[sonsayx]

When Bernard Cornwell set out the right the Warlord Chronicles, he wanted to strip away as much of the legend as possible and get back to the original history. However, once the legend was gone, there wasn't much history left. He was pretty sure there was a warlord named Arthur at about 500 A.D. because there was a sudden spike in the number of British babies with that name about that time. Other than that, history revealed nothing.

[mpegdvdclip]

I haven´t read Corenwells Trilogy but according to a summary of the content it looks like Cornwell is in agreement with Carroll about Artus being not a king, but "just" a Dux Bellorum. Right. He's the most renown military leader in Britain but, as the bastard son of the King, is not eligible for normal succession. Throughout much of the three novels, his followers are urging him to seize the throne of the High King.

[Viafdrear]

Camulod Chronicles

-Arrian

[ropinirole]

One truely interesting thing is the Sword of King Arthur.

It is, because there exists really a sword in a stone, although not in England but in Italy, near Siena.
It is the sword of San Galgano.
Galgano was a knight who had a vision of Archangel Michael who said that he should live a devout life, devoid of all pleasures.
Galgano then replied that giving up all of his luxuries would be as impossible as casting his sword into the stone beneath him.
But to his amazement after trying it he succeeded and therefore, from then on, lived a live as a hermit, and later was made a saint.

As this all happened short before the 12th century (with most of the tales of king arthur being written during the 13th century) it is indeed possible that Troye and other writers of Artus tales were indeed influenced by the stories of San Galgano.

The sword btw. is indeed some kind of puzzle for historians/archeologists, as according to metallurgical examinations it seems to be de facto from the 12th century and is embedded so deep into the stone that is is impossible to draw it out

[MannoFr]

The Sarmatians, I believe, had a legend of a king finding a sword. Attila, who ruled over the lands of Sarmatia, is said to have found such a sword himself. Now, since Artorius was a hero to the Sarmatians who continued to live in Britain after the collapse of the Empire, it may be his legend continued with them through the middle ages and perhaps became mixed up with some other British leader of the age who actually lead the Sarmatians against the invading German horde.

[Xutrsavf]

Originally posted by Ned
Also, don't you find it funny that the descendents of those conquering Germans would adopt as a national hero a leader of the Britons whom they conquered? Although the legend didn't really pick up steam until the Normans came in. Then suddenly we have folks like Lancelot du Lac. Sacre bleu!

[wllsqyuipknczx]

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.

[denSmumbSes]

I had a feeling that the dates for the Dal Riatan Artiur (son or grandson of Aedan Mac Gabhran)were out, so I checked them out.

He would have been active around 570-590 AD, so he's out of the timeframe for Mons Badonicus. One also has to question why the British Aneirin would have sung the praises of a Dal Riatan invader, so the chances of him being the Arthur of Y Gododdin look dodgy.

[wooclosmercob]

The legend may be like that of Tristan and Isolde. The original legend was told by the Picts, and the hero's name was Druis. The Welsh changed the name to Tris, then the Anglo-Saxons pronounced it Tristom, then finally it became Tristan. One wonders how a latin name like Ambrosius Aurelianus might have gotten twisted as it passed from the Britains to the Saxons, then the Normans and finally was handed down to the English. Particularily focus on the last name, someone could have easily replaced the l with a th and the n with an r. This could have happened over generations. Of course we have no proof.