Update from Paris

[jimboston]

My Dad used to tell me that when he was a kid the Welsh-speakers could converse (with a little confusion) with visitng Bretons,

Incidentally, when I got into conversations about King Arthur, the locals were amazed that we thought he lived in Britain, not Brittany.

Yet he lived in neither.

Most of the current theories suggest that King Arthur was a real person, likely a conscript and leader in the Roman Legion, living in Britain (before the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasions) as Roman forces were pulled out of Brittania. He stayed behind to help the native Celts/Bretons fight the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invaders. I cannot recall when his exploits were written down; I think they were "adopted" by the Normans to validate their conquest of Britain, starting in 1066.

Everything I’ve read, every show I’ve watched, every podcast I’ve listened to on the subject… all disagree with your assertion.

Google it…
https://www.google.com/search?q=was+kin ... ent=safari

Some people do believe that King Arthur could have been a real person, but despite the occasional news story about an archaeological discovery that may provide clues, experts on Arthurian legend tell TIME that there is no evidence — no primary source from the time — to confirm that King Arthur was ever a real person.

Methinks this is ANOTHER example of JP4 reading one website article on the subject, assuming it’s right, and then quoting it forevermore as if it’s a fact he’s personally researched.

[jimboston]

My Dad used to tell me that when he was a kid the Welsh-speakers could converse (with a little confusion) with visitng Bretons,

Incidentally, when I got into conversations about King Arthur, the locals were amazed that we thought he lived in Britain, not Brittany.

Yet he lived in neither.

Most of the current theories suggest that King Arthur was a real person, likely a conscript and leader in the Roman Legion, living in Britain (before the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasions) as Roman forces were pulled out of Brittania. He stayed behind to help the native Celts/Bretons fight the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invaders. I cannot recall when his exploits were written down; I think they were "adopted" by the Normans to validate their conquest of Britain, starting in 1066.

Yes.

No.

[jimboston]

Most of the current theories suggest that King Arthur was a real person, likely a conscript and leader in the Roman Legion, living in Britain (before the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasions) as Roman forces were pulled out of Brittania.

I think we will never know the true story of Arthur, or King Arthur. There are too many years, too many legends, and too few written accounts from the time that he actually did or may have lived to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Maybe it’s better to let JP4 contradict and debate himself?

[jusplay4fun]

Most of the current theories suggest that King Arthur was a real person, likely a conscript and leader in the Roman Legion, living in Britain (before the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasions) as Roman forces were pulled out of Brittania.

I think we will never know the true story of Arthur, or King Arthur. There are too many years, too many legends, and too few written accounts from the time that he actually did or may have lived to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

Maybe it’s better to let JP4 contradict and debate himself?

NO contradiction, jimbo; try again. Read more carefully, or continue to be an IDIOT.

[jimboston]

Not a direct contradiction but quite amusing.

Plus you are absolutely wrong, because it’s untrue that “most” current theories suggest he was real. That’s not accurate. Find me a valid source that shows his “most” experts on the subject feel this way. You can certainly find people who believe this… usually pushing their own agendas…. but it’s not even close to “most”.

[jonesthecurl]

NOT English. British. Fought Anglo-Saxons.
Fighting urge to say more. Luckily I'm busy.
ANyone in Paso Robles and fancy a beer with a boomer Thursday or Friday night?

[jonesthecurl]

Incidentally, yes Richard was more Norman than English.

[Dukasaur]

My Dad used to tell me that when he was a kid the Welsh-speakers could converse (with a little confusion) with visitng Bretons,

Incidentally, when I got into conversations about King Arthur, the locals were amazed that we thought he lived in Britain, not Brittany.

Yet he lived in neither.

Most of the current theories suggest that King Arthur was a real person, likely a conscript and leader in the Roman Legion, living in Britain (before the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasions) as Roman forces were pulled out of Brittania. He stayed behind to help the native Celts/Bretons fight the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invaders. I cannot recall when his exploits were written down; I think they were "adopted" by the Normans to validate their conquest of Britain, starting in 1066.

Everything I’ve read, every show I’ve watched, every podcast I’ve listened to on the subject… all disagree with your assertion.

Google it…
https://www.google.com/search?q=was+kin ... ent=safari

Some people do believe that King Arthur could have been a real person, but despite the occasional news story about an archaeological discovery that may provide clues, experts on Arthurian legend tell TIME that there is no evidence — no primary source from the time — to confirm that King Arthur was ever a real person.

Methinks this is ANOTHER example of JP4 reading one website article on the subject, assuming it’s right, and then quoting it forevermore as if it’s a fact he’s personally researched.

I don't know what JP has read, but I have read at least two full-length books in support of the idea.

It has been mostly cast aside by the most recent scholars, but 25 years ago when I was studying this, it was still the dominant theory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur

The historicity of King Arthur has been debated both by academics and popular writers. While there have been many suggestions that King Arthur was a real historical person, current consensus among academic historians holds him to be a mythological or folkloric figure.[1][2] However, non-specialists and a few academic historians continue to defend Arthur's historicity.

The first definite mention of Arthur appears circa 828 in the Historia Brittonum,[3] where he is presented as a military leader fighting against the invading Saxons in 5th- to 6th-century Sub-Roman Britain at the Battle of Badon, written more than three centuries after the events depicted. He develops into a legendary figure in the Matter of Britain from the 12th century, following Geoffrey of Monmouth's influential but largely fictional Historia Regum Britanniae.

Historians propose a variety of possible sources for the myth of Arthur, perhaps as a composite character. Historical figures involved in such theories include Artuir mac Áedán, a son of the 6th-century king of Dál Riata in modern Scotland; Ambrosius Aurelianus, who led a Romano-British resistance against the Saxons; Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd-century Roman commander of Sarmatian cavalry; and the British king Riothamus, who fought alongside the last Gallo-Roman commanders against the Visigoths in an expedition to Gaul in the 5th century. Others include the Welsh kings Owain Danwyn,[4] Enniaun Girt,[5] and Athrwys ap Meurig.[6]

Historiography
Until the late 20th century, there was academic debate about the historicity of Arthur among historians and archaeologists. In the 21st century, the academic consensus rejects it.

In 1936, R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres treated Arthur as a Roman comes Britanniarum. They asserted that "the historicity of [Arthur] can hardly be called into question", though they were careful to separate the historical Arthur from the legendary Arthur.[7]

In 1971, Leslie Alcock claimed to "demonstrate that there is acceptable historical evidence that Arthur was a genuine historical figure, not a mere figment of myth or romance".[8] Also in 1971, while conceding that Gildas does not mention Arthur, Frank Stenton wrote that this "may suggest that the Arthur of history was a less imposing figure than the Arthur of legend" but then argued that "it should not be allowed to remove him from the sphere of history."[9] In 1977, John Morris argued in favour,[10] but his work was widely criticised at the time as having "grave methodological flaws".[11] David Dumville took the opposite position in the same year: "The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."[12]

I'll be honest. It's probably been 25 years since I read any of this, so I didn't know that the dominant theory wasn't dominant any more and in fact is continuing to lose support. When I studied the matter, it was still the most common theory that Arthur had a historical core as a Roman legionnaire who tried to defend the Christianized, Latinized Britons against the Pagan Saxons.

Don't know why any Fr*nch people would try claiming him as theirs. If they wanted to claim an English king for themselves they'd be better off claiming someone like Richard I.

In the 12th and 13th Centuries, when the legend of Arthur was being transformed into popular literature, most of the influential authors of the time wrote in French. (Including most literate Englishmen, who tended to be Normans.) Thus, as they added fanciful details to the story, Arthur's knights took on French names and gradually got more and more involved with French crusades rather than English ones. I don't think anyone "claimed" him, it was purely a matter of commercial convenience, sort of the same way that British stories shot in Hollywood gradually acquire completely ahistorical American characters.

[jimboston]

NOT English. British. Fought Anglo-Saxons.
Fighting urge to say more. Luckily I'm busy.
ANyone in Paso Robles and fancy a beer with a boomer Thursday or Friday night?

He’s not British or English or anything else… because there is NO historical Arthur.

[jimboston]

I don't know what JP has read, but I have read at least two full-length books in support of the idea.

It has been mostly cast aside by the most recent scholars, but 25 years ago when I was studying this, it was still the dominant theory.

I remember reading these theories a few decades ago as well.

It struck me as a “pop” history wish fulfillment “theory” more than an actual historically supported idea.

It was always like “We have these legends so there MUST be some guy that was named Arthur who was a leader at SOME POINT.” Then they would try to go looking for some evidence and they never really found anything that was definitive. Sure you can kinda shoehorn shit into the legend in some ways… but like a ‘conspiracy theory’ it’s not real evidence it’s usually confirmation bias stuff.

You can play the same game with the Legend of Atlantis and depending on what “historian” you ask you could have 12 different “theories”.

both items are made harder to ‘confirm’ because the original stories have been modified, retold, reset in time and place, added to, mythologized, colored, etc.

Good Podcast to listen to if you are into stuff like this… “Our Fake History” by some bloke from Canada with a super cool name Sebastian Major.

[jusplay4fun]

to summarize here:

1) We will NEVER know the TRUTH.

2) There are many stories and legends, some are contradictory.

3) I have stated all this already and jimb wants to lambast me for stating so.

4) jimb WANTS to sound like he is a THINKER, but now contradicts himself, AFTER calling me for what he hopes is a contradiction on my part. There is NO contradiction; this is, on the part of jimb, MORE:
a) wishful thinking, and
b) poor analysis, and even
c) worse reading comprehension by someone who pretends to know something.

I rely on memory, but often go beyond that, as I know my memory is not 100% accurate. Like Duk, I read LOTS on Arthur some 25 years ago, and knew then that those theories were NOT 100% accurate or provable then. What I have read in the past 48 hours confirms that what I already posted is not a lie, not a contradiction, and are valid HYPOTHESES of the POSSIBLE origins of this person Arthur, King or not.

I see where Duk quotes wikipedia on this matter (which if fine by me), but:
1) jimb did not call him out for that;
2) jimb did not call him out for copying and pasting;
3) jimb did not call him out for using wikipedia.
4) jimb tries to gaslight me, AGAIN. I see right through you, Sgt. Obvious.

jimb, go back to your little corner and just do this:

Bottom Line: jimb tries to be contrarian, but has backed himself into a corner. jimb fails AGAIN. SAD

[jonesthecurl]

Apropos of nothing, my son's middle name is Arthur, and my daughter's is Malory. I share a first name with Beaumains.

[bigtoughralf]

NOT English. British.

Why's he got an English name then? Checkmate.

[jonesthecurl]

Because you're reading about him in English.
Artur, Artognus, Arthurius, I was gonna carry on, but here's a bit of copy-pasting. Ha! Thought you were gonna get me digging in my King Arthur library, didn't you! (It was a close thing)

Meaning: Arthur can variously mean “bear,” “son of the bear/warrior-king,” and “bear-prince.”
Origin: The name has Brythonic origins, though other theories argue that the name has Roman or Celtic roots.
Gender: Arthur is a name primarily given to boys.
Popularity: Arthur has long been a popular name in the United States. In 2021, it was the 155th most popular choice for boys.
Variations: Artgur, Arthurus, Artorījos, Artrí, Artur, Artúr, Arturius, Arturo, Arturus, Arthwr.

[jonesthecurl]

You thought it was checkmate, but I Camelotted, I mean castled.

[jimboston]

It’s funny how some people will state something as a given fact… then change their position, and us this new position to claim you were wrong for questioning them in the first place.

It’s quite amusing how some are unable to accept the fact that they made a simple error.

Just admit your error and move on Bruh.

[jusplay4fun]

It’s funny how some people will state something as a given fact… then change their position, and us this new position to claim you were wrong for questioning them in the first place.

It’s quite amusing how some are unable to accept the fact that they made a simple error.

Just admit your error and move on Bruh.

There is NO change in position by me on this one. What a MORON you are, jimb. You prove it time and again.

I suggest a remedial reading comprehension class; and stop drinking so much ethanol before you post.

[jimboston]

It’s funny how some people will state something as a given fact… then change their position, and us this new position to claim you were wrong for questioning them in the first place.

It’s quite amusing how some are unable to accept the fact that they made a simple error.

Just admit your error and move on Bruh.

There is NO change in position by me on this one. What a MORON you are, jimb. You prove it time and again.

I suggest a remedial reading comprehension class; and stop drinking so much ethanol before you post.

Very defensive.

Why don’t you go re document that Historical Arthur?

LOL

While you’re at it you can find us the Historical Atlantis, Historical Robin Hood, and Eve.

[jusplay4fun]

It’s funny how some people will state something as a given fact… then change their position, and us this new position to claim you were wrong for questioning them in the first place.

It’s quite amusing how some are unable to accept the fact that they made a simple error.

Just admit your error and move on Bruh.

There is NO change in position by me on this one. What a MORON you are, jimb. You prove it time and again.

I suggest a remedial reading comprehension class; and stop drinking so much ethanol before you post.

Very defensive.

Why don’t you go re document that Historical Arthur?

LOL

While you’re at it you can find us the Historical Atlantis, Historical Robin Hood, and Eve.

There is little to gain from arguing with a moron like jimb. You, jimb, are a sad, small-minded, and pathetic little man. Go play with your PAL ralph. You two are made for each other.

[jimboston]

“Debating with JP4”

Step One: See JP4 make an incorrect statement.
Step Two: Point Out his error and give him a chance to defend his position or recant.
Step Three: Watch JP4 change his position. If not radically, at least enough to modify the error.
This might be a small change, making a previous statement of fact into an opinion… or it might
be a complete reversal of his position.
Step Four: Point out this change in position.
Step Five: Watch JP4 claim there was no change, and then see him insult you for even noticing.
Step Six: Watch JP4 call you an idiot or stupid having never supported or defended either his
initial or revised position in either way
Step Seven: Acceptance! Accept that he’s incapable of self evaluation, and he’s stuck in at the
maturity level of a typical five year old.

[jusplay4fun]

Your first premise is wrong in this thread, and you keep repeating this LIE:

Step One: See JP4 make an incorrect statement.

If your first step is WRONG and a LIE, then the rest is MEANINGLESS. For those who want to check the record, go back and read jimb's posts in this thread. LIES, plain and simple.

Here is the point of contention:

jusplay4fun wrote:
Most of the current theories suggest that King Arthur was a real person, likely a conscript and leader in the Roman Legion, living in Britain (before the Anglo-Saxon-Jute invasions) as Roman forces were pulled out of Brittania.


jusplay4fun wrote:
I think we will never know the true story of Arthur, or King Arthur. There are too many years, too many legends, and too few written accounts from the time that he actually did or may have lived to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.

These are NOT contradictory. jimb cannot comprehend this and keeps repeating his lie that I contradicted myself in this thread. jimb is a LIAR and a MORON. This is the LAST time I will deny this HOAX (assuming jimb is reasonable about this matter).

[DoomYoshi]

JP, I think the emphasis is on the word "most". Can you show either a) a source that suggests that "most" of the current theories take king Arthur as a real person or b) some original work you have done in collating all the theories of Arthur's historicity so that we can calculate what percentage suggest that king Arthur was a real person?

[jusplay4fun]

JP, I think the emphasis is on the word "most". Can you show either a) a source that suggests that "most" of the current theories take king Arthur as a real person or b) some original work you have done in collating all the theories of Arthur's historicity so that we can calculate what percentage suggest that king Arthur was a real person?

Honestly, that will not please jimb. He will continue to attack me, despite the evidence I or anyone else presents. I doubt any such effort on my part is and will be helpful. As I said, the existence of a historical person who is the basis of Arthur or King Arthur will likely NEVER be proven. NO matter the evidence I present, jimb will will continue his HOAX.

I did find this, from May 2017:

When the movie King Arthur: Legend of the Sword hits theaters Friday, it will add the latest twist to a legend that’s been evolving for nearly a millennium. This version of the legend (starring Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law) pits King Arthur against his uncle, who seizes the crown until the famous episode in which young Arthur pulls the sword from the stone and proves he is the rightful king.

It’s a fanciful tale and one that’s been told many times, but where does it come from?

Some people do believe that King Arthur could have been a real person, but despite the occasional news story about an archaeological discovery that may provide clues, experts on Arthurian legend tell TIME that there is no evidence — no primary source from the time — to confirm that King Arthur was ever a real person.

What is possible, however, is that Arthur is based on a real leader from the 5th or 6th century. One promising theory points to a person known as “Riothamus” — an honorific for “supreme king” — who crossed the English Channel to fight in France. That’s something that Arthur also does in early texts. “It may be the closest we will come to locating a specific model for Arthur,” according to Norris J. Lacy, a medievalist and former international president of the International Arthurian Society.

If an “Arthur-type” figure were alive around that time, then he was probably a military leader reacting to the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, a very violent time and a setting ripe for the creation of a legend. “There was no centralized government, and British life was essentially tribal,” says Lacy. “Rulers would occupy an area, often a hill, that would be easy to defend. Local wars were frequent, with much hacking and ‘smiting.’ Life being as uncertain as it was, and with society torn by war, strife, and sometimes famine and disease, it is not surprising that people would latch onto stories of a benevolent king or warlord who is intent on peace and prosperity.”

https://time.com/4775558/history-king-arthur-true-story/

I doubt that finding any # or percent of scholars is even likely.

I will refer you to Duk's post:

Re: Update from Paris
Postby Dukasaur on Wed Jul 05, 2023 3:48 pm

My ideas are inline with his. As he said, I too have not read LOTS on Arthur since my research some 20-25 years ago. As with Climate change, I do not bother to read every bit of information on most topics; I read and research, as needed and as thing pique my interest.

As usual, jimb wants to argue over trivia and minutia. Some vs. Most: does that REALLY Matter, to anyone, other than jimb? I doubt it. That is what jimb deals with best, trying to be King of the Dung Heap.

[bigtoughralf]

Because you're reading about him in English.

Exactly. Britain evolved into England. So on second thoughts I suppose you have a point.

Thought you were gonna get me digging in my King Arthur library, didn't you! (It was a close thing)

tbf jp4 has now pasted about 80% of Wikipedia's King Arthur content into this thread verbatim, so we're all set for King Arthur libraries.

[jimboston]

JP, I think the emphasis is on the word "most".

BINGO

Sure you can find some legitimate people with reasonable THEORIES about a historical Arthur.

The problem is…
1) It’s not and never has been a theory that “MOST” legitimate historians have expressed.
2) The writers and researchers who have tried to find a historical Arthur all offer up DIFFERENT theories. There’s no consensus around one theory that people can hang their hats on.
3) Often the theories that are presented are done so for current political/cultural reasons. People presenting ‘new’ theories in this “field” have agenda.