Posted on 11/06/2005 7:31:28 AM PST by Hacksaw
Explorations in Arthurian History
The figure of Arthur begins as a war hero, the praises of whom are sung in war poems by the Celts and the Welsh. Y Gododdin celebrates one particularly brave warrior, then says he "was no Arthur." The Triads are full of wonderful, courageous things Arthur did.
The most important early source for Arthur's deeds is Historia Brittonum, written by the monk Nennius in the 9th century. Nennius calls Arthur dux bellorum and tells us of 12 great battles Arthur fought. Although Nennius tells us the location of each battle, those locations are hard to come by these days. Scholars are still arguing over the locations. Even the agreed-on locations suggest that Arthur got around--literally--from Scotland to the lowlands of Wessex to Wales.
He fought everywhere. He won great victories. A strong tradition has him a Roman heldover who uses his knowledge of cavalry to rout the Saxons time and again, counting on their inexperience in fighting mounted men.
And even though the authors likely have exagerrated his deeds (killing 960 men single-handedly, for example), Arthur is likely to have been a bona fide war hero, a man who led his countrymen to victory time and again. It is certain that the Battle of Badon Hill, wherever and whenever it was, set the Saxon occupation back for a good many years. Whether Arthur fought at the battle is still not proved, but is generally believed.
Arthur was conceived amidst a war and was mortally wounded in a particularly bloody battle. His life was full of battle; it was the word of the times.
But was he a king in the traditional sense? The legends name him High King of Britain, a title held by his father, Uther Pendragon, and his uncle, Ambrosius Aurelianus. Noted historian Geoffrey Ashe identifies Arthur with Riothamus, who was called the King of the Britons even though he operated mostly in Gaul (Breton territory). A recent book by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman identifies Arthur as the King of Powys and Gwynedd, two powerful kingdoms in Wales. The northern tradition has Arthur king of some or all of Scotland.
But these identifications would seem to point toward a man who held regional sway but not national advantage.
Beginning with Geoffrey of Monmouth, we see authors embellishing the tales to fit their own purposes. In Geoffrey, Arthur has a magical sword, Caliburn, and a powerful fortune-teller on his side, Merlin. Geoffrey tells us that Arthur conquers half the known world, including defeating a Roman emperor along the way. Much of Geoffrey has been proven to have been made up; is the rest fiction as well?
A conclusion can probably not be made on this subject because the evidence is just too sketchy. Arthur's being a battle commander is somewhat easier to prove, but again we suffer from too little reliable information.
*
I find the theory that Arthur was a soldier of Rome a very intriguing one.
My husband is a Knight in Shining Armor. I'll see if his branch office is accepting applicants.
So... Is there really a magic sword out there, as the myths might tell us? Or perhaps are some myths merely fiction, or perhaps a poor attempt to explain some mystery?
Perhaps sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and a star just a star?
"I find the theory that Arthur was a soldier of Rome a very intriguing one."
He almost certainly was Roman -- or at least Brittano-Roman. Britain had become a successful Roman provence by the time of Arthur. He was most likely a member of the local gentry -- probably British or one who thought of himself as British -- and also thought of himself as Roman. When the Romans pulled out of Brittania many such remained behind, and attempted to protect their civilization from the invading hordes.
The Arthurian "invasion" of Rome in Monmouth is equally almost certainly a misrembered memory of Roman generals who were stationed in Britain who took their legions south to claim the Imperial Purple. Emperor Constantine (St. Constantine in the Orthodox Church) was the son of one such general and Arthur's heir in Monmouth was . . . Constantine.
"My husband is a Knight in Shining Armor"
He must be related to mine! :0)
Romanized Briton is probably right on...
Wonder if Arthur going to Rome was stolen from the legend of Maxen.
Back in the day (up to abou 1990), this stuff was my passion.
I thought Geoffrey Ashe had a pretty good case, although I am far from being up on the latest.
And when you think King, don't think of medieval kings. Think of guys that were more than tribal chieftans, but not the guys we will see later.
And I suspect even the early redactions are several legends conflated. Untangling the source from the added ins is the game.
The term "King" was used more loosely and parochially in those days. For example, Ireland had at least 4 kings at the same time.
Well, then, sign up for a course at your local "Knight" school!
Please FREEPMAIL me if you want on or off the
Gods, Graves, Glyphs PING list or GGG weekly digest
-- Archaeology/Anthropology/Ancient Cultures/Artifacts/Antiquities, etc.
Gods, Graves, Glyphs (alpha order)
I still have the book...what would you like posted from it?
bttt
I wish I had it more for reference and posterity. I very much enjoy medieval history... medieval fantasy more like it, but the historical part is cool too.
Clive Owen's "King Arthur" was a decent movie, but I wish it had a bigger budget. Ioan Gruffudd ("Horatio Hornblower", "Magnificent Four") was good as Lancelot.
King Arthur:
The True Story
by Graham Phillips
and Martin Keatman
Well, just damn him for not having a competent amanuensis!
Now I have to add that one to my collection of books about King Arthur. :-)
thanks for the ping!
BTW, watched the History Channel last night. They aired a show on the Crusades. It was very interesting, however, I cannot watch part two of it tonight.
Well there was the sword that destroyed Sauron by merely cutting off his hand (and his precious ring). Oh, you mean really as in real. Bah.
Seriously, Arthur's sword may have been said to be magic because of the deeds he achieved using it. So, was there a sword? Most certainly, granting that Arthur was probably a Roman soldier. Was it magic? Not hardly. Well made more likely (by the elves).
No, Dangus, not a hamster, but rather a poorly drawn aardvark.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
