which theory is true about arthurian legend?

Question

last year i watched a film called " King Arthur ".in that film Arthur was half British and half Roman and fighting against Saxons..
but i read some lines in a book saying that Arthur was an Welsh..and fighting against Romans
which theory is more scientifically proven??

Serdar , Ankara/TURKEY

Answer 1

Gday Serdar, good question. The first thing though is that we have to point out the difference between 'scientific proof' and 'historical proof'. Scientific proof requires that something can be checked repeatedly and come up with the same result each time. You can see that it doesn't usually apply to 'proving' that events actually happened in the past. Historical proof requires that something that happened in the past is referred to by two or more 'independant' sources.

Let's examine that for another minute. Now the sources I am talking about are usually 'people' writing down stories, but sometimes they are 'things' that tell a story, such as a buried treasure, or a sword or a stone with an inscription that we can prove is authentic (using scientific methods). Even if you found a body under a headstone with an inscription saying it was Arthur (one source) you check that the body was the right age (second source). One source - one story - by itself might be 'wrong' but two separate sources tends to point to the truth.

Then, a notch down from 'historical proof' is 'historical probability' and then a notch down again is 'historical possibility'. Probability says that the event is likely because similar events are recorded around about that time in this and other places. Possibility says that there is 'room' in the historical story for this to happen - for example if there weren't gaps in the records of the Anglo Saxons and Romans regarding politics in Britain between 450AD and 600AD there'd be no 'room' to fit Arthurs story into the real thread of history. But there are gaps, so we are left with at least the 'possibility' that Arthur really existed.

Moving on to probability: records of settlement of the invading Anglo Saxons (digging up sites) suggest that they were checked and pushed back around 490 to 560AD. Something, or someone 'did' that. The effect was so strong that European records show Anglo Saxons returning from Britain to Europe.

Second probability is that when the Roman Legions left Britain in the mid 400's they likely left behind local forces made up of British troops. These troops would have been trained along Roman lines and would have been fairly well armed. The Romans did this in Europe as well, and significantly, the troops they tended to use came largely from 'border' tribes - folk who were good fighters. They would have been a fair match for the Anglo Saxon invaders.

The name Arthur appears in multiple sources writen between 500 and 600AD. Interestingly these are 'passing references', not legendary stories. Much is made of the fact that one of the most famous writers of the period - Gildas - never mentions Arthur by name. On the other hand it can be said that Gildas was notorious for his 'poisonous pen' and had very little good to say about anyone who wasn't a 'good Christian'.

So we have an Arthur documented (probably) around that time, we have a set back to the Anglo Saxon invasion (probably), and we have local British troops armed and trained in the Roman tradition (probably). The only 'guesswork' is whether Arthur in fact led one of these armed British groups and - for a while - stopped the Anglo Saxon invasion of Britain.

But to say that Arthur did not exist because over-blown legends grew up around him around the time of the Norman invasion of England is foolish.

If you want a well thought out suggestion of who Arthur might have been and 'what happened' I'd recommend Phillips and Keatman's 'King Arthur: The True Story", which suggests Arthur was in fact Owain Ddantgwyn, the ruler of Powys, a Welsh state. Interestingly, Owain's folk originated in Scotland, where they initially fought the Romans, but were recruited during the 300 years of Roman occupation, and relocated to Wales. This was a classic Roman 'way of doing things' - recruiting local troops, but then using them away from their normal 'homes' so that they didn't feel sympathy for the local population.

On that basis you might say that Arthur's ancestors fought the Romans, were then recruited by the Romans, and after the Romans left, fought the invading Anglo-Saxons. Arthur might have had some Roman blood, but he was - I'd argue - Welsh. That last point explains why he disappeared from history between 500AD and 1000AD (when the Normans started the 'legend'). Essentially during all of that time the Welsh were being 'crushed' by the Anglo Saxons and their records were being wiped out. That it took so long (it took the Normans to 'finish the job') just proves the point that these were tough fighters.

Answer 2

It isn't scientific because Arthur is a legend. There is also say that he was Saxon fighting the Welsh and Roman. It is a story that could or couldn't be true.

Answer 3

As others have said, there is no scientific evidence for Arthur. Certainly, the Cretien de Troyes and Mallory stories are total fiction, based on knightly deeds of their own day. However, there are much earlier, tantalising references, particularly by the ancient historian and churchman, Gildas. He refers to the Battle of Badon Hill as having been won by Arthur, but there has never been any agreement on where Badon Hill is. The best guess is that Arthur is a folk memory of one or more Romano-British noblemen who tried to protect their people after the legions had left. Don't forget, a letter was sent from England to Rome in 410AD asking for the Emperor's help in fighting the Saxon invaders and he replied saying effectively - I've go my own problems, you'll have to sort yours out on your own. And presumably they tried to do that.

Answer 4

~Given that Arthur is generally accepted to have been in Wales in the 6th ce century and the Romans were gone from Britain not later than 450 ce , it is unlikely that Arthur never met a Roman, let alone fought one. More probably his battles were with the Teutons who were taking over the Isles at the time, including the Anglos, the Saxons, the Celts the Jutes and the Scandinavians, among others.
Read Mallory.

Answer 5

There are several theories about Arthur.

One is that he was Welsh and fought against the Romans in the 4th century; another that he was fighting against them in the Scottish borders; another than he fought in Cornwall; another in Somerset..................and so on.

The truth is that there is little or no evidence for the existence of Arthur.

Most of what we think of as the legend of King Arthur was created by Thomas Mallory in "Le Morte d'Arthur" and was amalgamated with the grail myths written about by Chretien de Troyes in his poem "Perceval".

See link 1 for the full text of "Le Morte d'Arthur" and link 2 for information on Chretien de Troyes.

Answer 6

There really isn't any proof - that's why it's called a "legend." Your best resource is to read about the various legends, and to learn recorded history, so that you can decide for yourself what makes the most sense. Enjoy!