A Roman Perspective of King Arthur

[Kegluneq]

Arthur I think was a neo-Spartacus figure and the people mythologized him with embellishment.

What connections are there exactly between the Spartacus story and Arthurian legend? Aside from both leading armies, I can't think of any connections.

[66kbm]

Did anyone know who Spartacus was in the 6th cent AD or other dates that we have no knowledge of.....its an awfull lot of speculation...i prefered to watch the film with Clive Owen, entertaining, but....a huge "mysteque" about it all.
Kevin

[Robert Vermaat]

And that's why I think that Robert Vermaat moved this to OT. It's because it carries with it a certain mysticism.

No I did not. Like I said, I moved it because it's not a Roman topic.

Whilst he said that it doesn't intale Roman influence, that's wrong.

Having studied Arthur for 30 years now and owning a cupboard of books about the guy (yes, literally) I am really looking forward to seeing you make that one stick. Arthur belong to the post-Roman world.s

Arthur I think was a neo-Spartacus figure and the people mythologized him with embellishment.

What the heck is a 'Neo-Spartacus figure' supposed to be??? The mythology bit I can understand, as I myself believe that 'the' Arthur never existed, and bits and piece were added from this or that person to get to the 'King Arthur' we all know. ;-)

[Robert Vermaat]

Interesting that you hint at a later "Arthur". Are you talking AD520ish or later?

My 'Arthur' ranges from c. 500 to c. 530.

[Burzum]

And that's why I think that Robert Vermaat moved this to OT. It's because it carries with it a certain mysticism.

No I did not. Like I said, I moved it because it's not a Roman topic.

Whilst he said that it doesn't intale Roman influence, that's wrong.

Having studied Arthur for 30 years now and owning a cupboard of books about the guy (yes, literally) I am really looking forward to seeing you make that one stick. Arthur belong to the post-Roman world.s

Arthur I think was a neo-Spartacus figure and the people mythologized him with embellishment.

What the heck ius a 'Neo=-Spartacus figure'supposed to be??? The mythology bit I can understand, as I myself believe that 'the' Arthur never existed, and bits and piece were added from this or that person to get to the 'King Arthur' we all know. ;-)

You took 30 years out of your life studying Arthur?!?

He must of been more famous than I previously thought.

And lol... There is no connection between Arthur and Spartacus.

Before you start altering and creating ridiculous assumptions, take the time to actually think what I meant.

I used the phrase "Neo-Spartacus" to describe Arthur in that both stories has a somewhat similarity to a point. And like Spartacus he came from nowhere and assembled a army and so on.

Not my fault you can't connect the dots. :wink:

[Conal]

Interesting that you hint at a later "Arthur". Are you talking AD520ish or later?

My 'Arthur' ranges from c. 500 to c. 530.

Now you've got my interest peaked as i thought the latest possible date for Badon was AD519-20?

[Dan D'Silva]

Yeah, but there's at least one battle after that

[Robert Vermaat]

You took 30 years out of your life studying Arthur?!?
He must of been more famous than I previously thought.
And lol... There is no connection between Arthur and Spartacus.
Before you start altering and creating ridiculous assumptions, take the time to actually think what I meant.
I used the phrase "Neo-Spartacus" to describe Arthur in that both stories has a somewhat similarity to a point. And like Spartacus he came from nowhere and assembled a army and so on.
Not my fault you can't connect the dots. :wink:

Are you calling me stupid or something? There is no resemblance between the stories of Spartacus and Arthur as far as I'm concerned. Never mind the 'ridiculous assumptions'.

[caiusbeerquitius]

Is this "Waodwarrior Evolution"? Or "Woadwarrior 2.0"

Jeez. Just let be, Robert. Where´s the good old "ignore function when you need it.... :-(

[Robert Vermaat]

As it happens Christian, that's no longer necessary any longer.

[PhilusEstilius]

Is there not a little confusion going on here for there is some evidence that the defence of Britain at the end of the Fifth century was captained by a general named Artorius who may have been a decendant of one L. Artorius Castus who had held high command in Britain but died in Dalmatia. There is also historical reference to one Arturus in the Historia Brittonum.

The story of "Arthur" of course is a different matter and as Robert has mentioned he has studied the subject for some time so I would leave that to his exprerience.

[Agraes]

It's been a while since there hasn't been an Arthur themed discussion

Before making theories on who he could have been if he ever existed it's good to separate two whole different subjects.

First the historical setting: sub-roman, post-roman or early Medieval Britain as you wish to call it. What was a petty british king or warlord by the late 5th and 6th centuries? We have historical sources for such characters and a good deal of archaeology. Think of the tyrants of Gildas, characters such as Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus, and later 'Gwyr y Gogledd', the men of the north. Several of those became important characters in the arthurian legend much later on.
But of Arthur there is one, save the few gaelic princes in the very late 6th and 7th centuries in Dal Riata and Dyfed. There was one Artur, son of Aedan Mac Gabran, king of Dal Riata, but he died at 18 in battle with the Miati Picts so a tad too young to be "the one". It's an argument of "no smoke without fire" as popularised by Leslie Alcock in the 70's, with all the later developments and several characters called Arthur around AD 600 there must have been an important namesake earlier on, the winner of Badon.
But still there is no proof of him.

The first reference about Arthur is in the 9th century Historia Brittonum, largely dynastic propaganda for the kings of Gwynedd, and even if depicted as a historical warlord in the "Arthuriana" section with the famous 12 battles he was also already a character of legend as depicted in the "Wonders of Britain", linked with the hunt of the mythical boar Twrch Tryth. So those sources are dismissed by serious historians since decades.
Which brings the second point, the development of the legend from the later part of the early middle ages to nowadays.

Arthur, a Spartacus like character? None at all to me. He didn't "came from nowhere" as he was linked with a dynasty of kings, including the historical Ambrosius Aurelianus/Emrys Wledig. He is king and warlord, fighting the Saxons which by then had really became the hereditary ennemies of the Welsh.

[Dan D'Silva]

Is there not a little confusion going on here for there is some evidence that the defence of Britain at the end of the Fifth century was captained by a general named Artorius who may have been a decendant of one L. Artorius Castus who had held high command in Britain but died in Dalmatia.

I'd be interested in what evidence you're speaking of. I've never heard of a fifth-century Artorius -- I won't pretend to be an expert but it seems to me that that would be an important point in any discussion about King Arthur's historicity.

[PhilusEstilius]

Dan.

I am taking my references from a book that I have "The Last Age of Roman Britain" by Edward Foord first published in 1925 by George G. Harrap & Co.Ltd.39-41 Parker Street,Kingsway, London.W. C. 2. he was also author of "Napoleons Russian Campaign of 1812" "The Invasion of England" "The Byzantian Empire" etc.

This is indeed a very good book that takes one right through from AD 43 until about A D 582 with many references from Gildas and Bede.

[Nathan Ross]

a general named Artorius who may have been a decendant of one L. Artorius Castus who had held high command in Britain but died in Dalmatia.

Best leave him out of it, I'd say.

Artorius Castus was a legionary centurion, who served briefly in Britain. He later commanded detachments of troops, probably in an Armenian war, possibly in AD163.

It's unlikely that any of his descendents ended up in Britain, and there's nothing to connect him to 'Arthur' beyond a slight similarity in his name!