Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Was Arthur a king or just a battle commander?
King Arthur: A Man for the Ages ^ | undated | David White

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Miscellaneous; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: ambrosiusaurelianus; archaeology; england; geoffreyashe; geoffreyofmonmouth; godsgravesglyphs; grahamphillips; historiabrittonum; history; kingarthur; martinkeatman; nennius; offasdyke; riothamus; utherpendragon; wansdyke; watsdyke; ygododdin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: Hacksaw

*


21 posted on 11/06/2005 8:27:41 AM PST by Sam Cree (absolute reality - Miami)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InsureAmerica

I find the theory that Arthur was a soldier of Rome a very intriguing one.


22 posted on 11/06/2005 8:50:20 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: infidel29
...and "Knight" would be my dream job...

My husband is a Knight in Shining Armor. I'll see if his branch office is accepting applicants.

23 posted on 11/06/2005 8:50:23 AM PST by reformed_democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks; SunkenCiv

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?


24 posted on 11/06/2005 8:51:28 AM PST by Gondring (I'll give up my right to die when hell freezes over my dead body!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rintense

"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.


25 posted on 11/06/2005 8:58:57 AM PST by No Truce With Kings (The opinions expressed are mine! Mine! MINE! All Mine!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: reformed_democrat

"My husband is a Knight in Shining Armor"

He must be related to mine! :0)


26 posted on 11/06/2005 9:00:40 AM PST by MissEdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: No Truce With Kings

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.


27 posted on 11/06/2005 9:07:39 AM PST by Knitting A Conundrum (Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

The term "King" was used more loosely and parochially in those days. For example, Ireland had at least 4 kings at the same time.


28 posted on 11/06/2005 9:38:56 AM PST by expatpat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infidel29

Well, then, sign up for a course at your local "Knight" school!


29 posted on 11/06/2005 9:40:52 AM PST by mozarky2 (Ya never stand so tall as when ya stoop to stomp a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw; Gondring; Fred Nerks; blam; FairOpinion; Ernest_at_the_Beach; StayAt HomeMother; ...
Thanks for the pings.

Regarding the magic sword, I rather doubt it. I do wonder about the magic cauldron found in the Mabinogeon, though. ;')

Somewhere around here there's at least one past topic (2004, or earlier) in the GGG catalog about the various possible Arthurs. Every few years someone comes up with a different one. The trappings of the legend probably came from other, earlier tales (much as is generally held — not by me — to be the case for Homer's Iliad) of various origins, times, and characters. The French had a lot of influence over the Arthur story; however, the historical person is referenced, just not by name, by I think it was Gildas (he seems to have had a grudge against Arthur).

The name, Arthur, it has been suggested, is a compound of Arth and Ursa (Arthursa); both mean "bear" in Welsh and Latin, respectively. This may be even more appropriate just because the historical figure may be a composite of several medieval (or even pre-Roman) heroes, irrespective of the bits and pieces of unrelated lore plastered over him.

Camulodunum the Roman town in Britain was a Latin transliteration of a tribal name of some sort, and appears to have given us the name "Camelot" (again, that's from the period of French development of the story). One book about the hunt for an historical Arthur puts his capital in Viroconium, which is perhaps more likely a location than most other suggestions.

The Wansdyke apparently postdates Roman occupation, and was one of several "Dark Age" walls. That has been attributed to Arthur or his purported family. Wat's Dyke, in Wales, was not constructed in response to Offa's Dyke, but is in fact pre-Roman. I think the Wansdyke is held to postdate the Romans because part of it was laid down right over a Roman road.

To all -- please ping me to other topics which are appropriate for the GGG list. Thanks.
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)

30 posted on 11/06/2005 3:30:44 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated my FR profile on Wednesday, November 2, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: infidel29

I still have the book...what would you like posted from it?


31 posted on 11/06/2005 4:45:57 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

bttt


32 posted on 11/06/2005 4:50:59 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
I don't know, I remember a little of it, there was a good bit about Arthur wasn't there?

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.

33 posted on 11/06/2005 5:42:12 PM PST by infidel29 ("We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid." --Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: rintense

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.


34 posted on 11/06/2005 6:34:10 PM PST by Ciexyz (Let us always remember, the Lord is in control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nopardons

King Arthur: The True Story King Arthur:
The True Story

by Graham Phillips
and Martin Keatman


35 posted on 11/06/2005 7:22:23 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Down with Dhimmicrats! I last updated my FR profile on Wednesday, November 2, 2005.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw
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.

Well, just damn him for not having a competent amanuensis!

36 posted on 11/06/2005 7:50:30 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Mohamophages of the world, unite! "Offended by offended (any other type?) Muslims since 9-11")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
Many thanks for the book suggestion; I don't have that one.

Now I have to add that one to my collection of books about King Arthur. :-)

37 posted on 11/06/2005 8:45:31 PM PST by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Hacksaw

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.


38 posted on 11/07/2005 2:18:21 PM PST by Peanut Gallery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gondring
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?

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).

39 posted on 11/07/2005 2:31:00 PM PST by Peanut Gallery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dangus

No, Dangus, not a hamster, but rather a poorly drawn aardvark.


40 posted on 11/07/2005 2:33:14 PM PST by RayBob (If guns kill people, can I blame misspelled words on my keyboard?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson