Dear Jojo
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post, due to a holiday in sunny
climes (but frighteningly few Arthurian Remains).
Sorry also to see that, as a newbie, Ian Weir is pulling your leg about the
existence of the Historical Arthur.
I suppose it could be true that all right-thinking people dispute his
existence, but then you should not wish to be guided as to what the nature
of truth is by right-wingers. Indeed, just as the Historical Arthur would
have had a left, as well as a right, wing to his warband, so the otherside
of this matter cannot be left behind.
There are two or three separate, but inter-related, issues in looking at
this.
The first is 'what standard of proof do you want' to prove historicity? In
essence there are three possibilities (although I think someone here
suggested a fourth a little time back)
a) Balance of probabilities?
b) Clear and convincing evidence (as for US impeachment) is typically
defined as `that measure or degree of proof which will produce in the mind
of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the allegation
sought to be established. It is intermediate, being more than a mere
preponderance, but not to the extent of such certainty as is required
beyond a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases."
c) beyond reasonable doubt?
Ground (c) is, I suggest, not available to either side - for neither can
prove beyond reasonable doubt that Arthur is either historical or is
mythical.
Second is the question of what makes any Historical Personage "Arthur".
Thus, if he wins the Battle of Badon, rules Britain (including overlordship
of the Saxons?); has a significant personal retinue of mounted warriors;
dies in a internal battle with his nephew's/son's army; but is called Fred
(or Ambrosius) is he still the Historical Arthur?
Third is your take on the evidence - its dating; your views on the accuracy
of oral transmission; whether you think some or all of the later written
stories (eg Chretien) are based on, or reflect, previous historical
incidents or not; whether you think such later stories are correctly
ascribed to Arthur or have been moved from someone else - eg Charlemagne or
Riothamus - to Arthur; how the research done on myths ties in with the
stories about Arthur (eg unacknowleged prince as a boy rising from
obscurity to become the great leader/king; the sleeping king waiting to
return etc) and so forth and so forth.
Like you, I started from reading a single book - Bernard of Cornwell's
Excalibur; then his trilogy; then a trip to a specialist history bookshop.
8 years later, knowing more than I ever thought I would about early British
History (but not as much as I would now like to know), and having a most
enjoyable library to dip into, read, and research, on various (but not all)
aspects of the matter I would join with Ian in saying 'welcome' - except I
would welcome you to the reality of Arthur, the man who became a legend in
his own lifetime, rather than to a mytholgical figure who was subsequently
historicised by those who were mere mortals.
Enjoy.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK