Arthur [historical questions]

[Bellum]

I'm in the planning stages of writing a bit of modern Arthurian legend, and magic and monsters aside, I want it to seem plausible to the time period. I've always been interested in the period where Rome left Britain, but as a casual researcher I've always had trouble finding really good information. I really want to write this, but I don't feel comfortable at all, with all that I don't know.

First, I need to pick an exact period, and if anyone had any advice I'd appreciate it. What's the perfect start of a "plausible" Arthur story? I'm thinking of some time after the Romans left Britain, but before the Saxons became the majority. It looks bleak, and has ever since Uther died, but it's still not impossible for a powerful king/warlord to turn the tide and take back the homeland.

After that's done, I just need books. There's so much I'd like to know. What were the populous towns in the period and what was it like to live in them? Who were the big players of the period, so that I can try to incorporate the legend into the truth? How were cities and larger governments organized? Was there a king for every city? How did one become a "High King", and what were his powers and obligations? So much I need to know. If anyone's done any research on the subject, help a guy out!

[Bellum]

In general terms I'm thinking of Arthur as a Welsh national hero in the late 5th and early 6th century. His foster father is "Ector" (possibly Kyner?), who I'm making King of one of the Welsh kingdoms. Gwent, maybe? I'd like to put him close to possible Saxon interference, but also somewhere that was relatively populous. His real father, "Uther the Pendragon" (head dragon? A reference to his battle standard rather than an actual name?) was instrumental in uniting the remaining Britons and halting Saxon expansion, but ever since his death, the pressure's been picking up again. It isn't the focus of the story I'm writing, but Arthur will ultimately unite the Welsh Kingdoms to fight the Saxons once again, securing his nations future and becoming the "High King" of Britain (or did people identify yet with the name "Wales?").

That's the overarching premise so far just from a little research. Does that sound reasonable? I'm trying to retain as much of the legend as told by Thomas Mallory as I can, while putting it into the correct historical context of the earlier Arthurian legends.

EDIT:

Actually, it seems like Powys is the best choice for my purposes because of Veroconium. Uriconon? I do like that better. The Latin seems a bit out of place.

[Brennus]

Brace yourself in case Ludens moves this thread to the watchtower.

A few points which may be of assistance:

1. The term "Welsh" is a Saxon term, it stems from the German Wal- meaning "foreigner" or "outsider", the same reason why Flemish (Germanic) speaking Belgians refer to their French speaking countrymen as Walloons. Up until the 18th and 19th centuries the Welsh (or Cymru from the Celtic "Cym- meaning allies or friends) identified themselves as Britons.

2. You may want to decide whether the Romans left Britain or whether Britain left Rome. The traditional view is that Rome withdrew its forces to Gaul in order to deal with threats closer to home, however, a recent theory suggests that after Constantine III left Britain with the majority of the British legions the Britons succesfully threw off the Roman administration (it must be remembered that outside of the south-eastern Romanised core the Britons were still very much Celtic in their ways).

3. The Saxons likely never became a majority. Instead they most likely simply replaced the ruling elite and craftsmen. The traditional argument thrown up to suggest a genocide of the native Britons is the fact modern English has a paucity of Celtic words in it. However two arguments against this are 1. Most of Lowland Scotland today speaks Scots English which itself lacks are large number of Celtic words, however we know the Saxons never penetrated far into Scotland thus the existence of a Germanic language in Scotland is not evidence of genocide so why should the same be true of southern Britain? 2. 45% of English is derived from Norman French, now we know the Normans did ruthlesly persecute the Saxon nobility but they didn't murder 45% of the English peasentry, thus the influence of French on the English language is the result of the elite ruling class changing rather than the majority of the population.

4. The best period to set your tale in would be around the time of the Battle of Mount Badon as this still ranks as the greatest victory by the Britons over the Saxons.

5. Look up the character of Ambrosios Aurelianus, the real life Arthur.
Sorry if these points have been a bit longwinded but I hope they help!

[Cambyses]

I dont think you can maintain historical accuracy and be true to Thomas Mallory. You will have to chose which you would prefer to emphasise. It took over 100 years from when the first germanic tribes landed in the east (Saxons, Angles and Jutes btw) until they reached what could be considered the "welsh" border and they never got a true grip of that western part of teh country. Its in the east and the midlands where most of the real action took place.

Another interesting area is in the north, though, where there was a very strong residual local military presence - some communities survived up there in what had been Roman forts for several hundred years despite the picts and despite the saxons.

There is plenty of academic literature out there on this subject, although I would advise you to stick with anything written after about 1990.

[bobbin]

3. The Saxons likely never became a majority. Instead they most likely simply replaced the ruling elite and craftsmen. The traditional argument thrown up to suggest a genocide of the native Britons is the fact modern English has a paucity of Celtic words in it. However two arguments against this are 1. Most of Lowland Scotland today speaks Scots English which itself lacks are large number of Celtic words, however we know the Saxons never penetrated far into Scotland thus the existence of a Germanic language in Scotland is not evidence of genocide so why should the same be true of southern Britain? 2. 45% of English is derived from Norman French, now we know the Normans did ruthlesly persecute the Saxon nobility but they didn't murder 45% of the English peasentry, thus the influence of French on the English language is the result of the elite ruling class changing rather than the majority of the population.

Recent genetic testing has given much weight to this theory, it was found that the vast majority of British genetic material comes from Paleolithic or Neolithic settlers.

[Brennus]

It took over 100 years from when the first germanic tribes landed in the east (Saxons, Angles and Jutes btw) until they reached what could be considered the "welsh" border and they never got a true grip of that western part of teh country. Its in the east and the midlands where most of the real action took place.
.

Personally I think there were Germans in Britain from as early as 43AD. When the Saxons "invaded" post 410AD its quite likely, imo, that they were simply following family members who had already been settled in Britain as Foederati by the Romans. We know that the Sarmatians were employed in Britain by the Romans, so why not the Saxons?

[Bellum]

I dont think you can maintain historical accuracy and be true to Thomas Mallory. You will have to chose which you would prefer to emphasise..

Oh, no, I know. The idea isn't so much "historical accuracy". More "historical flavor". This is very much a work of fiction, with magic and all. I'm just trying to get the historical context of the legend right.

however, I do believe there was some fighting over Wales by the 5th or 6th century. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Cute Wolf]

ask HE HIMSELF



ADD: he was comin from swede though...

[Cambyses]

Personally I think there were Germans in Britain from as early as 43AD. When the Saxons "invaded" post 410AD its quite likely, imo, that they were simply following family members who had already been settled in Britain as Foederati by the Romans. We know that the Sarmatians were employed in Britain by the Romans, so why not the Saxons?

I agree to an extent, it was likely a slow and undramatic process rather than a bloody and violent exercise in conquest. The archaeology of later era Roman forts shows strong indication of not just Germanic origin names but also living habits and the existence of family groups. Certainly there would have been germanic peoples fighting on both sides of any dispute after 400AD. However, Im not sure that the Saxons can be compared precisely with the "Roman" Germans. They were a bit off the Roman radar in comparison to the more southernly Germanic groups.

And yes, once the Saxon Kingdoms had been established in Britain there was proper conflict with the Welsh. But I would personally consider that to be in the next era of British history and out of sinc with the Arthurian legend.

[JeffVader]

I'm in the planning stages of writing a bit of modern Arthurian legend, and magic and monsters aside, I want it to seem plausible to the time period. I've always been interested in the period where Rome left Britain, but as a casual researcher I've always had trouble finding really good information. I really want to write this, but I don't feel comfortable at all, with all that I don't know.

First, I need to pick an exact period, and if anyone had any advice I'd appreciate it. What's the perfect start of a "plausible" Arthur story? I'm thinking of some time after the Romans left Britain, but before the Saxons became the majority. It looks bleak, and has ever since Uther died, but it's still not impossible for a powerful king/warlord to turn the tide and take back the homeland.

After that's done, I just need books. There's so much I'd like to know. What were the populous towns in the period and what was it like to live in them? Who were the big players of the period, so that I can try to incorporate the legend into the truth? How were cities and larger governments organized? Was there a king for every city? How did one become a "High King", and what were his powers and obligations? So much I need to know. If anyone's done any research on the subject, help a guy out!

Me personally, i really enjoyed reading the Arthurian-Trilogy from Benrhard Cornwell. (Don't know the english titles, as i read it in german) It gave me a kind of convincing fiction of what would have been possible during those times, including all the myths around the knights of the round table, Lancelot and Guinevere and Merlin...of course not a history book, but very good researched and written.

(sorry if i may have missed the OP intention)

[Bellum]

Well I'm more interested in actual historical books. Right now the most important thing for me to learn is the way Brythonic and Saxon kingdoms were run, both on the national level, and also on the town level. The story will revolve around characters who are steeped both in local and national politics.

[Bellum]

Quick questions for anyone who knows.

What was the religious atmosphere of 5th and 6th century Wales? And less importantly, did men typically shave there at that time?

[jirisys]

Quick questions for anyone who knows.

What was the religious atmosphere of 5th and 6th century Wales? And less importantly, did men typically shave there at that time?

Shave where?

Head, Beard, Stache, Beard & Stache, Chest, Armpits, Groin, Legs, Arms?

ask HE HIMSELF



ADD: he was comin from swede though...

The man Himself sounds better. IIRC you can't say He himself.

~Jirisys (Clarifaction man on the way!)

[Bellum]

Well I was talking about the face, of course, but anything at all might be relevant.

[Arthur, king of the Britons]

Haha, when I read the title my first thought was "Why do they want to ask me historical questions? I'm not THAT good at historical stuff".

Uhm maybe it's best not to wander to far away from the topic...
Interesting information!

~Arthur (always on topic)