1

In the middle of a joust, King Arthur receives a severe blow to the head and is somehow transported in time and space to Connecticut in 1889. After some initial confusion and his capture by the local sheriff, Arthur realizes that he is actually in the future.

Given that Arthur wants to be helpful, and can speak modern English, in what way could he help the historians? How much impact would a contemporary person such as King Arthur have in the knowledge about the middle ages?

Separatrix
  • 117,733
  • 38
  • 261
  • 445
Kepotx
  • 6,748
  • 2
  • 28
  • 40
  • 1
    Your story, your plot. Or are you asking us to write it for you? – L.Dutch Jul 10 '18 at 08:27
  • @L.Dutch I was afraid that this question would be too story based (maybe I should have try tha sandbox), but is thit that more story based that this question? – Kepotx Jul 10 '18 at 08:30
  • Currently this is asking about the actions of a character ("What could Arthur do?"), which is up to you as the author. For the moment I am voting to temporarily put this question on hold as "story-based". You might want to look at Why is my question “Too Story Based” and how do I get it opened? Actions of individuals are off-topic and we can't say whether you want to portray Arthur as someone willing to work together with historians. We could provide answers for the question whether he would be of value if he decides to help them. – Secespitus Jul 10 '18 at 08:31
  • If you visit meta you will find this really useful post, from where I quote the following: We are here to help you build the rules for your world. Worlds are reusable, the framework for many, many stories. Some questions are meant to advance the plot of a story, not build the rules of a world, and are considered off-topic as too story-based. – L.Dutch Jul 10 '18 at 08:35
  • 1
    Could you include at least a statement that tells us how the answer isn't: he won't be able to understand people. There will be a cultural barrier. Most likely he will get aggressive. If he's lucky he will end up in some psychiatric institution – Raditz_35 Jul 10 '18 at 08:36
  • I don't give a diddly doo about who you are strange speaking fello. You want to eat you grab that pitchfork and you toss that manure. Also Arthur is not middle age. – SZCZERZO KŁY Jul 10 '18 at 08:39
  • 1
    I think you'll need to give a little more detail about which version of the Arthur legend you're working with. He could predate jousting by 500years, at the very least we know all the kings of England after jousting was invented so if this chap isn't a fraud it was an anachronistic joust. – Separatrix Jul 10 '18 at 09:03
  • 1
    @Separatrix: he probably means the Mark Twain edition, which was a mix of various romantic tropes set in the 6th cent. CE. – nzaman Jul 10 '18 at 11:42
  • King Arthur will be seen as "John Doe" suffering from severe head trauma, causing mental disorder. He will be treated for it (likely with involuntarily commitment), and, who knows, maybe even cured. – Alexander Jul 10 '18 at 16:40
  • @Kepotex - The historical Arthur would have learned classical Latin and Classical British to talk to aristocrats and late vulgar Latin evolving toward a British Romance language and vulgar British evolving toward Welsh, Cornish, Breton, etc. to talk to commoners, and maybe some early Germanic dialects to talk to Saxons. The only way he could communicate in 1889 American English would be the same unexplained magic that let Hank Morgan communicate in 6th century Britain in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court. – M. A. Golding Jul 10 '18 at 19:09
  • @Kepotex - you should realize that the historical era where Arthur might have lived would have been approximately as much late antique or late classical as very early medieval. Just because romances were written about Arthur in the high middle ages and the late middle ages doesn't make Arthur a native of those eras any more than it makes Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar medieval persons. – M. A. Golding Jul 10 '18 at 19:14
  • Remember that Aurthor's version of English and modern Northeast American English are two totally different and separate languages. He would be as incomprehensible to us as we to him. But, more to the point, the [help] tells us that questions about the "Actions of individual characters, rather than elements of the world they inhabit" are off-topic. – JBH Jul 11 '18 at 17:45
  • @JBH - what do you mean by "Aurthor's version of English"? Arthur was a Briton who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxon ancestors of the English. Nobody, not even Anglo-Saxon ancestors of the English, spoke English in 500 AD. Instead Angles, Saxons, and Jutes spoke proto-Germanic and Britons spoke Latin and British. – M. A. Golding Jul 11 '18 at 19:54
  • @M.A.Golding :-) That just makes everything worse.... but it's my fault for jumping to a conclusion rather than doing research first. I apologize for the confusion. – JBH Jul 11 '18 at 20:18

1 Answers1

2

He is a living, breathing primary source!

This is a gold mine for historians.

He can answer questions like:

  • How did people fight? Historic European Martial Arts were mostly forgotten, and most schools that exist today are reconstructed from manuals.
  • What was the interplay between pagan and Christian beliefs in society? How did this work out in everyday life?
  • What was the life of a peasant/knight/maid/king/queen like? (We actually only guess from various sources, we don't actually know.)
  • What science and history does he know? This would tell us a lot about how dark the "dark ages" really were- which modern historians actually think it wasn't so dark, just not a lot of advanced literacy.

... and the list goes on and on.

He can also organize and fund expeditions to the British isles for archaeological digs. Yes, archaeology happens in the British Isles, too! He would advance British Archaeology by leaps and bounds.

PipperChip
  • 32,239
  • 2
  • 88
  • 135
  • 1
  • He's a king, meaning he has absolutely no idea how the commons lived. 2. Arthur, specifically, is also The Once and Future King, meaning that once confirmed, he would have a greater claim on the British throne than a bunch of upstart Germans, especially, since he'd already been crowned.
    • – nzaman Jul 10 '18 at 11:46
  • @nzaman Arthur is kind of brits (celtic) who actually fought the saxons (germanic) and eventually lost. So he has a claim on a throne that is no longer. – alamar Jul 10 '18 at 13:15
  • @alamar: Hengist and Horsa lost to the Danes, if I recall correctly. The Saxons came after. Arthur, if he ever existed, was earlier. – nzaman Jul 10 '18 at 15:53
  • @Alamar But a secret society of Welshmen plotting to overthrow the 1889 UK government and recreate the Romano-British society and government of Arthur's era would consider Arthur their natural monarch. – M. A. Golding Jul 10 '18 at 18:46
  • @nzaman Go reread the Historia Brittonum of Nennius. According to that, Vortimer son of Vortigern fought the Saxons of Hengist and Horsa. Later Aurelius Ambrosius defeated and killed Hengist. Later Arthur fought his 12 battles against the invading Saxons. Arthur was AFTER Hengist and Horsa, not BEFORE them. – M. A. Golding Jul 10 '18 at 18:49
  • 2
    @Pipper Chip - Explain the Bayoux Tapestry? What! The Historia Brittonum (c. 832) puts Arthur sometime between about 450 and 550. The Annales Cambriae (c. 975) puts Arthur's death at Camlann in 537/538/539. The Historia Regnum Biritanniae puts camlann in 542. the Norman Conquest was in 1066, and the Bayoux Tapestry was made sometime in the period of 1066-1100, about 5 or 6 centuries AFTER Arthur's era. – M. A. Golding Jul 10 '18 at 19:00
  • @M.A.Golding These folks will definitely have a party, yeah. – alamar Jul 11 '18 at 08:46
  • @M.A.Golding Good point, silly of me to misplace a mythical king who is often portrayed as coming from the high-middle ages (if the portrayal chooses a time-period) even though the man who inspired the mythical king likely have lived earlier. Either way, closed question. – PipperChip Jul 11 '18 at 14:51