King Arthur?

[longbow]

I think the Arthur described in Bernard Cornwells Warlord chronicles is probably the most realistic.If u havent read these 3 books,there well worth a read.Its how i think of Arthur anyway.L

[Moonlapse]

Didnt the woads go into battle naked?Obviosly not all the warriors fight naked but some of them did.(i think) L

Thats true for most of the inital battles between 'celts' and Romans, at least until the Romans started defeating them with superior discipline. 'Woads' usually refers the Picts who are not necessarily Celts.

[Ursus]

*bumping this thread up to give it attention*

[longbow]

No wonder this period is called the dark ages,why is it we dont know much about this time period?

We think there was a great British hero called arthur or artur or artorius,who checked the saxon invasion in the early 6th century.A book written about the conflict written in 540AD "gildas De excidio et conquestu Britanniae" doesnt even mention him! But there is some evidence supporting the legend,the survivng records show a large number of men named arthur,which suggests a sudden fashion for sons named after a famous man.Hardly conclussive evidence i know,the poem "Y Gododdin" was written around 600AD to celebrate the northern British victory over the saxons,he is mentioned in the poem very briefly.Now,we have to wait 200years before hes mentioned again,Nennius finished his "history of the Britons" in the year 799AD.Nennius never calls Arthur a king,he calls him the "Dux Bellorum"(leader of battles)probably means "Warlord" thats basically all the written evidence for arthur.In the 12th century Geoffrey of Monmoth wrote his mythical story of Arthur and the Holy Grail which is what most people associate Arthur with.All we can deduce is that a man named Arthur probably lived in the fifth,sixth century that was a great warlord who fought against the saxon invaders.

Britain at the time was a place racked byreligious dissent as well as by invasion and politics,there was a number of different kingdoms all with there own kings and religious beliefs,some were christian most were pagan,In the end the saxons won,the country became christian and we lost most of the true Arthur storys,so we,ll probably never know the truth.

 

[Guest longbarrel]

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.

I am new to this site,,I am not sure if I am doing this right,,, I am a Campbell, (Scotish) I am trying to find my blood line,, can anyone help. I am not sure If we decended from Sarmation blood or not. I thank You very much for your reply

[Primus Pilus]

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.

I am new to this site,,I am not sure if I am doing this right,,, I am a Campbell, (Scotish) I am trying to find my blood line,, can anyone help. I am not sure If we decended from Sarmation blood or not. I thank You very much for your reply

 

From a simple google search it seems that Campbell is a relatively new surname dating back only to the 13th century. Based on that, its pretty difficult to trace yourself to a Sarmatian line, which was only introduced to the area some 11 centuries earlier but was also a very tiny portion of population.

 

But I'm not exactly a geneology expert

[Pertinax]

Campbell-, noted from the 13th century as holding lands near Loch Awe. Descended from Colin of Lochow knighted 1280 known as "Caielean Mor". I cant find anything earlier in my genealogical tables of the clans.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I believe the Artorius story. I already know about the character but not his history. So I decided to google it and came up with this first site, so detailed that I believe every detail. I love the fact that Artorius bothered to understand his enemies, and in doing so, he saved so many lives. Especially with that famous square infantry tactic.

I also think it was Pertinax who promoted Castus to dux.

 

 

Also, I have a minor offtopic question. I never understood how someone came up with Merlin and if so, was Merlin's origins druidic?

Link to site

Edited November 16, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Northern Neil]

With regard to the first posting on this thread - structures one could possibly call 'castles' were built on the eastern and southern parts of Britain in the third and fourth centuries. They were basically standard Roman 'Castella' but with slightly thicker walls and projecting towers. After that, castles in the true sense of the word do not appear until the tenth century (assuming, of course, we are talking about Britain!) with the Norman mercenaries in the Welsh marches.

 

With regard to Arthur, I can not furnish much more than has already been given... with a couple of exceptions. Arthur was said to have died at the battle of Camlann, fighting the Picts. On Hadrian's Wall at Castlesteads there is a fort whose Roman name is CAMBOGLANNA. Could CAMLANN be the same place? it could be. Personally, I think it probably is. Further west along the Wall is a fort whose name was ABBALLAVA ( Burgh by Sands). Arthur's burial place was AVALON, which was marshy and had a lake. Modern day Burgh - by - Sands is a windswept place surrounded by salt marshes and ponds. Food for thought, maybe!!

[pompeius magnus]

Campbell just out of curiosity, where in Scotland did your ancestors hail from. I am a fellow Scot by bloodline and am from the McKay clan of northwestern Scotland.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

To Northern Neil, which Arthur are you talking about. From what I know, it seems your Arthur is the fictitious one from the legends. But good finds about the correlation between camlann and camboglanna. I think it was because the monks( very educated ones) who made the legend had learned well about their Roman roots in Britain and so used these sites for their fictitious story.( no offense, but I think the early medieval Arthur didn't exist at all.)

Edited November 17, 2005 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[backfire22]

Its probable that the historical basis for "King Arthur" came from the the dux Lucius Artorius Castus in Britain and from Ambrosius Aurelianus during the Saxon invasions. A composite character invented by the Caledonians (who Lucius Artorius would have been fighting) combined with local Celtic legends and then topped off with a Early Middle Ages hero like Ambrosius probably served to create the legendary King Arthur. Too bad I have never been able to compile any very detail and specific information about Ambrosius, Artorius, or the Battle of Mons Badonicus.

 

Maybe even Agricola served to create some of the myth of King Arthur and by the way what was the Caledonian/Scottish influence on Arthurian myth anyways? Something to investigate a little more maybe.

[longbow]

I believe the Artorius story.

 

One problem i have with this theory is the dates,if like me you believe Arthur was fighting against the saxon invasion then Arturius Castus would be over 300 years old.I believe Arthur was a Celtic warlord who fought with the other British chieftans against the invasion,Rome was long gone from these shores.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Artorius never fought the Saxons. Well that is my view, backfire's view, well I don't know where he got his info from.

Well anyways, its not impossible for monks to write about someone who existed hundreds of years earlier. All you need is historical knowledge and thats it, the same with Livy.

[longbow]

All the sources which mention Arthur have him fighting against the Saxons,i wonder where he's getting his information from?

List of Arthurian sources

Edited November 30, 2005 by longbow