A Roman Perspective of King Arthur

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Michael,

Hi, just on Arthur. I have this book called Arthur: Roman Britain's Last Champion by Beram Saklatvala and printed in 1967.

Ooh, so many things to address...
First of all, most books published before c. 1975 take all sources literally. Often enough, historians and archaeologists alike took Gildas, nennius, Geoffrey completely at face value, without the slightest bit of textual criticism. That changed after David Dumvile and like-minded historial went for a completely different, minimalistic, approach, factually banning every non-contemporary source from the historical discussion, as well as everything written before 550 AD. Today, the approach is much more balanced, at least when you reach serious article (and not Wilson & Blackett and other such authors).

I don't know much about the author but one thing I found hard to fathom in Geoffrey Monmouth's book "History Of The British Kings" is Arthur's invasion of the continent where he faced "The kings of the Africans, Egypt and Syria.

Geoffrey is now understood to have copied the stories of the historial figure named Riothamus who was active during c. 470 in Northern Gaul against the saxons and Goths. We know quite a bit about Riothamus (for a 5th c. character). He was the leader of an army of 'Britons' (or Bretons if you want to believe some), and he arrrived at the Loire 'by way of the ocean'(most probably from Britain. Known from Gaulish sources but unknown to British ones, Riothamus ahs grown into a serious contender for 'Arthur'. Anyway, Geoffrey knew more about the guy and copied his campaign.

What the author was saying that Arthur existed about 130 years later,

Later than what?

the part about him invading Europe and meeting an "Eastern army" was confused over the years with Magnus Maximus who stripped the garrisons of Britain to fill his army,

Although sources do complain about that, we know for a fact that this did not happen at all.

To me Arthur invading Europe is ridiculous but if this part of Geoffrey's story is a result of some sort of confusion with Magnus Maximus then it makes a bit of sense.

No, it was most probably Riothamus, after all.

[Michael Kerr]

Geoffrey is now understood to have copied the stories of the historial figure named Riothamus who was active during c. 470 in Northern Gaul against the saxons and Goths. We know quite a bit about Riothamus (for a 5th c. character). He was the leader of an army of 'Britons' (or Bretons if you want to believe some), and he arrrived at the Loire 'by way of the ocean'(most probably from Britain. Known from Gaulish sources but unknown to British ones, Riothamus ahs grown into a serious contender for 'Arthur'. Anyway, Geoffrey knew more about the guy and copied his campaign.

I agree that Riothamus is a good candidate but unfortunately his army was defeated by Visigoths I think but in Geoffrey's book Arthur fought the Romans but Riothamus was not at war with Rome as he was aiding emporer Anthemius but was betrayed by Imperial prefect Arvandus and he lost and was never heard of again but Geoffrey said he defeated the Romans anyway enjoying the discussion.

Later than what?

388AD when Magnus was defeated by Theodosius. I shall have to brush up on my dates with you guys or I will get eaten alive lol

[Robert Vermaat]

I agree that Riothamus is a good candidate but unfortunately his army was defeated by Visigoths I think but in Geoffrey's book Arthur fought the Romans but Riothamus was not at war with Rome as he was aiding emporer Anthemius but was betrayed by Imperial prefect Arvandus and he lost and was never heard of again but Geoffrey said he defeated the Romans anyway enjoying the discussion.

I agree that Geoffrey indeed took elements of Magnus Maximus (especially Arthur taking Rome). But Maximus nor Riothamus fought a battle against a Roman army. Of course, it would be hard to tell (especially to any peaceful farmer in Gaul) if the army of Visigoths trampling his crops was actually acting on the interests of Rome or their own tribal leaders at the time. And don't forget, we get a rare glimpse of Riothamus because one of our sources is the indomitable Sidnius Appolinaris - the rightful owner of the slaves our Riothamus was 'enticing' away!!

[M. Demetrius]

"Artorius" or something at some point defeated the Saxons in a local, unrecorded battle,

Yeah, I saw the movie. He did it mostly by himself, on horseback, with some bulemic Woads to lend a minor part using man-powered trebuchets. Amazing battle, made more amazing by the zero IQ of the Saxons who had no idea what fire was, etc.

Just kidding. Put down that pugio. :o illy:

[Renatus]

At the risk of derailing this thread into 'real' history (!), does anyone know the reason behind the early 3rd century dating for this inscription? The wiki page says it was put forward recently by Loriot, but his article's in French... As I said above, it seems to me that the 'Armenian war' (if that's what it is) is the only dateable reference on the stone itself, and would suggest mid-late 2nd rather than 3rd century...

Applying my very imperfect French to Loriot's text, I interpret his reasoning to be as follows. The form of the inscription belongs unequivocally to the 3rd century. Posts such as praepositus classis or procurator iure gladii are not found before the Severan period and the first mention of a dux legg(ionum) is during the reign of Philip the Arab (244-249). It is possible that the expedition in which L. Artorius Castus participated was that mounted against the Armenians by Caracalla in 215 under the command of Theocritus (Dio Cassius 78. 21). A later date cannot be excluded, however, for example during the reign of Severus Alexander, following an inscription from Tomi dedicated to P. Aelius Hammonius [ISM, II, 106], who had been in charge of an Armenian expedition earlier in the 3rd century. [This had been when Hammonius was commanding the army in Cappadocia. The inscription was, apparently, set up during the reign of Gordian III, while he was prefect of the classis flavia Moesica Gordiana (Lucretiu Mihailescu-Bîrliba, Les affranchis dans les provinces romaines de l'Illyricum, Wiesbaden, 2006, pp. 206-207). There is a fuller examination of Hammonius' career in I. Piso, 'La carrière équestre de P. Aelius Hammonius', Dacia, N.S., 20 (1976), 251-257, which I have not seen.]

[Nathan Ross]

Applying my very imperfect French to Loriot's text, I interpret his reasoning to be as follows.

An excellent application - thanks! I had no idea of Theocritus and his Armenian invasion (which appears to have been something of a fiasco), nor of Hammonius - most work on him looks to be in French...

But the reasoning is sound, and Artorius Castus does indeed inhabit the 3rd century quite securely.

[Michael Kerr]

Robert Vermaat wrote:
Ooh, so many things to address...
First of all, most books published before c. 1975 take all sources literally. Often enough, historians and archaeologists alike took Gildas, nennius, Geoffrey completely at face value, without the slightest bit of textual criticism. That changed after David Dumvile and like-minded historial went for a completely different, minimalistic, approach, factually banning every non-contemporary source from the historical discussion, as well as everything written before 550 AD. Today, the approach is much more balanced, at least when you reach serious article (and not Wilson & Blackett and other such authors).

Hi Robert,do you have a list of recommended books on the subject of Arthur. I must admit I seem to be a sucker for all books concerning Arthur and I have read books which claim Arthur was from the north near the wall and others that claim that his background is Welsh, Cornish or Breton and with the multitude of hill forts around Britain, nearly all the authors seem to claim that they have discovered the site of the battle of Badon, or have some new piece of evidence that proves everyone else is wrong. It gets a bit confusing for the average reader like myself. You are right about authors taking Gildas as his word. He seems to be a "Fire and Brimstone" type of person who hates Saxons, Irish and Picts and preaches to the British that they are being punished for past wrongdoings.

[Renatus]

An excellent application - thanks!

Thank you for the compliment. For the sake of completeness, I should add that, according to Loriot, epigraphic parallels demonstrate the 3rd century form of the inscription and that the first dated mention of a dux legg(ionum) occurs during the reign of Philip the Arab.

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Robert,do you have a list of recommended books on the subject of Arthur.

Many many many. :woot:
Here's the section of my Arthurian Book Collection regarding (pseudo)scientific publications:
http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/bibliograrthscie.htm