Crusader Kings 3: King Arthur, Myth, and Mythologizing History

Myths, especially blurry ones, have the power to drastically shape our impressions of an era of history, sometimes bringing them to life, other times, obscuring them like a fog. Crusader Kings 3 has its fair share of historical blurring and serves as a guide for talking about the broader concept of myth with King Arthur as our central figure.

In keeping with the rest of the series, I have yet again jumped to a different game in order to explore a new concept.
_________________
00:00 intro
02:05 Crusading and Kings
07:17 Myth, Revisionism, consequence
11:27 "The Dark Ages"
14:02 Conclusion
_________________
Source for some of the illuminated manuscript pages:

[alphaable]

I have a highly cynical take on this one: everything you have talked about missing in CK3 will be added, eventually. Paradox wants to see how to integrate all the moving parts, and then it will release an update as DLC. This will net them a continuous income stream and make many people in their office quite pleased.

[secret]

I live in Cornwall (another long-Celtic region of Britain) where there's a lot of association with Arthurian legend, including many historical sites portrayed as associated with Arthur (Tintagel, King Arthur's Hall, King Arthur's Stone, Dozmary Pool etc.), it's interesting but also jarring seeing the description of him as a Welsh ruler.

[lukatomas]

14:10 Plate armour was still in use during the the reign of Henry VIII so it wouldn't be inaccurate for people to wear it, though it would also depend on the style of the amour.

[mikkosimonen]

The tabletop RPG King Arthur Pendragon has a neat take on the aesthetic question: its answer to it is "yes." From the reign of Uther to the Battle of Camlann, knights gradually go from chainmail to gothic plate. Anachronisms like jousting and courtly romance are introduced. After Arthur's death, the enchantment of Brtain is over and banal Dark Ages normalcy takes hold again.

[LDProductionsClass]

@11:28 how dare you besmirch vikings, everyone knows that the goal of Crusader Kings 3 is to start as the Swedes, invade Spain, reform Asatru, conquer the former Roman Empire, convert to Hellenism, and restore Rome. Just like in real life.

[FlosBlog]

I always imagine ckii and ckiii even more so as reenacting the Middle Ages through a lense of renaissance drama - All the stabbing and waring, I am here for it 😂

[PhoenixStriker]

Something funny about the conclusion is that my local Renaissance Festival now has a shop selling replica flintlock pistols, so even their cultural perception has shifted in manner similar to the “Dark Ages” example.

[YossarianVanDriver]

I think it's also fair to say that the age of (the vague historical inspiration for) Arthur isn't quite "Rome as pop culture sees it"; it's some 400 years later, and things look a bit different by then. Sometimes in ways that, to new eyes, would look kinda medieval! Not /high/ medieval like the Arthur of most of our pop culture, but less togas and big rectangle shields, more trousers and beards and Christianity, y'know?

[lukedelorme]

"Let's not go to Camelot tis a silly place."

[BenJHealey]

Just another comment that I love your videos! Great to see someone that can bridge discussion of the game mechanics and implicit ideology from an informed background understanding of the topic at hand.

[enrajbroin]

To be honest, I am not sure if this was an actual point you made that I am arguing against, but it's just a side tangent for myself that I think fits for this video: In my opinion the most accurate thing to do is to show King Arthur filled with anachronisms and historical inaccuracies. The tales of King Arthur as we know them do not fit in the 5th century, King Arthur is not a figure of the 5th century, even if (which is doubtable in my opinion) inspired by a 5th century figure. A few mentions of Arthur existed before Monmouth, sure, and perhaps the Mabinogion shows us an earlier version of his myth (though that's a matter of debate), but all texts that actually say anything more than a few vague sentences about this figure are mythical in nature. People desperately try to combine the 'historical Arthur' and the mythical Arthur in modern adaptations and it often just falls flat, in my opinion. A historical Arthur would have had no Guinevere, no Lancelot. Maybe Gawain and Mordred (and who knows if Mordred was even his enemy), probably Merlin (funnily enough he's inspired by some figures that are quite likely to actually be real). The mythical figure of King Arthur and all the people around him do not fit our conception of a possible historical Arthur, Arthur is basically a figure of fantasy that was birthed far more of the High Middle Ages than the Early Middle Ages. In our entertainment he should be treated with the same historicity as his 'Trojan ancestors': none, purely based in the mythical texts about them.

[mythomaniac-gremlin]

Okay yeah after your video on pop history I came here- once again fantastic stuff, you've really sold me! I already appreciate anyone discussing the more roman aspects of arthurian legend and how the myth shifted throughout the medieval ages, and hearing you discuss the holes in their depictions while waiting for the byzantine dlc was interesting. I'm kinda less cynical about the dlc model, I do think I prefer a world where much of the actual content is still free but the dlcs seemingly exist to keep shareholders happy (I mean ideally that wouldn't be a concern but oh well) but this has got me thinking about *selling history* as an addon- fixing anachronisms and fleshing out the details of the real world in ways you have to purchase additionally, I don't know what to think of that.

[dellasc]

Very good video, just subscribed and will be looking forward to going through the playlist and seeing the next 4 videos

[Linux_MissingNo]

Good video, I got here from Reddit as the other guy did.
A topic to discuss, if you don’t mind researching, would be the naming of Byzantine Empire

[LoudWaffle]

Dude I love your channel, I'm so glad I stumbled across it. Feels like it was custom-made to appeal to me.

[acecombatshill]

Ace Combat Zero: The Belkan War is the best depiction of arthurian mythology

[barsguzel]

I always imagined Arthur as a post-roman governor/general remained in the island after romans retreat in 5th cc and Merlin as celtic druid, two allied to defeat or defend against invading saxons

[dororo]

I feel like crusader kings of all paradox games is the one that is best least grounded in history. It should look to it to tell interesting stories and flavor. The fantasy and unrealistic aspects are, to me, what makes it so appealing. It puts you in the world rather than your piloting someone in the past.

[macinnesad]

Based on my own research, as a pan-Celtic nationalist and a Scot, I've found that Arthur was most likely a Cumbric King from Yr Hen Ogledd (the old north) comprising of brythonic kingdoms and warlords in what is now the south of Scotland and north of Britain. He was not a "King of Wales" but a Welsh king as the Hen Ogledd was Welsh. I agree fully though, pretty much all the stuff we "know" about Arthur is made up by revisionist historians like Geoffry of Monmouth and the like. I do find it weird however how the English, a people so against Welsh, Scottish, and Cornish identity so much so to ban the language at multiple points in our history are so obsessed with him as a cultural icon, considering even the mythological Arthur was fighting against the Anglo Saxons in most depictions, aka the predecesessors to the English. (The book I reference is Nora C. Chadwicks Celtic Britain, and History with Hilbert has done some videos on the topic).

[granite_]

If you move beyond a materialist reading of history you can also engage with the myth of Arthur at the level of myth and metaphor, which another entirely different kind of real.