02-16-2010, 10:10 PM
Ah yes, the allmighty if. The bane of all theorists. I'm not disagreeing with you about the Taifali, I am saying that they were the primary cavalry force of the Britons, but chances are they were split up under "Arthur's" twelve captains who later became the knights of the round table.
However I did promise an interesting cross-religious explanation of many of the intriguing bits of Arthurian mysticism. Now I know this is going to sound cheesy but it seems that all religions that had a touch in the magical bits of the legends are wrapped up in Myrddin. All evidence from the records and your own ideas seem to point to the Taifali having a sarmatianized version of Christianity. The sword, just like to the knights of the middle ages, was a cruicifix representation. The weapon of destruction and sin became the focal point of their worship. Chances are they plunged this sword, maybe the same one over the centuries, into a cairn of stones during worship, and they would likely only go into battle with this sword in their leader's hand. When the last of their commanders died no one touched the sword and the Taifali became reluctant to fight. That is until Myrddin came around. (Myrddin was actually born around AD460) Myrddin was already held in high regards by the Catholic Romano-British nobels who saw him as a charismatic priest who inspired the people, the people with their Cletic Christian group saw him as a Christian Druid because of his accurate perdictions of how leaders would act, and his usage of a Druid's tricks, and he knew about the sword. So taking "Arthur" to release the sword from the stones was a way to unleash the deadly horsemen and it was a way to religiously tie the people together. Thus you have Cletic Christian theology and priests play a role in shaping the character of Merlin, Sarmatinized Christianity adding the sword in the stone and possibly Excalibur as a military 'divine right' power trip, and mush that together with those bear handled cups and mainstream Catholics. And voila! The complex world of Arthurian theology. (I know it does sound Linda Melcorish but bear with me)
However I did promise an interesting cross-religious explanation of many of the intriguing bits of Arthurian mysticism. Now I know this is going to sound cheesy but it seems that all religions that had a touch in the magical bits of the legends are wrapped up in Myrddin. All evidence from the records and your own ideas seem to point to the Taifali having a sarmatianized version of Christianity. The sword, just like to the knights of the middle ages, was a cruicifix representation. The weapon of destruction and sin became the focal point of their worship. Chances are they plunged this sword, maybe the same one over the centuries, into a cairn of stones during worship, and they would likely only go into battle with this sword in their leader's hand. When the last of their commanders died no one touched the sword and the Taifali became reluctant to fight. That is until Myrddin came around. (Myrddin was actually born around AD460) Myrddin was already held in high regards by the Catholic Romano-British nobels who saw him as a charismatic priest who inspired the people, the people with their Cletic Christian group saw him as a Christian Druid because of his accurate perdictions of how leaders would act, and his usage of a Druid's tricks, and he knew about the sword. So taking "Arthur" to release the sword from the stones was a way to unleash the deadly horsemen and it was a way to religiously tie the people together. Thus you have Cletic Christian theology and priests play a role in shaping the character of Merlin, Sarmatinized Christianity adding the sword in the stone and possibly Excalibur as a military 'divine right' power trip, and mush that together with those bear handled cups and mainstream Catholics. And voila! The complex world of Arthurian theology. (I know it does sound Linda Melcorish but bear with me)
Nicholas
