was king arthur a roman left behind after roman occupation?

Answer 1

Arthur, it seems, is claimed as the King of nearly every Celtic Kingdom known. The 6th century certainly saw many men named Arthur born into the Celtic Royal families of Britain but, despite attempts to identify the great man himself amongst them, there can be little doubt that most of these people were only named in his honour. Princes with other names are also sometimes identified with "Arthwyr" which is thought by some to be a title similar to "Vortigern".

Breton King
Geoffrey of Monmouth recorded Arthur as a High-King of Britain. He was the son of his predecessor, Uther Pendragon and nephew of King Ambrosius. As a descendant of High-King Eudaf Hen's nephew, Conan Meriadoc, Arthur's grandfather, had crossed the Channel from Brittany and established the dynasty at the beginning of the 5th century. The Breton King Aldrien had been asked to rescue Britain from the turmoil in which it found itself after the Roman administration had departed. He sent his brother, Constantine, to help. Constantine appears to have been the historical self-proclaimed British Emperor who took the last Roman troops from Britain in a vain attempt to assert his claims on the Continent in 407. Chronologically speaking, it is just possible he was King Arthur's grandfather. Arthur's Breton Ancestry was recorded by Gallet.

Riothamus the King
Geoffrey Ashe argues that King Arthur was an historical King in Brittany known to history as Riothamus, a title meaning "Greatest-King". His army is recorded as having crossed the channel to fight the Visigoths in the Loire Valley in 468. Betrayed by the Prefect of Gaul, he later disappeared from history. Ashe does not discuss Riothamus' ancestry. He, in fact, appears quite prominently in the pedigree of the Kings of DomnonŽe, dispite attempts to equate him with a Prince of Cornouaille named Iaun Reith. Riothamus was probably exiled to Britain during one of the many civil wars that plagued Brittany. He later returned in triumph to reclaim his inheritance, but was later killed in an attempt to expel Germanic invaders. The main trouble with this Arthurian identification is that it pushes King Arthur back fifty years from his traditional period at the beginning of the sixth century (See Ashe 1985).

Dumnonian King
Welsh tradition also sees Arthur as High-King of Britain but tends to follow the genealogies laid down in the Mostyn MS117 and the Bonedd yr Arwr. These show Arthur as grandson of Constantine but, this time, he is Constantine Corneu, the King of Dumnonia. Traditional Arthurian legend records three Kings of Dumnonia during Arthur's reign: Constantine's son, Erbin; grandson, Gereint and great grandson, Cado. Nowhere is there any indication that these three were closely related to Arthur, nor that he had any claim on the Dumnonian Kingdom. Nor is their any explanation as to why a Dumnonian prince would have been raised to the High-Kingship of Britain. Arthur's connection with this area of Britain is purely due to his supposedly being conceived at Tintagel, the residence of his mother's first husband, and buried at Glastonbury, the most ancient Christian site in the country.

Cumbrian King
The Clan Campbell trace their tribal pedigree back to one Arthur ic Uibar: the Arthur son of Uther of tradition. Norma Lorre Goodrich uses this fact to argue that Arthur was a "Man of the North". This idea was first proposed by the Victorian Antiquary, W.F.Skene, and there is some evidence to recommend it, especially the possible northern location of Nennius' twelve battles. Goodrich places Arthur's Court at Carlisle. As the capital of the Northern British Kingdom of Rheged, this seems an unlikely home for Arthur, who was not of this dynasty. Prof. Goodrich relies heavily on late medieval literary sources and draws imaginative conclusions. (See Goodrich 1986 & Skene 1868).

Pennine King
There was a Northern British King named Arthwys who lived in the previous generation to the traditional Arthur. He was of the line of Coel Hen (the Old) and probably ruled over a large Kingdom in the Pennines. Many of Nennius' Arthurian Battles are often said to have taken place in the Northern Britain. These and other northern stories associated with the King Arthur may, in reality, have been relating the achievements of this near contemporary monarch.

King of Elmet
Another Northern British Arthwys was the son of Masgwid Gloff, probably a King of the Elmet region of modern West Yorkshire. Nothing is known of this Prince who was exactly contemporary with the real King's traditional period. Though it is unlikely that he held his own kingdom, his exploits may have contributed to King Arthur's story.

Scottish King
The Scots, though fresh from Ireland, also used the name Arthur for a Royal Prince. Artur, the son of King Aidan of Dalriada, was probably born in the 550s. David F. Carroll has recently argued that this man was the real Arthur, ruling Manau Gododdin from Camelon (alias Camelot) in Stirlingshire. Details can be found on the author's web site. (Carroll 1996)

Powysian King
Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman identify Arthur as Owain Ddantwyn (White-Tooth), a late 5th century Prince of the House of Cunedda (more specifically of Gwynedd). Their arguments, however, are wholly unconvincing, and contain many unresolved discrepancies. Owain's son, Cuneglasus (known from Welsh pedigrees as Cynlas) was among the five Celtic Kings condemned in the writings of Gildas.

Through a misinterpretation of this account, Keatman & Phillips imply that Cuneglasus was the son of one Arth, ie. Arthur. They further claim that he, and therefore his father, Owain, before him, must have ruled Powys, as this is the only Kingdom un-reconciled with Gildas' Kings. However, Cynlas lived at Din Arth in Rhos. He was not the son of Arth. In traditional Welsh manner the Kingdom of Gwynedd had been divided between his father, Owain, who received Eastern Gwynedd (ie. Rhos) and his uncle, Cadwallon Lawhir (Long-Hand) who took the major Western portion. During this period, Cyngen Glodrydd (the Renowned) was ruling Powys. He was probably the Aurelius Caninus mentioned by Gildas. (See Phillips & Keatman 1992).

Rhos King
A much simpler and thoroughly more convincing thesis from Mark Devere Davies suggests that Arthur may have been Cuneglasus himself. I can do no better than recommend you to the author's website.

Dyfed King
A King Arthwyr ruled in Dyfed in the late 6th century. He was the son of King Pedr ap Cyngar, but little else is known of him. Though he was probably merely named after the great man, it is possible that some of his accomplishments may have become attached to the traditional legend.

Glamorgan King
Baram Blackett & Alan Wilson have theorised that the legendary King Arthur was an amalgam of two historical characters: Anwn (alias Arthun), the British King who conquered Greece and Athrwys (alias Arthwys) the King of Glywyssing and Gwent. Arthun was a son of the British Emperor Magnus Maximus, who lived in the late 4th century. He is better known as Anwn (alias Dynod) and his title of King of Greece is generally thought to be a misreading of his Latin name, Antonius Gregorius. He actually ruled much of South Wales. Arthwys of Glwyssing & Gwent is widely accepted as a seventh century King who lived in South-East Wales. His home in the traditional Arthurian region around Caerleon is part of this man's attraction. Blackett & Wilson argue, not unconvincingly, that he really lived in the early 6th century and that his father, King Meurig was called "Uther Pendragon", a title meaning Wonderful Commander. They also make the important assertion that Arthur lived, not in Cerniw (ie. Cornwall), but in Cernyw (ie. Glywyssing). (See Blackett & Wilson 1980).

St. Arthmael the King
Like Blackett & Wilson, Chris Barber & David Pykitt identify the King Arthur with King Athrwys of Glywyssing & Gwent. However, here the similarity stops, for there are important differences in the identification of people, places and events. Their major addition is the supposition that after Camlann, Arthur/Athrwys abdicated and retired to Brittany where he became an important evangeliser. He was known as St. Armel (or Arthmael) and his shrine can still be seen at St.Armel-des-Boschaux. Their ideas have much to commend them and make compelling reading. (See Barber & Pykitt 1993).

Roman King
It has been suggested, many times over the years, that King Arthur may have been a descendant of one Lucius Artorius Castus: a theme most recently taken up by P.J.F. Turner. Castus was an historical 2nd century Dalmatian general stationed in Britain who commanded the Roman auxiliary troops, known as Sarmations, on an expedition to crush an uprising in Armorica. It is highly unlikely that the two had any connection with each other. (See Turner 1993).

Answer 2

King Arthur is a mythical figure and there is very little, if any, actual historical evidence for there ever being such a person.

However, at the time, after the Romans left and before the Saxon invasions, the Britons were very Romanised. Many were Roman citizens and had served in Roman garrisons all over the Empire. The terms Romano-Brits or Romano-Celts have been used to describe these people.

They did go back to a more 'British' way of life after the Legions departed and went back to long houses and tribal kings. They did have to fight off the Saxons (and Anglos and Jutes) who were starting to emigrate/invade from mainland Europe so it is entirely possible that there was a Romanised-British king who organised some sort of defence. There is archeological evidence, for instance, of large defensive ditches dug in this period, so the legend of Arthur could have had a basis in reality.

Many other legends were added to the story in later times though such as Tristan and Iseult and the search for the Holy Grail. The Arthurian story as we know it now is a product of the late middle ages when chivalry and jousting were all the rage. This explains why most Arthurian films have everyone in medievil plate mail and on horse back and living in 13 century castles. Certainly not how things were done in 500 AD.

When in doubt read wikipedia.

Answer 3

2

Answer 4

Sadly we'll never no for sure. But since the story of Arthur only appeared in the 12th century as written by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Which is a full 700 years after the Romans left Britain.
The chances are that the King Arthur story was the 12th century version of Dan Brown fictional novel.

Answer 5

IF King Arthur Pendragon ever lived at all, then he would certainley would have been a Britton (not British) a person from the Cornwall, Devon and South Wales area. He would have been some tribal leader of quite an area, to have become King of the Britains would have been just about impossible for him at that time as the factors involved and forces opposing could have been substantial. He would have had to have a lot of Allied tribes as well just to counter the threats from overseas (Jutes, Angles, Saxons, etc) that wher involved in the British Mainland at the time of the departure of the Roman Influence.

Answer 6

Arthur was actually not of Royal blood. He was a n English War lord who was called a King because he united all the other war lords to fight the invaders. I think it was the Angles. The sword in the stone is a myth . In Arthurs days, a sword was made in a cast made from stone and it was their superstition that only the person that the sword was made for was allowed to pull the sword from the stone. Again, the Lady of the lake is another myth. In the middle ages, it was a common belief that spirits lived in lakes and when a warrior was killed in battle, his sword was thrown in a lake for the spirits to look after it. Merlin, was no magician, he was an alchemist from flintshire in North Wales and gained a post as an alchemist at Arthurs court. The round table wa another myth. When the king summoned someone to talk with he was invited to sit around the Kings table which usually was a large square table. There are remains of a castle at Cadbury hill between 2 villages called Camel low and camel high, and it is believed that the ruins were camelot Castle. The old english word "lot" meant middle.

Answer 7

According to Winston Churchill King Arthur was a British or Celt War Lord that became king that rallied around him a good number of half barbaric British fighters that stood up to the German Saxon tribes that had started to invade the British islands once the Romans abandoned the island to defend Rome against the barbarian tribes that were penetrating their frontiers.

Answer 8

The latest concerning the origins of Arthur Pendragon is that he was a Roman General from a country which we now call Georgia [next to Russia].

The Celtic name Pendragon means thus = pen - head, dragon - legion. Pendragon = legion's head or general - the boss.

When Britain took up with Christianity in the 3rd/4th century AD it was established by our Governor of Britain, Constantine the Great. We then had Orthodox Christianity with it's base in the new city of Constantinople, built by Constantine.

England shares Saint George with the Orthodox state of Georgia and the city of Moscow in Russia.

So, if you see a picture of Arther wearing the English cross of St.George, it is pretty authentic. Look out for the flag of Georgia with it's red crosses of St.George and you'll see what I mean.

Dragon in British means legion. This same red dragon appears on the flag of Wales - the Red Dragon, battle standard of the Legions.

Answer 9

As Britian was a roman province, people who lived there, although celtic by heritage could also be roman citizens. As far as can be told by historical analysis, Arthur existed after the fall of Rome and before the pre-eminence of the Angles or "English", roughly the latter half of the fifth century, when the celtic languages were still spoken across Britain.

The quick answer is he was Romano-Celtic.

Answer 10

While you're online, you can do a brief search and find that the "real Arthur" is claimed to be anywhere from the Scottish lowlands in the first century A.D. to Cornwall in the 6th, with some reasonable degree of evidence for whatever your pet theory might be. Chances are the legend is a combination of synthesis of several historic figures and pure fiction.

Answer 11

No, well not a roman from rome, but possibly a roman citizen, but a native Brit.

Some traditions have him working for the Romans before his return to his homeland.

But one would need to figure out the timelime depending on where you place Arthur in history, rome was already gone for at least 200 years.