My Final Decision Regarding an Arthur of Sub-Roman Britain

Ribchester Roman Fort

In the past several months, I have concentrated on trying to trace the true identity of Uther Pendragon, the only father to be offered as that of the most famous of the Dark Age Arthurs. I had reached two conclusions: a) that at some point in the evolution of the Arthurian tradition, Uther [Pen]dragon had been identified wrongly with St. Illtud and b) that the only other candidate for Uther, based on the genealogy set forth in the Welsh poem "The Dialogue of Arthur and the Eagle", had to be Sawyl Benisel, who ruled from the immediate environs of Ribchester, Lancashire.  This was the fort/vicus/regio of the Sarmatians.

To be perfectly honest, I was having difficulty even accepting the latter (for a reason I have expressed in a previous blog post). Within the last few days, however, I have been exposed to a revolutionary and quite wonderful idea that has allowed me to, once and for all, commit to a FINAL CANDIDATE FOR ARTHUR.  I do not make this kind of statement lightly, as for roughly a quarter of a century I have been searching for Arthur and was never certain that I had found him.  Now, for the first time, I can say with a fair degree of confidence that I have accomplished my quest.

I've only today been granted the generous permission of Dr. Linda Malcor and her co-authors, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani, to cite a new proposed reading of the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone.  While there are many important points raised in their article (publication pending in THE JOURNAL OF INDO-EUROPEAN STUDIES), the most important has to do with a fragmentary phrase.  In the past, the British legions Lucius Artorius Castus (or LAC for short) was said to have been dux over were thought to have been sent against either Armorica or the Armenians. Both of these readings of the damaged stone inscription were fraught with problems. The authors of the paper "Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription" (by Linda A. Malcor, Antonio Trinchese and Alessandro Faggiani) seem to have elegantly found a way around this issue. 

They have proposed that the three British legions of LAC were sent against armed men.  In other words, we should see "adversus arm[ato]s in the inscription.  Good arguments are provided for rejecting the theories regarding Armenia or Armorica in the broken section of the inscription.

While 'adversus armatos' is rather nonspecific/vague/obscure for an inscription (which in general are quite terse, though also precise), the idea is actually quite a good one.  The British legions of the LAC inscription would be those brought to bear against various foes who had succeeded in causing great damage to or even taking significant portions of Hadrian's Wall c. 180 A.D..  Around 185 the Romans pushed back, and if LAC were among the forces from York doing so, then he would probably have had Sarmatian troops serving under him.  I have Frere (in his BRITANNIA) referring to the Maeatae, with the Caledonians behind (i.e. north) of them, as well as Brigantian "hillmen" as the parties responsible for this rebellion against Roman rule.  Other tribal groups may also have been involved.  Thus referring to all of these simply as "armatos" is not unreasonable, as brevity was extremely desirable when carving on stone.

In addition, armatos could be used to distinguish a real, professional army from merely a force bearing arms.  We find this kind of distinction mentioned here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=R11VDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA249&lpg=PA249&dq=armatos+armed+men&source=bl&ots=-Njc8Btkxi&sig=ABGbd9WgTkwiqQc6-61F2JafzRw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiq4dOEqbHeAhWL_p8KHZ9jAwkQ6AEwBXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=armatos%20armed%20men&f=false

A reading of the LAC stone as 'adversus armatos' allows us to have LAC lead two or three legions into battle while still in Britain.  The problem of his leading these legions either to Armorica or to Armenia has been succinctly stated by Christopher Gwinn (http://christophergwinn.com/arthuriana/lac-sourcebook/):

“DUX (OF THE DETACHMENTS) OF THE THREE BRITANNICIAN LEGIONS” (DUX LEGIONUM [TRIU]M BRITAN[N]IC{IAN}ARUM)

Before finishing up his military career, LAC lead an expedition of some note as a Dux Legionum [triu]m Britan(n)ci{ian}arum. Dux (literally “leader, conductor”) was in the 2nd century AD a temporary title accorded to officers who were acting in a capacity above their rank, either in command of a collection of troops (generally combined vexillations drawn from the legions of a province)2 in transit from one station to another, or in command of a complete unit29 (the former seems to be the case with LAC, seeing that the inscription mentions multiple units). Though the inscription does not specify that Artorius led detachments (as opposed to the entire legions), it can be inferred; there are no records of multiple legions being removed from Britain in the mid-late 2nd century." [emphasis mine]

This last problem is eliminated when we allow for the possibility that the inscription can be read literally.  That is, he led two or three legions.  There is no justification for "inferring" that he only led parts of these legions.  As he didn't, therefore, lead them outside of Britain, he must have used them within Britain.  A nice, logical solution to what otherwise appears to be a historical quandary.

But Malcor and her study co-authors did not stop there.  They have clarified, for the first time, the true significance of the dux title as that is applied to LAC on the stone inscription.  In summary, it implies that LAC was actually an equestrian governor, filling the "gap" between the governors Pertinax and Albinus.  If LAC did obtain this position, he was the most powerful man in Britain for the duration in office.  Such a man, with notable military successes in the North, might well be remembered for generations and his name given to noble-born sons in the region.

If Malcor and her co-authors have this reading right, then I can finally proclaim that the name Artorius was famous in the North for a very good reason.  Furthermore, there would be sufficient justification for placing the 6th century Arthur at Ribchester/Bremetannacum, where the Sarmatian veterans were settled.  Given the close relationship that existed between the York of LAC and the probable use of Sarmatians by LAC in the Northern campaign, we can expect that the name Artorius was preserved among subsequent generations at Ribchester and its environs.

It is for this reason that I now declare the Arthur of Nennius to be primarily based on an Arthur who was the son of Sawyl of Ribchester - with the caveat that some of the battles in the Nennius battle list may well have been those of LAC or may have belonged properly to one of the Arthurs subsequent to Arthur son of Sawyl, such as Arthur of Dalriada.  The battle sites as I discussed them in my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY: A REINTERPRETATION OF THE EVIDENCE should be consulted for details.  

All of this, of course, is wholly dependent on whether the reading 'adversus armatos' holds up.  If it does not, then we are hard pressed to explain why Lucius Artorius Castus was so famous in Britain as to bestow his name on the royal families of subsequent generations.  

NOTE:  Another point in favor of Sawyl Benisel as Arthur's father is his having married an Irish princess.  I have emphasized over and over again that the Arthur of the 6th century MUST have an Irish family connection.  Otherwise, we cannot account for the fact that all subsequent Arthurs belonged to Irish-descended dynasties in Britain.