Hello everyone! I have an upcoming article with some of my more unsubstantiated theories, outlining some of my logic that leads me to think it’s correct, but there may not be a ton of evidence to support it other than said logic. As a primer for that, I want to hear from you all. What are some ideas you think are worth looking into, things worth discussing but you don’t have much evidence for, or even just a ‘headcanon’ you’ve developed. Do you have a preferred ‘Arthur’ candidate? A historical person you think may have inspired a legendary character? An event you have a unique interpretation of? I want to hear it all!
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but here goes! One, I absolutely love reading your articles and absorbing all the delicious food for thought. The thing I would say is that sometimes it's hard to see the forest through the trees, and I would love a little bit of an overview of all the work you've done, sort of a connective thread or index providing context and relativity between the theories/figures. I'm personally a little in over my head at times when reading so many details, and there's a lot of assumed knowledge, so knowing how the theories relate to a larger picture would aid my comprehension. But perhaps I'm not necessarily your intended audience and other readers understand perfectly well!
This is actually a big part of why I'm producing my Illustrated guide. A larger broadstrokes overview of the period. I try my best to include the articles a particular piece builds on, but sometimes it leads to feeling like I'm repeating myself which I try not to do, though I will try to include more thorough footnotes from here on.
whilst many have contributed to the myth many and I believe was Arthur Mac Aedan the Dal radian Bryhonic Prince son of Aedan Mac Gabran and a Brythonic Princess of Manaw Gododdin as the dates, battles and location of Camelot match up My friend is a historian and Arthur expert who wrote The King Arthur Conspiracy how a Scottish Prince became a mythical Hero .. Arthur was never a king he was a commander in chief so to speak of Brythonic forces He has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried on Iona he has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried
I have actually read his book before, albeit long ago. I definitely think he contributed to the legends, the hurdle in my opinion lays in thr extant sources, just like with all of these figures unfortunately. I'll definitely have to check it out again.
the author who's real name is Lynn Davies has written several books around the real Arthur and Merlin and we chat often about it. I have been obsessed with Arthur for decades. As clans Campbell, MacArthur, Galibraith and Forbes claim descent of Arthur Mac Adean and those clans are in my tree and prob yours too if you have any British or Irish ancestor in your tree. Which means we are descendants of Arthur
Given the date and the popularity of the name Arthur following the ‘historical’ Arthur it is probable he is name after Arthur rather than being Arthur.
This is the 'namesake theory' that Bromwich and others like Andrew Breeze have put forward. I do agree with it, though I think with the nature of the scanty records of the period a lot of these later Arthur's ended up contributing to the later conception of Arthur. Goes a long way towards explaining the fancies of a pan-island high-king.
I’d say Gildas tells us who Arthur is and either Riothamus, who was active around the same time, is one and the same person or his legend was bolted onto Amrbrosius
Geoffrey Ashe of course makes a great case in his work that Riothamus and Arthur are the same, but I'm unconvinced that he was the guy that Nennius' Battle list is about. I think there's a strong case to be made that much of what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote was inspired by Riothamus, but I'm not convinced that Riothamus wasn't just a continental Breton leader. Gildas remarks on Ambrosius and Badon are quite vague IMO unfortunately for us, and seem to indicate some time had passed between Ambrosius' heyday and Badon.
I've been slowly delving into Dal Riata, I am familiar with it from some books I read earlier, including the aforementioned book. Thank you as always for your support
I worked very closely with Alan Wilson on his Arthurian research throughout the early 90’s up to his death a couple of years ago.
I know he is considered a divisive character but I write this as someone who knew him as a friend first and saw the incredible research, due diligence, record checking and re-checking he did. I am yet to see any evidence that counters his research that there were multiple Arthur’s and that Arthur II, son of Meurig and grandson of Tewdrig inspired the majority of the legend that became medieval Arthur. Arthur I was important too but the clearly identifiable Arthur II and his brother Madoc left traces all over South East Wales and their graves are exactly where the records say they are.
I try to avoid discussing other authors theories as it usually leads to unproductive mud slinging that I don't feel contributes to anything. I do think that Athrwys is key in explaining the connection to South Wales, but as I maintain, by the time of Geoffrey and the Bruts based on his work Arthur is 100% a composite figure. Thank you for your comment!
Fully understand your position. I have been through it over the last three and ½ decades of dealing with his work and I know what you mean. He left me and two other close friends, a series of “time capsule” boxes filled with his most important discoveries and avenues to research further. Research that he never got to complete as he was pulled in a different direction or new discoveries took over.
Slowly, I am compiling everything and shall see what it reveals. Keep up your great work and thanks for the opportunity to speak.
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but here goes! One, I absolutely love reading your articles and absorbing all the delicious food for thought. The thing I would say is that sometimes it's hard to see the forest through the trees, and I would love a little bit of an overview of all the work you've done, sort of a connective thread or index providing context and relativity between the theories/figures. I'm personally a little in over my head at times when reading so many details, and there's a lot of assumed knowledge, so knowing how the theories relate to a larger picture would aid my comprehension. But perhaps I'm not necessarily your intended audience and other readers understand perfectly well!
This is actually a big part of why I'm producing my Illustrated guide. A larger broadstrokes overview of the period. I try my best to include the articles a particular piece builds on, but sometimes it leads to feeling like I'm repeating myself which I try not to do, though I will try to include more thorough footnotes from here on.
I truly appreciate your measured and friendly response. So often folks immediately get defensive and angry. I look forward to seeing what you find!
whilst many have contributed to the myth many and I believe was Arthur Mac Aedan the Dal radian Bryhonic Prince son of Aedan Mac Gabran and a Brythonic Princess of Manaw Gododdin as the dates, battles and location of Camelot match up My friend is a historian and Arthur expert who wrote The King Arthur Conspiracy how a Scottish Prince became a mythical Hero .. Arthur was never a king he was a commander in chief so to speak of Brythonic forces He has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried on Iona he has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried
I have actually read his book before, albeit long ago. I definitely think he contributed to the legends, the hurdle in my opinion lays in thr extant sources, just like with all of these figures unfortunately. I'll definitely have to check it out again.
the author who's real name is Lynn Davies has written several books around the real Arthur and Merlin and we chat often about it. I have been obsessed with Arthur for decades. As clans Campbell, MacArthur, Galibraith and Forbes claim descent of Arthur Mac Adean and those clans are in my tree and prob yours too if you have any British or Irish ancestor in your tree. Which means we are descendants of Arthur
They are, descended from Arthwys as well through the Calcfynydd line.
Given the date and the popularity of the name Arthur following the ‘historical’ Arthur it is probable he is name after Arthur rather than being Arthur.
This is the 'namesake theory' that Bromwich and others like Andrew Breeze have put forward. I do agree with it, though I think with the nature of the scanty records of the period a lot of these later Arthur's ended up contributing to the later conception of Arthur. Goes a long way towards explaining the fancies of a pan-island high-king.
Given the sudden popularity in circles with British connections amongst high status families is a little bit hard to explain.
The surge in popularity post 500 is a bit hard to explain without some heroic figure prompting it.
I’d say Gildas tells us who Arthur is and either Riothamus, who was active around the same time, is one and the same person or his legend was bolted onto Amrbrosius
Geoffrey Ashe of course makes a great case in his work that Riothamus and Arthur are the same, but I'm unconvinced that he was the guy that Nennius' Battle list is about. I think there's a strong case to be made that much of what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote was inspired by Riothamus, but I'm not convinced that Riothamus wasn't just a continental Breton leader. Gildas remarks on Ambrosius and Badon are quite vague IMO unfortunately for us, and seem to indicate some time had passed between Ambrosius' heyday and Badon.
Like the other commenter, I have always been interested in the Dal Riatan connection, but honestly my main interest is in your meta-analysis.
I've been slowly delving into Dal Riata, I am familiar with it from some books I read earlier, including the aforementioned book. Thank you as always for your support
I worked very closely with Alan Wilson on his Arthurian research throughout the early 90’s up to his death a couple of years ago.
I know he is considered a divisive character but I write this as someone who knew him as a friend first and saw the incredible research, due diligence, record checking and re-checking he did. I am yet to see any evidence that counters his research that there were multiple Arthur’s and that Arthur II, son of Meurig and grandson of Tewdrig inspired the majority of the legend that became medieval Arthur. Arthur I was important too but the clearly identifiable Arthur II and his brother Madoc left traces all over South East Wales and their graves are exactly where the records say they are.
I try to avoid discussing other authors theories as it usually leads to unproductive mud slinging that I don't feel contributes to anything. I do think that Athrwys is key in explaining the connection to South Wales, but as I maintain, by the time of Geoffrey and the Bruts based on his work Arthur is 100% a composite figure. Thank you for your comment!
Fully understand your position. I have been through it over the last three and ½ decades of dealing with his work and I know what you mean. He left me and two other close friends, a series of “time capsule” boxes filled with his most important discoveries and avenues to research further. Research that he never got to complete as he was pulled in a different direction or new discoveries took over.
Slowly, I am compiling everything and shall see what it reveals. Keep up your great work and thanks for the opportunity to speak.