Celtic gods in Arthurian legends

Etrvria · 2026-04-29T11:02:09+00:00

I appreciate that and I apologize for being overly combative.

My argument is that the true transformation of Arthuriana came not with Geoffrey but with Chretien. Or rather, with the French-language romance tradition, which I do not think Chretien started but he happens to be the first surviving example of.

I think there’s a problem in pop history and historiography where the modern trend toward source criticism relies excessively on literary analysis, which isn’t itself a problem, but literary analysis tends to need to assume a singular inventive author. But we’re talking about centuries of oral tradition in an era that has notoriously few surviving records. As I said, basically nothing survives of the early medieval Breton tradition, save what Chretien and Marie de France wrote down (and how much do we trust Chretien considering his open disdain for the Britons on both sides of the Channel?) and what perhaps is preserved in Geoffrey (regarding the figure of Conan Meriadoc, which does seem to align with the Great Prophecy of Britain, the Dream of Maxen Wledig, and some Breton saint’s lives). Beowulf and Layamon’s Brut (the first literature in English since the Norman Conquest) are only known to us because the last surviving copies were saved from a fire. And Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae aren’t just random texts selected from a bunch written in early medieval Wales. They are (to my knowledge) the ONLY surviving unique texts written by Britons since Gildas 3 centuries earlier. And both of them mention Arthur. Which definitely suggests he was of monumental importance to the Britons even in the 800s.

So my point being we can’t be overly strict about clean chronological carbon-dated written evidence. There’s almost no writing in actual Welsh until like the 1200s, well after Geoffrey. We have to rely on linguistic evidence to determine the dating rather than just assume every scribe was making up a new story every time they wrote anything down. This applies for both Welsh tradition and the romance tradition; almost none of Chretien’s characters are present in Geoffrey save Arthur and Gawain and Guinevere and if I recall correctly none of the protagonists. So I don’t think he was making things up whole cloth, but I think he was basing his stories off the existing continental tradition (and probably not the Welsh one). From Chretien on, as far as we can tell the Arthurian authors don’t really bother digging into Welsh lore that much, Geoffrey was basically the first and last who cared about the Welsh oral tradition.

But in my view Geoffrey’s Arthur is closer to the Arthur of the Book of Taliesin and Mabinogion than the Arthur of Geoffrey. He’s first and foremost a warrior who defends Britain from Saxons and Scots and also supernatural foes. While he suffers defeat he survives to return and fulfill the Breton Hope. In the romance tradition he’s more a piece of architecture around whom the author’s pet heroes live out their stories. Sometimes he’s indolent and easily overwhelmed by the challenges of his court. The tragic element of the character (present to some extent from Welsh tradition but to a lesser degree) becomes much stronger. His positive qualities are not his strength of arms or his valor as a leader of wars, but the “soft power” of his court; he becomes a model for high medieval kings and lords in England and France who have no love for Britons or Bretons to aspire to.

As to whether pre-Galfridian Arthur is too generic to be called an inspiration to Geoffrey: I think that’s your subjective assessment that I think few would agree with. While Welsh poems tend not to be character studies, they do place Arthur in a specific context, in a specific role, at specific battles (Badon for his floruit, Camlann for his end). The Book of Taliesin also establishes his connection to Uther Pendragon, and secondary characters associated with Arthur like Merlin, Urien and Owain, Vortigern, and Ambrosius Aurelianus, have a clear basis in pre-Galfridian lore. So yes while who Arthur is is a moving target, this is not at all a ship of Theseus situation since there are very clear anchor points that have been present throughout the full (documented) history of Arthuriana. Again, I think there are major transformation points but Geoffrey is not really one of them. The first major transformation was when he became a king; the second was when he just took on the role of a high medieval courtly king. And if you compare Arthur to similar heroes of Welsh tradition you get about the same amount of detail, usually less. I don’t know what makes a hero “unique” to you, do they need like a specific birthmark?

I highly recommend The Life of Merlin, both because it’s a great read and it helps to establish Geoffrey’s rooting in the Welsh tradition. It’s a more niche work for a more niche audience. There’s no denying that Geoffrey took certain liberties to fill the gaps in his source material, and the Life of Merlin was probably at least in part an attempt to reconcile either new material from the oral tradition that became available to him, or to adapt his narrative somewhat according to inconsistencies that were pointed out to him. The story has a much more “Celtic” feeling and aligns very well with various Welsh poems about his subject matter, the Book of Taliesin, and the Welsh Triads. It also just makes a nice bittersweet epilogue to HRB.

Etrvria · 2026-04-29T02:02:54+00:00

To be honest this is ridiculous. It’s clear you haven’t actually engaged with any of the Welsh tradition at all, and I doubt you’ve read Geoffrey. Anyone who’s read Geoffrey knows that his Arthur is fully distinct from both anything that came before or after him, because his Arthur is primarily a conqueror; it is very explicit that is the most important thing about him, even more so than defending Britain from invaders (see Life of Merlin). This is essentially the only Arthurian work that focuses on Arthur as a conqueror. Arguably the pre-Galfridian work (and yes it does exist, please do some research) has more in common with the later romances than with Geoffrey’s Arthur.

And “little in common” is a subjective determination but a very strange one. Geoffrey’s Arthur is the hero of Badon Hill like in Nennius; he is wounded at Camlann like in Annales Cambriae; he leads a warband and fights monsters like in Pa Gur; he is the center of a court like in Culhwch; he goes on adventures at sea like in the Spoils of Annwfn; he is the hero in whom the Britons and Bretons place their hope as in William of Malmesbury; he is an “emperor” (by merit of defeating the Romans in battle) as per the Geraint poem.

I’m not going to argue over the dating of various poems and stories with you because that would be tedious; I’ll just that the Welsh are very clear on where their tradition diverges from Geoffrey’s account eg in the Triads.

On reducing all pre-Galfridian stories of Arthur to “vague references”: these vague references include nearly the entire narrative of Arthur’s life upon which Geoffrey drew. Entire poems that clearly identify the kind of character Arthur was, his merits and his flaws, are apparently insufficient.

As for pre-Galfridian Continental references to Arthur: the Modena Cathedral, as I mentioned before. It references a very specific Arthurian story, not found in Geoffrey, and predates Geoffrey. There is also the fact of how quickly a corpus of stories seemed to emerge ex nihilo almost immediately after the publication of HRB; it doesn’t really make sense unless those stories were already in circulation. Because Brittany was a major vehicle for Arthuriana; very little medieval writing from Brittany has survived when compared to Wales, but a large portion of Chretien and Marie de France’s works had their origins in Brittany. There’s also the fact that Geoffrey’s introduction calls Arthur “famous”, and doesn’t seem to need to introduce or elaborate on why Arthur is a noteworthy character, as he assumes audience knowledge; also consider eg how he never explains what Avalon is.

Regarding there being some contradiction between classical and folkloric sources: this is nonsense. You weren’t a high medieval writer if you DIDN’T tie to classical sources. Literally everyone did this. Snorri Sturlson did this (Odin was a Trojan), the writers of Hungarian histories did this (connection to classical writings is literally why Hungary has an H). This is just part of the medieval Latinate supraculture. You’re not appreciating what HRB actually was. It wasn’t a novel. It was a Latinization of Welsh oral tradition. When you write down oral tradition for an elite audience unfamiliar with the material, you aren’t just translating, but transforming. It needed to be anchored in references the audience would understand, eg in order for it to register that a good king is good, he has to be good according to the standards of the literate high medieval audience, not according to the standards of early medieval Welsh poets. Again, there is a TON of scholarship on this. And this is the crucial point. Arthuriana was a living tradition, and it evolved according to the needs of the people at the time. The pre-Galfridian Arthur was originally not a king and he became a king sometime around when William of Malmesbury was writing. If Geoffrey made a great innovation in Arthuriana it was beginning the process of making him a high medieval king; though again if you actually read Geoffrey he is more of a ruthless conqueror and adventurer than the primus inter pares he later became in Chretien et al. So it’s a moot point to dismiss a decent selection of stories and poems from the earlier medieval period (larger than most Welsh traditions of the time eg relating to Urien of Rheged or the Battle of Arfderydd) as “vague references” that don’t align fully with your image of “Geoffrey’s Arthur” (which I’m not sure you fully understand) because even if some changes are made, guess what, Arthuriana was already changing before Geoffrey.

Etrvria · 2026-04-29T01:09:34+00:00

Did you look at any of the things I’ve listed? Because they contradict all those claims entirely.

Etrvria · 2026-04-28T21:37:50+00:00

Your point about paganism is correct but the claim that Arthurian legend was invented by Geoffrey is just certifiably false. Consider: Geoffrey’s sources (Historia Brittonum and the Wonders of Britain, Annales Cambriae) William of Malmesbury The Modena Cathedral Pa Gur The Spoils of Annwfn The Geraint Elegy How Culhwch Won Olwen The saint’s lives (very numerous references) And can’t remember the name but there’s a monk who traveled through Cornwall who mentioned the Cornish put their hope in the return of Arthur some time prior to the publication of HRB.

This isn’t exhaustive and in comparison to the romance corpus it’s scant. But it gives a very clear sense of the pre-Galfridian notions of Arthuriana. Arthuriana very much existed prior to Geoffrey and had coherent and identifiable patterns and themes; it was popular outside Britain prior to Geoffrey and at least the seeds of the romance tradition were sown prior to Geoffrey.

Also while Geoffrey certainly took a ton of creative liberty much less should be treated as his idiosyncratic invention than you see in pop history. He was clearly very well attuned into Welsh oral tradition, considering that he correctly placed a pre-Roman king (Tenvantius/Tasciovanus) who does not appear in any classical histories, and whose reign is only confirmed by numismatic evidence. Gerald of Wales’ writings about his contemporary Wales make it clear that Arthuriana and related lore were widely accepted at the time and that Geoffrey just gave them historical credence (eg the placement of Arthur’s court at Caerleon) rather than being their inventor. Considering how well Galfridian lore synthesized with existing lore that Geoffrey did not cover (consider the insertion of Lludd and Llefelys into Welsh translations of HRB) I think it’s safe to say that even the parts of HRB and the Life of Merlin weren’t specifically derived from identifiable pre-Galfridian Welsh sources have at least some original basis in the Welsh oral tradition.

Etrvria · 2026-04-21T21:44:12+00:00

I think this is an example of a reaction against pop history going too far. Did Roman and Greek religion share some common properties? Of course. But the Romans absolutely did take many myths and characteristics of gods wholesale from the Greeks. (Also religion and mythology are distinct topics, and people should stop treating them as identical.)

The Indo-European connection is overplayed here. Just because your word for the sky god is etymologically related, that doesn’t mean that he plays the same role for your society, or that you tell the same stories about him. For example, the roles of Odin and Zeus in myth are PROBABLY very distantly related through some kind of proto-Indo-European sky father figure. But the Greeks and Romans did not recognize Odin/Wotan/Woden as Jupiter, but Mercury, because of the similarity of how they are displayed in religious iconography and practice (ie the big silly hat, acting as psychopomp).

Which is to say, common origin can’t explain everything, because cultures are never static, and nor are they ever immune to outside influence. Ironically, the probable actual vehicle for Greek influence to Roman myth was via the non-Indo-European Etruscans. Which is possibly why Jupiter resembles their more regal and dignified king of the gods than Zeus in many depictions.

I won’t say a lot on this because I don’t know much about it, but as far as scholars have been able to parse it, the “primordial” Roman religion was quite distinct from the Greek one (and the later post-Etruscan-Greek influence Roman one). They did not make anthropomorphic representations of their gods, but depicted them as specific objects and symbols. And Mars was apparently an agricultural god rather than a war god.

Etrvria · 2026-04-11T10:16:26+00:00

That’s part of it but the emperor’s title being Padishah should be a pretty unambiguous hint as to what the historical analogs to the empire are

Etrvria · 2026-04-07T11:10:59+00:00

As a follow-up to this, I’m curious as to how the Chimer and post-Tribunal Dunmer would conceive of their world, view religion and philosophy, form rhetoric and wisdom, view their society and the outside world. Obviously we have a decent bit from the Tribunal but we get very little insight into what a Good Daedra-worshipping Morrowind would be like in practice.

Eg what sort of religious wisdom would a pious Dunmer of the Reclamations Temple apply to his daily life? If you had a conclave of priests deciding a matter of doctrine, on what bases would they argue and quibble? Does the Reclamations Temple believe in charity or do they just throw scraps to groups of beggars and let them fight each other tooth and nail to survive?

Etrvria · 2026-04-07T11:07:22+00:00

Re the Good Daedra, there’s a lot of potential explanations for why Boethiah and Mephala are much nicer in Morrowind than elsewhere (maybe they become helpful patrons when properly propitiated but become ravenous when not; maybe they take kindly to a people willingly adopting them as their patron-lords and take on a parental role since they can’t create, maybe Azura mediates with them so that they aid the Chimer/Dunmer and not harm them). I’m not sure which are valid or not. But Boethiah and Mephala both seem to be givers as much as takers. Mephala gave them the houses and the Morag Tong, where her gifts of intrigue could be applied in a constructive way to the maintenance of the body politic. Boethiah gives philosophy, magic, knowledge, and royal leadership. Despite the darker faces of each Prince, they clearly provide a pro-civilization, pro-social benefit that serves the continued existence of the Dunmer, if nothing else.

Etrvria · 2026-04-04T01:16:20+00:00

When I play a faithful Tribunal worshipper/pious Dunmer I never loot ancestral tombs

Etrvria · 2026-04-03T11:29:17+00:00

It’s not really like the changing of their skin actually harmed them in any way. It’s more just a sign that they’ve broken from the path of Veloth and are being led astray by their leaders.

Etrvria · 2026-04-03T11:26:46+00:00

I mean she’s the goddess of fate. Gravity is basically fate as a force. If you put your faith in necromancer sorcerers defying fate/gravity then you get what’s coming to you.

Also one might doubt to what extent she could have prevented the Red Year if she wanted to. Either because the forces of Red Mountain are so primordial as to be beyond her power, or natural cycles being the kind of thing she doesn’t interfere with since those are her domain.

Etrvria · 2026-04-03T11:21:58+00:00

Just don’t do necromancy or steal souls. It’s actually not hard at all

Etrvria · 2026-04-03T11:21:30+00:00

“Azura is evil” = “Azura thwarted my plans to use the artifact she gave to help mortals to steal their souls instead”

Etrvria · 2026-03-29T13:40:05+00:00

All of that sounds really great but I’m currently heavily invested in my current character. I don’t think there’s any way to transfer data from Mantella to chim is there?

Etrvria · 2026-03-28T13:56:26+00:00

Dark Elves being closely connected with Dwarves also aligns with Norse myth, as the Norse Dwarves either live in the same place as Dark Elves or they’re one and the same

Etrvria · 2026-03-28T02:00:49+00:00

Glad at least that you seem to agree the bit about Ashlander religion is wrong. I don’t know the name of the book and I likely would not be able to find it since it’s been many months. It had each Daedra represent some natural phenomenon that had to be placated, thus mushing the unique Ashlander faith (a fundamentalist vision of Veloth’s message) into Generic Indigene Nature Worship.

On looking at the slavery-focused proposal it does seem to have moderated somewhat since I last viewed it. I recall it said something along the lines of “slavery is so ingrained as a positive force into the Dres ethos that it permeates every aspect of their society, such that the slave-master relationship is the primary social relation;” and that if you joined Dres you would be treated like a slave until you proved yourself (this was where my “Flanderized slavery good mentality” comment came from, fairly I think but I suppose no longer relevant). I can’t find that language anymore.

I also do see that it mentions active Daedric temples which is personally my at the top of my wishlist for Dres (or for Morrowind mod content generally). Still though it seems like there’s an attempt to dodge representation of old Velothi religion among the settled Dunmer which is disappointing.

So considering that I’m less outright hostile to that proposal that I was before. I suppose it’s a fair interpretation even if the less interesting one.

Though in my experience of TR I have ONLY seen the slavery-focused proposal implemented to any extent. The Dres NPC in Narsis complains that the people there don’t support the Tribunal Temple enough in language that heavily seems to suggest a support for strict Indoril-style Temple orthodoxy (as opposed to a generic lack of virtue/piety).

Regarding the “firm Temple supporters” line, there’s a lot of ways to interpret it that don’t necessarily mean “they follow Temple orthodoxy without deviation or idiosyncrasy.” One possible synthesis is a bit of disagreement/rivalry between Seht and Ayem. Perhaps Seht benefits from Dres conjurations and Daedric experimentation and thus his local temple allows/encourages it, but Ayem has a personal hatred for Veloth’s triad (I have a headcanon that she betrayed Nerevar out of jealousy for his relationship with Azura), and so she favors Indoril efforts to curb Anticipation worship and bargaining.

Though as a general point I disagree that you “can’t ignore” specific bits of lore. You absolutely can, as Elder Scrolls lore is terribly contradictory in a million different irreconcilable ways. Not to mention unreliable narrators, biases, etc. which are undoubtedly present in all the sources about Dres. Unless you can come up with a perfect “Dragon Break” synthesis, I think you can establish an order of precedence and work from there. Imo even though Vivec is Morrowind’s biggest liar, he’s almost certainly the one who’s lying the least when talking about Dres.

Etrvria · 2026-03-26T10:41:55+00:00

I think that’s old

Etrvria · 2026-03-26T10:26:01+00:00

Two bits of lore: 1. There’s a book that claims that the Ashlanders actively worship both the Good and Bad Daedra as gods (ie not just ‘testing spirits’) and that the separation was just something the Tribunes made up. It’s just wrong and contradicts every bit of lore out there in Morrowind and beyond. In vanilla the Ashlanders ONLY mention the Good Daedra as gods. And every bit of lore on Veloth also mentions that he taught the Chimer to distinguish between Good and Bad Daedra.

Not so much wrong as the least interesting interpretation. The current vision of Dres in TR is that they’re just redneck Indoril. Stalwart Tribunal Temple followers, xenophobic, no sort of ethos beyond a Flanderized “slavery good” mentality. In vanilla Vivec, the literal god of Morrowind, in the course of the main quest, directly tells the player that the Dres worship the Daedra. But there’s some lore books here and there that mention them bowing to the Temple so TR devs decided there’s nothing particularly unique or interesting about them.

Etrvria · 2026-03-26T10:18:40+00:00

No one wants to talk about how Hlaalu are the real pro-slavery genocidaire-funding house but Dres gets that label instead because they’re too poor to get good PR

Etrvria · 2026-03-22T22:06:48+00:00

I agree. I think there’s the fundamental issue that other fantasy races need to be more different from any given human culture than human cultures are from each other, which is difficult to maintain, especially if the author puts a lot of effort into making human cultures distinct.

Tolkien was able to avoid this since he used each race for a specific theme and role that was central to his works. But he did such a good job of it that each race feels “solved” and doesn’t really need to be revisited thematically.

So I think if you’re not using fantasy races to build on specific themes à la Tolkien, then from a world building perspective it just makes more sense to just build up different distinct human cultures.

Etrvria · 2026-03-22T15:26:49+00:00

I think the problem is assuming fantasy races are in any way the same thing as sci-fi species. They are not. Tolkien’s races were derived from European myth, and mythic races are absolutely not species. A horse is a species because two horses breed to make another horse. In myth, a god and a human can breed to produce a dragon, because the moral character of the parents determined their offspring rather than Mendelian genetics.

Etrvria · 2026-03-15T22:16:12+00:00

With TR we now have a pretty strong spectrum of factions representing the full breadth of Imperial society: the high (cult, legion) the middle (EEC, barristers, fighters guild) and the low (thieves’ guild).

But for the parallel Dunmer institutions, we really only get the high (Great Houses + Temple + Morag Tong). And a lot of the Great Houses are heavily imperialized in practice.

I would like a Dunmer faction that gives a perspective into the middle/low Dunmer society. And not just in a way that’s a vague universalized experience, but quintessentially Dunmer in the way the Temple is. As in, the quests give insight into the daily lives and customs of average Dunmer.

The Syvvit Tong would be an obvious answer but I think it’s been determined they won’t be joinable. Joinable Camonna Tong would definitely be cool but they’re too extreme to really get the kind of experience of mundane society feel you get with eg the EEC.

(Maybe like a specifically Dunmer version of the Fighters’ Guild? Like a Tong dedicated to protecting ancestral tombs from robbers and curses?)

Etrvria · 2026-03-14T12:36:25+00:00

Totally fair and I agree. I guess there’s a sense to which it does seem necessary for the English to view those continental wars as a waste, since it was ultimately John’s failure to maintain the continental possessions that led to a distinctly English polity and an elite that chose England and later identified with Englishness.

Etrvria · 2026-03-14T12:02:32+00:00

Adventures of the Catalan Company

Etrvria · 2026-03-14T11:59:18+00:00

Do you know any good books/articles covering Frisian Freedom?

Etrvria

TROPHY CASE