Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > European History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

European History European History Forum - Western and Eastern Europe including the British Isles, Scandinavia, Russia


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 10th, 2016, 10:07 AM   #61
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
Originally Posted by kazeuma View Post
There are reasons for it...

1. Arthur was a bastard. Therefore, he was not a legitimate ruler.

2. Arthur killed Huiel, son of Caw. Huiel is Gildas's biological brother. After the death of Huiel, Gildas burned his books containing every reference to Arthur.

3. Arthur's "son" Mordred married Cywyllog, daughter of Caw. This would mean that Gildas would be brother-in-law to Mordred - no sane person in the mid evil period would admit to be the brother-in-law of Mordred.

and


4. the rumors of bestiality...

Click the image to open in full size.
In an earlier post I said that Gildas hardly every mentions people by name, and those he does mention by name are at least two to one to criticize instead of praise. So if Gildas knew only good things about an Arthur, victor of Baden, Gildas probably wouldn't have mentioned him.

Here are some more points from my post:

As for why Gildas didn't mention Arthur if he won the great battle of Badon, maybe Gildas didn't consider Badon the great victory that saved the Britons. Maybe Gildas considered that Ambrosius Aurelianus saved the Britons by winning his first great victory against the Saxons and then leading in a long war full of alternating victory and defeat until he turned the tide and started winning a constant series of victories, and then Arthur took command of the offensive against the already defeated Saxons and beat them until they finally admitted defeat and gave up.

The writer of a life of St. Gildas in the 12th century told a story that Arthur killed Gildas' brother and then Gildas removed Arthur's name from his writings.

Another theory is that Gildas mentions that the grandsons and descendants of Ambrosius Aurelianus had degenerated from his greatness. And Gildas mentions a king Aurelius Caninus who fought many civil wars, possibly trying to usurp the throne from his relatives. Suppose that Arthur actually was related to Ambrosius Aurelianus and his Roman name was something like Aurelius Artorius. Gildas says that the father and brothers of Aurelius Caninius had been killed in their civil wars leaving him all alone, so that branch seems like the black sheep of the Aurelii. And if Arthur was Aurelius Artorius and the uncle of Aurelius Caninus Gildas might not want to accuse the victor of Badon of wrong doing on one hand or dilute his message by saying anything good about a member of that black sheep branch on the other hand.

If the poem "Dialog of Arthur and the eagle" was based on the opinions of Arthur's contemporaries such as Gildas, Gildas would not want to praise Arthur by naming him as the victor of Baden anymore than he would want to mention the good deeds done by other sometimes evil men. If Arthur's family had both Roman and British names, Arthur in this poem could have been Aurelius Artorius, hie brother could have been Aurelius Madocus, and his nephew Aurelius Eliwlodus, the older brother of Aurelius Caninus.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...xts/eagle.html


It is easy to think of many reasons why Gildas might not want to favor the victor of Badon with an exception to his practice of not naming people.

As for being a bastard and thus not a legitimate ruler, nobody knows the succession laws in post Roman Britain. In medieval Wales, if a father recognized his illegitimate son the son was considered among the rightful heirs. Thus there is no way of telling which of a king's sons were legitimate and which were not, unless the mother is named and also identified as either a wife or a mistress. Some Welsh leaders like Llywelyn the Great (died 1240) are recorded as trying to limit their heirs to their legitimate sons with considerable opposition to such an innovation.

And I ask the legitimate ruler of what? The earliest sources for a historical Arthur who Gildas could have known about don't mention his rank or position except for being the leader in some battles. It is easy to believe that a leader of kings in battle against the Saxons should have been at least one of those kings himself, and easy to imagine that anyone who was anyone in post Roman Britain was at least a sub king in rank.

Medieval genealogies make Arthur a member of the dynasty that ruled Brittany and Cornwall. And it is possible that dynasty also ruled parts of southern England before they were conquered by the English. Arthur has also been identified by various writers with various kings of various kingdoms in Britain. Thus it is possible that Arthur became the king of some kingdom in Britain. And it is also possible that Arthur inherited, or usurped, or was appointed to, or was elected to, or otherwise gained, some high position like head general of Britain or monarch of Britain.

But that is speculation and guesswork. We don't know if the historical Arthur had some position that Gildas might consider a bastard to be ineligible for.

Last edited by MAGolding; October 10th, 2016 at 10:43 AM.
MAGolding is offline  
Remove Ads
Old October 10th, 2016, 10:17 AM   #62

Naomasa298's Avatar
Modpool
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: T'Republic of Yorkshire
Posts: 29,861

Quite simply, because there can be only one.

Or am I thinking of highlanders?
Naomasa298 is offline  
Old October 10th, 2016, 11:06 AM   #63
Suspended until May 15th, 2018
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,457

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGolding View Post
In an earlier post I said that Gildas hardly every mentions people by name, and those he does mention by name are at least two to one to criticize instead of praise. So if Gildas knew only good things about an Arthur, victor of Baden, Gildas probably wouldn't have mentioned him.

Here are some more points from my post:

As for why Gildas didn't mention Arthur if he won the great battle of Badon, maybe Gildas didn't consider Badon the great victory that saved the Britons. Maybe Gildas considered that Ambrosius Aurelianus saved the Britons by winning his first great victory against the Saxons and then leading in a long war full of alternating victory and defeat until he turned the tide and started winning a constant series of victories, and then Arthur took command of the offensive against the already defeated Saxons and beat them until they finally admitted defeat and gave up.

The writer of a life of St. Gildas in the 12th century told a story that Arthur killed Gildas' brother and then Gildas removed Arthur's name from his writings.

Another theory is that Gildas mentions that the grandsons and descendants of Ambrosius Aurelianus had degenerated from his greatness. And Gildas mentions a king Aurelius Caninus who fought many civil wars, possibly trying to usurp the throne from his relatives. Suppose that Arthur actually was related to Ambrosius Aurelianus and his Roman name was something like Aurelius Artorius. Gildas says that the father and brothers of Aurelius Caninius had been killed in their civil wars leaving him all alone, so that branch seems like the black sheep of the Aurelii. And if Arthur was Aurelius Artorius and the uncle of Aurelius Caninus Gildas might not want to accuse the victor of Badon of wrong doing on one hand or dilute his message by saying anything good about a member of that black sheep branch on the other hand.

If the poem "Dialog of Arthur and the eagle" was based on the opinions of Arthur's contemporaries such as Gildas, Gildas would not want to praise Arthur by naming him as the victor of Baden anymore than he would want to mention the good deeds done by other sometimes evil men. If Arthur's family had both Roman and British names, Arthur in this poem could have been Aurelius Artorius, hie brother could have been Aurelius Madocus, and his nephew Aurelius Eliwlodus, the older brother of Aurelius Caninus.

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/...xts/eagle.html


It is easy to think of many reasons why Gildas might not want to favor the victor of Badon with an exception to his practice of not naming people.

As for being a bastard and thus not a legitimate ruler, nobody knows the succession laws in post Roman Britain. In medieval Wales, if a father recognized his illegitimate son the son was considered among the rightful heirs. Thus there is no way of telling which of a king's sons were legitimate and which were not, unless the mother is named and also identified as either a wife or a mistress. Some Welsh leaders like Llywelyn the Great (died 1240) are recorded as trying to limit their heirs to their legitimate sons with considerable opposition to such an innovation.

And I ask the legitimate ruler of what? The earliest sources for a historical Arthur who Gildas could have known about don't mention his rank or position except for being the leader in some battles. It is easy to believe that a leader of kings in battle against the Saxons should have been at least one of those kings himself, and easy to imagine that anyone who was anyone in post Roman Britain was at least a sub king in rank.

Medieval genealogies make Arthur a member of the dynasty that ruled Brittany and Cornwall. And it is possible that dynasty also ruled parts of southern England before they were conquered by the English. Arthur has also been identified by various writers with various kings of various kingdoms in Britain. Thus it is possible that Arthur became the king of some kingdom in Britain. And it is also possible that Arthur inherited, or usurped, or was appointed to, or was elected to, or otherwise gained, some high position like head general of Britain or monarch of Britain.

But that is speculation and guesswork. We don't know if the historical Arthur had some position that Gildas might consider a bastard to be ineligible for.
You do know, that medieval genealogies are a complete fabricationI? That these works didn't show up until the legendary aspects like pulling tne sword from the sword?

Also, Gildas no where mentions Arthur as a king, let alone a king of all the Britains. There is no evidence, except a similiarity of names, and he fought the Saxons, that the character mentioned in Gildas has any direct relation to the Arthur of legend, and Gildas is an unreliable source. The pircture he paints is not supported by archaeology. The widespread slaughter Gildas depicts is not seen in the arvhaeology, nor is there evidence of a single dynasty ruling Brittany and Cornwall, or parts of England is Sub Roman Britain. Nor does he explain how tne Saxons actually conquered Britain after all, if Arthur defeated them.
Bart Dale is offline  
Old October 10th, 2016, 01:57 PM   #64
Archivist
 
Joined: Sep 2015
From: ireland
Posts: 208

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
You do know, that medieval genealogies are a complete fabricationI? That these works didn't show up until the legendary aspects like pulling tne sword from the sword?

Also, Gildas no where mentions Arthur as a king, let alone a king of all the Britains. There is no evidence, except a similiarity of names, and he fought the Saxons, that the character mentioned in Gildas has any direct relation to the Arthur of legend, and Gildas is an unreliable source. The pircture he paints is not supported by archaeology. The widespread slaughter Gildas depicts is not seen in the arvhaeology, nor is there evidence of a single dynasty ruling Brittany and Cornwall, or parts of England is Sub Roman Britain. Nor does he explain how tne Saxons actually conquered Britain after all, if Arthur defeated them.
You seem to have confused Gildas with the author of Historia Brittonum. Gildas didn`t mention Arthur at all. There is a possible veiled reference to him in the Cuneglas passage because `bear` in Welsh is `arth`. This opens up a number of interesting possibilities.

While I accept that the archaeology does not corroborate Gildas`s account of Saxon attacks, I don`t think it necessarily has to. He doesn`t describe a war fought by large armies on open territory. We should interpret what he describes are a number of short and bloody campaigns separated perhaps by a number of years.
concan is offline  
Old October 10th, 2016, 02:08 PM   #65

AlpinLuke's Avatar
Knight-errant
 
Joined: Oct 2011
From: Lago Maggiore, Italy
Posts: 19,811
Blog Entries: 19
No more ...


Eh ... it's still all to be proved that a real proper "King Arthur" [as Malory presents it to history] existed, so that, to say "no more" is not that historically accurate.

King Arthur is as historical as King Solomon [a bit more historical than Moses, if we want an extreme factor of comparison ...].

The point is that only later literary sources mention him. Contemporary sources don't mention this "King Arthur" and this is a problem.
AlpinLuke is offline  
Old October 12th, 2016, 08:54 AM   #66
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
You do know, that medieval genealogies are a complete fabricationI? That these works didn't show up until the legendary aspects like pulling tne sword from the sword?
No, I don't know anything about Medieval welsh genealogies being a complete fabrication, and neither do you. Pulling the sword from the stone is first mentioned in a poem by Robert de Boron in the late 12th or early 13th century, some time around 1200.

The first genealogical information about Welsh and British dynasties dates to the genealogy of the king of Builth and Gwerthygenon in the Historia Brittonum of about 830 and the Pillar of Eliseg erected by Cyngen ap Cadell about 808 to 855. There are many genealogies in the Harleian Genealogies in British Library Harleian manuscript 3859 that dates to about 1100-1200 but the genealogies were composed in the reign of Owain ap Hywel Dda (died 988).

The Bonedd Gwyr y Gogledd may date to the 12th century and gives the descent of men of the north. The genealogies from Jesus College Manuscript 20 are in a 14th century manuscript but are considered to be older. The latest persons named are Llywelyn ap Iorwerth (died 1240) and Rhys Gryg (died 1234). The history of Gruffydd ap Cynan (died 1137) gives his genealogy and is believed to have been written in the reign of his son Owain Gwynedd (died 1170) or about 1200 in the reign of Llywelyn ap Iorwerth.

Here is a genealogy given in the Welsh form:

George ap William ap Charles ap Elizabeth verch George ap George ap Edward ap Victoria verch Edward ap George ap Fredrick Lewis ap George ap George ap Sophie verch Elizabeth verch James ap Mary verch James ap James ap James ap James ap James ap Robert ap Robert ap Marjorie verch Robert ap Robert ap Robert ap Isobel verch David ap Henry ap David ap Saint Margaret verch Edward ap Edmund ap Aethelred ap Edgar ap Edmund ap Edward ap Alfred ap Aethelwulf ap Egbert ap Ealhmund ap Eafa ap Eoppa ap Ingild ap Cenred ap Ceolwald ap Cuthwulf ap Cuthwine ap Ceawlln ap Cynric ap Cerdic.

This give the ancestry of Prince George of Cambridge back to the Anglo Saxon kings and the kings of Wessex in 53 generations covering 1,500 years. How much practice do you think it would take to be able to memorize it and recite it at will? It seems to me that when Prince George is old enough to learn songs several verses long he will be old enough to learn to recite his pedigree for many generations.

And it is quite possible that in medieval Wales kings, nobles, and landowners taught their children to memorize their genealogy back ten, or twenty, or thirty, or more generations, and professional bards could remember the genealogies of all the kings for many more generations than that. Thus it is perfectly possible for Welsh genealogies written down on parchment or paper in the high middle Ages (1000-1300) or the late middle ages (1300-1500) to have been accurate back to Beli Mawr who would have lived about 100 BC.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Bart Dale View Post
Also, Gildas no where mentions Arthur as a king, let alone a king of all the Britains. There is no evidence, except a similiarity of names, and he fought the Saxons, that the character mentioned in Gildas has any direct relation to the Arthur of legend, and Gildas is an unreliable source. The pircture he paints is not supported by archaeology. The widespread slaughter Gildas depicts is not seen in the arvhaeology, nor is there evidence of a single dynasty ruling Brittany and Cornwall, or parts of England is Sub Roman Britain. Nor does he explain how tne Saxons actually conquered Britain after all, if Arthur defeated them.
You seem to be mixing up Gildas and the author of the Historia Brittonum

Last edited by MAGolding; October 12th, 2016 at 09:46 AM.
MAGolding is offline  
Old October 12th, 2016, 09:18 AM   #67
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2014
From: Westmorland
Posts: 1,847

Quote:
No, I don't know anything about Medieval welsh genealogies being a complete fabrication, and neither do you.
Luckily, there are those who do. An excellent start point is David Thornton (who writes extensively about British and Irish genealogies of the early medieval period). He is very good on what he calls 'manipulation' or 'augmentation', which the rest of us might reasonably term 'fabrication'. Essentially, early genealogies are composites of lots of little bits which can be strung together more or less willy-nilly in order to give ego (the person honoured by the genealogy) a suitably illustrious pedigree. Tricks like creating stacks of spurious sons (Cunedda, anybody?) and splicing genealogies together through things like dubious marriages are all discussed.

David Henige's interest was African genealogy, but the issues he raises are transferable. Problems of extended father-son succession (and the fact that it never happens in practice) are discussed and these are especially apposite to any consideration of Welsh genealogy.

Quote:
The first genealogical information about Welsh and British dynasties dates to the genealogy of the king of Builth and Gwerthygenon in the Historia Brittonum of about 830 and the Pillar of Eliseg erected by Cyngen ap Cadell about 808 to 855.
Depending on what you mean by 'dynasty', there are also about 200 inscribed stones dating between 400 and 700 which gives names and sometimes patronyms of various obscure individuals.

Quote:
There are many genealogies in the Harleian Genealogies in British Library Harleian manuscript 3859, written about 1100-1200 but dating to the reign of Owain ap Hywel Dda (died 988).
True, but they show all the hallmarks of fabrication.

Quote:
The Bonedd Gwyr y Gogledd may date to the 12th century and gives the descent of men of the north.
Ditto

Quote:
The genealogies from Jesus College Manuscript 20 are in a 14th century manuscript but are considered to be older.
Ditto
Peter Graham is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 03:20 PM   #68
Historian
 
Joined: Aug 2015
From: Chalfont, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,847

Some people would claim that since the modern British monarchy is sort of a successor to the kingdom of England founded by uniting the Anglo Saxon kingdoms that ere founded by invading Angles, and Saxons, and Jutes - oh my - the modern British monarchy has no right to name an heir Arthur and thus suggest that the wars between Britons and Saxons should be forgotten and forgiven.
MAGolding is offline  
Old October 20th, 2016, 03:22 PM   #69

Domnall Ballach's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2016
From: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,646
Blog Entries: 2

The British monarchy is built upon the destruction of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, but I see your point: as it has no connection to the 'Britons' of Arthur, and may indeed by culturally antagonistic towards them, it's got no business annexing their foremost hero. Of course, as it's ideas of 'Britain' developed in the court of the King of England that created (or reforged) said hero, the jury's out.
Domnall Ballach is offline  
Old October 22nd, 2016, 05:34 AM   #70
Lecturer
 
Joined: Mar 2013
From: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 436

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domnall Ballach View Post
The British monarchy is built upon the destruction of the kingdoms of England and Scotland, but I see your point: as it has no connection to the 'Britons' of Arthur, and may indeed by culturally antagonistic towards them, it's got no business annexing their foremost hero. Of course, as it's ideas of 'Britain' developed in the court of the King of England that created (or reforged) said hero, the jury's out.

Behold Arcturus and twenty of his knights:
Click the image to open in full size.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
zoetropo is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > European History

Tags
arthurs, king



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What would have happened had King Harold won instead of King William? HistoryFreak1912 Speculative History 19 July 30th, 2016 02:00 PM
King Authari the Legendary King Arthur and the Elves. Sage Celestine European History 195 January 5th, 2016 03:12 PM
At what age Pashtun King Sultan King Ibrahim Lodhi became King? Changezi Asian History 5 October 17th, 2015 05:15 PM
"The King's Speech" - King George VI during WW2 SchwartzBeWithU Art and Cultural History 1 December 25th, 2010 04:39 AM
"The King's Speech" - King George VI during WW2 SchwartzBeWithU History in Films and on Television 7 December 2nd, 2010 10:11 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.