"WI King Arthur had become the central figure of British religion?

[HurriBarz]

I'm new to this (and to here), so criticism of what I am doing would be helpful.

The POD for this seems to be around 597, so I think it goes here.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/dice07oct04.html

Sorry if that link does not work out: a sure-fire way to reach the page is to simply type in 'Arthurianity' into a search engine, any search engine.

I think the author of said article did a fairly good job with it, but he neglected some things that, unfortunately, I know nothing of either . . . details, in other words, about the rest of the world. I hope people here can help with the historical details, if not the religious details.

My goal is to adapt this world to my own devices, with some ASBs getting involved in this TL at 2010 (only will supply details on that if asked, through post or PM). Hope to get some good feedback from this forum, and to get some ideas (and information on HOW legal it is to use the material I have linked to).

Oh, and hello to all of you. *bows*

 

[Count Dearborn]

I read somewhere that Arthur was based on a Celtic or Pre-Celtic bear god. (You might also want this moved to the ASB section.)

 

[Glen]

A Church of Arthur would belong here if done plausibly, but if you're going to have ASBs at some point, it might be better placed in ASB...

I'm new to this (and to here), so criticism of what I am doing would be helpful.

The POD for this seems to be around 597, so I think it goes here.

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/dice07oct04.html

Sorry if that link does not work out: a sure-fire way to reach the page is to simply type in 'Arthurianity' into a search engine, any search engine.

I think the author of said article did a fairly good job with it, but he neglected some things that, unfortunately, I know nothing of either . . . details, in other words, about the rest of the world. I hope people here can help with the historical details, if not the religious details.

My goal is to adapt this world to my own devices, with some ASBs getting involved in this TL at 2010 (only will supply details on that if asked, through post or PM). Hope to get some good feedback from this forum, and to get some ideas (and information on HOW legal it is to use the material I have linked to).

Oh, and hello to all of you. *bows*

 

[HurriBarz]

Thank you for your concerns, but the ASBs . . . are not what I am here to discuss, at all. I wanted to discuss the elements in the article and some of the things that they lack. ASBs are just something I will tack onto it at the end on my end.

Also, Arthur being fictional does not really bear on this article. What does is the influence of people actually separating veneration for him and for his deeds from the Catholic Church in England. England essentially creates its own rival church.

Some things mentioned in the article I linked to seem really intriguing (like England siding with Islam, which would at the least mean no enmity between Muslim terrorists and America, I think), but I do not know enough about what influence England had in the OTL on the continent. Could anyone tell me about things like that, or about its influence on the Crusades and whatnot?

Hell, is it possible that this would butterfly to Spain remaining under Islamic dominion? An Islamic South America comes to mind, but I would like some help with seeing how it works in the nuts and bolts way you people seem able to think.

 

[Looseheadprop]

mostly i think britain would be conquered by crusaders from europe

 

[Communist Wizard]

Thank you for your concerns, but the ASBs . . . are not what I am here to discuss, at all. I wanted to discuss the elements in the article and some of the things that they lack. ASBs are just something I will tack onto it at the end on my end.

Also, Arthur being fictional does not really bear on this article. What does is the influence of people actually separating veneration for him and for his deeds from the Catholic Church in England. England essentially creates its own rival church.

Some things mentioned in the article I linked to seem really intriguing (like England siding with Islam, which would at the least mean no enmity between Muslim terrorists and America, I think), but I do not know enough about what influence England had in the OTL on the continent. Could anyone tell me about things like that, or about its influence on the Crusades and whatnot?

Hell, is it possible that this would butterfly to Spain remaining under Islamic dominion? An Islamic South America comes to mind, but I would like some help with seeing how it works in the nuts and bolts way you people seem able to think.

OK, about the Muslims and America part- that mentality definetly has to go. When thinking about a Point Of Diversion (POD), you've got to think short term. At least shorter than 1500 years! You see, there are things called 'butterflies' (minor events that may change randomly because of bigger events) which will make a COMPLETELY different world by 2008! A different church in England will be a huge event down the line, and we'll probably see a completely diffrent America, or al-Maghreb, or whatever it's called in this timeline. This would be worse/bigger than the Orthodox/Catholic split, probably as big a Muhammedian Islam- Depending on how close it is to Christianity. Now, I suggest to study up on the era as you are going to have to completely change European history, so look at it like a cause-effect chain...

 

[HurriBarz]

OK, about the Muslims and America part- that mentality definetly has to go. When thinking about a Point Of Diversion (POD), you've got to think short term. At least shorter than 1500 years! You see, there are things called 'butterflies' (minor events that may change randomly because of bigger events) which will make a COMPLETELY different world by 2008! A different church in England will be a huge event down the line, and we'll probably see a completely diffrent America, or al-Maghreb, or whatever it's called in this timeline. This would be worse/bigger than the Orthodox/Catholic split, probably as big a Muhammedian Islam- Depending on how close it is to Christianity. Now, I suggest to study up on the era as you are going to have to completely change European history, so look at it like a cause-effect chain...

. . . thank you for your advice. ^^

I am a bit confused about how big an influence this version of England could have on the rest of the world before it forms an Empire . . . I do not want to assume too much will change as a result: I think it is safe to assume that America would still rebel, even if it does not move as speedily in its development . . . at least, that is what the article suggests.

Are there any obviously wrong points talked about in the article that I should throw out when trying to construct a timeline based on its starting question?

 

[Mason]

I could see an English Church of Arthur and a "Protestant" Church of Arthur in America, in order to seperate more completely from the British.

 

[carlton_bach]

. . . thank you for your advice. ^^

I am a bit confused about how big an influence this version of England could have on the rest of the world before it forms an Empire . . . I do not want to assume too much will change as a result:

Following the mission of St Augustine and the Synod of Whitby, English missionaries were instrumental in establishing papal authority throughout Western Europe. Without the distinctive English tradition of Christianity, we basically don't get the Catholic Church as we know it, and the butterflies from that alone will change Europe beyond all recognition.

 

[Communist Wizard]

. . . thank you for your advice. ^^

I am a bit confused about how big an influence this version of England could have on the rest of the world before it forms an Empire . . . I do not want to assume too much will change as a result: I think it is safe to assume that America would still rebel, even if it does not move as speedily in its development . . . at least, that is what the article suggests.

Are there any obviously wrong points talked about in the article that I should throw out when trying to construct a timeline based on its starting question?

*facepalm*
1776 is too far away from ~500! As said before, English monks were instrumental in Christianity, so Europe' history will be 'butterflied'. The article provides no thought at all to the short term, thinking more than a thousand years will make little change. 'America', or whatever it is called (Amerigo Vespucci might simply not be born in this timeline, or Columbus) may not be settled by the British inhabitants, we probably butterfly away the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, prwtty much EVERYTHING in Europe and the Meditterenian basin will be vastly diferent. 'America' will most likely not exist in this world. You've got 1000 years of change, and huge change, Europe will be vastly different! Don't assume the future, and domn't think things will not change. Even if you try to make change as minimal as possible, we still won't have a Catholic Chuch (or at least a vastly different one), and all of the change that comes from not having a Catholic Church. We may not see English colonisation of the New World at all! America, as we know it today, will simply not exist.

 

[Thyme]

I can sort of see a possibility for a Keltic Christian church to split off in the 500's. This could lead to armies chanting 'For God & St. Arthur' a few hundred years later.

 

[Blue Max]

Okay, I'm confused...

I thought King Arthur was a real historical figure of WALES that stopped the Anglo-Saxon advance.

So, this means that King Arthur is Welsh--Wales somehow unifies Britain? This would result in Cardiff being the city that London wishes it was...

Also, the Dragon would emerge as the British Flag prominently.

 

[Quiet_Man]

Okay, I'm confused...

I thought King Arthur was a real historical figure of WALES that stopped the Anglo-Saxon advance.

So, this means that King Arthur is Welsh--Wales somehow unifies Britain? This would result in Cardiff being the city that London wishes it was...

Also, the Dragon would emerge as the British Flag prominently.

It's difficult to say just who or what Arthur was, He's claimed to an extent by Wales, England, Scotland and France. The most likely seems to be that he's some sort of Roman Dux who seized power after the legions left, but this is all mostly legend and local folklore. You can look up the Gradlon legends in Brittany to see some sort of allegory to the British legends.

 

[HurriBarz]

*facepalm*
1776 is too far away from ~500! As said before, English monks were instrumental in Christianity, so Europe' history will be 'butterflied'. The article provides no thought at all to the short term, thinking more than a thousand years will make little change. 'America', or whatever it is called (Amerigo Vespucci might simply not be born in this timeline, or Columbus) may not be settled by the British inhabitants, we probably butterfly away the Magna Carta, the English Civil War, prwtty much EVERYTHING in Europe and the Meditterenian basin will be vastly diferent. 'America' will most likely not exist in this world. You've got 1000 years of change, and huge change, Europe will be vastly different! Don't assume the future, and domn't think things will not change. Even if you try to make change as minimal as possible, we still won't have a Catholic Chuch (or at least a vastly different one), and all of the change that comes from not having a Catholic Church. We may not see English colonisation of the New World at all! America, as we know it today, will simply not exist.

I see: so, it would be likely that the Catholic Church would remain an Eastern European phenomenon, without its overwhelming power that it gained in OTL. So Western Europe might . . . I dunno, turn Arthurian, but gradually? Some possibility in that, I would think, especially in light of the many French manuscripts about Arthur in the original. Then again, the British Isles seem to turn a mite bit isolationist in this version, and less prone to sending out missionaries of any variety. So it would occur through a slow process of osmosis, I guess.

So, would it be a likely consequence that Islam takes Spain (or an analogue thereof) and does not surrender it? I mean, Islam should barely flinch as a result of this new religion, what with Muhammad having lived around the time that this occurred, and thus not influenced much at all by the butterflies. Still, its role seems to be important to this timeline . . .

It's difficult to say just who or what Arthur was, He's claimed to an extent by Wales, England, Scotland and France. The most likely seems to be that he's some sort of Roman Dux who seized power after the legions left, but this is all mostly legend and local folklore. You can look up the Gradlon legends in Brittany to see some sort of allegory to the British legends.

This seems to indicate that Ireland would remain Catholic a bit longer than the rest of the isles, which would make it of some small interest in this timeline. >_> Perhaps some more heated warfare between Ireland and the larger island . . . ?

Also, thank you guys for helping me out a bit. ^^

 

[Calgacus]

It's difficult to say just who or what Arthur was, He's claimed to an extent by Wales, England, Scotland and France. The most likely seems to be that he's some sort of Roman Dux who seized power after the legions left, but this is all mostly legend and local folklore. You can look up the Gradlon legends in Brittany to see some sort of allegory to the British legends.

Not to mention that Wales didn't exist at this stage. What you have is former Roman Britain, now a kind of hybrid Roman-Celtic society. The Celtic part of the mix is what we today would call Welsh or Old Welsh culture. This covers most of modern day England and Wales. There are also a few culturally similar (welsh-speaking) independent satellite states of the empire left in southern Scotland. To the north, there are the Picts, who may have spoken some form of "Welsh", but who were culturally quite different, not least because they were never Romanised. In Ireland, you have the linguistic ancestors of more modern Scots and Irish, also never Romanised, and starting to intrude on the west coast of Britannia. In fact, the fragmented Romano-British polities regarded the Irish and particularly the Picts as their most dangerous enemies, for some time after the Saxons arrived on the scene - there were way more of them and they'd been a threat for longer. See the Great Conspiracy. Some historians and authors have suggested that Arthur may have lived in southern Scotland/Northumberland (in a Kingdom called The Gododdin), as it was here that a British champion was really needed, not in the south until later.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Perhaps a Saint Arthur, as patron saint of a Britonnic Britain?

 

[DAv]

Perhaps a Saint Arthur, as patron saint of a Britonnic Britain?

I was thinking of something like that but with perhaps a bit of difference. There is an old legend telling of when Joseph of Aramathea (sp?) came to Britain along with the Holy Grail. What if the legend is tweaked somewhat so Jospeh gives the Grail to Arthur (Or one of his ancestors) proclaiming something along the lines of:

"Behold, here lies the cup of our Lord as he drank from it in the day before his death. Take this and go forth, spread the light of God throughout these Isles. And for those who doubt you or you sons in your quest, show them the Grail so that they may know that you have been sent from the Lord our God for this purpose."

Or something along those lines anyway. We'd probably need to rumble up a Grail equivalent in some form or another but I thik we've got the bare bones of it. Arthur's family being the protectors of the Grail and Christianity in the British Isles which eventually splits from Rome over the idea that they prefer the authority over a native King to that of the Pope.

 

[Hendryk]

I was thinking of something like that but with perhaps a bit of difference. There is an old legend telling of when Joseph of Aramathea (sp?) came to Britain along with the Holy Grail. What if the legend is tweaked somewhat so Jospeh gives the Grail to Arthur (Or one of his ancestors) proclaiming something along the lines of:

"Behold, here lies the cup of our Lord as he drank from it in the day before his death. Take this and go forth, spread the light of God throughout these Isles. And for those who doubt you or you sons in your quest, show them the Grail so that they may know that you have been sent from the Lord our God for this purpose."

As I understand it, the Arthurian myth went through several incarnations, the earliest ones quite pagan, but by the time it was written down by Chrétien de Troye several layers of Christianity had been added. I think the grail as the receptable of Jesus's blood is one of them--wasn't the original grail a huge cauldron?

 

[HurriBarz]

I was thinking of something like that but with perhaps a bit of difference. There is an old legend telling of when Joseph of Arimathea came to Britain along with the Holy Grail. What if the legend is tweaked somewhat so Joseph gives the Grail to Arthur (Or one of his ancestors) proclaiming something along the lines of:

"Behold, here lies the cup of our Lord as he drank from it in the day before his death. Take this and go forth, spread the light of God throughout these Isles. And for those who doubt you or you sons in your quest, show them the Grail so that they may know that you have been sent from the Lord our God for this purpose."

Or something along those lines anyway. We'd probably need to rumble up a Grail equivalent in some form or another but I think we've got the bare bones of it. Arthur's family being the protectors of the Grail and Christianity in the British Isles which eventually splits from Rome over the idea that they prefer the authority over a native King to that of the Pope.

One problem I see with this is that you assume that Arthur was a real man. It also assumes that the royal family descends from him. It is an interesting idea, but the "divine right to rule" concept seems to be rather foreign to what I was working with at the beginning: i.e. a grassroots resistance to change.

As I understand it, the Arthurian myth went through several incarnations, the earliest ones quite pagan, but by the time it was written down by Chrétien de Troye several layers of Christianity had been added. I think the grail as the receptacle of Jesus's blood is one of them--wasn't the original grail a huge cauldron?

I think that you are referring to Dagda's Cauldron, one of the four treasures of Ireland. Or something like that. *shrugs* I recall there being some Welsh analogue to that, but I am not certain what it was . . .

Anyway, I am not sure that the Holy Grail would really be that important, over all. It may have served as a MacGuffin of sorts in Arthurian legends, but as an article of faith, it does not seem to carry too much weight. It is like saying that the Shroud of Turin would aid the Catholic Church palpably.

Of course, the general opinion of a Christian influence on King Arthur, even in the timeline I was proposing, would be CORRECT. However, in the timeline I am conceiving of, I think that the influence is different in its effects. Instead of Arthur becoming subservient to the Christian mythos, the mythology is spurred to match it point for point. It ends up becoming a rival of sorts: two territorial churches. In fact, I think that the origin of Merlin due to demons/fairies wishing to propagate their ways in opposition to Christianity might be close to how it plays out in this timeline. Except that this time, Merlin stays true to their goals.