"Foreign dynasty needs stronger local branding, commissions elaborate content tying itself to beloved national mythology" could almost be a communications strategy written today. Merlin's Cave is just an unusually expensive 18th-century version of it.
heresie-dabord
More general statement:
"Autocrats encourage fan fiction"
zenbane
No actual evidence in this article that this "PR Move" was anything other than a common garden folly. This article and "research" is long on assumption and speculation and has less evidence than an arthurian tale. Can modern historians provide anything of substance these days?
mc32
It’s almost becoming like prehistorical anthropology and archeology. Lots of assumptions and imagination and low on evidence.
Obviously with pre historical things we have to use our imagination since evidence is either scant or non-existent. But history now seems to accept more retconning and re-interpretations than before. Some re-interpretations do make sense when new evidence is found, but there are times when it’s done more for new narratives than actual truth seeking.
That's wrong. All scholars know he was a Briton, or sometimes called "Romano-Briton". The "English" (Angles, Saxons etc.) were usually the antagonists of the Britons.
I only recently started to understand that the post-Roman "dark age" was not quite as dark as I thought it was. Scholars and other interested parties can tease out a fair amount of knowledge of these times. Even though it gets quite obscure.
I have a recent book by Caleb Howells about "King Arthur" and he goes into some interesting detail about some of this stuff. He also has a YouTube channel. There is real history to be discovered here still (but much can only ever remain speculative unfortunately).
pasc1878
Wht do you mean by some surely it is all who think he is non English,
The Angles – ancestors of the English were the people whom he was fighting against.
Now was Arthur Roman or Celtic or Welsh etc is up to debate.
thaumasiotes
Well, no, the mythology has him fighting against all kinds of people, notably including the Saracens.
The more typical question would be "is Arthur based on any historical events at all?"
bazoom42
It is unknow whether it is based on a real historical person, but is there any question the oldest known version of the legend is Welsh?
thaumasiotes
The oldest known legends that obviously relate to the Arthurian mythology are Welsh.
But the further back you go, the less historical they become. And I don't mean in the sense of historical records being less reliable farther back in time; I mean that the characters in the oldest legends are clearly supernatural figures. There is no reason to postulate supernatural figures as having historical enemies. Why would they?
pasc1878
Sorry never seen that - where does it say he fought Saracens.
QuesnayJr
Mallory's Morte d'Arthur.
Most of the Arthur "myth" is deliberately constructed fiction by specific authors, rather than folk myths.
bryanrasmussen
I'd put Le Morte D'Arthur as the first modernization of the myths, not another myth.
jhbadger
Yeah. There is a difference between something like Geoffrey's "De gestis Britonum" which was thought by the author to be sort of true, and Malory who knew he was writing literature.
QuesnayJr
Most of what people think about as part of the Arthur myth are from literary sources, like Lancelot, the Knights of the Round Table, or the Grail quest.
bryanrasmussen
Peredur from the Mabinogion and Chrétien De Troyes Perceval are pretty strongly related, implying that there is a common Celtic source tale, but I don't think anyone has ever found one.
bryanrasmussen
perhaps I am somewhat better informed than others, but I've gone under the assumption that familiarity with the Welsh background of Arthur was the norm since I was in my early teens, so many decades back.
"Autocrats encourage fan fiction"
Obviously with pre historical things we have to use our imagination since evidence is either scant or non-existent. But history now seems to accept more retconning and re-interpretations than before. Some re-interpretations do make sense when new evidence is found, but there are times when it’s done more for new narratives than actual truth seeking.
I only recently started to understand that the post-Roman "dark age" was not quite as dark as I thought it was. Scholars and other interested parties can tease out a fair amount of knowledge of these times. Even though it gets quite obscure.
I have a recent book by Caleb Howells about "King Arthur" and he goes into some interesting detail about some of this stuff. He also has a YouTube channel. There is real history to be discovered here still (but much can only ever remain speculative unfortunately).
The Angles – ancestors of the English were the people whom he was fighting against.
Now was Arthur Roman or Celtic or Welsh etc is up to debate.
The more typical question would be "is Arthur based on any historical events at all?"
But the further back you go, the less historical they become. And I don't mean in the sense of historical records being less reliable farther back in time; I mean that the characters in the oldest legends are clearly supernatural figures. There is no reason to postulate supernatural figures as having historical enemies. Why would they?
Most of the Arthur "myth" is deliberately constructed fiction by specific authors, rather than folk myths.