So Veeky Forums did king arthur exist ?

Disregard this

The original accounts of King Arthur written by Geoffrey of Mourmont

By the time of Arthur, the people of Lloegyr would have been latin speaking and would have thought of themselves very much as Romans. It is to this milieu that any historical Arthur belongs, but by virtue of the loss of lloegyr to the English, his stories are remembered only by the Celtic-speaking people of the less civilised portion of Britannia.

He was actually the son of Mansa Musa, he ran a good socialist government staffed with Moroccan soldiers and Jewish administrators.

If he existed, I would say he's based on Artur mac Aeden. Dal Riatan warlord/prince would fought with Gododdin. He would be active in the right area right before the writting of Y Gododdin (first record of Arthur) and would be a Dux Bellorum rather than a king etc. But there's also a good deal of evidence he's just a mythological figure.

>So Veeky Forums did king arthur exist ?
No.

The high medieval King with a magic sword and a round table of knights did most certainly not exist.

Whether there was a legendary figure upon which the myth was based is a different issue, but he'd have very little in common with the mythical king.

from what i've read in a very erudite book (>pic related) he's some kind of super-hero that only appears in times of great needs
initially as king arthur and in the second coming as arthur wellesley

so i'm guessing that's settled

Wait, Arthur Weasley is the rebirth of a great mythical king? Never knew.

>If he existed, I would say he's based on Artur mac Aeden.
Britcucks greatest hero is actually a Gael, you literally can't make this shit up. Welshfags on suicide watch

on that subject is there a more autistic ass-backwards piece of shit excuse for """"mythology"""" than The Mabinogion?

Yes. The historical Artorius or whatever his name was, was probably a roman auxiliary cavalry commander who got left behind when the roman empire abandoned britain.

on a related note what's the King Arthur starter kit? There's so much shit out there even today it's really overwhelming to try and read up on the mythology.

Nice my thread still lives.
So there are several stories one which says he is a roman and another that he is a native briton king.

...

Arthur getting cucked was much much later down the line and is of French invention.

More to the point Arthur getting cucked was later (around Victorian times) used as basically the Arthurian equivalent to the crucifixion, being that Arthur was pure and noble and was destroyed and betrayed by the base sins of man and woman.

I always got the feeling that arthur as the king was also symbol for the whole kingdom so when he was cucked all the shit tey went through began meaning that even coutries get fucked by people and their sins.

...

Yeah that's exactly it. Some sources take this to a more mystical / fantasy level (in Idylls of the King faeries and wondrous sights were common in England when Arthur's reign peaked, but when the kingdom fractured all the wonderful things faded away) but generally the cuckholding coming to light is what shatters the kingdom and destroys what was supposed to be the ultimate human utopia on earth. In John Boorman's Excalibur it took that very old view that the land itself was tied to the king so when Arthur's health fails everything starts to wither away, but revives when he rides out the final time.

Other examples of this are the Fisher king from Parsifal, another Brittonic story, and the various gaelic taboos around sovereignty, and who can and can't be king

>paladins_of_Innos.webm

He is a mythological figure likely based around several different figures in England after the collapse of rome.

Most modern authors take the majority of their inspiration from Le Mort d'Arthur, by Thomas Mallory. It's a relatively late work (not counting modern stuff) but it's a good summary of all the traditions that came before it. Reading that (you'll probably want either a commentator or abridged version) will give you a good picture of the entire mythology. After that, you have a bit of freedom. You could read chronologically, starting with Celtic mythology (Culhwch and Olwen) and mythologized "history" (Historia Regum Britanniae) then moving on to the French chivalric Romances etc. That will give you an idea of how the traditions developed, as you encounter the invention of all the new knights, the gradual introduction of now-integral concepts like the Holy Grail and the Round Table, Lancelot's existence and the love triangle with Guinevere, and so on. Or you could just follow up on individual stories or characters you find interesting, and read their specific poems or romances.

If you find the old texts a bit impenetrable or overwhelming, you could try something more modern. The Once and Future King is really good and accessible.

>King arthur will never return

>Doesn't know who the duke of Wellington is.

I read that book (as most others of the same series) but I don't remember the Wellington part.

>supposed to return in the hour of Britain's greatest need
>too late

thanks m8! looks like I can find most of this stuff online too.

Pretty sure this is the plot to a film I watched.

King Arthur exists in the same way as the Trojan War. It is a story passed down through a long oral tradition about a regional king or warlord who had limited success against invaders. A man whose cultural memory became embellished and distorted as bards retold the story through the ages.

Except nobody like Homer took the effort to collect and write these stories down coherently as in The Iliad + Odyssey. Or if they did, the record was lost.

...

>king arthur returns
>is a muslim

Yes
He was a Romani British king who fought against the anglo-saxons
His real name was Arturius (proper latin: ARTVRIVS).

But he already has, just in a different nation

so Veeky Forums did robin hood exist? and more importantly. did he have an american accent?

Remeber, that's the kingdom of the Angles. Arthur and Merlin would be laughing with delight at this shit.

Nah. The first reference to Arthur shows up relatively quickly I.E. in the first written source after his age. His story is pretty straight forward, and not marked by embellishment or storytelling. All that comes centuries later, either through the adoption of older myths as applying to Arthur, or through wholesale fabrication in the high middle ages.

You really don't get Romanticized Arthur until Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Lloegyr meaning England in the Cymraeg, for anyone who doesn't know.

>rwyf am Sacsoniaid adael REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If he existed at all which is incredibly unlikely, he did so in the 5th or 6th century. The first reference to Arthur is in the 10th century Historia Britonum.

If he had appeared in the first sources detailing his age, he would appear in the work of Gildas (writing in the 5th or 6th century) who gives a potted history of Britain up to his own time. He names 5 British rulers of his own day - Constantine, Vortipor, Aurelius Caninus, Maglocunus and Cuneglasus.

Arthur is almost certainly a legendary Welsh hero - the later historicization of a mythological figure. Read the work of Nicholas Higham and Guy Halsall.

>The first reference to Arthur is in the 10th century Historia Britonum.
The first unambiguous reference maybe, but Y Gododdin has a casual reference to an amazing warrior named Arthur.

The reference in the Y Gododdin 'though he was no Arthur' is widely believed to be a later interpolation. Moreover, the poem only survives in an 11th century manuscript, and it is not certain that the poem is any older than that.

T.M. Charles-Edwards is THE expert on the matter and believes as much.

Sorry, mixed up Gildas and Ninnius. Still, if we focus on Ninnius's account, instead of later sources, it would make sense that Gildas wouldn't name him as a ruler.

Nennius specifically mentions that people more noble then him were present. The Historia Brittonum identifies him as 'Dux Bellorum'. The notion of Arthur as king comes much later, alongside all the other embellishments, and so the fact that he isn't mentioned on a list or rulers is unsurprising.

If he existed and was the successful warrior he is usually supposed - or at the very least, that Nennius assumes - Gildas is sure to have mentioned him. He does mention a late 5th/early 6th century Romano-British warlord who won a great victory against the Saxons - Ambrosius Aurelianus.

He makes clear that Ambrosius was a warlord and not a king. Moreover, his description in the Latin, of the Battle of Badon makes it clear that Ambrosius was the warleader who won that victory.

Yet Nennius ascribes that victory explicitly to Arthur and makes Ambrosius (Welsh: Emrys) another character, suggesting very much that Nennius' Arthur is an amalgam created from the achievements of various historical and legendary figures to form a paragon of Welsh martial valour in the 10th century when the Welsh, ever further fenced in by the unification of England under the House of Wessex, needed an past exemplar to imitate.

youtube.com/watch?v=5aQAtlrCpGQ

>So Veeky Forums did king arthur exist ?

No. He was probably based on some rather successful Roman-British leader similar to Syagrius in Lyonensis and probably had major influence over Romanized British tribes and Roman cities and there is a possibility this guy might have been considered "high-king" which was a nominal title at best. There are a few candidates for who Arthur was based on, and he was probably based on multiple people.

But Arthurian legends goes crazy. Arther has an empire that would include All the British Islands, Gaul and Norway before it tragically collapsed.

>Arthur invades the Roman Empire
>like literally the Roman Empire still exists in his time
>medieval knights fighting Roman legionnaires
>the Romans also go to war fielding at least two giants against Arthur
>two fucking giants dressed up in Roman regalia
>Arthur splits the emperor's head open
>gets crowned emperor of Rome by the pope

I pity how Arthurian shit has become obscure today because it is absolutely apeshit in the best way

...

...

...

Yes.

I love Le Morte alone just for what an absolute madman Mallory was.