Age of Arthur BRP

[Bleddyn]

There was also a GURPS Camelot book, that covered not only the Chivalric version of Arthur but a pseudo historical Arthur as well.

Thanks for the mention I will have to look for it.

[ClawCarver]

TO say that the Chivalric approach is "wrong for the times" would suggest that there is "right" approach.

But since there isn't a actual definitive historical Arthur to identity with the myths, stories and legends, no interpretation can be considered "Wrong for the times." Heck, historians and scholars can't even agree to "when" those times were. 4th century, 5th, 6th?

To be fair, Bleddyn did specify in his original post that he was talking about a "Dark Age" (I don't like that terminology, but there we are) setting, from the 5th to the 7th century. So the chivalric approach is quite definitely wrong for the times, since the notion of the chivalric code originated in France no earlier than the 10th century, and only flowered in the centuries thereafter.

Of course, the question of what's right for the times is a little more problematic. But, as I said before, I would take as my primary points of reference the British (and Irish) literary sources: Welsh and Irish sagas, tales, and saints' lives, and the tantalising glimpses provided by Y Gododdin, the Triads and other poems. The exact date of many of these is open to question, but indisputably they arise from native traditions, and in a purely literary sense they are "heroic" rather than "chivalric" in style and substance.

I think Arthur himself, whether he existed or not, is largely irrelevant. He's rarely a central figure in the early literature anyway.

[ClawCarver]

So what if Arthur never existed? Probably neither did Robin Hood. It doesn't matter.

In a Dark Age game set around this time, it makes perfect sense to have an Arthur with much of the properties of the mythical Arthur.

"Wrong for the times" is subjective. Medieval knights don't fit, as stated above. It's a matter of preference. Pendragon does the medieval knights in Britain very well. A BRP Dark Age setting would be better, in my opinion.

Every roleplaying supplement is subjective and has to make value judgements all the way through. One might have a Dark Age Arthur, riding on a pony and fighting Saxons. Another might have ancient survivors of Atlantis trying to found a new kingdom in Britannia. Another would have knights in shiny armour riding out from medieval castles and jousting in tournaments. Still another would have Celtic Priestesses trying to take control of the remnants of Rome and fighting the Saxon Priests. Another would have the descendants of Jesus living in Glastonbury and spreading their version of Christianity.

Each one would make a reasonable supplement.

I know which one I'd prefer.

Indeed so.

[ClawCarver]

I was thinking of the supplement GURPS Celtic Myth:

http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/books/celtic/

While I do not know the subject well enough to comment on the content of this supplement,

it is written with the usual high quality of GURPS sourcebooks. If you do not know it, I think

it could well be worth the money for the PDF (I think the print edition is no longer available).

Cheers, Rust. I don't know it. It sounds like it covers very similar ground to the AD&D Celts book (unsurprisingly), but I might pick up a copy and have a look.

Argh, this is all very distracting! I've got enough projects on my plate without getting involved in another one.

[Bleddyn]

To be fair, Bleddyn did specify in his original post that he was talking about a "Dark Age" (I don't like that terminology, but there we are) setting, from the 5th to the 7th century. So the chivalric approach is quite definitely wrong for the times, since the notion of the chivalric code originated in France no earlier than the 10th century, and only flowered in the centuries thereafter.

Of course, the question of what's right for the times is a little more problematic. But, as I said before, I would take as my primary points of reference the British (and Irish) literary sources: Welsh and Irish sagas, tales, and saints' lives, and the tantalising glimpses provided by Y Gododdin, the Triads and other poems. The exact date of many of these is open to question, but indisputably they arise from native traditions, and in a purely literary sense they are "heroic" rather than "chivalric" in style and substance.

I think Arthur himself, whether he existed or not, is largely irrelevant. He's rarely a central figure in the early literature anyway.

Thanks for the back up there buddy

[rust]

I think Arthur himself, whether he existed or not, is largely irrelevant. He's rarely a central figure in the early literature anyway.

I do not think so. According to the few existing sources, there was a very successful Celtic mi-

litary leader who managed to defeat the Saxons in a series of battles that stopped the Saxon

conquest of Britain for many years. Whatever the name of this military leader - probably a ca-

valry leader - might have been, Arthur / Artus or not, he doubtless was one of the most impor-

tant and influential personalities of that time, able to convince the various regional rulers to

support him and his force during the campaign against the Saxons.

[Atgxtg]

So what if Arthur never existed? Probably neither did Robin Hood. It doesn't matter.

It matters when someone types "But the fluff and puff of chivalry doesn't hold up to the heroic culture of the time."

Since there was no "time" or "heroic" culture, the rest of the statement is ridiculous. It's like complaining about a King Arthur movie being historically inaccurate. It's a mythical figure. Even if someone believes that there was a (or several) histrocial Arthur that inspired the legends, we are still dealing with legend.

In a Dark Age game set around this time, it makes perfect sense to have an Arthur with much of the properties of the mythical Arthur.

Although said properties tend to change depending on which source you decide to use.

The Chivalric approach is fine. Having medieval knights riding around on destriers with massive castles doesn't fit the period. Sure, have a code of chivalry and even have a Round Table. The Romans had knights and had certain ideas of chivalry. Charlemagne was only a couple of generations after this time and he had Paladins and Knights, so why not at Arthur's court?

My point exactly. I'm not opposed to other interpretations of Arthur. I'm just saying that the Chivaric one is no more right or wrong than any of the others. Is it anachronistic, sure. It was so back when the medieval stories were written and people knew it.

"Wrong for the times" is subjective. Medieval knights don't fit, as stated above. It's a matter of preference. Pendragon does the medieval knights in Britain very well. A BRP Dark Age setting would be better, in my opinion.

Exactly. It is entirely subjective, as there is no known Arthur to go back to. It's not like we have a biography. Sure, lots of different approaches are fine and all are just about as accurate as any other as we are dealing with a mythical figure.

Every roleplaying supplement is subjective and has to make value judgements all the way through. One might have a Dark Age Arthur, riding on a pony and fighting Saxons. Another might have ancient survivors of Atlantis trying to found a new kingdom in Britannia. Another would have knights in shiny armour riding out from medieval castles and jousting in tournaments. Still another would have Celtic Priestesses trying to take control of the remnants of Rome and fighting the Saxon Priests. Another would have the descendants of Jesus living in Glastonbury and spreading their version of Christianity.

Each one would make a reasonable supplement.

I know which one I'd prefer.

Yes. Exactly. But when someone says one "doesn't fit the times." he blurs the subjective with the objective. If this were a actual historical figure then claims that one view was a better fit would be valid. But since we are deal with myth and legend, then claims to "fitting the times" are humorous. Now claims that a particular view doesn't fit the legends would be something else. By not fitting the times implies that there were actual times to be fitted to.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd have put him as a Romano-British Knight, descended from minor nobility. The theories of him being Samartian don't really fit for me, although having Samartian horsemen as mercenaries is fine - everyone used mercenaries, after all that's what apparently attracted the Angles, Saxons and Jutes to Britannia in the first place.

It is certainly an acceptable interpretation based upon what little factual evidence we have. As would several other theories. But that is what all the interpretations are, theories. Most of the historians I've read seem to think that the mythical Arthur is, a best, a composite figure, with other myths, legends and people (both legendary and historical) attached to him over time.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Atgxtg

[Bleddyn]

I do not think so. According to the few existing sources, there was a very successful Celtic mi-

litary leader who managed to defeat the Saxons in a series of battles that stopped the Saxon

conquest of Britain for many years. Whatever the name of this military leader - probably a ca-

valry leader - might have been, Arthur / Artus or not, he doubtless was one of the most impor-

tant and influential personalities of that time, able to convince the various regional rulers to

support him and his force during the campaign against the Saxons.

Huzzah... Keeping the faith

[Puck]

One event/person/time period that I would find absolutely fascinating would cover the very early 5th century and the events surrounding Constantine III. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_III This period is dripping with intrigue, myth and legend that would make for a great campaign. Every time I read about it I am flabbergasted that their is not more history, or even fiction, based on the events surrounding the rise and demise of Constantine III. There are great characters: Stilicho, Honorius, Alaric, Geronidus as well as Constantine himself. Plots are so thick that historians still cannot figure out what was going on. At the same time and sometimes in the same places waves of barbarians are blasting through the area. If I remember right, in the History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey of Monmouth places Constantine III as the third brother to Uther and Ambrosius. Great Stuff and although tied into legend, Constantine III really was a real character.

[Atgxtg]

I think Arthur himself, whether he existed or not, is largely irrelevant. He's rarely a central figure in the early literature anyway.

More the opposite. Arthur was the central figure in the early stories. He only faded to being a supporting character later on, when other heroes were linked to him. In the early tales it is the "Arthur show"

[Bleddyn]

One event/person/time period that I would find absolutely fascinating would cover the very early 5th century and the events surrounding Constantine III. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_III This period is dripping with intrigue, myth and legend that would make for a great campaign. Every time I read about it I am flabbergasted that their is not more history, or even fiction, based on the events surrounding the rise and demise of Constantine III. There are great characters: Stilicho, Honorius, Alaric, Geronidus as well as Constantine himself. Plots are so thick that historians still cannot figure out what was going on. At the same time and sometimes in the same places waves of barbarians are blasting through the area. If I remember right, in the History of the Kings of Britain, Geoffrey of Monmouth places Constantine III as the third brother to Uther and Ambrosius. Great Stuff and although tied into legend, Constantine III really was a real character.

For me it is Vortigern of Gwent or Powys ( I can't remember off the top of my head), Uriens of Rheged ( got his head sawed off by a rival brythonic king's assassin) and as I Have mentioned before Rydderech Hael of Ystradclud

Edited June 11, 2010 by Bleddyn

[Bleddyn]

It matters when someone types "But the fluff and puff of chivalry doesn't hold up to the heroic culture of the time."

Since there was no "time" or "heroic" culture, the rest of the statement is ridiculous. It's like complaining about a King Arthur movie being historically inaccurate. It's a mythical figure. Even if someone believes that there was a (or several) histrocial Arthur that inspired the legends, we are still dealing with legend.

Although said properties tend to change depending on which source you decide to use.

My point exactly. I'm not opposed to other interpretations of Arthur. I'm just saying that the Chivaric one is no more right or wrong than any of the others. Is it anachronistic, sure. It was so back when the medieval stories were written and people knew it.

Exactly. It is entirely subjective, as there is no known Arthur to go back to. It's not like we have a biography. Sure, lots of different approaches are fine and all are just about as accurate as any other as we are dealing with a mythical figure.

Yes. Exactly. But when someone says one "doesn't fit the times." he blurs the subjective with the objective. If this were a actual historical figure then claims that one view was a better fit would be valid. But since we are deal with myth and legend, then claims to "fitting the times" are humorous. Now claims that a particular view doesn't fit the legends would be something else. By not fitting the times implies that there were actual times to be fitted to.

It is certainly an acceptable interpretation based upon what little factual evidence we have. As would several other theories. But that is what all the interpretations are, theories. Most of the historians I've read seem to think that the mythical Arthur is, a best, a composite figure, with other myths, legends and people (both legendary and historical) attached to him over time.

Great here we go ..... I am not getting into it. Simple fact the literature of the time period 450 -700 AD is heroic. Arthur whether fantasy, fusion ( most likely), or by slim chance a real man has defiantly made his mark on the English speaking world's culture and pysch. As far as the "fluff and puff" comment... it must have rubbed you the wrong way .... sorry if it did.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Bleddyn
spelling

[rust]

Simple fact the literature of the time period 450 -700 AD is heroic.

Yes and no. There are also the rather non-heroic accounts written by people like Beda and Gildas.

[Bleddyn]

Beda and gildas granted, but the bardic tradition is heroic can we agree on that?

[rust]

Beda and gildas granted, but the bardic tradition is heroic can we agree on that?

Of course.

My point was just that when looking for the "real Arthur" or the background of this legendary

personality it would be useful to take a look at writers like Beda and Gildas, whose works are

somewhat less "tainted" by an attempt to show off a hero and therefore are probably a little

closer to the real history behind the legend.

[Bleddyn]

Of course.

My point was just that when looking for the "real Arthur" or the background of this legendary

personality it would be useful to take a look at writers like Beda and Gildas, whose works are

somewhat less "tainted" by an attempt to show off a hero and therefore are probably a little

closer to the real history behind the legend.

Bede and Gildas (especially the latter) still need to be taken with some circumspection "the age of tyrants" c.400-600 ad in Britain is directly attributed to him; and he (gildas) is writing from a church/ecclesiastical point of view. Bede on the other hand I can't comment on nor have I read much criticism about him. Its a shame to think the vikings may have destroyed records that may have weathered the test of time and shed more light on the subject.

Edited June 11, 2010 by Bleddyn

[ClawCarver]

More the opposite. Arthur was the central figure in the early stories. He only faded to being a supporting character later on, when other heroes were linked to him. In the early tales it is the "Arthur show"

What stories are you thinking of? When I say "the early literature" I'm talking specifically about the texts that were mentioned at the get-go: Y Gododdin (Arthur is mentioned once, perhaps, and is "off-screen"), the Welsh Triads (Arthur gets a few mentions, but is one among many, many names), the tales of The Mabinogion (Arthur plays no part whatever in most of the stories, although he pops up to help his cousin in Culhwch and Olwen, and is dreamed about by the eponymous protagonist of The Dream of Rhonabwy), and such elliptical poems as "The Spoils of Annwn" (in which we are told that a company of heroes went sailing with Arthur to the Otherworld, but little else). Arthur, while clearly a widely recognised character, remains an elusive, shadowy presence, and is by no means a central figure. Far less so, for example, than Cu Chulainn in the Ulster legends, or Finn mac Cumaill in the tales of the Fian.

Edited June 11, 2010 by ClawCarver
clarification

[Bleddyn]

What stories are you thinking of? As the OP stated, and as I reiterated, we're talking here specifically about a game based on Y Gododdin (Arthur is mentioned once, perhaps, and is "off-screen"), the Welsh Triads (Arthur gets a few mentions, but is one among many, many names), the tales of The Mabinogion (Arthur plays no part whatever in most of the stories, although he pops up to help his cousin in Culhwch and Olwen, and is dreamed about by the eponymous protagonist of The Dream of Rhonabwy), and such elliptical poems as "The Spoils of Annwn" (in which we are told that a company of heroes went sailing with Arthur to the Otherworld, but little else). Arthur, while clearly a widely recognised character, remains an elusive, shadowy presence, and is by no means a central figure. Far less so, for example, than Cu Chulainn in the Ulster legends, or Finn mac Cumaill in the tales of the Fian.

Exactly that what I wanted to build it on ......and the sketchy historical and archeological evidence of the time period.

By the way I have all the above said welsh lit on my iphone kindle app

Guess now with all the flap I am going to have to write it!

Edited June 12, 2010 by Bleddyn

[cjbowser]

OK. It sounds like there's a lively debate going on here. Allow me to jump in.

If I were to do a supplement like this, I'd take the lead set forth by Simon on his very enjoyable Merrie England. The book would not be about Arthur. Instead it would be a look at a version of Late Antiquity/Early Medieval* Britain and environs. "Arthur" could be present. Even better, the various people that some "scholars" think might have been Arthur are all included. Allow the gamers to decide which one to include. Focus on the culture, beliefs, and society of the tribes at the time.

*If it really were a "dark ages", would you be able to reference the sources that you do? Yes, literature and knowledge was lost, but not to the extent to create the dark ages that some very early scholars posited. Sorry -- my graduate degree in Late Antiquity/Early Medieval Europe had to kick in there for a second.

Good luck with your project.

[Bleddyn]

OK. It sounds like there's a lively debate going on here. Allow me to jump in.

If I were to do a supplement like this, I'd take the lead set forth by Simon on his very enjoyable Merrie England. The book would not be about Arthur. Instead it would be a look at a version of Late Antiquity/Early Medieval* Britain and environs. "Arthur" could be present. Even better, the various people that some "scholars" think might have been Arthur are all included. Allow the gamers to decide which one to include. Focus on the culture, beliefs, and society of the tribes at the time.

*If it really were a "dark ages", would you be able to reference the sources that you do? Yes, literature and knowledge was lost, but not to the extent to create the dark ages that some very early scholars posited. Sorry -- my graduate degree in Late Antiquity/Early Medieval Europe had to kick in there for a second.

Good luck with your project.

There was a bbc program that illuminated the last point you made.... it pointed out political and trade contacts with Byzantium, a higher fluency of Latin, etc... so I agree it wasn't so dark in Britain. I have to ask why Arthur is such a sticking point with so many people when I have posted about several other documented personalities.... it would be an age or Era oriented supplement. Also thanks for the well wishes.

[rust]

I have to ask why Arthur is such a sticking point with so many people when I have posted about several other documented personalities....

Because you titled the thread "Age of Arthur BRP" ?

Seriously, while this is still not my preferred historical period, I could well imagine to play at

least a short campaign in it, for example dealing with the post-Roman culture in northern Wa-

les, where a kind of Roman civilization continued to exist even after the Roman Empire had

fallen.

[Atgxtg]

What stories are you thinking of? When I say "the early literature" I'm talking specifically about the texts that were mentioned at the get-go.

Of which only Y Gododdin might quality as "early literature."

The Mabinogion, at least the version that has been circulated, goes back only a few hundred years, and takes stroies from two 14th century books. So it is actually not that early at all.

The earliest surviving collection of Welsh Triads dates back to the 13th century.

Now while there probably were older versions of the tales in the Mabinogion and the Triads, they were almost certainly different than how they are today. The most probably reason for Arthur being a background figure in those tales is simply that he was retconned into per-exsisting, non-Arthurian tales), replacing some other figure.

Now Geoffrey of Mommoth's works predates the Mabinogion and the current versions of the Triads by two centuries and Arthur is a central figure.

As for Gildas, he doesn't mention Arthur at all. A somewhat curious omission as if there were a historical Arthur he would have been aware of it.

[rust]

As for Gildas, he doesn't mention Arthur at all. A somewhat curious omission as if there were a historical Arthur he would have been aware of it.

Well, Gildas mentions the Battle of Mount Baden, which the Historia Brittonum mentions as one

of Arthur's battles, but Gildas does not give the name of the military leader who commanded

the British forces in that battle. However, these forces doubtless had a leader, and since Gildas

does not provide any other name of that commander, it could just as well have been Arthur.

[Bleddyn]

Gildas was to busy bashing the other kings for a plethora of sins. Yes and as you have clearly pointed out the stories as old as they are are re-written for a its contemporary audience. So in the translation from one generation to the next... small details and pieces change. But I am not a literature detective, I think though that I am clever enough to see the remnants of the told tales in the above mentioned works.

Beowulf is a clear example of it. Old pagan collection of heroic tales rewritten in a christian context.

[Bleddyn]

Some scholars have pointed out that Gildas may have omitted it for political reasons. After all he was very busy pointing out the other rulers flaws.