Arthur, the King?
King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable; just reading it still gives me goosebumps. Back when I was a youngster, around nine or ten years old, the tales and stories centered on this icon of Western Mysticism fascinated me. Sometimes called "The Matter of Britain", the escapades of Arthur and his Knights have been at the center of discussions among historians for many years. Are these simply stories told to delight audiences, or is there a historical basis for this hero we have named Arthur? In the interests of establishing a better understanding of the subject, I will attempt to show how Arthur became the hero of these sagas, persuade you why he is not the hero put forward by the mythmakers, and give an historical presentation of who he could have been. The myth making of Arthur starts with the early Celtic bards and their songs about him. In these early tales, some of whom have come down to us in written form, Arthur is represented as a warrior king fighting the invaders of Romanized Southern Britain. In these songs, called lays, Arthur is portrayed as a dynamic leader, whose skill in combat is legendary. In a work written many years after his death, the famous Celtic bard Anerien credits a warrior's ski
In 1997, in Cornwall, the most southwesterly portion of Britain, near an old Celtic hillfort named Castle Dore, was found a cornerstone. This find stands in mute testament to the power of the name Arthur. ll in battle in a backhanded way (this is done to exaggerate the prowess of the individual) by stating,"and he stood at the wall amid the black ravens and slew twenty and seven of the enemy, though he was no Arthur. According to the Annals Cambrae (a collection of annual observations by the monks of Wales, also called Cambria by the Anglo-Saxons), this time frame includes the battle of Baddon Hill, a resounding defeat for the combined Saxon/Angle armies, in 485 AD, and the death of Arthur at the Battle of Camlann, the final battle between the Romanized Celts and their allies, in 519 AD. What he was not was a medieval king holding court throughout his lands and holdings. We should all be remembered so well. His stories soon became all the rage in Western Europe. He would have had his headquarters at a refurbished Roman fortress or Celtic hillfort, not at a medieval castle like the Camelot of legend. He was a leader, hero and warlord (he probably used an old Roman office if he had any title at all). In at least one "official" document, written by the monk Gildas, he is called simply, "the Bear", and his name Arthur is a combination of the Celtic word "arth" meaning bear and the Latin word "ur", which also means bear. He was a man of substance; involved in preserving something of the Britain he was born into. Arthur has even been in the news recently. He certainly was not the near dotard that deTroyes and other troubadours painted him to be. There was plenty of real warfare to engage in during these times. He did not hold "faires" and "tourneys" to keep his knights occupied.
Common topics in this essay:
Southern Britain,
King Mallory,
Arthur Historians,
Arthur Knights,
Clans Roman,
Romanized Celts,
Britons Mallory,
Eleanor Aquitane,
TH White,
Western Europe,
arthur knights,
king arthur,
historical arthur,
probably roman,
celtic hillfort,
south britain,
name arthur,
southern britain,
|
Acceptance Essays
