Talk:Historicity of King Arthur

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)

Additions from Mike Ashley

I just undid a revert that obliterated an expansion of the article with relevant literature, bibliography, and identifications, primarily on the basis of Mike Ashley. While I agree that Ashley is not the most critical historian or acclaimed expert (a charge that could be levied against others already referenced in the article), his works provide a convenient and comprehensive introduction to the study of all aspects of Arthur, including, in very large part, his historicity -- or rather the possibility that he had multiple historical prototypes that could be traced in the literary character developed over time. While Ashley has his own theories, he also summarizes and presents those of other authors, and provides an excellent bibliography. He is therefore both pertinent and an asset. In view of this, the previous reversion which summarily undid plenty of work and obliterated relevant content was tantamount to vandalism. Regardless of how we feel about each possible identification, they are published and up for individual consideration no less so than (for example) Lucius Artorius Castus and Riothamus. StefThrax (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

He's published by Hachette, a reputable mainstream publisher, and seems to take quite a scholarly approach to the material, despite writing for a popular audience (it's not just sensationalism), so I tend to agree that we should cover the points he raises, and use book reviews by academics to counter anything that's disputed. Ignoring the points he raises on the grounds that he isn't a medievalist seems a strange choice to me, but could be worth discussing at WP:RSN if it's controversial. What do you think @Dudley Miles? --Yodin^T 20:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. @StefThrax: per WP:BRD, let's leave the content out of the article until there's consensus one way or the other. --Yodin^T 20:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ashley has published over 100 books on a wide variety of subjects, with a particular interest in science fiction. He has dipped into Arthur, but he is not a specialist. There are several experts on early medieval history who have written books and articles discussing Arthur's historicity, such as N. J. Higham, Guy Halsall and David Dumville. We should use these specialists, not popular writers who are bound get things wrong because they do not have a deep knowledge of the subject.

Wikipedia:SCHOLARSHIP says "Reliable scholarship – Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." That does not apply to Ashley. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, but the paragraph that precedes WP:SCHOLARSHIP specifically says Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context. Would you be willing for this to be discussed at WP:RSN? --Yodin^T 20:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course I would be happy for this to go to WP:RSN. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, note that your reverts are not just undoing references to Mike Ashley, but also to other content, some equally or even more popular, some unimpeachably more scholarly (Peter Bartrum, for example). As Yodin noted, Ashley's are reputable publications, regardless of whether the author is an expert in this specific field. I think that Ashley is dismissed unfairly, and to the cost of this article's coverage and objectivity, because his books specifically deal with the question of the historicity of Arthur, considering multiple possible historical prototypes (unlike so many other authors with their singular pet theories), and discussing at length both the primary sources and the secondary scholarship. That is precisely pertinent and appropriate to this article. The options he discusses, moreover, without insisting on one only, are no less persuasive than Lucius Artorius Castus (who is covered at great length in the article, while obviously he cannot be a post-Roman Briton king) or Riothamus (whose single Arthurian parallel, to Geoffrey of Monmouth's highly fictionalized Arthur in particular, is his involvement in Gaul), or Artuir mac Aedan (who lived almost a century too late to participate at the Battle of Mount Badon). Woods and Breeze are in no wise more persuasive or objective, yet are referenced. Moreover, if we keep this limited to Higham, Halsall, and Dumville, there should be no candidates section at all. I really do not see why this expansion of content, which is fully annotated with published works, is being removed. If the subjective dichotomy between specialists and non-specialist scholars is to be stated, that can be done without excluding content. StefThrax (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You have to look at each author on his or her merits. I have Bartrum's A Welsh Classical Dictionary. He is a reputable scholar who is cited by other historians. I have not looked at what he says about Arthur, but the entries I have looked at are sometimes careless, although they often provide useful leads. Wood is an Anglo-Saxon specialist (although he abandoned his PhD on Anglo-Saxon history to go into TV). Breeze is an expert linguist at a Spanish university, but on Arthur he is considered fringe and his theory is not widely accepted. Dumville's main contribution was an attack on John Morris's Age of Arthur. Halsall's Worlds of Arthur is mainly a history of the period. Higham's King Arthur is a detailed examination of the different theories. You do not need to use a popular non-expert such as Ashley when the candidates are fully covered by Higham, a leading specialist on the period. I submit articles to FAC, and reviewers there would not accept Mike Ashley as a reliable source on early medieval history. Jo-Jo Eumerus what is your view as a source expert? So far as your edits based on other writers are concerned, if you edit using only experts then other editors can look at what you say Dudley Miles (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Of course, one does have to consider author and work, but I don't think you are being just here. As you note, on Arthur Breeze is considered fringe. Having read him, I concur. Wood has written relatively popular investigations into historical or traditional events, like The Search for the Trojan War, which do not differ substantially from the works by Ashley I cited. I have read both Dumville and Higham, who take a minimalist approach which is a sober and conservative read of the sources, appropriate enough, although the certainty with which they infer that the Historia Brittonum is incapable of containing genuine information on this point is objectively speaking illusory. Higham cites Ashley, but in relation to another, earlier work specifically on Arthurian legends, which I have not read. Have you read the ones I cited? Because in them Ashley is certainly critical enough to recognize that the familiar Arthur of Geoffrey and perhaps even of the Historia Brittonum did not exist and there is no point looking for him as such (Ashley's major disagreement with Dumville and Higham is that Badon need not be dissociated from Arthur just because the first association is retrospective); however, Ashley does look in detail at the period, at the relevant source evidence, and at a mountain of secondary literature in searching out possible partial historical prototypes for Arthur. And the resulting shortlist is more extensive than the ones Higham suggests, so it is not fair to assert that the "candidates are fully covered by Higham." We are not talking here of someone's pet theory on a personal website or of flights of fiction. Yes, Ashley is not a source on early medieval history -- but neither are Dumville and Higham, by the way, because their works are secondary literature which is interpretation -- scholarly interpretation, but ultimately subjective, just like Ashley's and everyone else's. While I agree that Ashley is not the specialist that Dumville or Higham is, he is also no complete amateur and at any rate the quality of his works in question is sufficiently reputable to justify inclusion, especially as it is pertinent both in topic and in content. It certainly falls within the scope of reliable sources standard and it represents published and citeable positions that expand the article with appropriate content. Let's not forget that the section in question is about candidates for a historical Arthur (or, if we go with Ashley, for possible partial prototypes of aspects of the later Arthurian tradition), and these certainly are exactly that -- candidates, not proven identifications (and the recognition of that speaks to Ashley's intellectual maturity on the matter). Ashley's work provides a convenient compendium and discussion of the existing theories, none of which he fully espouses. The reader can then follow the references and explore the relevant publications and decide for him/herself. Surely that would be an asset, not a weakness of the article! If Higham had actually done all this in anything like this level of detail or completeness, I would not be arguing with you about it. To exclude Ashley simply because he is another kind of author without taking into account the actual content of his work is hasty and smacks of snobbery. StefThrax (talk) 16:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Mmm, with the caveat that Arthuriana are not my area of expertise, this sounds like a situation where Ashley is a reliable source but somewhat less reliable than other people already cited. In these cases I'd prioritize the other sources when there is disagreement. Trickier is the question of how to interpret when more reliable sources don't mention a thing mentioned by Ashley. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't know that it has to be one or the other, but if there is disagreement, that is probably worth noting. StefThrax (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

StefThrax Yodin Jo-Jo Eumerus I have taken this to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Mike Ashley. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Not as written, his opinions may be OK (but see wp:undue) and wp:fringe, but many of the other changes no. Nor do we need hs views more than once (and not at all in the lede). Slatersteven (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)