Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink
Arthur and Vortigern
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Μύ
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
The myths and legends surrounding Arthur are well known, but we often hear historians disputing his existence. However, characters such as Vortigern or Ambrosius are mentioned in ancient texts far less frequently than Arthur and yet nobody ever seems to dispute their existence. Vortigern is mentioned once in the Anglo Saxon chronicles; Arthur, is recorded by Gildas. Why is one accepted as real and the other usually described as legendary or mythic? Perhaps I am wrong in this perception and I'd be pleased to hear from anyone who can demonstrate this. But it seems that there is something of a double standard applied.
References in Y Gododdin to Arthur are disparaged as being "later additions which prove nothing" but surely this shows that the memory of someone called Arthur was strong. And if most of the stories about him were oral traditions, that does not make them less valid. There is a great temptation to believe that thins are true just because they are written down. βAlice in Wonderlandβ does not prove the existence of talking white rabbits or disappearing cats. Equally, just because a story is not written in an βapprovedβ document does not mean it is not true. Nobody, as far as I know, made a later addition to an ancient text adding the name of Vortigern (OK, I know it is more likely to be a title than a name, but hopefully you get my point).
Any thoughts? -
Message 2
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Tony
I have read tons on the Arthur problem and most mention the evidence you quoted concerning that the curent warrior "was no Arthur" .
My own view is that Arthur was a late Roman General sent to help the Brits that we just dont have a record of from Roman sources. It may be significant though that there is a cult of Arthur in Italy as well. This general would have organised the Kings of Britain into a defence against the Saxons. Significant also that he would have been Christian, as a Roman at this time would have been.(although the Brits also were, abeit a bit failed) -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Thanks, Artorius. Personally I believe that there probably was an Arthur, but certainly not a King and certainly not a knight as described by Malory. However, my issue on this thread is not so much whether Arthur existed as why other equally shadowy characters are accepted as "real" historical figures, yet Arthur is often not because there is "no evidence".
-
Message 4
Posted by koomartherammie (U2070074) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Once read somewhere that Arthur was a Celtic prince/warlord hailing from the lands north of the Trent around the Lincolnshire area.
-
Message 5
Posted by koomartherammie (U2070074) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Just remembered the book.Of Celt And Saxon by Peter? Beresford.
-
Message 6
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Koo and Tony,
Yes, I have that book, amongst many others. Yes Tony the problem of denial of Arthur but accpetance of Vortigern also came up a lot. The answer was alsways as you put it. Why deny one but accept the other. There is perhaps an agenda to deny the existence of this great 'Briton' arthur, probably by the Anglo Saxons again. -
Message 7
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Not having read any of the books you refer to, I can honestly claim I thought of this all by myself. I am far from being a fanatic about Arthur, but I do have a great interest in old myths and in trying to discover whether there is any kernel of truth behind them and, as British myths go, this is a big one.
There are, of course, claims for Arthur all over the UK, but I believe there is now quite strong support for his original base being around central Scotland and the Borders. One of the things that struck me on reading a book some years ago which was scorning the existence of a historical Arthur was that he was said to have been buried beneath the cliffs at Salisbury. The writer claimed this was clear evidence that the stories were rubbish as there are, apparently, no cliffs in Salisbury. In Edinburgh, just beside the hill famously known as Arthur's Seat are some cliffs called Salisbury Crags.
I recently read Alistar Moffat's "Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms" which made a case for Arthur being based in what is now Scotland. While some parts were less convincing than others, he is the only author I have read who claims to have identifed possible battle sites for the twelve battles in the Arthur list. Not being an expert in ancient languages and place names, I can't say how good his theory is, but it is an intersting read. -
Message 8
Posted by koomartherammie (U2070074) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
I never take too much on board where ancient historical theories are concerned,just as you get used to one idea another comes along.Just concentrate on facts.But,unfortunately most of what is known about Arthur is non fact based legend,probably based on old stories from a long forgoten oral tradition.
-
Message 9
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Tony
Yes I found Alistair Moffats book fascinating and his argument compelling. I eve nwent so far as to see if any archaelogical digs had been comissioned due to his theories, but sadly I dont think it has been taken too seriously.
I think it is quite possible that Arthur, perhaps a Roman cavalry General sent to help the Britains wold have been nased in Northern Britain/Borders. This was where the real threat came from first- not the Anglo Saxons, but he pict and Irish tribes
who began raiding the moment the Romans left. Roman Brtain wa a rich picking ground for them.
I liked his ideas on the Dragon emblem being brought with a scythian cavalry unit and the placement of the battles in his book made sense to me. Obvious being from around that area he had a certain bias, but it may be justfied. What do you think of it? -
Message 10
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
characters such as Vortigern or Ambrosius are mentioned in ancient texts far less frequently than Arthur and yet nobody ever seems to dispute their existence. Vortigern is mentioned once in the Anglo Saxon chronicles; Arthur, is recorded by Gildas. Why is one accepted as real and the other usually described as legendary or mythic? Μύ
Vortigern is also mentioned by Gildas, and a number of other sources (including some Welsh ones) dating from before the Chronicle. See a complete list here:
(yes folks, there really is a website about Vortigern!) -
Message 11
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
.
I liked his ideas on the Dragon emblem being brought with a scythian cavalry unit and the placement of the battles in his book made sense to me. Obvious being from around that area he had a certain bias, but it may be justfied. What do you think of it?
Μύ
The last book I read about Arthur was called "The Dragon King" (forget who by). This claims that the original legends are based on Scythian/Sarmatian myths that were brought to Britain by Sarmatian soldiers in the service of Rome. Apparently there are lots of parallels between these Eastern myths and the Arthurian stories
(I have to say the book doesn't make a very good job of presenting the case but it's an interesting alternative to the usual line of argument) -
Message 12
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
I liked his ideas on the Dragon emblem being brought with a scythian cavalry unit and the placement of the battles in his book made sense to me. Obvious being from around that area he had a certain bias, but it may be justfied. What do you think of it?
Μύ
I thought it was an excellent book. As I live in central Scotland and know many of the places he wrote about, I naturally have some sympathy with the theories, but I thought that he made a pretty good case. I did some subsequent research and apparently there is a professor at Edinburgh University who is firmly of the opinion that Arthur was based around here, that Avalon is actually the Isle of May in the Forth and that Guinevere came from Perth. The biggest problem, of course, is that most of this is based on folklore and so incapable of proof.
Someone else I know who read Moffat apparently approached an Arthurian society to discuss it and was dismissed out of hand as they knew that Arthur was Welsh because...well because they knew it. So there. Somehow that didn't convince me. -
Message 13
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 26th January 2006
Hi Tony
Yes, it may be that that Arthurian Society hadnt done an awful lot of study. For instance, we know(if I remember rightly) the Goddodin up and left and went to Wales, taking their tales with them. -
Message 14
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Hi Gaiseric
Interesting, can you relate which particular eastern myths the author associated with the Arthurian legend? -
Message 15
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Eric Brewster 44th:
Hummmmm since you people are finally entertaining the ideas that there might have been an real, Duke or King Arthur; mind if I throw my hat into the ring? This is info from Stephen R. Lawhead's books and information he claims was from St. Gildas The Wise, from some monastary scripts.
The one that we think is Merlin Embries High Druid & High Bard Of Britain, was actually a king in his own right. His real name was Merlin Ap Talisin-Ap Queen Charis-Ap King Avallach Of Yyns Avalon-The Glass Isle. At about 16 to 17 years old between the dates of March 21 to April 17, 388 AD; near the villa of King Maelwys The Generious of Maridunum, Merlin defeats a band of Sacsens and Irish about to loot and burn the town, Merlin leading a force of King Michael's men with the support of King Michael The Generious. Now after the two battles, of defeating the Irish and the Vikings the people of the town and King Michael's men decide to make Merlin Ap Talisin their young co-regient with King Michael The Generious.
As was done during that time, King Michael The Generious (a Roman whom married the widow Queen Charis Ap King Avallach) confirms Merlin Ap Talisin as his own son. You see in legend that Merlin's father was murdered by Morgaina Ap King Avallach, Merlin's half Aunt. In later legends Morgaina Ap Avallach was sometimes called Morgana Lafaye.
Going on with this 'legend', King Merlin Ap Avallach is ruling both the district town of Dyfed and Maridunum untill 391 AD, since he accepted King Michael's confirmation of sonship of him. By 390 AD, King Merlin is 20 years old and falls inlove with Queen Ganieda Ap King Custennin of Goddeu, who's settlement is in the middle of the Celyddon Forest, Ganieda becomming queen when her mother dies of an disease before she can give birth to a second child. Ganieda is 24yrs old, Ganieda and Merlin are confirmed king and queen of Maridunum and Dyfed as they consumate their marriage in the spring, between February 20 to March 21, AD 390.....needless to say Queen Ganieda and King Merlin Ap King Avallach, have concieved a child.
Unfortunately by the early spring and early fall of of AD 391, Ganieda decides to go back to Goddeau to have her baby and King Merlin goes back there later to meet her. A large band of Sacsens land in ships near the forest, capturing the Ganiedian party and slaughtering the women as well as Queen Ganieda. King Merlin does not learn of the attack in time and finds the slaughtered party of wellwishers, his dead wife too. He kills the Viking raiding party and finds out that the Vikings have laid siege to Goddeau, with the forces of Goddeau as well as his own, King Merlin Of Dyfed defeats the Viking Warband and saves Goddeau.
King Merlin goes crazy and rides away to Celyddon Forest and is there for well over 40-50 years. His steward, Pellias Ap King Belyn de Lionessie comes and finds him and takes him back to civilization. Meanwhile an High King Vortigren takes the throne of Britain with his son Prince Pascent(Age 28yrs) at his side. More unfortunately during this time, the Sacsens raid Britain and High King Vortigren now about 68yrs old, allows the Sacsens to settle on an area they call "Sascen Shores". Unfortunately High King Vortigren has not been a very honest king, he had murdered the brother Constantinas of Constantinus I The Great and had tried to find the sons of Constantine I, whom were Prince Uther and Prince Aurelius. King Vortigren seeks out the former King Merlin Ap Avallach and asks him for his advice, Merlin tells Vortigren that he will loose his kingship shortly as Prince Uther and Prince Aurelius will defeat him and take over the High Kingship of Britain for the wrong done them. This is about 441 AD.
Shortly there after Prince Uther and Prince Aurelius comes and defeats King Vortigren, as Prince Pascent flees. Merlin Embries is brought to King Aurelius and Duke Uther, Aurelies being the elder brother, these 3 people form an high kingship to battle the Vikings with.
Part 2 Comming soon* -
Message 16
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Hi Gaiseric
Interesting, can you relate which particular eastern myths the author associated with the Arthurian legend?Μύ
To be honest I don't remember much detail but the main similarities include: worship of swords plunged into the earth (Excalibur?); an elite band of mounted warriors (called Narts) led by the hero Batraz; a story about Batraz casting his sword into the ocean just before his death; high regard for women, and stories featuring a woman riding in a cart (as in Chretien's story about Lancelot); a magical cauldron, a Lady of the Lake, a mystical leader not unlike Merlin; use of a dragon standard etc
There's another book on the same subject that came out in 2002 called "From Scythia to Camelot" but I havent read that one -
Message 17
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Good Grief, Arthur came from the Isle of Axholme and Hatfield Chase, first I've heard of it.
-
Message 18
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 27th January 2006
-
Message 19
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 27th January 2006
Eric Brewster 44th:
This is info from Stephen R. Lawhead's books and information he claims was from St. Gildas The Wise, from some monastary scripts.
Μύ
This Lawhead is a writer of fiction, is he not? -
Message 20
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
Eric Brewster 44th:
This is info from Stephen R. Lawhead's books and information he claims was from St. Gildas The Wise, from some monastary scripts.
Μύ
This Lawhead is a writer of fiction, is he not?Μύ
You mean you don't believe all that stuff?
I'm afraid it that sort of invented nonsense which gives the search for a historical Arthur a bad name. Fine as entertainment, but not as history. -
Message 21
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
Eric Brewster44th:
TonyG, from what I have heard on here, Stephen R. Lawhead's "fictionalized books" seems to be a very good source of crediable information.
I think you all seem to be forgetting that there were 100s of bards and singer/storytellers in the Dark Ages as well as the early Middle Ages, each taking the true legends of King Arthur and the other kings before him out of context to make an name for themselves. The more storytellers and singers imbellish the more outlandish the stories and songs get. No body in a grave for King Arthur, easily explained; Merlin his advisor and Druid High Bard of Britain takes the wounded High King Pendragon Arthur to the present Isle Of Mann where the new castle of Avalon is located. King Arthur also has Excalibur taken with him though he wishes it given to King Bedwyr.
Alot of the info in Stephen R. Lawhead's books correspond to alot of places in England and Ireland, alot of the info about family names and such also correspond with the Medieval and Pre-Medieval Genealogy that establishes the Surnames that we all use today.
Really TonyG, a bad name to the historical search for King Arthur? I think not, some historians actually think that the sword Excalibur had actually been thrown into the lake of the Glass Isle, the actual story says that when King Arthur had broke his Eagle Sword of Maximinus against King Cerdic along while before the battle of Baedun that he was very grieved.....thinking he would be unable to rule England. But Merlin's mother Queen Charis had kept Merlin's sword, Excalibur all these years. 2 days before Christmas Mass, Charis gives King Arthur Merlin's sword while standing on an small island in the middle of the Lake Of Glass, Merlin had gotten King Arthur to go to the "Shrine Hill Chapel" to perpare himself to recieve the "Dragon Sword Excalibur", it was called the Dragon Sword/Cut Steel because it had two gold dragon images on it's two ends of the hilt and was made from the steel of the Atlantians in a secret steel making process.
Hummmmm Nonsense, seems I have heard alot of nonsense from others here, that makes Stephen R. Lawhead's novels seem pretty historic and accurate, the legendary names are not fiction, those names correspond pretty accurately with genealogy names that I have researched, if you think the Collins Irish Family Names Map is fiction and fantasy then you are sadly are mistaken, also the Collins Clans Map Of Scotland is not fiction as well. It chronicals a good deal of the irish and scottish clan names that has given us our surnames alot of us use now, they are taken from real maps that were drawn at about the 1000dreds AD when some of the kings of Britain needed to define their territories and royal scholars drew these legal documents.
Alot of the names in Stephen R. Lawhead's books correspond with places in present day maps of England, Scotland and Ireland, it is odd then when certain Archeological expeditions to Ireland and England turn up certain writings pretaining to some relocations of the Irish Celts to what would be Scotland. It also was a fairly common practice of some of the English Nobles to appoint some of the more tamed Irish to occupy areas in Northern England and grant them lands if they would reform their ways? A good portion of the "Scots" are descended from this "relocation". No, Step Clans are not fiction, a good lot of the genealogy that researchers are doing now, comes from what happened in the Middle Dark Ages and from the 2 royal families that were evolving from the blending of the last of the Atlantians and the Early British Celts. Most of you are willing to believe that there was an King Arthur but you hold onto the legends that the lady of the lake was an pixie or something? Whom is fantasizing now? -
Message 22
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
It may surprise you to know that a lot books are written which incorporate real places and real people. They are still, though, works of fiction. While Stephen Lawhead may well have set his stories against a historic background, the fact that he his stories are set in a time form which there are so few written records makes it easier for him to weave his own stories. And good luck to him. Indeed, if he is writing a series based around the Arthurian legends it would be extremely sloppy writing not to use genuine place names. So it provs absolutley nothing.
This was supposed to be a serious thread about why some characters are accepted as "real" while others are not. If you wish to believe that works of fiction should be treated as history, then that is fine, but I am not going to indulge in any more argument over it.
Incidentally, you seem to know an awful lot about what I think or believe. I have never even mentioned the Lady of the Lake, so how do you know what I think about ner? -
Message 23
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Saturday, 28th January 2006
Eric Brewster44th:
Ok TonyG, granted........you may have not said that the Lady Of The Lake was not an mythical being, but it has been suggested here. The start of the "Royal Families" had been begun in the Dark Ages.......more than likely with a person that could have been King Arthur.
No one as yet, either on here or the Family Tree page has given me convincing enough explanations on how the Surnames that we all take forgranted now days and use, came about? If they did not start from the first creations of an sort of "Royal Family" with legendary names of people that existed then, as well as being mentioned by Bards, singers and storytellers of that time as well as those later peoples in the Midieval Age then there would be no rememberances even of an King Arthur, Uther nor the others that have had "fictionalized stories" wrote about them now.
All this stuff has to come from somewhere, when peoples like the Irish and British Celts continually had their lands overrun, their houses burned and any writings that they had stolen or burned they had to resort to storytelling and songs that told about their histories, I think that much of their lost histories are preserved in what later peoples of the 11th to 17th centuries did to preserve some of what their ancestors wanted to have them know. By those times the tales, legends and stories were worded bigger and bigger, however certain parts of the legends and tales could not be embellished, much of certain words about towns and villages as well as people's surnames can still be traced now, alot of the surnames have been genealogically verified. -
Message 24
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
-
Message 25
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 29th January 2006
Μύ
-
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 31st January 2006
The name Arthur as the name Alan are of Perso-Iranian origins - Sarmatian and Alanian (of Caucasian-north Iranian ancestry) forces had raided central Europe for centuries then played double game by enlisting to Roman legions serving in outposts in places like Belgium and England. That is how these names enterred the island.
At the time of the Roman withdrawal from the idland in the early 4th century the remaining 'Romans' associated themselves with the leading classes of the celtic kingdoms, some being rulers of regions themselves (kings, lords, dukes - from dux = military title used after the 4th century), military leader of auxiliaries in an roman outpost). Most probably one Roman guy named Artorius (of some distant Sarmato-alanian ancestry) served as a dux or as a local leader helping celtics against various invasions (first Saxon invasions or from other celtics) thus the name became popular and spread around the local population as it usually happens.
I do not believe that he was the Arthur of the popular myth or that his acts were the inspiration for it. It must have been someone else, someone with more influence than a regional dux. What we know is that years after Vortigern's (or whoever did that) tragic (for the celtics) mistake of giving a bit of land to Saxons in lid-5th century in order to stop them raiding the place, Saxons continued to arrive in continuously larger numbers and in a rather slow process (that lasted more than 100 years) displacing the original Celtic populations to the west. However, it is a myth that Saxons stormed the Celtics easily (as if Saxons were "better warriors" than Celtics, these are funny views)... It has been found (according to a ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ documentary I have seen some years back) that in the mid-6th century there was a huge Celtic counterattack during which it is suspected that many of the various celtic kingdoms that usually intermigled in catastrophic civil wars (greek style) united to face the common danger coming from the slowly but continiously advancing to the west Saxons. The counterattack was initially so successful that would soon ensure the end of Saxon presence in England but then the tide changes, a plague (caused by the continuous wars) hit most regions of the island which hit mostly the Celtics than the Saxons (who must had a higher resistance to the virus). Celtics had a nearly 40% reduction of their population while Saxons only a 10%. Therefore Saxons continuously aided by fresh arrivals from Belgium managed finally prevailed not by means of war but by means of biology in exactly the same why that American natives lost to conquestadors (it is difficult to imagine that 110 million natives habitated the continent till 1500 and only 7 million in 1600!!!).
My opinion is that Arthur might have been the celtic leader who united the various celtic fractions in that counter attack against the Saxons in the mid-6th century. -
Message 27
Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Vortigern is mentioned once in the Anglo Saxon chronicles; Arthur, is recorded by Gildas. Why is one accepted as real and the other usually described as legendary or mythic?
Μύ
Actually, I don't think that Gildas does mention Arthur at all, but he does refer to Vortigern. -
Message 28
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
What I think is that after the defeat of the Celtics in the south, east and central parts of the island, the Saxons would do anything possible to eliminate the rememberance of a great celtic king who united the celtic tribes against them in a succesful campaign. On the other hand, see it from the Celt's point of view: one thing for sure, they could not discuss freely such things,in anyway "Arthur" did not achieve a final victory to be 100% proud, and then the remaining of the Celtic tribes in the western and northern parts as well as Ireland might had not exactly consider him as 100% their hero (since Celtic tribes were very divided and fought endo-phyletic wars as much as they fough with the invading Saxons. Thus the whole story of Arthur passed on to become a myth. A myth that centuries later lost the Celtic-Saxon rivalry connotation to the point that even the third big time invaders the Normands looked up to Arthur as the first great king of the island (as far as I remember, one Normand king in order to show his "Englishness" he "found" the remains of the great king Arthur and baried them in a big time ceremony, all that in the late 12th century).
Of course it does not have to be this way necessarily as I might miss many details of the 5th-10th english history (for example the real rate of 'saxonisation' of the south,east and centre of the island) but it at least it makes some sense. The issue is veru exciting and I hope one day we find something solid at last. -
Message 29
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
But who were these "Celtic" tribes and how did they manage to put up such a fight against the invaders?
The Romans had destroyed the old British warrior society by turning them into Roman citizens (or slaves), and taking away their right to bear arms. Once the Roman Army left the only troops available to the Romano-British successor kingdoms would have been ex-Roman garrison troops or city militias.
That (I assume) is why "Vortigern" had to recruit all those hairy, scary Saxons in the first place - the south of Britain just couldn't supply him with enough decent military manpower. -
Message 30
Posted by philhk (U3109337) on Wednesday, 1st February 2006
Hi everyone,
I`m new to these boards but have found this thread interesting, even if I can`t contribute much.
I sympathise with posters who try to glean info about this period from fictionalised accounts, "historical novels" if you like, as there are so few sources available for the turbulent history of this time, (not called the dark ages for nothing) I think it easy to let our own imagination & prejudices influence us. Scots would like to believe Arthur a Scot, the Welsh a Welshman etc, etc.
From the little I have read on the subject of Arthur, with the exception of a brief mention in the epic poem "Y Goddoddin", (excuse any possible spelling errors)written circa 600ad & which I understand is doubted by some historians there does not seem to be a mention of Arthur until Nennius, 200yrs later. I do not think he is mentioned by Gildas as stated by a previous poster & this ommision, on the face of it should cast doubt on the Kings existence in historical fact.
Arthur becomes popular firstly during the 12thC & the version of him that most people recognise is based on the 15thC work by Thomas Malory, this Arthur though would bear little resemblance to the dark age King, if he existed at all, of nearly 1000yrs before.
Personally I like to think he did exist, & I believe there is some evidence that he did. As Artorious mentions he may have been a Roman general who stayed in Britain after the Roman withdrawal but myself I prefer the idea he was a British, if you like Celtic cheiftan or warrior & there does seem to be evidence that the Saxon invasion was, for a while at least, stalled during the beginning of the 6thC & I like to think the reason this happened may have been a man called Arthur.
Of course the Saxon takeover was only stalled & not reversed & this could explain why so little is known, as still happens today history is written by the victors.
I hope I have not bored you, to me the fact we no so little of this man & his time is what makes it so fascinating, he can be many things to many people & if you are Cornish Tintagel castle may look more beautiful if you imagine Arthur striding the ramparts & watching for a Saxon fleet, my money is still on the Welsh connection but I remain open to all opinions.
Kind regards,
Phil. -
Message 31
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Philhk
Welcome to the forum!
You say history is written by the victors. But of course Gildas was on the losing side and he also fails to mention Arthur - which is pretty hard to explain if he was indeed a real person. -
Message 32
Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
But who were these "Celtic" tribes and how did they manage to put up such a fight against the invaders?
The Romans had destroyed the old British warrior society by turning them into Roman citizens (or slaves), and taking away their right to bear arms. Once the Roman Army left the only troops available to the Romano-British successor kingdoms would have been ex-Roman garrison troops or city militias.
That (I assume) is why "Vortigern" had to recruit all those hairy, scary Saxons in the first place - the south of Britain just couldn't supply him with enough decent military manpower. Μύ
Good points. How 'Celtic' were the 'Celtic' tribes and how did they identify themselves and how were they identified by others. Another question is who were these invaders. Obviously not the Saxons originally, they were brought in to fight the invaders (weren't they?). Of course, 'Saxons' seems to have been a generic term for Saxons, Angles and Jutes and maybe others too. Perhaps. Perhaps one lot were brought in to fight the others.
The Irish invaders seem to be forgotten too. There were huge areas of Western Britain taken over by Irish settlers; wouldn't these have been of some concern to the rulers of sub-Roman Britain? -
Message 33
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
The Irish invaders seem to be forgotten too. There were huge areas of Western Britain taken over by Irish settlers; wouldn't these have been of some concern to the rulers of sub-Roman Britain?
Μύ
Indeed - but this doesn't fit in too well with the idea of the "Celts" heroically defending Britain from foreign invaders (as these Irish invaders were themselves Celts!) -
Message 34
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Hi all
What has bee pointed out here is the problem of Celt fighting Celt as well as Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.
The Romanised Celts as has been pointed out lacked the ability in the early years of Roman withdrawal to defend themselves against the attacks of the northern picts and un-romanised Celts and Irish Celtic incursions into Wales and elsewhere. According to the texts the Romanised Brits called the Saxon mercenaries into help but once these had seen the riches of Romanised Britain the floodgates opened and the Brits were pushed back into the 'forests and mountains' from which they re-organised and counter attacked, leading to the stories of Arthur and his victories giving perhaps three generations of peace to the Britons.
How close were the Irish Celts and British Celts is debatable? There are stories from Irish myths that say that men were sent into England to be taught, or to be exiled, or to be trained in some art of warfare etc etc. This would imply that either the two did have a close relationsp at one time or there may have been large Irish settlements in England as well. The British tales though tell of fighting off Irish invaders, these the very exiles that Irish myth mentions.
The problem is seperating these incidents in time, wether pre or post-Roman or even during Roman times. -
Message 35
Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Indeed - but this doesn't fit in too well with the idea of the "Celts" heroically defending Britain from foreign invaders (as these Irish invaders were themselves Celts!)Μύ
Ah ha! but then there were no Celts in Britain, not even in inverted commas. I have to say that I am not totally sold on the idea of Irish invasions into Western Briain, I think there may well have been a large presence there already. There could have been increased immigration in the Late Roman period and onwards.
Who were the Saxons hired to fight? Britons? Romans? Picts? Scots/Irish? The Anglo Saxon Chronicles refers to battles usually being against Britons or the Welsh. Were these name synonymous with each other? Were they interchangeable with each other or did they refer to distinct groups (ethnically, culturally, politically or all three even)? There is even a reference to the Britto-Welsh, which muddies the waters even more. -
Message 36
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Philhk & Gaiseric,
I must have got my sources mixed up. I thought Gildas had mentioned Arthur, but I stand, or rather, sit, corrected. Excellent post, by the way, Philhk. Welcome to the Board.
If Gildas did not mention him, I don't think that is necessarily a damning of the claim for a real Arthur if, for example, Arthur was indeed based in the Scottish border country as some recent research claims. Gildas was, I think, based in the south of England (I am sure you will corretc me if I am wrong) and may well never have heard of battles in the north of the country. Is Gildas not distrusted by many historians anyway?
My original point was that, for example, the addition of Arthur's name in Y Gododdin is often claimed to be a later addition to the original. But why would someone add the name of Arthur? Why not add Vortigern or Ambrosius? The name is added in such a way as to imply that anyone reading it would know who Arthur was.
OK, I suppose you could argue that someone today could go back to a copy of a Dickens' original manuscript and add the words "though he was not Batman" and claim it as proof of the early existence of the caped crusader, and I couldn't disagree. -
Message 37
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
The Anglo Saxon Chronicles refers to battles usually being against Britons or the Welsh. Were these name synonymous with each other? Were they interchangeable with each other or did they refer to distinct groups (ethnically, culturally, politically or all three even)? There is even a reference to the Britto-Welsh, which muddies the waters even more.Μύ
In the Chronicle, they seem to be interchangable, with "Welsh" and "Britons" appearing in alternate paragraphs. Stenton's classic account (Anglo-Saxon England 1971) talks of Britons throughout, eg the Chronicle refers to a "Welsh" king calls Natanleod but in Stenton he is called British. Hengest fought a battle where he killed 12 "Welsh" nobles but again Stenton calls them British. -
Message 38
Posted by ap Tom (U1380901) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
In the Chronicle, they seem to be interchangable, with "Welsh" and "Britons" appearing in alternate paragraphs. Stenton's classic account (Anglo-Saxon England 1971) talks of Britons throughout, eg the Chronicle refers to a "Welsh" king calls Natanleod but in Stenton he is called British. Hengest fought a battle where he killed 12 "Welsh" nobles but again Stenton calls them British.Μύ
I used to wonder if they referred to different peoples as perceived by the authors of ASC. For example, what if 'Britons' were the Romano-British of the former provinces of Britannia, and the 'Welsh' were the 'foreigners / strangers' outside the Romanised areas in the West and North. -
Message 39
Posted by philhk (U3109337) on Thursday, 2nd February 2006
Thanks for the welcome Gaiseric,
I realise I am on dodgy ground but so much of the Arthurian tradition can never be more than conjecture, as evidenced by the myriad opinions expressed in this thread.
I did say "History is written by the victors" & as you point out although we can expect Saxon chronicles to therefore ignore him it does appear strange that no mention is made by his supposedly closest contemporary British historian, Gildas.
I would like to suggest that the battles between invading Saxons & native, partially Romanized, Britons was not the only battles being waged in the British isles during the early 6thC & there were other victors in other, equally crucial conflicts in this turbulent age which possibly could also account for Arthurs disappearence from historical records.
I realise I may inviting more learned criticism but I refer to the conflict between the early Christian church & the remnants, especially in the countryside of the indiginous Druidic cult which although having suffered from the Roman occupation continued to exist. Apart from Druidism there were also the imported pagan Roman cults, Mithraism for instance which had been popular with the Roman military & I imagine would have continued to exist & be served by the military forces of the more Romanized British kingdoms as well as the more well known pantheon of Roman gods from Jove downwards. I would also expect native pagan animist cults to have survived both the occupation & the initial onslaught of Christianity & still be popular, especially in the less Romanized regions.
Although later 12th & 15thC accounts of Arthur portray him as a Christian I do not think that we can take this for granted, he may have fought against a new foriegn religion as zealously as we like to think he opposed the invading Saxons, certainly a chieftan facing foreign armies would, as Kings through the ages have always done, required funds to equip & feed the men necessary for defence in time of war & as Henry VIII later also discovered the Church could be a useful source of monies for various projects if appropriate pressure were applied. Even if the Arthur of legend was actually a Christian as later accounts say that still does not mean he would have exempted the growing Christian Church from assisting financially in a time of natonal emergency.
Most people, even Kings during the dark ages, were illiterate & until the advent of movable type most manuscripts, including histories were produced in monastic communities & therefore written by Christians & if Arthur during his heroic but ultimately unssuccessful wars with the Saxons had forced the Church to support him with a large part of its growing wealth he may well have angered the leaders of the fast growing religion, perhaps even to the point of being excised from histories compiled by members of the new church. This is even more likely if, as is possible especially for a native British ruler or warrior, he was a pagan.
I do not wish to create an argument concerning either the truth, content or or possible political influences on early Christian texts but as I think we can see from early Church councils & more recently found earlier gospels which are absent in modern versions of the bible the Church since St Peter & later Constantine all the way through the great Schism, Cathar heresy through to the protestantism of Martin Luther & including much more besides, as I am sure you are aware, has adapted accounts to suit religious aspirations of the time. I think it is accepted that certain biblical figures have either increased in significance, sometimes diminished & occasionally disapeared altogether depending upon decisions of various synods & councils & so I suggest that if the Church can adapt its own doctrine to suit circumstances it is not impossible that histories will also be written to suit prevailing Church doctrine or the churches current political aspirations.
This scenario, although pure conjecture, could explain why Gildas although on the losing side in one war may have been the victor in what was ultimately a much bigger battle, Arthur however still manages to stay on the losing side until later writers incorporate Christian elements into this old tale & the "Once & future King" is rehabilitated with a holy grail & a round table.
Only personal musings,
Kind regards,
Phil. -
Message 40
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
I used to wonder if they referred to different peoples as perceived by the authors of ASC. For example, what if 'Britons' were the Romano-British of the former provinces of Britannia, and the 'Welsh' were the 'foreigners / strangers' outside the Romanised areas in the West and North. Μύ
Hmmm....you'd need to ask an expert on the ASC, it's certainly not clear to me
Generally, authors of this time are not very discriminating on issues of ethnic identity - eg Byzantine authors like Anna Comnena talk about "Turks" or even "Skythians" when they really mean Bulgars, Avars, Pechenegs, Khazars etc. This is one of the things that make the Dark Ages dark!
BTW for fans of post-Roman Britain this site is a very interesting resource:
-
Message 41
Posted by Artorious (U1941655) on Friday, 3rd February 2006
Hi Guys,
I think the term 'welsh' and 'Briton' were interchangeable. To the Saxons the Britons were foreigners, in their language Welech or somesuch. This becoming Welsh. I dont think at this time there would have been a very large population of Irish Celts in Wales to differentiate between these and the Britons in the eyes of the Saxons. Of course the Britons didnt call themselves Britons, they still had the hangover from Roman times and called themseves citizens, which in ancient British was `Cymru', the later name for Wales. -
Message 42
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Tuesday, 7th February 2006
I'm new to the messageboards, and this thread has expanded a lot from the origins of Vortigern! My own take on Arthur is that the Dark Ages (at least in the early part) is called that for a reason. Our sources are very very limited, and not at all trustworthy (Gildas is, for instance, rather strange). Arguing over evidence for a particular historic figure in such a period is like chasing shadows, with everyone arguing for their own pet theory using almost no evidence at all. Even English Heritage was not immune to this with the embarrasment over the find from Tintagel a couple of years ago. I might be facinated by the period, but when it come to Arthur, its a bit like who was Jack the Ripper or who killed Kennedy: lots of speculation but no real evidence, and plenty of space for 'interesting' theories and books. Frankly, whenever I hear the name Arthur, I try not to think about it, because I know it will just give me a headache!
-
Message 43
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Wednesday, 8th February 2006
Welcome, DocMike.
You'll find a lot of messages change their emphasis as they develop. Good, isn't it? -
Message 44
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
I don't think we can take Stephen Lawhead's books in any sort of authority.. they are essentially heavily christianised propoganda, though Mr Lawhead found himself in the unenviable position of being called a christian propogandist by non believers and a Heretic BY believers
as to be fair to the man his take on christinity seems to differ to mainstream and is a bit nicer 
I find his books very readable and enjoyable if frustrating in parts with some ideas. I mean one of his latest books has the Welsh King Arthur awakening in modern times to help the ENGLISH (therefore descendants of his enemys) royal family....
arthurian legends seem to carry a heavy mix of confusion between given names, nicknames and symbolism, not to mention the confusion between Welsh and British/Briton, the Britons were the tribes native to the island of britannia, well the longest residents at a certain point with the british tribes being pushed further west by the saxons/angles/jutes/irish/scotti etc etc the disparate tribes were forced to come together, and so forged a new identity to unite themselves, "Cymru" in the west, "Cumbria" in the north west though that was to fall and Kernow. "welsh" and Cornish are the very close descendants of the "British" tongues. various TV programmes claim the different dialects in use in Wales now, despite it being a pretty small area are due to communication being harder between valleys, they never take into account that many different dialects would have come together from all over britain, pushed west, the Gododdin moving to north west wales for example.
its the same as Britain now has different dialects of english, yorkshire, "estuary" and so on, so imagine you plucked people up from each distinct area and stuck them on an island with no tv's/phones etc within a generation or two they would all be speaking another version of english again, the result of their varying dialects coming together.
Arthur ap uther Pendragon is the name given, if you took that line to be corrupted welsh and made spelling alterations and changed "dragon" to Ddrai you then get a different name for Arthur once translated into English. The Bear, Son of the Terrible Head Dragon. Dragon was used to describe british warriors, and was also if i remember the name given to the Kings of Gwynedd. -
Message 45
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 9th February 2006
Arguing over evidence for a particular historic figure in such a period is like chasing shadows, with everyone arguing for their own pet theory using almost no evidence at all. Μύ
Besides which, all the really interesting things about Arthur - sword in the stone, round table, holy grail, Lancelot, Merlin etc - are purely legendary with no basis in history. Even if there was a real Arthur he wouldn't have been anything like the fictional character who developed centuries later. -
Message 46
Posted by DocMike15 (U3167117) on Tuesday, 14th February 2006
Thanks Gaiseric! The point you made was the same as mine, that the earlier discussions on where Arthur was, etc, are basically built on almost no evidence. We have to be very careful with the sources as well. Gildas is probably writing up to a century after 'Arthur', and Nennius at least a century after that. Unfortunately, Arthur is romantic, and so people get caught up in trying to find him. As far as the movement of 'invaders' is concerned, we should be very careful about labels such as britons, celts, picts, scotti and the like. There is a great deal of debate about whether local populations are entirely displaced by Saxons, etc. DNA evidence might tell us more, but I'm not convinced we can simply point to places on a map and say that that group was ther, and this is who they were. Again, we are using ancient labels, with very little information as to their contemporary usage. The resistance to the various invaders of this period might have been uneven, and dependent on local power structures (see the rest of Western Europe for examples). It is a messy period, and there is little archaeological, never mind documentary evidence. To some extent, we are still prisoners of the 'invasion' theories of the pre-C14 period, whether or not they explain the facts.
-
Message 47
Posted by Disgruntled_Renegade (U530059) on Wednesday, 15th February 2006
I think a lot of the Arthurian legends may be based on or confused with symbolism and earlier things.
Sword in the Stone - perhaps a referall to how swords were made with stone moulds? - also in a book they mentioned how the latin Saxum? (stone) sounds similar to Saxon - perhaps "arthur" won his sword through personal combat with a Saxon chieftan so sword in the stone could actually mean Sword in the Saxon hehe.
Lady of the Lake with Caledwlch (excalibur) perhaps a refference to the old celtic/brythonic traditions of throwing your sword into lakes/rivers etc as an offering to the Gods.
Myrddyn/Merlin is I believe refferenced more than Arthur and fairly rarely as anything to do with Arthur, perhaps a seperate figure, a legendary druid branded into memory. (the town Caerfyrddin/Carmarthen means Myrddins Town/Fort and lays claim to an oak tree as being Merlins (tree was cut down but the roots are kept below a roundabout - ancient legends claim that were merlins tree to be removed, then the town would be flooded, i think that when the upper part of the tree had been removed there actually WAS a minor flood so the council have kept the roots, not daring to risk removing the tree entirely...)
Lancelot appears nowhere in the older stories. -
Message 48
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Monday, 27th February 2006
Eric Brewster 44th: Disgruntled Renegade, I tend to disagree with your assesment of Stephen R. Lawhead's books. To the well versed genealogist, they are a wealth of information.
If you apply them to such maps as Collins Publishers puts out on Irish and British/Scottish Surnames, the information in them corresponds strongly with certain historical events such as with the Battle Of Mount Baedun, an king of Northern Ireland whose name was legendary, King Fergus MacGillomar, certain town names in Northern Ireland. As you might have found out, King Arthur had a father and a mother....he did not just pop out of a Dragon's egg and they named him Arthur because of it. It does not matter to me what people think of Stephen R. Lawhead....where ever he got the information, it is very very accurate to what may have actually happened between about 500 AD to 565 AD when King Arthur lost his kingdom and dissappeared.
King Arthur was actually the grandson of Constantius I (The Great), his father being High King Uther and his mother being Ygverna, High King Aurelius's wife; Uther married her after King Aurelius had been poisoned, King Gorlas's daughter. Four families make up the Queen Gweniviere's parentage, the Gilmores, MacGillicuddies, The MacDermaids, and the Lawerences. Lancelot was really an nickname of Sir Lawerence Lenny MacDermaid, the cousin of Gweniviere. The corrupted word "Lancelot" based on an Irish one meaning "storm and wind".
D.R, the only books of Stephen R. Lawhead's I am taking seriously for good information on King Arthur is the 3 books "Taliesin", "Merlin" and "Arthur"......only one more book I also do take very seriously is "Pendragon: Book 4" because in that it tells most of the Irish-Vandalia war in Ireland when the kings of Briton did not want to go to Ireland to save it. It also explains how we might have contracted epidemics because most of them came from way of Briton Merchants and fishermen journeying to the Holy Land and bringing the diseases with them.
I cannot dismiss the wealth of Surnames that I have found with the relocation of some Irish Celts to what would later be called Scotland, at a time in the Dark Ages that implied that there was an functioning High Kingship and King Arthur was it's only leader. While these names broke down into their components, we are left with the Irish, Britain names we are familiar with today. -
Message 49
Posted by Eric_Brewster (U2829317) on Monday, 27th February 2006
Eric Brewster 44th: I am really getting greatly annoyed by this mistaken belief that King Arthur was some sort of Roman General....APPOINTED BY ROME FOR DOING THE DIRTY WORK FOR THEM. And by a bunch of people going to see this Italian Movie Producer's movie on King Arthur. the Italian Movie Producer based most of his ideas on the Saxon-Britain, Roman British records that were recorded by the historians tagging along with the Romans that were trashing Briton.
Why were the Romans that were going to stay in Britain after the others left, so eager to marry into the British Celt families of southern Britain if the others they had slaughtered, I would think that the Romans would want to hightail it all back to Rome instead of marrying Celts that they tried to make into slaves....that is if you believe this crazy italian film maker? -
Message 50
Posted by heuvel (U1763810) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
Hello everyone,
TonyG did not ask for our opinions on whether Arthur existed or not. He asked:
Why is one [Vortigern] accepted as real and the other [Arthur]usually described as legendary or mythic?
Μύ
Do we accept this statement when applied to historians in general, and, if so, why is it so?
Heuvel
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Μύto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.