DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**wllsqyuipknczx** · 02-17-2007, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Another theory is, that the historical Artus wasn´t located in the welsh territory (where most people search for his traces) but rather originated in northern Britain/southern Scotland and was a prince of a small scottish kingdom as well as war leader (Dux bellorum) in 10 battles which were fought by the united armies of the kingdoms between the hadrians and antonine wall against the saxons of northumberland and the picts north of the antonine wall.
See here:
http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/

To give a brief summary of the most impotant points:

Carroll claims that Artus was one of three sons of King Aidan of Dalriada (which was written in the "Life of St.Columba") and was later killed in a battle of Miathi (written in "Life of St. Columba" as well).
Carroll identifies King Loth of Orkney with Cennalat as this can be ranslated with King (Cenna) and Loth (Lat) who eally ruled over the Orkneys and was a king of the Picts and sees reason to believe that the battle of Miathi can be attributed to be the battle of Camlann, as it took place by a crooked (Cam) river named Alan (Lann).
As this was a battle against the picts Medraud (Mordred) Son of Cennalan (King Loth) could have been involved as well.
Carroll argues that, although Aidan was king, he let his sons (especially arthur) lead his troops and concerned himself only with governing the country.
Carroll is even successful in identifying Camelot, as in the kingdom of Dalriada near the antonine wall there was a roman castellum which was named Ad Vallum by the romans and was called Camelon or Camelot by the people living there (and lies near Falkirk) and must have been an impressive sight during the 6th century, as it was rather large and made of stone in contrast to the small wooden hilforts which were normal during this time.
Arturius ap Aidan even had a sister or half sister named Morgan
and there were also 2 Druids or Bards in this time and region one named Taliesin (bard of King Urien of Gore) and the other Myrrdin (Merlin) who was bard of Gwenddlau and later became mad after a particular devastating battle at which Gwenddlau died.

IMHO the most convincing theory so far especially as the names fit and the historical sources cited by Carroll are very near to the time where King Arthur is believed to have lived.
There are other theories, attributing King Arthur to be Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus or even Vortigern himself (stating that Vortigern isn´t a name but a title) but IMHO they are not as convincing as these two theories.

So what do you think about the historical Artus?
What you are trying to do is fit an unconnected piece of history to a medieval fantasy through the evidence of the similarity of names (which were probably an invention anyway), and ignoring the real history.

If you are looking for "Arthur" you are looking for a leader of British (not the Dal Riati! They were Irish invaders! The Brits hated them!) forces who would have fought in the timeframe 490-540 AD and won a significant victory in one of the two areas that really matter- the Severn lands or Merseyside.

Artus doesn't fit.

02-17-2007, 01:12 PM	#7
wllsqyuipknczx Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 462 Senior Member	Originally posted by Proteus_MST Another theory is, that the historical Artus wasn´t located in the welsh territory (where most people search for his traces) but rather originated in northern Britain/southern Scotland and was a prince of a small scottish kingdom as well as war leader (Dux bellorum) in 10 battles which were fought by the united armies of the kingdoms between the hadrians and antonine wall against the saxons of northumberland and the picts north of the antonine wall. See here: http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/ To give a brief summary of the most impotant points: Carroll claims that Artus was one of three sons of King Aidan of Dalriada (which was written in the "Life of St.Columba") and was later killed in a battle of Miathi (written in "Life of St. Columba" as well). Carroll identifies King Loth of Orkney with Cennalat as this can be ranslated with King (Cenna) and Loth (Lat) who eally ruled over the Orkneys and was a king of the Picts and sees reason to believe that the battle of Miathi can be attributed to be the battle of Camlann, as it took place by a crooked (Cam) river named Alan (Lann). As this was a battle against the picts Medraud (Mordred) Son of Cennalan (King Loth) could have been involved as well. Carroll argues that, although Aidan was king, he let his sons (especially arthur) lead his troops and concerned himself only with governing the country. Carroll is even successful in identifying Camelot, as in the kingdom of Dalriada near the antonine wall there was a roman castellum which was named Ad Vallum by the romans and was called Camelon or Camelot by the people living there (and lies near Falkirk) and must have been an impressive sight during the 6th century, as it was rather large and made of stone in contrast to the small wooden hilforts which were normal during this time. Arturius ap Aidan even had a sister or half sister named Morgan and there were also 2 Druids or Bards in this time and region one named Taliesin (bard of King Urien of Gore) and the other Myrrdin (Merlin) who was bard of Gwenddlau and later became mad after a particular devastating battle at which Gwenddlau died. IMHO the most convincing theory so far especially as the names fit and the historical sources cited by Carroll are very near to the time where King Arthur is believed to have lived. There are other theories, attributing King Arthur to be Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus or even Vortigern himself (stating that Vortigern isn´t a name but a title) but IMHO they are not as convincing as these two theories. So what do you think about the historical Artus? What you are trying to do is fit an unconnected piece of history to a medieval fantasy through the evidence of the similarity of names (which were probably an invention anyway), and ignoring the real history. If you are looking for "Arthur" you are looking for a leader of British (not the Dal Riati! They were Irish invaders! The Brits hated them!) forces who would have fought in the timeframe 490-540 AD and won a significant victory in one of the two areas that really matter- the Severn lands or Merseyside. Artus doesn't fit.
	Quote