The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Yaakov ben Avraham on September 19, 2014, 01:31:50 AM
-
Hello, all. I wasn't sure where to put this, so I decided to put it here. If the Censors believe it belongs somewhere else, then I shall not be offended. We have talked about Arthur the King in the Exodus thread (on the other Flat Earth site). I have been doing some research on him, actually, beyond Geoffrey of Monmouth, Thomas Malory, and Alfred Lord Tennyson.
It seems that tracking down the Arthur of history, if indeed there was such a man, is not going to be easy. He seems to be a pretty towering figure to have been completely invented out of nothing. But, that is not the point. The point is to do the research and find this man, if any such exists. We know what the legends tell us. Is there any truth to them at all?
Of course, Malory is giving us the Code of Chivalry that was dying as he wrote, the Code that existed in the mind of Plantagenet England, and was so rarely followed in practice either in England, or for that matter, anywhere else.
Of course, for the Code to even exist was something. At least Europeans had something they could aspire to. But back in the day, the Romano-Celtic civilisation (otherwise known as "British") fought the Saxons pretty damn brutally. It was a pretty uncivilised time, and I think maybe the people that wrote about it later wanted to recreate their homeland's history so it would be less brutal than it actually was.
But back to Arthur. Did he actually exist? I'm reading a book right now, "The Mammoth Book of King Arthur", that is a scholarly attempt to get to the bottom of whether he did or didn't. There are more books that I am going to buy as well after I've finished this one, which has 700 pages in it. So, I am curious, especially for those of you who live in the UK, what do you think of the national hero? Did he actually exist? Or is he a fiction? And don't just say something stupid like, "yes he did" or "no he didn't". I want to hear what your reasons are for saying either.
-
Yes he did.
-
You're on a roll.
-
RAMA SET! YOU SHOULD BE HUNG! No seriously, tell me, what leads you to believe this?
-
RAMA SET! YOU SHOULD BE HUNG! No seriously, tell me, what leads you to believe this?
He's just as mystical as your Jew God. What makes you believe in that over King Arthur? That's your answer.
I believe the legendary bard George Michael wrote a song about it.
-
RAMA SET! YOU SHOULD BE HUNG! No seriously, tell me, what leads you to believe this?
to be completely serious, I have no idea if King Arthur actually existed, and am almost completely ignorant on the topic.
-
Actually, I tend to believe that there was an Arthur, probably a Celtic military leader of some sort who was able to fight off the Saxons at Badon, a battle we know almost nothing about, but which was recorded in several accounts of the time period and after( The Ecclesiastical History of the English People, The Ruin of Britain, The History of the Britons, The Annals of Wales and The History of the Kings of Britain). I know, of course, that he was NOT the great King that Malory describes. That King is the product of Platagenet England, and the blend of Anglo-Norman Kingship that came about as a result of the the invasion of William the Conqueror in 1066, and the blending of THOSE two civilisations, rather than the blending of the Romano-Celts and the Anglo-Saxons. The Celts, by 1066, had been pushed into Wales, and Southern Scotland.
But I wanted other opinions. I still have research to do to FIND the King or military leader that I think may have lived in the Fifth or Sixth Centuries. That is why I am asking you all. What do you think?
Well, that's a fair answer, RAMA SET. Thank you.
-
No he didn't.
-
OK VINDICTUS, why not?
-
No major historical evidence.
-
But doesn't that get us back to the question of "YET?"
-
But doesn't that get us back to the question of "YET?"
Nope.
-
Why not? The text I am reading seems to bear out at least the possibility for an Arthur. It seems a bit odd that this many people would write about the same guy if he was a complete fiction.
-
Why not? The text I am reading seems to bear out at least the possibility for an Arthur. It seems a bit odd that this many people would write about the same guy if he was a complete fiction.
obvious Yahweh joke
-
Let's keep the religious aspects out of this, shall we? I am not here to discuss Judaism, or the existence of God, or what have you. Lets keep this to King Arthur, and further, lets keep it friendly.
-
But then again, no.
-
By that logic, Batman is real.
-
Let's keep the religious aspects out of this, shall we? I am not here to discuss Judaism, or the existence of God, or what have you. Lets keep this to King Arthur, and further, lets keep it friendly.
Why not? The parallels are staggering.
-
I would say that the parallels are closer to asking if Jesus ever existed. The existence of a Supreme Being versus whether a human being ever existed are not particularly staggering. You can never prove historically that God exists or doesn't. But you can prove at some point whether Jesus, or maybe Moses, or Arthur did.
Granted, I think you'll have better luck with Arthur, because he lived 450 years later than Jesus. Then again, Britain was a cluster-f--k when he was around, so no real records were kept per se, so maybe that luck might not be there, but still.
-
You can never prove historically that God exists or doesn't.
Yes, you can. Watch.
For every probability that god G exists, there exists an equal probability the inverse god G' exists. Everything that G does, G' undoes it. Therefore we can sum their impact on the universe. Thus 1 + (-1) = 0 and that is the sum total of their impact on the universe. Because G is put forth with no evidence G' can also be put forth. The only way to avoid this would being proving the existence of G, which is impossible. And no, a book doesn't count as proof any more than The Once and Future King is proof that King Arthur exists.
-
That makes no sense. The fact is, there can be NO historical evidence that proves that God exists. Even assuming you found the Ten Commandments that God wrote with his own finger, someone could always say that Moses carved it himself. The only way to prove God's existence would be if he chose to make himself known to humans, and so far, he hasn't at least since the end of the Book of Malachi.
Arthur, on the other hand, if he existed, probably left some proof that he did exist behind him in the form of artifacts or something that indicated he lived. You know, sort of like, Kilroy was here. And Kings or military leaders usually are eventually found. Gods, not so much. I mean, I'm a strong believer, but I'm not so egotistical as to think that God plans his day around proving to me that he exists.
-
God left proof that he existed in the form of life and the Ten Commandments.
Damn Jaakov, I thought you were a real Jew.
-
VAUX, I never disputed that. But I am talking about historical evidence that a historian could accept. A man of Faith like me might accept what you just said, but a historian, speaking objectively, wouldn't. And a scientist CERTAINLY wouldn't. A philosopher would. The best argument for God's existence is the Ontological Argument.
But, can you prove to me, objectively speaking, that God has left proof in the historical record of his existence? I mean, sure, I believe that God has intervened in history on behalf of the Jews on a regular basis. I mean, seriously, we are his Chosen People. But how do you prove that to someone who is not a Jew? What rock do you point to, or painting do you show him, that he will see and go, "Oh, yeah, that is evidence that God is on your side!"
Sure, Israel is filled with rocks that prove a lot of things archaeologically. Eventually, I think the Temple of Solomon will be found, and the Ark of the Covenant, and God knows what else. But none of that will matter if God has truly decided to let us work out our salvation in fear and trembling. If he chooses to no longer intervene in Jewish history, then we can no longer prove that we are his Chosen People, although we are free to believe it.
I believe that even as late as the 1940s, God was intervening in Jewish history with the creation of the State of Israel as Jews rose up phoenix-like from the ashes of the Holocaust. But I can't really prove that to a non-Jew.
So, you tell me: How am I to historically prove the existence of God? I can prove him through philosophical arguments, but historically? That is debatable.
-
Find a magical religious item that cannot be explained despite analysis. Boom, evidence for God.
-
OK, Vindictus. Like I said, you might find the Ark of the Covenant. But if God has truly decided to let man attend to his own salvation in fear and trembling, and not talk to us directly, in any manner other than prayer, then what? The Ark then becomes an interesting artifact, but no more than that. And it certainly does not prove or disprove whether it was the seat of God's Presence back in the day.
If God doesn't show up on the Mercy Seat today, the answer of religious men today will be simple: After Malachi, the Prophecy departed from Israel. So why would he show up? In their mind, that doesn't mean he didn't back in the day. You see the problem?
With Arthur, the matter is different. If he existed, he was a flesh and blood man. One presumes that some proof of his existence is out there, somewhere. It is simply a matter of finding it.
-
Then God is dead. Problem solved.
If there is an absence of evidence, then you remain apathetic in regard to his existence. You don't say "Oh, I know he exists, it's just a matter of finding evidence!"
-
Well, and this is the last thing I shall say on the matter of God's existence, one does say, "Oh, I know he exists!" Its just that one doesn't look for proof of that in the historic record. One tries to prove it instead in philosophy, theology, or maybe even science. But, back to Arthur. Is anyone familiar with the current state of Arthurian studies? I am not. Does anyone have knowledge of where that field is at present time?
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gyop7/how_much_of_the_legend_of_king_arthur_is_real/
There you go.
-
Well, that doesn't say much. At least nothing I haven't already read. I need more detail than that. Making claims like that doesn't tell us much. It just says that two traditions were blended to make one, and that there probably was some military leader that led the British against the Saxons. This is already acknowledged. Calling Arthur a King would be a bit much, since the British really didn't have Kings per se, but rather, Chieftains, if you will. Arthur, if he existed at all, would have been one of these, or even a military leader employed by one. The whole "Kingification", to coin a word, of Arthur came about because by the 12th Century, there certainly were Kings of England, and Geoffrey of Monmouth modeled his Arthur after the Kingship he knew (and Thomas Malory DEFINITELY did this).
-
Most historians recognise that there wasn't a King Arthur, and that the myth is pure fiction. There's heaps of easily googled resources (including plenty in that thread) addressing the evidence behind a real Arthur.
Given that we don't have any historians with expertise in this field, I'm not sure what else there is to say on the topic.
-
QUOTE FROM 'Chamber's Dictionary of the Unexplained"
"King Arthur
Semi-legendary 6th-century king of the Britons.
Enduring legends have ensured a place in British tradition for King Arthur, but was there ever such a person in reality, and how much of the legend is true?
If a historical Arthur existed, he was probably a war leader (not necessarily a king) of the British people who, both Romanized and Christian, resisted the encroachments of the pagan Saxons in the 6th century. He is supposed to have won a great victory at Mount Badon (c.518), to have met his death in a further battle at Camlan (c.539) and to have been buried at Glastonbury. In fact the sites of these battles have not been comprehensively identified and there is no firm evidence to connect Arthur with Glastonbury.
As far as historical chronicles are concerned, the first appearance of Arthur is in the Historia Britonum ascribed to the Welsh writer Nennius (fl.769). It might have been expected that he would merit a mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, which are usually dated to the reign of Alfred the Great (849–99), but no such personage is included.
It has been suggested that Arthur is based on a legendary Celtic hero, as shown by the widespread occurrence of traditional tales about him throughout the former Celtic strongholds, from Cornwall to Scotland and from Wales to Brittany.
Whether or not a real Arthur existed, it is the legend that has become more important, especially as it was elaborated at the hands of writers such as Geoffrey of Monmouth (c.1100–c.1154) and Sir Thomas Malory (d.1471). It is to these later authors that we owe the tradition of his being the son of a high king of Britain, Uther Pendragon, as well as the famous tales of Camelot, the Knights of the Round Table and their quest for the holy grail, the magical sword Excalibur, Lancelot and Guinevere, and merlin. The post-medieval themes of chivalry and the purity of the knight would certainly not have made much sense to a war leader fighting for the survival of his people against the Saxons.
According to the stories, after a glorious career of winning battles and righting wrongs, Arthur was mortally wounded at the battle of Camlan by his nephew Mordred. From there he was carried to Avalon, whence in his people’s hour of greatest need he will return to save them. Support for this notion is lent by the alleged inscription on his grave: Hic iacet artorius rex quondam rexque futurus (‘Here lies Arthur, the once and future king’). However, the magnitude of the disaster awaiting the British people that would be severe enough to summon Arthur from his rest must be cataclysmic indeed, given that World War II was not enough to inspire his reappearance.
It is essentially impossible to say for sure whether or not there was a historical Arthur. The chronicles on which we depend for evidence were known to ‘print the legend’ as well as recount fact. Perhaps Arthur is really a composite figure made up of attributes of several real or legendary heroes and the battles and sites associated with his name belong to more than one individual."
King arthur. (2007). In Una McGovern (Ed.), Chambers dictionary of the unexplained. Retrieved from https://briarcliff.idm.oclc.org/login?qurl=http://search.credoreference.com.briarcliff.idm.oclc.org/content/entry/chambun/king_arthur/0
-
Watery tarts distributing swords is no basis for government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
-
Watery tarts distributing swords is no basis for government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
GhostSpaghetti is Vongeo's alt.