A sort of philosophical piece here on the problem of a historical Arthur...
The irony has not escaped me that if the Lucius Artorius Castus memorial stone were not broken, and the ARM[...]S word were intact, the Arthurian "debate" would be much abated. It might even be suspended entirely, as one theory or another would naturally become dominant.
Why is that fragmented word so important?
Simply put, because if it reads ARMENIOS, then Lucius Artorius Castus was in Britain prior to the arrival there of the Sarmatians. If it reads ARMORICOS, then he can be allowed to not only have been in Britain when the Sarmatians were stationed there as heavy cavalry, but to have used them in going to the Continent and, perhaps, even leading 1,500 of them to Rome to kill Perennis, the second most powerful man in the Empire. Any other vague reading (such as the proposed ARMATOS, 'armed men'), does not help us pinpoint the precise date of the stone, or its connection with known military actions.
Now let me be very clear about this point: the possible Sarmatian connection is incredibly seductive. And this is true whether you buy into the Sarmation origin theory for everything Arthurian (which, incidentally, I firmly do not). In many of my articles here, and in my book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER, I tentatively offered Sawyl Benisel, whom I had localized next to the Ribchester Roman fort of the Sarmatian veterans, as the father of Arthur. I was able to do this only because Welsh scholars had emended kawyl in the elegy poem of Uther Pendragon to read Sawyl. Once I had made that tenuous identification, everything else seemed to fall into place rather nicely. However, at every turn, there were also good, solid alternative interpretations that could be presented.
Kawyl itself could well be an error for Welsh can[n]wyl[l], a word which meant 'candle', but which also could mean star. This was a revelation at the time, for Uther in the elegy had just talked about being transformed by God, and we know from Geoffrey of Monmouth that the dragon-star represented Uther himself. A reading of cannwyll for kawyl (backed by none other than Welsh language expert Dr. Simon Rodway of The University of Wales, whose only caveat was that kawyl for sawyl was a slightly easier copying error to account for) would mean that Geoffrey concocted his story of the dragon-star from a source identical or similar to the Uther elegy. The context supported the cannwyll reading, as Uther a couple of lines before the occurence of kawyl calls himself a 'leader in darkness', and the kawyl word is included in the phrase 'I am like an X in the gloom.' As his epithet gorlasar undoubtedly means not 'very blue', but instead the 'very radiant' or 'the great blaze', it is difficult for us to avoid opting for kawyl 'in the gloom' as anything other than cannwyll. The case for cannwyll is stengthened when we check the GPC definitions for the word, which include a figurative meaning of 'leader.' Thus cannwyll as candle, star, etc., as well as leader, hearkens back to the earlier line of 'leader in darkness.'
If I go by logic, as well as pure gut instinct, I cannot help but side with the idea that kawyl is not Sawyl, but is instead cannwyll.
Another reason for going with ARMENIOS on the LAC stone (as well as the resulting non-Sarmatian related sub-Roman Arthur in Britain) has to do with the most probable founding date for LAC's Liburnia. I had dealt with this in detail here:
What this research showed me was that the only recorded instance of a reorganization of Dalmatia that might well have accorded with the establishment of the new province of Liburnia happened not long after the Armenian war and was undertaken by Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius. We can then easily propose that LAC went with the British governor Priscus to Armenia, and was not long after rewarded with the Liburnian procuratorship. It seems likely, as well, that LAC was actually born in the Liburnian region of Dalmatia. See https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2020/10/lucius-artorius-castus-birth-and-death.html. To date, I've not encountered a single scholar in Croatia or surrounding countries who does not support the view that Liburnia was founded prior to 170 A.D.
Arguments that seek to prove that 'ADVERSUS ARMENIOS' is not a good reading for the LAC stone all fail. I have shown, beyond any doubt (in my book THE ARTHUR OF HISTORY), that the Armenian phase of the Eastern War was seen as a separate affair, in M.C. Bishop's phrase one of "three distinct phases" in the reclamation of the East. The evidence is overwhelming. All of the top Roman epigraphers and military historians, headed by Professor Roger Tomlin, have no problem with ARMENIOS for the broken word in the LAC inscription. It is only those few who have a vested interest in pushing the Sarmation theory who are in staunch opposition to the probability that LAC fought in Armenia. In truth, so desperate is that camp to avoid the ARMENIOS reading that they have recently change their mind about ARM[...]S. They once supported the ARMORICOS theory, as that would, at least, allow them to hold onto their precious Sarmatians. But it was determined that ARMORICOS did not fit (it actually does, and not with too much difficulty, although as Roger Tomlin has commented, not as well as ARMENIOS) and so they have decided to resort to a reading of ARMATOS - something not a single professional, qualified academic I have checked with will accept. I do not accept it myself, after extensive discussions with multiple Latin epigraphers, Roman military historians and Roman archaeologists.
So where does this leave us?
Well, I think back on a conversation I had with Roger Tomlin. I had asked him if he thought it reasonable to assume that the sub-Roman Arthur name must have come from Lucius Artorius Castus, who served in North Britain. His response?
"My difficulty is that Artorius is not an uncommon Roman name – it occurs all over the western Empire – but that it hasn't yet occurred in the epigraphy of Roman Britain. Artorius Castus is not the only general who commanded British troops outside Britain, and his career reached its peak, such as it was, after he had left Britain."
"My difficulty is that Artorius is not an uncommon Roman name – it occurs all over the western Empire – but that it hasn't yet occurred in the epigraphy of Roman Britain. Artorius Castus is not the only general who commanded British troops outside Britain, and his career reached its peak, such as it was, after he had left Britain."
In other words, the name Arthur in sub-Roman Britain does not have to be related to LAC. It may have come about because there were other Arthurs in Britain, ones we know nothing about. In the sub-Roman, Dark Age and early medieval period, we find both Greek and Latin names "converted" into Welsh forms. Thus we need not restrict ourselves to an Arthur in the North, simply because LAC served as a prefect at York.
It is even quite conceivable that Arthur from Artorius is a decknamen chosen to replace an earlier purely Celtic 'Bear-king' name.
