I've seen it, believe me, I've seen it!

I have a question, and I hope it's somewhat noteworthy. Quite a few of the history accounts, such as Nennius and Giraldus(?) use phrases like "I've seen it myself" or "I've been there" to validate their stories. Is this a trend we're going to see with a lot of the actual literature too? I think these supposed eyewitness accounts would help the stories blur the lines between fantasy and reality.

The British aren't coming!

“When the Romans failed to respond ‘all the members of the British council, together with the proud tyrant’, decided to hire Saxons ‘to beat back the peoples of the North’. Soon, however, the Saxons turned against the Britons, inflicting an even more deadly ‘plague’: many towns were destroyed, and most of the survivors were either ‘butchered in the mountains’ or fled to ‘lands beyond the sea’. “

This quotation highlights how brutal the Saxons were. It also shows the spite that the Britons has against the Romans. An interesting play on words comes when they say it was a deadlier plague, which proved an interesting analogy.

https://media.giphy.com/media/cSozWbWHEfUis/giphy.gif

Monkey see, monkey do

“There was, and is, a ‘figure’ of Arthur made up of all these elements, who has made a very real impact on history... The truth greater than the facts is that Arthur was considered to be a king by most
medieval monarchs, who sought to imitate him and even bring him into their genealogies” (Snyder, 8).

I found this quotation to be interesting because I always thought of Arthur as (only) a legend to everyone, or at least as an ever-elusive historical figure. I’ve never considered that people thought (or may even still think) that he was a definite enough figure to possibly be included in their family trees. 

Giphy.com

.

I know that this gif makes no sense, but I do have an explanation!! 

Does the face of Camelot matter?

“For many, however, finding the historical Arthur can only diminish the legendary figure.  Whether a stoical Roman general or a beleaguered Celtic warlord, such a person will never compare to the noble king depicted by Geoffrey of Monmouth, by Malory, or even by T.H. White” (Snyder 16)

This quote reminded me of how George Washington, and how in just a couple of centuries there are already widespread myths and tall tales surrounding our most influential founding father.  Both Arthur and George were both supposed leaders of nations with iron-clad virtues.  I couldn't imagine weeding through the assorted tales of Arthur to find reality.

Was Arthur (or any of them) Historical?

While historians are busy trying to prove Arthur's existence and if the roundtable was real or not, is there any evidence for other parts of the story to be true? Most of the story has variations and small or first mentions in later works of fiction. Is there any evidence for his knights? Was "Arthur just someone who had no significant life beyond fighting, so authors just embellished where they could?

The Impact of King Arthur

As I am reading the chapters from Snyder, it seems to be debating whether or not King Arthur was historically a real person. It explains how influential the story has been and describes time periods of when the characters could have been real. The first chapter ends with the quote, “I hope to show for all those in interested in Arthur that there was a very real and vibrant historical era at the beginning of his story. Whether he existed or not, this period would produce the stuff of legends, legends that would become the basis of one of the most important and lasting literary traditions in the West.” (17)

I picked this quote because to me, the story’s of King Arthur is like a fairytale. Whether or not he was real, I believe most of the fable is fictional but that is what makes the story interesting. There are different variations of the King Arthur legend, some better than others but that’s the fun side with fairytales! These chapters are trying to look into the facts behind the legend, but I don’t mind enjoying the mystical stories of what once was or what could have happened the mysteryious King Arthur.

Introductory Quest Part 2

Was, or is, King Arthur an ancient version of what we call nowadays a super hero? Instead of being able to fly or zap lasers from his face, Arthur is hot, virtuous and undefeatable.

Men of One-Hundred Faces

The quote I picked is the very first sentence of the "Who Was Arthur?" section on page 8 of Snyder's The World of King Arthur.  The sentence is, "Well, to begin with, there was not one Arthur, but many."  I find this quote so interesting because in my opinion, it is absolutely fascinating that the existence of such a famous character could be in question for centuries.  Remarkably, this is actually the case with multiple historical figures such as Robin Hood, Ragnar Lodbrook, and even the ancient hero Beowulf.  The fact that these characters, and specifically King Arthur, are so famous and so larger-than-life that the stories on them split from reality and then into hundreds of other stories and then merge and form one again is, quite honestly, amazing. 

There aren't any Many-Faced God pictures so...

The Real, the Fake, and the Debate.

“They helped gain recognition for Arthur throughout Europe as the ideal Christian Monarch, and launched his career as a new kind of national symbol.” (Snyder 16)

                When having read this quote I thought to myself “Honest Abe”. He was real, of course, but his story is paraded with false facts. Maybe throughout time King Arthur’s story was tainted by the various groups claiming his tale, much like Abraham Lincoln’s. However, it could also be that the Christians wanted to convert the Britain’s and gave the ideal Christian man— a British Christ almost. This quote embodies the debate of was Arthur real or fake; a national story to rally behind, or a true king. Whether King Arthur was real, or fake should matter. The fact that there is a mystery from this historic period should create great curiosity for anyone studying Arthur. Historic tales should always be researched and assessed thoroughly. I do not conclude that knowing the truth would take away from his historic status. To know if Arthur was a fake, ideal man created to further Christian ideals, or if he was an above-average military leader would not matter— Disney will make a movie either way.

I pledge that I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment. 

The Return of the King

Through my reading the quote that I found to be most significant came page 10 of the "Who Was Arthur?" chapter. “Finally, goes the myth, the Round Table collapsed through treason and betrayal, and Arthur, mortally wounded, was carried off to the Isle of Avalon, where he will be healed and one day return to rule over Britain.” (Snyder, Ch 1, Pg 10). 

This quote appears to be alluding to a return of King Arthur. When will he return? I believe that will most likely be when Britain is in a time of great distress, when a ruler as strong as Arthur is truly needed. This idea leads me to believe that King Arthur is really just a symbol for the ideal ruler of Britain. The perfect ruler would possess those same qualities it is written that Arthur possessed. Those qualities of courage, loyalty, honor, etc. 

-Kyle Morgenroth 

Do Facts Ruin Legends?

"The truth greater than the facts is that Arthur was considered to be a king by most medieval monarchs, who sought to imitate him and even to bring him into their genealogies." (Snyder 8)

Thinking about the line between reality and myth, I started to wonder if the actual existence of Arthur really mattered. Sure, it would be great to know that this legendary hero was a real person for history's sake, but I think the facts of life would only take away from his legacy. When a larger-than-life figure loses his mystique, he becomes human like the rest of us. Would tales of Paul Bunyan be better if he was just a normal lumberjack? Would Theseus be iconic if he didn't slay the Minotaur?

The story of King Arthur is the established truth of history and legend. Does it really need to be ruined by fact? Does the world really need more humans?

Why Does It Matter If He Existed?

As I read the chapters from Snyder's book, I found myself asking the same question: why does it matter whether Arthur was real or not? Though Snyder focuses on the circumstances from which references to King Arthur and related topics arose, Snyder does acknowledge readers who may be wondering if Arthur really existed. We also discussed this topic in class. I said to my classmates that he probably didn't really exist but was probably inspired by several real people, but I thought, I don't know? I've never really thought about this. Sure, the stories are interesting, but that doesn't mean I've wondered if they really happened.

The debate over King Arthur's existence has been and continues to be prominent. Why do so many people care whether Arthur in particular really did exist? What is it about Arthur that makes his existence matter?

Quest 2: Why is the Arthur Archetype so Popular?

Why do we seek to prove Arthur’s existence as opposed to other mythological characters (Gilgamesh, Snow White, etc)? What aspects of the Arthur Archetype make him so popular (at least in Western culture) while other mythological characters receive less attention?

History and Fiction: Two Halves of One Whole

A favorite movie in my household

I chose my quotation from the first chapter.

"Furthermore, the fact that people from the Middle Ages onwards have believed in Arthur, and that writers and kings have used that belief to their advantage, means that his impact on history has surpassed that of a mere historical being. Yet history informs this story, and must be neither ignored or misused in discussing Arthur" (Snyder 17).

I chose this because I need to remind myself that history is super important while discussing literature, and that belief is a powerful tool. Belief created the strong figure of Arthur, and the hope, the people needed in times of hurt and trouble.

The king who touched kings

The quotation I found most impactful while reading was "The Arthurian legends were never merely entertainment, however. By the late twelfth century Arthur, the symbol of British resistance against the English (the Anglo-Saxons), was adopted by the Norman conquerers of the English. The Angevin-Norman Plantagenet dynasty in the succeeding two centuries provided great patronage to Arthurian writers, and even claimed to have excavated the graves of Arthur and Guinevere at Glastonbury." (Snyder, Ch. 1, Pg. 16) I feel like this quote and the previous sentence about the weight that Henry VIII put into the Arthur myths best illustrate how historically and culturally impactful the myths were, even far before modern history. The myth intertwines itself in German, French, British, English and Norman culture and directly impacted major historical events, which blew my mind to learn. 

Petition to add this movie to the curriculum.

Source: Snyder, Christopher A. The world of King Arthur. Thames & Hudson, 2011.

Speaking Something into Existence...on a Royal Level

"'Britain has kings,' writes Gildas, 'but they are tyrants'" quotes Snyder on page 70, in the second document (chapter four).

Stemming from this quote, I wonder whether this desire for better kings prompted the myth of an idealistic king from a "famous, devout military hero" (73), although he was "not himself a king" (77). The figure of a pious, successful knight would serve as a wonderful king, and even if he wasn't a king in actuality, that person seems to be the perfect fit for a legend. Given enough momentum and will power, I think it makes a lot of sense that King Arthur would just sort of...be created. I think it could also be propelled by, if I'm reading this correctly, the Tudors looking to tell people they were descended from the great King Arthur, and validating his existence even more. 

My question is: does it make sense that even though Arthur may not have been an actual king, he was spoken into existence through desperation and determination to have the ideal king in their history?

The Ultimate Redeemer

The quote I thought was significant was “The Anglo-Saxson eventually won the struggle, but as the Britons fell from political prominence they took heart in a heroic national past which came to feature Arthur as a ‘once-and future’ redeemer" (Snyder 15).  I liked this quote because it describes the importance of Arthur to Britain’s history. Arthur represents a past where Britons’ were victorious, and his story provides hope that one day Britons’ will be victorious again.

Arthur and the Romans

The significant quotation I picked out was "Arthur's Britons, unlike their modern counterparts, were the cultural heirs of two peoples: the Celts and the Romans. While neither group was homogenous or genetically a 'race', they did produce vigorous cultures which dominated the European Iron Age for over one thousand years." (Snyder, Ch. 1, Pg. 15) I found this quotation to be interesting because I believe we discussed last class that the Romans had pulled out of England by the time the movie took place in, and the idea of the Britons as their cultural heirs would seem to support that, as the term 'heirs' implies they are not the direct subjects of Roman rule. To me it just makes it sound like the Romans had no direct involvement in Arthurian legend, though the film would claim otherwise.

Source: Snyder, Christopher A. The world of King Arthur. Thames & Hudson, 2011.

People just love colorful scenery and castles

Significant quotation that I liked from the reading was, "every good story begins with an historical setting." I think one of the reasons why King Arthur is so popular, is that hearing stories about lush, green scenery with Celtic castles immediately peaks people's attention. Everyone likes hearing stories about magic and adventurous knights, and the fact that King Arthur mythology takes place in Britain certainly adds to the appeal.

Okay Film, Bad Execution

The believability of King Arthur was okay. I felt the character, Gwenevere was more sexualized than she should have been. She wasn't a character, if anything she was annoying. Also the broken finger bit made me angry because her hand still wouldn’t be able to use her hand at all let alone have perfect aim on a bow and arrow.

I loved the costuming, but most importantly I loved all of the Knights and their friendship was probably the most believable thing in the entire movie.

I know many would not agree, but personally my favorite part of the whole movie was the ice scene, not because of its believability, but because of how cool it looked. Aesthetically speaking, the aerial shot of the knights shooting the bow and arrows and hitting nearly every one of the Saxons was beautiful to watch.

In all honesty I was confused by Merlin’s character because I wasn’t sure if he was actually important to the story, it didn’t seem like he was even doing anything besides attacking Arthur which wasn’t even explained in the plot. Overall King Arthur was a good movie, a bit confusing at times as to who was who in the beginning but overall an aesthetically pleasing film, but just a really bad execution.

Who Would Win: A Hollywood Film vs One Historically Uninformed College Kid

I had several questions while watching the 2004 film King Arthur. About twenty minutes into the film, I thought, "Wait a minute, didn't the Roman empire fall by now? Didn't the so-called Dark Ages happen after the Roman empire fall?" Either way, they’re there, and as far as I know, their soldiers are dressed as they would have been historically. I have no clue how they did with the Saxons on the historical accuracy front, but for practical reasons I wonder about the Saxons’ loose hair. It makes them look cool, but if they’re constantly itching for a fight, shouldn’t they tie it back or cut it short? Then there are the Woads. Are the Woads the same as the Celts? If so, then as far as I know, the film’s depiction is historically accurate (blue body paint, questionable leather armor, both men and women in combat), though I still wonder how they managed not to get stabbed more often without a lot of protection during battle.

Regarding Arthur and his knights, I was surprised they let Guinevere be one of their archers. They’re Roman-trained, so shouldn’t they balk at women who want to fight? “A woman? Fighting alongside us? Does she think we’re Woads?” Speaking of Guin, when she first showed up in her archery outfit, I thought, “elf.” That flowing dress/robe could get caught on something, and I don’t know where or how she got all that fabric. Wouldn’t it have been expensive to get that much? Either way, said fabric looks too light for winter. Later she adds a cloak, but she still could be warmer, and maybe have armor. At least she eventually ties her hair back for battle. Also, I doubt hygiene, nutrition, and cosmetics back then were advanced enough to make anyone as pretty as Guinevere and Alecto.

Another question: did Briton brides dress like that? The white dress and veil are traditional for us today, but was it for them? Or are those traditions more recent and from elsewhere? Also, again: where and how did they get all that fabric?

"Go all out. It's my wedding." -Guinevere, probably

Image from Harvey Furnishing's web site.

Who is Arthur? Let's Discuss

Something I've been wondering for a while is "Why is there so many different variations of King Arthur?" Most myths or stories the characters stay about the same throughout different medias but with minor changes to their roles not their history or personalities. This is not the case with Arthur however as stated in the readings. For he has many different renditions of him from his personality, background, looks, etc.  as well as many different tales from folklore, myths, literature, and romance. So how did this great debate of who King Arthur truly is really come about?

Way Too Hollywood...

It is plausible that King Arthur existed during the mid to late 400’s in the Western Roman empire. This was a troubled time for Rome. The empire had split 160 years before and the western half was being attacked by barbarians from the north. These attacks weakened Rome and caused destruction to the far reaching parts of the empire. This would have been a perfect time for a hero to emerge. It seems as if research was done for the movie, but it was not “Hollywood” enough for it. As usual, things were added and smashed together to make it more exciting. I know very little about England during the mid to late 400’s, but walling people up seems rather far fetched for a small village in northern England. It seems that when it came to the Woads the costume department wanted more to work with. So they mixed tattoos and body paint with unnecessarily revealing costumes. No matter what time period, soldiers would have wanted to protect their torsos in battle. The writers seem to have forgotten that names are tied to certain locations. Lancelot, which is a french name, somehow was from Sarmatia, which is nowhere near France. Arthur was called Arthur by Romans who would have called him Artorius and was called Artorius by the Woads who would have called him Arthur.

Would watch again!

I will say I do not know about much European 5th century history, but the movie itself was entertaining. The acting could have been improved with more realistic scenes but for the most part I was intrigued the whole time. Most of the battle scenes were very dramatized. Example with the beginning fighting scene where the savage warriors from the north attacked the Roman wagon, Arthur and his knights road in and saved the day without misplacing a hair on their head. This identified them as invincible superheroes. To the battle on the frozen lake, it was almost too good to be true that they beat the odds with a winning victory against a much larger infantry, AND managed to get majority of the Saxon’s under water. The final battle had unique strategies at the opening that made you wonder when they had time to plan it all out, throwing balls of fire into the stampede of men and smoking out the battlefield to attack while on horses. It seemed as they accomplished all this effortlessly and letting the fire do the work. The warriors serving under Merlin had various painted symbols on their bodies, making them look like savages from the jungle with incredible assault skills. Originally they hated Arthur and his knights, literally attempting to kill them a few scenes prior to calling him King in the end. It is amazing how quick everyone was to join together for a common cause. Im curious if it would have played out like that in real life.  Arthur’s men seemed to have more authentic knight-like armor, considering they weren't head to toe in metal like the knights I invision in my mind; they also displayed what it is like to be true soldiers demonstrating brave chivalry. The character of Guinevere, Arthur's lover, was very influential however she did not present an actual lady from that time period by being brave and fearless with the battling soldiers. The idea and story line of King Arthur himself is not representable to reality; winning the battle, marrying the girl he saved, becoming King; all the loyalty, honesty, and courage illustrated creates an awesome screenplay. I thought I wouldn't enjoy the movie, but it turned out to be an entertaining creation for the well known "fairytale."

'Arthur' reaction

As far as I am concerned, the historical significance of this movie seems mostly accurate to me. Maybe after some more understanding of the time and story I would be able to criticize some more of the inaccuracies. Initially the movie introduces our main character, Arthur, as a Roman officer. I had thought that historically Arthur was portrayed as a medieval knight so this was not what I was expecting. People and historians think that Arthur was a real person, but his character is a bit elaborated. As this movie shows a man like Arthur would be hard to come by...but this is Hollywood after all.

The battle scenes were very well set up and executed, however some of the elements did not seem realistic. At some points, it seemed too easy for Arthur’s army to kill people. When Arthur’s army teamed up with Merlin’s army in the woods they did not have much dialogue about the battle. In reality there would be much more discussion about this, however it could have been cut out for time purposes. In contrast, Game of Thrones will take a few episodes to develop an alliance between people. Also in the movie Arthur, it was shown to be winter time but everyone was not dressed as so. Finally, I was not expecting Lancelot to get killed at the end of the movie. He seemed like a character who would continue on in the story of Arthur.