King Arthur

[Spartan198]

I was sitting here a bit ago watching King Arthur and was quickly and suddenly reminded of a BI campaign battle a while back when a Romano-British warlord named Artorius Castus literally handed me my @$$.

While I don't believe that he existed as he was visualized in Arthurian legend, I do believe he was inspired by a general/warlord that did, at one time, exist.

What do you guys think on the subject? :book:
(I'm not trying to start an "I'm right, you're wrong" thing here, I just wanna hear honest opinions)

[Tamur]

I agree with you.

And generally, I think it makes the world a much more interesting place to believe such things. For me, everyone from Gilgamesh to Ajax to Arthur existed -- not precisely as in the stories (especially in Arthur's case) but in some very real way.

[rajpoot]

That there was a man who united the forces of Britain, when Rome abandoned it, is certain. A local chieftain who was Romanised due to ages of subjugation or maybe a Roman who decided to stay back and aid the people of the land where he had lived. Either way, that man rallied the people in those dark times, and as long as he lived was a champion of the civilised Britons.
Anyhow, logically looking at it, the Saxons had light armour or no armour, and were more or less infantry. Against such a force, a small contingent of Roman cavalry (who were armoured) could do wonders. It is quite possible that Arthur, whoever he was, commanded such a band, and going from hamlet to hamlet, gathering the local militia, he could have easily defeted the invaders many a times in small skirmishes, and finally on that legendary Mount Badon.
That the invaders were defeted at Mount Badon, and that their flow into britain was halted for atleast half a centuary, is a fact. history tells us so. The chronicles of Gildas aid us in pinpointing the time of the battle to the exact decade, and those of Bede throw a little more light on the man who led them.
All this said, this subject is very exciting indeed. There looms out of dim pages of history, the legend of Arthur, hazy, yet glittering and intriguing.

[Justiciar]

Either way, that man rallied the people in those dark times, and as long as he lived was a champion of the civilised Britons.Champion my arse. He held fleeting power compared to his predecessors (Vortigern and Coel Hen), did a naff job at rallying the people, and only fought a successful battle while in flight. Urien, my friend! There was a king and warlord with some balls, genocidal maniac though he may have been. The myth of Arthur is, frankly, a blight on that period of Britain's history. We know nothing of Arthur, ergo, we're supposed know nothing of the isle. Genuine "heroes" and more rightly chronicled figures are sidelined for the sake of this glorified none-entity.


Anyhow, logically looking at it, the Saxons had light armour or no armour, and were more or less infantry. Against such a force, a small contingent of Roman cavalry (who were armoured) could do wonders.
I was under the impression that nigh on all armies fought in more-or-less the same fashion throughout the Migration Era. And moreover that the Anglo-Saxons had been serving as mercenaries in Britian and perhaps other theatres for at least a century by the time of the first rebellions/invasions. Nah. I think in terms of martial technology and tactics there'd have been very little between the Britons and their former hirelings.


That the invaders were defeted at Mount Badon, and that their flow into britain was halted for atleast half a centuary, is a fact. history tells us so. The chronicles of Gildas aid us in pinpointing the time of the battle to the exact decade, and those of Bede throw a little more light on the man who led them.
Their "flow"? I find it hard to believe it could be called such by the time of Badon. Welsh land to conquer was simply running out. For the first English arrivals the only real opponent were the Britons: expanding their realms at the expense of the Wealh. Generations that followed found their growing borders rubbing up to one another. Their old enemies had been pushed to their farthest flung frontiers, on land that held questionable worth, while their new enemies stood poised to take everything they and their ancestors had fought for.


All this said, this subject is very exciting indeed. There looms out of dim pages of history, the legend of Arthur, hazy, yet glittering and intriguing.
To return to an earlier point.. more's the pity.

[rajpoot]

Champion my arse. He held fleeting power compared to his predecessors (Vortigern and Coel Hen), did a naff job at rallying the people, and only fought a successful battle while in flight. Urien, my friend! There was a king and warlord with some balls, genocidal maniac though he may have been. The myth of Arthur is, frankly, a blight on that period of Britain's history. We know nothing of Arthur, ergo, we're supposed know nothing of the isle. Genuine "heroes" and more rightly chronicled figures are sidelined for the sake of this glorified none-entity.

Your arse, is not the topic of discussion here. I speak of the person who is supposed to be the subject of this topic, and in his own sense and times he was a champion. Make another topic to discuss the others.



I was under the impression that nigh on all armies fought in more-or-less the same fashion throughout the Migration Era. And moreover that the Anglo-Saxons had been serving as mercenaries in Britian and perhaps other theatres for at least a century by the time of the first rebellions/invasions. Nah. I think in terms of martial technology and tactics there'd have been very little between the Britons and their former hirelings.

The Roman soldiers had armour. Not the heavy armour of the middle ages, but considerably more than what the Saxons wore. The soldiers and militia fashioned in Roman style too had more armour than the Saxons.



Their "flow"? I find it hard to believe it could be called such by the time of Badon. Welsh land to conquer was simply running out. For the first English arrivals the only real opponent were the Britons: expanding their realms at the expense of the Wealh. Generations that followed found their growing borders rubbing up to one another. Their old enemies had been pushed to their farthest flung frontiers, on land that held questionable worth, while their new enemies stood poised to take everything they and their ancestors had fought for.

I can't get what you want to say here. What i meant was that the Saxon migration began as a small scale process, however, as time passed, and the older immigrants settled near the coastal regions, more and more tribes kept coming, threatening to engulf Romanised Britain. There were other tribes too, like the Angles and the Jutes, who migrated along with the Saxons, but majority was comprised of the latter.



To return to an earlier point.. more's the pity.

I don't know if you've read the book by Geoffrey of Monmouth, it's has not a shread of history in it, it's myth. But all the same, One cannot help but be impressed.

[Martok]

I agree with you.

And generally, I think it makes the world a much more interesting place to believe such things. For me, everyone from Gilgamesh to Ajax to Arthur existed -- not precisely as in the stories (especially in Arthur's case) but in some very real way.
Well said, my friend. :bow:

I tend to believe that Arthur (and many other legendary/mythical historical figures) really existed in some form or another. That the details of Arthur's life has been wildly distorted (possibly beyond all recognition), I don't doubt. But I *do* think he was real. :yes:

[Spartan198]

I had a similar discussion on another forum and this was one of my responses, albeit slightly modified to fit the theme of this topic.


The way I look at it, something or someone doesn't have to exist to be real. Trying to prove an entity of some kind exists is entirely irrelevant when the question is whether or not it's real.

For example, say a person grew up reading Spider-Man all his/her life and believes he's the greatest superhero ever. Is ol' Spidey any less real simply because he exists only in the pages of the comics and not out in the organic world that we inhabit? No, I don't think so. Same thing with the likes of Achilles, Herakles, King Arthur, Beowulf, etc.. My view is that such heroes indeed are real, even if they only exist in our hearts.

:book:

[rajpoot]

My view is that such heroes indeed are real, even if they only exist in our hearts.

That is just it :beam:

[Justiciar]

Woah there, soldier! A topic was started about Arthur, and I dropped my views on the guy. Because they're negative and aren't in keeping with your own ideas doesn't make them "off topic". I genuinely think there are others whose limelight King Arthur wrongly nicks. How is that unrelated to the subject at hand?


Your arse, is not the topic of discussion here. I speak of the person who is supposed to be the subject of this topic, and in his own sense and times he was a champion. Make another topic to discuss the others.My arse is always on topic! I was also speaking of Arthur. And how I think he, as a predominantly mythical character, is of limited historical worth. Oh, don't get me wrong, as far as romantic works of fiction go, Arthur's right up there with the best of them, and as a symbol of Welsh "defiance" he's a top notch guy. But beyond symbology, as the rest of that segment of my post stated, there's little worth there. I'd rather not make another topic to discuss Urien, Coel Hen, Vortigern, Hengest and the like - what makes you think I'd want to? I mentioned them? Good god.. how dare I?!


The Roman soldiers had armour. Not the heavy armour of the middle ages, but considerably more than what the Saxons wore. The soldiers and militia fashioned in Roman style too had more armour than the Saxons.I'm not arguing with the first part. Romans had armour. The Britons had armour. But I'd bet my ever on-topic behind that the English had armour to boot. What's more I struggle to see where you've got this "Saxons = nekkid savages fresh from the Iron Age" thing from. Soz, but I just don't buy into that.


I can't get what you want to say here. What i meant was that the Saxon migration began as a small scale process, however, as time passed, and the older immigrants settled near the coastal regions, more and more tribes kept coming, threatening to engulf Romanised Britain. There were other tribes too, like the Angles and the Jutes, who migrated along with the Saxons, but majority was comprised of the latter.Hmm? Sorry, I was claiming the opposite; a large scale migration following the success of rebelling Anglian and Jutish foederati, and the achievements of Saxon conquerors in the south throughout the earlier years, slowly losing clout as those new English kingdoms found that they now shared borders almost entirey with English rivals. Hence it would have become less viable to continue expanding into Welsh lands while their fellow Englishmen were stabbing them in the back and attempting to.. well.. conquer their conquests. Is that clearer?


I don't know if you've read the book by Geoffrey of Monmouth, it's has not a shread of history in it, it's myth. But all the same, One cannot help but be impressed.No, alas. This kind of detracts from my arguments, but I haven't acctually read any of these first hand sources, bardic or scholarly; Taliesin, Gildas, Bede and the like.

[CountArach]

All myths have, at their very core, an element of reality.

[rajpoot]

Of Hengest and Vortigern I've read some bit, the other I have not heard of, I must confess my ignorance there.
However, that Vortigern existed, and of his deeds, we know with little more certainity than those of Arthur.
Furthermore, if you believe the what the sources write about Vortigern and his deeds, then they say that he was the one who invited the Saxon mercenaries into Britain at the first place, who, soon took hold and getting strength from the mainland threatened the island.
I don't have the naked savage image at all. It is a fact that the early Saxons were lightly armoured, and cavalry of most kinds can do wonders against light infantry troops, more so if the cavalrymen are in heavier armour.

[Justiciar]

This is where I struggle to agree. I'm unaware of any evidence, beyond a romanticised vision that's emerged over the centuries, of the early Anglo-Saxons being underequipped and predominatly infantry - at least no more so than their British counterparts.

[rotorgun]

Regardless if one believes in Arthur or not, he was known to the British and the Welsh. Here are a couple of links to investigate further. The first is about some of the historical and mythical places from the legend. The second is an excellent source of Welsh poetry, some mentioning Aurthur and Merlin (Myrddin).

http://panther.bsc.edu/~arthur/arthurslife.html#anchor228123

http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/bbcindex.html

Here is one that I particularly liked that may give some insight to how battles went during the dark ages.

The Dialogue of Myrddin and Taliesin
The Black Book of Carmarthen I

Myrddin:
How sad with me, how said,
Cedfyl and Cadfan are fallen!
The slaughter was terrible,
Shields shattered and bloody.

Taliesin:
I saw Maelgwn battling--
The host acclaimed him.

Myrddin:
Before two men in battles they gather
Before Erith and Gwrith on pale horses.
Slender bay mounts will they bring
Soon will come the host of Elgan.
Alas for his death, after a great joy!

Taliesin:
Gap-toothed Rhys, his shield a span--
To him came battle's blessing.
Cyndur has fallen, deplorable beyond measure
Generous men have been slain--
Three notable men, greatly esteemed by Elgan.

Myrddin:
Again and again, in great throngs they came,
There came Bran and Melgan to meet me.
At the last, they slew Dyel,
The son of Erbin, with all his men.

Taliesin:
Swifly came Maelgwn's men,
Warriors ready for battle, for slaughter armed.
For this battle, Arderydd, they have made
A lifetime of preparation.

Myrddin:
A host of spears fly high, drawing blood.
From a host of vigorous warriors--
A host, fleeing; a host, wounded--
A host, bloody, retreating.

Taliesin:
The seven sons of Eilfer, seven heroes,
Will fail to avoid seven spears in the battle.

Myrddin:
Seven fires, seven armies,
Cynelyn in every seventh place.

Taliesin:
Seven spears, seven rivers of blood
From seven chieftains, fallen.

Myrddin:
Seven score heroes, maddened by battle,
To the forest of Celyddon they fled.
Since I Myrddin, am second only to Taliesin,
Let my words be heard as truth.

[rajpoot]

It is known that the Saxon troops Harold commanded at Hastings, had mostly light armour. Chainmail cuirasses, leather breastplates and the like. This armour is supposed to have changed little since the invaders first came to the island. The difference was that these people were better off than their invading ancestors and could thus buy partial metal armour.
A standard saxon invading soldier had limited money. His primary weapon was a spear. Some also had an axe, and ofcourse there was a saex used for work and war. Most of them had leather or fur as cover because metal was costly. They did not have swords, they did not even have helmets. Both were reserved for the elites who could afford them. Those who were better off did have chainmail on their arms and torso, but even these were few in number.

[King Jan III Sobieski]

I agree with you.

And generally, I think it makes the world a much more interesting place to believe such things. For me, everyone from Gilgamesh to Ajax to Arthur existed -- not precisely as in the stories (especially in Arthur's case) but in some very real way.

I agree; such stories, whether or not the people discussed actually existed, make life more interesting - they are part of our culture.

[Justiciar]

It is known that the Saxon troops Harold commanded at Hastings, had mostly light armour. Chainmail cuirasses, leather breastplates and the like. This armour is supposed to have changed little since the invaders first came to the island. The difference was that these people were better off than their invading ancestors and could thus buy partial metal armour.
Now this probably deserves a new thread.

The Fyrd generally had little to no armour, there's no denying that. But they were an established conscript-army, and fighting in a battle six hundred years after the time of Arthur, to boot. The upper tiers of the English army at Hastings would have been equipped in the standard fashion of their mainland counterparts. Besides which, the armies of pre-Norman England were semi-professional peasant militias, whereas those earlier Anglo-Saxon armies were probably made up of professional warbands.

As for the second part of your post..


A standard saxon invading soldier had limited money.
Source? From what I can gather, the "standard" Anglo-Saxon invader would have been a glorified pirate or sellsword, and part of a larger and traditional Germanic warband. The transition to the aforementioned system of peasant-militias would only come about after their Kingdoms had put down roots and they'd made the change from occupying warriors to land owners and freemen.


His primary weapon was a spear. Some also had an axe, and ofcourse there was a saex used for work and war.
Axes aren't believed to have been a common feature in early English warfare. They only came into regular use through the Norse influence of the 8th-11th centuries. Though I'd definately agree that the spear would have been the primary weapon, as with most contemporary armies - not least of all the Britons they fought against.


Most of them had leather or fur as cover because metal was costly.They did not have swords, they did not even have helmets. Both were reserved for the elites who could afford them. Those who were better off did have chainmail on their arms and torso, but even these were few in number.
No arguments here. Though I will say this; what applied to the Anglo-Saxons would have applied to the Britons, too.

[rajpoot]

I agree. The a new thread for this debate would be good.
I cannot give you a specific source for my argument I'm afraid, this is what I've read in most history books since I have started reading. I do not quote one specific author or book.

That the Fyrd was not a band of professional warriors agreed. That the invading Saxons were warriors agreed, but the point is, that these were not the professional soldiers, these were regular people who had been forced to move West, they were not paid mercenaries. They were not professionals, they were, like you say, pirates, raiders, not paid soldiers like the Romans fielded. The raids of the professional armies, were a thing in the beginning, we talk of a migration of whole race of people, who had begun settling on the land by the time of Arthur.
And furthermore, we are talking of the Romanised Britons. The Woad painted warrior was gone. What we have here, is soldiers raised in Roman fashion by the richer class of Romano Britons. And there were rich Romano britons too mind you, there were many a villas in Britain that needed protection, whos masters could pay for protection.
And finally, I come back again to the point, even the older texts, if I'm not wrong show Arthur and his men as a cavalry force, this is not a fantasy of Geoffrey of Monmouth. And I ask you, can not a well led force of Roman cavalry, backed by infantry (even if we assume it to be light infantry no better than the Saxons) defete the Saxons in skirmishes? I do not talk of a large scale pitched battle, for there was but one battle of Mount Badon, the other conflicts, smaller localised skirmishes, where the locally raised militia might form the main body, led by cavalry......... where is the hitch?!

[Sarmatian]

What's really known about Arthur? I guess there are some British historians here who can enlighten me on the subject. First I thought the myth is based on some medieval ruler, later that he was Roman (or Romanized Briton), then that he's Welsh... What's the story on him? But I mean facts, scarce as they may be...

[Justiciar]

That's fair enough, asj_india. I don't think this debate will go anywhere. We seem to be saying the same things in different ways, and only really arguing about points that can't soundly be argued for the lack of evidence.

Sarmatian: Welsh and Romano-British in the context often used to describe Arthur is basically the same thing, as the latter would become (neglecting the Cumbrians, Cornish, and Bretons) the former. The medieval version's basically down to the starry-eyed story tellers like the aforementioned Geoffrey of Monmouth. The basic line is that he was a leader of the myriad proto-Welsh nations against the newly arrived English. Early sources often deemed "Arthurian" seldom mention him, AFAIK. Perhaps someone better versed in Gildas and old welsh poetry can correct me. Though there are theories that the myth was originally Irish. He's been linked with a number of people, though there's not really a single one that screams "definate article".

[rotorgun]

What's really known about Arthur? I guess there are some British historians here who can enlighten me on the subject. First I thought the myth is based on some medieval ruler, later that he was Roman (or Romanized Briton), then that he's Welsh... What's the story on him? But I mean facts, scarce as they may be...

A link I found last last year while doing some research online about Arthur that is revealing to our discussion:

http://www.geocities.com/branwaedd/n03.html#45

The entire document is a tedious read, but still quite interesting as it gives much of the back-round of the early Anglo-Saxon involvement with the Britons, which seem to have been a collection of various Welsh peoples, or a people that the Saxons called "Welsh".

Here is a portion of the Historia Brittonum III with the the relevant parts concerning Aurthur as follows:


56. St. Germanus, after his death, returned into his own country [???]. At66 that time, the Saxons greatly increased in Britain, both in strength and numbers. And Octa, after the death of his father Hengist, came from the sinistral part of the island to the king dom of Kent, and from him have proceeded all the kings of that province, to the present period. Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror. The first battle in which he was engaged, was at the mouth of the river Gleni.67 The second, third, fourth, and fifth, were on another river, by the Britons called Duglas,68 in the region Linuis. The sixth, on the river Bassas.69 The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the Britons call Cat Coit Celidon.70 The eighth was near Gurnion castle,71 where Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin,72 mother of God, upon his shoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Mary, put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great slaughter.73 The ninth was at the City of Legion,74 which is called Cair Lion. The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit.75 The eleventh was on the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion.76 The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon.77 In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the Lord affording him assistance. In all these engagements the Britons were successful. For no strength can avail against the will of the Almighty. The more the Saxons were vanquished, the more they sought for new supplies of Saxons from Germany; so that kings, commanders, and military bands were invited over from almost every province. And this practice they continued till the reign of Ida, who was the son of Eoppa, he, of the Saxon race, was the first king in Bernicia, and in Cair Ebrauc (York).

The entire document is a tedious read, but still quite interesting as it gives much of the back-round of the early Anglo-Saxon involvement with the Britons, which seem to have been a collection of various Welsh peoples, or a people that the Saxons called "Welsh".

Another fairly complete, and scholarly I might add, site to check out the entire Arthur historical and mythological tale is:

http://www.britannia.com/history/h12.html

So many have wanted to lay claim to his legend that I'm afraid that the facts, which are indeed few, have been obscured. Still, there is enough evidence IMO to make me believe that such a war leader did exist in the dim past of British/English history.

PS: Check the sub-link entitled: Updated What the Historians Say - Beliefs about the historical Arthur. It's a good overview of what various historical writings and views are available from the Dark Ages until recently.