Jump to content
Sir Carter

Will The Real King Stand up

Recommended Posts

Hi All

As a amateur historian and a gamer i find often the paths will cross. This is the case with the Arthurian legend. I enjoy fantasy RPGs and Historical wargames. And I enjoy researching the period to. As with everything Arthurian nothing is ever clear cut, and the Jury is still out as if there was ever a real Arthur. As the Early Dark Ages is primarily my favourite period I found I end up with 3 Arthur's. The first is very historically based and doesn't really have an Arthur or any of the Knights, Round Table, Merlin etc and focuses on the Saxons, Angles and Jutes that raided Britain in the early 5th-6th century as well as Picts, Welsh and Irish. A good example would be GMTs Games Pendragon

The 2nd is also set in the 5th-6th Century's but it has Arthur and his knights along with Merlin and others. Fighting the Saxons lead by the likes of Hengist and Horsa. It also has Picts and Irish raiders and the traitor Vortigern. 

Finally the 3rd is Pendragon all history is thrown out of the window, its got Knights in Shining armour, Merlin the Wizard, Mordred and everything else Medieval 14th Century will allow and includes Faerie lore as well.

I find with these 3 levels of play and style I cover all I want from the Stories of Arthur.

For Fiction I read T.H.Whites "Once and Future King" and Bernard Cornwalls "Winter King Trilogy" Plus historical stuff to.

Is there anyone else who likes to look into the other aspects of Arthurian lore Historical or otherwise ??      .   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interestingly I started out... err, in the mid-80s when it was fashionable... interested in the so-called 'historical Arthur' and went from there into preferring the literary Arthur; the realism in my games is the realism of the medieval period, not of post-Roman Britain. I did run a 'historical' Pendragon game about twenty years ago but it was definitely your second example. Much of the detail in Arthurian legend comes from transferring events and stories from the Middle Ages backwards into the mythical past, where they can be fictionalized (and also avoid political consequences - the do-nothing Arthur is a critique of several historical kings).

Truthfully, I am very fond of Morgan and Merlin and Lancelot and Guinevere and Tristram and Isolt, and none of these people, if they existed at all (Tristram has the best claim for it) lived in the same places and at the same time, so a rigorously 'historical' Arthurian campaign is only vaguely 'Arthurian' in terms of our expectations. The glory of the Arthurian epic is more in the imaginations behind it rather than 'facts'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Book of Sires tries to cover the nuts and bolts of the history that Greg preferred. You will notice there is lots of room for the Fae, high level romance and quests, and the dirty, nitty fighting if that is your cup of tea.  So, I find that Pendragon can very well fit each of the three styles you postulate.

I have played in all three types of campaigns. I liked parts of each. They were memorable.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Sir Carter said:

Is there anyone else who likes to look into the other aspects of Arthurian lore Historical or otherwise ?

I think that is probably quite common amongst us KAP enthusiasts. :)

Unlike something like D&D, KAP is reasonably well grounded in the real world, in a sense that the society in BoU/BotW is clearly Norman-Angevin one of high middle ages. And as Jeff pointed out, many of the literary sources mirror their contemporary medieval world, too. So by studying history, one will also gain a better understanding how things might work in KAP, too.

That being said, there is absolutely no requirement to do any of that, either. One can simply play KAP as a string of knightly adventures and be happy. Whatever floats one's boat.

Personally, I prefer the medieval King Arthur with a pinch of magic. The Dark Ages King Arthur is so far removed from chivalry and questing that it is not 'King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table' anymore for me. Not to say that it couldn't be very interesting campaign, just that like Jeff said, it would be almost unrecognisable by the modern players.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree for Pendragon the Medieval Arthur is a must, I don't think I will bother using Pendragon for any of the historical themes. And as you rightly say just a touch of magic. It has to be High Medieval and Knights of the Round Table. The Historical stuff I think I will leave for my wargaming interests

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tone of the sub Roman Arthur just doesn't fit with Pendragon. The 5th-6th  century  Arthur is a world in collapse, with Arthur desperately trying to hold back the incoming tide of Saxons. The rules are written with the 15th century  idealised version of chivalry in mind, not the grim dark last stand of the Britons. The historic Arthur, if there is one, should be a setting for BRP rather than trying to get Pendragon to fit.

Edited by albinoboo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, albinoboo said:

The tone of the sub Roman Arthur just doesn't fit with Pendragon. The 5th-6th  century  Arthur is a word in collapse, with Arthur desperately trying to hold back the incoming tide of Saxons. The rules are written with the 15th century  idealised version of chivalry in mind, not the grim dark last stand of the Britons. The historic Arthur, if there is one, should be a setting for BRP rather than trying to get Pendragon to fit.

I  could not agree more. Pendragon is the epitome of the classic view of Arthur and his knight set in a world of chivalry and romance, magic and fantasy. I don't think I would want to use it either as a historical version  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/14/2019 at 6:00 PM, albinoboo said:

The tone of the sub Roman Arthur just doesn't fit with Pendragon. The 5th-6th  century  Arthur is a world in collapse, with Arthur desperately trying to hold back the incoming tide of Saxons. The rules are written with the 15th century  idealised version of chivalry in mind, not the grim dark last stand of the Britons. The historic Arthur, if there is one, should be a setting for BRP rather than trying to get Pendragon to fit.

I disagree. KAP1 certainly seemed to follow a sub-Roman view too, with a lot more Roman Names in use and Cadbury Castle as Camelot, and why the Romans as a people and military force continue to exist in the game. I think Pendragon could (and has) worked out fine for such a campaign. I think Greg's shift in empahsis from KAP1 to KAP 3/4 was becuase of his love of Mallory's work.

KAP5 seemed to be shifting thing further towards a more feudal,  Norman Britain with more of the dark and gritty historical stuff coming back, even if it was from a later period of history.

 

Personally, I'm for starting the campaign more Roman-post Roman in flavor and having the culture evolve through the Periods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I disagree. KAP1 certainly seemed to follow a sub-Roman view too, with a lot more Roman Names in use and Cadbury Castle as Camelot, and why the Romans as a people and military force continue to exist in the game. I think Pendragon could (and has) worked out fine for such a campaign. I think Greg's shift in empahsis from KAP1 to KAP 3/4 was becuase of his love of Mallory's work.

KAP5 seemed to be shifting thing further towards a more feudal,  Norman Britain with more of the dark and gritty historical stuff coming back, even if it was from a later period of history.

 

Personally, I'm for starting the campaign more Roman-post Roman in flavor and having the culture evolve through the Periods.

I was refering to the real sub-Roman era. For instance, the Roman settlement of Cirencester. In 410 the city was a thriving town with a large forum to  a few houses on the site of the amphitheatre by 440.  Even though Saxon expansion was halted for 40 years, outside of the far North England, urban populations collaspsed. The country was reduced to a patch work of petty warlords and when the Justinian plague hit perhaps as much as 30% of the population died. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, albinoboo said:

I was refering to the real sub-Roman era. For instance, the Roman settlement of Cirencester. In 410 the city was a thriving town with a large forum to  a few houses on the site of the amphitheatre by 440.  Even though Saxon expansion was halted for 40 years, outside of the far North England, urban populations collaspsed. The country was reduced to a patch work of petty warlords and when the Justinian plague hit perhaps as much as 30% of the population died. 

Yeah, but I think that could play out just fine in a pseudo-historical Arthurian game. One of the nice things about Pendragon is that we have so much to work with. We have information, both historical and mythical from sources both modern and back at least 15 centuries to work with. It mostly comes down to just what sort of King Arthur and campaign the GM and players want. Quite a lot of the Arthurian lore is really optional. For example , you don't need Lancelot or the illicit romance. A campaign set around a group of Roman Equites/Cataphracti defending the remnants of Roman Britain could be an excellent Arthurian campaign.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, albinoboo said:

I was refering to the real sub-Roman era. For instance, the Roman settlement of Cirencester. In 410 the city was a thriving town with a large forum to  a few houses on the site of the amphitheatre by 440.  Even though Saxon expansion was halted for 40 years, outside of the far North England, urban populations collaspsed. The country was reduced to a patch work of petty warlords and when the Justinian plague hit perhaps as much as 30% of the population died. 

Just an FYI... regarding the collapse of cities, this viewpoint is not considered as hard and fast as it was even just a few years ago. Many sites in recent digs show some evidence of a switch from stone to more perishable materials for building (read wood). 

As far as the Plague of Justinian is concerned... I'd pull the timeline forward, so that the Plague hits after the Lonazep Tounament (not a big shift), so that the beginning of the decline and the plague track each other... as does the fragmentation and fall of the countryside to the Saxons after.

SDLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but I think that could play out just fine in a pseudo-historical Arthurian game. One of the nice things about Pendragon is that we have so much to work with. We have information, both historical and mythical from sources both modern and back at least 15 centuries to work with. It mostly comes down to just what sort of King Arthur and campaign the GM and players want. Quite a lot of the Arthurian lore is really optional. For example , you don't need Lancelot or the illicit romance. A campaign set around a group of Roman Equites/Cataphracti defending the remnants of Roman Britain could be an excellent Arthurian campaign.

"The Great Purge of the Shelves" has been underway, and I came across my Jack Whyte novels. Needless to say, I've had the thought of a campaign starting with The Great Conspiracy running through my brain.

SDLeary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

As far as the Plague of Justinian is concerned... I'd pull the timeline forward, so that the Plague hits after the Lonazep Tounament (not a big shift), so that the beginning of the decline and the plague track each other... as does the fragmentation and fall of the countryside to the Saxons after.

In the Post-Vulgate the decline is linked directly to the Grail Quest and how it tears the Round Table apart, so in that regard the pestilence works well with an earlier date. The Post-Vulgate Quest itself (and the Perlesvaus) seems to show a countryside with many robber barons and ruins. There is also the synchronization of the timeline to the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, with the Yellow Plague being the 'Black Death' event. The subsequent mystical period of the Lollards and Richard II (and the second flowering of Middle English Arthurian romances) might then follow as the Grail Period. We all know the Downfall is the War of the Roses (this in fact was probably Malory's conscious sense of it).

 

PS. Regarding illicit romance in a 'historical setting', well, the Tristan and the Dairmait and Grainne stories are pre-chivalric in origin (and a very old concept, really), so one could run a bunch of post-Roman cavalry or a warrior band and keep the whole sleeping with the chieftain's wife plot without making it 'romantic' per se. Of course it might be Moderatus (Mordred) rather than Lancelot.

Edited by jeffjerwin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Just an FYI... regarding the collapse of cities, this viewpoint is not considered as hard and fast as it was even just a few years ago. Many sites in recent digs show some evidence of a switch from stone to more perishable materials for building (read wood). 

As far as the Plague of Justinian is concerned... I'd pull the timeline forward, so that the Plague hits after the Lonazep Tounament (not a big shift), so that the beginning of the decline and the plague track each other... as does the fragmentation and fall of the countryside to the Saxons after.

SDLeary

In the case of Cirencester, the unburied bodies lying in the street is a bit of give away that the place was, in effect, abandoned.   I know wood was used in some areas like Wroxter but even then 33 wooden structures dont make up a city of 15,000 that it was under Roman rule. Even the place was abandoned by the 670s 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...