Roman Empire and King Arthur connexion?
On January 25, 306 AD the Augustus Emperour Constans Chlorys died in York, England (Eboracum) and his son Constantine was raised on the shields of the Roman legions in Britain and cheered to the echo, the purple toga draped around his shoulders. Britain was THAT integral a part of the Roman Empire. Yet his descendant, King arthur, is treated as a "myth" and historians say everythng from the size of Britain making one man ruling it "un-viable" to there not having been any mounted knights or horses there in the time of King Arthur circa 463 AD to 523 AD? Even historical fiction such as Marion Zimmer Bradley's, "The Mists of Avalon" prepetuates this myth, yet the Roman Empire was larger than just Britain and Britain was a province under one man, when Contantine ruled both Britain and Gaul from 306 until 312 AD, before returning to the Italian peninsula. Roman legions who built Roman villas, cities, roads and baths in Britain and had imperial governours and even an Emperour living there for six years from 306 to 312, were hardly going to be walking aorund on their little flat feet, so why say that they had no horses? What is with trying to deny that Britain was sophisticated enough in the fifth century to have supported King Arthur's kingdom? The Welsh freedom fighter CAdwallydr in the trwelfth century claimned him as an ancestor, and the Tudors in the fifteenth century claimed him through Cadwallydr and used the red pendragons of Wales as heraldic supporters.
- capitalgentlemanLv 77 years agoFavorite Answer
Arthur, if he existed, was a Romano-Celtic warlord, NOT a king, and certainly not king of all England.
He was not a descendant of Constantine (as far as is known). But, even if he was, the Romans had departed before Arthur came along.
This was the Dark Ages, so, what evidence there is is pretty scant. Lots of stories, but, not a lot of proof. As best as can be determined, Arthur may have been a war leader (Dux Belloram), somewhere in south-west England (although opinions differ on this). He was successful notably from his use of heavy horse - what we would call cavalry. There were no "knights" and such at the time, nor stone castles, etc. That came much later. The Romans usually fought on foot for the most part, supported by light horse, and other troops. The invaders fought mostly on foot as well, so, the use of horse gave Arthur the advantage.
He fought mostly against the English, that, it, the invading Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. So, not only was he not King of the English - he fought AGAINST the English! He was a Briton, but, with a heavy Roman influence, which was still around for a time after the Roman legions left.
Going anywhere beyond what I have said is a matter of much conjecture. Even what I have said has little enough proof, but, seems likely from the evidence that we know. He seems to have been active in what is now Wessex for the most part, although there are consistent stories about him in other areas - even southern Scotland. A mountain there is called "Arthur's Seat." However, there is zero evidence to show him as king of all England - even the idea that he ruled at all is a minority one.
So, a Roman-Celtic (British) war leader that had some successes (15 battles) against the invading English in the southwest of what is now England. Even that statement has very little real "proof," but, what evidence there is makes it at least possible, if not probable. However, saying anything beyond that is pretty much speculation, as the evidence is scant, and points in different areas at the same time.Source(s): I have a particular interest in this part of history, and have loads of books on the subject.
- kapsnerLv 44 years ago
King Arthur (sic) used to be a Roman Briton. It's almost certainly that he used to be a soldier instead than a king. It has been instructed that a son of the King of the Votadini people, who lived in what is now the Scottish Lothians and Northumberland, was once employed as a mercenary soldier with the aid of the King of Powys. He used to be a gigantic undergo of a man and in an try and unite the British tribes who have been torn between (i) maintaining the integrity of Roman Britain or (ii) splitting into self-ruling kingdoms took the Latin phrase for undergo "Ursus" and the British title for undergo (?) joined them collectively to form the phrase "Arthur". He led the British in opposition to the invading Scotti (Irish) and English and received a important battle somewhere close what is now tub. The success of the English caused many Britons to flee to Brittany where descendants of a Roman British army had settled. This used to be Little Britain and their normal residence grew to become known as first-class Britain. Arthur handed into legend and, improved to kingship and decked out with French chivalric ideas, back to Britain with the Normans.