• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Reckon There's Truth In King Arthur Legend?

Last edited by a moderator:
It's all a load a' shite!
But Keira Knightley is damn cool!

WW
 
John Boormans Excalibur is the best version of the legend I have seen, First Knight has to be the worst!

I must try and see the new film, don't they link it to Ribchester. I think King Arthur must have lived in Lancashire, all the best people (Shakespeare, Conan Doyle, Walton, Tolkein) come here at some point.
 
I went to the current King Arthur movie this weekend. Since the movie poster lays the claim for authenticity at the same time as it features the late French addition Lancelot and the non-Celtic spelling "Guinevere" I wasn't expecting much, and that's what I got. Go with a group of your biggest history-geek friends so you can play "spot the anachronism." I thought it was very clever of both the "woads" and the Saxons to use bows that hadn't been invented yet. The stirrups were kind of a gimme - the insurance costs on making a stirrupless knights movie would have been prohibitive, given that even the professional horse wranglers would probably have had to learn to ride without them from scratch. Ditto the swords and armor - no one ever does those right. What really impressed me was that the "woads" had invented barbed wire to use in a pointless ambush.

It was the logic lapses that bothered me most. People didn't behave in ways that people would behave and the battle tactics confused me. I had the same problem with tactics in "Troy," but at least there I understood why everybody was doing what they did. The highlight of the film may be dubbed the "Arthur Nevsky scene", but the most I can say is, that it was the best of a mediocre lot.

BTW I went to see Excalibur with a group of SCA-ers - the ultimate history geeks - and we were roundly abusive of it, too. So your mileage may vary.
 
Peni said:
...BTW I went to see Excalibur with a group of SCA-ers - the ultimate history geeks - and we were roundly abusive of it, too. So your mileage may vary...
Click to expand...

I don't thing the point of Excalibur was historical accuracy, it was the legend rather than the history (such as it is). The world it's set in is as imaginary as Middle-Earth (i.e. all points between about the sixth and fifteenth centuries).

I'll be off to see the new King Arthur but even from the trailers it seems to be a complete mishmash historically, the Woads look pre-Roman, the bows are medieval, and there looks to be a dash of Xena, Warrior Princess in there.

It would be good if someone did a King Arthur, without Lancelot.
 
I agree with Timble - Excalibur is about the myth - I think the characters actually discuss the fact that they are living in a time of myth.

I think Purcell's King Arthur (semi-opera) does away with Lancelot - it can't be called "accurate" though. :) Some of the music is well known because Michael Nyman has nicked most of the good tunes in it (see zip).

As for Amazons, wheredo you find several hundered mono breasted women?
 
Austen,

What do you mean by, "Where do you find several monobreasted women?"

If you mean, in regards to the TROJAN WAR:

The mono breast thing is a mistranslation by the greeks of the name AMAZON, which actually means, CHILDREN OF THE MOON GODDESS or UMA SOONA. They worshipped Artemis and CYBELLE.
The amazon Penthesilea fought in the TROJAN war with 12 other amazons and was killed by Achilles, who upon seeing her beauty weeped and was laughed at by other soldiers who he then slayed.
But in other circles the story is reversed with Penthesilea killing Achilles. Either way you slice it, there were Amazons in the Trojan war and they were ommitted, so that movie p-d me off!

WW
 
WonderWoman said:
The mono breast thing is a mistranslation by the greeks of the name AMAZON, which actually means, CHILDREN OF THE MOON GODDESS or UMA SOONA. They worshipped Artemis and CYBELLE.
Click to expand...

Ah, modern scolarship - I was under the impression they cut one breat off in order to use bow and arrows more easily.

Bang goes that old joke:

1st Ancient Roman: "Look were nearly home, I can see the seven hills"

2nd Ancient Roman: "No its three Vestal Virgins and an Amazon sunbathing!"

:D
 
Quest for the truth about Arthur and Scotland...

MIRANDA FETTES


GALLANT knights in shining armour, ladies draped in silk and satin, lavish banquets, medieval castles, a round table and the Holy Grail. This is the mental image conjured up by the mention of King Arthur, a world of courage, honour, romance, glory and, of course, Camelot.

But according to Touchstone Pictures, which has made what it claims is a historically accurate epic of the monarch, much of that image is no less mythical than, dare we breathe the words, the Loch Ness Monster.

Touchstone and producer Jerry Bruckheimer have embarked upon their own epic quest - for "the truth" - daring to suggest that there was no mystique, no shining armour and - whisper it - no Camelot. It’s sacrilege, almost blasphemy.

In place of the medieval legend emerges a story of savagery, warfare, darkness and doom, set in the fifth-century AD. But far more exciting than that is the fact that it is not set in Somerset or Cornwall. It is, in fact, located tantalisingly close at Hadrian’s Wall and the Scottish Borders.

Set on the Border between Scotland and England, the film places Arthur - played by British star Clive Owen - in the Scottish Lowlands. "You’ve got a Lucius Artorius Castus in the second century, on whom all of the subsequent Arthurian characters are based. The one in the movie is a descendant of that first Arthur," explains the film’s consultant historian, John Matthews, who has written several books on Arthur.

"We’re saying in the movie that Arthur comes from the Borders. We have evidence that Arthur lived and fought and died around the area of Hadrian’s Wall.

"The theory is that there is this character, Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer from the Borders, in charge of Sarmatian knights, and that they were stationed at several forts along the wall, particularly at Birdoswald, and that they fought against the Picts. This is the same Arthur. When I started work on the movie two years ago I was aware of the theory but wasn’t sure of it.

"I have now found so much evidence that links Arthur with this part of the world that I am completely convinced by it."

He adds: "The forts at Camboglanna, now known as Birdoswald, and Port Avalanna so closely tie in with the Arthurian stories of later times. Their names are very suggestive. Avalanna sounds like Avalon.

"Camboglanna has common elements with Camelot and also with Arthur’s last battle at Camlan and the terrain is very suitable for descriptions of the battles that he is supposed to have fought.

"The last and most significant battle is listed as taking place at Badon Hill. Several sites have been associated with this place, including a hill near Bath in Somerset, and the fortress of Caerleon in Wales. In the movie, it is located at Hadrian’s Wall, which is in keeping both with the historical theories relating to Arthur in Scotland, and to the presence of other significant sites with Arthurian associations in the area."

The film itself is set three centuries later than Lucius Artorius Castus, a historical figure who commanded troops in 175AD, with another Arthur Castus, a descendant of Lucius Artorius, as the main character. "The overwhelming circumstantial evidence supports a belief that a man called Arthur - or even more than one man with this name - lived in the fifth or sixth centuries and led the Britons to victory against the invading Saxons," explains Matthews.

"I am not saying that the Arthur represented in the movie is 100 per cent true. What I’m saying is that he represents the Arthurian truth. The historical facts stand up to close scrutiny and I could provide them all to you in excruciating detail if you wanted them. What we’re seeing is layers and layers and layers. Arthur is like an archaeological dig. What the movie does is to take that story and move it on 300 years to give it a more realistic setting in terms of the later Arthurian stories."

That said, Guinevere, Arthur’s queen - aka Keira Knightley - appears in battle clad in a leather bikini rather than armour in her role as a princess of the Picts, the Dark Ages tribe that lived in Scotland. Clearly historical integrity has to move aside for glamour, if not for legend.

"My job as historical consultant was to make sure that the basics were as accurate as possible," chuckles Matthews. "Among the Celts and the Picts, women warriors were common.

"You’ve got women warriors fighting alongside the men and being much more fearsome than the men. I have no control over the leather bikini whatsoever."

Meanwhile, Edinburgh historian and Arthurian expert Stuart McHardy, a lecturer at Edinburgh University’s Office of Lifelong Learning, believes the Arthur links come far closer than the Borders. He claims the Isle of May in the Firth of Forth is in fact Avalon and says Arthur himself is buried beneath its windswept turf. He says Arthur was from the local area and the legends have merely been usurped by English and Welsh historians.

"I think that Hollywood’s idea is driven by Hollywood’s love of money and not by any knowledge base whatsoever," says the author of The Quest for Arthur and The Quest for the Nine Maidens.

"Links between Arthur and the Edinburgh area have long been known to historians. I have no doubts that the evidence linking him with Lothian and southern Scotland is indisputable.

"It is not just the place names but also historical writings and the poem Goddodin which was written in Edinburgh which clearly place him here. There is strong historical evidence that the Isle of May was actually the Isle of Maidens - the nine maidens of legend who practised weather watching and shape changing there."

HISTORIAN Doctor William Ferguson, an honorary fellow of Edinburgh University who specialises in Scottish history, is less convinced: "There’s a very faint outside chance that he might have [links to Scotland and Edinburgh]. The ancient Britons were in the lowlands of Scotland at that time as well and some of the earliest of the Welsh heroic poetry relates to southern Scotland."

As for any claims of Camelot being situated where Edinburgh now stands, he says: "It’s because of a small town called Camelon. From Camelon to Camelot seems such a step, but I don’t think there’s any firm evidence for that - but he’s such a shadowy figure you couldn’t say it’s impossible."

McHardy also points to Arthur’s Seat, and Arthur’s O’on, a Roman temple near Falkirk knocked down in the 18th century, as local links.

"The MacArthur Clan claim their descent from Smervie, Arthur’s son, and other people think that the historical Arthur was the son of Aedan Mac Gabhran, king of the Scots in the sixth century. Arthur, who wasn’t a king, was a warband leader leading a Christian crusade against the Pagans. Guinevere is buried in Meigle [in Perthshire].

"A bunch of the battles were fought between here and Falkirk and Merlin’s a few miles away at Drumelzier in the Borders. Merlin’s Wynd was near the Tron and the old name of Edinburgh Castle is the Castle of the Maidens in the 13th and 14th centuries which are the same nine maidens as took him off to the Isle of May."

Meanwhile, Arthur’s Seat is thought by some to be named in honour of the king, while other accounts suggest the name is simply derived from Ard nan Saidhe - the hill of the arrow - and has nothing to do with anybody named Arthur. The same argue Arthur’s O’on is most likely derived from the old Gaelic words art, a house, and om, alone, meaning a retired dwelling.

So was he a Dark Age Scot from Edinburgh, a Roman commander, a medieval English nobleman or merely a legendary fantasy figure? The battle over Arthur will no doubt continue.

"The legend lives on," says Matthews.

• King Arthur is released on July 30.
Click to expand...

news.scotsman.com/features.cfm?id=800602004
Link is dead. No archived version found.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hello All,

Hey, didn't the Sarmations kill off or come after the Sauromatians? If these are the same peeps I am thinking about then the role of Guinevere as an almost Amazon-like presence could be plausible since the Sarmations supposedly were descended from Amazons and Scythians(?) right? Wasn't the story that the Scythians took Amazons for their brides after a war that left the Amazons stranded on a boat, unable to steer, because of their lack of knowledge in Seafaring, so they land off the coast of some country (most probably TURKEY, or ARMENIA). I am dead serious about this. Look it up. It does make sense, but I still think Arthur NOT looking like Sean Connery is a load of SHITE!

WW
 
WonderWoman said:
....then the role of Guinevere as an almost Amazon-like presence could be plausible since the Sarmations supposedly were descended from Amazons and Scythians(?) right? Wasn't the story that the Scythians took Amazons for their brides after a war that left the Amazons stranded on a boat, unable to steer, because of their lack of knowledge in Seafaring, so they land off the coast of some country (most probably TURKEY, or ARMENIA). I am dead serious about this....

... It does make sense, but I still think Arthur NOT looking like Sean Connery is a load of SHITE!
Click to expand...

I don't think that beyond the scriptwriter of this film there's any historical or legendary suggestion that Gwenhwyfar had an Amazon-like presence (I suspect she has an Amazon-like presence in some novels, but I gave up on Arthurian novels a while back, because like a many of the fantasy epics, a lot seem to be based on other novels rather than going back to the history or myths and legends)

Anyway isn't Guinevere in the film supposed to be a 'Woad' (I guess they're thinking of the Picts, of who not a lot is known).

BTW, WW, I though Clive Owen might appeal as a Sean Connery alternative, there's a rumour about him being the next James Bond.

Apart from Lancelot who's an invention of the French they've also got Galahad, likewise an invention of the troubadours.

Gawain is described as coming from Samartia - again zero evidence. The person who developed into Gawain starts out as Gwalchmei in Culhwch and Olwen, which is very strange piece of early Welsh literature.


Despite the claims for authenticity, this one is as fictional as LOTR.
 
Yeah Timble, I hear ya!

WW

But I still love Sean Connery MORE!
 
King Arthur's Round Table 'found' - except it's not a table, but a Roman amphitheatre in Chester
By Nigel Blundell
Last updated at 8:01 AM on 11th July 2010

His is among the most enduring ­legends in our island’s history.

King Arthur, the gallant warrior who gathered his knights around the Round Table at Camelot and rallied Christian Britons against the invading pagan Saxons, has always been an enigma.

But now historians believe they have uncovered the precise location of Arthur’s stronghold, finally solving the riddle of whether the Round Table really existed.
And far from pinpointing a piece of furniture, they claim the ‘table’ was in fact the circular space inside a former Roman amphitheatre.

The experts believe that Camelot could in fact have been Chester Amphitheatre, a huge stone-and-wood structure capable of holding up to 10,000 people.
They say that Arthur would have reinforced the building’s 40ft walls to create an imposing and well fortified base.
The king’s regional noblemen would have sat in the central arena’s front row, with lower-ranked subjects in the outer stone benches.

Arthur has been the subject of much historical debate, but many scholars believe him to have been a 5th or 6th Century leader.
The legend links him to 12 major battles fought over 40 years from the Scottish Borders to the West Country. One of the principal victories was said to have been at Chester.

Rather than create a purpose-built Camelot, historian Chris Gidlow says Arthur would have logically chosen a structure left by the Romans.
‘The first accounts of the Round Table show that it was nothing like a dining table but was a venue for upwards of 1,000 people at a time,’ he said.
‘And we know that one of Arthur’s two main battles was fought at a town referred to as the City of the Legions. There were only two places with this title. One was St Albans, but the location of the other has remained a mystery.’

Researchers, who will reveal their evidence in a television documentary this month, say the recent discovery at the amphitheatre of an execution stone and a wooden memorial to Christian martyrs suggests the missing city is Chester.
Mr Gidlow said: ‘In the 6th Century, a monk named Gildas, who wrote the earliest account of Arthur’s life, referred both to the City of the Legions and to a martyr’s shrine within it.
'That is the clincher. The discovery of the shrine within the amphitheatre means that Chester was the site of Arthur’s court – and his legendary Round Table.’

?King Arthur’s Round Table Revealed is on The History Channel on Monday, July 19, at 9pm.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0tMaByp26
 
I've a book which I bought in Chester in 1984, which was published in the late 70s, which claimed that Chester was Camelot, and located most of the battles in the North West of England.

And there's other City of the Legion, Caerleon on Usk, where there's an ampitheatre that's supposed to be the Round Table, and Colchester....

Gidlow's trying to hype another of his derivative books....
 
King Arthur's round table may have been found by archaeologists in Scotland
Archaeologists searching for King Arthur's round table have found a "circular feature" beneath the historic King's Knot in Stirling.
9:25AM BST 26 Aug 2011

The King's Knot, a geometrical earthwork in the former royal gardens below Stirling Castle, has been shrouded in mystery for hundreds of years.
Though the Knot as it appears today dates from the 1620s, its flat-topped central mound is thought to be much older.
Writers going back more than six centuries have linked the landmark to the legend of King Arthur.

Archaeologists from Glasgow University, working with the Stirling Local History Society and Stirling Field and Archaeological Society, conducted the first ever non-invasive survey of the site in May and June in a bid to uncover some of its secrets.
Their findings [..] show there was indeed a round feature on the site that pre-dates the visible earthworks.

Historian John Harrison, chair of the SLHS, who initiated the project, said: "Archaeologists using remote-sensing geophysics, have located remains of a circular ditch and other earth works beneath the King's Knot.
"The finds show that the present mound was created on an older site and throws new light on a tradition that King Arthur's Round Table was located in this vicinity."

Stories have been told about the curious geometrical mound for hundreds of years -- including that it was the Round Table where King Arthur gathered his knights.
Around 1375 the Scots poet John Barbour said that "the round table" was south of Stirling Castle, and in 1478 William of Worcester told how "King Arthur kept the Round Table at Stirling Castle".
Sir David Lindsay, the 16th century Scottish writer, added to the legend in 1529 when he said that Stirling Castle was home of the "Chapell-royall, park, and Tabyll Round".

It has also been suggested the site is partly Iron Age or medieval, or was used as a Roman fort.

Extensive work on the royal gardens was carried out in the early 17th century for Charles I, when the mound is thought to have taken its current form.
The first known record of the site being called the King's Knot is from 1767, by which time it was being leased for pasture.

Locals refer to the grassy earthworks as the "cup and saucer", but aerial photographs taken in 1980 showed three concentric ditches beneath and around the King's Knot mound, suggesting an earthwork monument had preceded it.

The new survey -- funded by Historic Scotland and Stirling City Heritage Trust -- used the latest scientific techniques to showing lost structures and features up to a metre below the ground.
It also revealed a series of ditches south of the main mound, as well as remains of buildings, and more recent structures, including modern drains which appear at the northern end of the gardens.

Mr Harrison, who has studied the King's Knot for 20 years, said: "It is a mystery which the documents cannot solve, but geophysics has given us new insights.
"Of course, we cannot say that King Arthur was there, but the feature which surrounds the core of the Knot could explain the stories and beliefs that people held."

Archaeologist Stephen Digney, who coordinated the project, said: "The area around Stirling Castle holds some of the finest medieval landscapes in Europe.
"This investigation is an exciting first step in a serious effort to explore, explain and interpret them. The results so far suggest that Scotland's monarchs integrated an ancient feature into their garden, something we know happened in other countries too.
"We are looking forward to the next stage in September when we hope to refine some of the details."

Dr. Kirsty Owen, Cultural Heritage Adviser at Historic Scotland, added: "The project has the potential to add to our knowledge of the landscape context of the medieval and early modern occupation of Stirling Castle.
"The ditches identified may intriguingly be part of historically documented earlier garden features, or if prehistoric in origin could add to our scant knowledge of prehistoric activity at Stirling Castle.
"We look forward to seeing the results of the next phase of investigations."Futher work including a ground-penetrating radar survey, is now planned to take place next month to find out more.

A small display of the interim results can be seen close to the site at the Smith Museum.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... tland.html
 
Arthur's Round Table in Scotland? I think Knot. ;)

Well...he was a king of Wessex...Scotland would've been too far to travel.

I still maintain that the real Round Table is Stonehenge.
 
Mythopoeika said:
Arthur's Round Table in Scotland? I think Knot. ;)

Well...he was a king of Wessex...Scotland would've been too far to travel.
Click to expand...
And where does it say he was a King of Wessex? Some reckon that he was a Romanised Briton who fought against the Saxons.

There are stories linking Merlin with Scotland, so why not Arthur too?
 
rynner2 said:
Mythopoeika said:
Arthur's Round Table in Scotland? I think Knot. ;)

Well...he was a king of Wessex...Scotland would've been too far to travel.
Click to expand...
And where does it say he was a King of Wessex? Some reckon that he was a Romanised Briton who fought against the Saxons.

There are stories linking Merlin with Scotland, so why not Arthur too?
Click to expand...

Well...I'm going on the fact that his father was Uther Pendragon. 'Pendragon' is a Cornish name, and both Uther and Arthur were mentioned in old Welsh poems...
Wessex stretched all the way from the edge of Cornwall up to Southern Wales. The boundaries between these kingdoms were never clear-cut, and will have changed over the years.

But you're right, so little is known about the people and events of the time, we can never be completely right about anything.
 
Mythopoeika said:
rynner2 said:
Mythopoeika said:
Arthur's Round Table in Scotland? I think Knot. ;)

Well...he was a king of Wessex...Scotland would've been too far to travel.
Click to expand...
And where does it say he was a King of Wessex? Some reckon that he was a Romanised Briton who fought against the Saxons.

There are stories linking Merlin with Scotland, so why not Arthur too?
Click to expand...

Well...I'm going on the fact that his father was Uther Pendragon. 'Pendragon' is a Cornish name, and both Uther and Arthur were mentioned in old Welsh poems...
Wessex stretched all the way from the edge of Cornwall up to Southern Wales. The boundaries between these kingdoms were never clear-cut, and will have changed over the years.

But you're right, so little is known about the people and events of the time, we can never be completely right about anything.
Click to expand...
What links Wales, Cornwall and the Lowlands of Scotland, is the P Brythonic Gaelic language. Particularly the variant, Cumbric, from Cumbria as far north as the ancient kingdom of Strathclyde.

The Old North, according to the Welsh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hen_Ogledd

Historical Evidence for Arthur:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_King_Arthur

Sites associated with Arthur in Scotland:
http://www.legendofkingarthur.co.uk/scotland-king-arthur.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And where does it say he was a King of Wessex? Some reckon that he was a Romanised Briton who fought against the Saxons.
Click to expand...


It's not a school of though I'm afraid it's absolutely unambiguous that the Arthur legends are Romano British, and there is definitely no connection between them and Wessex. The oldest reference to Arthur appears in the 7th century book of Aneurin, it's not contemporary and Arthur himself is only mentioned as a comparison to someone else,, it's something like, 'he gutted the ravens on the ramparts yet he was no Arthur'.


Pendragon is not a name or a specifically Cornish word, it's a mix of the word Pen which is still in use in modern Welsh and means head, and Dragon from the word Draco which was a Roman cavalry standard, possibly adopted from the Dacians, this standard would later evolve into the Welsh Dragon. Pendragon is a title, similar to Dux bellorum, and roughly translates as head of the standards meaning over all military commander.

I have heard that some of the best evidence for an actual source of the legend is that in the early dark ages the name Arthur appears to have increased dramatically in popularity. I can't imagine though how you could know that.
 
I seem to recall reading somewhere that Geoffrey of Monmouth stated that Ambrosius Aurelianus (who was closely associated with Uther and Arthur) ordered the building of Stonehenge. He is also rumoured to be buried nearby.
There is even the possibility that Ambrosius Aurelianus may have been Arthur himself.

Mind you, the accuracy of that account is questionable...
 
There are quite a few contenders, Remo Thalmus (spelled terribly wrongly) a late Roman general is one of the main ones.

There are stories linking Merlin with Scotland, so why not Arthur too?
Click to expand...

I realise you probably know this so excuse me if I sound like a geek, but there's no connection between Arthur and Merlin. And also there are at least two Merlins.
 
It's interesting to re-read the earlier pages of this thread...
JamesWhitehead said:
No doubt scholarship has moved on again greatly since 1987 but nobody expects the Round Table to be unearthed. :(
Click to expand...
;)
 
It's interesting to re-read the earlier pages of this thread...
Click to expand...

Yes it is, from doing that I've learned to spell Riothamus. I'm not sure about the quote about the round table though, strictly speaking there's no connection with Arthur and tables I'm aware of, but then someone did post that it's mentioned in the Mabinogion, but even that's relatively recent compared to the book of Aneurin.

There's a lot of interesting things from the time which is considered to be the end of the Roman era in Britain, there's something called 'The Great Conspiracy' which seems to have been an amazingly well organised and coordinated attack by every Roman enemy in Western Europe from the Danube to Ireland. Also there's the apparent use of, and ebb and flow of, what we'd probably call nationalism in early Dark Age politics. Various leaders would set themselves up as being either pro Celtic revival or pro Roman, leading to people alternately Romanising or Celtisising their names. At one point the leader of the Celtic movement was a man who could speak the native language so badly his attempts to pass himself off as a true man of the Britons was considered parody at best.
 
I work on the assumption that there was no-one named Arthur who was a King in the medieval sense, but there is clear evidence that someone organised resistance to the invaders in the 5th century.

Since we don't even know for certain where the invaders came from, the whole Saxons (or Angles or the completely untraceable Jutes) thing is a bit moot - Bede was writing centuries after the event. What is clear is that the 5th century invaders were quite primitive (and quite alien in their ways) compared to the then British population.

Incidentally, it is also clear that they didn't physically wipe out the British in the 'occupied areas' they assimilated and intermarried with them - but somehow their primitive culture wiped out the more advanced Romano-British one. These people themselves, what we call the Saxons, were later largely exterminated in first the Viking wars and then in William the Conqueror's genocide.

The 'Saxons' incidentally, were rather marvellous people, in that in only a couple of centuries their culture went from a basic tribalism to being, by say Edgar's time, the most civilised country in Western Europe. The people who conquered Wales and absorbed it into England were the Normans, not the 'Saxons'.

My own suspicion is that a Briton war leader who was Romanised managed to organise a small Roman-style troop of cavalry - 100 men would do nicely - and that was instrumental in winning battles against an enemy who were small in numbers and didn't use the horse for war. The war leader might be Ambrosius or might not, but the time would be ca. 460-470AD. Since the Roman road system would still have been in reasonable repair inland communications would probably have been better than they were for many centuries after, therefore he may well have been recognised as a war leader and fought battles in many parts of the country, hence the widespread legends.
 
Cochise said:
These people themselves, what we call the Saxons, were later largely exterminated in first the Viking wars and then in William the Conqueror's genocide.
Click to expand...
I don't think so! Or else we'd be speaking Norse or French by now. The invaders were always minorities in terms of numbers, even if they did rule for a while.
 
Cochise I really can't agree with you there.

Firstly where does the suggestion that the Saxons were any more or less primitive than anyone else at that time come from?

Secondly that the Saxons were 'largely exterminated in the Viking wars' which as it happens they won. Also while there is clear evidence of Norman oppression of the Saxons, it's impossible to seriously suggest they were anything like wiped out by them.

Lastly the Norman conquest of Wales was never complete or stable, also what's known as the Marchers (Welsh/Norman territory) was fairly autonomous. On one notable occasion a messenger from the English monarch was forced to eat the edict he was delivering. Wales and England didn't actually merge until the time of the Tudors.

My own suspicion is that a Briton war leader who was Romanised managed to organise a small Roman-style troop of cavalry - 100 men would do nicely - and that was instrumental in winning battles against an enemy who were small in numbers and didn't use the horse for war.
Click to expand...

large scale 'Saxon' invasions had been taking place in Britain for well over a century by 460. Significant enough that the Roman imperial system diverted around a third of its military presence in Britain and huge scale and extensive fortifications to deal with it. One of the three main military ranks at that time was the 'Count of Saxon Shore'. I doubt a 100 men would have been enough a century later.

As for him being Romanised, I'd say this is a misleading term, as it implies he would have been influenced by Roman ways rather than being a Roman. Every free born Briton from the time of Caracalla onward would have been a full Roman citizen, not merely Romanised.
 
The suggestions about the Saxons being relatively primitive compared to the post-Roman Britons come both from archaeolgy and from such records as we have. One source would be 'In search of the dark ages' by Michael Wood.

The Saxons won against the Vikings? Well, they gave up half the country to be the Danelaw, they accepted Viking kings, and arguably Harold would have beat William if he hadn't just had to beat off Harald Hardrada. All these convulsions were accompanied both by extensive casualties and intermingling of 'Saxon' and Viking.

The Domesday Book gives clear evidence of the extermination of the Saxon landowning classes. Only two properties were in Saxon hands by the time the book was compiled. Contemporary records chart the devastating effects of William's pogrom when the Northern population of England revolted - the damage would have been less in the south, admittedly.

I accept that Romanised could be misleading, but I meant the term to mean 'descendent of a Roman citizen still trying to follow Roman ways'

The discovery that the 'Saxons' came in smaller numbers than previously supposed is I believe relatively recent - I got it from Bill Bryson who I accept is not always to be relied on.

The history of Wales in the medieval period is now almost impossible to discuss rationally, not least because there never was a unified place called Wales, whetever modern mythology may state. There were numerous kingdoms, who made alliances according to self interest. Sometimes for brief periods they recognised one of the kings as being overlord of all the Celtic kingdoms, but just as often they allied themselves with English princes and kings. Nevertheless, as far as I can tell, the conversion of the Welsh kingdoms into Norman satraps began soon after 1066 and Wales apart from Gwynedd was almost totally in the hands of non-Celtic rulers well before Edward 1 arrived.

The Marcher lords were indeed semi independant, as were the Borderers in the north. But again they switched loyalties as needed and intermarried with who they would - they were most certainly not 'Celtic' in culture except as convenience demanded.

Apart from my point about Arthur (whatever his name was) and the possibility of him employing cavalry, my real point is that the distinctions between the various cultures, and indeed their origins, simply did not remain as seperate and mutually hostile as modern revisionist thinking or even medieval saga making has it, and I particulary find inaccurate the modern Celts regarding the English as 'Saxons'. The English are made up of so many strands that you might as well call them French or Danish. And the Welsh of course have there own interminglings with all the various nationalities that made up the Romans, plus their own Viking admixture, not to metion a thousand years of interbreeding with the 'Saxons' of which I personally am but one example.

At least one reason why Edward 1 never finished his castles was because the good people of Gwynedd decided more money was to be made trading with the new overlords than fighting them. I am not belittling either the Welsh or the English, just making clear why I find the nationalist posturing now to be found from both cultures to be more than faintly ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top