Ribchester Parade Helmet
My regular readers have urged me, almost uniformly, to adopt the Sawyl Benisel of Ribchester = Uther Pendragon theory. I've thought about this for quite awhile, yet am still not sure how I feel about.
My problem with this particular Arthurian reconstruction is nicely summarized in a recent blog piece:
Basically, there are a couple good alternative purely Welsh etymologies for the personal name Eliwlad that cast some doubt on my deriving that name from a loan-translation via the Irish. Secondly, we are left wondering why it was thought necessary to substitute Uther Pendragon, a presumed poetic metaphor, for the name + epithet Sawyl Benisel. Finally, although Sawyl is the best available emendation for kawyl of the MARWNAT VTHYR PEN, it is absolutely possible the name occurs there merely as a poetic metaphor and that a later storyteller chose to fancifully associate Sawyl Benisel and his son Madog Ailithir with Uther.
None of those problems are in and of themselves insurmountable. But, if we accept Uther as Sawyl Benisel (for no other reason than that we can!), we still have to grapple with a sub-Roman Arthur who originates at Ribchester fighting battles that look suspiciously like Roman military engagements.
The Arthurian Battles
However, there is a sort of work-around to this problem. The HISTORIA BRITTONUM tells us that Arthur was fighting against the English along the the kings of the Britains. This phrase has been subject to various interpretations.
The most obvious - given that Arthur was not a king (although he might well have been a royal son who did not outlive his father and hence did not succeed to the throne) - has him serving as a popular and successful war-leader over a force composed of warriors drawn from allied tribes/kingdoms. We might assume in this scenario that Sawyl's kingdom was at the time the most powerful or at least influential in the Northern region.
Support for this view can be found in Alex Woolf's proposition that Bede's "Caedualla rex Brettonum" was Sawyl's grandson Cadwallon Lyw:
A variation on this theme would be to see Arthur as a sort of mercenary captain employed by various kingdoms on the front line during the war against the English.
A third option would be to recognize Arthur as a Dark Age attempt to preserve in some form the office of Dux Britannarium, although such a man, one would think, should belong to York. It is true that the Ribchester Roman fort enjoyed a close relationship with York.
I think we can dispense with the Dux Brit. idea pretty quickly. The late Roman period governor of Northern Britain did not fight its enemies with client British kingdoms. The Roman army fought on its own and did not employ native troops in its campaigns.
I've discussed this possibility with Dr. Roger Tomlin and he assures me the description given of Arthur in the HB does not accord well with role and function of the Dux Brit.
A mercenary Arthur has its appeal, I suppose, but necessitates that two conditions held true. First, that the northern British kingdoms found themselves in need of mercenaries. And, second, that a nobly born son of one of those kingdoms would have taken on the mantle of a mercenary captain. I'm not sure either condition1 can be justified.
In my mind, we could have a military leader of a kingdom like that of Sawyl's that held a preeminent position among the Northern tribes. He may well have led an army comprised of what had once been the Brigantian Confederacy and affiliated tribes (like his own Segantii), as well as the Votadini (Gododdin and Manau Gododdin). While I once had great difficulty with the battles on the edge of Manau Gododdin and farther north (as these seemed only credible against a non-Saxon enemy and belonged better with either L. Artorius Castus or Arthur of Dalriada), there is really no reason to deny them to a Segantii general leading allied British troops at or just north of the Antonine Wall. This is especially so as in the next generation we find a Gododdin army coming all the way down to Catterick to fight the English. And a group of allied British kings that included Urien of Rheged, Rhydderch of Strathclyde and Morgan of the Tyne Valley were fighting the same enemy together. Urien was betrayed by Morgan near Lindisfarne.
A huge plus in favor of an Arthur son of Sawyl is the proximity to Ribchester of an excellent Badon candidate, viz. Buxton. And there is nothing wrong with a death at Camlan. We might compare this with the death of Peredur and Gwrci, sons of Eliffer of York, at Carrawburgh in the Wall.
We might compare an Arthur at Ribchester with another theory, i.e. the one that places him at Stanwix, the Uxellodunum Roman fort near the western end of Hadrian's Wall. Although the place was called Arthur's fort in the 18th century, and it was garrisoned by the largest cavalry force in all Britain, we have no genealogical trace putting him there. Ribchester was garrisoned by Sarmatian cavalry.
I've hypothesized a connection between the Ala Petriana at Stanwix and Petr of horse-loving Dyfed, and a similar association between the Petriana and Alclud/Petra Cloithe and the stone Arthur son of Bicoir used to slay the Irish prince Mongan. I've pointed out the robust equine properties of Dalriada as well.
Sure, Petrianis (a nickname for Uxellodunum) is beautifully situated geographically. It is close to Aballava/Avalona/"Avalon" with its Dea Latis or Lake Goddess, a possible prototypical Grail Castle (Drumburgh/Concavata) and to Camboglanna/Camlan.
BUT... once again, there is no Arthurian genealogical link to Petrianis.
The only extant non-Galfridian geneaology for the famous Arthur seems to link our hero with Sawyl Benisel of the North. Our only alternative is to accept Uther Pendragon as a figure conjured from the "mil uathmar... chend" of the Irish COMPERT MONGAN. And if we have no real father for Arthur, then we're unable to place the latter anywhere. Our failure to be able to do that, in turn, adds weight to the theory that there may not have been an original sub-Roman Arthur.
While there is no evidence the Sarmatians had their own ethnic draco standard (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2024/02/there-is-absolutely-no-evidence-for.html?m=1), the fact that the Alans and Dacians did would favor the presence of a similar totem among the Iazyges in Britain. If this supposition is provisionally accepted, it may, in fact, be the case that Sawyl as a great war-leader was referred to as the Terrible Chief-dragon.
CONCLUSION:
While I suppose it is possible that the Arthurian battles could belong to a son of Sawyl Benisel, the easier and more plausible explanation still remains that the HB list (minus Badon) represents the martial activity of L. Artorius Castus.
