"Can the Real King Arthur Be Identified as ..." Topic

…Athrwys of Gwent?

"The search for the real King Arthur has occupied the pages of countless books. Often, this investigation is focused on any hidden traces of Arthur's existence. A method used by some other researchers, however, is to try to identify the legendary figure of Arthur with a known historical person. Athrwys of Gwent, the son of King Meurig, is one such historical person. In the late eighteenth through to the early twentieth century, he was an extremely popular candidate for the real King Arthur. Is this old theory worth another look?

Athrwys of Gwent was the son of a king named Meurig. This dynasty ruled over much of southeast Wales. Although the borders were not always consistent it generally included the historic regions of Glamorgan and Gwent…"

More here

link

Armand

Simple answer – no.

There are several credible theories for a "real" Arthur.

If you aren't a fervant supporter of any one theory then the most likely answer is that most of them are, to some extent, true. Which suggests that Arthur is more of a composite figure.

But, then again perhaps one of the theories is actually the correct identification. But there's a lack of truly convincing evidence – so we may know the correct answer but never be able to prove it.

The Arthur we know, anachronistic armour, knights, Grail etc is a relatively modern construct by Thomas Mallory in Morte d'Arthur in I think the 15th century [?], when a myth was being created and a faint echo of a dark age Celtic hero was being recreated as an English hero.There was a lot of mileage in setting up an English paragon of chivalry when the reality of late 15th century life wasnt nice
Reinforced since by every book featuring King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and of course Disney.
And last but by no means least, the excellent Merlin TV series.

Anything from the dark ages is, well, just dark. But it doesn't stop entertaining speculation and no one can be told they are definitely wrong!

It looks like all the writer is saying is that Athrwys of Gwent is a possible contender for the position, not necessarily the definite King Arthur. I am so tired of historians overstating their claims as to the importance of whatever they are writing about. Well, yeah, OK, perhaps he is one of a number of possibilities. One more chap to add to the list to sort through.

I agree with 20thMaine that we don't know for sure, and probably never will.

For wargaming purposes, if you like the Athrwys character, this could be the basis for a campaign or at least a couple games! The article lists some areas where he ruled, which could be the location of your campaign. You get some ideas of the time frame, so you can figure out who a few of his friends and enemies might be. Shucks, if I lived in Glamorgan or Gwent, I'd go for it; nobody ever suggests a Colorado King Arthur for a local campaign for me.

Grelber
Who ordered a book on the Celtic kingdom of Strathclyde that was supposed to arrive today, but just now I learned that it may not come for 2-3 weeks.

There's fame and fortune in overstating your claims. Phrasing them as a question gives you deniability while still getting the clicks and attention. Ignoring headlines framed as questions saves you a lot of time each day.

New theories are cheap. New *evidence* would be exciting. That happens every few years, but generally raises more questions…

Not Arfur – but his Manor:

Wiki – Slack/Outlane Roman Fort (M62)

I can see Pole Moor's communications towers from my house – so it has to be his gaff.

Truly I can gaze upon Camelot

Thanks

Armand

MY King Arthur is Richard Burton.
Guinevere is Julie Andrews.
And Lancelot is Robert Goulet.