The round table, made up of many lords and knights, was lead by Arthur. In this time, it was dedicated to the search for the holy grail.
What is the significance of the round table in medieval times? WHY was it created, and what other events happened including the round table?
Thanks,
Mike MWAHAHHA

The round table was a regular rectangular table not round. It's a common myth that he sat his knights on a round table.

Ok, well that doesnt show the significance of the round table in medieval times... what was the significance??

That it was a table. People sat at it and talked.

Ok, maybe you should quit posting random crap that is of NO SIGNIFICANCE and actually try to answer something... i see you are posting as many posts as you can without actually thinking of anything. Please answer the questions or quit spamming what people dont want to see... thank you.

Do you not sit at your kitchen table and talk to your family or friends? THATS SO SIGNIFICANT. Jees

I did answer your question and i thought about it too. I'm saying that the "round table" is where King arthur and his knights sat and talked about their next adventues or what not. I'm wondering What KIND of signifigance you want out of a TABLE. I am sorry for my apparent thoughtlessness, But it is very hard to run with signifigance for a Table.

Nevermind reading wrong ^_^ You mean round table as in a group not as an object. -.- Man am I dumb. Nevermind. :(

A few things.

Firstly, Arthur existed (if at all) long before mediaeval times. Common belief at this point in time is that he might have been either a warrior or king living some time after the Roman retreat from Britain and during the Germanic invasion, which would place him vaguely around 400AD. This cannot be taken as fact though due to there being very few surviving works mentioning him at all, and certainly none which can be construed as a reliable historical account. It is interesting that neither Bede nor Gildas mention him being present at the Battle of Mount Badon, at which the Saxon advance into Britain was checked for nearly 30 years. One would imagine that if he was indeed the famous Arthur and commanding the Britons at this battle, he would have rated a mention. It is only later "historians" who place him there.

The tale of King Arthur stems originally (as far as history is aware) from Gildas and Bede, two monks writing in the sixth and eighth centuries respectively. Gildas is the closest to what might be considered a contemporary account. Neither can be considered an "historian" as we know them, but did write of events of the period. Neither mentioned Arthur by name, but did shed some light on events following the end of the Roman occupation of Britain and the incursion of the Germanic peoples into Britain. From these sprang more authors over time, including Nennius who was the first to mention Arthur by name as far as I'm aware, until Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his Historia Regnum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) in the 12th century. this work is generally acknowledged as being that from which the legend became closer to what they are today.

Getting to the round table, it was first mentioned by Wace in the Roman de Brut, again written in the 12th century. Thus, it is highly probable that the table itself was a simple work of fiction designed to romanticize previous accounts. Round or rectangular. Therefore its significance in terms of being linked to the Arthurian legend should be discounted. We can assume the linking of the grail legend to Arthur is of a similar nature, since early accounts of Arthur never mentioned anything other than him being some sort of war leader, not a mythical king in search of holy artifacts.

Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur (15th century) was the work in which the Arthurian legend appears in the form we know today, with Merlin, the grail, the round table and Camelot all thrown in. All of these things were taken from a comglomeration of previous works, including those mentioned above and many others. A rather romantic flight of fancy, in other words.

So... if you're doing a school project or something on Arthur, I'd suggest you take the time to research your subject a little more thoroughly. Arthur the mythical King of legend is a completely separate entity to Arthur the historical figure, of whom we know next to nothing at all.

In various fictional accounts- which is where you'll find the round table- it is important because it goes against the natursl- to mediaeval people- order of precedence. At an oblong table the host sat at the top. The more important people were, the nearer to him they sat. Everyone in the household had a fixed place. At a round table there was no order of precedence: people turned up and sat as they pleased as equals.

No person on the round table was known as more important than another. The round table eliminated ranks as they sat. Everyone, while sitting at the round table, was equal.

Ok, well that doesnt show the significance of the round table in medieval times... what was the significance??


..well the signifigance was that people would sit at the table as a group with no 1 leader...every1 knew arthur was the greatest but they sat and all felt like they were the leader..that was the thing with the picture of the last supper...Jesus was at the center because he was the leader...the round table had no leader...instead they had the group leader

Alright... hands up all here who think "Braveheart" was an accurate portrayal of the life of William Wallace. Don't be shy now.

No, but Mel looked good in Blue Face.

"FREEDOM!"

the round table had no leader...instead they had the group leader

:eek: Butt...butt...butt...how is a 'group leader' not a 'leader'?

Braveheart? Go wash your mouth out with soap.

And if I remember correctly, the point about the round table, as said above, is that everyone is seen as of equal rank. That is, rank according to nobility etc, but generally not earthly nobility, ie they were all lords, but of a more spiritual kind. The search for the holy grail is generally seen as a spiritual and personal purification kind of journey.

Guthrie:

Except that they're both myths (perhaps the Grail isn't, but that's a whole new topic). They mean nothing in connection with Arthur. Remember that christianity had pretty much taken hold of England by the 12th century, so the search for the grail and the round table are both merely symbols for christian values. Bede, Gildas and Nennius were all christian monks, stamping their own values on a conveniently dead subject. Nennius even apologised for not knowing what he was talking about (in a sense) as a preface to his history - Have a look at this :

"Here begins the apology of Nennius, the historiographer of the Britons, of the race of the Britons.

I, Nennius, disciple of St. Elbotus, have endeavoured to write some extracts which the dulness of the British nation had cast away, because teachers had no knowledge, nor gave any information in their books about this island of Britain. But I have got together all that I could find as well from the annals of the Romans as from the chronicles of the sacred fathers, Hieronymus, Eusebius, Isidorus, Prosper, and from the annals of the Scots and Saxons, and from our ancient traditions. Many teachers and scribes have attempted to write this, but somehow or other have abandoned it from its difficulty, wither on account of frequent deaths, or the often recurring calamities of war. I pray that every reader who shall read this book, may pardon me, for having attempted, like a chattering jay, or like some weak witness, to write these things, after they had failed. I yield to him who knows more of these things than I do."

Ahhh, ok. I dont know much about it, but the evolution of the myths and legends and their accretions are very interesting, and of course, fairly useless. I am fairly certain that Christianity in its Roman Catholic form had taken root in england in about the 7th century, the saxons and what britons remained (now thats a whole 'nother thread, and an interesting one too.) being converted by a variety of people, i forget whom. Just a minor quibble. Anyway, your right. So the round table thing is a later accretion, and not much use considering the historical arthur. If there was such a person. Do you know theres a fim called "arthur" set when the Romans are leaving, its just been filmed, will be out this year? The difference is that its as historically accurate in terms of kit and fighting and stuff as possible. I've met the guy who made the swords used. So its going to be a small, messy film, none of this arthur, king of the britons stuff.

If there is such a film, I'll have to see it. Of course, if I see just one reference to Arthur and his men advancing on Mount Badon with christian crosses emblazoned on their shields, I'll leave in disgust. Still, it'll be a pleasant change from "First Knight", "Excalibur" et al. won't it?

As for your minor quibble, I didn't mean to imply that the 12th century was when Roman catholicism "first" took hold, only that it was entrenched by then. The black robed vultures were around centuries before that.

Hm... how to expand all this into other threads.

You could start with the different varieties of Christianity about, and how Roman Catholicism conquered them all one by one. It took until the 6th century before it ruled in England, and the Celtic church in Scotland lasted until the 11th century, when Queen margaret, sister to edgar atheling I think, married the king and got the catholics in.
Or else, hhhhmm, theres the problems in the UK after the romans left. How much of the saxon invasion was simply settlement, how much pillage and murder? the answer appears to be, both. But the land use patterns survived, which suggests in itself that things werent that bad.
Then theres the grail myths etc.
Let alone how to fight with spear, sword and shield. Od the NOrman invasion, and the effects the spread of knightly chivalry etc had on things, since for example, many celtic legends in "teh mabinogion" written down about 800 years ago I think, show many signs of being altered to suit the newer culture, despite the main parts of the story being the same.

Actually, I havnt seen first knight or excalibur. I dont watch many films, and for some reason arthur hasnt interested me very much. though I have seen Monty pythons version. As for Braveheart, I leave you with a link to the good folk at Gaddgedlar, who have a small article eviscerating "braveheart". They are a reenacting group mainly concerned with the 13th and 14th century, and will chase anyone wearing tartan and plaids off the field.
http://www.gaddgedlar.com/Braveheart.htm

A few things.

Firstly, Arthur existed (if at all) long before mediaeval times. Common belief at this point in time is that he might have been either a warrior or king living some time after the Roman retreat from Britain and during the Germanic invasion, which would place him vaguely around 400AD. This cannot be taken as fact though due to there being very few surviving works mentioning him at all, and certainly none which can be construed as a reliable historical account. It is interesting that neither Bede nor Gildas mention him being present at the Battle of Mount Badon, at which the Saxon advance into Britain was checked for nearly 30 years. One would imagine that if he was indeed the famous Arthur and commanding the Britons at this battle, he would have rated a mention. It is only later "historians" who place him there.

The tale of King Arthur stems originally (as far as history is aware) from Gildas and Bede, two monks writing in the sixth and eighth centuries respectively. Gildas is the closest to what might be considered a contemporary account. Neither can be considered an "historian" as we know them, but did write of events of the period. Neither mentioned Arthur by name, but did shed some light on events following the end of the Roman occupation of Britain and the incursion of the Germanic peoples into Britain. From these sprang more authors over time, including Nennius who was the first to mention Arthur by name as far as I'm aware, until Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his Historia Regnum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) in the 12th century. this work is generally acknowledged as being that from which the legend became closer to what they are today.

Getting to the round table, it was first mentioned by Wace in the Roman de Brut, again written in the 12th century. Thus, it is highly probable that the table itself was a simple work of fiction designed to romanticize previous accounts. Round or rectangular. Therefore its significance in terms of being linked to the Arthurian legend should be discounted. We can assume the linking of the grail legend to Arthur is of a similar nature, since early accounts of Arthur never mentioned anything other than him being some sort of war leader, not a mythical king in search of holy artifacts.

Thomas Malory's Le Morte D'Arthur (15th century) was the work in which the Arthurian legend appears in the form we know today, with Merlin, the grail, the round table and Camelot all thrown in. All of these things were taken from a comglomeration of previous works, including those mentioned above and many others. A rather romantic flight of fancy, in other words.

So... if you're doing a school project or something on Arthur, I'd suggest you take the time to research your subject a little more thoroughly. Arthur the mythical King of legend is a completely separate entity to Arthur the historical figure, of whom we know next to nothing at all.

spot on. legends tend to be a mixture of truth, half truth, and damn right fiction. Arthur I suggest is 1% truth, 1% half truth and 98% fiction. That Arthur existed is probably true, but Merlin, The round table, Excalibur the sword in the stone, sir Lancelot and the rest I suggest is total fiction. not that I'm complaining though, the story is fantastic and who cares if it is not totally 'historically accurate'.

Aghart:

After checking on what is known (or accepted as being known) I tend to concentrate on the 1% and wonder what it might have sprung from. Here we have a thread started seeking information on the round table - something which has become common "knowledge". That there was a round table, I doubt. That there was a sword in the stone, I doubt.

It comes down to representation and distortion. The sword in the stone - lets assume there was a basis for the tale. A sword, a stone. How did they interrelate orginally? There may have been a sword, there may have been a stone. We know how the English "I couldn't care less" has become the American "I could care less". Distortion, original meaning lost or mistranslated. The sword is representative of something, and may even be directly referring to a sword, and heirloom perhaps, or a symbol of rulership for its owner. What was the stone? a similar concept, a token or symbol of rulership, or something different? How did the sword come to be "in" the stone"? These are the questions which plague me.

I look at the round table in a similar way. I start from a basis of assumption that there was an ideal in the man who has become Arthur - a set of values by which he gathered his soldiers. Those ideals may or nmay not have been what they are purported to be now.

Then, we we look at the writers of his "history" - mostly christian monks, probably zealous in their belief, and men writing for a particular audience.

What is a table but a gathering point, a meeting place, a circle for men of similar ideas? How would they have interpreted their own idea of the man who was Arthur, and how would they have presented the story to their peers in a language they would understand? Is it a coincidence that the last supper was held at table, that Arthur, a supposedly christian man, held court at table? And his values were supposed to be one of equality, as has been said before - thus the table would need to be round to represent that. Monks, interpretation... a legend.

The progression of events leading to the writing of the legend is easy enough to see if you look. My interest is more in the reality of things.

Wolf:
It comes down to representation and distortion. The sword in the stone - lets assume there was a basis for the tale. A sword, a stone. How did they interrelate orginally? There may have been a sword, there may have been a stone. We know how the English "I couldn't care less" has become the American "I could care less". Distortion, original meaning lost or mistranslated. The sword is representative of something, and may even be directly referring to a sword, and heirloom perhaps, or a symbol of rulership for its owner. What was the stone? a similar concept, a token or symbol of rulership, or something different? How did the sword come to be "in" the stone"? These are the questions which plague me.

And the task of originality is what plagued the intepreters of our history, who were, quite simply, storytellers.
So they romanticised the menial and made it heroic.
From this, I gather, the average sword and the average stone fused into an
above-average symbol that transcended the ages- Excalibur jutting out from a magical rock only pliable to one future king. Much prettier.
The storyteller's name is now immortalized.
He tells a wonderful story.

Or it could be symptomatic of Cinderalla- how romantic to think of a beautiful, humble girl who grew up to marry the prince who hunted her down with a tiny glass slipper. But there are hundreds of versions of this story in many languages, including some where Cinderalla is a viscious minx plotting the death of her grandmother. Its only in those stories derived from the French that the slippers are glass- in the original versions, her slipper is made of fur. "Vaire" is an old French word for ermine, a type of fur from some small ferret looking animal (I think).
But "Verre" in French (not old French) means glass. Somewhre in the storytelling and the writing of it, there was either a mistaken identity of words or deliberate attempts at romancing the ennui of furry sandals with the charm and fanstasy of glass slippers.
I'm no etymologist, but I'm willing to bet mistakes were made in translations between Old, Middle and Modern English.

How would they have interpreted their own idea of the man who was Arthur, and how would they have presented the story to their peers in a language they would understand?
By shoving Christianity disguised as heroic fiction up a peasent's colon like a tampon.

Like so:
Is it a coincidence that the last supper was held at table, that Arthur, a supposedly christian man, held court at table?

C.S. Lewis did the same thing, but to little children.

nonsense. here is the evidence

http://www.keira-knightley.org/multimedia/pictures/Movies/KingArthur/11.jpg

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
What's nonsense other than your reincarnations, Anus?


That's only a picture of the true Guenevere, before Mallory took her fiercesness and curled its hair into stupid curls and made her the weakling that Christians jack off to.

exactly. that was my intent

I really cannot stand the way you post pics with little text to go on.
Deecee does the same.

I find the idea of Keira Knightly as Guinevere mildly disturbing. Especially after reading an article regarding her playing the part. Still - I'll see it, and make up my mind afterwards.

Why?
You'd rather have the prissy smatch of the Miedevial troubador? Swine.

Oh no... I'm simply not sure she's tough enough to play a celtic warrior convincingly.
I'm expecting to see makeup, and neat hair.

Also in inspiration of this legend, "a combination of jousting, feasting and dancing" called a Round Table was performed as an organized activity in conscious imitation of King Arthur and his court during the late Middle Ages. Participants would dress in the costume of such well-known knights as Lancelot, Tristan, and Palamedes. The first recorded instance of this activity was in 1223, when the Crusader lord of Beirut held one in Cyprus to celebrate the knighting of his eldest sons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Round_Table

Thought I’d post this in case it was interesting

I really cannot stand the way you post pics with little text to go on.
Deecee does the same.

sorry, let me improve the caption

http://www.keira-knightley.org/multimedia/pictures/Movies/KingArthur/11.jpg

keira, the love goddess, decked out in leather, makes me all tingly and shit. wreck your vengeance on me, babe. i need it

Riothamus (also spelled Rigothamus, Riotimus), was a military leader and considered "King of the Brittones" (c.470). Because the name means "highest leader", some scholars have suggested it may be a title, and not a personal name. It has usually been assumed that the "Brittones" or "Brittani" refers to the Bretons or the people of Brittany, a British colony in Armorica in northern Gaul, but the reference by Jordanes in his The origin and deeds of the Goths which states that they "came ... by way of the Ocean" could mean that he was a leader in mainland Britain or even the leader of the British people on both sides of the English Channel.

He took part in the Roman Emperor Anthemius' campaign against Euric, king of the Visigoths. Euric defeated his attack, and Riothamus vanishes from history while retreating towards Burgundy. A letter to Riothamus from Sidonius Apollinaris, who requested support to act against troublemaking Bretons, has survived.

Riothamus has been identified with the historical King Arthur by some recent scholars (notably Geoffrey Ashe and Leon Fleuriot). In any case, Riothamus' activites in Gaul may be the seed from whence grew the tradition (first recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae) that Arthur crossed the English Channel from Britain and attacked Rome.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riothamus


that to me would have made a better 'king Arthur' story, but then with the current 'war' in Iraq maybe not so politically correct...

Thought I’d post this in case it was interesting

It is, actually - first I'd known of it. Wace mentions a round table in the 12th century - Did people take on the idea from him, or did he take the idea from them? This "first recorded instance" of a round table (13th century) might suggest nothing more than Wade's tale being rather popular, and therefore emulation at the fashionable do's of the time. Wikepedia doesn't actually go so far as to provide sources, either. Still... The thought remains that perhaps there is something in it.

And the task of originality is what plagued the intepreters of our history, who were, quite simply, storytellers.
So they romanticised the menial and made it heroic.
From this, I gather, the average sword and the average stone fused into an
above-average symbol that transcended the ages- Excalibur jutting out from a magical rock only pliable to one future king. Much prettier.
The storyteller's name is now immortalized.
He tells a wonderful story.
And now it's a wonderful movie. History still distorted, but becoming fact in popular retelling. I've said it before... how many now believe "Braveheart" was an accurate depiction of the life of William Wallace? How much damage is being done in the name of entertainment?
Here's what Kiera had to say about the idea behind making the new movie :

"It's a lot more gritty", says Knightly, though she notes familiar elements such as Merlin, the fabled Round Table and the love triangle between Guinevere, Arthur and Lancelot remain intact. "We've made a reality out of the myth".

No, Keira - They haven't. They've merely made the myth more real in the light of current research. It's still only a story set in what we know of that period. I have to admit though - it's a marked improvement on the ideal behind "First Knight". And on the strength of that alone, I might be tempted to see it.

Or it could be symptomatic of Cinderella- how romantic to think of a beautiful, humble girl who grew up to marry the prince who hunted her down with a tiny glass slipper. But there are hundreds of versions of this story in many languages, including some where Cinderella is a viscious minx plotting the death of her grandmother. Its only in those stories derived from the French that the slippers are glass- in the original versions, her slipper is made of fur. "Vaire" is an old French word for ermine, a type of fur from some small ferret looking animal (I think).
But "Verre" in French (not old French) means glass. Somewhere in the storytelling and the writing of it, there was either a mistaken identity of words or deliberate attempts at romancing the ennui of furry sandals with the charm and fanstasy of glass slippers.
I'm no etymologist, but I'm willing to bet mistakes were made in translations between Old, Middle and Modern English.
Precisely. Distortion.

One wonders if we'll ever know, if there is anything out there, perhaps yet undiscovered, which might shed light on the truth of things.

Just let me loose in the vaults of the Vatican alone, and you'd never hear of me again.

It (round table dances) are likely to have spurn from Wade and been developed as a mock celebration of equality and goodness. The source is R.S. Loomis, so it might be doubtful. But it’s clear this festival type dance would have served the purpose of the myth of the ‘knights of the round table’.

Have you seen this?
Possible Origins: The Round Table was, no doubt, eagerly adopted by medieval writers of Arthurian Romance because of the tradition, recorded by St. Luke, that Christ and the Apostles sat at a circular table during the Last Supper. Its origins, however, are probably much older.
Celtic warriors often met in circles, perhaps for the very reasons indicated in the Arthurian stories. Fights over positioning were apparently commonplace, as recorded in near contemporary Irish tales. But the table as an object, as opposed to a mere seating arrangement, is a persistent theme.
Candidates: Apart from the famous Round Table on display in the great hall of Winchester Castle, travellers around the country will find "Arthur's Round Table" still pointed out at various locations in the British landscape:
• Arthur's Round Table Stone Circle, Mayburgh (Cumberland)
• Arthur's Table, Caerleon (Monmouthshire)
• Bwrdd Arthur, Llanddona (Anglesey)
• King's Knot, Stirling (Stirlingshire)
• Pen y Fan, Brecon (Brecheiniog)
Perhaps these were all ancient meeting places for post-Roman Royal councils in scattered Celtic kingdoms. The most intriguing is 'Arthur's Table' at Caerleon: a local name for the vast amphitheatre at the old Roman town. Even when ruinous, this formed a grass-covered oval hollow, ideal for gatherings in what is, traditionally, a strongly Arthurian region.
http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/rtable.html

again no sources are listed...

This is a piture of Caerleon's 'round table'.
http://www.caerleon.net/history/arthur/page13.htm

I’d be interested about what you think about the claim that the Monks of Glastonbury went looking for bones in an effort to re-establish Glastonbury as a pilgrim centre after the fire in 1184.

Not distortion because they did find bones. I guess I’m too post-modern to believe in the idea of ‘truth’, real or factual. For sure the Round Table was not what we today would call a round table. As I see it first came the grain of sand, and then the layers of saliva, and now we have a pearl, which without the sand and the saliva would not exist. But unlike the metaphor you can’t separate them out because factual always depends on what you want to see.

As for old writings:

In the days of old, writers didn't sit down at a heap of parchment and say "I shall write an account of the Battle of ...", or say "I would like to explore romantic love a bit."

Most texts were written *by order*, usually the orderers were the nobility or high Church officials. They were employing writers to write for them.

All this is visible in the texts -- they are usually more or less distorted accounts of reality. Whereby this distortion has a certain direction: it glorifies the one who ordered the text, or usually it glorifies certain ideals that the orderer was pursuing.

As such, the texts dealing with knights and kings are now regarded as a self-idolization of the court. The court and the noblemen are presented as they thought they *should be*, and not as they actually were -- the difference is crass.


(As a consequnce, all sorts of anachronisms and contradictions are possible: In Veldekes Aeneasroman, for example, the story takes place around the Trojan war and then the establishing of the beginnings of Rome. There are knights, people are heavily dressed in complex dresses (it is described in detail what folds and bordures they have), beds and houses are such as they had them around the 13th century, Aeneas prayed to the one and only true god -- all things that were there when the text was written, and not in the time the story of the text takes place.)

Just let me loose in the vaults of the Vatican alone, and you'd never hear of me again.
They probably assassinate you, so we definitely wouldnt hear form you again.
But on topic, i agree entirely about the reimagining of the myth. But even now, some peopel have pointed out that the kind of bow miss knightly is using isnt exactly authentic, nor is some of the wall in the back ground, and various other points which I cant remember.

In looking at texts about King arthur, it is also useful to remember that the people writing and illustrating them used examples from their own time period, thus we have the Macjiowski bible (however yous pell it) with perfect 13th or 14th century illustrations of arms and armour, but on David versus goliath. So, the people writing and rewriting these things would have updated details as tehy went along.
Then theres the Mabinogion. It mentions arthur and suchlike, but you can see how the story has been altered to make it more up to date, and I cant remember any references to a round table. But my translation is an older one, it might be one of the somewhat supsect earlier ones, I need to check.

It's not - they didn't use recurved bows. Actually, I've seen it mentioned that the saxons use crossbows in the movie as well - another historical inaccuracy considering the crossbow didn't come until much later.

And Miss Knightly's hair is just artfully dishevelled enough to annoy me - as attractive as she may look.

Need to do some research before I get back to you Weebee - I'll get there eventually.

They use crossbows? Are they imported from China???
Sheesh. One of these days I want to make a really accurate historical film with as near dammit accurate fighting. But it would be messy, and somewhat expensive.
And judging by the film posters I've seen, theres far too much metal armour worn by people. ah well. AS long as nobody takes it seriously......

Rosa:
All this is visible in the texts -- they are usually more or less distorted accounts of reality. Whereby this distortion has a certain direction: it glorifies the one who ordered the text, or usually it glorifies certain ideals that the orderer was pursuing.

Self righteous, vindictive patrotism.

I really liked this:
WEEBEE:
As I see it first came the grain of sand, and then the layers of saliva, and now we have a pearl, which without the sand and the saliva would not exist. But unlike the metaphor you can’t separate them out because factual always depends on what you want to see.
Pretty.

And aren't stories warmer and morals easier to swallow when presented as pearls?
Just let me loose in the vaults of the Vatican alone, and you'd never hear of me again.
I know.
And you'd be a thousand times paler than you are now from no sun.

And speaking of calculated frumpery- saw the movie and it amazes me how out in the middle of the British woods, in the filth and running with Sarmatian barbarians, Guenevre was able to mainain the opal eyeshadow and hydrated skin of a runaway model.
Her hair, as conditioned as Jesus's hair always is in his movies.
Her eyebrows would put a metrosexual to shame.
And must I tell you how ridiculous the little girl looked with her sword?

Funny too that battles are shown fought on horseback, as the battles of Romans are erroneously depicted on chariots when it seems all the battles between Brits, Saxon, Normans were fought on foot with shields and armor.
Too, there are the war decorations to consider.
Is that glamorized or true?
The pretty blue markings the Britons are seen wearing?

True - As far as I'm aware they did use blue for those. I remember reading a lot about it but the details escape me - I may have to revisit. I have yet to see the movie though - I'd have to drive for an hour and a half to get to the nearest cinema. Heh.

This is probably my favourite Arthurian fiction (by Bernard Cornwell).
http://www.bernardcornwell.net/index2.cfm?page=1&SeriesId=4

Wolf:
True - As far as I'm aware they did use blue for those. I remember reading a lot about it but the details escape me - I may have to revisit. I have yet to see the movie though - I'd have to drive for an hour and a half to get to the nearest cinema. Heh
But, godamnit, they've got these worriers looking like Barbies, not barbarians.
A neat smudge of blue here, a small clump of mud there, and semi-ornate drawings of curls and swirls all around the face as if it were Vegas.


This is probably my favourite Arthurian fiction (by Bernard Cornwell).
http://www.bernardcornwell.net/inde...ge=1&SeriesId=4

NICE!
And he once belonging to a cult called "The Peculiar People" makes Cornwell and whatever he may write a promise in intrigue.
Is he witty?
Terribly learned?
I'm sure he's not stuffy, but I wonder if he comes of as enganging with his mania as Graves does. People like these are the only reasons I find historical fiction tolerable.
Terry Jones, former member of the Python cast, is another character that makes history alive to me.
Make me want him, Wolf. I'm up for another visit to the library. Sell him to me.

Wolf:

But, godamnit, they've got these worriers looking like Barbies, not barbarians.
A neat smudge of blue here, a small clump of mud there, and semi-ornate drawings of curls and swirls all around the face as if it were Vegas.
I checked - The blue markings were probably not tattoos, but a frozen corpse has revealed that it was a dye. They have found very little evidence of tatooing on bodies found. Other than that corpse, most of our knowledge of it has been from the writings of historians, and not contemporary ones.

NICE!
And he once belonging to a cult called "The Peculiar People" makes Cornwell and whatever he may write a promise in intrigue.
Is he witty?
Terribly learned?
I'm sure he's not stuffy, but I wonder if he comes of as enganging with his mania as Graves does. People like these are the only reasons I find historical fiction tolerable.
Terry Jones, former member of the Python cast, is another character that makes history alive to me.
Make me want him, Wolf. I'm up for another visit to the library. Sell him to me.
Actually, I don't know much about Cornwell himself - I'd read a couple of his other things when younger and he didn't really stand out for me until this series.
But as to this - The things is, I didn't even like his characters. Arthur is a man capable of so much held back by his own self doubt and his loathing of his own people's lack of vision. The christian monks were evil men, the christian Britons weak, and Merlin the druid only half believeing in his own gods. But ah, the young druidess... Damn me, I've forgotten her name... she stands out like a beacon. Savage, total belief in herself and her gods, and fighting a war almost on her own. And the battle scenes, the shield walls, were rather good I thought. It's been a while since I read them though - perhaps my opinion would change on a revisit.

Historically, it's probably the closest depiction of the times I've seen - Briton fighting Briton, the saxon incursion, and... I got an overall feeling that the Britons doomed themselves from the beginning, with only the odd shining light saving them for a few years more.

Must go - work calls.

In that case, I will have to make do without him for a while.
Where fiction goes, only the saucy will do.

. But ah, the young druidess... Damn me, I've forgotten her name... she stands out like a beacon. Savage, total belief in herself and her gods, and fighting a war almost on her own
It is odd how the male author is usually found embracing absolutes in the female. Your druidess is Scott's Jewess, Rebecca. Here she chides de Bois-Guilbert for his false pride in being a Templar Knight:

"Unahppy man......and are you condemned to expose your life for principles of which your sober judgement does not acknowledge the solitidity? Surely that is a parting with your treasure for that which is not bread. But deem not so of me. Your resolution may fluctuate on the wild and changeful billows of human opinion; but mine is anchored on the Rock of Ages."

Gendanken is reading walter scott?? wow. Congratulations.