For me, who Arthur was always comes down to the locations of the Arthurian battles.
As I'm fairly confident I've provided solid identifications for the battle sites, the conclusion I must reach from those identifications is that Arthur = L. Artorius Castus.
This opinion is backed by those of scholars who are expert in their respective fields of study:
Of course, these battles could always be (as has been much discussed before) a conflation of military engagements fought by different Arthurs, including Castus. Two potential sub-Roman Arthurs (not counting Arthur of Dalriada and Arthur of Dyfed) stand out: an Arthur at Petrianis/Arthur's Burg on Hadrian's Wall and an Arthur son of Sawyl at Ribchester. Only the son of Sawyl exhibits a possible genealogical trace (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2026/02/eliwlad-flies-again-or-new-solution-to.html?m=1).
Both Ribchester and Petrianis (modern Stanwix) were garrisoned by major cavalry units, and so a battle-leader from either place may have endeared himself to the horse-loving tribes of Dalriada and Dyfed. Sawyl of Ribchester had married an Irish princess and such a connection may tie in with the Irish-descended dynasties of the Welsh and Scottish kingdoms.
It is also, true, however, that Castus was an eques, a knight. Had this fact been preserved in the tradition, then he, too, would have appeared attractive to those in the land of the Epidii or those who worshipped Epona.
Still, if we accept the battles as belonging to only one man, then surely we must accept L. Artorius Castus as the prototypical figure who became the Arthur of legend. Castus is also the only provable historical entity excepting the later Dalriadan and Dyfed Arthurs. And if we already have a famous Castus on our hands, justifying a second Dark Age Arthur may well be an impossible task.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.