This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have undone the recent edits by WikieWikieWikie to the historicity section, as they seem to me to be a retrograde step away from the FA quality standard - concerns include misspellings, what seems to me poor phrasing, non-academic ref used (the dire Celt & Saxon). My feeling is that the revisions (1) need more work before they are inserted into a recent FA, and (2) they need discussion on the talk page e.g. changing the opinion on a 10thC date of addition of the Arthurian annals to the AC from likely to possibly may represent the editors opinion, but the original wording reflected what the work referenced there argues; if there's a change to be made, back it up with a reliable reference which disagrees, perhaps, otherwise it reflects your assessment of the case, not that of the secondary materials we're meant to be summarizing. Other opinions very much welcomed! :-) Cheers Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me be clear - I have no interest in keeping what I wrote unchanged, as suggested on my talk. What I am interested in is having an academically respectable article that is free of Original Research, editor opinion and reflects the current best sources of knowledge. Thus I'm persoanlly happy with NickNack's version as a compromise for the minute. It keeps some of the reorganization of text -- which may be a good move: opinions, people, please! -- and removes most of the bias and personal opinion that Wikie is introducing e.g. "though if we consider the fact the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle usually omit defeats of its protagonists, and the written record of the Britons from the areas of present-day Enlgand under their sway at the time in question are practically non-existant, this may not be as clear cut as it sounds." Now, I'm not saying it's major bias, but this is an argument made by the editor: we are not arguing the case, we are presenting the evidence. e.g. John Morris representing a consensus (!!!!!!). e.g. not citing a reference to back up moving the text on the AC date away from what the ref argues, which therefore=Original Research imho :-/ Re: Berresford Ellis, he is -- as was pointed out above -- not an acceptable academic reference, as it is neither scholarly nor even always accurate. I would like to see more opinions on all this from interested editors, before we start damaging an FA... Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I really am at a loss here then. Its current tone does not beget an impartial article in my opinion though. And for god's sake the Berreford-Ellis reference does not say anything untoward. I know he is entirely ready to accept a historical Arthur upfront and without reprieve. He is I agree a populist writer (yet he is still a scholar with knowledge of the sources). This is not me though (at least not on the Wiki). It is perfectly true there are scant British Celtic sources from the time in question. This befits beneft of the doubt I think, rather than the contrary. And the point on the ASC is valid. I must reitterate the points shown in any evidence here are all only conjectural and must be treated accordingly in line with Wiki standards when there is an unbalance of possibilities on the table. To settle for one argument or another is unaccpetable. I look forward to an unbias section here. WikieWikieWikie ( talk) 22:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
For reference, here is the diff between the version prior to recent changes and the current version. Any opinions about what should be left in and what taken out? Mike Christie (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I remember reading in a book when I was young that King Arthur did not die. He is asleep wating to return and lead Britain in it's hour of need (The once and future King, was his title) According to this version of the legend Arthur is asleep under a hill in Winchester (Home of his 'Round Table' in the Great Hall). I understand the hill he is under is 'Sleepers Hill' in the City of Winchester. Can this be added to the dialog? Bettybutt ( talk) 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely this article can't be considered complete without mention of the lady of the lake and the full legend of Excaliburm which would seem to be relevant here rather than needing a separate article. And no mention of media interpretations such as The Sword in the Stone or even the BBC's recent Merlin?? Monkeyhousetim ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is correct?
OR
To my mind, the first is correct and the second is ridiculous. Others disagree. Ericoides ( talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I just had to fix two glaring errors in grammar. How a FA makes it this far with those kind of things in place is beyond me. 173.20.224.196 ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the family tree, as it (1) is unsourced and (2) seems unhelpful -- i.e. there are many different family trees possible, this only represents one possible tradition. In addition, such a tree -- if it is useful at all -- seems to me to be most appropriate at the page on King Arthur's family. Issues over inserting genealogies into the article have been raised here before (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:King_Arthur/Archive2#The_.22genealogy.22), and I would continue to think them a bad idea which detract from the article. Any other opinions? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've recently acquired a copy of Arthur's Britain (1971), by Leslie Alcock, who was Professor of Archaeology at Glasgow. It has quite a bit of material I'd like to use in various articles, but I was wondering if any of the Arthurian experts who hang out here have an opinion on the quality or reliability of the book. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I do my family's Genealogy and was tracing a line on roots when it lead into 5 sons of Authur and Guinevere. Now I had never heard of the two having one child no less 5. Here are the names Smerviemore ab Arthur (Pendragon) Prince of BRITAIN b. 550 Llacheu ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 552 Amr (Amhar) Gwydre ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 554 Cydfan ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 556 Archfedd ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 558 Now I've been to several sites and two of these names are found Llacheu, Amhar. I wrote the person who posted these people and am waiting for a reply. The children leading up to them did exist, but fall short of attaching to these children. Please if any one knows of these children I would appreciate the proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.241.247 ( talk) 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank You so much for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.241.247 ( talk) 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Having just looked over the edits made in the two weeks since semi-protection of this page removed, am I alone in feeling that the return of some protection might be justified? The vast majority of the 250+ (!) edits over the past fortnight have either been acts of mindless vandalism, well-meaning but very inappropriate changes to the text, or reverts of the above two categories of changes... Now, I have to say I'm impressed and humbled by the dedication of those who are going out of their way to repair the article and check edits (I try to check at least once or twice a day, but others usually get there before me), but is this really a good use of people's time? Any thoughts? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 16:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Gimmetrow for enabling semi-protection once more :-) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Arthur's death is part of the legend (sleeping under the hill thing). Doesn't another myth said he died at cornwall? If so, his disputed end should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.179.33 ( talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw a whole paragraph on the 2008 BBC Merlin series had been added. Adding that much about a fairly recent production seemed like WP:Recentism to me, so I cut it down to a sentence. Then I noticed Camelot, both the musical and the film of the musical, was mentioned, but not The Sword in the Stone which also derives from White's The Once and Future King. Since it was made by Disney I reckoned it was worth mentioning, but then I also had to add a bit how that film is about young Arthur/Merlin to match existing information that Camelot is about Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot.
In short, what stuff can go in this section and what stuff may go out, fitting better in King Arthur in various media or the like instead? Uthanc ( talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
WikieWikie, I have removed your edit to the Historicity section simply on the grounds of bad writing. Compare your opening with the previous one. I'm sorry to be harsh, but in my opinion, your edits reduced the section from a professional to an amateur level of writing.
(Your version)We know there was never really any king of England known as Arthur. What we dont know is whether there is any fact in the fiction. In search of a historical basis for this figure on the borders of fantasy, two early medieval documents stand out, the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae.
(Previous version) Whether Arthur was a historical figure is a matter of controversy in scholarly and popular literature. The argument for his existence is based primarily on two early medieval documents, the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae ...
I have restored the featured-article version of this section, which I believe is a well-written and admirably concise summary. It includes the following, which in my opinion summarises all the different viewpoints briefly and without bias:
This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of post-Roman Britain. In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".[8] These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical. Historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur (1973). Even so, he found little to say of an historic Arthur.[9]
I honestly don't see how that can be beaten.
qp10qp ( talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made three very small edits. The tone previously was somehow vague yet gave the impression of solid reliability. I don't think there was a historical Arthur but I don't think one who disagrees to be any kind of idiot. With three very slight edits I've made this part of the article less lopsided and slightly more specific and reliable. Gingermint ( talk) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "Name" section because it is irrelevant to an article discussing the legend of King Arthur. I don't see how the etymology of the name "Arthur" has anything to do with the rest of the article. If one wanted to find out the meaning of the name Arthur, that person could simply search the name.
69.122.120.192 ( talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Disagree I concur with A p3rson ( talk · contribs), the name section is useful. Immunize ( talk) 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It is pulled DIRECTLY from the name article. I don't see why a link to the other page is harmful. 69.122.120.192 ( talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Being someone who has contributed extensively to the section in question, I say it stays. It is a subject that is of great interest to Arthurian enthusiasts and it's perfectly appropriate for it to remain in this article. Cagwinn ( talk) 00:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that Cagwinn has reverted all my recent changes without explanation. I will explain my reasons for the alterations here. Firstly, the current version presents a narrative in which older historians accepted a basic historicity for Arthur, but more recent ones do not, clearly biassing the article to the view that it issomehow a modern consensus view that Arthur is not historical. I can see very little reason to support the implication that there is any such consensus. Secondly, the current version buries evidence often used to support historicity in the section arguing for a mythical Arthur. One would hardly guess from the current layout that the Battle of Mount Badon is generally accepted as historical, because of its mention by Gildas, and that this fits later texts asserting that Arthur was its victor. The evidence concerning the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is also misleadingly presented, since the ASC hardly ever mentions the names of Brythonic leaders, let alone victorious ones. The facts are complex here, but the structure of the ASC can be used to support the stories concerning Arthur. There is also no discussion of the fact that undeniably historical figures often quickly acquired mythical accretions in Brythonic culture, something that's very obvious in Breton folk history for this period. Paul B ( talk) 12:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This new section was added by a user, but it seems like a random mish-mash of Arthuriana from different sources and time periods, forced to fit into the David story...should it remain here or be excised? Cagwinn ( talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
As an newcomer to this article, I'd like to suggest perhaps the section could be moved to this talk page for a while, where it could be worked into a section of "Comparisons between Arthur and previous literary figures" to be reinserted in the article when it is completely suitable? Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
== Literary Parallels Between King David and King Arthur ==
A number of historians and researchers (including Geoffrey of Monmouth, Victoria M. Guerin
[1], R.A. Shoaf
[2] have written about the striking parallels between the lives and characters of Israel's David and Britain's Arthur. Some of the key parallels are listed below:
Merlin | Samuel |
---|---|
Became prophet and miracle-worker at a young age | Became prophet and miracle-worker at a young age |
Enthroned Vortigern and his successor, Arthur | Enthroned Saul and his successor, David |
Advisor to King; at his death kingdom fell into decline | Advisor to King; at his death kingdom fell into decline |
Vortigern | Saul |
Mercy shown to Saxons led to years of warfare and loss of crown | Mercy shown to Amalekites led to years of warfare and loss of crown |
Uther | David |
Has husband of Igraine killed, beds her, and conceives next king | Has husband of Bathsheba killed, beds her, and conceives next king |
Arthur | David |
Kills giant with one blow to its brow, cuts off head and carries into camp | Kills giant with one blow to its brow, cuts off head and carries into camp |
Excalibur received from quasi-religious figure, the Lady of the Lake | Sword of Goliath received from High Priest Ahimelech |
Gathers mightiest knights, famous for superhuman acts of valor | Gathers mightiest knights, famous for superhuman acts of valor |
Followers include valiant brothers Gawain, Gaheris, and Gareth | Followers include valiant brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel |
Wants to accomplish something beyond military exploits: conceives Grail quest | Wants to accomplish something beyond military exploits: to build Temple |
Rejected due to his warring ways; privilege granted to one more pure in heart: Galahad | Rejected due to his warring ways; privilege granted to one more pure in heart: Solomon |
The Love Triangle | |
Lancelot and Guinevere's affair | David and Bathsheba's affair |
Gawain and Gaheris push Arthur into civil war with his son, Modred | Joab and Abishai push David into civil war with his son, Absalom |
The war ends with Modred's death, but the kingdom never recovers | The war ends with Absalom's death, but the kingdom never recovers |
Guerin and Shoaf's references probably can stay but unfortunately Wilkinson probably cannot.
Also, while this is generally interesting, it can possibly go in the article (or another "sources of and influences on the Arthurian legend" article) in more detail, just not in this format. I think scholars have written that the post-Galfridian Arthurian tales onward were slanted toward a particular audience with figures /events/places symbolizing/alluding to other figures/events/places, for socio-political reasons. So Arthur being a type of Joshua and David is an example of that. ---- Uthanc ( talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Consistency of reference formatting would be nice - we currently have:
Perhaps the first one would be better as (2007a), if the second can't be specified by month? TheGrappler ( talk) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have founded some proves (in Middle-age documents) that King Arthur is Sarmatian who came to Britain. Do you know something about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thaks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In Section "Name"
"Some scholars have suggested that is relevant to this debate that the legendary King ..."
there is an "it" missing -> that it is relevant
84.119.54.12 ( talk) 20:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Already done User:Cagwinn has taken care of it. Thanks for noticing the error! Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Having read the edit history of this article and of the Historical basis of King Arthur article, I wonder if it might be worthwhile having a separate page budded from, or linked to, both articles to cover fringe theories on the subject (properly cited, obviously, not Original Research.) It might save arguments and edit wars - there have been a lot of attempts to insert these fringe theories into the articles, which have been subsequently reversed by other editors.
Bearing in mind the lack of contemporary sources for the period and the problems on interpreting such little evidence as we do have (eg Gildas has been used to both support & deny the historicity of Arthur), virtually any properly-researched theory on Arthur could be correct, and while it is quite right to restrict the main articles to the current mainstream scholars, there could be an argument for providing a linked space for those theories not accepted by the mainstream - there have been so many shifts in mainstream opinion in recent decades that today's mainstream scholarship could very well end up as tomorrow's fringe theory (like poor old Leslie Alcock!)
What do you all think? (If there is consensus on this, can we think of a slightly less derogatory term than 'fringe'?) Butcherscross ( talk) 15:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I have searched through the Kings of the Britons and this one
Riothamus is the only one with this description. He was an "old welsh" speaker by the way and a Briton King- and ruled from Wales.( his welsh name was Rigotomas ).
please see
King of the Britons rigotomas (riothamus- roman name) ruled from Wales by the way. source
Red Book of Hergest- I would just like to add that it was compiled in 1382ad (this book) with writings dating from anything as far back as 100ad I believe. He reigned from Gwynedd (the north) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.109.5.196 (
talk)
11:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
ok cool. doesn't say where he reigned from though? would be good to check that one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.154.43 ( talk) 12:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I read a while ago that Arthur was posited to a fusion of Celtic arth + Latin urs. Can we locate any reliable sources on this theory, or is it just a fringe etymology? Bearian ( talk) 20:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I made some edits to this section over the past few days because it contained some misinformation (which is nothing new in Arthurian studies - people have been spreading misinformation about the etymology of the name since at least the 13th century [see the Sawley glosses]!!). Most notable is the claim that Arthur can come from Brittonic *Arto-uiros "bear-man"; I know this has become a popular folk etymology online (and in some mass-market Arthurian books), but it is not supported by the sound laws of the Welsh language. A Brittonic *Artouiros would have become *Artuur in Archaic Welsh, which would have normally been spelled *Artgur during the Old Welsh period (when the name is first attested as Artur; compare this to OW "-man" names like Bledgur "Wolf Man" {Ml.W. Bleidwr], Catgur "Battle Man" [Ml.W. Cadwr], Cingur "Dog Man" [Ml.W. Cynwr], Riuelgur [MoW. rhyfelwr "warrior"]), and *Arthwr during the Middle and Modern Welsh period. The fact that the name Arthur is never rhymed with words ending in -wr in medieval Welsh poetry (only with -ur words) and that it is never spelled Arthwr in Middle Welsh texts, prevents us from accepting such an etymology.
I also removed Toby Girffen's musings because, after reading his article, I noticed that it contains numerous errors (for instance, his bogus claim that Latin Artorius means "plowman" - when this is not the accepted etymology of the name [the gentilic name derived from Latin arātor "plowman" was probably Arātrius [also an epithet of Jupiter], but compare also the word arātōrius "fit for plowing", used of oxen and fields] - and his misstatement that Kenneth Jackson reconstructed a Late Brittonic *ur "man" - when Jackson clearly wrote *uur in LHEB). His "bear-man" etymology is bogus, for the reasons that I have just stated, thus it should not be present here. Cagwinn ( talk) 03:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I came here to try and remind myself of the major legends in the story of King Arthur. It seems to me it might be a good idea to have a new article which gathered these together in approximate order according to the chronology of the stories. Something like a plot summary, but putting together different sources. I think a new article might be best because this article is already rather long. -- ImizuCIR ( talk) 05:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps what I am imagining would require an impossible act of synthesis. But what I am imagining is an article that tells the stories so that someone who doesn't know the legend might be able to find out, for example, what the 'sword in the stone' legend actually is in its most popular form. And an article where someone like me can go and check whether the plot point that the final battle with Mordred began when a soldier killed a snake is something that is a main part of the legend, or whether it is just in a particular version I remember. Also it would be a handy place to remind myself of any parts of the story I have forgotten. My particular goal here is to introduce the legend to people who don't know it, and at the moment I have to jump around several articles to remember what actually happens. As I say, perhaps it would be a very difficult article to write, requiring a lot of expert input, but I certainly think it's worthy of inclusion.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 23:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It's possible it might be best to stick to stories that only include Arthur. If so, it would perhaps be in a similar vein to the 'Knighthood and adventures' section of the Lancelot article.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
kings son was wrong to turn on his father. (10:17 29 January 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baileybee10 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Clarent should be redirected to Excalibur or Alliterative Morte Arthure. -- Asado ( talk) 07:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Did Gewisse play a role in the Arthurian legend? Trying to edit a bit here. Also, the area of Hwicce comes to mind along with the Severn Valley (England). (Thanks in advance)
Twillisjr ( talk) 16:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"This trend towards placing Arthur in a historical setting is also apparent in historical and fantasy novels published during this period."
Footnote: For example, in historical fiction: Parke Godwin's Firelord (1980) and its sequels; Stephen Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle (1987–99); Nikolai Tolstoy's The Coming of the King (1988); Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles (1992–97); and Bernard Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles (1995–97). In fantasy fiction: S. R. Lawhead, Taliesin (Crossway, 1987); N. Tolstoy, The Coming of the King (Bantam, 1988); J. Whyte, The Skystone (Viking, 1992); and B. Cornwell, The Winter King (Michael Joseph, 1995)."
Problem is, I think the line between historical and fantasy fiction tends to be blurred for Arthur books, and the above are no exceptions, though their basic framework is indeed historical. Lawhead is clearly fantasy - he adds Atlantis in the mix. When does the depiction of paganism fall into fantasy? If the pagan gods manifest themselves? That's Tolstoy. What about writers who write in such ways so readers can interpret the magic stuff is not really magic? Cornwell, as I've heard, wrote thus, but online summaries mention curses and spells. What about Mary Stewart? Do we go by established classifications (how others have classified them)? Uthanc ( talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
See Thomas Green's new article that I added as an EL. [4] It should make an interesting addition to this article. Dougweller ( talk) 18:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, its an interesting aspect. I have more on this topic. See section 5.2 here. There even is a possible link to medieval portolan charts. But I`m not a specialist in Arthurian legends. I came to this connection from a very different field and quite unexpected. Maybe someone deeper in Arthurian matters has more on it. -- Portolanero ( talk) 14:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Because article is semi-protected I cannot edit it. I have proposal. In sentence regarding note [20] can you ad, mention 'Lucius Artorius Castus' with link on wiki article named 'Lucius Artorius Castus'. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Only to leave note, there's another Celtic legend to mention from a scientific and historic point of view which could have a common origin. It's the Tristan & Isolde legend.
Should there be a mention of/link to Matter of Britain earlier in the article? As it is, it doesn't appear until the seventeenth paragraph. I would have kind of expected something in the lead to the effect of "Arthur is a central figure in the legends comprising the Matter of Britain." I'm asking on the talk page first since this is a FA and in case there was some specific reason not to do this. 128.194.103.39 ( talk) 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, that was me, sorry Vultur ( talk) 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The redirect Arthurian originally pointed here, then Dbachmann turned it to Matter of Britain, but another user later turned it back here as being more intuitive. I've observed that the way it is currently actually used in the articles I saw fits the link to Matter of Britain better. I'd like to solicit further opinions on this because I have only seen two instances so far overall. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 02:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Now, obviously, Geoffrey performed one of the great piss-takes of world history and made a complete hash of things.
Just as obviously, there were battles between the Britons and Saxons and someone held them off prior to the arrival of Justinian's Plague on the island at the end of Maelgwn Gwynedd's reign. Several sources long prior to Geoffrey name that guy as some form of Arthur... but not Gildas. He's got the Siege of Mt Badon but omits the leader there despite noting its importance and association with his own birth. Easy explanation: from his perspective, it's an unmitigated Good Thing, involvement in which would cast favorable light on someone he's pointedly excoriating elsewhere in the text. Ambrosius/ Riothamus, he loved. Maelgwn's uncle—presumably Owain Whitetooth—he praises. Running through the "tyrants of Britain" from DE&CB, §28–33, you've got
Now, but it seems clear to me that the best candidate for epithet-"Arthur" here is Cuneglas ("you bear bear bear driver of the bear car with a bear in it"*), with Aurelius's older brother running a distant second. But while the article suggests Owain, which would have prompted still stronger and more direct invective against Maelgwn ("hewing down the savior of the Britons, ye thankless cur"), and a guy a full century too late, no one seems to have mentioned him. Cuneglas's own page lists him as a candidate, so presumably someone thought of this before me... but no scholarly treatment at all? — LlywelynII 06:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
* Neither here nor there but that makes me think a lot more about the Great Wain/ Ursa Major than it does about a funeral procession, let alone pagan religious rituals Gildas would've jumped up and down on him for participating in. Not sure how it would tie in, though... — LlywelynII 08:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Ah... He's talking about Boötes ("ox-driver of the wagon")... = Arcturus ("bear-guard")... = lord/guard of the " Fort of the Bear" in Rhos. — LlywelynII 09:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: But has anyone made that connection more recently than this guy? [1] (On the bright side, at least Cuneglas has a source for that claim now.) — LlywelynII 10:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Also, still no reliable source on the complete version of the pun. Anderson shrugged his shoulders when he couldn't think of a "Caer Arth" instead of looking for one that started with "Din ~". — LlywelynII 11:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some historians who consider "King Arthur" to be a composite of multiple real individuals--possibly over multiple periods--with their separate lives and activities folded by oral tradition into a single legendary individual. This idea should be explored, although I'm not the one to do that.
Personally, I find the positing that Arthur either corresponded to a specific individual or no one at all to be a false dichotomy. RobertGustafson ( talk) 04:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
German wikipedia claims "Arthur" is Welsh and is thus pronounced, in accordance with Welsh orthography, as ['arθir]... thoughts? -- megA ( talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Have changed the images around. Obviously I feel they are generally improvements. If you feel otherwise, just try to remember to
and, of course, leave some rationale so we don't end up with tugs of war over the issue. — LlywelynII 04:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk · contribs) has twice removed a passage under "Debated historicity" which compares a proposed historicised mythical Arthur to Hengist and Horsa, considered as "totemic horse gods" who became historicised. Badger's edit summary says "The given source does not make this outlandish claim", although there are three cited sources. This should be discussed rather than just removed again. I don't have access to any of the works cited. Perhaps someone who does can confirm what they say on this subject? -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 08:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
is actually the pen-name of Caitlin Green according to the updated arthuriana website. Now her reference is invaluable for the pre-Galfridian/post-Galfridian stuff, but how do we state this, or should we even? 202.92.128.133 ( talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted a series of recent edits, most of which are minor, but the sheer amount of them are troublesome considering that this Featured Article has been stable for eight years. Some of the changes were not improvements; for instance there's no need to break up the paragraphs. Others were improvements, and I wish I could have left them intact, but the sheer number of changes made that impractical.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for overwhelming you with minor adjustments. I tend to mentally edit as I read, and sometimes carry out that mania into practical reality, editing while simultaneously doing research. Alas, I am not familiar with distinctions such as "featured articles" versus ... well, whatever other categories there are--nor am I familiar with accepted protocol or etiquette in such matters. I will endeavor not to offend further. Cordially, Dilidor P.S. I've never posted on a talk page before, and am not even sure that I'm doing it correctly. Hopefully simply editing is the way it's done. ... ah, I see that it requires four tildes. I trust that this is correct now? Dilidor ( talk) 19:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If the name "Arthur" is connected to Artorius, the masculine name of gens Artoria, why are we suggesting only a single member of the gens as a possible Arthur character? Any possible male-line descendant of the gens would also have the name "Artorius". That is how Roman naming conventions went. Dimadick ( talk) 07:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have undone the recent edits by WikieWikieWikie to the historicity section, as they seem to me to be a retrograde step away from the FA quality standard - concerns include misspellings, what seems to me poor phrasing, non-academic ref used (the dire Celt & Saxon). My feeling is that the revisions (1) need more work before they are inserted into a recent FA, and (2) they need discussion on the talk page e.g. changing the opinion on a 10thC date of addition of the Arthurian annals to the AC from likely to possibly may represent the editors opinion, but the original wording reflected what the work referenced there argues; if there's a change to be made, back it up with a reliable reference which disagrees, perhaps, otherwise it reflects your assessment of the case, not that of the secondary materials we're meant to be summarizing. Other opinions very much welcomed! :-) Cheers Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, let me be clear - I have no interest in keeping what I wrote unchanged, as suggested on my talk. What I am interested in is having an academically respectable article that is free of Original Research, editor opinion and reflects the current best sources of knowledge. Thus I'm persoanlly happy with NickNack's version as a compromise for the minute. It keeps some of the reorganization of text -- which may be a good move: opinions, people, please! -- and removes most of the bias and personal opinion that Wikie is introducing e.g. "though if we consider the fact the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle usually omit defeats of its protagonists, and the written record of the Britons from the areas of present-day Enlgand under their sway at the time in question are practically non-existant, this may not be as clear cut as it sounds." Now, I'm not saying it's major bias, but this is an argument made by the editor: we are not arguing the case, we are presenting the evidence. e.g. John Morris representing a consensus (!!!!!!). e.g. not citing a reference to back up moving the text on the AC date away from what the ref argues, which therefore=Original Research imho :-/ Re: Berresford Ellis, he is -- as was pointed out above -- not an acceptable academic reference, as it is neither scholarly nor even always accurate. I would like to see more opinions on all this from interested editors, before we start damaging an FA... Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I really am at a loss here then. Its current tone does not beget an impartial article in my opinion though. And for god's sake the Berreford-Ellis reference does not say anything untoward. I know he is entirely ready to accept a historical Arthur upfront and without reprieve. He is I agree a populist writer (yet he is still a scholar with knowledge of the sources). This is not me though (at least not on the Wiki). It is perfectly true there are scant British Celtic sources from the time in question. This befits beneft of the doubt I think, rather than the contrary. And the point on the ASC is valid. I must reitterate the points shown in any evidence here are all only conjectural and must be treated accordingly in line with Wiki standards when there is an unbalance of possibilities on the table. To settle for one argument or another is unaccpetable. I look forward to an unbias section here. WikieWikieWikie ( talk) 22:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
For reference, here is the diff between the version prior to recent changes and the current version. Any opinions about what should be left in and what taken out? Mike Christie (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I remember reading in a book when I was young that King Arthur did not die. He is asleep wating to return and lead Britain in it's hour of need (The once and future King, was his title) According to this version of the legend Arthur is asleep under a hill in Winchester (Home of his 'Round Table' in the Great Hall). I understand the hill he is under is 'Sleepers Hill' in the City of Winchester. Can this be added to the dialog? Bettybutt ( talk) 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Surely this article can't be considered complete without mention of the lady of the lake and the full legend of Excaliburm which would seem to be relevant here rather than needing a separate article. And no mention of media interpretations such as The Sword in the Stone or even the BBC's recent Merlin?? Monkeyhousetim ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Which is correct?
OR
To my mind, the first is correct and the second is ridiculous. Others disagree. Ericoides ( talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I just had to fix two glaring errors in grammar. How a FA makes it this far with those kind of things in place is beyond me. 173.20.224.196 ( talk) 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the family tree, as it (1) is unsourced and (2) seems unhelpful -- i.e. there are many different family trees possible, this only represents one possible tradition. In addition, such a tree -- if it is useful at all -- seems to me to be most appropriate at the page on King Arthur's family. Issues over inserting genealogies into the article have been raised here before (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:King_Arthur/Archive2#The_.22genealogy.22), and I would continue to think them a bad idea which detract from the article. Any other opinions? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've recently acquired a copy of Arthur's Britain (1971), by Leslie Alcock, who was Professor of Archaeology at Glasgow. It has quite a bit of material I'd like to use in various articles, but I was wondering if any of the Arthurian experts who hang out here have an opinion on the quality or reliability of the book. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I do my family's Genealogy and was tracing a line on roots when it lead into 5 sons of Authur and Guinevere. Now I had never heard of the two having one child no less 5. Here are the names Smerviemore ab Arthur (Pendragon) Prince of BRITAIN b. 550 Llacheu ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 552 Amr (Amhar) Gwydre ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 554 Cydfan ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 556 Archfedd ab Arthur Prince of BRITAIN b. 558 Now I've been to several sites and two of these names are found Llacheu, Amhar. I wrote the person who posted these people and am waiting for a reply. The children leading up to them did exist, but fall short of attaching to these children. Please if any one knows of these children I would appreciate the proof —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.241.247 ( talk) 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank You so much for your input. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.67.241.247 ( talk) 12:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Having just looked over the edits made in the two weeks since semi-protection of this page removed, am I alone in feeling that the return of some protection might be justified? The vast majority of the 250+ (!) edits over the past fortnight have either been acts of mindless vandalism, well-meaning but very inappropriate changes to the text, or reverts of the above two categories of changes... Now, I have to say I'm impressed and humbled by the dedication of those who are going out of their way to repair the article and check edits (I try to check at least once or twice a day, but others usually get there before me), but is this really a good use of people's time? Any thoughts? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 16:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks to Gimmetrow for enabling semi-protection once more :-) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning ( talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Arthur's death is part of the legend (sleeping under the hill thing). Doesn't another myth said he died at cornwall? If so, his disputed end should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.179.33 ( talk) 00:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw a whole paragraph on the 2008 BBC Merlin series had been added. Adding that much about a fairly recent production seemed like WP:Recentism to me, so I cut it down to a sentence. Then I noticed Camelot, both the musical and the film of the musical, was mentioned, but not The Sword in the Stone which also derives from White's The Once and Future King. Since it was made by Disney I reckoned it was worth mentioning, but then I also had to add a bit how that film is about young Arthur/Merlin to match existing information that Camelot is about Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot.
In short, what stuff can go in this section and what stuff may go out, fitting better in King Arthur in various media or the like instead? Uthanc ( talk) 11:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
WikieWikie, I have removed your edit to the Historicity section simply on the grounds of bad writing. Compare your opening with the previous one. I'm sorry to be harsh, but in my opinion, your edits reduced the section from a professional to an amateur level of writing.
(Your version)We know there was never really any king of England known as Arthur. What we dont know is whether there is any fact in the fiction. In search of a historical basis for this figure on the borders of fantasy, two early medieval documents stand out, the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae.
(Previous version) Whether Arthur was a historical figure is a matter of controversy in scholarly and popular literature. The argument for his existence is based primarily on two early medieval documents, the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae ...
I have restored the featured-article version of this section, which I believe is a well-written and admirably concise summary. It includes the following, which in my opinion summarises all the different viewpoints briefly and without bias:
This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of post-Roman Britain. In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".[8] These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical. Historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur (1973). Even so, he found little to say of an historic Arthur.[9]
I honestly don't see how that can be beaten.
qp10qp ( talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made three very small edits. The tone previously was somehow vague yet gave the impression of solid reliability. I don't think there was a historical Arthur but I don't think one who disagrees to be any kind of idiot. With three very slight edits I've made this part of the article less lopsided and slightly more specific and reliable. Gingermint ( talk) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the "Name" section because it is irrelevant to an article discussing the legend of King Arthur. I don't see how the etymology of the name "Arthur" has anything to do with the rest of the article. If one wanted to find out the meaning of the name Arthur, that person could simply search the name.
69.122.120.192 ( talk) 19:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Disagree I concur with A p3rson ( talk · contribs), the name section is useful. Immunize ( talk) 20:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It is pulled DIRECTLY from the name article. I don't see why a link to the other page is harmful. 69.122.120.192 ( talk) 20:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Being someone who has contributed extensively to the section in question, I say it stays. It is a subject that is of great interest to Arthurian enthusiasts and it's perfectly appropriate for it to remain in this article. Cagwinn ( talk) 00:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I see that Cagwinn has reverted all my recent changes without explanation. I will explain my reasons for the alterations here. Firstly, the current version presents a narrative in which older historians accepted a basic historicity for Arthur, but more recent ones do not, clearly biassing the article to the view that it issomehow a modern consensus view that Arthur is not historical. I can see very little reason to support the implication that there is any such consensus. Secondly, the current version buries evidence often used to support historicity in the section arguing for a mythical Arthur. One would hardly guess from the current layout that the Battle of Mount Badon is generally accepted as historical, because of its mention by Gildas, and that this fits later texts asserting that Arthur was its victor. The evidence concerning the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is also misleadingly presented, since the ASC hardly ever mentions the names of Brythonic leaders, let alone victorious ones. The facts are complex here, but the structure of the ASC can be used to support the stories concerning Arthur. There is also no discussion of the fact that undeniably historical figures often quickly acquired mythical accretions in Brythonic culture, something that's very obvious in Breton folk history for this period. Paul B ( talk) 12:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
This new section was added by a user, but it seems like a random mish-mash of Arthuriana from different sources and time periods, forced to fit into the David story...should it remain here or be excised? Cagwinn ( talk) 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
As an newcomer to this article, I'd like to suggest perhaps the section could be moved to this talk page for a while, where it could be worked into a section of "Comparisons between Arthur and previous literary figures" to be reinserted in the article when it is completely suitable? Ian.thomson ( talk) 03:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
== Literary Parallels Between King David and King Arthur ==
A number of historians and researchers (including Geoffrey of Monmouth, Victoria M. Guerin
[1], R.A. Shoaf
[2] have written about the striking parallels between the lives and characters of Israel's David and Britain's Arthur. Some of the key parallels are listed below:
Merlin | Samuel |
---|---|
Became prophet and miracle-worker at a young age | Became prophet and miracle-worker at a young age |
Enthroned Vortigern and his successor, Arthur | Enthroned Saul and his successor, David |
Advisor to King; at his death kingdom fell into decline | Advisor to King; at his death kingdom fell into decline |
Vortigern | Saul |
Mercy shown to Saxons led to years of warfare and loss of crown | Mercy shown to Amalekites led to years of warfare and loss of crown |
Uther | David |
Has husband of Igraine killed, beds her, and conceives next king | Has husband of Bathsheba killed, beds her, and conceives next king |
Arthur | David |
Kills giant with one blow to its brow, cuts off head and carries into camp | Kills giant with one blow to its brow, cuts off head and carries into camp |
Excalibur received from quasi-religious figure, the Lady of the Lake | Sword of Goliath received from High Priest Ahimelech |
Gathers mightiest knights, famous for superhuman acts of valor | Gathers mightiest knights, famous for superhuman acts of valor |
Followers include valiant brothers Gawain, Gaheris, and Gareth | Followers include valiant brothers Joab, Abishai, and Asahel |
Wants to accomplish something beyond military exploits: conceives Grail quest | Wants to accomplish something beyond military exploits: to build Temple |
Rejected due to his warring ways; privilege granted to one more pure in heart: Galahad | Rejected due to his warring ways; privilege granted to one more pure in heart: Solomon |
The Love Triangle | |
Lancelot and Guinevere's affair | David and Bathsheba's affair |
Gawain and Gaheris push Arthur into civil war with his son, Modred | Joab and Abishai push David into civil war with his son, Absalom |
The war ends with Modred's death, but the kingdom never recovers | The war ends with Absalom's death, but the kingdom never recovers |
Guerin and Shoaf's references probably can stay but unfortunately Wilkinson probably cannot.
Also, while this is generally interesting, it can possibly go in the article (or another "sources of and influences on the Arthurian legend" article) in more detail, just not in this format. I think scholars have written that the post-Galfridian Arthurian tales onward were slanted toward a particular audience with figures /events/places symbolizing/alluding to other figures/events/places, for socio-political reasons. So Arthur being a type of Joshua and David is an example of that. ---- Uthanc ( talk) 10:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Consistency of reference formatting would be nice - we currently have:
Perhaps the first one would be better as (2007a), if the second can't be specified by month? TheGrappler ( talk) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I have founded some proves (in Middle-age documents) that King Arthur is Sarmatian who came to Britain. Do you know something about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar ( talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thaks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blexandar ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}}
In Section "Name"
"Some scholars have suggested that is relevant to this debate that the legendary King ..."
there is an "it" missing -> that it is relevant
84.119.54.12 ( talk) 20:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Already done User:Cagwinn has taken care of it. Thanks for noticing the error! Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Having read the edit history of this article and of the Historical basis of King Arthur article, I wonder if it might be worthwhile having a separate page budded from, or linked to, both articles to cover fringe theories on the subject (properly cited, obviously, not Original Research.) It might save arguments and edit wars - there have been a lot of attempts to insert these fringe theories into the articles, which have been subsequently reversed by other editors.
Bearing in mind the lack of contemporary sources for the period and the problems on interpreting such little evidence as we do have (eg Gildas has been used to both support & deny the historicity of Arthur), virtually any properly-researched theory on Arthur could be correct, and while it is quite right to restrict the main articles to the current mainstream scholars, there could be an argument for providing a linked space for those theories not accepted by the mainstream - there have been so many shifts in mainstream opinion in recent decades that today's mainstream scholarship could very well end up as tomorrow's fringe theory (like poor old Leslie Alcock!)
What do you all think? (If there is consensus on this, can we think of a slightly less derogatory term than 'fringe'?) Butcherscross ( talk) 15:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
hello,
I have searched through the Kings of the Britons and this one
Riothamus is the only one with this description. He was an "old welsh" speaker by the way and a Briton King- and ruled from Wales.( his welsh name was Rigotomas ).
please see
King of the Britons rigotomas (riothamus- roman name) ruled from Wales by the way. source
Red Book of Hergest- I would just like to add that it was compiled in 1382ad (this book) with writings dating from anything as far back as 100ad I believe. He reigned from Gwynedd (the north) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
178.109.5.196 (
talk)
11:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
ok cool. doesn't say where he reigned from though? would be good to check that one out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.101.154.43 ( talk) 12:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I read a while ago that Arthur was posited to a fusion of Celtic arth + Latin urs. Can we locate any reliable sources on this theory, or is it just a fringe etymology? Bearian ( talk) 20:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I made some edits to this section over the past few days because it contained some misinformation (which is nothing new in Arthurian studies - people have been spreading misinformation about the etymology of the name since at least the 13th century [see the Sawley glosses]!!). Most notable is the claim that Arthur can come from Brittonic *Arto-uiros "bear-man"; I know this has become a popular folk etymology online (and in some mass-market Arthurian books), but it is not supported by the sound laws of the Welsh language. A Brittonic *Artouiros would have become *Artuur in Archaic Welsh, which would have normally been spelled *Artgur during the Old Welsh period (when the name is first attested as Artur; compare this to OW "-man" names like Bledgur "Wolf Man" {Ml.W. Bleidwr], Catgur "Battle Man" [Ml.W. Cadwr], Cingur "Dog Man" [Ml.W. Cynwr], Riuelgur [MoW. rhyfelwr "warrior"]), and *Arthwr during the Middle and Modern Welsh period. The fact that the name Arthur is never rhymed with words ending in -wr in medieval Welsh poetry (only with -ur words) and that it is never spelled Arthwr in Middle Welsh texts, prevents us from accepting such an etymology.
I also removed Toby Girffen's musings because, after reading his article, I noticed that it contains numerous errors (for instance, his bogus claim that Latin Artorius means "plowman" - when this is not the accepted etymology of the name [the gentilic name derived from Latin arātor "plowman" was probably Arātrius [also an epithet of Jupiter], but compare also the word arātōrius "fit for plowing", used of oxen and fields] - and his misstatement that Kenneth Jackson reconstructed a Late Brittonic *ur "man" - when Jackson clearly wrote *uur in LHEB). His "bear-man" etymology is bogus, for the reasons that I have just stated, thus it should not be present here. Cagwinn ( talk) 03:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I came here to try and remind myself of the major legends in the story of King Arthur. It seems to me it might be a good idea to have a new article which gathered these together in approximate order according to the chronology of the stories. Something like a plot summary, but putting together different sources. I think a new article might be best because this article is already rather long. -- ImizuCIR ( talk) 05:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps what I am imagining would require an impossible act of synthesis. But what I am imagining is an article that tells the stories so that someone who doesn't know the legend might be able to find out, for example, what the 'sword in the stone' legend actually is in its most popular form. And an article where someone like me can go and check whether the plot point that the final battle with Mordred began when a soldier killed a snake is something that is a main part of the legend, or whether it is just in a particular version I remember. Also it would be a handy place to remind myself of any parts of the story I have forgotten. My particular goal here is to introduce the legend to people who don't know it, and at the moment I have to jump around several articles to remember what actually happens. As I say, perhaps it would be a very difficult article to write, requiring a lot of expert input, but I certainly think it's worthy of inclusion.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 23:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
It's possible it might be best to stick to stories that only include Arthur. If so, it would perhaps be in a similar vein to the 'Knighthood and adventures' section of the Lancelot article.-- ImizuCIR ( talk) 01:14, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
kings son was wrong to turn on his father. (10:17 29 January 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baileybee10 ( talk • contribs) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Clarent should be redirected to Excalibur or Alliterative Morte Arthure. -- Asado ( talk) 07:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Did Gewisse play a role in the Arthurian legend? Trying to edit a bit here. Also, the area of Hwicce comes to mind along with the Severn Valley (England). (Thanks in advance)
Twillisjr ( talk) 16:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
"This trend towards placing Arthur in a historical setting is also apparent in historical and fantasy novels published during this period."
Footnote: For example, in historical fiction: Parke Godwin's Firelord (1980) and its sequels; Stephen Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle (1987–99); Nikolai Tolstoy's The Coming of the King (1988); Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles (1992–97); and Bernard Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles (1995–97). In fantasy fiction: S. R. Lawhead, Taliesin (Crossway, 1987); N. Tolstoy, The Coming of the King (Bantam, 1988); J. Whyte, The Skystone (Viking, 1992); and B. Cornwell, The Winter King (Michael Joseph, 1995)."
Problem is, I think the line between historical and fantasy fiction tends to be blurred for Arthur books, and the above are no exceptions, though their basic framework is indeed historical. Lawhead is clearly fantasy - he adds Atlantis in the mix. When does the depiction of paganism fall into fantasy? If the pagan gods manifest themselves? That's Tolstoy. What about writers who write in such ways so readers can interpret the magic stuff is not really magic? Cornwell, as I've heard, wrote thus, but online summaries mention curses and spells. What about Mary Stewart? Do we go by established classifications (how others have classified them)? Uthanc ( talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
See Thomas Green's new article that I added as an EL. [4] It should make an interesting addition to this article. Dougweller ( talk) 18:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, its an interesting aspect. I have more on this topic. See section 5.2 here. There even is a possible link to medieval portolan charts. But I`m not a specialist in Arthurian legends. I came to this connection from a very different field and quite unexpected. Maybe someone deeper in Arthurian matters has more on it. -- Portolanero ( talk) 14:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Because article is semi-protected I cannot edit it. I have proposal. In sentence regarding note [20] can you ad, mention 'Lucius Artorius Castus' with link on wiki article named 'Lucius Artorius Castus'. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsom7 ( talk • contribs) 13:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Only to leave note, there's another Celtic legend to mention from a scientific and historic point of view which could have a common origin. It's the Tristan & Isolde legend.
Should there be a mention of/link to Matter of Britain earlier in the article? As it is, it doesn't appear until the seventeenth paragraph. I would have kind of expected something in the lead to the effect of "Arthur is a central figure in the legends comprising the Matter of Britain." I'm asking on the talk page first since this is a FA and in case there was some specific reason not to do this. 128.194.103.39 ( talk) 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Oh, that was me, sorry Vultur ( talk) 22:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The redirect Arthurian originally pointed here, then Dbachmann turned it to Matter of Britain, but another user later turned it back here as being more intuitive. I've observed that the way it is currently actually used in the articles I saw fits the link to Matter of Britain better. I'd like to solicit further opinions on this because I have only seen two instances so far overall. -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 02:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Now, obviously, Geoffrey performed one of the great piss-takes of world history and made a complete hash of things.
Just as obviously, there were battles between the Britons and Saxons and someone held them off prior to the arrival of Justinian's Plague on the island at the end of Maelgwn Gwynedd's reign. Several sources long prior to Geoffrey name that guy as some form of Arthur... but not Gildas. He's got the Siege of Mt Badon but omits the leader there despite noting its importance and association with his own birth. Easy explanation: from his perspective, it's an unmitigated Good Thing, involvement in which would cast favorable light on someone he's pointedly excoriating elsewhere in the text. Ambrosius/ Riothamus, he loved. Maelgwn's uncle—presumably Owain Whitetooth—he praises. Running through the "tyrants of Britain" from DE&CB, §28–33, you've got
Now, but it seems clear to me that the best candidate for epithet-"Arthur" here is Cuneglas ("you bear bear bear driver of the bear car with a bear in it"*), with Aurelius's older brother running a distant second. But while the article suggests Owain, which would have prompted still stronger and more direct invective against Maelgwn ("hewing down the savior of the Britons, ye thankless cur"), and a guy a full century too late, no one seems to have mentioned him. Cuneglas's own page lists him as a candidate, so presumably someone thought of this before me... but no scholarly treatment at all? — LlywelynII 06:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
* Neither here nor there but that makes me think a lot more about the Great Wain/ Ursa Major than it does about a funeral procession, let alone pagan religious rituals Gildas would've jumped up and down on him for participating in. Not sure how it would tie in, though... — LlywelynII 08:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Ah... He's talking about Boötes ("ox-driver of the wagon")... = Arcturus ("bear-guard")... = lord/guard of the " Fort of the Bear" in Rhos. — LlywelynII 09:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: But has anyone made that connection more recently than this guy? [1] (On the bright side, at least Cuneglas has a source for that claim now.) — LlywelynII 10:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Also, still no reliable source on the complete version of the pun. Anderson shrugged his shoulders when he couldn't think of a "Caer Arth" instead of looking for one that started with "Din ~". — LlywelynII 11:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
There are some historians who consider "King Arthur" to be a composite of multiple real individuals--possibly over multiple periods--with their separate lives and activities folded by oral tradition into a single legendary individual. This idea should be explored, although I'm not the one to do that.
Personally, I find the positing that Arthur either corresponded to a specific individual or no one at all to be a false dichotomy. RobertGustafson ( talk) 04:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
German wikipedia claims "Arthur" is Welsh and is thus pronounced, in accordance with Welsh orthography, as ['arθir]... thoughts? -- megA ( talk) 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Have changed the images around. Obviously I feel they are generally improvements. If you feel otherwise, just try to remember to
and, of course, leave some rationale so we don't end up with tugs of war over the issue. — LlywelynII 04:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
BadgerStateHistorian1967 ( talk · contribs) has twice removed a passage under "Debated historicity" which compares a proposed historicised mythical Arthur to Hengist and Horsa, considered as "totemic horse gods" who became historicised. Badger's edit summary says "The given source does not make this outlandish claim", although there are three cited sources. This should be discussed rather than just removed again. I don't have access to any of the works cited. Perhaps someone who does can confirm what they say on this subject? -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 08:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
is actually the pen-name of Caitlin Green according to the updated arthuriana website. Now her reference is invaluable for the pre-Galfridian/post-Galfridian stuff, but how do we state this, or should we even? 202.92.128.133 ( talk) 04:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted a series of recent edits, most of which are minor, but the sheer amount of them are troublesome considering that this Featured Article has been stable for eight years. Some of the changes were not improvements; for instance there's no need to break up the paragraphs. Others were improvements, and I wish I could have left them intact, but the sheer number of changes made that impractical.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
My apologies for overwhelming you with minor adjustments. I tend to mentally edit as I read, and sometimes carry out that mania into practical reality, editing while simultaneously doing research. Alas, I am not familiar with distinctions such as "featured articles" versus ... well, whatever other categories there are--nor am I familiar with accepted protocol or etiquette in such matters. I will endeavor not to offend further. Cordially, Dilidor P.S. I've never posted on a talk page before, and am not even sure that I'm doing it correctly. Hopefully simply editing is the way it's done. ... ah, I see that it requires four tildes. I trust that this is correct now? Dilidor ( talk) 19:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
If the name "Arthur" is connected to Artorius, the masculine name of gens Artoria, why are we suggesting only a single member of the gens as a possible Arthur character? Any possible male-line descendant of the gens would also have the name "Artorius". That is how Roman naming conventions went. Dimadick ( talk) 07:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)