|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 121
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 9:51 am: | 
|
I think there really was a King Arthur. And Camelot Castle. I read a book about a site where there are remains of a castle that dates back to the legend. It also stated that they found what they think was a large round table.
I know there was a Robin Hood. I read a lot about how it was proven. It even tells about his grave. And Little John's grave.But the King Arthur Mystery still has me wondering.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 1:00 pm: |
|
Eddie - I differ from your views strongly on Maybrick.
On these subjects, perhaps we share more common ground.
I do not doubt that Arthur (probably Artus, Dux Bellorum of the Romano-British c 490AD) existed, but has left little trace. In my view he was NOT a king but a general or Lord of War - as the latin title suggests - but may have had royal blood. Possibly he was a bastard of Aurelius Ambrosius (if not the same man, which is a possibility if the chronology has got screwed up).
The "castle" remains you have heard of maybe Cadbury Castle in Somerset (which I have visited). It is an iron-age hill fort (NOT a medieval stone castle as in films) which seems to have been refortified with pallisades and a strong wooden gate tower at the right time, and contained a large feasting hall (akin to The Golden hall in Lord of the Rings, if you have seen the film)that might have been the court of a warlord of the period. Indeed, Edoras as depicted in Peter jackson's film might in some ways look as Cadbury might have been.
No round table was found there or anywhere else, but a "Round Table" dating from medieval times and restored in Tudor times (C16th) hangs on the wall of the Great Hall in Winchester, Hampshire. It has NO connection with the real King Arthur (if he existed) other than being a sort of later tribute to his legend.
On Robin Hood, I suspect the legends are built on several outlaws perhaps from the period of Edward II (c1300) rather than of Richard I (c 1190) as ofethn shown in films. Friar Tuck comes from the story of a separate outlaw, it appears, and Maid Marion from an archetype used in traditional dances. The old myth/folklore iof the "Green Man" may also have got brought into the tale.
The so-called "graves" are probably not genuine, but local folktales may have grown around the tomb of an exceptionally tall man, for instance.
So I am with you in spirit on Arthur, but less convinced on Robin Hood.
Phil |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 130
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Hi Phil
Thank You for the info. Yes, Cadbury is the Castle that was linked to Camelot. I'm taking some notes here. Maybe I can get to the library and find some of this. Have a good night.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1041
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 2:49 am: |
|
John Morris's "Age of Arthur" (though maverick) is a wonderful speculative introduction to the period.
Mike ashley has done a Mammoth BOOk on King Arthur (Pback in UK) which is a good start with lots of articles and differing views.
I recommend either or both.
Also books by Leslie Alcock (who excavated Cadbury in the 70s) or Geoffrey Ashe might interest you - though both a little dated now. The latter has siggested a Breton king - Riothamus - as Arthur.
Phil |
Eddie Derrico
Detective Sergeant
Username: Eddie
Post Number: 131
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 3:56 pm: |
|
Thank You, Phil
I have them written down. I'll be very busy this week because of a hockey tournament, but as soon as we get back, I'll look for these books. I appreciate your help.
Yours Truly,
Eddie |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 311
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:15 am: |
|
Hi Guys
Found your thread with interest as I'm currently working on a 20 peice pitch that includes programmes on Robin Hood, William Wallace and King Arthur.
You might be interested in a book by Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd called 'the keys to Avalon'. They present a differant Arthur theory based on two ideas. Firstly that Geoffrey of Monmouth who created the History of British Kings simply miss translated the Welsh bards and got Arthurs kingdom incorrect. They claim that Arthur ruled the anceint kingdom of Powys. Today part of Shropshire and North Wales, I beleive they make the case for Wroxeter being Camalot.
They also state that Arthurs kingdom lay to the West of Severus Wall. And that Offas Dyke was not built by the Saxons but is the remains of Severus original Roman wall. (I've never come accross anything to comfirm this but they claim to have found proof)
Anyway the Keys of Avalon is a good read. It makes some interesting claims about Druid blood lines...and to be honest dosnt paint such a good picture of king Arthur claiming Mordred may have been the rightful King.
Interesting stuff.
Yours Jeff |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 617
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:11 pm: |
|
Hi all,
There was briefly a King Arthur of a sort in a different time. When Richard I died in 1199 devoid of an heir, there was a dispute over who should take his place Prince John, his brother, or Prince Arthur, the son of his oldest heir producing brother. Some of the Dukes, especially in Normandy, which was a part of the country at the time, recognized the younger heir as King Arthur for a short time. The dispute was settled when John took Arthur into custody and probably had him killed.
Stan |
Stanley D. Reid
Chief Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 618
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 6:18 pm: |
|
P.S.
I once saw a claim that Robin Hood was based on some outlaw named Robert Hoode. The guy didn't sound much like the character though.
Stan |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 313
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Stan there are loads, Rodert Fitz Odo being a prime candidate and sometimes known as Robin of Loxley or Locksley (think theres some other spellings). The yorkshire, Nottingham amd warrick debate.
The two basic legends centre around Robert Fitz Odo at the time of Richard the lion Heart, a knight who had had his lands taken away, and Robert of Barnsdale...the Robinhood mentioned in the Gest of Robin Hood at the British libruary...and thought to have been pardoned by Edward second in 13 something.
Robert of Barnsdale was married to Matilda and said to be murdered by his sister in law the prioress of Kirk lees.
Of course the legend of Robin Hood could be much older as someone has already pionted out going back into Druid and Wicker traditions (Green Man). Some scotsman beleive the tales of Robin Hood are very similar to those of William Wallace and some that these legends go back to King Arthur and beyond.
However I've never come across anything that convinces me that written evidance is any more or less reliable than verbal history.
tis all but His-story.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1045
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:29 am: |
|
However I've never come across anything that convinces me that written evidance is any more or less reliable than verbal history.
Well the fact that it's written down and the wording can be checked and changes in time monitored and analysed all helps with written evidence.
The danger with oral traditions (oral is history passed by word of mouth, verbal covers speech and writing which both use words!!) is that you cannot tell when or how distortions might have entered.
Do you know the old tale of the First World war order passed by word of mouth. The officer received the order from the messenger "Send three and fourpence we are going to a dance." The original order issued by the general was "Send reinforcements, we are going to advance!!" (Fictitious but it makes the point.)
Written history is, of course, all about interpretation - the whole subject rests on assessing cause and effect. Why did things happen? What caused what?
But written records can be compared and analysed in a way that oral evidence cannot. As we move forward in time we have sources available and can trace how an author or writer derived his account. In the case of memoirs and autobiographies, we can compare them to those of other contemporaries.
Written evidence allows a richer and fuller understanding of a period than when we have to rely on oral tradition.
Finally, as demonstrated by some of the centenarian veterand of WWI who have been speaking recently in the UK, sentiment enters in as men get older, memory can cloud, events run into each other and conflate. A man of 60 may be more pragmatic about things than a man of 90. None of which is to say that (for many reasosn) hearing these old men talk is not of value and interest) but historically give me the accounts they wrote in 1914 or 1916, if we are talking about history.
I think the Arthur and Robin Hood legends are interesting contrasts.
Arthur is about a national figure, doing epic events, leaving a trace in the historical record. The traces are in chronicles, early histories and "political" sermons - quite heavy stuff.
Robin Hood deals with a pretty ordinary individual at a local level. His material is more likely to be preserved in the detail of court records and shire archives; and has been transmitted by ballads and "gests".
But both stories have clearly been open to drawing in activities of other men with similar names and expanding and growing over the years. An author by the name of Holt (I can't put my hand on my copy this morning) is very good on Robin Hood.
On a separate detail, Normandy was never a part of England. It was William the Conqueror's duchy, but was ruled separately (his son Robert was his successor in Normandy) while his younger son William took England. The later Angevins (Henry II, Richard I etc) ruled their empire, which included vast possessions on the continent, in separate ways and spent relatively short periods in England.
While many nobles held lands both in Normandy and England these were separate both legally and in the terms under which they were held.
Phil |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 315
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 4:50 am: |
|
Phil you are of corse correct about how unreliable verbal history is. Although dismissing it out of hand would be dangerous. Other cultures that have not developed writen histories have developed much more sophisicated oral histories...Inuit and Aboriginal.
My humour was aimed at our unshaken modern beleif in the writen word as FACT.
You only have to nip over to the Maybrick thread to see just how unreliable writen history can partencially be. Even your writen acounts of the first world war are only ever pionts of veiw. Think about the word His-story itself. All you ever have is a series of good yarns based on fact...even Jesus Christ himself (if he was a real man?)had difficulty pinning down the truth.
And while your on William the Concourer just look at the biotapistry. What is it and what does it say?
History is so often writen from a piont of veiw.
Try getting an acount of a football match watched by four differant people, they may all agree on the score but you may very well get very differant acounts of what happened.
Dont get me wrong, I'm a lover of history, I love to tell a good yarn. But I would add a note of caution when lissening to supposed factual historians like Starky because what you get is opinion, and that invariably comes from a piont of veiw.
So educated opinion can be valuable, I thick Professor Hutton refers to it as 'the excepted Historical wisdom' but this can very much be about fashion. History is a growing, developing and changing thing in a state of perminant flux.
So while you are correct to add your note of caution about verbal history, I think it pertinant to flag a note of caution over the writen word.
Jeff |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1046
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Well Jeff - where to begin? I think I'll work through your points in the order you mention them.
...dismissing [verbal history] it out of hand would be dangerous. Other cultures that have not developed writen histories have developed much more sophisicated oral histories...Inuit and Aboriginal.
One could also mention Homer and the tradition of recitation he inherited. The problem is that the Illiad for instance seems to incorporate a mixture of bronze age and later material - in other words it has become corrupt. But the bardic tradition (Homer probably could not write but memorised long poems) certainly shows that a great deal of material could be retained and passed down by word of mouth alone, to some degree of accuracy. The question is what degree?
My humour was aimed at our unshaken modern beleif in the writen word as FACT.
But some written material clearly is "factual" (unless demonstrated to be forged - a marriage certificate for instance; a treaty between nations; the Declaration of Independence (DofI); Magna Carta (MC - though now unreadable in the original).
There is no question of what (for instance) the Dof I or MC SAY. Interpretation only enters in when you start to discuss why or the meaning. But there we have other documents to help us.
But I largely agree with you and said above that history is about cause and effect. Different commentators and different authors may disagree with one another, but the only way to gain accetance of a theory is for it to gain the support of a majority of ones peers. This is done by argument - I mean the logical thread that runs through a book or article - and that can and is questioned. Different generations bring new perceptions to bear (C19th anti-semitism would not gain much support now, but did then.)
...even Jesus Christ himself (if he was a real man?)had difficulty pinning down the truth.
I wouldn't agree with that. I think JC knew and preached the "truth". He asked Pilate the question. I think Jesus knew the answer.
And while your on William the Concourer just look at the biotapistry. What is it and what does it say?
If you mean the Bayeux Tapestry - I am sure it's creators knew exactly what it was about and its intent/meaning. We have lost that because we no-longer think in the same way. Modern interpretations seek to regain the original stance and understand the tapestry. But I don't for a moment think its designers were confused.
History is so often writen from a piont of veiw.
History is ALWAYS written from a point of view - you can study historical interpretation and the way it changes over time as a subject - historiography. But be clear, facts are not usually in question - Charles II was King from 1660 to 1685. Its when you put that in a context or add particular words, interpretation comes in. He was actually king from his father's death in 1649, but not recognised by the majority as legitimate ruler. If I say he "ruled2 during the period 1660-85, I might have to define what I meant.
E H Carr, a great historian of the 1950s, wrote a good book on this "What is History" (it used to be published by Penguin in p/back).
Try getting an acount of a football match watched by four differant people, they may all agree on the score but you may very well get very differant acounts of what happened.
Observation is again a slightly different matter in my opinion. The Duke of Wellington disliked books about battles for the reason you give - he compared a battle to a ball, and said no one person could see every incident. But I do think that if one talks to enough participants in, or observers of, an event, one can get a pretty good idea of it.
I would add a note of caution when lissening to supposed factual historians like Starky because what you get is opinion, and that invariably comes from a piont of veiw.
Do you say that of david Starkey from having seen his TV programmes or read his books? His books are quite different to his TV programmes. His Henry VIII is an amazing SHORT book that illuminates the reign. His Elizabeth (based on a lot of deep and new research) is simply astounding. Starkey may be arrogant and difficult as a person, but he is, IMHO at least, a considerable historian of the Tudor period who's views no one should underestimate or ignore. He sheds light on dark places and revises long-held but weakly supported conventional wisdoms.
So while you are correct to add your note of caution about verbal history, I think it pertinant to flag a note of caution over the writen word.
I would not disagree with you, but so long as one perceives history as about interpretation ans cherishes that - and constant revisionism too - one should be safe.
Cheers,
Phil |
Jeff Leahy
Inspector
Username: Jeffl
Post Number: 317
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 1:07 pm: |
|
Well it looks as though were largely in agreement (you'll have to excuse my spelling) but obviously I was suggesting that william didnt know what the tapistry was about..and of course alot of the symbolic meaning is lost, but it was an attempt to justify his claim to the throne and thus, from a piont of veiw, properganda.
You'll have to forgive my referance to JC (rather my sence of humour) Pilot asks 'what is the truth?' JC obviously knows the answer..he beleives he's the son of man.
Each of us must find our own truth...i think I'd better be carefully of drifting to far into philosophy here....but again I was making a piont about interpretation.
The Truth depends on our piont of veiw.
Our piont of veiw depends how we see and watch the football match.
If the brain just took in facts the past would be just so...but the brain interprets facts and therefore most history is a piont of veiw.
Yes we can say when Charles 1 was born and when he deid...but most history, the story, is known from the 'History of the Great Rebellion' Writen by Hide. And was there ever such an opinionated veiw of history?
I understand that Starky's pretty good on Henrey the 8th. What I object to is being preached at by someone who has put his own spin on the facts.
Do you really think he knows the man and how he thinks? I have difficulty working that out from my own partner.
Better go Phil thanks for your reply most interesting Jeff |
Phil Hill
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Phil
Post Number: 1047
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 2:12 pm: |
|
I think we can never recapture how people in the past thought or lived. In many ways they were like us, and had many of the same drives, but the context of how they lived, their experiences, preconceptions etc were so different as to be irretrievable.
So to understand the past, we have to rely on historians like Starkey to delve deep, to seek to assemble and assimilate the things that affected our forebears. We need them to challenge us - maybe to try to banish overly romantic interpretations which have prevailed, maybe to shine the light of other knowledge - parallels from other cultures, current pre-occupations on the past.
I personally think that too many interpretations of ancient Egypt (as seen on TV and in books) still conceive of the Pharaonic civilization as an early ancient Rome or along the pattern of C19th European empires. I think we would understand that period better if we looked at pre-colonial African cultures with their chiefs, retinues, wives etc - I think we would find a much more weird, mystical, barbaric Egypt and understand it better.
I also think that there is a danger in modern TV series (drama in particular) of giving the wrong impression of the past. The recent one-note Ray Winston "Henry VIII" is a case in point - Henry was a gangster, end of story. It lost Henry's deep intellectual interests, Renaissance culture, genuine religious concerns etc. The 70s Keith Michell series (while still very much of its time) IMHO strove harder to give a more balanced and genuine image.
I also dislike the "reconstructions" in the Starkey series with their impoverished costumes, unimaginative and incorrect settings and uncharismatic actors. What children must think I just cannot imagine.
I think also that we must make a distinction between the simplistic "popular" histories that make people good or bad and try to reduce everything to narrative; from the more academic studies that look at detail and themes and seek to weave a more complex picture.
Don't get me wrong - I love narrative history, but in a period that fascinates me, I see a huge difference between the picture I get from books by (say) Alison Weir, and the academic works that are delving into kingship, affinities, economics, religious views, royal warrants etc.
I no longer think that Richard III was a villain who murdered his way to the throne (though he may have ordered the murder of his nephews), but I know that he had a keen, almost grasping, interest in regaining any land that he had a claim to. he emerges as a more rounded, believable character with firm foundations in his period.
For more remote periods, like Arthur, to return to the theme of the thread, the problems are more difficult, and I would agree that interpretation is all. But it is still the power of the arguments, how convincing the linkages are, that either persuade one or make one critical. Either way, one cn adjust one's mental picture of the past as new studies emerge.
An interesting discussion Jeff, and one with direct and important messages for Ripperology.
Phil |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
