Talk:Historicity of King Arthur

As a dorect descendent of King Arthur, so as his family member, I find this article highly offensive. How can you write this hogwash ( a term, by the way, dating back to King Arthur's reign) without at least contacting his descendents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.16.31.82 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Arthur, 537 the Justinian Plague(541) and the plague of Rhos (c.547)
So no comments? Interestingly, the Justinian plague arrived to Britain c 547.Its arrival was proven in 2019 genetic study. It was called "the Yellow Plague' of Rhos" in welsh sources (Annales Cambriae again with welsh triads) and killed this king of Gwynedd, ruling in Gildas time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maelgwn_Gwynedd

-https://hefenfelth.wordpress.com/2015/03/20/emperor-justinian-and-the-british-kings-c-540/

-https://www.heroicage.org/issues/6/gildas.html

-https://www.medievalists.net/2019/06/the-justinianic-plague-reached-as-far-as-the-british-isles-study-finds/

-https://www.pnas.org/content/116/25/12363 (study of the genome of the plague in the Britain Vi century -year 544)

I think a "historical context" section would be needed to the article (for the traditional VI century Arthur-dux bellorum discussed by William of Malmesbury) : For discussion of the date of Gildas Excidio, the volcanic winter of 535-536, the subsequent famine and next the plague of Rhos in 547(also an article for the plague in britain). Also the numerous britonnic and saxon statelets at the time: Kent,Wessex,Sussex, Rheged, Dummonia, Strathclyde, Powys, Gwynedd,Brittany ...(That history is madness to a newbie, legend is worse).

Also: where is Malmesbury's account in Gesta Regum Anglorum (1125) (before Geoffrey of Monmouth fantasies in 1136) of a historical  Arthur? His words are important for the question and should be summarized.

-There is research about the plague of Justinian/plague of Rhos in Britain?? And its connection to the earlier catastrophe in 536? The thing is POSTERIOR to the volcanic winter in 536. 25% of mortality. AFTER the famine of the volcanic winter. IN the time of two other volcanic winters: 539/540 and 547.

Personal comment: If archaeologists/historians wanted clear dates for Subroman-Britain, well, you have now dates for various catastrophes in mid VI century. The Arthurian debate in the next years is going to be very interesting.

-William of Malmesbury account(1125): "On the death of Vortimer, the strength of the Britons grew faint, their diminished hopes went backwards; and straight-way they would have come to ruin, had not Ambrosius, the sole survivor of the Romans, who was monarch of the realm after Vortigern, repressed the overweening barbarians through the distinguished achievements of the warlike Arthur"

from : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambrosius_Aurelianus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Malmesbury

Last thing, from Annals of Wales A- the passages of the context:(https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_of_Wales_A and https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/Annales_Cambriae_A)

-516: The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights upon his shoulders[8] and the Britons were the victors.

-521:St. Columba is born. The death of St. Brigid.

-537:The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut[10] fell: and there was plague in Britain and Ireland. (Gueith cam lann inqua arthur et medraut corruerunt . et mortalitas)

-544:-The sleep of Ciaran.

547:The great death in which Maelgwn, king of Gwynedd died. ‡ Thus they say 'The long sleep of Maelgwn in the court of Rhos'. Then was the yellow plague'. (Mortalitas magna inquapausat mailcun rex gene dotae).

-558:The death of Gabran, son of Dungart.

-562:Columba went to Britain.

This is scary, VERY scary.

Anglo Saxon chronicle and volcanic winter
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Anglo-Saxon_Chronicle_(Giles) Relevant passages

A. 520.—526.

A. 527. This year Cerdic and Cynric fought against the Britons at the place which is called Cerdic's-lea.

A. 528. 529.

A. 530. This year Cerdic and Cynric conquered the island of Wight, and slew many men at Whit-garas-byrg, [Carisbrooke, in Wight.]

A 531.—533.

A. 534. This year Cerdic, the first king of the West Saxons, died, and Cynric his son succeeded to the kingdom, and reigned from that time twenty-six years; and they gave the whole island of Wight to their two nephews, Stuf and Wihtgar.

A. 535.—537.

A. 538. This year, fourteen days before the Kalends of March, the sun was eclipsed from early morning till nine in the forenoon.

A. 539.

A. 540. This year the sun was eclipsed on the twelfth before the Kalends of July, and the stars showed themselves full-nigh half an hour after nine in the forenoon.

A. 541.—543.

A. '''544. This year Wihtgar died, and they buried him in Wiht-gara-byrg.''' [Carisbrooke.]

A. 545. 546.

A. 547. This year Ida began to reign, from whom arose the royal race of North-humbria; and he reigned twelve years, and built Bambrough, which was at first enclosed by a hedge, and afterwards by a wall. Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Ingwi, Ingwi of Angenwit, Angenwit of Aloc, Aloc of Benoc, Benoc of Brond, Brond of Beldeg, Beldeg of Woden, Woden of Frithowald, Frithowald of Frithuwulf, Frithuwulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godwulf of Geat.

A. 548.—551.

A. 552. This year Cynric fought against the Britons at the place which is called Searo-byrig [Old Sarum], and he put the Britons to flight. Cerdic was Cynric's father, Cerdic was the son of Elesa, Elesa of Esla, Esla of Gewis, Gewis of Wig, Wig of Freawin, Freawin of Frithogar, Frithogar of Brond, Brond of Beldeg, Beldeg of Woden. And Ethelbert, the son of Ermenric was born; and in the thirtieth year of his reign he received baptism, the first of the kings in Britain.

So independent evidence of the volcanic winterS(538 OFF by 2 years(it was 536) and 540(second eruption in some part of the world)), not the plague of Rhos/Justinian plague.(Perhaps Wihtgar died of it in 544?).

I support putting Malmesbury's account in Gesta Regum Anglorum (1125) directly in the article: He talks of an Arthurian legend BEFORE GEOFFREY (He talks about a nephew of Arthur with a tomb, who fought with him, but he had different version for his death: he doesnt trust one.Also he believes Arthur was historical, as a general of Ambrosious).

Malmesbury and the nephew of Arthur, before Geoffrey of Monmouth:

"[A.D. 1087.]    THE TOMB OF WALWIN. At that time, in a province of Wales, called Ros, was found the sepulchre of Walwin, the noble nephew of Arthur; he reigned, a most renowned knight, in that part of Britain which is still named Walwerth; but was driven from his kingdom by the brother and nephew of Hengist, (of whom I have spoken in my first book,) though not without first making them pay dearly for his expulsion. He deservedly shared, with his uncle, the praise of retarding, for many years, the calamity of his falling country. The sepulchre of Arthur is no where to be seen, whence ancient ballads fable that he is still to come. But the tomb of the other, as I have suggested, was found in the time of king William, on the sea-coast, fourteen feet long: there, as some relate, he was wounded by his enemies, and suffered shipwreck; others say, he was killed by his subjects at a public entertainment. The truth consequently is doubtful; though neither of these men was inferior to the reputation they have acquired." (edition of J. A. Giles(1808–1884))

01/05/21: So,what are the arguments for a Imaginary Arthur(c.537), invented by Geoffrey of Monmuth?

That Gildas didnt mention him? He only mentioned 5 of various britonic kings?

That the annals/chronicle are wrong and later interpolations.? Why? Who would did it and with what objetive?

That Arthur was a myth and was confused with real figures, Why? The people of the time was too stupid?

Why Malmesury conclusion in 1125(historical warlike Arthur, general of Ambrosious) is doubted?

Im not English native, so before reading the sources I thought Arthur WAS A MYTH, FALSE, A creation, perhaps a celtic god, or a fiction created by Monmouth and believed by people in his time and proved false by modern history. That based in history books and documentaries. I didnt read "Le Morte d'Arthur" or other English/French romances, and I won't, because they are useless FICTION.I only know about Arthur the "character", first by movies.

What is happening here? LEGEND. Too much smoke, part history, part myth c. VI century, before the plague of Rhos, after a volcanic winter and famine. Many, many work for historians of this decade.

Who knows? Vulcanic science, Immunology, Psychology or Archaeology can discover another thing tomorrow about the past and all our perception of History can CHANGE.Perhaps the chinese annals or Procopius says a thing that seems fantasy,and turns to be true.Who knows?

Better only to put directly the earlier sources until Geoffrey of Monmouth, including Malmesbury account.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2800:200:F410:1CB3:3889:D565:ED08:89D6 (talk) 08:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Your comments are your own interpretation. That is original research, which is forbidden under Wikipedia rules. We report the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I only advocate for putting a summary of William of Malmesbury account in "Gesta Regum Anglorum" (1125)(according to reliable secondary source: "An Arthurian Triangle: A Study of the Origin, Development, and Characterization of Arthur, Guinevere, and Modred," Peter Korrel-1984), nothing more. Why is not in the article?

William of Malmesbury begin the debate of the historicity of Arthur, 10 years before Monmouth, he was sure that Arthur was historical, but he mentioned "many tales" that the Welsh had at his time(and he didn't believe any of them). What tales? Thanks to Monmouth we don't have a clear picture.

His account in "Gesta Regum Anglorum" should be mentioned before Monmouth.

Russell's recent composite character theory (article update)
His "new" book is titled "Arthur and the Kings of Britain".

Some media coverage:

https://www.archaeology.org/issues/322-1901/sidebars/7285-was-there-a-real-king-arthur

https://www.historyextra.com/period/early-medieval/who-was-real-king-arthur-historical-person-legend-mystery/

https://theconversation.com/here-are-the-five-ancient-britons-who-make-up-the-myth-of-king-arthur-86874

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/miles-russell-bournemouth-university-king-arthur-was-created-as-a-celtic-superhero-fxj680g8t

This isn't him claiming any of them "was the historical Arthur", which he doesn't, but it's about the possible historical basis (historicity) for the legend, which we know it in many different versions but he's focused on the one by Geoffrey specifically.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.176.236 (talk) 09:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Russell is not saying that Arthur existed. In his Conversation article he specifically denies it. He is just one of several scholars discussing the basis of the myth. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

No one is really saying "Arthur existed and conquered half of Europe" because obviously he didn't. People centuries ago did believe but you and me both know it's just a story. This article is or should be about what this legend based on, and he says it's mostly based on the historical feats of 1 real figure and then 4 more. Some of them being more definitely historical than the others and they're mostly British Romans.

Oh, and one more thing for that matter, related to the subject. Nentres (aka King Neutres) redirects to a British historical figure based on what apparently is just an absolutely fringe theory made by just some random website and literally nothing else (I checked Google Books and Google Scholar and their names just don't show up together at all). The article itself also makes this link (and did so more definitely before I downplayed it somewhat). I have no idea whoever was the real inspiration for Nentres' character but something should be done to correct this. Unless I'm wrong and such connection does in fact exist.

Okay, so this claim was done by

"David Nash Ford David holds an honours degree in History and Archaeology from The University of Reading (Berkshire) and has a comprehensive knowledge of significant sites across Britain, some of it gained from his time spent on archaeological digs. He travels extensively both to experience and to document the full wealth of Britain's heritage. He has completed major studies on 'Roman Mosaics in Britain' and 'The Family in the Early Modern Period', although his main field of interest remains Medieval History. As from 1998, David is the editor of the History Department of the impressive Britannia website, where he is also responsible for the Arthurian section. David has also re- vamped his website, Early British Kingdoms, which boasts an exhaustive oversight of the Arthurian Period."

So it's not as random as I thought, but I think still probably needs at least one more source other than him. I just couldn't find any but maybe I looked wrong.

And back to the subject, the Conversation article says "Most historians believe that the prototype for Arthur was a warlord living in the ruins of post-Roman Britain, but few can today agree on precisely who that was."

We obviously talk of just "a prototype" here (and that's quite possibly composite and not singular), don't we? Like "most historians" do?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.176.236 (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the lead, it's much better now.

I just don't know about the whole Nentres thing so I'll leave it to you, if you care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.176.236 (talk) 10:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Heads up: "Historicity" section in King Arthur needs a rewrite
It's just poorly written compared to the rest of this article. Especially the short paragraphs of just 1-2 sentences are badly breaking the flow of reading. 5.173.74.94 (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A new perspective on the Lucius Artorius Castus/Sarmatian connection theories
Worth considering including when re-writing: Bradley Skeen’s article, L. Artorius Castus and King Arthur, in the same journal responds to the claims made in the article by Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trínchese, and Alessandro Faggiani, in their 2019 article, Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription. He confirms LAC's post was a praefectus castrorum of Legio VI Victrix. He accepts there is no way to assign dates beyond Antonine to Severan but suggests an earlier date before 170 is more likely.

Regarding the claims by Malcor et al: Malcor’s reading of the text confuses dative and nominative case leaving their interpretation "without parallel in Latin epigraphy”. Malcor’s position on praepositus is "entirely unsupported”. Regarding dux they have a "misunderstanding about the term". Regarding date there is "very little foundation" for Malcor's chronology. Malcor’s reading of the last two lines of the inscription are "simply without precedent” and “it is impossible to accept this reading”.

Concerning Armatos it has "little justification”.

He notes their dismissal of the initial excavation report by F. Carrara (1851/52) which showed that the M before the break is in ligature with an E. Skeen agrees with Tomlin, Birley, Loriot and others in finding the reading of ARME[NIO]S "secure". And it follows the most likely scenario is he led detachments rather than whole legions.

Concerning alleged contact with Sarmatians Skeen states the cursus lacks any such appointment and "there is no other evidence for any part of the assertion".

The wider theory involving LAC leading Sarmatian warriors is "entirely unsupported since there is no evidence of any such campaign". The connection between LAC and Sarmatians "can only be asserted without evidence". Even "more damning for Malcor et al.’s interpretation” is the absence of reference to dux on the sarcophagus inscription. Which strongly suggests their interpretation of the inscription and his career is untenable. Finally he concludes Malcor et al.’s contention that the genesis of Arthurian mythology was the repurposing of national Sarmatian mythology (cognate with the Nart sagas) as praise of Castus is "no more convincing than it ever was". Skeen, Bradley, L. Artorius Castus and King Arthur, JIES Vol. 48, Iss. 1/2, (Spring/Summer 2020): 61-75 TonySullivanBooks (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)