Arthurian Legends

[jack]

I often like Arthurian legends, although often more towards the fantasy end than the more historical versions.

(If you like Arthurian urban fantasy, you should consider looking up The Knights of Breton Court, which I found really hard to get into, but moves the Arthurian legends, partly reincarnated-ly, partly thematically, to a deprived estate full of gang violence. And The Pendragon Protocol about an elite British secret organisation/force based on reincarnations of Arthurian knights.)

At some point it occurred to me, that many of the most prominent features of the legend come from (a) being SET in the 5th/6th centuries AD, a king who united many parts of Britain and repelled Saxon invaders and (b) being first widespread-ly recorded in the 12th century onwards.

And you can certainly reconcile this, several authors have written great books on the idea that there were original historical happenings the later legends were based on. But when I think of the legends, I think of that mish-mash, of a Britain with a political situation in the 5th century, but some of the technology from and an idealised form of the chivalry from the 12th century. Which can't actually be set in any non-alternate historical period, but naturally belongs in legends and feature films where the spectacle and aspirations are more important than the accuracy :)

But I'm not sure if that's a fair summary -- anyone able to be more accurate?

Comments

[seekingferret]

I really enjoyed the first Knights of Breton Court book. I've had the sequels on my shelf for a while, but haven't gotten to them yet.

And then there's Meg Cabot's Avalon High, which is about the reincarnations of Arthurian knights being high schoolers.

[jack]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. I loved the idea, but I got bogged down in the middle: partly I found the real-world stuff hard to follow, and partly I found it hard to switch back and forth to "is something supernatural happening here or not".

Oh cool, I might try that too.

[hilarita]

It's not the political situation of Britain in the 5th century. It's the later imaginings of the political situation of Britain in the 5th century. About the biggest thing those two situations have in common is that 'we had Romans once'. Note the large absence of 'uniting king' (two concepts that are very little evidenced in the early [i.e. pre-11th century] sources) and 'Saxon invaders' (current best guess is more like Angle settlers, with occasional vigorous cultural clashes, and possibly the odd invader. Ahem.) The bit about the legend really getting its legs in the 12th century is right, though. But the politics (if they happen to turn up in any given Arthurian thing) are a 12th century projection of what they wanted 5th century Britain to look like. Think what Hollywood movies do to the past - it's pretty much like that. (NB because this is a comment, this is the tl;dr version, without the long essay and references.)

[naath]

I rather like the stories that try to shoe horn it all into rather more plausibly 5th century settings; although generally they don't manage it entirely. But then my favourite Arthurian retelling remains the MZB even though I know she was an awful person, so maybe I just Have No Taste.

[jack]

Ah, right, that makes sense! I was too cautious in criticising the ahistoricity :)