Hi all. First post. I just want to say, as someone who studied history in college, I love this game, and all of the history around it. I can see taking this game concept and latching it on to any part of ancient history (and that only because I haven't seen any rules for gun warfare... though I'm sure I've just not looked hard enough). As a lover of church history, I could even see some elements of that play out in a game setting as well. This whole game is very rich and juicy, and I commend those who have worked hard to produce it. Now, to business.

I know this covers over 500 years or so, but there is already a supplement out there on the Saxons. Why couldn't that supplement be fleshed out to cover the entirety of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, and even right up to the invasion of the Normans? I'm sure someone has asked this before, and if not, I'm glad to be the first one. This whole era ignites the imagination and makes for some very interesting possibilities beyond the scope of playing in King Arthur's court. How about playing around in King Alfred the Great's court? The GPC ends a year after Arthur's death, but it don't really have to.

Anyway, thanks for a great product.

This is solely my personal opinion on it, but anyway... The problem that I'd foresee is that King Arthur is not historical, but legendary. The technology of King Arthur in its heyday is more appropriate to late medieval (14th - 15th century, the Hundred Years War), which is indeed when many of the stories were written. Greg has chosen to embrace that anachronism, and telescoped the whole technological advancement of armors into Arthur's lifetime. Thus, the knights start out in Norman Chain in the beginning, similar to what William the Conqueror's knights wore in the Battle of Hastings, and ending in the Battle of Camlann wearing full Gothic Plate of the 16th century, with cannons making their presence known, too. While not impossible to reconcile the legendary King Arthur with the more historical campaign of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, the style of the campaign would be much, much different.

That being said, I do heartily agree with you that Pendragon would make it possible to play a very interesting Dark Ages game of the Saxon Heptarchy, for instance following the evolution of Wessex all the way to a unified England in the 10th century and onwards to the Battle of Hastings. And of course, little reason to stop there if they are enjoying the campaign, although it would probably be necessary to switch to Norman Knights after that (possibly ones marrying the widows/daughters of the previous Saxon thegns). Of course, in this kind of centuries-long campaign, I would focus like on a couple of big events and then gloss over years in 'nothing interesting happens' in one session...

That being said, I do heartily agree with you that Pendragon would make it possible to play a very interesting Dark Ages game of the Saxon Heptarchy, for instance following the evolution of Wessex all the way to a unified England in the 10th century and onwards to the Battle of Hastings. And of course, little reason to stop there if they are enjoying the campaign, although it would probably be necessary to switch to Norman Knights after that (possibly ones marrying the widows/daughters of the previous Saxon thegns). Of course, in this kind of centuries-long campaign, I would focus like on a couple of big events and then gloss over years in 'nothing interesting happens' in one session...


Or maybe give it the Pendragon treatment, and compress that centuries long saga into a mythical story spread over a few decades.

Shadowmane,

Feel free to contact me offline, please

The problem that I'd foresee is that King Arthur is not historical, but legendary.


As my opinion, this is nonsense
but there are greater souls that I who have proved his reality sufficiently for me
Please go read any of the books by Chris Gidlow

The problem that I'd foresee is that King Arthur is not historical, but legendary.


As my opinion, this is nonsense
but there are greater souls that I who have proved his reality sufficiently for me
Please go read any of the books by Chris Gidlow


Arthur might have been loosely based on a 5th or 6th century war leader, but I think that "Arthur dux bellorum" was only the original of King Arthur in the sense that Sir John Oldcastle was the original of Falstaff. Nearly all the familiar elements of the Arthurian cycle (the Sword in the Stone, the Round Table, the Holy Grail, Lancelot and Guinevere's affair, Merlin as Arthur's advisor and wizard) came along late enough in the legend's development that I doubt they had anything to do with "Arthur dux bellorum", any more than Bardolph, Pistol, Mistress Quickly and the robbery at Gad's Hill (not to mention, even more importantly, Falstaff's great wit and comic genius) had anything to do with Oldcastle.

The problem that I'd foresee is that King Arthur is not historical, but legendary.

As my opinion, this is nonsense
but there are greater souls that I who have proved his reality sufficiently for me
Please go read any of the books by Chris Gidlow

Arthur might have been loosely based on a 5th or 6th century war leader, but I think that "Arthur dux bellorum" was only the original of King Arthur in the sense that Sir John Oldcastle was the original of Falstaff. Nearly all the familiar elements of the Arthurian cycle (the Sword in the Stone, the Round Table, the Holy Grail, Lancelot and Guinevere's affair, Merlin as Arthur's advisor and wizard) came along late enough in the legend's development that I doubt they had anything to do with "Arthur dux bellorum", any more than Bardolph, Pistol, Mistress Quickly and the robbery at Gad's Hill (not to mention, even more importantly, Falstaff's great wit and comic genius) had anything to do with Oldcastle.

Yep.
Nonetheless, there was a real flesh and blood person. A real king Arthur
Please everyone, just get a copy of Chris' book(s)

As my opinion, this is nonsense


Not an argument I am interested in having, but let me clarify... the stories written about King Arthur and the exploits of his knights are legendary. The usual image of Knights of the Round Table being knights in shining plate armor practicing Courtly Love and living in stone castles and participating in tournaments have no place in historical Dark Ages Britain.

No, dark ages Britain featured simple Mott and Bailey fortresses and leftover hill fortresses. They wore simple armor made up of chain mail, leather, and some plate male (though consisting more of a breatplate, bracers and shinguards... sorry, don't know the technical term for those).

The best statement I've heard considering the historical Arthur comes from this blog (http://www.gotmedieval.com/2007/04/thesis-exorcism.html):


There is no such thing as a “real” or historical King Arthur, and anyone who tries to convince you that there was is probably going to try to steer the conversation towards selling you a commemorative silver-plated pewter letter opener shaped like the heroic king’s famed sword Excalibur, the perfect gift for any collector of fine things. The problem with looking for the “real” King Arthur is that the word “real” in that construction actually has no meaning. It’s a hollow signifier. Suppose I made a movie called “The Teddy Bear that Ate Cleveland.” If someone were to point out that the teddy bear was originally named after U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, it still wouldn’t be very sensible to go around saying, “Ah, so the real Teddy Bear that Ate Cleveland was Theodore Roosevelt.” But that sort of thing is all you’re going to end up with if you go looking for the “real” King Arthur.

There may have been a British war-chief named Arthur, but the Arthur of Mallory and Tennyson and the rest, Arthur the great romantic conqueror of Europe and best friend of Lancelot certainly did not exist, and trying to claim that the two are the same is a bit strange. The transition from Arthur as a figure who managed to slow the Saxon advance into Britain for a few years, to an almost transcendentally perfect ruler who marked a golden age the likes of which we shall never know, is one of the weirdest things ever. And that's before you get to the hypotheses about Arthur being a Welsh bear-god or something.

And that's before you get to the hypotheses about Arthur being a Welsh bear-god or something.


And the one time that a bear plays a symbolic role in the Arthurian cycle (Arthur's dream on his way to fight Emperor Lucius on the Continent, in both Geoffrey of Monmouth and Malory, about a dragon fighting a bear and killing it), the bear represents his enemy (either Emperor Lucius or the Giant of Mont St. Michel) rather than Arthur himself.

Please everyone, just get a copy of Chris' book(s)


Just ordered from Amazon as instructed :) Perhaps I'll stick up a review when I'm done (although that might be a while...)