Fascinating topic. As someone who loves arthurian legends, I never read the original sources. The label fake history over ancient historians appears to me a weak argument to despise all the people of past. I understand there were biased views, but there are also biased people today. To me, it is more interresting to know their perspectives and compare with ours. Greetings of Brazil.
I love this topic! I heard a similar argument made in a lecture about early Rome. Historians always struggle when there are few corroborating sources. This, IMHO, is an excellent example of the difficulties even the best historians face. Great video.
The question is did History in its written form as we know it today really exist before Gibbon's 'Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'. Geoffrey can easily be accused of making it up and then making up an unknown source that legitamises it but as he was starting of with limited sources he was probably just filling in the gaps. I would say that the 'Arthur invades the Roman Empire' story simply conflates the true history of Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig in Welsh), a Roman Governer in Britain, who was proclaimed Emperor and led an army into Italy but was defeated by Theodosius I at the battle of Poetovio.
There is an Arthur who fought at Baden and Camlan in the 6th century. Athrwys ap Meurig was king of Glamorgan and Gwent. Which makes sense as the Mabinogi and other sources offer Caerleon (in Gwent) as his court. To make sense of his anachronistic invasion of Rome, this can be explained by the actions of his 6x grandfather Athun who was the son of Magnus Maximus borne by one of his British wifes. He invaded italy from Britain in 387. This also explains why there is sometimes a half Roman half British motif in Arthurianiana regarding his ethnicity - Wilson and Blackett's idea. As for Geoffrey of Monmouth, archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie has vindicated him of inventing the history and has subsequently proven that he was merely copying an earlier Breton document from the 7th century. Please see my channel if youre interested!
Aurther is discarded by academia because of his apparent life span of hundreds of years, having fought both the Romans AND Saxons. PROBLEM IS, there were two Aurthers. Aurther the 1st. Who DID fight the Romans, and Aurther the 2nd. who fought the Saxons. Both were Welsh, and high king(pendragon) at war. Both were decended from the mighty house of the Silures. They were, in point of fact, blood relatives. Academia is largely willfully ignorant of the facts. For proof and an excellent body of research, check out the books and TH-cam videos by Wilson and Blacket.
I didn't think of Blair Witch, but it's another great example of that gray zone isn't it? It certainly passes itself off as real footage, and that's what makes it scary. But I don't think I would call it pseudohistory, since I tend to think that the intention of the filmmakers was to tell a scary story, not to genuinely trick us into believing that it really happened. But that still is a definition based on intentions, which is tricky. Thanks for bringing it up!
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
Fascinating topic. As someone who loves arthurian legends, I never read the original sources. The label fake history over ancient historians appears to me a weak argument to despise all the people of past. I understand there were biased views, but there are also biased people today. To me, it is more interresting to know their perspectives and compare with ours.
Greetings of Brazil.
I love this topic! I heard a similar argument made in a lecture about early Rome. Historians always struggle when there are few corroborating sources. This, IMHO, is an excellent example of the difficulties even the best historians face. Great video.
The “Bye bye” at the end is so Canadian and I love it
Very fascinating subject, looking forward to the next one.
Just discovered Making History and love it!
I find myself wondering if Tolkien's device of "translating the Red Book" is a nod to Geoffrey.
Good video, more please!
It's definitely plausible. He was a medieval historian afterall :)
Great video!
The question is did History in its written form as we know it today really exist before Gibbon's 'Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire'. Geoffrey can easily be accused of making it up and then making up an unknown source that legitamises it but as he was starting of with limited sources he was probably just filling in the gaps.
I would say that the 'Arthur invades the Roman Empire' story simply conflates the true history of Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig in Welsh), a Roman Governer in Britain, who was proclaimed Emperor and led an army into Italy but was defeated by Theodosius I at the battle of Poetovio.
Hey, just a note that the sources link was messed up, but I've fixed it now, so it should work just fine. Let me know if it doesn't!
So, King Arthur is like the bible?
There is an Arthur who fought at Baden and Camlan in the 6th century. Athrwys ap Meurig was king of Glamorgan and Gwent. Which makes sense as the Mabinogi and other sources offer Caerleon (in Gwent) as his court. To make sense of his anachronistic invasion of Rome, this can be explained by the actions of his 6x grandfather Athun who was the son of Magnus Maximus borne by one of his British wifes. He invaded italy from Britain in 387. This also explains why there is sometimes a half Roman half British motif in Arthurianiana regarding his ethnicity - Wilson and Blackett's idea.
As for Geoffrey of Monmouth, archaeologist Sir Flinders Petrie has vindicated him of inventing the history and has subsequently proven that he was merely copying an earlier Breton document from the 7th century. Please see my channel if youre interested!
interesting video, would like to learn more about it, but the link to the sources doesn't lead anywhere
Oh thanks for letting me know! I'll look into it as soon as I can!
Clicked this vid as soon as I saw it upload 😭
Aurther is discarded by academia because of his apparent life span of hundreds of years, having fought both the Romans AND Saxons. PROBLEM IS, there were two Aurthers. Aurther the 1st. Who DID fight the Romans, and Aurther the 2nd. who fought the Saxons. Both were Welsh, and high king(pendragon) at war. Both were decended from the mighty house of the Silures. They were, in point of fact, blood relatives. Academia is largely willfully ignorant of the facts. For proof and an excellent body of research, check out the books and TH-cam videos by Wilson and Blacket.
Can only hear In left ear 😢 (headphones)
Hmmm, that's odd. I'll look into it. Thanks.
Is The Blair Witch Project psuedohistory in the same way? A fantastical and invented story trying to pass itself off as authentic in style?
I didn't think of Blair Witch, but it's another great example of that gray zone isn't it? It certainly passes itself off as real footage, and that's what makes it scary. But I don't think I would call it pseudohistory, since I tend to think that the intention of the filmmakers was to tell a scary story, not to genuinely trick us into believing that it really happened. But that still is a definition based on intentions, which is tricky. Thanks for bringing it up!
👏👏👏
Promo'SM 🎶