Arthur, King of the Scots

Dioltach · Mar 7, 2015

According to an article (http://www.thenational.scot/culture/was-king-arthur-a-glaswegian-from-govan.732) King Arthur existed and came from Strathclyde in Scotland.

I hope the evidence on which this conclusion is based is a bit more compelling than what's in the article. On the other hand, having Arthur in Scotland fits with Gawain being from Orkney, and even with Owein being from Cumbria. There's also the story of the Carl of Carlisle, again putting Arthur in the same area.

delericho · Mar 7, 2015

Yeah, I'd heard about this. According to the theory, Arthur's last battle was fought somewhere around Bridge of Allan, which is a village about an hour's drive from where I'm writing this. And, of course, the Castle Aaargh is Doune Castle, also not far from here.

Edit: I spent about three years living in a flat in a part of Falkirk called Camelon, which outsiders mis-pronounce Camel-on, but which locals pronounce Came-lon. Of course, it's a small step from Came-lon to Camlann.

It would be an understatement to say I'm sceptical. Personally, I'm more inclined to think that Arthur is probably Alfred the Great, and the tales of his legend come about as a corrupted oral retelling of that chunk of history. But that's a guess based on exactly 0 evidence.

Dioltach · Mar 7, 2015

My thought has always been that "Arthur" is related to the Irish title "Ard Rhi", or High King.
[MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION]: interesting theory. There's probably at least some connection there, with the Anglo-Saxon population using older legends to draw parallels with their own struggle against the Danes.

Umbran · Mar 7, 2015

I hate to say it, but no. What we think of "King Arthur" today is an amalgam of several to many different people, fictionalized into myth. Many a scholar has tried to say that he was one man, and pin down locations for the main events of his life, and, not surprisingly, been able to do so in different areas of the British Isles.

This largely because there's not a shred of real physical evidence that the man existed. When all you have is inconsistent retellings, it is easy enough to cherry-pick and interpret. Placing King Arthur is rather like interpreting prophecy, in that sense. I mean, the guy in the article just throws out the Battle of Badon Hill because it is inconvenient!

If you'd like a review of the various people who could have been Arthur, I can recommend The Mammoth Book of King Arthur, by Mike Ashley. If you're looking at the known history, he comes up with about 20 suspects.

tuxgeo · Mar 7, 2015

delericho said:
< snip > . . .
It would be an understatement to say I'm sceptical. Personally, I'm more inclined to think that Arthur is probably Alfred the Great, and . . .

Wasn't Alfred the Great a Saxon? Didn't Arthur reportedly die in a battle against the Saxons?

Umbran · Mar 7, 2015

tuxgeo said:
Wasn't Alfred the Great a Saxon? Didn't Arthur reportedly die in a battle against the Saxons?

Depending on what period you are taking your Arthur myth from, not specifically, no. He falls in battle against Mordred's forces, which are not generally accepted as being Saxons. The myth has been recast in several time periods.

If you're talking about the Thomas Malory's "Le Morte d'Artur", then the story is not really about the Saxon conquest of Britain, and flows basically thus:

The relationship between Gwenevere and Lancelot is discovered. There's some mucking about, and eventually Lancelot flees to France. Arthur follows, with a small army, to get Lancelot for treason.

While Arthur is in France, Mordred takes the throne. When Arthur returns, Mordred refuses to let it go. They fight at the Battle of Camlann. Mordred is slain, and Arthur is sorely wounded, and is taken to Avalon.

Now, some later authors will place this all at the time of the Saxon entry to Britain, and will have Mordred backed by Saxons, but other retellings have it that Mordred is backed by allies from his mother's family, which are largely from the western parts of Britain.

Dioltach · Mar 7, 2015

tuxgeo said:
Wasn't Alfred the Great a Saxon? Didn't Arthur reportedly die in a battle against the Saxons?

A lot of these writings were used as propaganda, and used similarities and parallels between old tales to promote their own ideas and heroes.

A very unsubtle example comes at the end of Lachamon's Brut, a twelfth century history of the British (i.e. pre-Anglo-Saxon population) of Britain: after thousands of lines of about the British, it ends with the claim that "Arthur will return to save the English in their hour of need" (emphasis mine).

Dioltach · Mar 7, 2015

Umbran said:
Depending on what period you are taking your Arthur myth from, not specifically, no. He falls in battle against Mordred's forces, which are not generally accepted as being Saxons.

Actually, the first reference to Mordred is as "Medraut" in the Annales Cambriae: it mentions the Battle of Camlynn, and simply states, "where Arthur and Medraut died". No clue about who he was, or whether they were enemies or on the same side.

Like I mentioned in my first post, I hope the learned professor has more proof of his claims than is given in the article if he's staking his reputation on it. That said, he could write a book about it and it will sell like hot cakes: there's always an audience for books like these.

tuxgeo · Mar 7, 2015

The Battle of Camlann* is dated to AD 537 on Wikipedia; and Alfred the Great lived from AD 849 to AD 899 per the same website.

I don't believe that Arthur, who fell in AD 537, could possibly have been the same person as Alfred the Great, who was born in AD 849. (Or did Arthur travel backward through time as some say Merlin did?)

* no "Battle of Camlynn" is listed on Wikipedia.

Umbran · Mar 7, 2015

tuxgeo said:
The Battle of Camlann* is dated to AD 537 on Wikipedia;

Not quite. WIkipedia notes that the earliest report of the Battle of Camlann records it to be in 537. Mind you, that source is the Annales Cambriae, which is a 10th century document. All that mention proves is that by the 10th century, folks were referring to it, so if thdre was an actual historical battle the're referring to, it must have been before the Annales.