King Arthur?

[dnewhous]

Rather than try to debate whether there really was a king Arthur and who he was I though we might discuss what facts are known about the disolution of the Empire in England. I remember something about the Roman citizens moving to Wales as a refuge and building a wall between Wales and England.

 

Technologically speaking, I have read enough to see there really were castles in England as early as the 5th century. When did castle making start? Were they just using old Roman fortifications?

 

Also, when the legions were withdrawn at the end of the 4th century the auxillaries would have been left behind, correct?

[kama]

there was actually no king arthur to rule over all of england but a province or region maybe. The english even think to name an heir to the throne arthur is bad luck and the kid will die. there we're 2 heirs to the throne named arthur and they both died.

[Primus Pilus]

Yes, many local troops and imported auxilia from all over were left behind. There are many theories about what happened to the various people who stayed behind.

[pompeius magnus]

Even though I discredit any hollywood movie as being historically accurate, there are a few exceptions, but after watching the movie it has maded me very interested in the settlement of different barbarians, which is not a good word to use as it is a greek word referring to the way the talked the Greeks thought it sounded like BAr Bar when they talked, into the the former provinces after the pulling out of the Romans during their long fall. Something I find particularly interesting was the Anglo-Saxon migration as they are my ancestors. Does anyone know any good sources to get detailed information about their migration, if that is a good word to use or not.

[Primus Pilus]

Off the top of my head no I don't know a good source PM. Unfortunately, there is no historical written record from ancient sources. There are lots of books on the subject, though. A bit of browsing at Amazon may help

[pompeius magnus]

thats what i thought. They represent the ethic make of most of europe, the various tribes(goths, anglo, saxon, germanic) so its a shame that not a lot of information is available about them to research. Thanks anyways.

[jugurtha]

Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration

 

But

[pompeius magnus]

thanks for those resources, i glimpsed through them briefly and they seem like they will provide me with all the information that I need. I will read through them thouroughly when I have some more time. But again thanks.

[Primus Pilus]

There was a site dedicated to the Arthurian theory that Arthur was Artorius Castus, but I can't seem to find it. Will post it if I come across it.

[dnewhous]

The word "Arthur" was never used as a person's name until the late 6th century. It is most likely a twisting of some word (I forget which language) for Lion which is something like "Arturus" which would have been used to describe someone who is militarily successful. It might have been a Legionary rank? My memory is fuzzy.

 

What is more interesting than Arthur is the whole mythological concoction generated to make him the son of Uther Pendragon (who really did exist). Uther was the relative of a genuine Roman statemen (from Brittany) and for Arthur to seam more noble to the English the myth forced a relationship to the man who was the last vestige of Rome in Britain. People of the 5th and 6th centuries (before being displaced by the Anglo Saxons) still considered themselves to be Roman.

[Primus Pilus]

Found the Arthur site. There really are some excellent articles. Heroic Age

[journaldan]

Saw the new movie "King Arthur" over the weekend. It kept me entertained for more than two hours, which usually I get a little fidgety for a movie that long. It was a whole different take on the Arthur legend from what has normally been presented in other films I have seen. I don't want to spoil the plot line for anyone, but there is a strong Roman tie-in throughout.

[jugurtha]

As a matter of fact, Dr. Graham Anderson from the university of Leiden has found evidence for the Arthurian story that goes way back. The first proto-Arthur would appear to have lived in the Bronze Age, another was a Turk from the eighth century. I'll see if I can find time to translate the entire article on his book but it appears that the story of Arthur could actually be one that was constructed through the ages in different cultures. The story as we know it today (the medieval form) would then be just the end result of a pretty ancient tradition. The onomastic evidence is massive, referring to the same meaning of the name Arthur throughout ages and cultures - the original Arthur being king Arkas (later Arkturus) (King bear) who ruled the kingdom of Arkadia in Southern Greece. He lived in an ancient city called "the table" and had a weapon called Kalabros. This is one of those striking linguistic evidences that only become clear when you know that Excalibur was originally called Caliburnus.

 

Anyhoo, I'll try and post the entire article when I can.

 

- JUG

[jugurtha]

And here it is.

 

British hero was in fact ancient Greek

 

Important aspects of the famous Arthurian legend could find their origin in ancient Greece, Turkey and Mesopotamia. The latter is a statement by Dr. Graham Anderson, classicist at Leiden University, in his latest book

[Moonlapse]

If you guys are interested in the tale of King Arthur from a 'Decline of Rome' viewpoint, you should read Jack Whyte's Books. Very very good reading and from what I nkow of the new movie, the plot lines are much better.