"Worlds of Arthur, a response to what book?" Topic

I recall reading the preface/foreword for this and Guy halsall notes that the book was the result of another publication that was being reviewed in various wargames magazines as being "the bestest arthur book ever!" or somesuch, and having read it and found it wanting, decided to write his own…

my question is does anyone know which book he might be referring to?

I don't know the answer, but I do know that Worlds of Arthur was one of the least entertaining books I've ever tried to slog through. Anyone interested in a like-new, only read once copy?

It may have been The Reign of Arthur: From History to Legend.

Really? I quite liked the deconstruction of the available sources, it helped me get my head around the subject better than most other texts Ive read on the subject, and at least the made up bit was signposted as such rather than passed off as TRUTH, which you get in most psuedohistory arthur books!

@crumple: thanks!

Gidlow The Reign of Arthur: From History to Legend.

Got to say I found Halsall's book awful lucky for me I read a library copy. I would have felt cheated if I'd bought one.

hmm…i think it falls into the interesting but dull category.
Pity, I was hoping it was one of the wildly fanciful ones, becouse I find them quite entertaining…

I really liked his book. Did anyone ever write a reply to it from a more 'pro-legend' point of view?

Regards

Halsall makes much of being a historian and that's fine. But his book does not follow his professional discipline and that's not fine. Not if you are going to shell out for it.

No doubt it was a bit of a moneyspinner what with Arthur in the title. The lack of adequate notes and sources meant it was difficult to check his reasoning and with Halsall you would want to do that.

Gidlow who Halsall name checked wrote a more balanced book altho' it could do with an update now.

Did anyone ever write a reply to it from a more 'pro-legend' point of view?

I think that was the point: Arthur can only be a legendary character to us. He might have existed but we will never know and the sources can never tell us more than that.

Pro-Arthurians would disagree of course but any hypothesis to the contrary tends to suffer because so much of it has to be made up and plucked from thin air to make it work.

I dont quite understand the lack of sources/notes criticism for that reason: For starters there is only a handful of sources and he goes through all of them as a starting point, the main point being that almost none of them offers any useful information on the existence of Arthur or his world. Theres no point linking you back to them later because he's already gone through them…

There is nothing here that he's trying to prove; he does add his own version of events later on but points out that while it fits the available sources it does require a bit of a leap of faith. However this still stands it head and shoulders above most of the competition, simply because it doesnt require you to believe in faries/magic/watery tarts or whatever the other ridiculous flavour of the week crackpot theory is.

I loved reading one that purported to claim it could prove the existence of Arthur and his knights and the truth behind the legends by the power of the Etymology. I forget his name , but he filled out the first 30odd pages with a potted history, a few anecdotes etc…before jumping the shark on page 40 when he just started changing the meaning of words to suit his theory…

I was mostly annoyed that that particular book was masquerading as an actual history book in the history section of my local library( a section that had all of 12 books, including those of von Daniken…).

I like to think of Halsalls book as the polar opposite of whatever that book was: its a proper history book that has the title and front cover of a fringe theory written by a lover of ley lines and crop circles…it hides among books that try and prove Dan Brown was telling the Truth, that Conspiricy theorists built the pyramids and other such weak-minded rubbish, where it can target the people who need it most!

That's the problem its not a proper history. If he had set out to write one he would have sought peer review which he did not. His own theories are just as whacky as those of the loopers.

Halsall decided long ago that there was no evidence for Arthur and he has stuck to it. Anything that can prop up his view is utilised anything that challenges it is down played or ignored. That's what the loopers do and what professional historians should avoid

Among historians of the period polite silence has been the main response.

A while ago Keith Fitzpatrick Mathews a vocal Arthur sceptic who writes the Bad Archeology blog decided to examine the evidence – he changed his view.

I doubt we can ever know much and certainly not what we would like to but slowly more emerges. Sadly GH's book does not further the process any more than 'Was Arthur a Spaceman' would.

That's interesting, what did Halsall ignore specifically and which of his theories are whacky?

Regards

Yeah, I'd also like to know what was ignored: he went through the available primary sources…is there one he missed? And none of them appeared to provide anything useful to support the existence of Arthur.

Im inclined to agree that the main argument for his existence appears to " no smoke without fire" which is a good argument for proving the existence of fire but pretty awful for proving the existence of people. On that basis you'd also have to accept that the God Emperor of Mankind, Megatron and Frodo Baggins are all real people too…

Among historians of the period polite silence has been the main response.

Well obviously; if the question asked is "was Arthur really real?" and all the available sources from the period say diddly on the subject, then there isnt really much for them to say(the sources can tell us stuff about the period but we have to be realistic about what that is)

Also given how many crackpots get in on the act, its not surprising most shy away for fear of being mistaken for a loony.

I would expect any historian writing a book about Arthur to deal with the three early Brythonic poems that mention Arthur. Who are the poets talking about and why do they think he is important sort of thing.

The same approach might be fruitful in examining the battle list in Nennius you know just what purpose has the author in mind for this, what is it and what's it for?

Also just what sort of society is Gildas describing how does it work? I could go but you get my drift.

The idea that the English kingdoms began inland rather in coastal areas cannot be sustained. Whacky if you like.

The reason for the polite silence is because it was not a peer reviewed book, presumably because it would not have survived first contact.

That said I'm happy to discuss any part of the book you think worthwhile.

would expect any historian writing a book about Arthur to deal with the three early Brythonic poems that mention Arthur. Who are the poets talking about and why do they think he is important sort of thing.

The same approach might be fruitful in examining the battle list in Nennius you know just what purpose has the author in mind for this, what is it and what's it for?

He did both these things…

Also just what sort of society is Gildas describing how does it work? I could go but you get my drift.

He isnt describing one…I havnt my copy of Gildas to hand but IIRC correctly it was a sermon…

The idea that the English kingdoms began inland rather in coastal areas cannot be sustained

why not? If memory serves arent the earliest "Saxon" finds well away from the coast? Obviously any invader would arrive at the coast but theres no reason to think they couldnt have walked inland a bit if theyd wanted to.

I recall he spent very little time on the poems or if my memory is correct the poem as he only considered one.

I'm interested in what impression he left you with as to the battle list.

Actually Gildas tells us loads about his society and we can take it as accurate given his purpose.

It depends what you think of as a "Saxon" find but the origin of the English kingdom's are worth discussing.

@ oh bug ger :

I honestly cant recal and dont have it to hand! I know he went through y Gododdin though.

The impression I have of the battlelist is that it was mostly made up (something Ive never seen disputed: pretty much everything Ive ever read reckons most of the battles are added in to make it up to a magic 12, taking them from poems or adding extra battles), and Im inclined to agree that you couldnt realistically claim Arthur was at all of them. Especially becouse we dont know where any of them were. Or when. Or who they were between.
Halsall claims it was the Crux (specifically one particular battle was the crux) of an argument laid out in a "chi-ro" pattern…Im a bit hazy on the details; I presume its a method of late roman/ early medieval rhetoric but thats not something Ive studied before. As to whether or not thats what it actually is (as he asserts) I couldnt say, its not a theory I recall seeing before. Either way Im content to believe that the list of battles is simlpy a rhetoric device of some sort and not a useful account of what arthur was actually up to at any given time.

Gildas tells us loads about how to write a catchy (for the day) sermon, loads about the important issues that he was concerned with like heresy etc and the kings he had beef with, though becouse it was written for an audience then (and not for us now) it sort of assumes you know whats going on…a bit like jumping into Game of Thrones halfway through book 5 and trying to peice together whats already happened. I do not agree it can be taken as accurate, a sermon exhorting true faith and attacking what he sees as heresy can only be biased; he has an agenda, something he is trying to sell. It can tell us a lot, but it cant claim to tell the truth.

And the origin of the English Kingdoms is worth discussing…where to begin though eh? It seems obvious to me that they seem to have largely evolved from their post-roman (british if you will) predecessors, hell, the names dont bother changing in some cases, and the king lists, if they can be relied on, tend to show a similar pattern. Which I would say supports Halsalls assertion that the British kindoms (or whatever you want to call the post-roman political groupings) became Saxon, rather than being carved out by the saxons from the bits the locals couldnt defend.

ok…im just rereading it to refresh my memory! He dismisses Y gododdin pretty early on, but Ive not come across any mentions of two other poems…

I cant think which ones youre reffering to though if you'd care to enlighten me?

@ Mike: see link (in the "pre-Galfridian traditions" section):

Several poems attributed to Taliesin, a poet said to have lived in the 6th century, also refer to Arthur, although these all probably date from between the 8th and 12th centuries.[43] They include "Kadeir Teyrnon" ("The Chair of the Prince"),[44] which refers to "Arthur the Blessed", "Preiddeu Annwn" ("The Spoils of Annwn"),[45] which recounts an expedition of Arthur to the Otherworld, and "Marwnat vthyr pen[dragon]" ("The Elegy of Uther Pen[dragon]"),[46] which refers to Arthur's valour and is suggestive of a father-son relationship for Arthur and Uther that pre-dates Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Regards

ah, those poems…not the most reliable of historical sources, what?

I mean if one of them is about a trip to the underworld (that obviously DIDNT HAPPEN) then why should attribute any value to the others (even assuming they havnt got obviously made up elements in as well? )

Im going to have to find some good translations of them first to be more specific. But I'd guess Halsall skips over it for the same reason he skips over most of the obviously legendary and mythical stuff.

Also, it could have been actually composed/written as much as 600 years after the event? Not exactly a primary source is is? I mean you wouldnt treat comments Medieval General Discussion board on TMP as first hand accounts of the Hundred Years War would you? So why should Halsall (or anyone else trying to find the needle of historical truth in the haystack of myth and psuedo-history) give them the time of day?

Not to say that they arent intereting/beautiful/entertaining etc in their own right of course…

I cannot see why not lets see what we have.

Linguists who know these things say Y Gododdin dated to no later than 605 and Marwnad Cynddylan dates from 655. The first two translations here are from Koch.

Y Gododdin says

"He used to draw black crows down in front of the wall of the Roman fortification but he was not Arthur"

In Marwnad Cynddylan another early poem warriors are described as

"Young whelps of great Arthur, the mighty citadel"

A later poem Marwnad Geraint contains an echo of Y Gododdin and the following stanza.
"In Llongborth I saw Arthur, and brave men who hewed with steel, Emperor and conductor of the toil.

Here we have someone called Arthur who bards and their warrior audiences and royal patrons considered an exemplary warrior.

The poems originate in different places southern Scotland, Wales and the West Country. Clearly Arthur enjoyed more than local fame he must have done something exceptional to achieve that status. At this time too, the name Arthur comes into use by royal families.

We might reasonably conclude that someone called Arthur had because of his martial virtues made a powerful impression on his society.

That later mystical legends accrued to his name need not concern us unless we want to condemn Alexander and Charlemagne to mythical status too.

Thanks for your response on the battlelist.

Unfortunatly with y Gododdin nobody to my knowledge has managed to demonstrate that the line about Arthur is part of the original, and could have been added in at any time in the following centuries.

"Marwnad Cynddylan" : 7th century says you, 9th century says wiki (yeah, I know!). Who could be right…Obviously there are competing claims which I will look into more when I get home later, but that would be sufficent to make it a "later mystical legend" ;) If theres a reason to doubt either date(s) then theres no reason to submit it as evidence.

Unfortunatly the opinion of Bards (a group of people paid to make things up to entertain) can not be relied upon as a historical source. By way of example another person paid to make stuff up for entertainment recently likened the scottish nationalists to Death Eaters. Whether or not you agree with Rowling is neither here nor there, the point is she was able to use a fictional character to emphasis her point.

Arthur could easily be nothing more than an ancient legendary hero, who can be used as measure for skill at arms, or ancient pedigree/royal lineage (note that old king lists tend to have a row of gods at the beginning for the same reason!) . He doesnt need to have existed for this to work, so long as the story was well known enough. And as he turns up a lot in stroies/poems from the period we can assume this at least is the case, but as he turns up in no other contemporary politically or militarily orientated document we have no reason to assume there was a real basis to the stories around at the time…

Unless of course Death Eaters really do exist….

What we really need is something that fixes arthur in time : as halsall points out, there may well have been a legendary arthur based on an ancient hero whose story was original in the oral tradition but managed to get an unpgrade to Paper V 01.00. But it doesnt tell us when the oral tradition started, not even a little bit.

Assuming the earliest possible dates for the creation of the above poems would still leave him a generation or two away from from the Era we supopse him to have existed (i.e around 500ad), but he could have easily been in the Oral tradition for thousands of years, maybe tens of thousands! The original basis for the story might not have fought Saxons or even Romans, but Neanderthals! You cant prove a specific Era for the existence of arthur at all from the poems, other than "some time before the 7-12 centuries AD there was this bloke…"

What we need is something more concrete, that can be checked and cross referenced. Mentions in king lists, or bills, or reciepts, tax documents or land charters etc. Hell, a letter from his pen-pal would do at a pinch !

Mike this is why we should heed the linguists who are able to date material because of shifts in language. From Jackson to Koch they take the view that the Arthur verse of YG is very early no later than 605. Likewise the dating of Marwnad Cynddylan is secure.

Obviously if you are dead set to discount anything that evidences a historical Arthur you have to find a way to ignore logical conclusion of that evidence. GH is unable to do this so instead waffles on about disputed dates and you the paying customer are quoting Wiki because his book has left you with nothing else.

Its a shame that Worlds of Arthur did not spend sometime explaining what bards actually did for a living and their role in Heroic Society. A missed opportunity but perhaps it is not something GH is not well aquainted with.

A bard was an inculcator and upholder of society's values, a spin doctor, a propogandist and to use an anology from modern politics head of communications, he was also a highly talented creative artist. The skills and knowledge required for the role were very exacting as were the rules governing bardic composition. Making "stuff up for entertainment" hardly covers the JD.

There is no good reason to think that the Arthur described in the poems is a legendary or mythical character and these let us remember are the earliest mentions of him. He does nothing supernatural he kills people and is associated with excellence in battle. Just the sort of lad who would get a mention as an exemplar in a marwnad.

There is actually lots more that can be said about these poems, indeed books have been written about them. To ignore there import in a book with Arthur in the title struck me as bizzare.

I'll try and respond on the battle list later.

Actually i mostly checked wiki because its one of the few websites i get access to at work (Wiki, TMP, the BBC, and Warlord Games are pretty much all I get!).

Im not dead set against a historical Arthur, but Im inclined to agree there isnt much for a solid foundation to build any "theory of arthur" on.

Mike this is why we should heed the linguists who are able to date material because of shifts in language. From Jackson to Koch they take the view that the Arthur verse of YG is very early no later than 605

alas, their opinion is not the only one: wiki lists 9 people with varying opinions ranging from late 6th century to 9th (and presumably this isnt comprehensive ) with no two agreeing a precise date and a bit of fairly wishy-washy fence sitting thrown in. The only bit that appears uncontested is that some bits were definatly added on later (though id happily bet they cant agree on which bits!).

A bard was an inculcator and upholder of society's values, a spin doctor, a propogandist and to use an anology from modern politics head of communications, he was also a highly talented creative artist. The skills and knowledge required for the role were very exacting as were the rules governing bardic composition. Making "stuff up for entertainment" hardly covers the JD.

So, er, spin doctors, propogandists and creative artists dont make things up? Whether for entertainment or otherwise? I dont think youve strengthened the position of the Bard as an accurate relator of actual historical events …

To dismiss Jackson and Koch one must be able to refute their reasoning and scholarship. I'm not aware anyone has.

To be effective propoganda has to based in actuality and has to ring true for the intended audience.

The bardic role required a good knowledge of current and past events. The creative part of their work was in the brilliant use of language.

If you think the bards made up Arthur then you need to say why they would. Why would that be effective for them? You would of course also have to understand by way of context what they did for a living.

As you can see there is a lot to be said on the issue of the poems worth a chapter at least in any Arthur book.

Here is an interesting comment by Judy Shoaf the academic who moderates the Arthurnet List. Judy I think is in the 'Arthur Maybe' camp and she wrote this after attending a pre publication lecture by Halsall to promote his book. I think its worth a read.

link

Just read it, it is quite interesting. But the book does deal with those complaints (not refutes, but at least addresses).

Regards

I don't think it does so effectively and that's why the book needed foot notes.

Take the 'inland' Saxons for example. This seems to be based on the work popularised by archeologist Stuart Laycock. But Laycock saw the belt fittings as evidence of militarised elements drawn from within the civates. Without notes we cannot tell why they should belong to previously unknown Saxons employed as security who we know are unattested in ND.

Halsall's theory only works if you ignore all the historical and linguistic evidence in favour of conjecture. That's not history its the very thing he rails aganst.

Halsall's theory only works if you ignore all the historical and linguistic evidence in favour of conjecture. That's not history its the very thing he rails against

Well, not exactly. The whole basis of his argument is that the written historical and linguistic basis for Arthur is a foundation of sand for building anything like an Arthurian legend on. Naturally if you don't accept his arguments then you won't dismiss the idea. So he isn't ignoring it: he is saying its evidential value is pretty much zero for Arthur-related stuff.

The 'conjecture' as far as I understand it is based on analogy to what was happening in the rest of NW Europe at the time, which is rather better sourced.

Regards

If he wishes to ignore it he has to reject it with scholarly analysis and that's what he fails to attempt with any rigour.

We have already established that this was not an academic book no peer review, no footnotes. What's left is a conjecture that requires dismissing Gildas, Bede, the poems, HB and the ASC. All of these contain interesting bits of information that can be tested. To be honest I'm left wondering just what he thought he was doing.

If we want to apply an analogy with continental europe then we would be in safer hands with Heather. Certainly the few pages he has devoted to the fate of Britannia provide a coherent schema that does no violence to what little we do know and requires no making stuff up.

I should say that on matter continental Halsall has not fared well in comparison Heather's work.

I'm also quite convinced that 'Arthur' didn't make a trip to the 'underworld' as Mike Target says, and I'm equally convinced Mohammed didn't ride on a female tiger to the exact same place.
Oddly enough no one doubts the physical existence of the prophet.

We have already established that this was not an academic book no peer review, no footnotes. What's left is a conjecture that requires dismissing Gildas, Bede, the poems, HB and the ASC. All of these contain interesting bits of information that can be tested. To be honest I'm left wondering just what he thought he was doing.

Well, not really. There is a whole bibliographic chapter that covers the stuff that is foot-noted in other books. The conjecture is a separate chapter, highlighted as such; his dissection of the value or otherwise of those sources is done entirely separately.

Regards

To the German family that sits on the throne of Britain there can be no Arthur. To control a people you need to destroy their history, their language, and their culture. This debate tells us more about the 'today' then Arthur's period, history serves today's rulers, kneel down.

To the German family that sits on the throne of Britain there can be no Arthur. (Etc.)

What malarkey. Not only is "Arthur" one of the names given to at least one prince, the reality of "King" Arthur is a scholarly debate only. Indeed, the idea that he might have been a real person wasn't really part of the public imagination from the time of the Stuarts. In fact, today the public is more likely than ever before to believe that Arthur was a historical personage ( thanks to TV shows, movies, and assorted novels). If anyone is in some grand conspiracy to convince the public otherwise, they're incompetent at their job. As for belief in a historical Arthur being some sort of threat to the current royal family, who are little more than professional celebrities in terms of actual power, well all I can say is, thanks for the laugh!

Apologies if this borders on the necromantic now, but the TMR review of this was posted today:

link