Historical basis for Arthur.

[James Toupin]

I am just curious to get everyone's views on wheather there was an
historical "Artur" or not. If you believe there was, whom do you believe the
original model was most likely to be? If not, why not?

James

[John W. Kennedy]

Post by James Toupin
I am just curious to get everyone's views on wheather there was an
historical "Artur" or not. If you believe there was, whom do you believe the
original model was most likely to be? If not, why not?

The fact that the legend exists (especially given the negative portraits
in Irish hagiographies), the fact that /something/ gave the first Saxon
wave a short, sharp shock, and the fact that "Arthur" shot up in the
baptism ratings the way "Debbie" did in the US in the 1950's all suggest
the possibility that there may be something behind it all.

Then, the association of Lucius Artorius Castus with the British
Sarmatian colony suggests the possibility of "Artorius" having become a
title (like "Caesar").

The complete silence of the historic record doesn't establish much one
way or the other, because, during the critical period, there is almost
no historic record of Britain at all, though the silence of Gildas is
troublesome.

[patrick boyd]

Post by James Toupin
I am just curious to get everyone's views on wheather there was an
historical "Artur" or not. If you believe there was, whom do you believe the
original model was most likely to be? If not, why not?

For me, and I don't profess to be anything other than a keen amateur,
the question is not whether there was an historical Arthur, but whether
there was an Arthur or Arthur-figure who achieved the things normally
attributed to a supposed historical Arthur.

We know from sources such as Gildas (by direct statement) and the Anglo
Saxon Chronicle (by omission), and from archaeology, that the English
expansion suffered a temporary halt in the first half of the 6th century.

This is usually where the name "Arthur" is mentioned, as the leader of
the British resistance at that time. But the only contemporary source,
Gildas, attributes the halt to a great battle, the Seige of Badon, and
names Ambrosius as the British general, and does not mention Arthur at
all. As far as I'm concerned, that rules out Arthur as the major
historical figure that popular belief would like him to be.

Other evidence for Arthur is dubious. He is mentioned in the The Annales
Cambriae and Nennius, but they were allegedly written hundreds of years
after the period and in the non-existent scholarly standards of the time
could easily have been the elevation of a minor figure or the
historicisation of a fictional figure. He is mentioned in an earlier
northern poem but again that is just as likely to be a reference to a
fictional character. There is some evidence of the popularity of Arthur
as a boys name after this period but linguists point out that Celtic
naming conventions did not ordinarily honour political figures.

There may have been an Arthur, perhaps a minor political figure of great
personal courage and flair who earned the admiration of the bards where
the real mastermind of the British resistance, Ambrosius, did not. But
that Arthur could just as easily have lived later, or in the north, and
not had any connection to the Seige of Badon at all.

In my opinion, we can definitely say Arthur was not the leader of the
British resistance that halted English expansion (unless Arthur is
another name for Ambrosius).

Other than that, we cannot rule Arthur out as a real person in some
shape, we might even say that there are suggestions he was based on a
real person, but there is no solid evidence at all, and it is just as
likely he was a fictional person later historicised.

-- patrick