Just Another Casus Belli Rant

[wobbit]

If I understood well what Wobbit said, and certainly an alternative that crossed my mind, is that an equally unprovable theory was that Geoffrey had a copy of the History of the Lombard in his bedroom and used it as a source when he was looking for a bunch of names for his fiction. This of course does not make Authari any more Arthur than any of the previous stuff on this thread, but at least it's not nearly as contrived.

This is exactly it. If you can make a reasonable case that Geoffrey had access to the Historia Langobardorum and a reasonable case that there were signifcant similarities between the stories then you can make the case that Geoffrey appropriated parts of the Historia Langobardorum for elements of his story about Arthur. This would be an interesting and academically worthwhile argument. However, sweeping statements like "Arthur was Authari" or even "Geoffrey stole the story of Arthur from Paul the Deacon's account of Authari" are much less valid. Geoffrey may have used elements of Paul's work for parts of his account but he demonstrably used a lot of other stories to flesh out his description of Arthur and this period of British history. The difference between this argument and the broader "Arthur was Authari" is the difference between academic research and Dan Brown.

As others have indicated, thinking about Arthur as a real person isn't very useful. Arthur is an amalgam of a lot of different stories. Some of them were based on the lives of various Celtic Kings. It looks like some of them came from Anglo-Saxon Kings. Others came from classical and biblical litterature and others, as would be the case with the Authari / Arthur, came from stories about medieval kings. Others would have been passed down through oral traditions with all the local variation that implies. Others were made up. If there was a Celtic (or Anglo-Saxon or Lombard or whatever) king called Arthur, then he bears very little resemblance to any of the various stories about him.

 

[Lord Celestine]

This is exactly it. If you can make a reasonable case that Geoffrey had access to the Historia Langobardorum and a reasonable case that there were signifcant similarities between the stories then you can make the case that Geoffrey appropriated parts of the Historia Langobardorum for elements of his story about Arthur. This would be an interesting and academically worthwhile argument. However, sweeping statements like "Arthur was Authari" or even "Geoffrey stole the story of Arthur from Paul the Deacon's account of Authari" are much less valid. Geoffrey may have used elements of Paul's work for parts of his account but he demonstrably used a lot of other stories to flesh out his description of Arthur and this period of British history. The difference between this argument and the broader "Arthur was Authari" is the difference between academic research and Dan Brown.

As others have indicated, thinking about Arthur as a real person isn't very useful. Arthur is an amalgam of a lot of different stories. Some of them were based on the lives of various Celtic Kings. It looks like some of them came from Anglo-Saxon Kings. Others came from classical and biblical litterature and others, as would be the case with the Authari / Arthur, came from stories about medieval kings. Others would have been passed down through oral traditions with all the local variation that implies. Others were made up. If there was a Celtic (or Anglo-Saxon or Lombard or whatever) king called Arthur, then he bears very little resemblance to any of the various stories about him.

If a myth is based on a real person, then the reality of it is is that person is the foundation of the myth and in essence is the myth, although the myth remains false the person remains true. When I say things like Arthur was Authari I do not mean that Authari was in Britain rampaging against a bunch of Saxons some of which may have even served as allies to Alboin. I mean that the legend of Arthur was inspired by Authari, or confused with Authari.

Your failure to conclude my meaning is not my fault. For all of it I fully admit Geoffrey pulled most things out of the deepest and darkest parts of his body. But what became of it was nothing less than a variation of the history of Authari, Agilulf, Alboin, and Cleph and Adaloald... and Rosamund, and Helmichis, and Theodelinda.

 

[Alfy]

If a myth is based on a real person, then the reality of it is is that person is the foundation of the myth and in essence is the myth, although the myth remains false the person remains true. When I say things like Arthur was Authari I do not mean that Authari was in Britain rampaging against a bunch of Saxons some of which may have even served as allies to Alboin. I mean that the legend of Arthur was inspired by Authari, or confused with Authari.

Your failure to conclude my meaning is not my fault. For all of it I fully admit Geoffrey pulled most things out of the deepest and darkest parts of his body. But what became of it was nothing less than a variation of the history of Authari, Agilulf, Alboin, and Cleph and Adaloald... and Rosamund, and Helmichis, and Theodelinda.

You keep accusing other people to fail to see your meaning and never seem to be able to understand anyone around here...

Geoffrey does not invent Arthur, he actually adds to the legend quite late, at a time where several key points (real or not being in dispute) are already established through several texts with clear references. As a result, any borrowings Geoffrey might have made from the Historia Langobardorum would at best be partial to the personnage as a whole. One would have to demonstrate that earlier Welsh poetry references were themselves based on similarly earlier references to Authari to demonstrate that "Arthur is Authari" in the meaning you describe (and which we all understand, despite your misgivings), something that at this point is not on the table.

So no, you cannot argue that Arthur the legendary character is based on Authari the real personnage based on the similarities you believe you detect between Geoffrey's one version and Authari's one account (which by the way does not even fit with other accounts where he's not even called Authari...). At best, some elements added at a late date by one Welsh cleric were based on his reading of one book that described the life of that king: that possibility is not disputable, but still you have not proven it as an evidence.

And while this does not necessarily make the exercice entirely moot, it certainly changes the scope of your claims.

 

[Lord Celestine]

You keep accusing other people to fail to see your meaning and never seem to be able to understand anyone around here...

Geoffrey does not invent Arthur, he actually adds to the legend quite late, at a time where several key points (real or not being in dispute) are already established through several texts with clear references. As a result, any borrowings Geoffrey might have made from the Historia Langobardorum would at best be partial to the personnage as a whole. One would have to demonstrate that earlier Welsh poetry references were themselves based on similarly earlier references to Authari to demonstrate that "Arthur is Authari" in the meaning you describe (and which we all understand, despite your misgivings), something that at this point is not on the table.

So no, you cannot argue that Arthur the legendary character is based on Authari the real personnage based on the similarities you believe you detect between Geoffrey's one version and Authari's one account (which by the way does not even fit with other accounts where he's not even called Authari...). At best, some elements added at a late date by one Welsh cleric were based on his reading of one book that described the life of that king: that possibility is not disputable, but still you have not proven it as an evidence.

And while this does not necessarily make the exercice entirely moot, it certainly changes the scope of your claims.

And the Saxons were singing songs of Alboin,
oh the Saxons were singing tales of him in Albion!
And so there is a clear way now we see
That Arthur could have come from Authari

On a serious note, Paul the Deacon does write that the Saxons were singing tales of the great deeds of Alboin, they were kind of buddies. Not just limited to the Saxons though but also those who 'spoke their language' but he very specifically mentions the Saxons. So you see, there is a very real possibility, one that I've given some thought to, that the legend of Authari was usurped by the British long before Geoffrey came bumbling about. This is why in my other post with the other poem I wrote 'Britons' and not just 'Geoffrey'

The real question you have to ask yourself now, is what happens to a legend when it travels by word of mouth? WORD OF GEOFFRY MONMOUTH! HAHAHAAHAHA I made a funny.

 

[Alfy]

And the Saxons were singing songs of Alboin,
oh the Saxons were singing tales of him in Albion!
And so there is a clear way now we see
That Arthur could have come from Authari

Yeah... Alboin was a Germanic leader, and Albion is a place. And the Saxons singing Alboin's deeds were German Saxons who had hoped he would create a new Germanic realm, not Anglo Saxons who by then had already moved to "Albion" a century before...

As for the case of the story of one king being usurped by another nation, why not. Although adoption is usually more common (see Charlemagne).

But how and why:
- a 6th century Lombard king would somehow get adopted by Saxons of faraway tribes he had no interaction with, and I guess made local (Anglo Saxon? Anglo Lombard??),
- only then to be adopted by the ennemies of those Saxon tribes and then turned into a Christian ideal that was specifically said to have fought against said Saxons,
- all in the matter of less than a century (going by earliest Arthur references in Welsh) and with no records of this ever happening...
- and of course while there's plenty of local hero that would be much more practical to elevate into a myth if required?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

But it is quite clear from reading your prose on other forums that this is your life's work, that you have never listened to anyone showing the holes in your reasoning, and you systematically fail to strengthen your argument when challenged. Indeed, the only conclusion you ever made when failing to convince people 6 months ago was to complain about people not welcoming you as their personal saviour. I quote you:

"Honestly no one has had a reaction that I thought they would, I thought everyone would be overjoyed that Arthur was finally found, instead they're treating this with the utmost contempt. It's really sad actually. I can only conclude that this is because there is the safety net of the internet for them to launch their argument from an emotional tyrade, because all the people I've talked to in person have had a much more positive reaction.

Further study should really be done to assess how the internet effects our emotional status and social interactions."

At this point, it is clear arguing with you is pointless and honestly, your posts are not nearly as funny as they were a couple of days back.

 

[Lord Celestine]

Yeah... Alboin was a Germanic leader, and Albion is a place. And the Saxons singing Alboin's deeds were German Saxons who had hoped he would create a new Germanic realm, not Anglo Saxons who by then had already moved to "Albion" a century before...

As for the case of the story of one king being usurped by another nation, why not. Although adoption is usually more common (see Charlemagne).

But how and why:
- a 6th century Lombard king would somehow get adopted by Saxons of faraway tribes he had no interaction with, and I guess made local (Anglo Saxon? Anglo Lombard??),
- only then to be adopted by the ennemies of those Saxon tribes and then turned into a Christian ideal that was specifically said to have fought against said Saxons,
- all in the matter of less than a century (going by earliest Arthur references in Welsh) and with no records of this ever happening...
- and of course while there's plenty of local hero that would be much more practical to elevate into a myth if required?

It makes no sense whatsoever.

But it is quite clear from reading your prose on other forums that this is your life's work, that you have never listened to anyone showing the holes in your reasoning, and you systematically fail to strengthen your argument when challenged. Indeed, the only conclusion you ever made when failing to convince people 6 months ago was to complain about people not welcoming you as their personal saviour. I quote you:

"Honestly no one has had a reaction that I thought they would, I thought everyone would be overjoyed that Arthur was finally found, instead they're treating this with the utmost contempt. It's really sad actually. I can only conclude that this is because there is the safety net of the internet for them to launch their argument from an emotional tyrade, because all the people I've talked to in person have had a much more positive reaction.

Further study should really be done to assess how the internet effects our emotional status and social interactions."

At this point, it is clear arguing with you is pointless and honestly, your posts are not nearly as funny as they were a couple of days back.

I am steadfast in my beliefs good sir.

Secondly, people act way differently on the internet than they do in real life, this is a fact and it's where the 'internet tough guy' meme comes from. What is most surprising is that you've actually gone to the old thread to research into this, in which I give you kudos for doing that. You see the thing is, you think I'm arguing, you know there's a meme for arguing with others on the internet? Arguing I am not, I am having a conversation.

There is a long and arduous journey that a legend has to take to get from one country to another hundred of miles away.

I've already stated how it might be done multiple times, confusion of names. Alboin and Albion Shall we play the telephone game? When things travel by word of mouth as they so often did back in the day, they have a tremendous tendency to get garbled up. The Odyssey and the Iliad were passed on for centuries before anyone got the mind to write it down. Also I would just like to talk to you about those welsh poems and other 'early sources' how do you know that they're even talking about the Arthur of legend? If I recall correctly though (I do not rightly remember) I do not think any of the 'early' sources actually state if he's British or even if he is a king. So what we would then have is a legend in place about a king and people searching back in history for ANYONE with that name regardless of if he was the one in the legend or not, and under the assumption that he originated in their country.

As I recall there used to be a lot of controversy back in the day to Arthur's country of origin...

 

[wobbit]

One last try, because you may actually be on to something and if you can do the work to explain it, this would be interesting and worthwhile.

the legend of Arthur was inspired by Authari, or confused with Authari.

There we go. This really isn't greatly different from what Alfy and I have been saying: Geoffrey's version of the legend of Arthur may have been inspired in part by Authari.

There are some gaping holes in your argument which you must investigate further if you want it to be taken seriously by the academic community. For example:
You've cherry picked narrative from not just the Historia Regum Britaniae but also Geoffrey's other works Vita Merlini and Prophetiae Merlini. All in all, very little of his account of Arthur has any connection with Authari whatsoever.
Albion / Alba appears in texts more than a thousand years before Alboin. Also, I'm far from convinced of the potential etymological transition from Alboin to Albion. The way these words are pronounced in Latin makes this a great leap.
Morganna in Geoffrey's account is not a villain. She nurses Arthur back to health. It's only in later accounts that she takes on evil aspects.

HOWEVER, it wouldn't be that unusual for Geoffrey to repurpose some narrative from Paul the Deacon. Medieval author's did this all the time, even with works dealing with vastly different periods and people. This was done largely to show off the author's knowledge of the literary corpus. Well educated readers would pick up on this and feel smug - much like with shout outs in modern films/TV/games. There's no reason why Geoffrey wouldn't pull some set pieces out of Paul's work for this purpose.

You might be able to push this earlier and argue that Paul also influenced earlier authors in Britain, but that's going to be an even bigger and more tenuous task.

This is not the same as saying that Geoffrey's account of Arthur was based primarily on the life of Authari. You've got a name that looks similar and may be related and a handful of pretty tenuous links between the two narratives. At the very most, you could possibly claim that Geoffrey's Arthur was an adaption in name only of Paul's Authari.

 

[Lord Celestine]

One last try, because you may actually be on to something and if you can do the work to explain it, this would be interesting and worthwhile.


There we go. This really isn't greatly different from what Alfy and I have been saying: Geoffrey's version of the legend of Arthur may have been inspired in part by Authari.

There are some gaping holes in your argument which you must investigate further if you want it to be taken seriously by the academic community. For example:
You've cherry picked narrative from not just the Historia Regum Britaniae but also Geoffrey's other works Vita Merlini and Prophetiae Merlini. All in all, very little of his account of Arthur has any connection with Authari whatsoever.
Albion / Alba appears in texts more than a thousand years before Alboin. Also, I'm far from convinced of the potential etymological transition from Alboin to Albion. The way these words are pronounced in Latin makes this a great leap.
Morganna in Geoffrey's account is not a villain. She nurses Arthur back to health. It's only in later accounts that she takes on evil aspects.

HOWEVER, it wouldn't be that unusual for Geoffrey to repurpose some narrative from Paul the Deacon. Medieval author's did this all the time, even with works dealing with vastly different periods and people. This was done largely to show off the author's knowledge of the literary corpus. Well educated readers would pick up on this and feel smug - much like with shout outs in modern films/TV/games. There's no reason why Geoffrey wouldn't pull some set pieces out of Paul's work for this purpose.

You might be able to push this earlier and argue that Paul also influenced earlier authors in Britain, but that's going to be an even bigger and more tenuous task.

This is not the same as saying that Geoffrey's account of Arthur was based primarily on the life of Authari. You've got a name that looks similar and may be related and a handful of pretty tenuous links between the two narratives. At the very most, you could possibly claim that Geoffrey's Arthur was an adaption in name only of Paul's Authari.

I've never read Vita Merlini or Prophetiae Merlini.

Secondly this is not the academic community, this is a forum for a video game that I take pleasure in playing. My main objective in this thread is not to convince you that Arthur comes from Authari, but rather that is just where the conversation has led us, and where we have stayed for some time due to yours and others interests.

I also think that we can safely assume that Geoffrey's work for the most part is almost entirely fictional.

 

[Iron Chariots]

he was campaigning out in the eastern empire when he died of either food poisoning or the Antonine Plague

Personally, I think he was surely poisoned by Livia.

 

[Kenny Kangaroo]

Isn't Albion like older than the Lombards? Like a lot older? iirc the name predates Roman Britain. And doesn't Arthur come from the Welsh word for bear? Personally, a part of me believes the modern story is Norman propaganda. Arthur/William kick Saxon butt. Arthur was King of Roman Britain, and the Norman's are his successor, therefore solidifieing their claim of Wales and providing groundwork for eventual conquest of the rest of the island. It's been forever since I've done anything with King Arthur, but I think Geoffry introduces Lancelot, a very French/Norman name, who's the greatest knight of them all. I also want to say Geoffry was in prison when he wrote the story (again it's been a while, so correct me when I'm wrong) and writing it could have made him buddy buddy with the king.

 

[CaptainPolyp]

Isn't Albion like older than the Lombards? Like a lot older? iirc the name predates Roman Britain. And doesn't Arthur come from the Welsh word for bear? Personally, a part of me believes the modern story is Norman propaganda. Arthur/William kick Saxon butt. Arthur was King of Roman Britain, and the Norman's are his successor, therefore solidifieing their claim of Wales and providing groundwork for eventual conquest of the rest of the island. It's been forever since I've done anything with King Arthur, but I think Geoffry introduces Lancelot, a very French/Norman name, who's the greatest knight of them all. I also want to say Geoffry was in prison when he wrote the story (again it's been a while, so correct me when I'm wrong) and writing it could have made him buddy buddy with the king.

Wow, congratulations sir!!!
You succesfully manage to find the connection between Italian King Arthur and the long gone original topic of the thread. Biggest achievement of the day and so far, biggest achievement in this thread. Applause

 

[Kenny Kangaroo]

Wow, congratulations sir!!!
You succesfully manage to find the connection between Italian King Arthur and the long gone original topic of the thread. Biggest achievement of the day and so far, biggest achievement in this thread. Applause

This whole thread is just insane. While I can understand the modern King Arthur possibly being influenced (the key word here) by a lombard king, there's no way in hell they're the same person. The general consensus (and the one I believe) is that Arthur was a Romano-British Warlod whole ruled after the Roman withdrawl. The whole names being similar is silly to me. The latin word for cake is Placenta, and french for bread is pain. Nobody claims Iran is full of runners.

 

[edza101]

This is what happens when conspiracy theorists, primary school history text books and the internet collide.

And by 'this' I mean, asian elves.

 

[Robert II]

Why is this thread still going? Ah fuck I'm helping it but still why?

 

[Quaade]

Why is this thread still going? Ah fuck I'm helping it but still why?

Might be due to asian-elves, avarian Arthur who sacked Rome... Might be due to enjoying torturing a troll or simply to get their laugh going as people start their day

 

[Graphic]

NO ONE CARED back then what right you had to the land and still the same goes for today!

This is so false it's ridiculous. Even the Islamic State has claims they say entitle them to rule the middle east and then the entire planet. Hitler had claims he used to justify invading Poland and annexing several countries. GW Bush spent months trying to justify Iraq using WMDs as the CB. Napoleon invaded Russia on the basis of them violating a treaty by trading with Britain in secret.

Of course in all of those cases and probably in most cases throughout history, a leader wants a war and then finds claims/justifications to get it and not the other way around, but that's beside the point. That's why CK2 has "fabricate claims".

Very very rarely in history has it ever been "I'm STRONG so I'll CONQUER THE WORLD BECAUSE I WANT LAND MUAHAHA." Maybe Genghis Khan? How many more others? The cases are very few. And even then CK2 still includes that with the subjugation CB when the time/place/culture/religion make it appropriate.

So I really have no idea what you're basing your complaints on other than just wanting the game to be more like Total War.

 

[Alfy]

This is so false it's ridiculous. Even the Islamic State has claims they say entitle them to rule the middle east and then the entire planet. Hitler had claims he used to justify invading Poland and annexing several countries. GW Bush spent months trying to justify Iraq using WMDs as the CB. Napoleon invaded Russia on the basis of them violating a treaty by trading with Britain in secret.

Of course in all of those cases and probably in most cases throughout history, a leader wants a war and then finds claims/justifications to get it and not the other way around, but that's beside the point. That's why CK2 has "fabricate claims".

Very very rarely in history has it ever been "I'm STRONG so I'll CONQUER THE WORLD BECAUSE I WANT LAND MUAHAHA." Maybe Genghis Khan? How many more others? The cases are very few. And even then CK2 still includes that with the subjugation CB when the time/place/culture/religion make it appropriate.

So I really have no idea what you're basing your complaints on other than just wanting the game to be more like Total War.

Awww, not again. I mean, yeah, you're right, but this thread really needs to die now.

 

[jusuu]

Isn't King Arthur supposed to be a legendary figure based off of some actual Anglo king in the centuries following the end of the Roman occupation of the isles and before/during the Saxon invasion?

I know this is late but I'm pretty sure he's supposed to be Brythonic not Anglo

 

[Thure]

I know this is late but I'm pretty sure he's supposed to be Brythonic not Anglo

Brythonic or Roman seem to be the most likely origins of a historical Arthur.

 

[Lord Celestine]

This is so false it's ridiculous. Even the Islamic State has claims they say entitle them to rule the middle east and then the entire planet. Hitler had claims he used to justify invading Poland and annexing several countries. GW Bush spent months trying to justify Iraq using WMDs as the CB. Napoleon invaded Russia on the basis of them violating a treaty by trading with Britain in secret.

Of course in all of those cases and probably in most cases throughout history, a leader wants a war and then finds claims/justifications to get it and not the other way around, but that's beside the point. That's why CK2 has "fabricate claims".

Very very rarely in history has it ever been "I'm STRONG so I'll CONQUER THE WORLD BECAUSE I WANT LAND MUAHAHA." Maybe Genghis Khan? How many more others? The cases are very few. And even then CK2 still includes that with the subjugation CB when the time/place/culture/religion make it appropriate.

So I really have no idea what you're basing your complaints on other than just wanting the game to be more like Total War.

Alright it is clear that I was wrong when I said nobody cared, so let me rephrase that.

Nobody but the peasants of the modern world care. And I really beg to differ on your disagreement with me, I believe 99% of the time it's always been the cause that the strong wants to subjugate the weak and to take their land and their wealth, that is the primary motivation for almost ALL wars. And so okay maybe they might claim it to be a justified war over reasons that are completely bullocks, but that does not change the fact that they are nonsensical now the fabricate claims might make more sense if I was not a king, but as king, they make no sense because I am a king, and king's form alliances.

CK2's large lack of alliances is not my fault and I should not have to suffer for it by a most annoying 'casus belli' system that limits my options severely, which as seen in reality people have found a lot of causes to go to war over the most ludicrous of 'reasons' as not to be considered a reason at all.