Mention Of King Arthur In Gilda's Writings example essay topic

Fact To understand Arthur one must know what the world was like during and before the sixth century. In 400 BC the Celts migrated to Britain. They were able to overcome the natives of Britain because of their knowledge of iron tools, which the natives of Britain lacked. The Celts quickly spread their beliefs throughout England and Ireland. The Celts' government consisted of a collection of tribes, each with a king and a queen. One of the most important classes in Celtic life was the druids.

The druids were the priests, judges, and healers of the society. It was the Celts who built monuments like Stonehenge. In the first century A.D. Rome began its occupation of Britain. The Celts were no match for the drilled and well-equipped Roman army.

Britain was now the Roman province of Britannia. The Celts lost the ability to defend themselves, and began to rely heavily on Rome's aid. Romans began to settle in Britannia, and introduced the Roman way of life. Christianity was also introduced. The Roman and Celtic society blurred together to create Britons.

Not everyone, however, was pleased with the Romans. Hadrian's Wall was built in Northern England to keep out the Picts and Celts from Scotland. The Visgoths, Germanic tribes driven out of their homeland by Asiatic tribes, began to invade the Roman Empire. Roman influence was weakening. In 410 A.D. the Visgoths, led by Alaric, captured the capital of the Roman Empire for a short while.

Roman soldiers stationed in Britain were called back to defend Rome. By 500 A.D. the Roman Empire would collapse. The Britons were on their own. Celts from Ireland, Picts from Scotland, and Saxons, Angles, and Jutes from Europe attacked Britain after Rome's retreat. The most dangerous of these groups was the Saxons. By A.D. 450 the Saxons had settlements in Southern England.

The strongest Briton at this time was Vortigern, a chieftain from Wales. Vortigern agreed to pay the Jute leaders tribute if they would help defend Britain from the Picts and Scots. Peace lasted a few years. The Saxons, Angles, and Jutes wanted more land, and Vortigern wanted the tribute lowered.

The treaty fell apart and war ensued. Just 25 years after Rome had left, the Saxons tried to conquer Britain. This was the time of Arthur. In 465, as Ambrosius Aurelian us was leading the Britons against the Saxons, a legend named Arthur was born. Pieces of Arthur's life do appear to be historical. He seems to be a prince of "the tribe of Britons called Silures, whose country was South Wales".

Nearly all who feel Arthur existed - and there are definitely some who doubt - agree that Arthur did in fact have twelve victories against the Saxons it is very likely that Arthur was a Dark Age warrior, perhaps even a petty king or war-leader of the Celts. Archaeologists believe that two documented battles, those of Badon in AD 516 and Camlann in 537, are the nearest historical events which could prove Arthur's existence. It's known that his most likely death date was AD 537. There is indisputable proof that, if Arthur did live, he shared his leadership with other war-leaders and kings.

The existence of several war-lords in the fifth century AD make it highly possible that Arthur could have held a similar role in the sixth century, in fact Arthur could very well have held the post of the Roman military official known as the Comes Brittannorum (Count of Britons), who employed cavalry to defeat Saxon foot-soldiers, thereby securing his Battle of Camlann. It is also very likely that he was approximately fifteen when he came to power, explaining why legend persists to call him "the boy-king. The first mention ever to Arthur was by a poet in the year 600. His poem called the Gododdin was about a valiant warrior. The poem admits that the warrior was not the best by stating, "But he was not Arthur". This line was the first time any reference had been made to Arthur.

We can infer from the poem that Arthur was a warrior and that he was the best. Arthur must have also been a well-known character at the time. In 800 the Welsh monk and historian Nennius wrote that the Battle of Badon Hill was Arthur's victory. His sources were the writings of others.

Nennius stated that Arthur fought "alongside the kings of Britain, but it was he who was the Battle leader". Nennius also gave credit to Arthur for victories in twelve battles. He said, "Arthur carried on his shoulders an image of St. Mary Ever Virgin, and there was a great slaughter of them through the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Virgin Mary his maiden-mother", and that on Mount Badon, "There fell in one onslaught of Arthur's 960 men; and none slew them but he alone, and in all his battles he remained victor". In 950 an unknown monk wrote The Annals of Wales, which had two references to Arthur. One was under the year 517, and stated Arthur was victorious at Badon. The other was under the year 538, and said Arthur and Medraut fell in the Battle of Camlann.

Medraut, who was actually on Arthur's side, would later become the character Mordred, Arthur's treacherous nephew Fiction Arthur lived in a time where we have basically no real knowledge of Arthurs real identity. Why though? There was a small minority who were well educated and could read and write. Why was there no written record of Arthur's existence till about six hundred years later? Basically all the evidence we have is from monks and they may have exaggerated Geoffrey completed his History sometime in the 1130's, using earlier sources such as Gildas and Nennius and Bede.

Only the work of Gildas, who did not mention Arthur by name, dates to the sixth century, and none of these chronicles provides any of the details concerning Arthur's life that Geoffrey gives us. So where did he get his facts? Geoffrey claimed to have had in his possession a "certain very ancient book written in the British language". Unfortunately, this book has never been found, and as the centuries progressed its very existence was called into question. If there were no written records of Arthur's existence his story must have been verbally passed on through the ages and in six hundred years a lot could have been changed. In the year 545, not long Arthur was most likely to have lived, a monk named Gilda wrote an account of the decline of Roman authority in Britain and the events which followed.

Most current scholars and historians dismiss this source as unreliable and in many places entirely wrong, in any event, there is no mention of King Arthur in Gilda's writings. A popular story is of the Knights of the Round Table and their castle in Camelot but the actual table itself has been proven a fake. Unfortunately we do not know who created this fake but we know it was definitely not from Arthur's time. Of course Arthur could have just been pure myth.

He and his companions have superhuman strength and abilities, and consort with giants and other mythological creatures. In the early Welsh poem "Preiddeu Annwfn", Arthur visits the Celtic Underworld, Annwfn, and his adventures closely parallel those of the cauldron-seeking God. What's really amazing is that even now 1,500 years later people are still putting twists on the story. For example the drama movie "The First Knight" Is about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table. "Merlin" is another movie, which features Arthur pulling the sword out of the stone. Arthur has also been interpreted as a love character.

There are too many different stories about Arthur's real life to determine what really happened. The ruthless warrior, the boy king, the god and the romantic king are only the beginning of the stories people have made up over the years. We must then conclude that Arthur life has been clouded by his legend. Evaluation I believe that Arthur was indeed a real person and maybe even won 12 battles but I think his story has been exaggerated and elaborated into someone that he is not.

He is now not only a war hero but also a love story, a god and a boy king all at once. The round table, being a fake, is intriguing because is suggests that someone a thousand years later wanted people to believe his story so much he created the table. He also was depicted as a Christian and rode into his battles with Mary upon his battle flags. Our own Memorial Hall has a stained glass portrait of Arthur in his battle clothes!! It is almost impossible to say that Arthur didn't exist at all. There is no way such a big legend was formed from nothing.

Arthur must have done an extraordinary things to become the godlike person he is today. My conclusion, is that Arthur was a real person did amazing things and won many battles but his whole story was verbally pass'e down and twisted and he emerged as a English hero.