Notices
Results 1 to 38 of 38

Thread: King Arthur

  1. #1 King Arthur 
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    We've all heard the legends, the myths and the plausible historical account of him-and of course Geoffrey of Monmouth's romantic description, but just exactly who was he really? And why is there strong evidence both for his legendary existence and his more 'bear' warlord existence?

    Back in the day, myhtical explanations were favored and the more plausible shunned, today the opposite is true-plausible is favoured and the mythical shunned. It is true you may say that plausiblity is favored as it is more scientifically justifiable-but that is the opinion we were all brought up with-don't forget that science is the best method of describing the world around us, not neccesarily the most efficient. Let's take into consideration when answering this question that both plausible and myhtical explanations are both possible and that we do not close our mind simply because strong evidence points against it-that is not science.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    king Arthur of what contry?
    There where manny ... Merlin as wizard ? that king Arthur?


    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by SolomonGrundy
    king Arthur of what contry?
    There where manny ... Merlin as wizard ? that king Arthur?
    Yes. THE King Arthur :-D
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Junior SolomonGrundy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    232
    He was a moron
    he did nothing all day he was just stinking up the place since and none of his tales are true.
    Solomon Grundy
    In 1944, this creature rose from the swamp, with tremendous strength and some dormant memories that for example allowed him to speak English, but not knowing what he was, and not remembering Cyrus Gold or his fate. Wandering throughout the swamp, he encountered two escaped criminals, killed them, and took their clothes. When they asked him his name, he simply muttered that he had been born on Monday. Reminded of an old nursery rhyme about a man born on Monday, the thugs named the creature "Solomon Grundy".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    I'd say it's actually probably a mixture of both. Merlin was most likely an alchemist though and that nonsense about living backwards through time from The once and future king is just absurd. Most legends are based in reality so while I believe there is a grain of truth in the legends of King Arthur I also think that over the centuries since his life the story has been repeatedly embellished producing our modern day lore.
    "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    57
    He probably was a real king, but then people just add on details to him to make him seem like a legend o_O? I unnoe lol
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Your American aren't you
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    79
    my personal feeling is he is a composite of many different stories and characters. There are many suspected customs and the like from the iron age and later that can link with elements of the tale like the sword in the stone or lake. Plus historical accounts of people much like him or places fitting the description of Avalon or Camelot. I think the story developed though, through Roman times and into the medieval, taking on aspects of all of these eras. Until we end up with a bastardised truth we have today.

    my2c
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    was he real? no... is he based on one person? probibly not, he is as real as Don quehota or however he is spelt.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by ishmaelblues
    was he real? no... is he based on one person? probibly not, he is as real as Don quehota or however he is spelt.
    Don Quijote in Spanish and Portugese, or the traditional English is Don Quixote, plus that is a character from a Cervantes novel which is recognized as fiction lol.

    I doubt a true King Arthur ever existed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    266
    exactly King Arthur is a fictional charicter written about long after the character would have died
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    My theory is that Arthur was a great leader who's followers generously allowed legendary tales to be told of him because they so loved him, and wanted his story to never die.

    There are very credible accounts of a real king by some name similar to Arthur, and passing references made to other great leaders who are stated to be not quite as great as Arthur. I'm not sure he was really a king either. He might have just been a warlord, or a king, but with a kingdome smaller than the whole isle of Briton.


    Merlin was probably a druid or a shaman, and similarly given all kinds of legendary status by the spiritual beliefs of the day.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    81
    The last legion(movie) has an interesting take on the whole thing
    "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I just watched it. It's an interesting idea. What if a legion was left in Britain after the fall of Rome? That would make a good army to use in forging a kingdom that would bring order in a way the local hadn't really known in the past. The order brought by Rome was typically very self serving, but if Rome fell, the same troops could do something else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Its a bloody American representation of King Arthur! Of A British legend! They've changed history through Holloywood on more than one occasion, and this is no different. People think they were the only ones fighting world war two.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well.... the only ones winning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I've heard of walking on ice, but having your shoes on fire as well.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Arthur 
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Arthur was a totally fictitious character; we have Geoffrey of Monmouth to blame for this, as he was the first to flesh-out bits and pieces of ancient myths about a hero-king. Chr├ętien de Troyes wrote the first Arthur story (not sure of the date...12th century ?) which became wildly popular.

    This is a case where people take something they want to be a fact and back-track through history to find proof for their theory. Putting the cart before the horse pops into my mind concerning all this...

    Tintangel castle, the supposed site of his birth, was built 500 years after he was 'born'. There are many other examples that dispell this myth; you know how to find them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Geoffry was not the only one to write about the history of Arthur. And if you recall, the articles about Arthur are contained in 'Historia Regum Britanniae', which when explaining other Kings of Britian before Arthur, he didn't make so much magical claims about them. He did go to university you know, speaking of 'to blame', doesn't seem appropriate to all the hard work he went through.

    As for Tintagel and Arthur being raised? Who knows were The once and future king was raised, if he was raised at Tintagel, given the time and how much the water level had risen by around then, the area of Tintagel could have been and looked very different, if at all called Tintagel. Don't forget, we are looking at a world of stone and dust, from one and a half thousand year distance perspective, where there text and recorded records are percieved to be twisted, so too in one and a half thousand years may they look at our records in a similar light as you are.

    This was all fact to the people 1000 years ago, much like nothing going faster than the speed of light is today, and in 1.5 millenia, that itself may not be true to them.

    All due respect but in your post you put these two sentences:

    "Arthur was a totally fictious character". Perfectly acceptable theory.

    "Not sure of the date (12th century?)." Using that, which you are not sure of as proof of King Arthur's non-existence of, doesn't back up your theory. And no offense there when I say that, don't forget I am backing up my perspective to the best of my ability also. Someone with the name Arthur had to exist because if he didn't there wouldn't be a legend on him in the first place, even if to some he was a grunting saxon or a roman facist.

    I personally have no way of prooving Arthur, and certainly won't try to proove him if I can't. But I do not really want to, its a belief I have that he was and is the once and future king, the uniter of Kingdoms, and King Of The Britons. But give me some credit, of all the legends I believe in at lesat I believe in the least boring one.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    913
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    But I do not really want to, its a belief I have that he was and is the once and future king, the uniter of Kingdoms, and King Of The Britons.
    The Kingdom of Britain didn't come into existence until 1707. And 1500 years ago The British isles were made up of nothing more than a bunch of smaller Kingdoms and nobody had heard of England, Scotland, Wales or Ireland. He was probably based upon one of the earlier kings.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Yeah I know that. Britons And Britain in the context of Arthurian, are totally different.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: King Arthur 
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    We've all heard the legends, the myths and the plausible historical account of him-and of course Geoffrey of Monmouth's romantic description, but just exactly who was he really? And why is there strong evidence both for his legendary existence and his more 'bear' warlord existence?
    .

    Pardon me, can you give an example of this evidence ?

    BTW, this is a great thread!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    Geoffry was not the only one to write about the history of Arthur. And if you recall, the articles about Arthur are contained in 'Historia Regum Britanniae', which when explaining other Kings of Britian before Arthur, he didn't make so much magical claims about them. He did go to university you know, speaking of 'to blame', doesn't seem appropriate to all the hard work he went through.

    As for Tintagel and Arthur being raised? Who knows were The once and future king was raised, if he was raised at Tintagel, given the time and how much the water level had risen by around then, the area of Tintagel could have been and looked very different, if at all called Tintagel. Don't forget, we are looking at a world of stone and dust, from one and a half thousand year distance perspective, where there text and recorded records are percieved to be twisted, so too in one and a half thousand years may they look at our records in a similar light as you are.

    This was all fact to the people 1000 years ago, much like nothing going faster than the speed of light is today, and in 1.5 millenia, that itself may not be true to them.

    All due respect but in your post you put these two sentences:

    "Arthur was a totally fictious character". Perfectly acceptable theory.

    "Not sure of the date (12th century?)." Using that, which you are not sure of as proof of King Arthur's non-existence of, doesn't back up your theory. And no offense there when I say that, don't forget I am backing up my perspective to the best of my ability also. Someone with the name Arthur had to exist because if he didn't there wouldn't be a legend on him in the first place, even if to some he was a grunting saxon or a roman facist.

    I personally have no way of prooving Arthur, and certainly won't try to proove him if I can't. But I do not really want to, its a belief I have that he was and is the once and future king, the uniter of Kingdoms, and King Of The Britons. But give me some credit, of all the legends I believe in at lesat I believe in the least boring one.

    You are perfectly in your right to believe anything you wish, of course. My post is based on what historians and archeologists have found, which sadly does not include a single shread of evidence that any king of Britain at that time was named Arthur. At the time of Geoffrey's writing, there was a need for such a figure, as the country was rife with anarchy and civil war. Such a story would have been very comforting. Don't forget that he wrote this well over 600 years after the date we think Arthur was supposed to have lived.

    As for the Monmouth's writings, they must be taken with a large grain of salt: "Next was Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), the work best known to modern readers. It purports to relate the history of Britain, from its first settlement by Brutus, a descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, to the death of Cadwallader in the 7th century, taking in Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain, two kings, Leir and Cymbeline, later immortalised by Shakespeare, and one of the earliest developed narratives of King Arthur. In it, he outlines the rise and fall of many British kings, including Arthur himself and his father, Uther the Conqueror. Geoffrey claims to have translated it from an ancient book written in Welsh, although few take this claim seriously." from Wikipedia

    By the way, I never take offence regarding a discussion or disagreement. This is exactly why I am here :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Part of what has to be remembered is that a successful political leader in those days would have spread legends about themselves even while they were alive.

    Maybe Merlin wanted people to think he aged backwards, and went to considerable trouble to spread that myth. Maybe Arthur wanted people to think his sword was magical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25 Re: King Arthur 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    The Glastonbury Abby, predates King Arthur, built with funds provided by Joseph of Arimathea,(35 B.C. to 55A.D.), a Tin merchant, shipping owner, a wealthy member of the Jewish Sanhedrin, and Uncle of Mary, mother of Christ Jesus.

    The Glastonbury Abby, was a magnificent cathedral, the first Christian church built in the world, by eleven Apostles of Christ with Joseph's help in England, predating even the bishops of Rome.

    In the care of Abbots, and monks, from 15 A.D. to 1184, when the Abby was sacked and burned, stemming from conflict between Celtic Christianity (Celts, Brits, Scots) of the 4th, 5th, centries, these tribal kings, gave King Arthur command in fighting off Viking invaders, and Anglo-Saxons of 597 A.D. when pope Gregory I, sent a group of monks, led by Augustine, in Kent.
    Introducing Roman Christainity, to Anglo-Saxon King Ethelbert, and being married to a Frankish Roman Catholic Princess, and Augustine became the first Roman archbishop of Canterbury from Kent.

    While the Anglo-Saxons archbishops kept records of their kings, the Celtic Kings were remembered in sagas, and King Arthur's were still legendary to King Alfred, and the Danes when they invaded Essex, Wessex.
    The legend of King Arthur, dying from old wounds at the Tor, which at one time was surrounded by water, and it being called Avalon. And that he was buried in the Abby.

    The Abby was rebuilt by Henry II, c. 1184. But during the time of William the Conqueror, and the Doomsday Survey, the Glastonbury Abby was among the richest and most influential monasteries in England.

    A fact of history, the Roman Church tried to obscure and bury. There are still Celtic stone crosses, carved with the images of Joseph of Arimathea, and young Christ Jesus, in Somersetshire's church yards and cemeteries, and cornerstones.
    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    I tend to wonder how credible the history is tying Joseph of Arimathea and other prominent people from the early part of Christianity to northern Europe.

    I mean, it just seems too much like the kind of legend that would have emerged much later on after the area became Christianized. It would just be so far for anyone to travel back in those times, and especially at the level of civilization Europe appeared to be in, and likely without knowing the language.

    On the other hand, if he was a merchant, which is very likely, then he would have had experience traveling in far away lands, and know a few languages.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I tend to wonder how credible the history is tying Joseph of Arimathea and other prominent people from the early part of Christianity to northern Europe.

    I mean, it just seems too much like the kind of legend that would have emerged much later on after the area became Christianized. It would just be so far for anyone to travel back in those times, and especially at the level of civilization Europe appeared to be in, and likely without knowing the language.

    On the other hand, if he was a merchant, which is very likely, then he would have had experience traveling in far away lands, and know a few languages.
    I am probably way off on this one; didn't they Templars first use/create the Joseph of Arimathia myth ? Or was that something I picked up from reading the 'Code' ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by CShark
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    I tend to wonder how credible the history is tying Joseph of Arimathea and other prominent people from the early part of Christianity to northern Europe.

    I mean, it just seems too much like the kind of legend that would have emerged much later on after the area became Christianized. It would just be so far for anyone to travel back in those times, and especially at the level of civilization Europe appeared to be in, and likely without knowing the language.

    On the other hand, if he was a merchant, which is very likely, then he would have had experience traveling in far away lands, and know a few languages.
    I am probably way off on this one; didn't they Templars first use/create the Joseph of Arimathia myth ? Or was that something I picked up from reading the 'Code' ?

    When Rome was still a tiny village on the Palatine Hill, Phoenician traders were sailing their ships the length and breadth of the Mediterranean and beyond in search of goods to be sold or traded for a handsome profit.
    The Phoenicians discovered the tin deposits of the British Isles through their own exploring and seeking out of new products and markets for them. They kept the knowledge of the Cornish tin mines a closely guarded secret so they could control trade in the metal and charge a high price for it.
    The fact that tin trade existed is too well attested to need proof. Herodotus as early as 445 BC speaks of the British Isles as the Tin Islands or Cassiterides. Pytheas (352-323 BC) mentions the tin trade, as does also Polybius (circa 160). Diodorus Siculus gives a detailed description of the trade. He tells us that the tin was mined, beaten into squares, and carried to an island called Ictis, joined to the mainland at low tide, which is generally held to be Mount St. Michael in Cornwall, although some have identified it with Falmouth. Thence it was shipped to Morlais, and transported across France on pack horses to Marseilles. From Marseilles it was again shipped to Phoenicia. Innumerable ancient workings in Cornwall still attest the trade, and tin is still mined there today. Lord Avebury and Sir John Evans held the opinion that the trade existed as early as 1500 BC, and Sir Edward Creasy writes: "The British mines mainly suppled the glorious adornment of Solomon's Temple". This matter ties in very well with the involvement of Phoenician builders with construction of Solomon's Temple.

    Carthage was a City/State of the Phoenicians, founded in the 9th cent. B.C., for 700 years it grew into a center of trade and control of shipping east and west along the coast of Africa, it also gained control of southern Sicily and with it's navy of ships, controlled the western Mediterranean. The first two Punic wars were mostly with eastern city/states of Phoenicia. (264-241 B.C. and 218-201 B.C., while Carthage was attacked it fought off the Romans)
    After the Punic wars, Carthage, the one remaining city of the Phoenicians, became less and less an important economic power. The Romans defeated and destroyed the City in the last war, in 149-146 B.C. where Romans rebuilt the city adding to it's empire. Eastern Phoenicians became Roman citizens, lasting until 500 A.D.
    With their well - known efficiency and thoroughness, the Romans counted access to the British tin mines as one of the advantages of conquering the island. Julius Caesar knew of the importance of British tin when he invaded the island in 55 to 54 B.C. Hence, the closely guarded treasure secret of Britain's tin passed hands from the Phoenicians to the Romans. Phoenicia had ceased to exist as an independent country, and the mines that had once been hers were either no longer worked, or had passed into the hands of the Romans or the Roman Carthaginians.
    After the invasion of Britain, in 46-47 A.D. during the reign of Claudius I, 41-54 A.D., the Romans were in control of most of the world's supply of the metal. It was not the tin mines the Romans wanted to control, but the spread of Celtic Christianity. Claudius I, born 10 B.C.-54 A.D. (Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus) The Roman Empire would not survive with the strong tribes of the Celts/Brits becoming Christians, thus the conquest of Briton. While they built colonies and Romanized Briton, they could not stop Celtic Christianity, of Glastonbury. Only after the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and destruction of the so called pagan temples, that the Roman Christians rebuilt upon the same holy grounds.

    According to the Talmud, Joseph of Arimathea was said to have been an uncle of the Virgin Mary, being a younger brother of her father. He gained his wealth as an importer in the tin trade, as early as 9 A.D. which existed between Cornwall and Canaan during Roman rule. ( Which would not rule out his trips to Briton while Jesus was a young boy, and of Joseph owning ships himself during the period of 9 - 46 A.D.)

    Joseph along with St. John buried Jesus after the crucifixion. Joseph, in the tin trade, made a lot of trips to Britain, where being a rich merchant made close contact with royalty; namely Kings Beli, Lud, Llyr and Arviragus, who gave Joseph and his companions some 2000 acres of land, tax free. Arviragus would become God's "Protectorate" for the Cradle of Christianity, Glastonbury. Caradoc, Pendragon of 'Britain', would become God's "Protectorate" of the fledgling British Church.

    Joseph of Arimathea was a man of refinement, well educated, and one who possessed many talents, had extraordinary political and business ability. He has been called one of the richest men in the world. He learned about that tin trade from the Roman-Phoenicians, They had been bringing ore from Britain for centuries. Joseph was well educated, a member of the ruling political body of the whole country. In St. Jerome's translation, Joseph's official title is given as 'Nobilis Decurio', a minister of mines for the Roman empire, with direct access to Pilate himself. He was no slouch. How better to protect Jesus, after Joseph the carpenter died, and insure the seeding and growth of the Gospel in Britain.
    http://www.phoenicia.org/britmines.html

    The Knight Templars were a 1000 years after the fact. Even as early as the Roman Church was in England, it tries to claim a connection with Glastonbury and the first Church built there, nothing could be more further from the truth. No matter what Code book they think up, to prove it.
    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Well, that was an interesting read. You do make a few statements that come across as fact, although they are supposition: that Joseph was a tin trader, that the Romans invaded Britain for the sole purpose of quashing the Celtic Christians, and the existence of a phonecian tin trade with cornwall.

    The reason for Claudius's invasion of Britain were purely political: he needed a victory to position himself as a strong emporer, and not a puppet of the pretorians who had put him there. To a Roman, victory in battle was everything, plunder coming a close second. The riches brought back from Britain included tin, lead, copper, and slaves. A tiny group of celtic christians were likely not even noticed by Paulinus, although the same cannot be said for the druids!

    There is archeological evidence of an early tin trade between Britain and the mainland, but none that would point specifically to the Phonecians (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but do so with a reference please, not quoting ancient and vague texts that are open to interpretation). The legend of Joseph of 'A' being in Britain was not conceived until the 12th century, by poet Robert de Boron. These stories (the Vulgate Cycle) were embellished later, changing the role of Joseph considerably from the original written by Boron. In short, they are fiction.

    My reference to the Templars was simply a statement that I believe they used the Joseph myth (as well as others) to enhance their status, something similar to the stories of how they (the Templars) found the grail while digging in Jerusalem. Both stories are just that, stories, with no basis in fact.

    Just a personal observation: why the need for a loooong detailed post starting with the phonecians, then rome, etc. just to debunk the templar point ? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me some people tend to use these wonderfully detailed rants to impress others. Save it. I am more impressed with general knowledge and insight than simply cutting and pasting something from wikipedia.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well, Britons have always suffered the disadvantage that they were mostly illiterate during the time when the majority of Roman history was occurring. We need look no further back than a few hundred years to see how much of a peoples' history gets covered up when another culture is doing the writing. (like the Spanish conquest of the Aztecs)

    That doesn't mean the Arthurian legend is real, nor that Joseph of Arimethea had any real connection with the British Isles, or etc, but I find it interesting how little history we have from them about that time frame.

    Surely something was happening. They had bards that would memorize very long tales and songs and such, most of which don't seem to have managed to get written down. The most likely reason anything would be erased, or not preserved, would be if the Catholic Church didn't like it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Surely something was happening. They had bards that would memorize very long tales and songs and such, most of which don't seem to have managed to get written down. The most likely reason anything would be erased, or not preserved, would be if the Catholic Church didn't like it.
    Good point, although it was not the 'Catholic' church in the sense we know of today, it was simply the church. It is also important not to forget that the roman church in Britain did not take hold until well after the romans left (roughly 600AD) with the arrival of Augustine. I am probably wrong in this, but I do not recall reading anything about the Celtic christian monks writing anything. So, all this means is that history before 600 AD in Britain was pretty much word of mouth. We cannot blame the 'church'' for censoring anything before that date, including the Arthur myth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Well, it would be nice if they had written more of the word of mouth stuff down. It wouldn't be super reliable, I guess, but that period of time seems to be kind of a black hole.

    It's kind of like when a news agency decides not to report on something happening somewhere. It's sensible to always wonder why one event is considered "newsworthy" and another isn't, even if the decision is often arbitrary or ratings based.

    There's a tendency for things that would hurt the parent corporation to be considered "un-newsworthy" no matter how momentous or world changing an event may be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    North Olympic Mtns.
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by CShark
    Well, that was an interesting read. You do make a few statements that come across as fact, although they are supposition: that Joseph was a tin trader, that the Romans invaded Britain for the sole purpose of quashing the Celtic Christians, and the existence of a phonecian tin trade with cornwall.

    The reason for Claudius's invasion of Britain were purely political: he needed a victory to position himself as a strong emporer, and not a puppet of the pretorians who had put him there. To a Roman, victory in battle was everything, plunder coming a close second. The riches brought back from Britain included tin, lead, copper, and slaves. A tiny group of celtic christians were likely not even noticed by Paulinus, although the same cannot be said for the druids!

    There is archeological evidence of an early tin trade between Britain and the mainland, but none that would point specifically to the Phonecians (feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but do so with a reference please, not quoting ancient and vague texts that are open to interpretation). The legend of Joseph of 'A' being in Britain was not conceived until the 12th century, by poet Robert de Boron. These stories (the Vulgate Cycle) were embellished later, changing the role of Joseph considerably from the original written by Boron. In short, they are fiction.

    My reference to the Templars was simply a statement that I believe they used the Joseph myth (as well as others) to enhance their status, something similar to the stories of how they (the Templars) found the grail while digging in Jerusalem. Both stories are just that, stories, with no basis in fact.

    Just a personal observation: why the need for a loooong detailed post starting with the phonecians, then rome, etc. just to debunk the templar point ? Perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me some people tend to use these wonderfully detailed rants to impress others. Save it. I am more impressed with general knowledge and insight than simply cutting and pasting something from wikipedia.....

    First off, I was not trying to debunk the Knight Templers, because even they believed in the legends of King Arthur, and I would think they were closer to the fact, then you or I.

    As for the Phoenicians, or more so the Carthaginians, they held the secret of the Isles of Tin, first from the Greeks (c. 800 B.C.) when Romans were still tribes. The Phoenicians were the colonizers of the Mediterranean Sea, and beyond.

    By the time the Romans had a sizeable fleet of ships, the Cathaginians already had colonies in Cornwall, and the Severn. Trading with the Brit, and Celtic tribes, for the Tin, coal, iron-stone, and logs. In exchange for Bronze tools and weapons, cloth, olive oil, pottery and furniture.
    When the Britons, were still tribesmen, the Carthaginians were highly developed traders, sailors, miners, metalsmiths, stonecutters, farmers (that were even praised by the Romans), and as colonizers they even brought their women with them. And even if they introduced the Ox and Horse to the tribes of Brits, the fact remains that trade was going on a long time, before Joseph of Arimathea set foot on the west coast of Briton, in the first century A.D.

    You like to say it's all a myth, only because some Poet wrote about it 500 years or more after the fact. Just because that part of early British history was not written down, the legends are still noted by the wise historians. It is the Archaeologist that digs up and proves the past.

    Any standing stone, is not enough proof for you it seems, you could be off base, it's easy to be skeptical of legends, for lack of better knowledge, not that it's a bad thing, it should be cause to seek the truth.

    What about this; How much so do the Viking runes, and letters, look alot like the Phoenician alphabet? It's a historical fact, the Greeks used this alphabet. Even if I provided a link to anything you would still doubt. For the lack of Phoenician history.

    And yet you are so sure, "(Claudius's invasion of Britain were purely political: he needed a victory to position himself as a strong emporer, and not a puppet of the pretorians who had put him there.)"

    It seems history records that Joseph of Arimathea, was in charge of the Tin trade for the Romans, he was also a leader of the Sanhedrin, (while a secret disciple of Jesus, also), a wealthy Tin merchant, of Jewish shipping (Ships of Solomon, built by Phoenicians,!) and a export and import trader of Jewish made and grown goods. And the fact that Joseph was the uncle of Mary, then he was a Levite, and as such could assist the Priests of God. And some point in time, after Jesus's thirdteenth year, (being 7 A.D. or Jewish year 3767) after the death of Mary's husband Joseph, her uncle by law, became the young Jesus's guardian. While the Bible is silent during these years, Jewish Law made it a requirement. As for the Glastonbury legends, they stand as just that, verbal legends recorded by historians, and standing carved stones, that even poets write about.

    So you don't have to look it up; Claudius I, (Tiberius Claudius Drusus Nero Germanicus), born 10 B.C.-died 54 A.D.; was Roman emperor (41-54) was uncle to Gaius (Caligula), owed his elevation to the imperial throne to the fact that he was the sole surviving member of the Julio-Claudian family. He had no experience in public life because his own family, mainly his mother and grandmother, had doubts about his intelligence. Also he was lame and he stuttered. He was reputed to be a learned antiquarian, and one of the few in Rome that could still read Etruscan. He became emperor at age 50, he knew very well what was going on in the empire, with the Jews, with the Christians, with shipping/trade, with taxes. He formed the Imperial Bureaucracy, the first secretarial post filled with members of his own family. His claim to fame, being the invasion of Britain in A.D. 43 and conquest, that he thought Julius Caesar failed to accomplish twice in 55 & 54 B.C.
    That was not Julius's aim then, he was more concerned with Gaul, and chasing the Celtic Gauls to Briton, and only fought there because the Brits were giving aid and comfort to the Gauls. Julius did not have a fleet of ships for a full invasion then, and he had more concern of the plots against him in Rome. The Senate ordered him to disband his army and return to Rome. Ten years later, he was dead on the steps of the Senate.

    While Gaul was Romanized, it's new Roman citizens being taxed, and forced into labor to build colonies to the Roman city plan. By 43 A.D., Claudius I, needed a conquest of new land, and the Celtic tribes of Britain, were already being Christianized, this same Jewish sect, had the Jews of Jerusalem in an uproar during Augustus's stepson Tiberius whom he adopted as heir, ruled from A.D. 14-37. When in A.D. 33, he called Pontius Pilate to Rome about the trial and sentence of crucifixion of Jesus Christ, and Pilate reported the resurrection to Tiberius, and he went into retirement on Capri, on his return to Rome in 37 A.D. he died. Augustus before his death had stipulated that Tiberius should adopt Germanicus Caesar, son of Tiberius' brother Drusus, and make him his successor, Germanicus died suddenly in A.D. 19, and with the death of Tiberius, in 37, left the empire without a head. A prefect of the praetorian guard named Marco, submitted the name of Gaius Caesar, the one surviving son of Germanicus, and great-grandson of Augustus, and the Senate approved him as the new emperor, (setting the dangerous precedent, of the praetorian guards of choosing an emperor) Gaius nicknamed Caligula, was killed by a roman guard in 41 A.D. was followed by his uncle Tiberius Claudius Drusus, also nominated by a praetorian guard to the Senate, and approved as Claudius I, he divorced his wife Messalina, married his niece Agrippina, and adopted her son Nero, apon Claudius' return from Britain, Agrippina poisioned him, and Nero became emperor, at age 16, under tutorship for five years, Rome was at peace, after that Nero was a complete despot, murdered his mother, and his wife Octavia, ordered his tutors to commit suicide. The great fire of Rome, he blamed and persecuted the Christians for.

    Now is all this Roman stuff, fact or fiction? Or the myth of poets?

    And remember at one point in time, no one thought man would ever step foot on the Moon, let alone the high ground of Glastonbury, to build a church. But if you ever see a Celtic cross, with an image carved of a man and young boy on it, maybe the legend is true. Maybe more proof lies buried waiting to be found.


    :wink:
    "The finest thing you will ever learn, is to Love, the greatest thing to learn, is that you are Loved in return!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34 Re: King Arthur 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    We've all heard the legends, the myths and the plausible historical account of him-and of course Geoffrey of Monmouth's romantic description, but just exactly who was he really? And why is there strong evidence both for his legendary existence and his more 'bear' warlord existence?

    Back in the day, myhtical explanations were favored and the more plausible shunned, today the opposite is true-plausible is favoured and the mythical shunned. It is true you may say that plausiblity is favored as it is more scientifically justifiable-but that is the opinion we were all brought up with-don't forget that science is the best method of describing the world around us, not neccesarily the most efficient. Let's take into consideration when answering this question that both plausible and myhtical explanations are both possible and that we do not close our mind simply because strong evidence points against it-that is not science.
    Walt Disney did a wonderful retrospective biography about the boy king. If you're interested you should be able to find this film at just about any media outlet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35 Re: King Arthur 
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    We've all heard the legends, the myths and the plausible historical account of him-and of course Geoffrey of Monmouth's romantic description, but just exactly who was he really? And why is there strong evidence both for his legendary existence and his more 'bear' warlord existence?

    Back in the day, myhtical explanations were favored and the more plausible shunned, today the opposite is true-plausible is favoured and the mythical shunned. It is true you may say that plausiblity is favored as it is more scientifically justifiable-but that is the opinion we were all brought up with-don't forget that science is the best method of describing the world around us, not neccesarily the most efficient. Let's take into consideration when answering this question that both plausible and myhtical explanations are both possible and that we do not close our mind simply because strong evidence points against it-that is not science.

    First, I would like to say I enjoyed your post: good detail and a good argument. There is one key point I wish to counter: when you say "that we do not close our mind simply because strong evidence points against it-that is not science". In my opinion, that is counter-intuitive. Most of what I believe to be fact is based on strong evidence; why would I think something to be true when the evidence is clear and/or abundant that something is NOT true ?

    Science is in a large part based on Koch's postulate; that any experiemental data is invalid until it is reproducible. Another way of looking at this is, if there is enough evidence for something, it is highly likely it is true. One piece of evidence just doen't cut it. Exactly how much is needed before the fact is accepted, is pure opinion. What am I babbling on about ? Well, I use as much evidence as I can gather before deciding on something as fact or myth. If the evidence is slim to none, as with Arthur for example, I tend to give it a thumbs down.

    Hopefully I am making myself understood.
    Thanks for your time in answering my post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    I perfectly understand what you are saying, it makes full sense to me. But that is where my unconscious kicks in. Imagine if you left a book, after a while what would the information be like inside when tried to be read? The same can be said for history and stories.

    Also, can current science explain to me how time travel is possible in the same way 14th century science can explain the big bang theory. As I say I understand what you are saying and agree with you. But I believe that percetion can be vauge depending on how you look at something. For every angle of perception opens a new angle of explanation and interpretation.

    Thus, Arthur could just be a warlord translated from bear to Arthur, or He could have been the mythical king he was (and is to be 8) ) wielding Excalibur and affilated with Merlin.

    One thing that does puzzle me is how a respected historian at the time, namely Geoffry of Monmouth translated what he did and made the stories he explained seem different from what he was actually translating from. Some may say he was trying to make England look greater than it actually was, to furthur gain recogniton, in the same way Richard Dawkins may do the same to validate his theories on religion (by being backed up by other atheists via his methods), perhaps. But what really bedazles me is that Geoffry had a lot of other texts translated in the same 'Historia Regum Britanniae' and yet of all the kings he described, he made Arthur special... Why?
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore CShark's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    East Coast of Canada
    Posts
    192
    Quote Originally Posted by 425 Chaotic Requisition
    I perfectly understand what you are saying, it makes full sense to me. But that is where my unconscious kicks in. Imagine if you left a book, after a while what would the information be like inside when tried to be read? The same can be said for history and stories.

    Also, can current science explain to me how time travel is possible in the same way 14th century science can explain the big bang theory. As I say I understand what you are saying and agree with you. But I believe that percetion can be vauge depending on how you look at something. For every angle of perception opens a new angle of explanation and interpretation.

    Thus, Arthur could just be a warlord translated from bear to Arthur, or He could have been the mythical king he was (and is to be 8) ) wielding Excalibur and affilated with Merlin.

    One thing that does puzzle me is how a respected historian at the time, namely Geoffry of Monmouth translated what he did and made the stories he explained seem different from what he was actually translating from. Some may say he was trying to make England look greater than it actually was, to furthur gain recogniton, in the same way Richard Dawkins may do the same to validate his theories on religion (by being backed up by other atheists via his methods), perhaps. But what really bedazles me is that Geoffry had a lot of other texts translated in the same 'Historia Regum Britanniae' and yet of all the kings he described, he made Arthur special... Why?

    You caught me heading for bed, my friend, but I would like to respond to your earlier comment. You say something to the effect that perception is everything in science. Yes. I agree. However, if 100,000 people perceive something as the truth, with only one other perceiving the opposite, even though we are all free to see and interpret life as we see fit, that one person is likely wrong, by the standards we use in sciences. Not exactly Koch's postulate again, but you get my drift...

    Something about Geoffrey's writings is ringing a faint bell in my little brain. Let me look at some notes tomorrow and get back to on that one !

    Have a good evening/weekend :-D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSage

    You like to say it's all a myth, only because some Poet wrote about it 500 years or more after the fact. Just because that part of early British history was not written down, the legends are still noted by the wise historians. It is the Archaeologist that digs up and proves the past.
    Here's what I was saying about the reluctance of literate people to put the stories of the bards into writing. For the illiterate tribes of Britain, having a person memorize a long saga was the only way to preserve history.


    Any standing stone, is not enough proof for you it seems, you could be off base, it's easy to be skeptical of legends, for lack of better knowledge, not that it's a bad thing, it should be cause to seek the truth.

    What about this; How much so do the Viking runes, and letters, look alot like the Phoenician alphabet? It's a historical fact, the Greeks used this alphabet. Even if I provided a link to anything you would still doubt. For the lack of Phoenician history.
    The difficulty of finding good Phoenician history, when we know they were literate and quite advanced, is kind of an indicator of the degree to which conquerers like to be sure their version of history wins out.


    And yet you are so sure, "(Claudius's invasion of Britain were purely political: he needed a victory to position himself as a strong emporer, and not a puppet of the pretorians who had put him there.)"
    Funny thing is you never know what really motivates political figures. It could be the GW Bush really honestly wanted to stop Sadaam Hussein from getting nukes. I mean: that's what he said, right? Never mind oil, or the opportunity to be a "war president", or the Defense Contractors' lobby.

    Do you think Claudius would admit it openly if he was afraid of Christianity?

    It's also possible that his advisers might have pitched the invasion to him as a way of positioning himself as a strong emporer, but their reason for trying to convince him in the first place was their own......


    And remember at one point in time, no one thought man would ever step foot on the Moon, let alone the high ground of Glastonbury, to build a church. But if you ever see a Celtic cross, with an image carved of a man and young boy on it, maybe the legend is true. Maybe more proof lies buried waiting to be found.

    :wink:
    Yeah, one problem with history is there's no way to apply the basic tenet of the scientific method : being able to repeat the experiment. There may be a lot of valid theories.

    It could be that many towns have odd christian legends just because they want to believe so badly. Or it could be that some are true. It's fun to guess.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •