Sarmatian Knights Fact Or Fiction

[caldrail]

The theory abbout sarmatian knights is to lend some credibility to arthurian tales. Unfortunately, whilst an interesting theory, there isn't any hard evidence for the existence of these men in sub-roman Britain, nor do the sources from that period mention any foreign horsemen at all, nor do they suggest an elite corps. In fact, the only tangilble mention of Arthur is via Gildas, who refers to one of the welsh tyrants as having been the 'Bears Charioteer' in his youth, a connection with the name Arthur which has a root meaning 'Bear'.

 

Arthur was by no means a king. That was the literary invention of Geoffery of Monmouth (though he might have got the idea elsewhere, his is the first mention of royalty in the 12th century). In fact, we have a man who was regarded as something of a loose cannon, if a respected one, and one gets the impression he was a somewhat ruthless warrior. "Although he was no Arthur" says one dark age writer about another man.

 

Some people regard Arthurs existence as fictional completely, preferring to ascribe his victories to Ambrosius Aurelianus, a respectable romano-britain we have direct mentions of. The problem here is that given the dates we believe the last battle at Mons Badonicus was fought, Ambrosius was a very old man indeed, and unlikely to have commanded, though we must accept that he was a victorious leader of sub-romano-british defence against picts, scots, and saxon raiders.

 

Part of the problem is the battles listed by Nennius have no confirmed location. We have little more than names, and we distinctly lack evidence of location. Even his most famous victory, Mons Badonicus, has been placed in almost every region of Britain, the two most likely appearing to be near Bath or Swindon.

 

We do have some descriptions of dark age british armies however, via the welsh poets of later centuries. Although cavalry existed, they were hardly knights in shining armour, and are described as riding without helmets. I did a post on Mons Badonicus which goes into more detail... http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10750&st=0&p=102417&hl=+mons%20+badonicus&fromsearch=1entry102417

 

Arthur was an obscure figure to begin with, kept alive in the popular imagination by song and poetry, and prose. During the early dark ages when celtic culture reasserted itself for a while, Arthur was made the hero of the older traditional tales from the Iron Age, which had survived as an oral tradition throughout the Roman occupation, which makes him far more of a mythological figure than the somewhat less cultured person we find hints of. Worse still is the chivalric fiction of medieval times, inventing and reinforcing the connection with christianity (Including the 'Holy Grail' and the 'Lance', which turn out to be no more than literary props in medieval romances) and creating this concept of the Knights of the Round Table.

 

Were there any sarmatian knights in Britain connected with arthurian battles? Apparently not. Although this theory received some media attention, there is little if any evidence to confirm it. Germanus of Auxerre was the last Roman leader to lead troops in the British Isles and he operated no later than c.440, some 30-60 years before Arthurs tim (and that might be incorrect too, as he fought the Saxons and crushed the Pelagian Heresy in 429 with only some dubious mentions of another visit to Britain in 440).

[Artimi]

Artorius Castus

 

After reading all this, I googled Artorius Castus. He is an interesting person and enough information is around to make him a mystery.

 

I think a good book can made out of his life - minus the Arthurian legend-

 

okay you authors out there, write me book - in the vein of the Eagle in the Snow or Nineth Legion or the Lost Legion.

 

Would that I could write..

Edited November 22, 2010 by Artimi

[caldrail]

Artorius Castus has been suggested as the origin of the King Arthur myth for no better reason than to inject some historical credibility to the tales. It's because people generally want the legend to be real. It isn't. Whilst I'm not decrying anything Artorius Castus did, the interesting fact remains that Arthur, as a name, becomes a popular name after 500. There isn't any mention of anyone with name beforehand that I'm aware of, and several nobles are named Arthur in the next couple of generations. Had Gildas not made an ambiguous reference to the 'real' Arthur, then I might have regarded Artorius might have been a source of the legend.

 

We cannot dismiss the contemporary nature of the Arthurian mythos. Assuming the association with the battle of Mons Badonicus is correct, then we have a fixed period in which to place the man. If a roman commander had been the origin, why was the legend of Arthur not accounted for earlier? Why did it take two centuries for the man to be promoted to legend? It's a part of human nature that a legend is spawned in their own lifetime.

 

Geoffery of Monmouth wanted to impress his patron lord and thus gave Arthur a royal title to boost the credentials of the list of previous kings, which was what his history book was about. Noticeably, contemporary historians (yes, the middle ages had historians too) made it known they regarded Geoffery as a complete fantasist - and if you read his history of the kings of Britain, you'll see why.

[caldrail]

Got it. It appears that Geoffery of Monmouth was a bit fast and loose with history (as if we didn't know that) and the connection with Artorius Castus is only a literary one. In other words, Geoffery is giving Arthur credit for Artorius's deeds, a feature of Arthurian expansion since the beginning.

 

The two men are identiofiably seperate. Arthur is primarily concerned with the defence of Britain, Artorius concerned with military adventures on the continent two or three centuries before.