War!!! What's it good for?

While I found all of the turn of events to be confusing, there is some interesting aspects I took away when reading. I believe that today's reading was emblematic of the state of war during those times. During this period, people were constantly settling disputes through battles, while diplomacy seems to take a back seat on many occasions. On top of this, people at this time appeared to be more concerned with the benefits that come from bloodshed, rather than the quest for power and control that many of our representatives seek when going to war. The chapter even states that he recruited men by “…making them gifts and promising them plunder.” (Wilhelm, 59). Rather than seeing battle as a necessary means to an end, they continue to battle for the sake of being promised something of personal worth in return. Arthur seems to be a symbol of those feelings by being the apex of what a great warrior should be, which inspires people to get into battle with promising returns. Its interesting to contrast this with contemporary times and how people are convinced now of going to war. Its true that we have benefits and incentives, however, I believe that many people join the military to fulfill a sense of purpose for themselves rather than personal gain. Going to war now is more symbolic of someone’s values instead of what they personally gain out of the experience.

Fact or fiction?????

While reading this chapter, I thought back to the discussion on the differences between ‘history’ and ‘fiction’; I believe Geoffrey’s stories are the exact intersection of said concepts. Supposedly, he had written the History of the Kings of Britain, but much of his writings seem to be more ‘story’ than actual history. For example, how would he know the exact events that transpired at every moment in Arthur’s career, even down to the words said by others? On page 70, Geoffrey even describes Arthur’s fight with Frollo down to each individual actions; “Arthur unsheathed his sword, too, and was hurrying to kill him, when Frollo stood up quickly and, with his lance straight before him, ran at Arthur” (Geoffrey (Loomis?) 70).

            Other aspects that portray his writings as ‘stories’ are the fantastical events, including but not limited to Uther Pendragon turning himself into Gorlois, and Arthur’s battle with a literal giant that ate humans. These events cannot be considered history in my opinion, and many others as well. It is even stated in the beginning of the chapter that “Other historians of his own century and since have dismissed Geoffrey’s claims an imposture” (Loomis 58)

            Overall, it was interesting and entertaining to read, but impossible to believe.

War and Battles

After completing today’s reading, I believe it connects to the larger theme of war and battle. For hundreds and thousands of years, we as humans have gone to battle due to indifference's between two different groups whether they be culturally divided, a country that is divided, or disagreements. “What great honors each of you will possess if as faithful soldiers you obey my will and my orders! For once we have beaten them we will aim straight for Rome and will capture the city we have aimed for and will take possession of what we have captured” (Loomis, pg. 81). According to Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth, battle was over land and who was the ruler of that land.

I believe rulers back then were similar to how our president is today, they aim for defeat of the enemy in hopes to gain control. Fortunately, today, we do not seek war for the reasons they did back then. America today has goals of controlling specific land outside of the US and to keep treaties and compromises between other rulers. Around 800 BC, war and battle were much more popular, in hopes of ruling as much land as wanted or needed. The goal for army’s back then were to defeat the enemy and take their land.

Don't Bother Hoel

The Office, Season 7 Episode 1: "Nepotism"

"At length a consensus was reached, and envoys were sent to Brittany to King Hoel...Hoel was the son of Arthur's sister...Arthur received him with due honor and they embraced again and again." 

(pg. 68)

"Postponing the campaign, he had launched against the Scots and the Picts, he sped to relieve the siege of Bath, though troubled by the greatest of anxieties, since he was leaving in the city of Alcud his nephew Hoel, who was seriously ill." 

(pg. 68). 

What Did I Just Read?

When I opened the document to read this excerpt from Romance of Arthur, I honestly was not sure what I was reading. I couldn't tell if I was being introduced to the original texts about King Arthur, whether Wilhelm was trying to prove that Arthur was or was not a real figure, or if he was trying to critique the authors as the writings morphed from being more historical to fantasy. There were moments where things were more factual, especially given the very first sentences of the chapter. "The romantic legend of King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table seems more and more to have had some foundation in history."(p.1) Based on that sentence alone I am thinking that the document is going to talk about the historical basis that the legend has. Then things shift greatly a few pages later when other fanatical things are happening like his son's grave never being the same length whenever it's measured or Arthur taking out over 900 soldiers with one swing of his sword. I was bewildered to say the least. Not a bad article since it does have the original texts in it which is helpful, but some clarity on the author's point would have been nice.

Arthur and his Crew

“…seems more and more to have a foundation in history.” (Wilhelm, pg. 1).

              This chapter seemed to be a glorification of Arthur’s, along with the other Saxon’s, actions during the many battles that they had been through. The reason put the quote above is because of how well t describes the past writings about Arthur. The book even mentions how vague about the events of how it took place. It reads much more like a story and less like as actual historical events being told in a textbook. For example, they talk about how the recuperate their courage between the battles. What exactly did that even look like? This is why I personally believe that Arthur was not a real person but rather someone based on someone else. I love how over the top they describe Arthur in the story since it is epic and ridiculous. They even mention the part where Arthur slashes through an entire army of people.

King Arthur: Fact or fiction?

"A golden handful of woman's hair was found there, retaining its fresh wholeness and radiance, but when a certain monk greedily reached out and grabbed it the hair dissolved into dust." (Page 6)

King Arthur in the Latin Chronicles: History or Fiction

As I read “Arthur in the Latin Chronicles”, the historical text becomes questionable overtime. The readings feel more like fiction than history because of Arthur's experiences and life. He has survived and won many battles. Giraldus describes King Arthur's grave in an unrealistic way. When Arthur’s body was found, his second wife was buried with him. His wife’s hair was perfectly intact and fresh but the moment a “monk greedily” picked it up, the hair disintegrated (pg6). It seems unrealistic for hair to look alive and intact when untouched. The fact that it was still golden instead of grey did not seem realistic either unless his wife died at a young age. The description of Arthur’s bones were very dramatic because he described them as “huge” compared to the tallest man that was buried there (pg7). Giraldus most likely described Arthur this way because of how he himself views Arthur. He was not just a King but also a warrior. Arthur was like no other man; he was invincible since his body displayed many scars and lethal wounds.