Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't they doing a film on the real King Arthur? We'll at least the bits they've been able to piece together about him (or who they think might have been him). I don't really get much into Arthurian Mythology, but I do find it amazing that such grand stories were built up around a person that might not even have existed. Even if he did exist it is most likely he lived in very humble surroundings, nothing like the Camelot that is portrayed in most myths.

Eskie are you bloody psychic or what? I was thinking exactly the same thing this morning on the way into work and wondering whether I should post it on TLR?

anyway, Arthur, the facts; there aren't any. There is no contemporary evidence that he even existed. All associations with him are folk memory and later romances, and circumstantial evidence from the late/post-Roman that ties in with local traditions and legends. All the Round Table stuff etc is the work of medieval romanticists, so forget all that.

All we know is that in the late and post Roman period in Britain, what organised Romano-British military opposition to Anglo-Saxon encroachment there was, came under the auspices of the Dux Britanniorum, an overall military commander appointed by the civil authorities that still existed after the formal withdrawal of Roman troops. In the mid 5th Century, when the Western Empire and Rome itself were in the final stages of collapse, the native Romano-British forces were able to halt and partially reverse the Saxon advance and establish a period of relative stability, for approximately 50 years. We gather these facts from two main primary sources, the contemporary writings of the Venerable Bede and from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle - there is no other written evidence for this period that is native to Britain.

There was a rather good Arthur series on telly some years ago which was set in this post-Roman dark age period, Arthur was a romano-british chieftain, using Roman style cavalry against Saxon foot, his senior captains all being ex-Roman old soldiers or descendants of such, with some Celts thrown in for good measure. No Excalibur, no Grail, just a dwindling number of fighters trying to hold their land together against barbarian invasion on every front.

The name Arthur itself is debatable, as it has associations with "Artos" i.e bear and may be nothing more than a nickname. If so who does it apply to? One of the few historical figures from this period in Britain who fills the role of "Arthur" is Ambrosianus Aurelianus, who was a Roman-style military leader and may actually have been a proper continental Roman who stayed after the Imperial forces withdrew, and his story is so similar in many ways to "Arthur" that he may well be the origin of the Arthur myth. But again, other than the above, we know sweet f.a. about him too.

Interestingly, the name Excalibur may give a strong clue as to what and who Arthur was. You Latin scholars will appreciate this. Ex means from or out of, Caliburn is a celticised Saxon place name and was a centre for smithies and armouries, where swords were made. So Ex Caliburn(is) means "from Caliburn" and if you add ex saxo to this, meaning from the (body of?) a/the Saxon, and not ex saxe, meaning "from the stone/rock," then you have "Arthur pulled the Caliburn sword from (the body of) the Saxon" and not the fantasy "Arthur pulled the sword Excalibur from the Stone." So absolutely no need for magic whatsoever again, it's just a medieval scribe's error transliterating a "e" from an "o" which was very common before Miniscule became the standard script for Latin.

That's the proper Roman side of the story; however if you look at the Celtic traditions, something very different emerges - Arthur the mythical hero who had semi-magical qualities of kingship and who didn't die. In this he's part of a longer tradition of undying Celtic heroes. Now Celtic myth is a big blank for me in many ways, although in recent years I've tried to address this, but my area of relative expertise is the Roman historical tradition. I believe Heltak and Locutus are rather more knowledgable in the Celtic traditions than me.





Edited by - Tawakalna on 3/18/2004 5:22:40 AM

Edited by - Tawakalna on 3/18/2004 7:10:07 AM

Edited by - Tawakalna on 3/18/2004 10:53:57 AM

So we are referring to Britain of about 500 AD... or as others would say, 500 CE?
That also places things during the time of the monastery at Iona, St. Colm, the Book of Deer a little farther north?

traditionally we date the end of formal Roman rule in Britain to 410AD, when the Emperor Honorius advises the Britons to look to their own defence when they requested Imperial troops to drive back the Saxons, etc. In reality Roman military presence in Britain had been at a minimal level (if any) since the "usurpers" Constantine III and Magnus Maximus had stripped the garrison in the previous decade. You then have a period from about 410AD to approx 670AD when the lowland of Britain was progressively encroached on by Angle, Saxons, and Jutes, in the south and east, Picts and Scots in the west and north, with this intervening period of British recovery and relative stability from approx 450 to 500, but no-one knows for certain really.

Interestingly, at the same period you have 2 surviving Roman enclaves in Northern France that are in communication with the Romano-Britons, the territory of the Roman commander Syagrius in what's now Upper Normandy, and a Romano-Gallic confederation in Brittany. Both were eventually incorporated into the Frankish kingdom. Also in 450s there exists a real opportunity for the Romans to restore Britain to the Empire, after Aetius defeats Attila and Roman control is re-asserted over Gaul. Remember that the Empire did not actually officially abandon Britain, and that Honorius' reproof is to be seen in the light of a temporaray expedient; Britain had been semi-abandoned several times before and eventually restored to central rule.

edit - meant to point out that there is also no contemporary image or inscription of "Arthur," no coinage, nothing; one would think that if there were such a person and he had achieved a period of stability and prosperity, that in Roman fashion coinage would have been minted. We see this in other late Roman survival enclaves such as Syagrius' realm and the Dalmatian rump of the Western Empire under Julius Nepos. But there isn't.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 3/18/2004 8:38:15 AM

I'm more of a Pictish person but I know a little Celtic mythos, I'll dig about and see what I come up with.

Arthurian Legends have not been much woith me other than stories. If we start talking William Wallace or Robert the Bruce however I know a bit more.

Edit - This link should give some information, halfway downish
http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arth ... eltic.html
http://www.pibburns.com/mythregi.htm#mythregi12 - Links to Arthurian sites

I'm A FREAKING GEOGRAPHER NOT A HISTORIAN

Edited by - Heltak on 3/18/2004 8:58:27 AM

Edited by - Heltak on 3/18/2004 9:10:30 AM

OT Alert....sorry Esqy....It's a bad habit of mine....

Speaking of Picts and Celts. As I know we have Scots on TLR, I've been trying for quite a while to sort out the difference. As best as I can make it out, it would seem that Picts are an earlier wave of Celtic settlers. Something to do, linguistically, with whether they are P-Celts or C-Celts. P-Celts being Picts.

Also, it seems that the Picts in Scotland are not the same as the Picts in Ireland.... or am I just getting it more confused? Then there's that Scotii confusion that really gets me all turned around.

Anyone care to unravel this knot for me?

Links page to several that have King Arthur info. Other than these, never kept up with it in literature classes. To much on Merlin for me.

Michael "Finalday"
In Memory Of WLB

Taw - I've actually been thinking about this for a while, but we do tend to think along the same lines don't we (that's a scary thought ). You are right, I'm impressed by the fact that you know about "Ambrosious Aurelianus"; he's not well-known outside the "hardcore" historical types. Yes, we know that someone united the Romano-British against the Saxons, but I think that Arthur probably was a "true" Roman. This is mainly because of the fact that the Romans had both the equipment, men, and tactics, despite the degradation of their empire, and this would explain how the Romano-Britons were able to co-ordinate their forces, and hold off the invading forces for as long as they did. The only problem with this is that the "truth" if there is such a thing, has been distorted by the Celts use of the oral tradition upon which many of our sources are based. Eg. La Morte d'Arthur which, indeed, cannot be really seen as a "proper" historical text, and was also not its goal. It's all very convoluted, and what we know is probably the mingling of the stories of a number of historical figures and their exploits. After all, the legend of the "Fisher King" has also been linked to the Arthur myth.

Indy - That's ok Indy, there's a lot of OT around this forum... .

Picts were the original settlers of Scotland, the Celts were also here, the two people sort of coexisted I believe. Then the Scots came from Ireland at some point and took over a small headland of Scotland <Quite big in Scotland> and rnamed the country and the name spread.

slightly to go off at a tangent, there is no absolute certainty that Britain was not subject to a later partial restoration to the Empire after 410. Although no direct evidence has ever been found e.g. coinage, it isn't out of the question that the Romanised south-east and London were reoccupied albeit temporarily. We do know that there was still a fair bit of commerce and interchange between Britain and the Continent, the island wasn't cut off at all except from central Imperial authority (which in some ways wasn't a bad thing - no taxes and no conscription) so it's quite possible that the Arthur figure was indeed a true Roman who came over or whose parents came over with a relief force, and decided to stay.

Most opinion on "Arthur" would have him as a Romanised tribal chieftain, which is all well and good, but this does not sit well with the tradition of him being High King over the other tribal chieftains. Remember that after the Roman withdrawal, the country returned to its Celtic hierarchy despite having become Roman and urbanised, and one of the hallmarks of the Celts is that they could never agree on a overall ruler and the High King was a largely ceremonial role. However if Arthur is more Roman than Celt then to have him as a dux belli for the duration of the emergency makes more sense imho.

unfortunately so much of this period is the subject of speculation as the written historical record is so scanty. Interestingly while what contemporary accounts there are are very pessimistic and full of apocalyptic musings while Rome collapses and barbarians overrun the land, the archaeological record speaks a different story. Trade and commerce continue, with some variations, beween the Romanised areas of the country and the continent. Tin and silver are still being shipped to Spain from Cornwall well into the 6th century, for example. While there are substantial economic and demographic changes in Britain, life doesn't collapse; in the areas conquered by the Saxons, rural life goes on much as it always has, although the big towns and cities are abandoned. Eventually as the British are pushed to the western and northern fringes, the last remnants of Roman style urban living linger on in places like Carlisle and S.Wales, which may have lasted well into the 7th C. By which time the country is now England, christian, and not savage and barbarian at all.

I have always found it curious that the Britons reverted back to a more pagan existence after the Romans cut them loose. It raises the question of whether or not the Romans ever really converted the Celts to their way of thinking. Hmm, maybe they were faking it so that they could get some togas and indoor plumbing!

nice, Esq!

in fact you have to realise that in many cases "romanisation" was a formality and often rather superficial; much of the pre-Roman tribal structure and religion remained, having been not only tolerated by the Romans but actively used by them as an adjunct to direct Imperial administration.

Similarly, Imperial sanctioned Christianity was also fairly superficial in Britain and it took some effort to not only de-paganise the country but also to remove competing heresies such as Pelagianism. I wouldn't say the Romano-Britons reverted; in fact there seems to have been distinct factionalisation between pro-Roman, pro-Christian elements from the more settled and urbanised regions, and the Celtic traditionalists from the north and west who never really accepted Roman rule and were not overkeen to see the Empire return in any form.

True, but there must have been some Britons who really did accept Roman culture, and yet the vast majority musn't have believed in it, as that would explain the how easily they established a pre-Roman society after Rome abandoned its outlying colonies.

I think they came to believe in the benefits of Roman civilisation, but on the fringes this was pretty sparse. And in the later Empire, Roman civilisation was very repressive and with the collapse of the Western Empire in the 5th century, and the not particularly hostile attitude of the "barbarian invaders" who were fairly civilised in truth, it was not too difficult to reach some accomodation, which in many cases, Gaul, Spain, N. Africa, Italy, was fairly amicable and constructive.

Britain however was a rather different case.