One of those legendary figures where myth and history meet. Did he really exist? Who was he?
By the late middle ages King Arthur had been embedded into England as a national folk hero and legend, despite its Welsh origins. Geoffrey of Monmouth codified the Arthurian myth into what it has become today. This is where we get elements like the Sword in the Stone, and Merlin
Of course the legend is set in actual history. Post-Roman Britain to be exact. Not much is known from this time as there are no extant historical records aside from scarce outside mentions and one monk named Gildas. When the Roman legions left Britain the native and Romanized population was left to contend with invaders both from Ireland, and the various germanic tribes invading from across the North Sea, namely the Saxons and Angles. Political unity fractured, and Britain was one of the first areas of the former Western Roman Empire to fall into the "Dark Ages" It's this time period that interests me most.
There are many competing hypothesis about the origins of the Arthurian legend. Arthur is a figure of myth brought to Britain by Sarmatian soldiers under Lucius Artorius Castus, Arthur was the King of the Britons known to Jordanes as Riothamus, or a Romano-British leader named Ambrosius Aurelianus mentioned by Gildas.
One of my favorites alternate theories is that the figure known as Arthur was none other than Cerdic of Wessex, founder of the line that would eventually rule Anglo-Saxon England.
Personally I think he was none of these. The warlord who would form the core of the Arthur legend lived around the turn of the sixth century and was the leader at the decisive Battle of Mons Badonicus against the invading Saxons. How do we know this? The battle itself is mentioned by Gildas and was within his living memory, yet no leader was named. However the earliest traditions of Arthur (prior to the medieval legend) name him as the leader. This fact alone should place us on firm historical ground.
I very much doubt he existed, there is no historical evidence to support it.
>>386153
he was a cute blonde girl.
>>386168
Yeah
>>386153
>OP mentions Arthur
>leaves out Riothamus
>>386225
At least read the OP, dude.
And the issue with saying that Riathamus was Arthur is that Riothamus was a title. He might not have been one guy, and even if he was, saying that he's Arthur doesn't actually tell us about Arthur besides that a king existed that did things that may have shown up in the Arthurian stories.
>>386163
I have to refer again to Badon. If we can both agree that the Battle of Badon was a historical event then it is more than likely that the leader on the side of the Romano-Britons was named Arthur. Most of the early sources for the battle mention him as the leader. Even though we are talking about sources several centuries removed from the fact it is safe to assume that there could be a tradition stretching back that far.
>>386225
>>386240
I did mention him, read my post. I don't think Riothamus was Arthur but rather was the leader known to Gildas as Ambrosius Aurelianus. It is implied by Gildas that the Battle of Badon took place in the generation after Ambrosius (whom he highly praises) which means Arthur (who lead the battle at Badon) was probably a successor of his.
>>386153
>using women and children as a shield
I always knew Christians were evil and cowardly.
I was taught in school that Arthur was a mythical figure based on two or three kings in post-Roman Britain. This makes some sense and it's common in cultures with strong oral traditions.
there were entries made about Arthur in several Easter tables.
he probably existed.
>>386367
Would that be the Annales Cambriae?
Most likely something similar to Ragnar Lodbrok. Yes it's possible that he was real but most likely he's the story of several different people that within time got merged together
He was some bagaudian leader of romano british ancestry, very likely he had his base between Cornwall and Wales (At the edge of Romanized and Celtic Britain, and far enough from the invading saxon shits).
>>387001
Oh of course, there was not a single person named KING ARTHUR OF THE BRITONS.
But there was a century or two after Rome left during which Romano-british folks, sometimes allied with the celts other times enemies, fought against the invading Germanics.
After this time their culture and language died, and only the celts and saxons remained in Britain.
Finn Mac Cumaill > Arthur
>>386153
I believe Arthur was a essentially a deputy of Ambrosius Aurelianus.
>>386153
Wasn't the myth based on William the Conqueror or something?
>>387530
No but it was popularized and heavily modified by the Normans
>>387078
Fionn Mac Cumhaill was 100% real though, no comparison to fake Arthur
>>387246
This. The implication from Gildas is that the Battle of Badon was in the generation after Ambrosius. If Arthur was the leader at the battle (which the record shows he was) it wouldn't be a stretch assume he was a successor of Ambrosius who grew up serving under him.
Are there any documentaries about Arthur and his place in history if any worth checking out? Any books even (I mean divorced from the legend and fantasy stuff)?
![68520[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/KPrsYV7.jpg "68520[1].jpg")
>>389170
Warlord Chronicles is good. Only vaguely follows the Arthur legend and is more concerned with the story of Arthur the Warlord at the turn of the 6th Century. The stories focuses on Arthur uniting Britain against the Saxons and the depiction of the Battle of Badon is pretty interesting. Merlin is in it despite the break from legend and depictions of magic are made out to be interpreted by the reader as a blend of superstition, luck, and manipulation. The depiction of Merlin is very entertaining. He's a sardonic old lecherous Druid who slightly breaks the fourth wall at times.
The Dream of Eagles series by Jack Whyte is another good read. He goes more with the Arthur = Riothamus story, and the series actually starts out two generations before Riothamus around 395 AD while Britain is still a Roman province. The story adheres slightly more to the legendary story of Arthur (King Uther, Igraine, Percival, Lancelot, etc). Much of the story is told from the perspective of Merlin (spelled Merlyn). The story portrays Arthur as a Christian King wheras in Warlord Chronicles Arthur is a bit more ambivalent about the new faith. That's probably the biggest difference between the two series.
