king arthur
Moderators: eye_of_tiger, shalimar123
king arthur
there is a story around where i live that king arthur is lying asleep with his men of the round table waiting for the day england needs them and its based in alderly edge also merlin is ment to be keeping his eye on them. now is it fact or fiction.
-
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2007 7:24 am
- Location: Tropical North Queensland, Land of Oz.
King Arthur
King Arthur, real or not, was delivered to the Lady in the Lake and others like her in Avalon, a mystical island, after he was killed in battle. Merlin, being male, accosted the Lady in the Lake one time too many, and she imprisoned him for all time in a cave. The various standing stones around England have associated and slightly varying mythos about them, but I think it's the ROMANCE of the ideal of these knights that are the important factor (not to mention the reason we still know about them).
- Prof. Akers
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:30 am
- Location: U.K.
King Arthur
One has to take into account the many stories around concerning this knight and take most of them with a pinch of salt. In saying this I would like to remind people that many myths surround this person throughout history and we tend to forget that the Druids were strong during roman times around when most of the myths began. Now the druids were a nature people and also believed in equality of the sexes, therefore many of their women were also priests and warriors. I believe that the character Merlyn was one of these Druid priests and therefore had a lot to do with most of the stories going around. There are many Myths of people throughout the world and why they protect and will be resurrected to assist the country they belong to. While these myths are mostly just that myths they also give us some insight into the history of ourselves.
-
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 12:26 pm
ARH!
But is it just a story or truth retold
of a young King, so gallant and bold
For through out the land and marked on stone
are places in history where Authur had gone
As old broken castle litter the way
fighting for King and Kingdom
So that England would stay,
Nor Middle, West, East Saxony would stand tall
And fighting for new land the migrants did fall.
The Round Table is England
The crossed swordes its might
And King Arthur its Heart
Its soul its Knight.
written by Whiteheart
But is it just a story or truth retold
of a young King, so gallant and bold
For through out the land and marked on stone
are places in history where Authur had gone
As old broken castle litter the way
fighting for King and Kingdom
So that England would stay,
Nor Middle, West, East Saxony would stand tall
And fighting for new land the migrants did fall.
The Round Table is England
The crossed swordes its might
And King Arthur its Heart
Its soul its Knight.
written by Whiteheart
Last edited by whiteheart on Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Prof. Akers
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:30 am
- Location: U.K.
How do you get round the fact that chivalry (knights and all that) did not come in until the 12th century?
There certainly wwere no knights when the stories are set, no plate armour, the Romans never got round to doing it, they used lorica segmenta or boiled leather.
Historical facts do not support the myth, ergo the myth is just that - myth!
as to whether or not the druids did or did not believe in the equality of the sexes is unknwn and unknowable - oral tradition and all that stuff. The only written sources there are were written by the Romans, and as far as I'm aware they make no mention of this in their writings, nor that they were a nature people - it's all conjecture.
There certainly wwere no knights when the stories are set, no plate armour, the Romans never got round to doing it, they used lorica segmenta or boiled leather.
Historical facts do not support the myth, ergo the myth is just that - myth!
as to whether or not the druids did or did not believe in the equality of the sexes is unknwn and unknowable - oral tradition and all that stuff. The only written sources there are were written by the Romans, and as far as I'm aware they make no mention of this in their writings, nor that they were a nature people - it's all conjecture.
ROFL OMG Eye Pods weren't invented yet!!!!
Ok so that gave me a good giggle.
I have to admit I have always wondered the same thing. With books such as - The Divinchi Code and others similar, it really does shine a new light on the Arthurian history.
Personally I have found others posts intriguing, I never understood what happened to them ... almost like they just stayed waiting forever!
Best Wishes...
xxKylaxx
Ok so that gave me a good giggle.
I have to admit I have always wondered the same thing. With books such as - The Divinchi Code and others similar, it really does shine a new light on the Arthurian history.
Personally I have found others posts intriguing, I never understood what happened to them ... almost like they just stayed waiting forever!
Best Wishes...
xxKylaxx
- Prof. Akers
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:30 am
- Location: U.K.
One of the (to me) interesting bits is I live where the legend could have been set, everyone assumes it's down around the edge of Wales but there is a good argument for Cumbria; not least is the idea of the Ilse of Glass.
I live right by the sea and half way between us and Ireland is the Isle of Man, it's about 13 miles off shore and on most days you can't see anything but on a few, very clear days the mountains stand out in the middle of the sea - then they just vanish!
So it's definitely not Mount St. Micheal in Cornwall - it's Millom in Cumbria.
I live right by the sea and half way between us and Ireland is the Isle of Man, it's about 13 miles off shore and on most days you can't see anything but on a few, very clear days the mountains stand out in the middle of the sea - then they just vanish!
So it's definitely not Mount St. Micheal in Cornwall - it's Millom in Cumbria.
-
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 6:40 pm
Re: King Arthur
yorkmike wrote: (SNIP) Now the druids were a nature people and also believed in equality of the sexes, therefore many of their women were also priests and warriors.
In all my studies of nature religions I have not found one shred of evidence to support this. In fact most of the evidence points to the fact that druids were exclusively male. and tho some tribes let women fight most were just as or more chauvinistic than the romans.
-
- Posts: 103
- Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:24 am
- Contact:
I think the most important thing to remember about Arthur and his knights, rather they were real or not, is the ideas they represent and the feelings they invoke in those who believe in them. As someone already pointed out, people in the middle ages lived a bleak existence. Life was hard and short. But to them, and many people today, the stories represent hope. It could be paralleled to stories of a savior or a messiah who comes when the world needs them most. Many people (back then and today) want to believe that when things get too dreadful, someone will come along and wash away the fear and the pain.
That being said, if there was a historical Arthur, things were probably a bit different than how we think of them nowadays. As has been pointed out, plate mail fell into disuse after Rome fell (which was the beginning of the Dark Ages -- when King Arthur was said to have lived), and was not used again until the 1300's. However, there was chain mail (which the Romans noting being in heavy use by the Celts of the main land and possibly even Britannia). And before what we traditionally think of as "knights" which arose around the time of Charlemagne, there were warriors who rode into battle on horseback.
We have to think of the language and the knowledge of those who were telling the stories in the Middle Ages. They weren't necessarily history buffs. They may not have known the history of plate mail, which was common by that point. And they may not have known when the name "knight" (I believe it was originally spelled as "cnight") came into being. So, if the tales were passed down to the orally, they would have naturally added their own embellishments which we now know are anachronistic, but did not bother those who lived in the middle ages. After all, during the time, they were often wont to anachronisms (if you've ever seen a picture of a Biblical figure dressed in c. 1400's Italian clothing you'll know what I'm saying).
But again, at the very base of it, it's all about Arthur and what his story means to the people of the day (being yesterday, today, or tomorrow). Though he is dead (even if he's mythical) he embodies the hope everyone desperately wants.
Now, is he real? I definitely think it's possible there was a historical King Arthur. And if he's real, does that mean he has all of the magical attributes appropriated to him in the stories? Well, I dunno. But what science tells us is that everything that can happen -- everything a human being can imagine -- can happen, whether it be in our present universe or another.
And that's all I can really say on the subject. But I think it'd be nice if he did exist.
That being said, if there was a historical Arthur, things were probably a bit different than how we think of them nowadays. As has been pointed out, plate mail fell into disuse after Rome fell (which was the beginning of the Dark Ages -- when King Arthur was said to have lived), and was not used again until the 1300's. However, there was chain mail (which the Romans noting being in heavy use by the Celts of the main land and possibly even Britannia). And before what we traditionally think of as "knights" which arose around the time of Charlemagne, there were warriors who rode into battle on horseback.
We have to think of the language and the knowledge of those who were telling the stories in the Middle Ages. They weren't necessarily history buffs. They may not have known the history of plate mail, which was common by that point. And they may not have known when the name "knight" (I believe it was originally spelled as "cnight") came into being. So, if the tales were passed down to the orally, they would have naturally added their own embellishments which we now know are anachronistic, but did not bother those who lived in the middle ages. After all, during the time, they were often wont to anachronisms (if you've ever seen a picture of a Biblical figure dressed in c. 1400's Italian clothing you'll know what I'm saying).
But again, at the very base of it, it's all about Arthur and what his story means to the people of the day (being yesterday, today, or tomorrow). Though he is dead (even if he's mythical) he embodies the hope everyone desperately wants.
Now, is he real? I definitely think it's possible there was a historical King Arthur. And if he's real, does that mean he has all of the magical attributes appropriated to him in the stories? Well, I dunno. But what science tells us is that everything that can happen -- everything a human being can imagine -- can happen, whether it be in our present universe or another.
And that's all I can really say on the subject. But I think it'd be nice if he did exist.
Perhaps if arthur was listening to an ipod and not sleeping then he would not be rested enough to save the world in it's time of need.
The book 'Holy blood, holy grail' using investigative journalism has linked some of the characters in the arthurian romances with historical personages. It could have been a secret societies ploy at conferring dignity one people it wished to put in power or at least use to influence the masses. The romances are rife with violence much the same as holly wood movies which are also used to influence the masses.
Of course bits of true inspiration crept in and a hopeful message can be found. The idea of a hero showing up just when the world needs it most is fitting with hindu mythology which holds that the deities would incarnate in different ages to help humanity and in darker times the deities would have greater powers in order to be able to over come the worlds ills.
quote from holy blood holy grail, I also found the book online
http://www.scribd.com/doc/882898/Holy-B ... ts-Templar
it can be a rather tedious read as a lot of research went into writing it, and ti doesn't give conclusions just lays out the evidence found and suggest ways the pieces could fit together and what it could mean.
"Another connection is the legends of King Arthur, who appears to have lived in the late fifth and/or early sixth century -- corresponding to the peak of Merovingian ascendancy in Gaul. In fact, the term Ursus -- "bear" -- applied to the Merovingian royal line, may have been borrowed in an attempt to confer a special dignity on a British chieftain, i.e. Arthur (whose name also means "bear"). The implication is that the Grail itself, the "blood royal", refers to the blood royal of the Merovingian dynasty -- a blood that was deemed to be sacred and invested with magical or miraculous properties.
Only it is not quite that simple..."
I prefer thinking of it as myth and a symbolic way of looking at things.
The book 'Holy blood, holy grail' using investigative journalism has linked some of the characters in the arthurian romances with historical personages. It could have been a secret societies ploy at conferring dignity one people it wished to put in power or at least use to influence the masses. The romances are rife with violence much the same as holly wood movies which are also used to influence the masses.
Of course bits of true inspiration crept in and a hopeful message can be found. The idea of a hero showing up just when the world needs it most is fitting with hindu mythology which holds that the deities would incarnate in different ages to help humanity and in darker times the deities would have greater powers in order to be able to over come the worlds ills.
quote from holy blood holy grail, I also found the book online
http://www.scribd.com/doc/882898/Holy-B ... ts-Templar
it can be a rather tedious read as a lot of research went into writing it, and ti doesn't give conclusions just lays out the evidence found and suggest ways the pieces could fit together and what it could mean.
"Another connection is the legends of King Arthur, who appears to have lived in the late fifth and/or early sixth century -- corresponding to the peak of Merovingian ascendancy in Gaul. In fact, the term Ursus -- "bear" -- applied to the Merovingian royal line, may have been borrowed in an attempt to confer a special dignity on a British chieftain, i.e. Arthur (whose name also means "bear"). The implication is that the Grail itself, the "blood royal", refers to the blood royal of the Merovingian dynasty -- a blood that was deemed to be sacred and invested with magical or miraculous properties.
Only it is not quite that simple..."
I prefer thinking of it as myth and a symbolic way of looking at things.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests