Ancient and Archaeology permalink
Historical Arthur
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Sunday, 31st May 2009
This post will be quite long but I hope that those interested will stick with it and read it all.
Gildas is the most important source when it comes to this idea. The De Excidio Britanniae written sometime around 520-530 AD is at best sketchy when it comes to British history after the Romans left, but this in itself does not make any part of it fabricated.
So he says that to counter a Picto-Irish threat to the country a certain ‘Proud Tyrant’ recruited Saxon mercenaries to defeat the invaders. These mercenaries would revolt against their employer and would ravage the entire country. Years of fighting ensued until a certain Ambrosius Aurelianus finally managed to save part of the country from the invaders.
For years much doubt has been placed on this account of ‘history’ but why? Why would a vast work of over 100 chapters survive for so long – virtually unchanged if the information contained within it was false? I know he does make errors, or what seem like errors. The building of Hadrian’s Wall in the fifth century stands out as the most obvious, but perhaps what he was actually referring to was a re-building of the wall to in some way strengthen the defences.
Then of course there is the Historia Brittonum, the text supposedly written by Nennius. This is somewhat less reliable but it does incorporate large parts of the Gildas text and in Nennius the Proud Tyrant becomes Vortigern.
So could these two seemingly different people, along with one other I shall mention later, actually be one person and could that person in fact be Arthur?
It is first worth remembering that the name Arthur is a combination of two early Brythonic words: Arth (bear) and Ur (man). So it would appear that Arthur means Bear Man and this would make it more likely to have been a battle cry rather than a name. So the reason the name Arthur does not appear in the literature is that he would be listed by some other name which we would not necessarily associate with him immediately.
With regard to Vortigern what can be deduced about him? Well the genealogies place him in or around Gloucester and list his name not as Votigern but as Vitalianus, that is son of Vitalis. We know of one such Romano-Briton with this name and that is the Vitalis who appears to have been a solider who was also known by a barbarian name of Catel Durnluc. This Vitalis served under Constantine III and probably followed Gerontius to Gaul during the rebellion. We know that although the mutiny failed he must have returned to Britain as he is regarded as the founder of a dynasty of powerful kings who ruled over Wales. So it is likely that Vortigern learnt much from his father including Roman war strategies and he would have put that knowledge to good use.
As for the ‘Proud Tyrant’ that Gildas mentions, no other information can be found for him and he is only known by this name in Gildas. Therefore it doesn’t take to big of a leap of imagination to believe these two people to be the same person.
Many people have said that Gildas is not very useful when it comes to mentioning people by name, and this is true when you consider that he only mentions two post-Roman leaders, The Proud Tyrant and Ambrosius Aurelianus, and of those he only mentions one by his actual name, Ambrosius. There must have been some reason for not using the Proud Tyrants name, Gildas does say that the victory obtained in the late 440’s was done so due to the fact the Britons put their trust ‘not in man but in God’. Could he be deliberately omitting the victors name in order to strengthen the impact of Gods intervention in the battle? Remember also that in the mid fifth century we find at least four different important people each with the name Arthur. These would have been people who were given these names not long after Gildas was writing so could this suggest that although Gildas doesn’t mention Arthur by name it may well have been common knowledge that the victor was Arthur.
Bede and others talk of Vortigern asking for help from the Saxons. This implies that Vortigern had been fighting against the Picts & Scots so Vortigern & the Proud Tyrant must have been fighting at the same time – a time before Ambrosius Aurelianus.
There is an interesting citation in the Laud manuscript of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle that states that sometime after 446, and thus after the appeal to Aetius, the Britons requested aid from the ‘The Princes of the Angles’. Could this be the invaders of 441AD who had settled in East Anglia? Could they be the mercenaries hired by Vortigern around 450AD? Rather than being cowardly was Vortigern actually doing much the same thing that Constantine had done when he hired Visigoths to fight by his side. In other words he was doing a very Roman thing of hiring mercenaries to bolster his fighting force. After all this Roman policy was still in use at this time as a combined Roman & barbarian force was defeating Attila on the Cantalaunian Plains.
So can we identify Arthur more clearly?
The Historia Brittonum says Vortigern had several wives, The Welsh Triads say Arthur had no less than 3 wives. The Pillar of Eliseg & the Harleian dynastic genealogies mention a son of the Proud Tyrant being someone called Britu, another is said to be Pascent. He is also said to have had a daughter who married an Irish prince. But the earliest genealogies currently known make these two sons father a certain Cattegirn. There is a Cateyrn (battle lord) in the Historia who is also a son of Arthur. The Historia also mentions a Vortimer, literally ‘Highest King’ but he is not mentioned on either the Pillar of Eliseg or in the earliest genealogies. So really the children issue is somewhat clouded.
The Pillar of Eliseg is supposed to have been made by descendants of Arthur and they placed an inscription on it which claims Vortigerns wife was called Sevira. This is clearly a Roman name, in fact she is said to have been a descendant of Magnus Maximus. This could be the link which would make Arthur a king, his wife after all was descended from a person who had ‘worn the purple’ and this would have provided Arthur with a connection to an emperor.
On the subject of Vortimer, and I believe this connection has also been made by others, could he in fact be Ambrosius Aurelianus?
If Arthur had been married before he married Sevira and she has also, both may have also had children from the previous unions. Is it possible that one of Seviras sons was a young Ambrosius? After all Gildas tells us that his ancestors had worn the purple and he may have objected to the union between Arthur & his mother. This also may have been the reason why Ambrosius grows up to become the enemy of Vortigern & also his successor. Remember also that Emrys is the Welsh variant of Ambrosius and the Historia lists a son of Arthur called Amr.
Taking this all into consideration and with one final point we may be able to identify Arthur. This concerns Riothamus. According to one of the best historians, Edward Gibbon Riothamus was a British king who sailed with army from Britain to Gaul to aid Anthemius. This was supposedly with a force of 12,000 in 469AD. Now Riothamus has been discussed here before. I believe it was TheodericAur who had asked about him and I had given a somewhat short explanation based on what I understood at the time but that has now changed.
We are told by Gregory of Tours that Riothamus was the most significant King of his age. If that is so and the date of 469AD is correct it would place Riothamus right in the period of time associated with the Proud Tyrant & Vortigern. Let’s look at the Annales Cambriae, the ninth century Welsh chronicle which states that:
516 AD The Battle of Badon in which Arthur carried the cross of our lord Jesus Christ for three days & nights on his shoulders - (which probably meant his shield and the cross was probably the same as the cross which is associated with Constantine) – and the Britons were successful.
And
537 AD The battle of Camlann in which Arthur & Medrawt fell, and there was plague in Britain & Ireland.
It is doubtful that these dates can be correct. It would place these events precisely when Gildas was writing. A battle in 516 would place it well within Gildas lifetime even though he himself says there were no battles between Saxons & Britons during this period. As for the entry for 537 this says Camlann occurred roughly two decades after his victory at Badon. Gildas narrative leaves no doubt that all of Britons maritime foes were defeated sometime between 446 & 450.
So this must mean Badon happened during this period. So if we use a date of 450AD for the battle of Badon as Gildas says it was THE greatest British victory we must assume it to be at the end of this timescale, this would mean that the Gallic expedition of 469 would happen before Arthur’s last battle at Camlann.
If we remember that Riothamus in Brythonic means ‘Most Kingly’ this would mean that the leader of the Britons in 469AD was the same person as the Proud Tyrant & Vortigern and this would lead to my final conclusion.
He was first know as Bear Man then Dux Bellorum and finally as his power grew he chose a regnal name of ‘Most Kingly’ and that would mean that The Proud Tyrant, Vortigern & Riothamus are in fact one person and that person has to be
ARTHUR
I welcome your comments
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 2
Posted by Genwrian (U13693894) on Monday, 1st June 2009
There are many sources on the subject of Arthur, many purport to be serious studies, others are mere romances. There are even more sources on the overall Dark Age History of which Arthur's input is just part.
There are lots of questions asked but little conjoined outcome. That question which this message board has raised has a definite answer 'Arthur was not Vortigern, nor was he Riothamus as a certain 'expert' proclaims'.
For anyone interested in undertaking his/her own research a good starting point would be www.'Gower and Carmarthen Bay Experience' in which are detailed Arthur's twelve battles as listed by Nennius.
If the researcher can handle the contentions within that limited summary he/she then has to fit it into one of the accepted versions of Dark Age History. Which it will not do! So the task then for the keen researcher is to find out why not one of the versions of Dark Age History gels.
Nobody is going to resolve all of Arthur's details until they resolve wherein lies the truth of the Dark Age.
Neither is anyone going to make sense of the sources outlined in this introduction to the subject unless the end result can make sense within one of the current notions of Dark Age History. It is not a one or other exercise but a dedicated comprehensive study. Decidedly not a subject for those with preconceived ideas, nor those thinking they can treat the overall subject as a 'swot-up' for exams.
There is not an answer waiting to be read, there are links to be made, but first one has to find the links. You have the key to open the door, do you have the courage to look into the darkness of history that lies beyond, behind, and all around. Much of that history has been deliberately distorted by vested interests, so you have to determine where lies the truth.
Good Luck! -
Message 3
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 1st June 2009
Hi DocFortune,
I read every word! Anyone who is prepared to spend so much time presenting a clear account of their opinions of this highly complex period is to be congratulated. You have already achieved a significant result if you have tempted Genwrian to post again on these boards.
But there are several areas which I would really like you to reconsider before deciding that this is your definitive and final view of Dark Age Britain. I'm sure you are happy to receive constructive criticism; if not just read back a few posts and see what a drubbing my innocent suggestions receive.
I must be honest and say that I am disappointed that you have joined the club that depends solely on historical sources in formulating their theories. In my opinion archaeological data is equally important, and you seem to have ignored this totally. For example you are aware that the accuracy of Gildas as a source has been challenged on the basis that he did not know who built the Roman Walls. You argue, very reasonably, that perhaps Gildas mistook re-building of the wall in the 5th century for its construction. Does it not occur to you to enquire whether there is actually archaeological evidence for major reconstruction of the wall during this period? I'm afraid there is none. There is evidence for some new building in wood at Birdoswald and several other wall forts. Further south Iron Age hillforts were re-fortified in the Dark Ages. The natural conclusion is that Gildas simply did not know who had built the walls, but placed their construction at what seemed to him an 'appropriate' time in the history of Britain.
This by no means invalidates all Gildas's remarks about contemporary politics but at every stage it seems proper to compare his statements with the evidence in the ground. In fact every historical statement must be compared with the evidence in the ground. Many Dark Age 'explanations' are reasonably plausible interpretations of historical sources but are flagrantly at odds with archaeological evidence. The reason we know that Hadrian's Wall was definitely built by Hadrian is because of the centurial stones discovered. The reason that we know Offa's Dyke is definitely not Roman....Sorry Genwrian, just stirring.
I am very cautious about Gildas, especially considering his reluctance to give names and dates. But I wouldn't claim that any part of his writings are fabricated, in the sense of being contrived and fictional. Gildas was primarily writing an admonitory devotional work, not history. Furthermore we don't know what resources he had for his study of the end of Roman Britain or the years before his birth. Not many I would guess; even the great late-Roman historian Procopius didn't know who had built the Walls!
Was Gildas right about a Picto-Irish threat to Britain? The lack of massive amounts of excavated 4th century Roman material in Ireland and Scotland surely means that the depredations of their Dark Age inhabitants have been greatly exaggerated. However this doesn't mean that there need not have been a perceived threat. If the 'Proud Tyrant' recruited Saxon mercenaries as federates to counter this perceived threat then he was certainly acting in accordance with late Roman practice. If the Saxon federates eventually revolted then this was also in accordance with bitter Roman experience, for which many European parallels exist.
You seem to accept uncritically Gildas's statements that the Saxon federates 'ravaged the entire country' and caused 'years of fighting'. Frankly this is not very believable. Firstly the population of Roman Britain may well have been 2 million so you would need an implausible large number of federates for a, really thorough, nationwide ravaging. Secondly there is no archaeological evidence that Roman Britain ended in blood and fire. Villas fall down, towns are slowly abandoned and are used as rubbish dumps, large numbers of skeletons are not found hastily buried in ditches, and the occupants of early Saxon cemeteries (in so far as that can be assessed) don't seem to originate in Europe. It is possible that Gildas is generalising from a very regional event, or that he is laying a period of chaotic civil war at the door of the Saxons. But even then pollen studies suggest that agriculture continued uninterrupted through this period, with no marked woodland regeneration. It is really simpler to assume that Gildas is mistaken. Presumably he really did believe that the Saxons as 'sent by God to punish British sins', and is unwilling, or unable, to check his sources.
The number of Dark Age British figures we know by name are few indeed. I am certainly not hostile to the idea that a single individual might be known by two names, or for that matter a single name be used to cover two individuals. (Leaving aside the Irish Vortigerns within Britain various traditions state that 'Vortigern' was both the son in law of Magnus Maximus around AD 383 and also invited over Hengist & Horsa around AD 449; clearly this is impossible). As you know I have some regard for the idea that the 'Proud Tyrant' may indeed have been Magnus Maximus. Finally it is possible that some legendary figures might be formed by a process of 'fusion'. For example fusion of the traditions attached to Magnus Maximus or Constantine III, with those of a later post-Imperial Romano-British general, could create a 'King Arthur' figure.
You have given us one etymology for Arthur's name but it is equally possible that it originated in a Roman name 'Artorius'. The last poster to reproach me for my views on the 'once and future King' believed he was Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2rd century Roman general. Although this is unlikely a Roman 'gens Artoria' does seem to have existed. Why have you dismissed this possibility?
Anyway your post is bound to stimulated more responses and discussion. I'll have a crack at Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus myself later.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 4
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 6th June 2009
Hi Doc Fortune
Thanks for the very interesting and thought provoking post.
I would also support your view that Gildas writes from the heart and as accurately as he could from the history that he knew. I feel however that his detailed knowledge of events seems to be centered around the South West and other areas are not as accurate because he was based near the Severn and understood the events that affected him locally.
I am afraid that I am not totally convinced of your argument that Arthur was Vortigern, Ambrosius and the Great Tyrant.
The general consensus of opinion by a myriad of scholars using various dating techniques puts the Battle of Badon between AD490 to AD520 and as one of your arguments that Vortigern was indeed Arthur relies on this battle being fought around AD450, this is a huge weight of evidence to overturn.
Vortigern surfaces around AD425 as “High King” and within a few years (AD428)is using “foederati” to bolster his troops, as you say very Roman.
Interestingly Ambrosius surfaces around AD437, defeats one of Vortigern’s supporters and is given all the Kingdoms in western Britain. Does this imply that Britain is split into two at this time?
According to Roman sources it seems that some of the Cities managed to survive until around AD440 after which everything seems to fall into chaos.
It was the Cities that wrote to Aetius for help but which cities and in what areas? Where was Vortigern at this important time. Was he part of the ruling Council that hired the Saxons around AD446?
I would agree that perhaps Vortigern could have been a Romano British leader from the Gloucester area who managed to dominate the West.
I am not convinced that he actually had authority over the whole of the country and it appears that this authority is assumed because he gave the invited Saxon “foederati” land in Kent to settle in but perhaps this was the Ruling Council and not just Vortigern who gave the land.
The point of employing “foederati” was as you say very Roman and typical for the period.
Of equal interest where was Ambrosius at this time?
We know that the “foederati” rebelled around AD450 due to the payments of food not being fulfilled (perhaps due to famine caused by Climate Change). This attack by the Saxons on the Romano British leads at last around AD455 to Vortimer (Vortigerns son?) attacking the Saxons and being defeated.
Further fighting between the Saxons (Hengest) and Romano British (Vortimer) leads to a truce. Vortimer is allegedly poisoned by his step mother (the daughter of Hengest)
At a banquet between the Saxons and the Romano British leaders to celebrate the truce, the Romano British are slaughtered (night of the long knives) where Vortigern is allowed to live, perhaps because he was still a friend and related by marriage to the Saxons).
It is after this time that a huge migration of Romano British to Armorica takes place with the final abandonment of the Cities – for whatever reason. It would be interesting to know who led them – could this have been Vortigern or indeed Vortimer (if he wasn’t poisoned)
It would seem that after this Ambrosius takes over as high king of the Brythons (AD460)although he must have been in his eary fifties if we are to take the dates of his earlier win against Vortigern as being AD437.
Ambrosius fights the Saxons winning in AD465 at Richborough. The slaughter is so great on both sides that another truce is agreed and the Saxons are given Thanet to colonize.
At this time there appears to have been a re-fortification of hill forts perhaps indicating a restructuring of Brython society away from the city states.
In AD469 there is a request by Rome for Brython troops to fight in Brittany against the Visigoths. Apparently there is still an organised army in Britain at this time and 12,000 troops are sent but allegedly disappear somewhere in Europe. (Is this Riothamus – or could this have been Ambrosius who returns to continue the fight against the Saxons later?)
The next set of reported incursions by the Saxons is around AD473 (perhaps because of a weakened Brython force) and the Saxons now start to continue to expand across the south of the country with many engagements over the next few years leading to the Battle of Badon.
This set of events is all of course conjecture but can be fitted to some of the corroborative evidence from the period.
It is of course the "timeline" here that is all important.
The point that I am trying to make is that for one man (Vortigern + Ambrosius + Arthur) to have achieved all that you claim in these obviously turbulent times seems unlikely.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 5
Posted by U14015818 (U14015818) on Saturday, 6th June 2009
I remember, when i was younger, reading a book called "The mist's of Avalon".It is a book you could read and thoroughly enjoy for an interesting take on your post.
I Think the Author's name was Marion Bradley, {but not sure, it was so long ago.}
It tells a story about an island in dis-array and mistrust between it's people's.
It then takes you on a journey through these time's you talk about in an exciting and historical way.
And may i add , even though it is classified fiction, it doe's,from a logical perspective, give immense insight.. -
Message 6
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Hi TP
As this thread seems to have died a death I was wondering about your interpretations of events concerning Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus to spice things up a bit!!
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 7
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Hi TA,
I have been waiting patiently for DocFortune to reply to my initial posting before continuing. But if you'd like to examine some of the other individuals known by name in this period that's fine. Before Ambrosius could we look at the situation in Gaul, and think about the British appeal mentioned by Gildas?
Gildas says that the Britons appealed for assistance from Aegidius, consul for the third time. No significant figure of exactly this name is known. The name resembles that of Agitius who was a Roman commander active in Gaul in the mid-5th century. He was succeeded by his son Syagius, and the two men dominated a post-Imperial successor state centred on the town of Soissons (in northern Gaul) in the years 457 – 487. Significantly, perhaps, this state did not include Armorica (Brittany). Syagius, the 'king of the Romans', was eventually over-run by the Franks under Clovis I.
There is nothing intrinsically impossible about a British appeal to Agitius but the general was never consul. In consequence most historians have amended Gildas's name to 'Aetius', who did hold the Roman consulship three times and was a power in Gaul a generation earlier than Agitius.
Flavius Aetius was a late-Roman general and son of a certain Gaudentius of the province of Lower Moesia. He was later appointed cura palatii by the emperor Johannes (423 – 425) and bought a large army of Huns to Rome to aid his cause. Procopius describes the events of this reign. The forces of the Eastern Empire killed Johannes before Aetius returned from Central Europe. The child Valentinian III (425 – 455) was declared emperor instead.
The new emperor's mother Galla Placida was forced to come to terms with Aetius. The Huns were paid off and Aetius was given the post of magister equitum in Gaul. In 427 – 428 he won victories against the Franks and Visigoths. In 429 he was appointed magister militum and was considered the greatest general of his age. He defeated the attempts, in 437, of the Burgundians to move from Germany into Gaul. Aetius and his Visigothic allies fought Attila the Hun in Gaul around 450. Attila suffered his only defeat and died in 453 having sacked Mediolanum.
These events record three examples of Roman notables ‘inviting’ Barbarian armies to take their part in imperial political events. Johannes raises a Hunnish army. The widow of Valentinian Licinia Eudoxia invites Gaiseric to defeat Petronius, and finally Valentinian’s sister (Justa Grata Honoria) was said to have asked Attila to rescue her when betrothed against her will. 'Vortigern's' invitation to the 'Saxons' has to be considered in this light.
The son of Aetius was betrothed to Valentinian’s daughter and Aetius was given a 4th consulship in 454. He had powerful enemies however and died in an assassination later that year. Petronius Maximus who fomented the plot did not reap the benefits he anticipated, and in revenge arranged the assassination of the emperor the following year. Petronius was then elected emperor in his place but survived only 70 days. His reign is notable for the sacking of Rome by Gaiseric the Vandal King.
With the death of Valentinian and Aetius (and Gaiseric’s establishment of an independent Vandal state in Carthage) the Western Roman Empire was on its knees. Immediately after Attila’s defeat, 10 years earlier, things must have looked quite different. It is not really surprising if the Britons did appeal to Aetius for help in 446, nor that British bases and civil offices were recorded in the Notitia Dignitatum in the mid-5th century.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 8
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Hi TP
Many thanks for the posting.
As ususal you have fleshed out so much detail and provided great insight.
As ever you show the difficulty of bringing the facts and factors together to make absolutes, to get to the truth of these times.
The possibility of a combined Roman British polity in AD446 does at least seem to be feasible.
I suppose the question is who was this Council made up of - was it Vortigern plus certain of the remaining Cities or a totally seperate group perhaps based around Ambrosius?
Or perhaps none of the above?
Kind Regards - TP -
Message 9
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Hi TA,
Thanks. Well to conclude. Unless Gildas is writing complete fiction, and even I would not claim that, one can hardly doubt that Ambrosius Aurelianus actually existed. Since Gildas mentions very few other names it is a reasonable speculation that Ambrosius was a significant figure. His parents were recorded as 'wearing the purple' although the exact significance of this phrase is uncertain. They can hardly have been a Roman Emperor and Empress, but conceivably Ambrosius's father could be one of the 'little emperors' elevated during, or after, the reign of Honorius. Ambrosius's subsequent victories were achieved 'with God's help' so Gildas must have considered him a Christian.
Ambrosius Aurelianus, had a fully Roman name and on this basis, and perhaps because Nennius records Vortigern's dread of Ambrosius, he is thought to have led a pro-Roman party in opposition to Vortigern’s 'pro-Saxon' party. In 437 Ambrosius and Vortigern fought at Guoloppin (Wallop, Hants) although we do not know who was the victor. Again, if Gildas is correct, Ambrosius did manage to establish a British army that could fight the 'Saxons' (whatever Gildas meant by that term) on something like equal terms. The subsequent, and victorious, ‘siege of Mons Badonicus’ (where Ambrosius was seemingly not the commander) resulted in peace during Gildas’s lifetime, say AD 500-550. Although the Britons clearly had their successes there is no archaeological evidence that Kent or East Anglia were ever reoccupied.
Less is known about Riothamus, who seems to have been an approximate contemporary of Ambrosius. I've not read the primary sources and most of what I know I obtained from John Morris's 'Age of Arthur' the most scholarly, and the most dangerous, book about this period ever written. The 6th century writer Jordanes describes him as 'king of the Britons', but was this Britons of Great Britain or Armorica? He is believed to have been active around AD 470. Perhaps he led an independent Armorica while Agitius ruled the area around Soissions, but anyway he seems to have been an ally of the Romans against the Visigoths. He had an army of 12,000 men who may, but may not, have fled from the west country. Some years later (c470) the emperor Anthemius (it is very easy to call him Abstemius) recruited a British army to fight the Goths, but Riothamus is not mentioned.
Inevitable there are those Arthurian scholars who consider Riothamus to have been Arthur, or Ambrosius Aurelianus to have been Arthur, or Riothamus to have been the same person as Ambrosius Aurelianus. Those of us for whom Arthur is a lovely medieval myth need not be worried about such considerations!
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 10
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Saturday, 13th June 2009
Hi TP
Many thanks for this.
I have just received a copy of "The Age of Arthur" and am looking forward to delving into it.
In your opinion was Vortigern also a remnant from the Romano Brythons and if so where did he originate? He seems certainly to have been strong in the West and Wales (Britannia Prima?)
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 11
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 14th June 2009
Hi TA,
Enjoy 'The Age of Arthur'. If you can find a second-hand copy of 'Arthur's Britain' by Leslie Alcock I'm sure you enjoy that immensely as well.
Thanks, but I'm not going to discuss Vortigern at the moment, despite the invitation. For one thing there is far too much of me in this thread already. Secondly I'm really interested in the archaeology of this period and less involved with its historical, or perhaps we should say quasi-historical, personalities.
That doesn't mean I won't respond if you give your views on the 'proud tyrant', if that's who Vortigern was.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 12
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Sunday, 14th June 2009
Apologies for neglecting my own post but I have been very busy reading through the various books and papers that have been filling my postbox recently and have somewhat neglected the digital world.
Thanks very much for the replies so far, I shall read them thoroughly in the next couple of days and answer each in turn.
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 13
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Hi TP
I think that perhaps I should wait for Doc Fortune to reply before I make any further comments.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 14
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Hi Genwrian
I agree with the general gist of your post and believe me I have come across many contradictions and dead ends whilst looking into this period of history.
I am interested to know why you are convinced that Arthur could not be Vortigern or Riothamus.
The more I look at the available information the more likely it seems, the hard part is understanding why his name is not recorded as we know it todayand why he has become such a mythical figure.
I have looked into the Arthur battle list and believe that it not only appears in Nennius but also in Gildas, just not detailed in the same manner, I also believe that many of the battles can now be identified on a map. There is of course little if any archaelogical evidence to back this up at the present moment but this could change in future.
Your statement regarding "fitting" these battles into the accepted view of "Dark Age" Britain is a little strange as who's to say what the accepted view is and why should that view be correct anyway?
In my dealings with this period if there is one thing I am sure of it is that this period is the most mis-understood and mis-interpreted of any epoch. The "Dark Ages" are revealing themselves to us more with each passing year whether that be through archaelogy or a new understanding of the contemporary literature.
I for one will continue to view this period with an open mind - but not so much that my brain falls out!!
Reagrds
DocFortune -
Message 15
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Hi DocFortune,
"I have looked into the Arthur battle list and believe that it not only appears in Nennius but also in Gildas, just not detailed in the same manner, I also believe that many of the battles can now be identified on a map.
That's two highly controversial statements. Could you provide a fuller explanation? The great difficulty in locating the sites of Nennius's battle poem list explains why Arthurians have attempted to place their hero in the North or England, or Wales, or Brittany etc
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 16
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Monday, 15th June 2009
Hi TwinProbe
Once again thanks for your post.
I understand your point regarding archaeology and I realise that alot of my work relies heavily on the written aspect of "history" but I do not completely dismiss the archaeological aspect. It's just that when it comes to this particular timescale the physical evidence is somewhat lacking, and therein lies the issue with archaeology it cannot tell you anything about nothing. In other words it is only useful when a possible dig-site is discovered and work can be undertaken to attempt to further our knowledge.
Alot of what I believe to be important archaeological sites have possible been lost to us forever as they lie under our towns & cities and we will find it increasing difficult to obtain access to this "hidden history".
I have always objected to the idea that is put forward by some that if something cannot be "proved" through archaeology then it cannot be a valid point of view. A lack of archaeological evidence "in the ground" should not be used as a reason to believe that a piece of evidence "in the hand" (a manuscript or other similar document) should be inaccurate and easily dismissed.
Like I have said many times there are reasons that certain documents have survived for 1500 years or more and I tend to believe that more time should be invested in understanding the extant evidence rather than waiting for something in the ground to be unearthed.
Gildas was by no means furnished with all the facts regarding past events before his lifetime but his work is extremely important and has survived virtually unchanged since he wrote. Those that have questioned his accuracy have not, in my opinion at least, proved their case, Gildas makes mistakes but so have most "historians" throughout history.
Gildas was writing in a very uncertain time and he was, I believe, being very guarded when he made his remarks regarding certain individuls and their "un-godly" actions. He was not wishing to recieve any retribution for what he wrote but also wanted to get his point across.
Not knowing his sources is not an indication that he is unreliable. In the hundreds of intervening years we have lost numerous documents which we could never hope to have knowledge of now. For instance think of the fire in the great library of Alexandria as an example of the priceless loss of ancient information of which there were no other copies anywhere in the world. WE may not know his sources but they may have been known during his lifetime.
I do take issue with you regarding the downfall of Roman Britain I believe there are instances of archaeological evidence which do indicate a ravaging of the country and "burn layers" have been found which point to heavy destruction by fire in a very short period of time, plus what has not been found - so far - is not an indication that it will not be found at some point in the future.
As for Arthurs name, I am aware of Lucius Artorius Castus but as you have mentioned he is placed at least 2 centuries before the "Adventus Saxonum" with which the Proud Tyrant & Votigern are associated and I see no reason for a connection with this earlier Arthur.
Kind Regards
DocFortune -
Message 17
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Hi DocFortune,
I'm sure we would both agree that much Dark Age archaeology, and many potentially valuable historical sources, are now irretrievably lost. But in a sense that is what makes this era so endlessly fascinating. A new document or a vital site might turn up, I suppose, but meanwhile we have plenty of evidence, but evidence that is extremely difficult to interpret.
I don't know that it is quite so likely that important sites are hidden under existing towns. This is certainly an significant consideration in Roman and Medieval archaeology but I'm fairly confident that neither 'Britons' nor early 'Saxons' went in for urban living. Distinguishing Dark Age British from Romano-British, or indeed Iron Age, rural sites can certainly pose a problem. More evidence is probably available though. The continuing studies at West Heslerton have proved that a rural landscape that looks fairly empty today was once packed with farms and settlements, and during the period that interests us.
However I have to say that, with respect, many of this period's problems do very definitely lend themselves to archaeological solutions. The classic example, which I have already mentioned, is the date of the construction of Hadrian's Wall. Relying on historical sources alone the building of this monument could reasonably be attributed to either the emperor Hadrian or to Septimius Severus. Excavation proved unquestionably that Hadrian was the instigator.
The real difficulty I have with all your contributions is that, while being very interesting and challenging, they almost always lack the fine details that would enable me to follow your precise chain of reasoning, irrespective of whether I agreed or not. To be honest I find this rather frustrating. May I give some examples of what I mean from your recent posts?
Firstly you say that those who have questioned the accuracy of Gildas have not proved their case, but you don't however mention any individual inaccuracies nor indicate who you have in mind. Now I say that Gildas had no idea who built the Roman Walls and I have indeed proved my case! Moreover when Gildas claims that the towns of Britain “were laid low by the repeated battering of enemy rams” I say he can't possibly have been describing the actual end of urban Roman Britain at the hands of the 'Saxons'; so, in my opinion, he was mistaken again. I don't blame Gildas, he wasn't deliberately writing history, and oddly enough I also don't agree that he was guarded in his criticisms of contemporary rulers. Actually I feel he was rather brave; calling Aurelius Caninus a parricide, a fornicator and an adulterer is fairly upfront criticism, is it not?
Secondly you say that there are are “instances of archaeological evidence which do indicate a ravaging of the country and 'burn layers' have been found.” This would clearly be a truly vital confirmation of Gildas if it could be proved, but frankly I cannot imagine what pieces of archaeological evidence you have in mind. Can you give me specific examples of this so that we can review the interpretation?
Thirdly, in the related 410 AD thread, you wrote: “I shall also include some detail on 'The Battle of Mount Badon' ...... I believe this was a real historical battle involving the Britons fighting WITH the Saxons AGAINST a combined force of Picts & Scots, near Bath”. Now this would be a dazzling re-interpretation of the received version of the battle if it could be proved. Please could you provide the evidence on which your views are based.
Fourthly, in the Eagle of the 9th thread, you wrote: “From what I have been able to deduce the Brigantes (as this seems the most likely hostile force to the Romans in this area) assembled a huge force and annihilated Legio IX in around 119 AD”. When challenged on this by TonyG you said that this was your considered view after studying the issue. This is fair enough, of course, but I would be really interesting to know what individual details of evidence convinced you.
All your posts contain stimulating ideas and many quite radical re-interpretations of events, but please, please, can we have more evidential detail so that we can properly assess your conclusions.
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 18
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 16th June 2009
Arthur could not be Vortigern or Riothamus.
No absolutely not. Arthur===Aurelius Ambrosianus. -
Message 19
Posted by irene (U2450323) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
All these theories on Arthur I find quite interesting, particularly as Arthur seems to be well known in Italy too. There is in fact a permanent exhibition of frescoes in the city of Alessandria (Piedmonte) showing several ancient frescoes not only of Arthur but also of Lancelot and Guinevere dating back to the 14th century. In the town of Otranto in southern Italy there is a church with a wonderful mosaic floor depicting the Tree of Life and there amongst its branches there is Arthur. In Italy he is known Artu. If you cross over the Straits Of Messina to visit Sicily you are aslo supposed to look for the famous mirage organised apparently by Morgan le Fey. Fascinating!
-
Message 20
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Saturday, 4th July 2009
I would have to go to Fez or Alexandria to find out anything about Hywel Dda, which presents the problem of language barrier for a start, and He is about 300 years later as well.
Anybody called Ambrose here from Somerset?!
I have got a friend called Aurelia but that is different! -
Message 21
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 5th July 2009
Hi Tammylu,
Most interesting. There can be no doubt that Arthur was an immensely powerful medieval myth, popular with the Normans and having a Europe-wide currency. As myth the story of Arthur and his knights has about everything you could wish: friendship, courage, magic, love, sin and redemption. The story of Arthur has been exploited, for obvious commercial and political motives, by the monks of Glastonbury Abbey, King Henry VII and a variety of modern authors. But, as you will have seen, the problem comes when scholars, usually amateur scholars I have to say, feel the need to find 'the real Arthur'. Sadly the 'once and future king' is not to be easily placed in history. That is not to say that the author, or authors, of the myth did not include historical elements in their creation. Even today, if you or I were to write a piece of fiction, would we not set our story in a reasonably accurate place and time?
Some of the themes in the Arthurian legends are easier to place historically than others. Arthur crosses from Britain to Europe to defeat a (fictional) Roman emperor. Such events recall the careers of Constantine the Great, Magnus Maximus and, perhaps, Constantine III; some time in the 4th or 5th century then. But Arthur's knights fight on horseback with lance and shield and challenge each other to jousts; could this type of fighting be earlier than the 12th century? The magic swords, which even have their own names, may be an echo of the respect given to pattern-welded steel weapons in the Anglo-Scandinavian period when most people are armed with soft iron spears. Throwing Excalibur into a lake on Arthur's death has a decidedly Iron Age feel. Many scholars, acting on hints provided by Gildas and 'Nennius', see Arthur as a Romano-British battle leader fighting off invading Saxons; but Saxons are conspicuously absent in the Arthurian legends.
The transition of Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England, and the impact of the Norse invasions on this society, and those of 'Celtic' Wales and Scotland, can hardly be surpassed as times of historical interest. A surprisingly large quantity of evidence, both documentary and archaeological, survives although its interpretation is far from easy. But personally I am happy to leave Arthur himself (and his castles, grails, wizards, round tables and maidens) where he belongs; in the land of imperishable mythology.
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 22
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Monday, 6th July 2009
Hi TP
Hope you had a good holiday in Wales – no Arthur then in the hills?
I would have to agree with your last post that the idea of “jousting” would have not been possible considering that the stirrup had not yet arrived in the West.
I do however have a leaning towards to cavalry being involved in this age somewhere.
I have started in on the “Age of Arthur” and have been very impressed with the interpretations by John Morris.
I suppose one of the major surprises is that in John Morris’s interpretation Gildas seems to have thought that Vortigern has been more misguided than evil which then raises the question who was the “Proud Tyrant”?
I don’t think that the Ambrosius question has been fully answered at all and that there is certainly a strange lack relationships between Vortigern, the Ruling Council, Ambrosius and the Northern Army or Dux.
It makes me think that there were still British Provinces and Cities that were autonomous yet perhaps were in touch if not in close alliance up to about AD450 to AD460.
Gildas also seems to stand firmly on his belief of a “golden age” after the Battle of Badon with a unified and peaceful Britain – ruled by???
So who was the “Proud Tyrant”?
Could it have been Constantine III who rebelled against the Empire and effectively helped to bring down the established Roman polity in Britain – therefore setting in tow the events that eventually let the Germans in.
I am sure that you have given this topic your full consideration and would be grateful of your opinion.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 23
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Monday, 6th July 2009
All these theories on Arthur I find quite interesting, particularly as Arthur seems to be well known in Italy too.
The story of Arthur is known in Italy through the Normans.
(Norman Kingdom of Sicily)
Arthur is unknown in any pre Norman, Anglo-Saxon literature. -
Message 24
Posted by irene (U2450323) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Thanks Haeston - I was wondering about the Normans myself. Sicily as you will probably be aware has a symbol very much in evidence - a 3 legged man with a little face in the centre. It is called a triskele. Its supposed to be a sun symbol. The ancient name for Sicily was Trinacria. The triskele was apparently adopted by the Normans who were fascinated by it and thats how this curious symbol crossed the channel and was adopted by the Isle of Man. This is a little off subject I know but it just goes to show that the Normans were responsible for some things - so why not Arthur too. Cheers.
-
Message 25
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
(Norman Kingdom of Sicily)
King Roger, if I am not mistaken, and he would certainly have known of Arthur.
Roger was a hugely popular king.
He was more than a hundred years later than Hywel dda and almos 200 years later than Rhodri Mawr (875)HDda's Granpa.
They would all have had great stories of the feats of Arthur. -
Message 26
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Nothing on King Arthur predates Geoffrey of Monmouth.
-
Message 27
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
In writing.
-
Message 28
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Hi TA,
I am still in Pembrokeshire but I can get a mobile internet signal in a nearby car-park each evening! There is a Carn Arthur and an Arthur's Grave in the Preseli Mountains, but there is much more non-Arthurian archaeology. Prehistory is not my main enthusiasm but there are an impressive number of standing stones and megalithic tombs, or which Pentre Ifan is the finest. There is also an amazing reconstructed Iron Age village at Castell Henllys. As you know I am not much of an enthusiast for British Dark Age cavalry either, but I believe that there have been reconstructions of plausible Roman saddles that might have enabled cavalry to thrust with long spears employing the weight of the horse. But my main point (as I'm certain you appreciate) was that in the completed medieval Arthur myth there are elements from several time periods cunningly woven together. These elements are not identical in different parts of Europe, as previous posters have pointed out. Arthur may sleep forever under Glastonbury Tor, or Mount Etna!
John Morris must surely have written the most encyclopaedic work on Arthur, and was also instrumental in getting Gildas, 'Nennius', Patrick, and other Dark Age sources published in readily accessible form. His strong points are that he integrates archaeology with historical sources, and he succeeds in placing Dark Age Britain in an Irish and European world. However his is a 'dangerous' book because he tells, very convincingly, a single narrative but seldom offers alternative interpretations of the evidence. I really look for an historical author to offer several possibilities in contentious items (with supporting references) and then to give a final personal synthesis. When posting about the Dark Ages it is unlikely that you or I, or any of the many enthusiasts, will have access to new 'facts' unavailable to the others. Interpretation of these facts is everything. So I think it is essential that when we express any opinion about this complex and confusing era that we also always provide the supporting evidence for each point. I am saddened that some posters here, with new and stimulating interpretations, simply cannot or will not do this. Now Morris's serious 'rival' for the best book about Arthur's world, Leslie Alcock's 'Arthur's Britain', is very good in this respect. In fact the whole first section of this work is devoted to the nature of the evidence available. For example you are gently introduced to the subject of Easter Annals, and the many problems involved in dating them.
Gildas, of course, never mentions Vortigern by name. His 'proud tyrant' is often assumed to be the Vortigern mentioned by 'Nennius' but I believe that this is an over-simplification. The 'proud tyrant' might be Constantine III or Magnus Maximus or even a Roman general otherwise unrecorded. He is a 'tyrant' in as much as he is a pretender to the Imperial throne. He rules with a 'consilium' (of senior officers and officials). He invites over Germanic foederati (a common Roman practice) and Gildas uses late Roman technical terms to describe their supplies (annona) and their unwilling hosts (hospites). Finally when the foederati 'rebel' the “greater towns fell to the enemy's battering rams”. Barbarian troops never attacked towns with battering rams; Gildas is describing Romans attacking Romans. Morris interprets Gildas's use of late Latin technical terms as the survival of Roman institutions into the Age of Arthur. I think it more probable that Gildas has taken an incident from late 4th century Roman Britain and allows us to assume (probably because of his own ignorance) that it relates to the time of the Saxon migrations of the 5th century; in the same way he places the construction of 2nd century Roman walls in the late 4th or early 5th century.
Even in 'Nennius' there is a hint of a Roman-period Vortigern. He is described as threatened by the Picts and Irish but also by a “Roman invasion” and “fear of Ambrosius”. A Roman invasion seems unlikely after the early 5th century, at the very latest. As you know some traditions make Vortigern the son in law of Magnus Maximus (c380), and others have him marrying Hengist's daughter some 60 years later. The natural explanation of this is that there were two Vortigerns, or that Vortigern was a title and not a personal name, or that the description of Vortigern is a composite of elements from several heroic figures. In the same way the Ambrosius that Vortigern feared (and who fought Vitalinus at the battle of Guoloph c433) can hardly be the Ambrosius Aurelianus who Gildas describes fighting the Saxons in a campaign that ends at Badon (c500). Morris believes that the two Ambrosii were father and son. The parents of Ambrosius Aurelianus are described by Gildas as “having worn the purple”. If this was indeed the older Ambrosius perhaps he was elected emperor by some elements of Romano-British society after Constantine III's death.
The golden years of peace (whatever their exact dates) that followed Badon are plausible since at least then Gildas is writing about the events of his own lifetime. Believers in a 'real Arthur', of whom I am not one, have the trouble of trying to explain why Gildas (who never mentions Vortigern) more worryingly never mentions Arthur either, in connection with this Golden Age nor anything else. Clearly this difficulty disappears if Ambrosius Aurelianus is actually Arthur. It is up to the proponents of this assimilation to explain why it is likely to be true, and not just highly convenient. All the sources are silent on the remnants of the Northern Army who, presumably, still held Hadrian's Wall and the legionary base at York. Morris believes that since the Picts are regarded at this period as a naval threat to the east coast this indicates that the Northern Army was still capable of preventing an overland invasion down Dere Street and Ermine Street. Certainly archaeology indicates 5th century rebuilding and reconstruction at several northern forts including: Carlisle, Birdoswald, South Shields and Binchester. Whether these forts were under the command of the successors of the last Roman 'dux', or had evolved into independent war-Lordships is anyone's guess. Actually there are huge problems with regarding the Picts as enemies at all during this period, but I'll leave that for another time!
Kind regards,
TP -
Message 29
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Pentre Ifan is the finest. There is also an amazing reconstructed Iron Age village at Castell Henllys
I looked at both of these last year. Great aren't they. Pentre Ifan... such contemplation of the thoughts and customs of the people of that day.
The village is very much loved by families who visit it, and spend the whole day there, it is so well presented. Was it not a TV producer who did the creative donkey work to establish it properly?
I don't remember who, but he is dead now. -
Message 30
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Hi Sir Gar,
I was so impressed by the staff at the Iron Age village. It was pelting with rain but the staff kept a class of active children totally entertained while discussing the finer points of round house construction with me. My experience has been in Atlantic Scotland and stone built Iron Age structures. The folk were keen to hear about this but had many really interesting points to make about Iron Age and Roman Wales. Top marks.
Only one disappointment: I stood on Strumble Head and couldn't see Ireland. It was a touch hazy, or perhaps I was looking the wrong way!
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 31
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
TP:
-
Message 32
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Tuesday, 7th July 2009
Hi TP
Talk about networked!!!
Thanks for making the time to reply.
Glad you're having a great time - even in the rain!
If you're still around Pembroke and are interested in birds try to get to Skomer - its brilliant for puffins and there are about 13,000 there this year as I saw a few weeks ago.
If you ever get down to Kidwelly (Cuetgelli) there is a hill there called Alt Cunedda with an iron age enclosure:
Also lots of Norman castles - Laugharne, Llanstephan, Kidwelly.....
Regarding your post - many thanks - I have to admit that to me Vortigern, Ambrosius and a historic hole for an "Arthur" do leap off the page and I feel that there is a link back to the Roman polity as it were but again - pure speculation.
Still I find it increasingly interesting - even as an amateur.
Have a great time in Wales - it really is lovely.
Best Wishes - TA. -
Message 33
Posted by irene (U2450323) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
I dont know about Glastonbury or Etna but there is also a legend that Arthur sleeps under Alderley Edge, Cheshire & if ever England is in real danger he will awake and come to the rescue with all his knights riding beautiful white horses.
-
Message 34
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
also a legend that Arthur sleeps under Alderley Edge, Cheshire
I know a woman from Cheshire who got a Doctorate in Medieval History at Oxford based on such puerile and personalized fiction!
We meet again!
If it had been anywhere else ,she would not have been interested.
-
Message 35
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi Twinprobe
With regards to post #17 I am afraid that I do not have the time available to post the sort of in depth reply that you might like regarding my ideas and I must say that even if the time were available I would be somewhat reluctant to post all my findings and sources on a simple messageboard which is freely available to anyone to take the findings and present them somewhere else as their own.
I like to put the ideas out there for others to comment on but the fine details of the research I have done is for another time & place if you see what I mean.
Having said that the summer holidays are not too far off and perhaps then I will be able to spend more time explaining myself in greater detail.
I will post regarding the Battle of Badon in the very near future.
I always welcome your comments and I look forward to more in the future
Kind Regards
DocFortune
P.S I was interested to notice one of your other posts which stated that the idea of Pictish invasions of England was unlikely. Why is this? The Irish chronicles for one thing contain much regarding this subject. -
Message 36
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Wednesday, 8th July 2009
Hi Haesten
Regarding posts 23 & 26
You say that Arthur is unknown in any pre Norman Anglo Saxon literature and also that nothing regarding Arthur pre-dates Geoffrey of Monmouth.
What about Nennius? This document is almost certainly Anglo-Saxon and dates from the first 30 years of the 9th Century and regardless of whether its contents are historically accurate it contains several mentions of Arthur.
Please inform me if I am incorrect on any of this
Regards
DocFortune -
Message 37
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Doc
The Historia Brittonum attributed to Nennius is 13th century.
David Dumville has shown that the prologue fist seen in a 12th century manuscript couldn't be by a 9th century monk.
Again, no contemporary Anglo-Saxon document mentions King Arthur. -
Message 38
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
It's an interesting argument. I have been assuming that my pen name inspiration knew about earlier
leaders of men.
Kings and princes and leaders of all kinds usually do. It's part of being able to apply power, by refering to previous examples of it, isn't it?
You think it might just have been a name to Hywel dda or Rhodri Mawr and nothing more? -
Message 39
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
No Welsh manuscripts predate Geoffrey of Monmouth.
-
Message 40
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Frequently they are just a name in a text, a story in another, all pieced together, possibly in a completely inaccurate way, but so many people may have conjectured that one of the versions is a right one.....
-
Message 41
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
The Black Book of Carmarthen dated circa 1250 is the earliest manuscript.
-
Message 42
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Which is 200 years after Hywel dda, well within the heard or listened memory of 6 generations, but anohter 8-10 generations after Arthur, ie 16 generations all together, which is a tall order.
In this branch of the Howell family we had oral tradition dating back to James Howell and the collateral branch of Earl of Pembroke, which is the 1580s approx (William Herbert 1st Earl 5thcr.)
That is 14 generations in a family of long lived and late producing fathers.
In the main branch of that Pembroke (William Herbert) line there have been 19 generations during the same period of time.
That is 1560-2000= 440years.
Book of Carmarthen back to Arthur would be about 600 years, about 25 generations, a tall order to remember.
But can it all be fiction myth, and not fact myth?
Does Old king Cole (Cael Hen)not exist in Children's stories and is he not the oldest ancestor we know of?
Is the story not learnt at the same time in a child's life as the terms of ancient extinct language of baa baa, and moo moo, which are terms from earlier languages?
That should go some way to convince us that the
folk of nursery rhyme may have been real people, just as the baby language was real language! -
Message 43
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Old King Cole is first mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Henry of Huntingdon in the 12th century.
According to Henry, Coel was King of Colchester and grandfather of Constantine the Great.
Coel marring his daughter Helen to Constantinus is just as likely the origin of Coel Hen. -
Message 44
Posted by TheodericAur (U13724457) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Hi All
Does this mean that perhaps we should be taking more notice of Gildas who was by far the nearest to the events of the 5th / 6th century, almost contemporary (and even closer than Hywell Dda).
The obvious problems are that Gildas assumes that the people who are reading his chronicles will know who he refers to by their nicknames.
Also he is using history as a means to admonish those in power in his own time so he is not putting everything into some logical sequence of events.
There must have been a strong method of handing down information in his audience as he expects them to understand his historical references and he also must have had to have been quite accurate as far as the general understanding was concerned.
Gildas obviously has problems with certain areas of geography such as the Great Wall (although some say that he is talking about Offas Dyke) but obviously he thinks his audience understand what he is talking about as he wouldn't want to be ridiculed over such mundane details.
This is an educated and obviously influential man who is prepared to risk much (or is protected in some way - perhaps through his religous standing).
So perhaps Gildas should be credited with more credence than he is often afforded.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 45
Posted by DocFortune (U13867284) on Thursday, 9th July 2009
Haesten
Im afriad I remain unconvinced by your somewhat short reply that the Historia Brittonum is 13th century. That may be the date of the surviving manuscript but the 'story' goes back far further than that and Dumville himself says that the name Nennius first became associated with the work in the 10th century.
Please direct me to the actual work you talk of as I am unaware of any change in the accepted view of the origin of the Historia and the websites of the major institutions of the country continue to provide information detailing its origin in the 9th century.
Thank you in advance and kind regards
DocFortune -
Message 46
Posted by Haesten (U4770256) on Friday, 10th July 2009
Doc
There are many versions of the Historia Brittonum and they vary widely, 13th century is the first mention of Arthur I believe.
The earliest manuscript of the Historia Brittonum is circa 1100, the first to name Ninnius is dated September 1164.
Harleian MS 3859 (Hywel Dda) circa 1100 does not mention Ninnius.
Dumville thought the Ninnius of MS CCCC 139 was no older than 1100.
There is the Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Auct. F.4.32 / St Dunstan’s Classbook, ‘Alphabet of Numminus’ who some connect to Nennius, he invented a Welsh alphabet using Anglo-Saxon futhorc (runes).
-
Message 47
Posted by Sir Gar Hywel dda (U13786187) on Friday, 10th July 2009
Looking at the Life of St Patrick portrayed by a TV documentarist, and considering how much is known , and how little, about Religious figures, such as David and Patrick, there is probably not that much difference between the historical literary/literate
characters of church and state, in terms of "factoids" that may be known about the two sets of people, although monastic documents were better kept.
The parallel with Rome and Latin at all times has to be kept in mind , does it not?
There is so much information about Rome and its empire until the 4thC(?) deeply studied by the Classicists, it seems strange that there should suddenly be a dearth of it, where Arthur is concerned. -
Message 48
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
Hi TA,
I'm afraid that 'almost contemporary' is not contemporary. The fact is that if Gildas, as he claims, was born in the year that Badon was fought then the ending of Roman Britain was well over a century in the past when he wrote and 2-3 generations had passed since the events conventionally described as 'the Coming of the Saxons'. The situation is exactly the same as if I, today, decided to write an account of the Great and Second World wars based on my own recollections (which are none) and those of any witnesses I could find. His historical statements must be judged by other sources, insofar as we have them, and by the findings of archaeology.
The political opinions of Gildas are not made any easier to understand by his reluctance to use names in full form. You, and others, may say that he employs nicknames but that is only a theory, not a proven fact. It doesn't stop him using the name Ambrosius Aurelianus does it? Equally possible from the internal evidence is that he uses a soubriquet like 'great tyrant' or 'ill-fated tyrant' when knows an individual's role but not his actual name. He has problems even with the names of his contemporaries; he calls Cuneglasus 'Red Butcher' although John Morris translates this name as 'Blue or grey dog'. He might equally well have missed out all reference to Arthur simply because Arthur never existed, rather than he because he was too well known to require naming.
The theory that when Gildas writes about a 'Great Wall' he was talking about Offas's Dyke cannot be sustained even from the internal evidence of Gildas himself. He describes the construction of a turf wall, which did no good. Then a second wall linking 'towns that happened to be sited there'; moreover 'towns over-looking the sea at intervals on the south coast'. Clearly he knew about the two Roman walls and the Saxon Shore fort system but had no sources on the dates of their construction. He made a reasonable guess, but was quite wrong. How much of his other statements were reasonable guesses I wonder?
I don't doubt that Gildas was a brave, well-educated (by the standards of his day) and influential figure. But his primary purposes were devotional and admonitory, not the recording of recent political or military events. As a historian he was credulous rather than credible so that we can only use his statements with very great caution.
Best wishes,
TA -
Message 49
Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
Hi Haestan & DocFortune,
I'm not sure that the exact dates of Harleian MS 3859 matter so much. Even Tacitus is only accessible through a late copy. What we have to ask is are there any references to Arthur in a manuscript of a date so early that the author's views could not possibly have been 'contaminated' by knowledge of an early form of the medieval myth? The formal answer to this question must surely be 'no' for the reasons that Haestan states.
However the work we may call 'Nennius' does however contain a cycle of Easter Annals ending with the death of Rhodri ap Hywel Dda around 957. The famous references to Badon are from year 72 of the cycle and to Camlann from year 93. Clearly the Annals as a whole were compiled in the late 10th century but all the other events and people in the Annals are genuine and we have another source (Gildas) for the battle of Badon, although not for Arthur's participation. I think that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that these two Annal entries are contemporary.
The famous section listing Arthur's battles is, I am told, in a common form for Welsh battle-listing poems. But where it was originally composed and whether it was contemporary, or was taken from an elegy written at a much latter date is now impossible to say.
By the way DocFortune have you been thinking any more about detailed evidence since we last exchanged posts? I'm still wanting to know about the Britons and Saxons fighting together at Badon. Nothing in 'Nennius' contradicts that view, but what is the positive evidence in its favour?
Best wishes,
TP -
Message 50
Posted by JonWickerMan2 (U13225789) on Saturday, 11th July 2009
I must confess I cannot remember reading John Morris's, The Age of Arthur, 1973.
I thought the best book was by Goodrich, King Arthur, 1986. She at least presented a character that fit my perception of who Arthur was and his limits of authority.
I mean he was a local figure not national and certainly not international, and a Warlord not a king in the modern sense.
Wickerman
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 to 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
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ 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.