Tweet
So, who was he?
After all there are lots of sources which make it probable that Artus really lived (although he may not have been king but rather a military leader and has only few things in common with the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth and definitely has nothing in common with the tales of Chrétien de Troyes)
IMHO the two most convincing sources for the historical Artus are so far:
Lucius Artorius Castus who was a roman military officer and lived during the 2nd Century AD.
He began his military career as a simple centurion and used revolutionary tactics (by lining up his legionaries as a schiltron) in his combat against the sarmatians
(who were warriors which fought mainly by horse and therefore had a very strong cavalry).
During his time stationed there he gained the respect of the sarmatians and obviously convinced sarmatian troops to fight for rome.
He was later made Primus Pilus and, after a period where he was praepositus (admiral) of the fleet of Naples he was sent as Dux legionis to Britain, along with 5500 Sarmatians (which were warriors as well as their families) where he took command of the VI Victrix.
There along with his sarmatian horsemen he successfully guarded the Hadrian wall and later, after retiring from his military career he was made governor of Liburnia (which lies in Dalmatia).
There are some things which speak for Castus as being the historical Artus. He was a successful leader of a group of loyal horsemen (which could be made into the knight of the round table) during a time where most combats were fought by foot soldiers and he protected the (roman) british from their enemies.
But he lived in the wrong time (2nd century as opposed to 6th century) and didn´t fight against the saxons (which came only later into the country).
Another theory is, that the historical Artus wasn´t located in the welsh territory (where most people search for his traces) but rather originated in northern Britain/southern Scotland and was a prince of a small scottish kingdom as well as war leader (Dux bellorum) in 10 battles which were fought by the united armies of the kingdoms between the hadrians and antonine wall against the saxons of northumberland and the picts north of the antonine wall.
See here:
To give a brief summary of the most impotant points:
Carroll claims that Artus was one of three sons of King Aidan of Dalriada (which was written in the "Life of St.Columba") and was later killed in a battle of Miathi (written in "Life of St. Columba" as well).
Carroll identifies King Loth of Orkney with Cennalat as this can be ranslated with King (Cenna) and Loth (Lat) who eally ruled over the Orkneys and was a king of the Picts and sees reason to believe that the battle of Miathi can be attributed to be the battle of Camlann, as it took place by a crooked (Cam) river named Alan (Lann).
As this was a battle against the picts Medraud (Mordred) Son of Cennalan (King Loth) could have been involved as well.
Carroll argues that, although Aidan was king, he let his sons (especially arthur) lead his troops and concerned himself only with governing the country.
Carroll is even successful in identifying Camelot, as in the kingdom of Dalriada near the antonine wall there was a roman castellum which was named Ad Vallum by the romans and was called Camelon or Camelot by the people living there (and lies near Falkirk) and must have been an impressive sight during the 6th century, as it was rather large and made of stone in contrast to the small wooden hilforts which were normal during this time.
Arturius ap Aidan even had a sister or half sister named Morgan
and there were also 2 Druids or Bards in this time and region one named Taliesin (bard of King Urien of Gore) and the other Myrrdin (Merlin) who was bard of Gwenddlau and later became mad after a particular devastating battle at which Gwenddlau died.
IMHO the most convincing theory so far especially as the names fit and the historical sources cited by Carroll are very near to the time where King Arthur is believed to have lived.
There are other theories, attributing King Arthur to be Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus or even Vortigern himself (stating that Vortigern isn´t a name but a title) but IMHO they are not as convincing as these two theories.
So what do you think about the historical Artus?
After all there are lots of sources which make it probable that Artus really lived (although he may not have been king but rather a military leader and has only few things in common with the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth and definitely has nothing in common with the tales of Chrétien de Troyes)
IMHO the two most convincing sources for the historical Artus are so far:
Lucius Artorius Castus who was a roman military officer and lived during the 2nd Century AD.
He began his military career as a simple centurion and used revolutionary tactics (by lining up his legionaries as a schiltron) in his combat against the sarmatians
(who were warriors which fought mainly by horse and therefore had a very strong cavalry).
During his time stationed there he gained the respect of the sarmatians and obviously convinced sarmatian troops to fight for rome.
He was later made Primus Pilus and, after a period where he was praepositus (admiral) of the fleet of Naples he was sent as Dux legionis to Britain, along with 5500 Sarmatians (which were warriors as well as their families) where he took command of the VI Victrix.
There along with his sarmatian horsemen he successfully guarded the Hadrian wall and later, after retiring from his military career he was made governor of Liburnia (which lies in Dalmatia).
There are some things which speak for Castus as being the historical Artus. He was a successful leader of a group of loyal horsemen (which could be made into the knight of the round table) during a time where most combats were fought by foot soldiers and he protected the (roman) british from their enemies.
But he lived in the wrong time (2nd century as opposed to 6th century) and didn´t fight against the saxons (which came only later into the country).
Another theory is, that the historical Artus wasn´t located in the welsh territory (where most people search for his traces) but rather originated in northern Britain/southern Scotland and was a prince of a small scottish kingdom as well as war leader (Dux bellorum) in 10 battles which were fought by the united armies of the kingdoms between the hadrians and antonine wall against the saxons of northumberland and the picts north of the antonine wall.
See here:
To give a brief summary of the most impotant points:
Carroll claims that Artus was one of three sons of King Aidan of Dalriada (which was written in the "Life of St.Columba") and was later killed in a battle of Miathi (written in "Life of St. Columba" as well).
Carroll identifies King Loth of Orkney with Cennalat as this can be ranslated with King (Cenna) and Loth (Lat) who eally ruled over the Orkneys and was a king of the Picts and sees reason to believe that the battle of Miathi can be attributed to be the battle of Camlann, as it took place by a crooked (Cam) river named Alan (Lann).
As this was a battle against the picts Medraud (Mordred) Son of Cennalan (King Loth) could have been involved as well.
Carroll argues that, although Aidan was king, he let his sons (especially arthur) lead his troops and concerned himself only with governing the country.
Carroll is even successful in identifying Camelot, as in the kingdom of Dalriada near the antonine wall there was a roman castellum which was named Ad Vallum by the romans and was called Camelon or Camelot by the people living there (and lies near Falkirk) and must have been an impressive sight during the 6th century, as it was rather large and made of stone in contrast to the small wooden hilforts which were normal during this time.
Arturius ap Aidan even had a sister or half sister named Morgan
and there were also 2 Druids or Bards in this time and region one named Taliesin (bard of King Urien of Gore) and the other Myrrdin (Merlin) who was bard of Gwenddlau and later became mad after a particular devastating battle at which Gwenddlau died.
IMHO the most convincing theory so far especially as the names fit and the historical sources cited by Carroll are very near to the time where King Arthur is believed to have lived.
There are other theories, attributing King Arthur to be Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus or even Vortigern himself (stating that Vortigern isn´t a name but a title) but IMHO they are not as convincing as these two theories.
So what do you think about the historical Artus?
Comment