What is the difference?

The question that I find to be most important when reading through this section is, do the Britons only feel disdain and anger towards foreign enemies? Geoffrey of Monmouth describes the final battle between Arthur and his army and the Army of Modred. Prior to the battle Arthur gives a pre-battle speech in which he urges his men to devastate the army of Modred since they are foreigners, “mongrels and barbarians from many kingdoms,”(Pg. 86) This motivates Arthur’s army to a victory, although they would suffer heavy casualties in the process. Some of the casualties listed by Monmouth came from foreign kingdoms who had pledged support to Arthur, Kingdoms such as Norway and Denmark. What is the difference between these foreigners fighting along side Arthur and his army and those who fought for Modred? The only plausible difference I can find is that the foreigners fighting alongside of Mordred were fighting to, in Arthur’s words, take the lands and fortunes held by members of Arthur’s army. Were the foreigners in Arthur’s army not fighting for similar reasons? Did they not want lands or fortunes as well?

Too Good to be True

King Arthur, in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s tale, seems to be realistic until assessing the text further and rereading the introduction. Arthur's realness or falseness is something that this class debates. Following the reading, I am now confirmed to think and believe Arthur is fake after not knowing prior to this course. The evidence lies in Geoffrey of Monmouth, and his work, History of the Kings of Britain, on the great king. It seems as though Geoffrey has created this text for a sole purpose of giving the Normans justification for invading Britain and taking over the Saxons. Also, Arthur fought valiantly against the Saxons; whereas now, the Normans are “fighting” for the native Britons as Arthur did before. Another point that Geoffrey puts in his work is when Arthur fights the giant and wins. It seems unlikely that Arthur could have single-handedly killed a giant, due to the fact that giants are not real. It hints that he has dramatized his work, and even other historians of Geoffrey’s time have dismissed his tale of Arthur (Loomis 58). Finally, Geoffrey makes Arthur too good at everything. Arthur, throughout the text, is presented as the ideal, true leader of Britain. He wins every battle with the exception of his final battle. Geoffrey also has created Arthur with the valor and command to be the best king possible at the ripe-old age of fifteen. Overall, I think the text does not tell the full truth of King Arthur, if there is one.

The Most Convient Book

On page 58 of chapter 4, the author tells the reader that Geoffrey of Monmouth's account of Arthur is based on an ancient book that contains the history of all British kings. What I want to know is, did Geoffrey of Monmouth really receive an ancient book written in the British language with all the deeds of all British kings from Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford?