Category talk:English heroic legends

This is intended for Germanic legendary material that is preserved in English sources and for heroic tales developed by the English (or by those of Danish descent in Yorkshire who had become English) such as Havelok the Dane, the Guy of Warwick romance, and the Robin Hood material along with other early ballad material. There is overlap with Category:Norse mythology and a probable Category:German heroic legend to be created. This is intentional.

Normally Arthurian material should not be included, as in origin Arthurian material is British, not English, and was later mostly developed in French. An exception is Arthurian material that contains a significant mention of at least one personage also prominent in native English tradition, for example Hengest or Vortigern.

Jallan 14:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Can we have Eadric the Wild ? Streona (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I dispute the usefulness of this type of categorization. Who is to determine what qualifies as an "English heroic legend"? The Arthurian Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is very clearly an English work emphasizing English mores, culture, and language.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I actually somewhat agree on that point. 'Sir Gawain And The Green Knight' features much borrowed from English tradition more than Welsh or Norman/French. However it is not a "Heroic legend" but a piece of literature inspired by the folktales of Wales, nor does it relate to England or the English as a concept, only in the sense that the author was English and influenced by his culture. If we put that in we may as well add many works of English literature that though set in a foreign country (which Sir Gawain is albeit one sharing the same geography) represent "English mores, culture and language", so by that definition Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar' could be added to this category as it also represents "English mores, culture and language". As it is, this category makes the most sense without having to decide how to define "English mores, culture and language" in a work, we have a clearly defined criteria which has worked well enough (without complaint until now) since 2004. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sir Gawain was just an example of how the Arthurian legend is used in an English context, clearly the poem itself doesn't belong in the category as a literary work rather than a legend. But what about the Arthurian legend itself? English literature and folklore involving the Arthurian legend abounds, regardless of where the legend originated. The category already contains a number of articles for legends set in countries far more "foreign" than Sir Gawain's Logres simply because they are given an English context (the best example is Beowulf.) I also disagree that the criteria is clear, I think it's actually very vague. To clarify it a bit you've added specifications that define "English" as simply "Germanic", but in my opinion this definition is contrived and puts too fine a line around it. There were also a number of issues in the specification (the links and phrasing, largely) but I've correct that. And the fact that no one had registered a complaint isn't an issue; Category:Arthurian legend had been placed in the category for six months until you removed it.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Arthurian elements in Englsih folklore and literature does not mean that the Arthurian heroic legens themselves are English. They are not. 'Sir Gawain and The Green Knight' is one of the only Arthurian tales that can be categorized as English folklore, yet it is not a heroic legend of the English cultural identity like Beowulf is. You can put Arthurian legends into English folklore if you wish (although I would disagree with this due to the sparcity of English Arthurian content outside of literature), however, it is no way an English myth nor a heroic legend. Even Mallory's 'Morte d'Arthur' is not heroic legend but heroic literature.

It seems that you have one of the most blatant agendas around wikipedia, Cuchullain, as a great deal of your edits are distorting the facts to paint the English in as Brythonic or Celtic a light as possible. But the facts are facts and Arthurian courtly romances or tales do not belong in English heroic legend nor English mythology (English mythology refers to the survival of Anglo-Saxon mythology or reconstructions). Just because you loathe the fact that the English may not conform to the quasi-racialist notion that the inhabitants of the British isles are all descended from the same ethnic stock apart from continental Europe, it doesn't make it right to distort facts to paint history and ethno-mythologies the way you would like them. You seem to think that be accepted as an Admin gives you special rights to have a bias and to distort facts.

Maybe the English are primarily descended (genetically) from the Brythons but that does not make the fact that Arthurian tales only entered English literature after the Norman conquest untrue, nor does it make the fact that Arthurian tales in Englad are not English heroic legends a non-fact.

You have absolutely no argument to support your revision, Cuchullain. 81.129.52.17 (talk) 19:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That level of acrimony is not appropriate or productive. What I claimed above was that the category is too vague to be useful - I made no comment about my authority or population genetics (!) The issue of what qualifies as an "English heroic legend" is palpable. Obviously it doesn't mean individuals from England, or most of these characters would be out. Clearly legends of the English are intended, regardless of where the characters originate. But if we are defining English as "Anglo-Saxon", as you suggest, then why are Robin Hood characters and literary figures like Guy of Warwick included? And if we add your even more artificial pre-Norman timeframe, that discounts yet more articles, such as Hereward the Wake, Fulk FitzWarin, and Drake's Drum. If, however, we define "English heroic legend" as legendary figures who were treated by the English in heroic poetry, prose, and other material, then Arthur is clearly appropriate, as his story was widely regarded to be true and he featured very widely in English literature and folklore (if you don't believe this, you clearly know little about the subject.) Fact is, the category is problematic, and that won't be helped by you attacking me on various talk pages.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)