A Roman Perspective of King Arthur

[Burzum]

How many members have more data on the famous legend of King Arthur?


What I would like to say is that some claim he was a British self created mythology to emphasize British greatness or because the Brits lacked a mythological basis in the time where other nations had hero figures etc, etc.
____________________________



However, I would like this discussion to be taken part from a Roman outlook rather than a mainstream orientation of British mythology.

Do we have any Roman accounts of this? Maybe some I don't know of.

Now, I think King Arthur was a British neo-Spatacus figure who was called "Arturia".

Was this strange "Arturia" a patriot of Britannia? Or an outright enemy of Rome?


I had so much relating to Arthur but most of it is just a embellished mythology that the British authors create, rather than a factual narrative of history.

Interesting to see what some of you say about this.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The legend of King Arthur can possibly be derived from a handful of Roman Figures.

Notably Ambrosius Aurelianus, but also a 3rd Century "Artorius" and Aetius' Lackey Germanus of Auxerre are also candidates, not to mention many more.

Wikipedia really gives a good overview if you want to learn about the legend, and I'm sure some other members can reccomend some books.

[Burzum]

The legend of King Arthur can possibly be derived from a handful of Roman Figures.

Notably Ambrosius Aurelianus, but also a 3rd Century "Artorius" and Aetius' Lackey Germanus of Auxerre are also candidates, not to mention many more.

Wikipedia really gives a good overview if you want to learn about the legend, and I'm sure some other members can reccomend some books.

Well wikipedia is good, but I have long read through it.

And this is my point.

Is Arthur even a British mythology?!? Or a Roman one?

There is so many links and figures and accounts of this Artorius that it's difficult to fathom if it's legend, fiction or non fiction.

I think that the illiteracy that was apparent in the early stages of the dark ages saw anything that was ever recorded about actual accounts of Arthur to get lost. And the Romans that were receding in British territory would of had their scrolls burned, pillaged and destroyed by barbarians.

[Burzum]

Well you all can feel free to speculate.

I am going to in the next couple of days gather tangible data together to illustrate that Excalibur was a perpetuated myth, one that far dates back in early antiquity.

As far as this goes, we might also see that Arthur himself was a perpetuated myth.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

The earliest account of the tale dates to the 12th century, so clearly the legend originated in England during the dark ages. The myth isn't a Roman myth because there is no evidence to state that the Legend was told in those times.

[Marja]

The Historia Brittonum is 9th century.

The references in the Cambrian Annals aren't contemporary, but unless they were added after the Annals ended, they are no later than the 10th century.

The biggest problem is that Gildas writes in the 6th century, and mentions the Battle of Badon, without mentioning Arthur.

[Caballo]

New book coming out in Feb 2013 on Arthur by Guy Halsall, who is a Professor at York University. I've got it on order so will review it when it come through. Need to finish reading a BAR report first though.....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Worlds-Arthur-Fa...019965817X

[Robert Vermaat]

There is nothing Roman in the 'Arthurian Matter'. None at all. Later sources have attempted to tie Arthur to a Roman background, but that's all legendary. If Arthur existed, his floruit was around the turn of the 6th century, long after Britain was lost for Rome. Distant memory. Tales from the 12th c. Geoffrey of Monmouth spun about Arthur conquering Rome are based on a historical person named Riothamus, whose floruit was 2 generations earlier.

I'm moving this thread to OT, btw.

[Conal]

There is nothing Roman in the 'Arthurian Matter'. None at all. Later sources have attempted to tie Arthur to a Roman background, but that's all legendary. If Arthur existed, his floruit was around the turn of the 6th century, long after Britain was lost for Rome. Distant memory. Tales from the 12th c. Geoffrey of Monmouth spun about Arthur conquering Rome are based on a historical person named Riothamus, whose floruit was 2 generations earlier.

I'm moving this thread to OT, btw.

Now if we had an Arthurian section :whistle:

I thought Riothamus was active circa AD470 and Owain Ddantgwynn active AD 470-520?

[Robert Vermaat]

I thought Riothamus was active circa AD470 and Owain Ddantgwynn active AD 470-520?

You're right, one generation then (if you place Arthur c. 500 and not later.
Ddantgwyn I can't date for sure.

[Conal]

I thought Riothamus was active circa AD470 and Owain Ddantgwynn active AD 470-520?

You're right, one generation then (if you place Arthur c. 500 and not later.
Ddantgwyn I can't date for sure.

Just teasing on the Owain bit!

Interesting that you hint at a later "Arthur". Are you talking AD520ish or later?

[Conal]

New book coming out in Feb 2013 on Arthur by Guy Halsall, who is a Professor at York University. I've got it on order so will review it when it come through. Need to finish reading a BAR report first though.....

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Worlds-Arthur-Fa...019965817X

Should be interesting as he authored;

Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568

and

Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West 450-900

so the book should be on the serious end of the Arthurian specrum.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

You're right, one generation then (if you place Arthur c. 500 and not later.
Ddantgwyn I can't date for sure.

Yeah he's recorded as coming down from Armorica with 12000 men in the late 60's or early 70's. He was supporting Aegidius (I think) and got smashed by the Visigoths in Aquitaine or Spain.

[Conal]

You're right, one generation then (if you place Arthur c. 500 and not later.
Ddantgwyn I can't date for sure.

Yeah he's recorded as coming down from Armorica with 12000 men in the late 60's or early 70's. He was supporting Aegidius (I think) and got smashed by the Visigoths in Aquitaine or Spain.

And retired thereafter to a place called Avellon in what is now France ... or is that just fanciful thinking?

[Burzum]

And retired thereafter to a place called Avellon in what is now France ... or is that just fanciful thinking?

As we further probe into the legend of King Arthur we are stopped by a curtain of mixed mythology.

Avellon as I come to understand it, is a mystical place similar to that of Asgaard.

And that's why I think that Robert Vermaat moved this to OT. It's because it carries with it a certain mysticism. We are not actually talking about an entity that was involved in a position of monarchy, or was recorded as an actual king of England let alone a entity that possessed incredible abilities.

Whilst he said that it doesn't intale Roman influence, that's wrong.

Arthur I think was a neo-Spartacus figure and the people mythologized him with embellishment.