Arthur

File: celtocucks.png (2MB, 1790x881px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1790x881px

>>3154499
He's just a legendary personification of the archetypal Celtic cuck.

>>3154499
Depends, there may possibly have been a "King Arthur" although there really isn't that much evidence either way and theories on the subject are largely speculative.

The character King Arthur who appears in stories with witches and a wizard and a magical sword never existed.

>>3154499

He probably existed, there is a gap in the English expansion of roughly 50 years that is generally attributed to Arthur's campaign. His name certainly wasn't "Arthur", tho, which is a title or nickname meaning "the Bearlike one", it's possible that he is an echo of Ambrosius Aurelius, a Roman gent who raised a private army to fight the English who is known to have existed and who lived at about the right time, if not him then his immediate successor inspired the Arthur stories.

>>3154499
From my understanding the earliest records of him come from some french story teller around the 1600s.

>>3154601

Your understanding is wrong. The earliest stories of him are Welsh, he gets a mention in Y Gododdin and of course he features in several of the stories of Y Mabinogion.

>>3154601
>>3154605
>from Y Gododdin, a poem commemorating a raid by the British against an English force around 600AD:

>gochore brein du ar uur
>caer ceni bei ef arthur
>He fed black ravens on the wall
>Of the fortress, although he was no Arthur

>The Annales Cambriae (Annals of Wales) is a chronicle written in Latin, dating from around AD 970, covering 533 years in time, starting from the year AD 447. It is a collection of relatively obscure Welsh material, but it does contain two entries that are of Arthurian interest

>" (c. 519 AD) The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders for three days and three nights and the Britons were victors"

>"(c. 540 AD) The strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut fell, and there was death in Britain and in Ireland."

>>3154523
>basing information about a civilization on an account written by their ultra-biased enemies.
Learn history you dumbfuck.

>>3154499
Arthur is based off Charlemagne.
Excalibur = Joyeuse

>>3154600
Arthur was Welsh, not English. In fact, his entire life was spent fighting the Angles and Saxons who invaded his land and turned into Logres (the lost lands).

>>3154499

Hes just a shitty archetype.

>>3154601
French created Lancelot not Arthur, and Chrétien de Troyes lived during the 12th century

File: lloegyr.jpg (571KB, 1551x2877px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 1551x2877px

>>3155437

What part of my post made you think I thought Arthur was English? And no, he wasn't Welsh, he was a Latin speaking Romano-Briton who lived in Lloegyr, his legend was preserved by the Celtic speaking Cymry but that doesn't mean he was himself a Celtic speaker.

Also Lloegyr doesn't mean "lost lands", it probably meant something like "land of the [foreign] people" or "land beyond the border [of Wales]".

It depends on what you consider a "historical" King Arthur, but probably. At the very least, there were people who influenced stories about him, most notably Ambrosius Aurelianus and Riothamus (probably just a title and could have referred to Aurelianus, or another person). Riothamus in particular did most of the things that Arthur was said to have done. And the Battle of Mount Badon, which is what Arthur was originally tied to, probably happened; some argue that Aurelianus led the British troops, but Gildas is very vague, so it could have been a guy named Arthur.

The version of Arthur that most people know has been heavily influenced by French stories, some of which were influenced by Charlamagne, but there very well could be some real source of the earlier British stories. Either way, the historical figure wouldn't have resembled modern notions about him at all.

>>3155826

There's also Bran the Blessed, who was once a god but who has come down to us in Welsh mythology as a "giant", who is the first of the "sleeping kings" and from whom many of the romanticised aspects of Arthur come from. The "Enchantment of Britain", the "Once and Future King", the "sleeping king who will rise again to fight Britain's enemies" are all tropes that come from Bran's myths.

>>3154523
t. roman

>>3154499
He was a Sarmatian knight that looked like Clive Owen and fucked women that looked like Keira Knightley.

>>3156279
That 2004 movie made the mistake of putting a 2nd/3rd century AD Roman centurion/commander into the 5th century. The name of the earlier soldier, Lucius Artorius Castus, was tempting to use because of the similarity to Arthur, but they should have left it alone and just made the character based on Ambrosius Aurelianus or Riothamus (possibly the same person). The film had other areas with which to improve as well, though, not just the main character's misplaced, anachronistic identity off by centuries.

>>3157336
The Saxons are portrayed as literally Nazis. That film is trash.

>>3157336
>the main character's misplaced, anachronistic identity off by centuries.
IIRC, he wasn't supposed to be THE Lucius Artorius Castus, but one of his descendants. I think I remember someone mentioning that he's carrying on a family name.

In general, I agree, though. Castus was kind of a dumb point to start with a historical depiction of Arthur because he probably had nothing to do with the legend.

File: riothamus.jpg (48KB, 373x480px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 373x480px

"Arthur" was the magnate Riothamus who presided over the Brythonic migration to Brittany and was allied with Rome against the Visigoths.

After the Anglo came and civilization crumbled the tale was mixed up with other tales of Roman and Sub-Roman Britain like that of the old capital Camulodonum (Camelot) and the later Battle of Badon.

>>3154523
>taking roman propaganda at face value

lel

>>3155435
paladins = knights of the round table

>>3157398
nah, nobody thinks that anymore

I always wondered why this mythical king? It's not like they needed a mythical warrior king.
The English did have warrior kings like Alfred, Henry II, Richard I and Henry V.
Why isn't Alfred better known than Arthur?

Arthur is Welsh.

>>3159529
Arthur was an aardvark

Was the Arthurian legend even a thing in England proper before the 19th-century romanticism? Isn't it more like Welsh/Brittonic/French thing?
It would be really strange of them to keep a legend about Brittonic king fighting against them. It's kinda ironic it's become "the" English legend.

>>3159582
Monarchs like to claim descent from mythological figures, even if said figure fought against their ancestors

>>3159604
Has anyone ever claimed descent from Arthur, genealogical or institutional?

>>3159626
The Tudors and Plantagenets

>>3155417
>>3159139
>>3156181
>i-it's just p-propaganda!
t. Mickey O'Potayto

>>3159635
Interesting, I didn't know.

>>3159582

Yes, Mort d'Arthur was written by an Anglo-Norman knight.

File: roundtable.jpg (1MB, 2012x2441px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2012x2441px

>>3159652
Henry was pretty autistic about it

>>3159582
Yeah it takes place in Brittany.

>>3159667
> Anglo-Norman knight.
Oh, right, the new ruling class would have had no problems with fighting against Anglo-Saxons.

>>3154499
The myth is made up by some church in Britain. The church was short on money and it needed renovating so they invented the myth to draw attention to the church and get donations from local people/monarchs.

>>3159678

What is this retarded faggotry? Arthur was not some Breton, he ruled from Camulodunum (Camelot) which is on the east coast of what is now England, he would have been a Latin-speaking Romano-Briton, and he lived a full century or more before the Dumnonian retreat to Brittany.

>>3159718
Why would he be a Latin speaker tho?

>>3154499
Did Arthur, the stereotypical 12th century feudal lord and his merry band of chivalrous knights and demure damsels exist? Fuck no, no chances whatsoever.
Could a briton or romano-celt 6th century warchief named something like Arthur have existed and been a relevant figure in the fight against the invading germs? Sure.

King Arthur was actually a BLACK king. He left egypt to colonize and uplift the disgusting and stupid white people of england. They whitewashed him like they always do to try and keep the truth about the REAL creators of civilization down.

>>3159739

Because he was a Romano-Briton, and Latin was the language they spoke, as proven by the many documents and personal letters found in Romano-British sites.

>>3159739
He spoke ancient nubian which was bastardized by the evil europeans. They hide the real history.

>>3159808
The why don't the Welsh and Bretons speak a Romance language? I agree with the idea that there was a bilingual elite who used Latin as their written language, but the speed with which Latin disappeared in England after 410 shows that Romanization hadn't gone that far.
>>3159797
>>3159833
You have to go back, m8.

File: image.jpg (218KB, 758x738px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 758x738px

>>3155740
Roman Britain wasn't Latinized linguistically at all that much except for londonium.

>>3159472
because the truth isn't edgy enough

>>3159498
Arthur isn't a filthy Saxon.