of the stars), calling him lord of Din Arth, a Sub-Roman fortress that commanded the coast near the mouth of the Clwyd—although it's possible there might be a fourth or fifth level to the pun as well, if "Arcturus" was his or "Bear" someone else's nickname. For what it's worth, "Arcturus" is one of the linguistically viable candidates for Arthur having originated as someone's epithet. — LlywelynII 01:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Northern Arthur Theories

I'm new to the King Arthur project, but I would like to get things going. There are some theories proposed by Rachel Bromwich and others about a Northern Arthur. The theory is discussed on the Arthuriana page: http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthurappendix.htm. Would it be OK to include a summary of this theory? Another proponent is Dr. Flint Johnson, who advocates these theories in the works Origins of Arthurian Romances (2012) and Evidence of Arthur (2014). Would these be considered credible enough to use in the article? PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference problem

The third reference says "Green 1998; Padel 1994; Green 2007b, chapters five and seven." but there is no indication of what works are actually intended. DuncanHill (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

See the main King Arthur article: Green, Thomas (1998), "The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur", Thomas Green's Arthurian Resources, retrieved 2008-05-22.; Green, Thomas (2007b), Concepts of Arthur, Stroud: Tempus, ISBN 978-0-7524-4461-1.; Padel, O.J. 1994, 'The Nature of Arthur', Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies, 27, pp. 1-31. Cagwinn (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Similar problem with reference 12, two of the works are not listed in the Literature section. This is one of the problems with Harvard refs, it is far too easy for them to lose whatever it is that they refer to. DuncanHill (talk) 02:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 19 October 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

---

Historical basis for King Arthur → Historicity of King Arthur – In the interests of WP:CONSISTENCY, this is the only article named "Historical basis for" something. Unless there's a nuance between "Historical basis for" and "Historicity of" that I'm overlooking, I suggest bringing this title in line with Historicity of Jesus and Historicity of Muhammad. These seem to be the only directly comparable articles, and this one is in Category:Historicity already. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable request reasonable to me. Cagwinn (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. we also have Historicity of the Iliad. Doug Weller (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Definitely a better name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, good change BDD, nice work. Randy Kryn 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support per nom. bd2412 T 15:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cunotamos

Cunotamos as 'Great Dog' is surely incorrect. The first syllable is akin to modern Welsh 'cyn' = fore, before. Cf. Welsh 'cyntaf' = first. The personal name really means 'foremost'. WallHeath (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. Modern Welsh cyn- "before, previous to, preceding" comes from Common Celtic *kentu- (cf. Breton kent-, Old Irish cét-, Gaulish cintu-/centu-), not kuno-. The name Cunotamos meant "Great Hound/Warrior". Cagwinn (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, sorry but you're wrong. If what you suggest were to be true, the name would be 'dog' + the superlative. The meaning would thus be 'doggiest', which neither makes much sense, nor seems to be what a parent would realistically apply to a child. Your mistake with 'cuno' is often repeated with regard to 'Cunobelin'. The modern Welsh form of the name, 'Cynfelyn', should point everyone in the right direction.WallHeath (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not wrong; I've been studying Celtic historical linguistics for over 33 years! Go ahead and consult any expert in the field of Celtic linguistics - they will confirm what I have written here. Cagwinn (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong, in my opionion. I've been studying Celtic linguistics for for over 45 years. If you disagree with my statement, you should state precisely why you do so in the relevant talk page(s). Oh, and please stop removing my comments from other Talk Pages. Thank you. WallHeath (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You're either a terrible student, or a liar. As I have already pointed out, Welsh cyn "before, previous to, preceding" comes from Common Celtic *kentu-; this is a universally accepted fact among scholars of Celtic languages. Welsh cyn- in personal names such as Cyndaf (from Brittonic Cunotamos) means "hound; warrior (figuratively)". This is also a universally accepted fact among scholars of Celtic languages. See, for example (and this list is by no means exhaustive!!) Matasovic, R., Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, Brill, 2009, p. 181 (*kwon- 'dog'); Delamarre, X. Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise (2nd ed.), Editions Errance, 2003, p. 132 (cuno-, 'chien'); Fleuriot, L. Le Vieux Breton, Klincksieck, 1964, pp. 183, 239; Koch, JT, Celtic Culture, ABC CLIO, 2006, pp. 146, 260, 265, 297, 473, 475, et al.; Haycock, M. Legendary Poems from the Book of Taliesin, CMCS, 2007, p. 479. Cagwinn (talk) 00:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

It will not be possible for me to discuss anything with you because it seems you are not inclined to be civil. WallHeath (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

You haven't been engaging in a discussion, anyway; you are simply repeating an ignorant POV over and over again, both here and on Talk: Cunobeline, and insisting that the scholarly consensus is wrong (when it absolutely is not!). Cagwinn (talk) 17:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Historicity of King Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040826005254/http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no144/p113.html to http://www.hungarianquarterly.com/no144/p113.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Undue dwelling on Castus and the Sarmatian/Nart hypothesis

That section badly needs to be trimmed, probably by merger to other articles. It's the longest section in the article, and is about 25–30% of the total article aside from the lead, but is not a strong theory, and half the material in the section is off-topic (because there is no actual connection between Casta and Sarmatians in Britain). See also previous discussions on this page about focus, splitting, merging, etc.

We should have an article (and probably do somewhere) on the theory that Alan–Sarmatian–Nart Roman conscripts had a strong influence on the Arthurian legends; this material should merge there, as it has nothing to do with historicity of Arthur. I see no material on this at Nart sagas, so much of it should probably go there, as it is a WP:COATRACK in this article. (The theory is dubious but vaguely possible. It seems more likely that similar legends were in various places and survive to the present in fragmentary form that isn't universally consistent, producing coincidental, isolated pockets of similarity. If this didn't happen, then Joseph Campbell, Robert Graves, and James George Frazer would have had a whole lot less to write about. There's also a lot of confirmation bias at work; fans of the Sarmatian hyphothesis don't have an answer for the fact that the Nart sagas are missing an endless list of other elements from the Arthurian cycle, like an immortal wizard, a prophecy of the king's return, a round table, yadda yadda.)
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there is far too much space devoted to this theory, which is totally nutty and should be classified as a fringe theory - especially since it has been debunked and rejected by most Arthurian scholars. The idea that the Alans or Sarmatians influenced later medieval Arthurian romance is just as nutty and totally devoid of supporting evidence; in fact, it is more likely that the Nart sagas (which were not even recorded until the modern era!) are influenced by medieval Arthurian romance than the other way around. Cagwinn (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Since most of it appears to be unsourced I don't think it needs to be moved to another article, it would be even more offtopic for Nart Sagas - it could be briefly summarized that there was such a theory proposed by xyz that has subsequently been rejected by the majority of scholars per Cagwinn's comment above Seraphim System ^(talk) 18:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't preserve all of this. But the idea comes up frequently enough (enough to inspire movies and stuff) that we need to cover it somewhere, if only to indicate all the RS that debunk it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The section needs to be totally rewritten, but it definitely should be here as one of the major hypotheses for a historical Arthur. What it needs is better, more critical sources to follow. I don't know that it's worth creating a separate article on this topic.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It is absolutely not a major hypothesis. It has been rejected as fringe nonsense by the majority of Arthurian scholars. Only its instigator Linda Malcor (who is a fringe author, not an academic) and nutters on the internet keep it alive. Cagwinn (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It absolutely is a major hypothesis, whether it's viable or not. For the record, I don't find it compelling, but there are various Arthurian scholars who have given it some level of credence. It's also discussed, often critically, in a wide variety of Arthurian reference works, and was featured in the 2004 King Arthur movie. So yes, it needs to be discussed here if only so readers can come here and find a viewpoint that's based on what Arthurian scholars really believe, rather than what the "nutters on the internet" will tell them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not a major hypothesis. I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, only that it should not be treated as anything other than a fringe theory. Just for reference, I have been active in the world of Arthurian studies for the past 19 years, have correspond with many of the top scholars in the field, have done extensive research on Lucius Artorius Castus (even put together a sourcebook on him, which has been cited by several scholars in their own papers; I also wrote the majority of the current Lucius Artorius Castus Wikipedia article), and have debated Linda Malcor on this topic (publicly and in personal communication) literally hundreds upon hundreds of times. It is a minor hypothesis that has been either rejected, or treated with great skepticism, by the vast majority of serious Arthurian scholars. It only has legs among online amateur enthusiasts (who, in my opinion, act more like cultists). Cagwinn (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

And again, it's too significant and influential not to cover here, and we should cover it as the sources do. There is very good coverage of it in A History of Arthurian Scholarship. It is critical but doesn't dismiss or downplay the theory. The fact that "online amateur enthusiasts" still circulate the theory is all the more reason to have solid, reference-based material here on Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If I may: The Castus hypothesis is not major in the sense of receiving contemporary scholarly support (or much at all), but it's major in the sense of being in the public eye, so we should cover it like any other notable controversy. However, all the Sarmatian/Nart stuff is simply off-topic at this page, other than brief mention that some have tried to marry these hypothesis, and what the reaction to that has been. The Sarmatian/Nart idea is also noteworthily in the public eye but not receiving much scholarly support, so we should still cover it in WP:DUE fashion and in sufficient detail to explain it (which may be most of the detail included off-topic here, plus critical response and refutation), at some other page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section based on reliable sources (Christopher Snyder and Caitlin Greene; I also have Greene's book Concepts of Arthur). I've trimmed down the material considerably as well. I think it now says pretty much all it needs to about Castus and the Sarmatian connection, and I still doubt the Sarmatian connection needs its own separate article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It's better now - but when you get a chance, please also take a look at Guy Halsall's discussion of the hypothesis (in Worlds of Arthur: Facts and Fictions of the Dark Ages, Oxford University Press, 2013, p. 119ff.), as he offers what I recognize to be the consensus scholarly view on it. You can preview it on Google Books.

I'll check it out and add it in. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Strathclyde hypothesis

There's another well-developed idea, that Arthur was actually a king or warlord in the Strathyclyde and Northumbria area, which was Brythonic in that era. I read a book on this some time around the early 2000s, but mis-remember which one it was, and I don't know how well it's been received since publication. Some aspects of it were that it's more plausible as a location of "Camelot" than places like Colchester because it's removed from Anglo-Saxon-invaded areas; it might explain the presence of many Northern British names in the stories, which aren't as Welsh-dominated as is commonly believed; the area is still close enough to Glastonbury for common Arthurian association of the place to remain plausible; and the Isle of Man is nearby and could have been the Arthurian Avalon. I don't recall what evidence was presented in detail for the overall idea. Someone hot to work on this article, however, could get into this and include this hypothesis for completeness, since it's the most recent one, and it may have had an influence on the short-lived semi-recent TV series (the one with Eva Green).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Camelot was invented by Chretien de Troyes in the 12th century; it absolutely, 100%, has nothing to do with Colchester, or any other place that was anciently named Camulodunum. Chretien did not derive place names in his Arthurian romances from ancient geographies - he adapted to French spelling contemporary Welsh and Breton place names and also plucked a few names out of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (generally through the filter of Wace's Old French translation, Roman de Brut). The source for Chretien's Camelot (spelled many different ways in the various manuscripts of Lancelot, where it first appears) was probably Geoffrey's Cambula - a poor adaptation of Welsh Camlann. It should be noted, however, that in one manuscript of Lancelot, the name Camelot doesn't even appear; rather the line reads con lui plot - "as he wished" in Old French - so Camelot might even be a ghost name that emerged out a scribal error and not what Chretien actually wrote! Cagwinn (talk) 18:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

One more note re: Avalon - this was invented by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century (the Welsh were so confused by it, not have having any native tradition of the isle, no less an Arthurian connection to it, that when they translated his Historia Regum Britanniae into Welsh, they thought Geoffrey meant the isle of Afallach, an ancestor figure in some early Welsh royal pedigrees whom we no nothing about). As to its location, Geoffrey quite clearly based it upon the Fortunate Isles mentioned by ancient and early medieval geographers. Since antiquity, and through Geoffrey's era, the isles were identified with the Canary Islands; this is surely where Geoffrey intended Avalon to be. Cagwinn (talk) 19:37, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Cool deets. You've clearly kept WAY more abreast of this stuff than I have. The Strathclyde book was the first one I'd read on the topic since probably the late 1980s (Ashe's stuff, about which I was highly skeptical from the start). Anyway, the point was just to get some info about the Strathclyde hypothesis in there, since it's floating around. Assuming anyone has the book(s) which provide the hypothesis. I probably have the one I read in a box somewhere, but I might not find it any time this year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

May be worth adding here if there are reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a serious theory and I am sure there is nothing reliable about it. Cagwinn (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

But part of our "job" is to include theories and why they're not viable, if they've received RS coverage. I've seen stuff about this one more than once. I just don't know whose idea it is, right off hand, due to books being packed up in boxes. Not sure how to tease it apart in Google hits from the Artúr mac Áedáin idea, which also tends to mention Strathclyde and which seems to have got more attention, especially in the Scottish press, because that historical figure is more identifiable and relatable than "some Dark Age warlord north of Wales but south of the Highlands". :-) Anyway, sorry I don't have the book details at hand. I thought someone would just know immediately which one I meant. I think it came out between 1995 and 2005; definitely post-Ashe.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There are so many "I found the real King Arthur and he lived in my hometown!!" books published each year, it is a major chore keeping track of them. None of them are written by reputable scholars and all of them play fast and loose with the facts (and, even more annoying, they make use of 12th-14th century romance as if they are historical texts and not the medieval equivalent of fantasy and historical fiction novels!). The majority of Arthurian scholars today rarely venture beyond the position that an historical Arthur might have existed in the late 5th-early 6th century AD, but given the paucity of primary sources, we can never place him in any specific region of Britain. In fact, a significant number of Arthurian scholars think he is purely legendary/mythical, with no basis in reality. Cagwinn (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough; I just didn't want us missing a "theory" that people might be looking for. I do know, of course, that the scholarly consensus is that we don't know and likely never will. I'm not arguing for primacy of a particular idea (more, I think it of encyclopedic value to pool the debunking; that's what set me off about Castus – his huge section made it look like some kind of strong hypothesis until the reader actually wades through it all to find that it's just air).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Lead

SNAAAAKE!!, the following lead sentence is a bit long: "Arthur first appears in historical context as a soldier fighting against the invading Saxons in 5th-6th century Sub-Roman Britain in a text written more than three centuries after his supposed period of activity." Consider the following: "In historical context, Arthur first appears in 5th-6th century Sub-Roman Britain as a soldier fighting against the invading Saxons. The text depicts an era more than three centuries after his supposed period of activity." I felt clarity was needed to distinguish whether the text was actually written/authored three centuries after his supposed period of activity or if the written text just depicts that time frame. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 18:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC) ^{Nevermind. 16:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)}

I just noticed Riothamus lacks references. But there are some at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riothamus#Riothamus_as_King_Arthur_or_Ambrosius_Aurelianus SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Higham drops the hammer on the ridiculous Lucius Artorius Castus hypothesis

Higham, Nicholas J., King Arthur: The Making of the Legend, Yale University Press, 2018, p. 39:

"But beyond the name, which he presumably shared with various other members of his gens, there is no good reason to think him the archetype on whom King Arthur was later based. His connection with Britain was slight, amounting to a stay of unknown length in a backroom post at York, then a poorly understood command as dux of soldiers drawn from the legions stationed in Britain on their way to the east. With that record it seems extraordinarily unlikely that any Briton of the post-Roman period will have even heard of him, prior that is to publication of the Dalmatian inscriptions in the late nineteenth century, which was what brought him to Malone's attention."

"The onus must be on those putting forward theories to come up with persuasive arguments, not their opponents to disprove them. On close examination, the case for connecting the historical L. Artorius Castus and the medieval legend of King Arthur is entirely unconvincing. We should therefore dismiss the proposal. at L. Artorius Castus was not the 'original' King Arthur is, therefore, something of which for the moment we can be reasonably confident. It is time for Arthurian scholars to release their interest in Castus back to the Classicists to whom he more properly belongs. King Arthur was not buried at Podstrana: for now that is fact." Cagwinn (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Ardaric, King of the Gepids

Section and issue.

Another potential candidate for the historical King Arthur has to be Ardaric, King of the Gepids. If so, the legend of King Arthur would not be rooted in indigenous British history, but would instead be, somewhat ironically, a Germanic import. In other words, not only would King Arthur not really have repelled Germanic invaders, his legend, paradoxically, may have arrived along with those invaders. Nevertheless, it is by no means uncommon for a people to hear a tale which originated elsewhere, and then to refashion that tale so it better suits their needs and aspirations as a people.

The likeness between the name “Ardaric” (or “Ardaricus”) and “Arthur” or (“Arturius”) is plain to observe. Given that the exact origin of the name “Arthur” remains a matter of intense debate, the name “Ardaric” must be seen as a plausible candidate. Moreover, it is not particularly likely that the actual name of the historical figure would have been properly preserved in oral or literary tradition by the time the alleged events relating to King Arthur were finally recorded. After all, it was a full 300 years between when Arthur is first mentioned in any surviving text (Historia Brittonum, 9th Century), and when he is alleged to have actually lived (late 5th, early 6th Century). As a name passes through time and space, it is bound to be gnarled and deformed.

It is also quite possible that the glaring similarities between the names “Arthur” and “Ardaric” simply impelled local peoples to assign King Ardaric the name “Arthur” (or "Arturius"). There is certainly nothing stopping a people from assigning foreign military commanders more familiar local names. In other words, “Arthur” may very well be a Celtic or native British name, assigned to a somewhat exotic, albeit storied military commander who possessed a name that sounded something like, or even a lot like, a locally used name. When people enter new countries or regions the local people often distort their names to reflect local norms, and in some cases give them entirely new names. Thus, the name “Ardaric” does not have to be the etymological source of the name “Arthur” for the historical King Ardaric to be the inspiration for the myth of King Arthur.

Furthermore, the name Ardaric is assumed to represent Germanic Hardu-reiks ("hart" in Old High German, meaning "brave" or "strong", combined with "reiks", Gothic for "ruler" or "king", closely related to Celtic "rig" or "rix"). Danish historian Gudmund Schütte tentatively identified the Heiðrek of Germanic legend with the historical Gepid king, Ardaric. King Heidrek was one of the main players in the Hervarar Saga concerning the magic sword, Tyrfing. Therefore, both King Ardaric and King Arthur are claimed to have possessed magic swords. Since there are only so many “magic swords” in European mythology, the coincidence is a considerable one.

Thus, we have undeniable similarities in name, we have clear parallels in what they represent as noble military underdogs, in both cases an autochthonous king whose people were being dominated and subjugated, rising up and repelling allochthonous invading hordes (Ardaric and his allies defeated the Huns at the Battle of Nedao in 454 AD), we have historical concurrency in that both Ardaric and Arthur are said to have lived during roughly the same time period (Ardaric lived during the mid 5th Century, whereas Arthur is said to have lived during the late 5th, early 6th Century), and we have a strong coincidence in that both are said to have been European kings who wielded a magic sword (Excalibur and Tyrfing).

It is impossible to think that news of Ardaric’s victory over the Huns would not have circulated widely throughout Europe, especially amongst Germanic peoples speaking mutually intelligible Germanic tongues. We should therefore expect those accounts to have been recycled and reformulated over the centuries in whatever lands Germanic peoples found themselves. Anglo-Saxon invaders/settlers of the British Isles, who would have begun arriving in the mid 5th Century, right around when Ardaric defeated the Huns in East-Central Europe, most certainly would have possessed and brought with them some knowledge of his momentous mutiny against, and military triumph over, his Hunnish overlords. That story may very well have trickled down into Celtic Briton communities, perhaps even serving as inspiration for native clans restless and discontent under Anglo-Saxon rule.

King Ardaric of the Gepids must therefore be viewed as a potential historical candidate for the legend of King Arthur. Indeed, Ardaric seems perhaps the most plausible candidate of all the leading candidates, and the one who has perhaps the most in common with the fictive British king of lore.

Debate on whether too much synthesis and original research:

Firstly, there is no actual ban on original research and synthesis on Wikipedia. There is only a professed ban on it. It is not a real ban, in part because it is virtually impossible to enforce. The notion that there is no allowance for original thought on Wikipedia is just laughable. I see original thought on here all the time. Everyone does. Moderators on here seem to be very selective about what they will allow and why.

Secondly, a strict prohibition on synthesis and original research on this topic is simply absurd. This entire article is almost all laughable speculation. Everyone reading understands that the claims are but hypotheses and the conclusions drawn are highly speculative. The only limitation imposed on additions to this article should be plausibility of the conclusion and reliability of the premises (good citation).

I have cited my truth claims (the "facts" that constitute my premises) and Ardaric is at least as plausible a historical candidate as the others mentioned on this list. No more should be required. It is not like there is a glut of potential historical figures out there, or that this article is at risk of becoming excessively lengthy or overfilled with candidates. People are not exactly coming out of the woodwork on this one to add to the list. There is simply no reason to limit the candidates only to those unlikely candidates some scholar has speculatively put forth at some point in the past. The nature of the article (conjecture) is inconsistent with the no synthesis, no original thought standard. It is simply an absurd standard in light of the topic. It makes zero sense. It is completely unsuited for a subject such as this. Indeed, developing an argument and citing the premises adequately is no different than what the original authors being cited have themselves done, although my contribution is more thorough and persuasive than some of those citations, since some of those authors are engaged in what is, frankly, wild speculation, with little basis in anything substantive.

Anyhow, the essence of this article is speculation, not fact. That distinguishes articles like this from most other wikipedia articles, which are very much fact-centered. The nature of the article must influence rules on contributions. It must. Conjecture does not become more reliable simply because someone wrote it down in a book somewhere. It is still conjecture. Since all the people on this list are conjecture, not fact, or anything remotely akin to it, plausibility (coupled with adequate citation) should be the primary limitation on additions. My candidate is more than plausible. Indeed, he is arguably more plausible than the other candidates on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c67:5d7f:a300:5dec:70df:24d4:1a5f (talk • contribs) 00:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

References

The critical difference is that the other named candidates have been discussed in reputable published sources. The idea of Ardaric being Arthur has not, so far as I can see. Ghmyrtle (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh the ban is real enough and can be enforced by blocking editors who continue to violate policy. In other words, you must have agreement and meet WP:VERIFY to add the material you want to add, and I'm happy to block you if you try to editwar your research into articles. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

1) The ban is not real. It is essentially fictive. It is a vague, general rule that is and must invariably be selectively applied. It is meant to deter claims with insufficient basis in fact or research (the premises to my thesis are basically all sourced). The rule is not meant to be enforced strictly. Applying the rule in this context is particularly absurd. *All of the candidates are highly conjectural already.* This isn't an article about facts, it is an article about possibilities.

2) "Reputable", "published" sources. LOL. Baseless conjecture that was once written down in a book. Literally anywhere, any time, any book, and no matter how baseless the conjecture = "Reputable", "published". Laughable. Truly laughable.

3) Oh, I'm sure you would be happy to block me. There is a very strong authoritarian streak amongst wikipedia mods. It is quite obvious that people who go around policing wikipedia articles in their free time (not sure they have any other time) are being strongly selected for certain personality traits (not unlike certain professions - consider law enforcement). You folks clearly lust over power and control. The thought of it in your hands just makes you giddy, doesn't it? I suspect this is due to a lack of power over your own lives. Pitiful really. Needless to say, you should be kept as far away from power as humanly possible.

4) There is no reason to limit the list to those folks who authors have previously speculated could be the historical inspiration for King Arthur. All the candidates are highly, highly speculative. Plausible candidates should not be kept off the list when implausible candidates are already on it. They especially should not be kept off the list simply because no one has made the claim prior, or made a compelling argument for the claim. It is irrational, unnecessary, & unbefitting the issue.

Good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c67:5d7f:a300:5dec:70df:24d4:1a5f (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You're funny. Your comments are nothing new, so many people who don't like our policies and guidelines make the same complaints about those meanies who say they can't just ignore our policies and guidelines and act as though they don't exist. The last thing I want to do is have to deal with people like you - I much prefer researching and improving articles. But there's always a timewaster. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

- I didn't say my comments were anything new. Whether they are new or not does not make them any less true. My arguments are particularly strong in this context, since the candidates are obviously hypothetical and based in conjecture.

- I did improve the article. I added a very plausible historical figure to an utterly wanting list. You made it worse because you enjoy enforcing "rules" that are utterly inappropriate for the context, and which are not really rules so much as guidelines. Indeed, you yourself are now saying they are basically "guidelines". Except the very nature of guidelines is such that they are not hard rules, which is and was my very point.

- You revealed that you enjoyed throwing your weight around on here ("I am happy to" - a very revealing choice of words), which I have no doubt is true, and then when I called you out on it, you pretended you didn't really enjoy it. Whatever you say, man.

- The prohibition on drawing conclusions not contained in the source material is essential to maintaining Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia (I understand that). Wikipedia doesn't want contributors stating more than what is claimed in the source material, because that is problematic in truth-centered, fact-oriented contexts. However, that restriction is meant for articles that are actually asserting things, and as such are truth-centered. This article is simply not asserting [objective] truths (as is the case with most encyclopedia articles), it is merely putting forth and/or documenting hypotheses. Everyone reading the article understands that. As such, Wikipedia's credibility would not and could not be harmed by including some original research and original thought on such subjects. Wikipedia can't get some fact (or historical matter) wrong that is not anything remotely like a fact. As such, its reputation and trustworthiness could not possibly suffer thereby. Contributors also can not assert some truth (conclusion) inappropriately where they are not even asserting a truth, so much as setting forth a claim that all reasonable observers would understand to be an obviously unsubstantiated, and perhaps even unsubstantiatable, hypothesis. Open speculation can not be unreliable because the nature of speculation is such that what is being claimed is uncertain.

- I understand that original thought/research is not appropriate for most wikipedia/encyclopedia articles/contexts, but it should be tolerated here. My contribution is a fair one. I'm wasting time? I think you are. The addition should never have been removed, and we should not be quibbling about it here. The contribution should have been tolerated from the outset, and it should be put back up. You are just following rules for the sake of following rules, without regard for context and whether those rules are appropriate for the context, and despite the fact that they are not really even rules so much as guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c67:5d7f:a300:5dec:70df:24d4:1a5f (talk • contribs) 19:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

You are wilfully misunderstanding the situation. Have the other claimants been publicised and discussed in reputable sources? Yes. Have yours? No. That's the difference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

And I have too many requests from editors on my talk page asking me to help to waste anymore time here. Contrary to the IP's opinion, I don't like having to use my Admin authority just to throw my weight around, but I'm happy using it to improve the encyclopedia. I prefer simple editing and helping other editors. Doug Weller talk 12:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Academic consensus

The article states "The academic consensus today is that King Arthur was a mythological or folkloric figure, and not an actual individual." This, however, is not true. Aside from citing only a single source in making such a grand assertion, nowhere else aside from Wikipedia makes the same claim. Rather the direct contrary and, on the King Arthur page (before I began editing) it has long stated that "because historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely." In short, there is a glaring disconnect between the Historicity of King Arthur page and that of many established Encyclopædias such Britannica as well as with the Wiki's own page on King Arthur. Ghmyrtle, Doug Weller, I await your judgement.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

My expertise in this area is very limited, so feel free to ignore it. But, what I have read suggests to me that it would be misleading to suggest that there is any consensus either way. There seem to be disputes as to whether Arthur was entirely an imaginary or mythological figure, or whether he was based on one or more (undetermined) historical figures. I'm sure there are sources pointing in both directions, and that case we should simply report the uncertainties that exist, and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind, rather than seeking to point them in one particular direction. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree utterly, Ghmyrtle. That is what I was trying to do. My edits, which were repeatedly removed, were as follows: "The academic consensus today is that is that while there is no solid evidence for the historical existence of the King Arthur, as the history Geoffrey of Monmouth told in his Historia Regum Britanniae is false, there was almost certainly an actual Arthur who inspired the who inspired the mythological and folkloric figure of Arthurian Legend.[1][2][3][4][5][6] However, the question of the historicity of King Arthur remains a contentious one that has divided both scholars and enthusiasts for centuries[7] - in part because historical documents from the post-Roman period are scarce, meaning that a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely." Maybe this is not good enough, but the page cannot say that the academic consensus is that Arthur was not real because that is not true. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"...almost certainly an actual Arthur...." ? "An"? "Actual"? "Arthur"? Maybe say "...there may have been one or more historical figures who inspired...." Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"almost certainly" is a direct quote from Ancient History Encyclopedia: "There is no question that the legend of Arthur begins with Geoffrey, but there was almost certainly an actual Arthur who inspired the legend." Regardless of how one desires to phrase it, Ghmyrtle, "almost certainly" is still a long way from "The academic consensus today is that King Arthur was a mythological or folkloric figure, and not an actual individual." The page needs to make clear that, because historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, there is no academic consensus either way. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I hate to bother you, but I know from past experience that you have strong knowledge of Celtic and Arthurian matters and saw that you kept my edits regarding the academic consensus on the Historicity section of the King Arthur page. Could you please resolve this issue? --Bard Cadarn (talk) 20:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

David Dumville, J. N. L. Myres and Nicholas J. Higham are leading academic historians specialising in the period. They regard Arthur as legendary, and they are quoted in the text you have repeatedly deleted, replacing their comments with claims by writers who are not early medieval experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Policy is that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." Your sources are entirely tertiary, and not academic. The "Ancient History Encyclopedia" is a website of uncertain provenance. It is not an academic consensus, or reflective of an academic consensus. None of your sources are academic, they are all popular media. The sources you keep removing - Dumville, Myres, Higham - are academic.

Just about all reputable academic historians of the period dismiss Arthur entirely, and have done since the 1970s. The last historian of substance to treat Arthur as a historical figure was John Morris, and he is pretty much regarded as a laughing stock these days. Academic historians are overwhelmingly sceptical, and rule out anything that's not entirely reliable.

There are plenty of people who, like you, are less sceptical, and lots of popular books catering to them. There are lots of older books still in print that are less sceptical. Wikipedia's "anyone can edit" policy means that such opinions are usually accommodated, and this discussion will probably end up with this article accommodating them to some degree. But that doesn't give you the right to claim an "academic consensus" that is exactly the opposite of what it really is. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, if the Ancient History Encyclopedia says ""There is no question that the legend of Arthur begins with Geoffrey", then it is worthless as a source for this article. Anyone with any knowledge of the topic knows the legend of Arthur goes back several centuries before Geoffrey to the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, and possibly even as far back as Y Gododdin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Last time I checked, three historians do not amount to an academic consensus - particularly on so large a field of public and historic interest. However, Dudley Miles, encyclopedias are generally judged as a consensus of gathered historical knowledge and academic debate, and both the encyclopedias and other sources I cited said point blank that academic historians are divided into two camps regarding the existence of King Arthur. David Dumville, J. N. L. Myres and Nicholas J. Higham are simply members of one of those camps. Again, on the King Arthur page (before I began editing) it has long stated that "because historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely." Meaning that there is no answer and thus no academic consensus because there are no enough sources from the era in question to form one regarding his existence. Say rather, and truthfully, that the consensus among academic historians today is that while there is no solid evidence for King Arthur's historical existence. Also, I did post a scholarly source: Castleden, Rodney. King Arthur: the truth behind the legend. Routledge, 2003. p.2. Also, Nicknack009, read the Ancient History Encyclopedia article. It states and goes deep into how the legend of Arthur goes back several centuries before Geoffrey to the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, and possibly even as far back as Y Gododdin. In short, read the sources I posted before you try to dismantle them. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

"In the present day, Arthurian scholars like John Morris, Norris J. Lacy, and Geoffrey Ashe continue to support the claim that Arthur was historical, citing his name as one of the proofs: Arthur is the Welsh version of the Roman name Artorius, Roman names were typically given to children in the regions of Britain and Wales during the Roman occupation, the Arthurian stories originate with Welsh writers, and the name becomes more popular in the late 6th century CE which suggests an earlier hero who inspired this practice." - Ancient History Encyclopedia article I think this clearly states that an academic consensus does not exist, as the three scholars mentioned here do not agree with those three you mentioned. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The three authors I listed are university lecturers on early medieval British history. Morris was as well, but his book has been endlessly discussed and demolished. The other writers you mention are generalists who have got hooked on claiming that Arthur was historical. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Your point being, Dudley Miles? Obviously we are in two different camps, but it is not for Wikipedia to pick sides or claim that historians have gotten "hooked on claiming that Arthur was historical." As Ghmyrtle said, "I'm sure there are sources pointing in both directions, and that case we should simply report the uncertainties that exist, and leave it to the reader to make up their own mind, rather than seeking to point them in one particular direction." I agree with this. Let the article state that the consensus among academic historians today is that while there is no solid evidence for King Arthur's historical existence but, due to historical documents for the post-Roman period being scarce, the debate of whether he did or did not exist continues. And I say this as one with a Bachelor's Degree in History and and M.Ed in History Education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bard Cadarn (talk • contribs) 22:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem here is you are trying to make the article say something about contemporary academia that is not true. Ashe is not an academic. Lacy is an academic, but his area of expertise is medieval literature, not history. The debate may continue, but in popular books and the internet. Academia has pretty much made up its mind. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Popular books and the internet are neither the sum total nor the voice of academia, Nicknack009, and if it was then it agrees with me as proven by all the sources I gave. Regardless, if you want to make such a distinction then rewrite the article to say that the debate continues among scholars because, if nothing else, this conversation proves that the statement "the academic consensus today is that King Arthur was a mythological or folkloric figure, and not an actual individual" is not true because if it was that simple then all the various Encyclopedias and history websites would say so rather than the contrary. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 23:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm giving up on you, because I can no longer presume good faith. If you could really read what I wrote and think I'm arguing that popular books and the internet are the same thing as academia, you would be such a moron you would have trouble remembering to breathe. So, you're a troll. No further engagement. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Nicknack009, you just took a polite, professional conversation between editors down to the level of personal and petty insults. I will have you know that my faith is pure and that I truly do not understand your meaning. I welcome your explanation, though. That said, however, Ghmyrtle, Doug Weller, will one of you please intervene and settle this? (You, Doug Weller, know from past experience that I am no troll. Sorry about all the hubbub, by the way; I not did anticipate nor expect that it would devolve into such an issue. Much less Nicknack009's insulting words, which I deem highly inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor.) --Bard Cadarn (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

So.... The issue here comes down to the opening paragraph, which refers to "the academic consensus today", and is supported by three blockquotes from Dunville, Myers (d.1989 - hardly "today"), and Higham. What that is effectively saying to the average reader is "Don't bother reading the rest of this article... we've concluded that there was no such person as Arthur." The first and most obvious point is that we shouldn't have blockquotes in the lead - they inevitably present a partial view rather than contributing to an overall perspective on article content. So, take them out, and perhaps insert them later in the article. Secondly, I don't know what the "academic consensus today" is - I'm not a specialist - but, if that is the case, it should stay. However, what the opening paragraph needs to do is "define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view, but without being too specific". So, it also needs to refer to the wide range of popularly-expressed theories or claims about Arthur's historicity that, to a large extent, are the subject of this article. I would therefore propose revising the opening sentences to read something like:

"The historicity of King Arthur has been debated both by academics and popular writers. While there have been many suggestions that the character of Arthur may be based on one or more real historical figures, the view of most academic historians today is that King Arthur was a mythological or folkloric figure."

Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it is worth adding the views of other historians.

• No historian defends Morris's book. His use of his sources has been generally condemned, although it is unfortunate that by the time the reviews were published he was too ill to defend himself and died soon afterwards.
• Frank Stenton in Anglo-Saxon England 1971 p. 5 said that the fact that Gildas does not mention Arthur should not remove him from the sphere of history.
• Ann Williams in A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain 1991 p. 48 says that most historians probably see Arthur as a historical figure.

In the 21st century opinion has moved decisively in favour of the skeptics such as Myres and Dumville.

• Francis Pryor in his 2004 Britain AD dismisses the evidence that Arthur existed but says that proving he did not exist is as impossible as proving that he did. p. 22
• O.J. Padel in his 2004 ODNB article on Arthur describes him as a "legendary warrior and supposed king of Britain"
• Guy Halsall in his Worlds of Arthur 2013 p. 9 says that "among the academic community, the sceptics have decisively carried the day".
• Nicholas Higham in his King Arthur: The Making of the Legend, 2018, which is quoted in this article, debunks all the widely supported claims to identify Arthur. His book has been generally praised.
• Arthur is not listed in the index of two recent histories of the period, Thomas Charles-Edwards' 2003 After Rome and Robin Fleming's 2010 Britain after Rome.
• The article should reflect this change in the academic consensus. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ghmyrtle, and you bring up an excellent point Dudley Miles. I propose that a section be added to the article detailing the historiography of the academic debate regarding King Arthur's existence. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The author of the article in the Ancient History Encyclopedia is Joshua Mark. His entry[7] in the encyclopedia states that he "is a freelance writer and scholar who has lived in Greece and Germany, traveled through Egypt, and presently lives in upstate New York with his family. He is co-founder, editor, and a director of Ancient History Encyclopedia. He has published short fiction through various literary journals/magazines (Writes for All, Five Stop Story, Pagan Friends, etc) and non-fiction through Celtic Guide, History Ireland, Litro USA and Litro UK, and Timeless Travels Magazine, among others. Mark was a part-time philosophy professor and writing instructor at Marist College and recipient of the Faculty of the Year Award and the Special Services Award of Merit."

It's CEO is Jan van der Crabben[8] who "has extensive professional experience in digital media, including digital marketing, web development, and video games. He holds a BA in Journalism from the University of East London and an MA in War Studies from King's College." The other member of the Board of Directors is Mark Cartwright[9] who "s interested in art and architecture, and especially ancient pottery and what these everyday objects can reveal about past lives and traditions. Having lived for several years in France and the Czech Republic, been a frequent visitor to Greece, and now based in Italy, he is a great believer in Jacque-Yves Cousteau's maxim: Il Faut aller voir - we must go and look for ourselves - and hopes his articles and photos will inspire visitors to AHE to do the same. MA Political Philosophy, University of York BA Politics (1st), University of Teesside".

It's co-founder is James Blake Wiener[10] He now heads the Advisory Board. Trained as a world historian and previously a professor, James is a public relations professional who is interested in cross-cultural exchange, world history, and international relations." Seriously, "previously a professor"? That suggests a lot more than it is/was. See his linkedin profile[11] He was an adjunct professor at State College of Florida, Manatee–Sarasota. (Note this use of professor is annoying to UK academics - I only held the title of Lecturer although I actually had tenure). Doug Weller talk 15:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

In other words, this is not a reliable source at least by the criteria I would use. The awards it has had might suggest otherwise but I'm still not at all convinced that it meets our criteria.

@Bard Cadarn:, you know I have always been concerned about your ability to follow our sourcing policy. Your use of Graham Phillips as a source show that you still have problems. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

The point is well taken, Doug Weller, but you will have to forgive one for trusting that a source found on Google Scholar is in fact scholarly. Obviously I was wrong in the case of Graham Phillips, but there was no way to tell at first or even second glance. As to the rest, I will leave it in your capable hands to determine whether or not those other sources meet our criteria. I do not need to remind you, though, that Ancient History Encyclopedia is the world's most-read history encyclopedia while Encyclopaedia Britannica is as much if not more trusted. I personally know several academic historians who trust both. Besides, the issue is not the facts of history but rather the academic consensus, and every established encyclopedia says that no all-encompassing definitive answer exists - which runs directly contradictory to what the page said before I arrived. Ghmyrtle stated most elegantly above why the existing opening paragraph was not suitable, so I will not repeat him. I will repeat myself, however, by restating that Wikipedia contradicted itself, the King Arthur page stating "so a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely" while the Historicity of King Arthur page said that the King was "not an actual individual" before providing blockquotes saying that the notion otherwise is fluff. I noted that rather stark contradiction and tried to fix it, not knowing it would start an avalanche. I do not mean to cause trouble, Doug Weller, but I think you can agree the articles in question near-always come out more complete. The Female druids sections of the Druid page, for example, and I made the Silver Branch article myself - along with Echtra Cormaic and Immacallam in dá Thuarad (to say nothing of a host of others not related to Celtic lore). All with proper sourcing and approved by yourself and Nicknack009. I may make mistakes, but they are honest ones, and the origins of your sourcing concerns regarding my humble self date back to when I was a brand new editor still learning the ropes and thus unfamiliar with Wikipedia sourcing policy. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that evaluating sources isn't trivial, but it's work that has to be done. Besides scholarly articles, Google Scholar includes a lot of printed books, e.g., The Lord of the Rings,[12] The Cat in the Hat,[13] and The Art of the Deal.[14] It also includes citations to magazine articles, such as Jimmy Carter's Playboy Interview,[15] production notes for some movies,[16] and even some blog posts based on student papers.[17]

So you can't assume that something you find in Google Scholar is a reliable secondary source. And even if it is published in a reputable journal by a reputable author, it can be wrong, or might have been superseded by more recent work. --Macrakis (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Beyond doubt, Macrakis, and, as I proved above per the other pages I have created, I know how to find good sources. But that does not mean that a few less than good ones will not slip by me on occasion. We are all human and thus not infallible. I obviously made some mistakes here in regards to sources, but my overall point has been declared valid. A contradiction existed not only between two Wikipedia pages, but between a Wikipedia page and what other globally acclaimed Encyclopedias stated. I corrected that error. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we all make mistakes. I was responding to your statement "you will have to forgive one for trusting that a source found on Google Scholar is in fact scholarly".

As for the Ancient History Encyclopedia, it really doesn't matter that it's "the world's most-read history encyclopedia"; RS is not a popularity contest, and I would be shocked to find an academic historian who "trusts it"; see my comments below. At best, it is on a par with Wikipedia itself, that is to say, not good enough to cite. The Encyclopedia Britannica is usually very good and has certainly improved since the 14th edition which was so nicely demolished in 1966 by Harvey Einbinder, but is often out of date.

For statements about academic consensus, the manual of style tells us to find "reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view", which is precisely what Tom Shippey's article does. It would certainly be interesting to find serious scholars who say that that isn't the consensus. --Macrakis (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Google Scholar is not called such without reason, Macrakis, and, unlike the authors of the printed works you listed, Graham Phillips is not famous. His book appeared legitimate at first and second glance. Obviously I was wrong, but we are beginning to talk in circles. If you have something else to say regarding the Historicity of King Arthur and a proposed change to the article and/or an alternate source then just say it. If not, can we please declare this matter closed? This talk page is not meant to be a public forum on my personal merits as an editor.--Bard Cadarn (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

If I've questioned your merits as an editor, I apologize. I have tried to focus on the merits of the sources. --Macrakis (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology accepted, Macrakis. Perhaps I overreacted, but looking at the above comments (not only yours) I realized that the discussion topic had strayed to the point where it was more about my judgement than King Arthur. Regardless, what's past is past and no hurt feeling either way. So, to return to the task at hand, unless anyone has something else to add regarding the Historicity of King Arthur, a proposed change to the article, and/or an alternate source, can we declare this matter closed? The change proposed by Ghmyrtle has already been implemented and seems to have satisfied the all parties, so... --Bard Cadarn (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your historiographical notes above, which were very helpful to me in putting together the Historiography section of the article. I'm sure there's lots of room for improvement.... --Macrakis (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks to me like a good summary. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The academic consensus seems to pivot on a lack of mention in Gildas and Bedes. Yet the earliest title attributed to Arthur in Historia Brittonum is dux bellorum and in Annales Cambriae is soldier - a title attributed to him in some Welsh folktales as well - in other words a military commander serving a leader. He could have served leaders like Ambrosius or the kings Gildas condemns and so not necessarily worth mention in a list of leaders. Another possibility is that 'Arthur' is a nickname derived from 'bear' and he is in the text under his real name - he could be Ambrosius, or alternatively one of the kings condemned is called a dragon (for pendragon?) and another called a bear (for Arthur?) either one could be him. For an alternative to this Graham Phillips who I know is not very reputable but makes the simple suggestion that he is the unnamed uncle connecting the two. And then there is there Caradoc of Llancarfans 'Life' which while as fanciful as Monmouth could just like Monmouth have a kernel of truth from sources now lost in its claim of a personal connection and conflict between the Arthur and Gildas - if so that would explain the lack of mention, and if Arthur has a connection to those two kings it would even explain the hate directed at them too. Has any of this been considered in academia, is there any way to include it? LamontCranston (talk) 11:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

So much has been written about Arthur that every suggestion must have been discussed many times. We have to go by the academic consensus. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Quality of sources

Wikipedia policy says that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." WP:PSTS

Several of the sources that recent versions of the article cites are not of high quality:

• Ancient History Encyclopedia is an online-only encyclopedia. No one on its Board of Directors, Team, or even Board of Advisors holds an academic position at a university or a doctorate in a relevant field (or even an irrelevant field!). Its articles have bibliographies, but not footnotes for individual claims. They claim that their articles have been "reviewed for accuracy, reliability and adherence to academic standards prior to publication", but they do not have an Editorial Board of reputable scholars. (See also Doug Weller's comments above.)
• The History Channel (history.com and history.co.uk) describes itself as "the leading destination for award-winning series and specials that wrap historical knowledge in entertainment across all platforms." That is, it is an entertainment channel which makes no claims of academic rigor. Heck, it has shows on "The UnXplained (Vampires and Werewolves)" and "Ancient Aliens". To the extent that it claims to be an educational resource, it is addressed to schoolchildren, not to university students [18]. It does have some professors of history on its "team", but it's not at all clear what their role is -- do they review content, or just contribute their own articles? Some of its articles are signed, but have no source references, others are attributed to "history.com" staff.
• Newspaper articles about a scholarly paper are very weak. The original article should be consulted, as should its acceptance by other scholars.
• HistoryExtra is the BBC's history magazine. The cited article on Arthur is written by a university lecturer -- better to consult his scholarly publications.
• Rodney Castleden is a popularizer, who has written about Assyria, Minoan Crete, Troy, "the world's most evil people", "infamous murderers", Stonehenge, etc. He has no academic position or reputation.

That doesn't mean that what these sources say is wrong, but that they are not good sources for this information, and should not be used in the article. --Macrakis (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Camlann, Andrew Breeze

@Dudley Miles, Ghmyrtle, Nicknack009, and Bard Cadarn: as you all have been involved in a related discussion, would you please look at these two articles, including my recent edits to Breeze whose article I think is still problematical? He seems overused at Camlann. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 12:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC) I knew I forgot one, sorry User:Macrakis. Doug Weller talk 12:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I can't comment on the substance, though I've formatted the text of the Camlann article a little. I would agree that both articles need to be assessed by those more expert than me, as to whether they give a balanced perspective. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Coming late to the party here, but I see no issue with the Historicity section of the Battle of Camlann page as it is now. It says that most historians judge the battle to be no more than a legend while acknowledging per a quote that some sources and scholars suggest otherwise. All perfectly true and perfectly fair to each side of the academic debate. --Bard Cadarn (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The article lead summary seems to be confused and misleading

It claims/implies that King Arthur was not just not an actual single person, but not even a character inspired by any historical figure or even any previous legend at all, and states that's what scientists believe today as in the current century (quote: "or a composite of any of these people as well as other figures and myths. Academic historians have not supported these hypotheses in the 21st century"). Not only it's very dubious (since many other Arthurian characters are clearly based on / inspired by figures considered historical and by legendary characters, not invented from thin air), but here's for example Miles Russell in 2020 (and more exactly 1 day ago) identifying what he believes were the 5 historical inspirations for the version by Geoffrey: https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/where-is-camelot-where-arthurs-court-camelot-castle/ (scroll down for the video, apparently YouTube is blacklisted on Wikipedia which is ridiculous). --5.173.106.61 (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that saying historians have rejected composites and myths is going too far and have deleted this comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The statement about composites was about what "non-specialists" continue to propose, and I think it's true that academic historians have not taken up any of these proposals by non-specialists. --Macrakis (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The lead should be a summary of the main text and so far as I can see this does not discuss composites. I would however support changing "Academic historians have not supported these hypotheses in the 21st century." to reject these hypotheses." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

How is Russel a "non-specialists" and/or not a "Academic historian"? He's also not mentioned the article at all. While his book is already 3 years old.

Here's what he says:

>Dr Russell believes that the key figure in the creation of the Arthur legend was an individual called Ambrosius Aurelianus who lived in the late 400s, while about 39% is taken from Magnus Maximus, a Roman general who was alive in the 380s.

>Other parts were taken from the Roman emperor Constantine the Great (8%) and the prehistoric warlords Arvirargus (24%) and Cassivellaunus (12%), all added in order to expand the legend of King Arthur.

https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/news/2017-10-06/king-arthur-was-composite-celtic-superhero-archaeological-analysis-reveals

(unsigned contribution by 5.173.104.162 2020-07-18T23:43:24)

This article is about the debate over whether Arthur was a real person. Russell is discussing the origin of the 13th century legend, which is a different subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles: Geoffrey and others were already. in the 12th century. And if this article is not to talk about the historical origin of the legend, then I have no idea what is its purpose.

Macrakis: Here's Christopher Snyder apparently continuing to promote the Riothamus theory "today" and "in the 21st century" (2020): https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1332433/king-arthur-news-legend-warrior-england-betrayal-lieutenant-riothamus-history-mystery-spt Is he among these "non-specialists" too, as is Russel? And is backed there by Geoffrey Ashe, I don't know is he a "non-specialist" as well. Or maybe this article should just stop taking side of some historians against others. --5.173.105.219 (talk) 15:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Express is not a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:24, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Dudley Miles -- this article is about the historicity of Arthur himself. The literary history of the legends is an interesting question, but a different one.

The article you cite doesn't support Snyder or Ashe identifying Arthur with Riothamus. It is the Express trying to extract a juicy story from something much more prosaic: Snyder and Ashe talking about some parallels between the Riothamus story and the Arthur story. The Express is listed in WP:RSP as "generally unreliable". Can you find better sources for Snyder's and Ashe's current positions?

Re Russell, he is clearly quoted as saying "he is an amalgam of at least five separate characters – he never existed as an independent person at all." That is, he is explicitly denying that Arthur was a historical figure. I agree that the language about composites was confusing as written, and was appropriately removed. After all, composites are not people. --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The article begins with "While there have been many suggestions that the character of Arthur may be based on one or more real historical figures, academic historians today consider King Arthur to be a mythological or folkloric figure." Maybe you just didn't notice but it's a totally definitive statement in the very first paragraph. It very clearly claims that the theories of a composite character being based on multiple ("or more") historical figures are not being considered anymore by any "academic historians today", which is obviously false (for example the academic historian Russel says so today). And then the next paragraph adds how only "non-specialists" continue to do so. That's what it says. --5.173.105.219 (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

That is a fair point. I have changed it to clarify that what is denied is that Arthur was a single historical person. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Nennius Ambiguous

"Historia Brittonum lists 12 battles fought by Arthur and gives him the title of dux bellorum (war commander or leader), saying that Arthur fought "alongside the kings of the Britons", rather than that Arthur was himself a king."

This statement is not exactly true. The Nennius text is in Latin. And it is somewhat ambiguous since it can be read to mean 'Arthur fought alongside the other kings of the Britons but he was their war leader'.

In other words it can be read to mean that Arthur too was a king, but it was he who led all the other kings in the war.

Always worth checking the original text. 78.150.38.110 (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have quoted and cited Higham's translation, which does not say that Arthur was a king. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Dudley Miles:. I understood that the source DOES NOT say that Arthur was king. Can you please help me understand why this paragraph needed to change? The original that was changed, clearly stated that the Historia Brittonum says Arthur was a war leader, and does not say he was a king... So, what's unclear to me, is why your edit summaries say, "Citation for Nennius does not say Arthur a king" and "Not in source cited".

If an edit/ change of expression is needed, that's one thing, have at it; but the reason you give for change did not, on my reading, actually exist in paragraph (nor, apparently, in any one else's reading, since at least 2009). Are you able to enlighten, please? In my view, the earlier version, (not my edit of yesterday) is more clearly expressed, than the current. And it did not say what you seem to be believe it does. It AGREES with your view of the source. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks. 180.216.2.240 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not entirely clear what you are saying, but under Wikipedia rules edits should correctly reflect sources. The earlier version did not cite a source and was therefore an editor's own views. I changed it to reflect a reliable source which I cited. Your edit gave a misleading interpretation of what the source said and that is why I reverted it. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Dudley Miles:. My edit said exactly what your edit said, and also what the longstanding version said - just in different words. What I am saying is: What is the SUBSTANTIVE difference between your version, my edit, and the 2009 version? ALL 3 x versions say that the Historia Brittonum says: Arthur was a war leader, and does not say he was a king. Completely on board with your change, as you see fit, but why do you keep saying in your edit summaries that the earlier versions don't agree with source? Can you explain how the earlier edits do not agree with source? They all say, 'he's a war commander, King not mentioned'. Did the statement from the IP 78.150.38.110, above, lead you to believe that their erroneous view was being inserted into the article?

Anyway, it's a far cry from saying a) a source was needed to b) it was the original 2009 editor's own view! That is drawing a long bow, and it's not what WP policies say - Sources needed ≠ WP:OR. In addition, it's quite hard to see how my edit was misleading, it's just differently worded. You're perfectly entitled to prefer the way you have expressed it, of course, and I am content to leave it your way, but my edit still stated the exact same fact. So I am puzzled by your edit summaries and above comment. SO please be specific on exactly where it diverges from the source, if you're kind enough to respond again.

I have since added direct quotes from Higham in the notes section. They show all 3 x edits under discussion here are faithful to this source. (There is though, confusingly, a word accidentally left out of one of the sentences in your edit/s, but I am too wary to correct.) My thanks. 180.216.2.240 (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is not accurately quoting an English translation of what 'Nennius' wrote, but establishing what 'Nennius actually meant when he wrote: "tunc Arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus Brittonum, sed ipse erat dux bellorum".

'dux bellorum' for example is not self-evidently a formal title but just as plausibly is no more than a generic term for something like 'commander in chief'.

Nor does Nennius actually state that Arthur wasn't one of the Kings of the Britons. This awkward Latin sentence can easily be read as implicitly meaning that that he was one of them, but that in the war he led them all.

Safest to simply and factually say that what Nennius meant is not clear and thus debateable, that differing interpretations are possible, and to quote the Latin original alongside more than one English translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not the way Wikipedia works. You are giving your interpretation of the Latin, but that is original research, which is not allowed. We have to follow reliable sources and Higham is reliable. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

That alternative interpretation of what Nennius meant can be found (and quoted from) on page 111 of Rodney Castleden's book King Arthur the Truth Behind the Legend. It can be read on-line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.217.179 (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Arthur, Camlann, 537 and the global volcanic winter in 535/536

I repeat what i said in the talk page of the Battle Camlann:

Andrew Breeze argued about an historical Arthur in 537, and commented (in a paper in 2015, and his book "Battles of Britain" in 2020) of the coincidence of dates between the following events:

-535-536 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

-c. 536: global famine caused by the volcanic winter (18 months without summer), recorded by Procopius.

-De Exedio of Gildas would have been written in 536, because he mentioned in the text :‘certain thick mist and black night’ which ‘sits upon the whole island’ of Britain. but no famine

-537: Welsh Annal(Annales Cambriae) about "great mortality in Britain and Ireland", and Camlann.

Breeze interpretation is that the volcanic winter caused a famine(historical),and that the famine would have caused Camlann (Breeze argued that it was a cattle raid in North Britain).

Research in Norway concluded that the climate event of 535-536 was also catastrophic there, the famine(and perhaps the Justinian plague of 542 ) halved the population and make a great loss of technology for centuries:

https://sciencenorway.no/archaeology-climate-cultural-history/the-long-harsh-fimbul-winter-is-not-a-myth/1613223

About Britain I found the next research about the matter:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0078172X.2016.1195600?journalCode=ynhi20 :Breeze paper of 2015

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328448644_Camlann_and_537 : counter-arguments of Breeze paper, disputing his interpretation of the "cattle raid", but agree with an historical Camlann (but with uncertain date).

I'm not expert in the matter, but the period (mid VI century) was very dramatic:

1.-In 535-536 happened the volcanic winter(because a volcano in Central America), a global event(recorded in Byzantium and China), with subsequent famine.

2.-In 541 happened the Justinian Plague in all Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian

3.- And next, TWO additional volcanic winters happened in 539/540 and 547: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Antique_Little_Ice_Age

I don't know if there exists more recent research about this period (mid VI century) in Britain. So I added the Breeze arguments to the historicity section. My personal opinion: The Arthurian debate has begun again.

>>The connection to dateable historical weather/famine/disease events is definitely interesting. Hopefully more work will be published either supporting or discrediting the idea. And, of course, the Battle of Camlann could be historical even if Arthur is not. (Just to make my own bias clear, I think there was in one sense a historical Arthur - in the sense, and only the sense, that the Battle of Badon is historical even if Camlann isn't, and somebody had to be the Romano-British commander, and Arthur is the only name we have - but that nothing historical can be now known about him. The composite-character idea makes way more sense to me than any of the specific identifications.) Vultur~enwiki (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)