The real Lucius Artorius Castus sacrificed himself to save Wales 🗿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿

@alihamza14725

10 ай бұрын

Askeladd

For me their will always be just 1 King Arthur. Arthur Pendragon from Merlin.

@elizabethgranger9559

4 жыл бұрын

CookiePleb Jordan same, I’m on season 4 and I deny anything else😂

@Amreen1980

4 жыл бұрын

Season 5 is going to make u cry

@elizabethgranger9559

4 жыл бұрын

CookiePleb Jordan ik especially since it will be over😭

@Amreen1980

4 жыл бұрын

That ending will make u cry

@brandomarchelino

4 жыл бұрын

What kind of movie is u guys talk bout?

Who else searched up Lucius Artorius Castus to find this lmao

@dipz5132

4 жыл бұрын

And I thought I was the only one lmao

@fitnessabdul6811

4 жыл бұрын

@@sjavelin read the rest of the manga it's so fucking good.

@brandomarchelino

4 жыл бұрын

Lol, vinland saga squad

@fitnessabdul6811

4 жыл бұрын

@@brandomarchelino Only part of the squad if u read all the manga.

@brandomarchelino

4 жыл бұрын

i read the manga, thorfin looks like his father now, lol

I picture a little kid pulling a sword

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Than you may look forward to the live action remake of Sword and the Stone that Disney is working on :)

@user-wq7ms7eu9j

5 жыл бұрын

I picture peterpan

@souskai

5 жыл бұрын

I'm pretty sure ever boy learns to pull the sword when they hit puberty 😂

@tinb917

5 жыл бұрын

Like Bob in the minoions movies

@ddors34

4 жыл бұрын

then watch the kid who would be king Rick

Read the Brut of England, it clearly mentions that Arthur was in Britany but came back to Brittaigne his own land the next spring to be crowned King of Glamorgan in South Wales. The historian for Henry VIII and James I both mention King Arthur as being real. The issue comes with Geoffrey of Monmouth saying that Arthur fought the Romans and the Saxons so it was deemed a false history. The truth is that there were two King Arthurs. I live in Cardiff and at Llandaff cathedral there are stain glass windows of Arthur II and his grandfather Tewdrig who died fighting the Saxons at Pont y saeson. Mathern near the severn estuary was once called Merthyr Tewdrig 'Tewdrig the martyr.'

@meshavalle510

6 жыл бұрын

Muerig a p Tewdrig

@alunrees313

5 жыл бұрын

Not only that all the stories come from South Wales my father told me that Glamorgan is name d after Morgan mwynfawr King Arthur s son this has been handed down through the ages, another legend says that he was born in Bonvilston Glamorgan

@ritchielovegrove4376

4 жыл бұрын

Crymru am

I loved this. Great work!

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

@dummy112

3 жыл бұрын

Wow no one has responded on this comment .

No matter what anyone says, I will always believe in the existence of King Arthur.

@miguel8101

5 жыл бұрын

Me too.

@miguel8101

5 жыл бұрын

They are just resisting the truth. All of the puzzle is complete they just don't believe it. To the evidence of all (Camelot),(Avalon),all of it. So I believe that King Arthur is real.

@juanmanuelcardona19

5 жыл бұрын

Same here, I actually relate to Arthur, specially with the one of the 2004 movie and the show Merlin

@bootleghungarian2890

5 жыл бұрын

Same

@Binks129

5 жыл бұрын

He was real, just not as what was told

Has anyone else noticed the irony that this, one of the greatest legends in the English language, was about someone who did his level best to kick the English out of Britain. Excellent summary and well presented.

Question: How long did you spend researching King Arthur to make this video?

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Well I first was inspired to make a video on this topic after watching the Great Courses video series on the Arthurian legend by Dorsey Armstrong about a year ago. Then I looked at some of her sources and read Arthur's Britain by Leslie Alcock and Geoffrey Ashe's The Discovery of King Arthur. After developing a script based on these sources I was rightfully discouraged away from it as the information was either out of date or unreliable. So then I was recommended The Worlds of Arthur by Guy Halsall, and also thumbed through Christopher Snynder's The World of King Arthur for some additional references, mostly visual. My Script did a complete 180 after reading Halsall's book. The more intense period of research for the script was about two months, and two months animating.

@calebhowells1116

7 жыл бұрын

It's very impressive that you managed to gain such a comprehensive knowledge within such a short period of time. What was it like before you read Halsall's book?

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

It's nowhere near what many of you have from the King Arthur facebook group. Before the Halsall book, I would say my information was really outdated, the first script actually argued more in favour of Riothamus as Arthur, instead of being more skeptical, which is my default position when coming from ignorance. So outside of the books/great courses series I mentioned, I didn't have time to study the primary sources. What was an actual good combo was Geoffrey Ashe's 'The Discovery of King Arthur' and Guy Halsall's book. Ashe covered some of the more popularly theories more in depth, and Halsall covered the historical background in great depth, while also describing the differences of opinions between modern historians. Halsall refrained from going in depth on more of the theories, but added a more skeptical bent than Ashe. I highly recommend Halsall's book if you haven't read it. I wish I knew latin and celtic so I could read the primary sources in the native languages.

@sentvero2025

6 жыл бұрын

Jimiticus Look up Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett

@zoetropo1

6 жыл бұрын

Jimiticus: Latin isn’t so hard to read if you have good English vocabulary. I wasn’t taught Latin at school, but I can read the primary sources of the 9th to 13th centuries with a little help from mechanical translators and etymological dictionaries to tidy up the messes the translators make. I’m now trying to learn some Welsh.

Really good channel. Love these kinds of video's. Keep it up!

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you, I'll do my best!

Great work. I loved your light speed video as well.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks, I appreciate it!

Arthur was King of Glamorgan and Gwent in the 6th Century.

@eamonlyons8318

3 жыл бұрын

Probably irish

I don't care what anybody says,King Arthur lives on in my heart and my imagination as someone who sparks a fire of hope in my heart.

For me, there is only ONE Arthur; Arthur Pendragon. No supposed Roman blood flows in his veins

I have a theory. King Arthur is really a prince of Gwynedd who helped push the Irish as well Saxons out of Northern Wales. He is mentioned in the Battle of Y Gododdin fought in c.600 AD at Catterech, near York and the battle, was lost. This meant the loss of the Old Brythonic kingdoms in the north and probably resulted in the loss of ancient Cumbria. The battle of Deorham fought in 577 AD resulted in the separation of Dumnonia (West Wales/Cornwall). So Arthur is later, not earlier. In fact, Gildas does not mention Arthur at the Siege of Mons Badonicus or Badon. He only mentions figures such as Ambrosius Aurelanis and St Germanus as well another saint who arrived near Mold, Wales. This is around 460s to 470s. Arthur was not born yet. The Saxon incursions had already started in 450s but mainly in the south and east of today's England and really didn't take a stronger foothold until around 460s/470s where Vortigern regretted using them to fend off the Picts/Scots and Irish. His song, Vortimer is a strong contender for Arthur but no direct mention. The best we can allude is Gildas stating "Rider of the Bear's Chariot" and "Bear's Den" in his Ruin of Britain piece. Bear is Arth in Welsh and it could be that Arthur indirectly mentioned by Gildas as he is castigating the kings of Gwynedd, Damnonia (Heg Ogledd), Dyfed, and Powys. The kings Gildas castigates are in power after 500 AD. Only one king (of Dyfed, not mentioned by name) is a bad son of a good King. I find that a bit intriguing and suppose this may be Riothamus as he is mentioned by Jordanes as King of the Britons. As we know Gildas is in exile in Brittany when we wrote his Ruin of Britain. Here's where Riothamus comes in. He is real, he is a king, he fought the Visigoths (a Germanic tribe) under the request of Aetius (a Roman Emperor). We have to remember that the Visigoths were in power in Toulouse at around 417 AD after sacking Rome in 410 AD. The Taifal (Sarmatians) were most prominent in this region going up the Garonne River and around Poitou/Pictones. Riothamus does win a battle against the Visigoths but where? Mons Badon? He is defeated in Deols and is only last heard about in Avallon, Burgundy. Is Ambrosius Aurelanis actually Riothamus? They are in the same time frame 470s. The Sarmatian cohorts in the region of the Pictones eventually get to Cumbria but the Draco standard would have been commonly seen in this region of today's Poitou and Toulouse regions before it was ever seen in Britain. Remember, Cumbria is actually the lost old North Wales in a sense where Sarmatian cohorts do arrive, but this would have been in the late 300s to early 400s. I believe Riothamus is the Ambrosius Aurelanis we are looking for who is the king of the Britons of which Arthur (whoever that may be) becomes affiliated with in a later period by about 100 years. In conclusion, Arthur is real, he's later than 450 AD and more likely closer to 530 AD as he is mentioned past tense in Y Gododdin. Arthur did not fight at Mount Badon, Ambrosius Aurelanis did aka Riothamus. Arthur did not have Sarmatian knights, but being a prince of Gwynedd or a northern Welsh kingdom did have a draco standard for which Cadwallon of Gwynedd adopts as a standard/banner. The dragon we see today on the Welsh flag is the coat of arms for Gwynedd and adopted on a green and white field by the Tudor king, King Henry VII. I believe this explains Arthur's existence as the name becomes prominent in the north and not so much in the south. Arthur of the Pennines is a good example. Thank you.

@starsuperion

2 жыл бұрын

Arthur is actually owain ddantgwyn

I think that Arthur is based off of a mixture of riothamus and Ambrosius, their stories put together do bare some similarities to Arthur. I remember hearing in class that it’s possible the two were the same person.

Greetings to the Welsh brothers from the Caucasus

@eamonlyons8318

3 жыл бұрын

Arthur was irish

There were two king Arthurs, both related to each other but because both are referred to just as Arthur there's been a lot of mix up. The first king Arthur was a Roman general, and the son of Magnus maximus and his grave stone has been found

@hero92694able

3 жыл бұрын

I agree

@deanmorgan7011

3 жыл бұрын

Mee too

love how he shows a picture of his possessions and he shows a doctor who sonic screwdriver

just found this channel, already my favourite

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Wow thanks!

Here because of _Vinland Saga_ and _Fate_

Awesome video ! Thanks !

I recommend "The King Arthur Conspiracy" by Simon Andrew Stirling. It tells an interesting tale of how Artuir mac Aedain could have been the warrior at the root of the legend.

@eamonlyons8318

3 жыл бұрын

He was

found you on Reddit...great video bro...well done,keep up the good work

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I'll do my best :)

I picture a medieval knight holding a shiny sword Well my question is we’re there SOME remaining dinosaurs

good video. is there any chance you could dive deeper down this rabbit hole? i knew all this with a night's worth of reading on wikipedia.

I think Lucius Artorius Castus inspired the legends. I'm planning on writing a historical novel series based on the theory. I know I'm in the minority in this (and I am more than willing to admit I could be wrong), but looking at all the evidence, including the book From Scythia to Camelot by Scott Littleton and Linds Malcor, I think it's quite possible Artorius Castus and his Sarmatian horsemen began the legends. Also, a good book to read trying to prove Artuir Mac Aedan was Arthur is David Caroll's Arturius; Quest for Camelot. I don't agree with Mr. Caroll's conclusion as to who Arthur was, but nonetheless it is a fantastic book.

@jpal151

Жыл бұрын

Askeladd

You have done a very professional work!! Keep it up !!

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

Excellent video and I learnt a lot! Well done!

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you! It's a fascinating era in British history for sure.

i very much want to watch more videos about Arthur or anything to do with the subject :D i only saw this video is there any more?

found this channel on reddit's r/medievalhistory and i'll definitely be checking out ur channel and subscribing. this is good stuff!

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

The Neon Pogo Dancer Thanks! Just subscribed to that subreddit myself.

Respect to the effort put in to make this video!

This is incredible. Thank you for the video.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

My pleasure, thanks for watching.

The Legion that Lucius Artorius Castus command in Briton is Legion VI Victrix and it stationed since early 2nd century to late 4th century. Legion VI was not tranfered to Hungary.

I love how every single one of your videos is so different from the others and yet still making conscious and visible attempts to be at the forefront of what we actually know, not dumbing anything down or cutting any corners. This isn't a CGPGrey or a Kurzgesagt or anything else, it's better. Been here since the first dialect video and will be here for whatever's next. (what is next?) Nice drawings by the way.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

empty Thank you! These videos are so exhausting to make, I have to choose whatever topic makes me a bit obsessed. I do still have the dilute the content a bit, as its a big topic. Just wait a bit I'm sure you'll see many comments about facts I 'forgot' to mention :) If only I was half the filmmaker that cgpgrey was! I'm wrestling over the next topic, maybe solar gravitational lensing, medical pseudoscience or the invention of modern science. Or something else!

@Dare2BStoopid

7 жыл бұрын

Well those all sound incredible. I'll be here for wherever your interest takes you!

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you, I appreciate it!

@creativeplanet2820

7 жыл бұрын

empty so, aurthur & Excalibur is real or not !

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

creative planet I answer that at the end, essentially 'maybe' some battle leader named Arthur actually lived, but It's difficult to say with any reasonable certainty and my detail than that. Excalibur, how we know it is fictional with possible roots in older Celtic mythology, but has been with the legend as least as long as Geoffrey of Monmouth in the 12th century as Caliburnus (I think I spelt that right).

people:*mention king Arthur* my mind: Saber

@christiangibson2733

4 жыл бұрын

yeah no, I think about mordred's insanely weird conception story, like the more I know about, the more it makes sense

@hbomb6421

4 жыл бұрын

*askeladd

@sorashiro9001

4 жыл бұрын

Stalin Chan lucius artorius castus

@LowTierWitcher

4 жыл бұрын

I see a man of culture 👌

Not sure about Merlin and magic, but Arthur was definitely a real Sarmatian man. Ancient name Arthur is Ossetian (Alanian-Sarmatian) name. Translation : Arthur. Art - Fire, Burn - burning. Hur - Sun. Arthur - in Ossetian language mean "Burning Sun".

@meetaverma8372

3 жыл бұрын

I did watch a documentary on Arthur being the sun king from Celtic mythology

The sword in the stone is a metaphor for the sword is made from stone. Excalibur was made from iron ore which comes from rock/stone

This channel is scary good. This belongs right in there with others like Wendover and Real life lore.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you!

I just finished reading the story of King Arthur in my myth & legends class. Very useful material, thanks! Also, I wish there were more tales like this in modern English form that I could read. If you know any cool stories that relate to a similar time period such as this one, please tell! I really love good medieval stories like this. Especially if there's a slight chance of it being true.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Kyle Daniel thanks! I don't know about any 5th/6th century figures in Britain around this type of similar mythic/possible real scenario. Well Saint Patrick was sort of contemporary, kidnapped by the Irish, so that might be worth a read. You may find the discovery of Troy interesting. It was discovered in 1870 by Heinrich Schliemann. Before it was discovered, there wasn't definitive proof that it existed (I believe). So just imagine, a city from legend thousands of years ago, was discovered. I'm not sure how much of the finds confirmed anything from the Iliad (no trojan horse!) but it's a fascinating story. Especially Heinrich himself and all the shenanigans during the excavations.

@peerguy

Жыл бұрын

Didn’t you hear the story of King Peerguy who conquered Spain in 76CE? It’s an interesting story

2:52 As others have pointed out, the events listed throughout the Annales Cambriae have generally been confirmed by other sources. The two dates referring to Arthur are pretty much the only citations not confirmed by valid documentation. Since it's a little...ODD that that'd be the ONLY fictional dates in an otherwise validated history book, I'd personally feel until proven otherwise that an actual Arthur WAS involved as stated in these two events.

Arthur is like Achilles, real or not there are both legends and there names are immortalized now.

Well the story of King Arthur is right up there as one of my favourites. He’s kinda like the English King David.

Thanks for this presentation of my work.

@Jimiticus

5 жыл бұрын

My pleasure, it's an excellent book!

In light of the new information coming out re: our hidden history I would guess the story of Arthur is far more important than is given credit. Lack of historical 'evidence' does not mean he was not relevant as you seem to imply here. In fact it points rather, to a concerted effort to 'bury' a powerful + dangerous symbol of resistance and autonomy in the British psyche. Call me a romantic but I don't think we have heard the last of the "Once and future King. . . . " yet. . . .

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Magsent What is 'Our Hidden Story?'

@Magsent

7 жыл бұрын

I am watching this just now and while I don't agree with all i have seen so far about 2 Arthurs. . . it is still very interesting . . .

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

I see... it's another candidate theory for Arthur. I'm not familiar with that one. But for my video, I wasn't arguing importance or relevance, just historicity. And it seems to be the current consensus of professional historians/archeologists that there isn't enough to go on to confirm a King Arthur, the one presented by Nennius (History of the Britons) and Geoffrey of Monmouth's (History of the Kings of Britain) because of the reasons I presented in the video. I don't think we will ever hear the end of King Arthur. I only think his popularity would wane if we actually found new, concrete evidence of his existence. It would take the mystery out of it I think. That's just my opinion though, because I see characters more compelling in Roman history who are nowhere nears as popular, like Marius as just one example.

@Magsent

7 жыл бұрын

It's far more than just another candidate theory Jimiticus. The Welsh have King-Lists for the Glamorgan line and much evidence to show! I really urge you to watch it. There is much more to this than meets the eye! but I thank you for re-igniting my interest with your excellent presentation.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Magsent its my pleasure! Researching this topics was a lot of fun

Arthur is a Welsh, or at least Ancient Brittonic, name.Arth means bear and Ur means good or golden. Hence Arthur means Golden Bear, which is a great description of a warrior.

A well informative and well put together video

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Lee Johnstone Thank you!

@leejohnstone3903

7 жыл бұрын

Excalibur was made from stone. all metals including steel and iron comes from stone or rock so the sword in the stone is a metafore for the sword was made from stone

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Lee Johnstone That connection may be too tenuous. And you can use bog iron instead of iron ore or hematite. It seems Excalibur derived from Caliburnus meaning something like cut steel. I think implying it has the ability to cut through other swords or something. The myth of the sword pulled by only by someone worthy of being king comes from earlier mythology and may not be unique to Celtic myth. But I'm not 100% on that. Do you have a source for your idea? I'd be curious to read more.

@leejohnstone2763

7 жыл бұрын

Lee Johnstone my source comes from the fact that all metals comes from the earth and is found in rock

This is definitely one of the best videos I've seen on youtube about this topic. Really got straight into the facts and history which Is was I came for. None of the nonsense later medieval made-up stories!

A king list from Domnonea (northeast Brittany) has Riotham as king during the years 460 to 510 or thereabouts. His predecessor named Deroch must have been the Breton leader who sent archers to aid Aëtius against Attila in 451. Aëtius was an enemy of the Britons who kept sending Alans to attack them, but Orleans was on the fringe of the British sphere of influence, so Attila had become a bigger threat to them. During the battle of the Catalaunian Plain, the “Armorican” archers shielded the Alans from the worst of the Huns’ attacks. Attila attempted a night attack on the Roman camp but was dismayed when a hail of arrows like rain from the Britons showered down on his men. That’s when he decided to build his bonfire. After the battle, the Alans were grateful to the Britons, settled down peacefully with them, exchanged battle tactics (“I love horses too!”) and intermarried.

How is this not more popular

well done. I agree with much of what you cover. researched the period in depth. little that we know of the time. only the legend.

Though there is very little known of Arturius mac Aedan as a person, his contemporaries connect him to the legends very closely. Artur had a sister or half sister named Muirgein and he was also a brother in law to King Urien of Rheged, and in the legends Arthur's sister, Morgan married King Urien. In addition, in the earlier legends Mordred was the son of King Lot who ruled in the Orkneys and Lothian, making Mordred a Pict. As you pointed out, Artur (Same name, different spelling) son of Aedan according to the Annals of Tigernach died fighting the Miathi, who were a tribe of Picts during the late 500's. The Annals of Cambria say that Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) who was a Pict died in the Battle of Camlan during the early 500's. Therefore both the Annals of Cambria and the Annals of Tigernach agree that a person named Arthur died fighting in battle against the Picts during the 500's. Mordred did not live in the early 500's, but the late 500's according to one of the two Hagiography of Saint Kentigern. Therefore, we can correct the Annals of Cambria to say that Mordred died in the late 500's. Also, Arthur's father Aedan fought a person named Cennalat in the Orkneys, and Cenna being the Pictish word for king makes his name, King Lat. This King Lat ruled over the Orkneys and had political influence in the Miathi teretory which is within Lothian (I don't think Lothian existed yet) while living in the correct time period for Mordred to have lived in, and the Arthurian character of King Lot was King of the Orkneys and Lothian while being the father of Mordred. David F. Carroll argued that they were the same person. Arthur mac Aedan has a somewhat connection that is semi provable to the early legends being the Spoils of Anwnn, or the Spoils of the Otherworld where the bard Taliesin went on a voyage to the Celtic Otherworld with Arthur seeking an enchanted cauldron. Taliesin was the bard of King Urien, and therefore the only historical known contemporary of his with the name Arthur who this poem may have been mentioning would have had been Arthur mac Aedan. The problem is that the poem features a lot of mythical characters and does not seem to have anything to do with history. I'd like to also mention that one of Arthur's contemporaries was Myrddin Wyllt, or Myrthin Wysht as I like to spell it (Welsh spelling is weird with the dd and ll). Myrthin Wysht was the bard of King Gwenddolue or Gwentholue who ruled Rhegd before Urien. When Myrthin's king died in the Battle of Arfderydd or Arfderyth (Some people call it the Battle of Arthuret) Myrthin Wysht went mad and left for the woods only to come back by the name Lathogan. Myrthin Wysht became famous down south in Cymry or Wales and their folklore until Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about him in Latin. Myrddin would have had been Merddinus which was not a good name, so he changed it to Merlinus, which became Merlin. In early Arthurian literature Myrthin Wysht and Arthur had nothing to do with each other, but it is interesting to note how Myrthin Wysht's story got passed down from what is today, Scotland to Wales. That poem you mentioned called Y Gododdin or Godothin was written about a battle fought about six years after Arthur mac Aedan's death in the neighboring Kingdom of Manann. If that reference to Arthur had always been in the poem, then I could not think of any other more likely person the poem could have had been referencing other than Arthur mac Aedan. The reason that these people in what is today the Scottish Lowlands became a part of Welsh folklore is that they shared the same language. In fact, a lot of the time the Welsh used the name Britannia to refer to the northern parts of Prydain, Prydain being the name the Welsh used for the island. Looking at most of the content of the early Arthurian literature you will find that most of it can be originated to Britannia in the northern parts of Prydain just south of Caledonia. With that said, it is quite feasible that Arthur mac Aedan's legend could have had been passed down from Britannia to Cymry (Wales). Given the correction of dates, Arthur mac Aedan is somewhat connected to the Annals of Cambria and other various legends and histories. Artur mac Aedan lived in too late a time period to have fought in the Battle of Badon, but you already mentioned that there may not be any truth behind that. Arthur mac Aedan may not have had been the Arthur of Legend in the flesh, it could have had been Owain the Bear (Britannic and Welsh word for bear is Arth) or someone else, but I just want to point out that there is actually a lot to saying that Arthur mac Aedan is connected to the legends. You are right that we know little about him; but you asked us to talk about him in the comment section, so I thought I'd inform you that through Arthur's contemporaries that he is actually the most well connected candidate to the legends that we have to go on.

@thomaseubank1503

7 жыл бұрын

It was cool to see your video thought, I wish I saw it before I ever began researching it. Your videos make life a lot easier for when you are first digging into something but don't know anything about it.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for contributing to the discussion! I'm not aware of many of the connections you are drawing to and with Artuir, so I can't really comment much on the specifics in your argument. The only thing I would say is that from what I've read from historians and discusions I've had with people who are more experts into the various Arthur theories, is that many of them draw conclusions from very tenious sources, and might conclude something as a fact with very little evidence - this perons was defintely actually this other person or from this specific place. But since I don't know where some of your information is coming from I can't really debate your individual points. There are a couple though, it may be a type but you wrote Artorius mac Aedan. Where do you get Artorius from? He's Artuir or Artur mac Aedan, or Aedain. The only Artorius I see is the 'connection' with Lucious Artorius Castus. And you may be implying more from the Annals Cambriae than what was actually written. It only said that Arthur and Medraut fell at Camlann. Nothing about Medraut being a Pict, or that they were enemies, or that they killed each other. Add that small tidbit written down for that year could have been written down hundreds of years later, as was the case with these Welsh Annals I think there is a lot of 'begging the question' going on in Arthurian theories. Assuming one thing is fact to figure out the details of another event or place, like you may have been doing with the Medraut - Pict and using that to help date more specifically the battle at Badon. But again, that's just an example, not that you are doing that yourself. I think this is why professional historians of this period of medieval history delve into the historicity of Arthur, as they have the burden of being more empiracl about their conclusions. And that's not to knock the enthusiastic amateur historians, but they may not be using the empircal processess, may not be able to read/translate the primary source material, etc... I'm just a filmmaker, so what do I know! I just tend to concede to the experts and professionals what I'm not one myself.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you Thomas, I appreciate it! I'd highly recommend the book I based this video on that's in the video description. It's written by a historian with a speciality in the historical background and time period Arthur is usually placed within. It's not heavy on Arthur specific information, but on his historical background - end of the Roman era in Britain, Anglo-Saxon Invasion, etc...

@calebhowells1116

7 жыл бұрын

The idea that Artuir mac Aedan had a sister called Muirgein (like how Arthur had a sister called Morgan in the legends) is based on the *Tripart Life of St Patrick* which mentions a certain 'Murigein daughter of Aedan' and says that she was born in Belach Gabrain. Aedan's father was called Gabrain, and Gowrie in Scotland was possibly named after him. So the idea that Muirgein daughter of Aedan, born in an area named after Artuir's grandfather, was in fact the sister of Artuir seems to make sense at first. But it doesn't really. According to the *Tripart Life* itself, Belach Gabrain was in the Ossory area of Ireland. The *Life* also mentions a certain Aedan mac Colman of Ireland, so it is far more likely that Muirgein was a daughter of that Aedan, and not Aedan the father of Artuir. In which case, that connection between Arthur and Artuir is invalidated. The only evidence that Artuir was the brother-in-law to Urien Rheged, thus equating him to Arthur, is based on the a priori that the identification is correct. It is based on the presumption that Muirgein was Morgan, since Morgan the sister of Arthur was said to have married Urien Rheged. So that can only be used as evidence of the connection if the connection is presupposed to be correct; it is a circular argument. The date for the battle of Camlann in the *Welsh Annals* is definitely wrong if the later information is correct; you are right to point that out. But even if Mordred could have fought Artuir in the late 500s, it is not possible to have Arthur himself as late as Artuir lived. For one thing, all the evidence regarding the battle of Badon (apart from the Welsh Annals) indicates that it took place in the mid-sixth century. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, it took place about 12 years prior to the Synod of Brefi, which is generally held to have occurred in c. 560. Therefore, Badon should have taken place around 548, and that is where all the other evidence (such as the *Historia Brittonum* and the *Anglo-Saxon Chronicle*) indicates it took place. The reason this is an issue is because the *Annals of Tigernach* says that Aedan died in 604 in the 74th year of his life (this is consistent with all the other dating information about this dynasty, such as the *Annals of Ulster* saying that Aedan became king in 574). That would mean Aedan was born in 531. So if we assume he was at least 20 years old when he fathered Artuir, it's obvious that Artuir cannot have been the victor at that battle. He almost certainly wasn't even born when it was fought. This is even more of an issue when additional information is taken into account, such as the record in the *Life of St Cadoc* that makes Arthur involved in the events leading up to the birth of Cadoc. Yet Cadoc was definitely born in the early sixth century. And then there are some versions of the *Book of Llandaff* which say that Arthur was crowned king by Dubricius in 506 or 517. Not even Aedan would have been born then. So the dating doesn't work for it to be Artuir. Your points about Cennalat are very interesting; I had never heard that before. But even if Aedan did fight against King Lot, that just provides evidence that the family of Mordred was real. It doesn't mean that Artuir was Aedan. Your point about *The Spoils of Annwn* are valid inasmuch as the poem provides yet another piece of evidence that Arthur lived later than generally thought, but the evidence when taken as a whole indicates that Arthur's life span from the very beginning of the 6th century (probably not before) until the 570s. Later than generally claimed, but not nearly late enough to be Artuir. Regarding *Y Gododdin* it is obvious that the 'Arthur' who's mentioned there must have been of incredibly high esteem. Yet it does not seem that Artuir was. In the entry for Artuir's death, the *Annals of Tigernach* reports that those slain were: 'Bran, Domangort, Eochaid Fionn and Artuir.' Notice how Artuir is listed last. In the corresponding entry in the *Annals of Ulster* Artuir is not even listed (along with Eochaid Fionn). Surely this would not have been the case if Artuir had been incredibly powerful and famous? Surely the records would list him first in everything, and they certainly wouldn't omit him from a record as if he was inconsequential. But, that is how it appears from the *Annals* . So I don't think the evidence supports Artuir being of sufficient prestige for him to be the mighty Arthur of legend.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

You've really researched this topic extensively Caleb! Out of curiosity, are you able to read Latin or Welsh? I'm very curious about any possible errors or controversies in translating primary sources. I'm also interested in this name=that name based on language change. I hear name equivalencies quoted often, but rarely do I hear the rationalization.

Riothamus had a camp at Bourges, east of Déols; Bourges is where he disembarked. Brythonic names (eg Harvey) were common in Bourges throughout the Middle Ages. Sidonius Apollinaris, Gregory of Tours and Jordanes together relate the size of Riothamus’s army, the locations mentioned, the duration of the battle, and that he escaped after gathering as many men as he could rescue. Avallon in Burgundy was an important (and well fortified) staging post for the Burgundian alliance with Rome. It’s a logical place to go if making a report of the ambush. Although we don’t have enough information to pin down the dates exactly, we do know that Arvandus, the Praetorian Prefect of Gaul had corresponded with Euric urging him to attack the Britons based across the Loire, and that he was at some point tried for treason. Sidonius was chosen to be the judge but recused himself to be Arvandus’s defence lawyer instead. He succeeded in getting the death sentence commuted to exile.

According to legend only bear in mind, Arthur killed Gildas' brother Huail at Ruthin in Denbighshire and beheaded Huail on a stone block now named as Maen Huail.

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

+Callum Wynne Yes, put forth as a reason for Gildas apparent exclusion of Arthur's name. But the earliest evidence for that story comes after Gildas, and like most aspects of the lwgemd, must be taken with a grain of salt.

The ancient Greeks at Herculaneum, Pompei, and Naples repopulated in America at Odin's Cobblestone Court in 250BC and in 79AD. They were a mix of Titans from Carthage, and Romans (Egyptian Troians). They returned as Gothic tribes to a fortress in Spain, creating Camelot. The poem Ygododdin was written to lure people to their cause using the character of Arthur. King Arthur came into being as these tribes returning to Europe and named their children Arthur. It was a cycle of life from Liefr Eirikson in America to King Arthur of Derry, to combine oversized Titans with smaller Trojans. Just as the Gaul Knights started the process in the early Roman days 754BC to 180AD.

Can someone explain this to me why is Arthur always the king of the english??? They've got there own history and culture their own heroes. It's the same with boudicca even giving her a Norfolk accent in tv programmes even though that accent wouldn't be around for another 1,000 years..

For a much better fleshed out story see Graham Phillips videos. Arth was a battle name. Owain Ddantgwyn was the "Arth" from 488 to 520 when he was killed in battle by his nephew.

When you think about it so much of our history comes from scribes and documents written by not rarely people of questionable reasoning, so what the bleep do we actually know??

@sam8192

4 жыл бұрын

Exactly. We have only been on this planet for the past 15 - 50 years... how can we simple human animals know the extent and true nature of the universe, of what has been hidden from us. How can we assume we know the workings of society based on a few (probably biased) historical accounts of the time. Humanity’s ignorance and failure to acknowledge our limited knowledge will be the undoing of the world. Do you ever ask yourself those questions like “what was I before I was born?” Or “where do I go when I fall asleep?” And you just come to this block, like someone’s obviously put a wall there to prevent us from accessing certain information: That’s the universe and the secrets it keeps from us.

it's easy to understand, love it!

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

+Amazing World thank you!

Great video! Altho, I do hate how there is a lack of solid historicity, which allows for misinterpretations...

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

+leoncurtis Thanks! Yes, the lack of strong evidence is frustrating, but if we did have more info, people would probably have gotten bored of it 😀

What software did you use to make this video?

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Much of the Adobe Creative Cloud suite. So drawings were done with Adobe Draw, with final touches in Photoshop. More complicated animations were done in Adobe After Effects and then everything edited in Adobe Premiere. Voice over recording/editing was done in Audacity (not adobe).

@calebhowells1116

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the super quick reply! Ah ok, so not free software then?

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

No problem! Yes not free. But if you do get Adobe Creative Cloud you get all the software they offer, and in that sense it's a fantastic deal. You can do a lot with more affordable/free programs though.

I own that exact D20 too! It's my favorite die.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

blackbarnz my fist set! Don't know enough D&D fans to play much though.

Arthur is just a mythical king

I'm at the 7:30 mark right now. This is an absolutely brilliant video which, in terms of its presentation of the evidence and the sources as they really are, is vastly superior to, perhaps, *any* other video on the subject that I've ever seen. However, there are some things I must object to. In the conclusion of the discussion of the true nature behind the 'Britons v. Saxons' wars that are contained in the traditional accounts, you say that Gildas's brief description of this one conflict wasn't meant to be taken as factual history. Yet as you yourself note much earlier on, the entire point of Gildas's work is to be 'a sermon, blaming the Anglo-Saxon invasion on the sins of the British.' Hence, rather than Gildas inventing such a story or exaggerating what was going on to fit the political situation at the time, the Anglo-Saxon invasion *was* the political situation that was going on. That was literally the entire reason for Gildas writing what he did, even though he only wrote a 'history' of it in one small section. You've also missed out a very significant source: The Gallic Chronicle of 452. That is a source which is, unlike Gildas, *actually* contemporaneous with the initial of the Anglo-Saxons under Vortigern. For the year 441, it says that Britain has fallen under the power of the Saxons. Surely this contemporary source describing such a thing would require a large scale invasion, if not a 'migration' as such. I also don't think it's fair to present the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which doesn't mention Arthur, as one of the main sources of the period, along with Gildas and Bede, but then exclude the Historia Brittonum from that category - the HB predates the ASC.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thanks Caleb! I think I should have been more clear on the Gildas statement. It's more inline to what I was saying about how Bede and the Chronicle turned it into THE Anglo-Saxon Invasion. Yes I've heard of the gallic chronicle. In my perhaps insane attempt to try and shove all of this info into 13 minutes, I invariable left out information. But falling under the power of the Saxons, is not necessarily a description of the size of population movement and near genocide that some believed occurred. That could maybe fit within the 'elite takeover' model, maybe. But this is just my opinion on what you just said. I will, of course, defer to the historians on a more suitable interpretation. I think I only presented the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a source for the traditional historical narrative of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, and even stated that it never mentioned Arthur. But perhaps I confused this by having it on the screen with Arthur occasionally. Please continue with any additional comments once you finish, and thanks for contributing to the discussion!

@MonikaEscobar1965

7 жыл бұрын

How can you as a Welsh yourself deny your own history?

@calebhowells1116

7 жыл бұрын

What do you mean?

@MonikaEscobar1965

7 жыл бұрын

You claim in another comment that you fully BELIEVE the theory of Athrwys ap Meurig is King Arthur. It is no theory! It is real!

Riothamus is definitely the most fitting candidate for Arthur. Riothamus being a term meaning High King. Riothamus even has the same connections to Avalon (Avallon in France). Taking all sources into the equation, it looks as though Riothamus ruled a Celtic kingdom spread across Britain and Brittany. He was the first and last true Great Celtic king before Germanic kings took over. He is also the only king to ever have united the Britons. Prior to Roman rule, the Brits were never united under a single king and after the Roman legions left Britain, the locals were used a unified land. It is likely that Riothamus was successful in uniting the Celtic people of the British Isles and was able to hold off invading Saxon armies from the north and northeast. In the time after Roman Britain, it was the southwest of England that was the wealthiest and most populous region due to costal trade with the Roman Mediterranean. It makes sense that a mighty Celtic kingdom that has Roman trade alliances be ruled from this area. A kingdom stretching across to western France. The later additions to the legend about Guinevere & Lancelot has no place in the true origins as they were added 100s of years later through romantic writers, but the battles with Saxons (& Goths, who as Germanic tribes, were likely seen as expanded Saxons) are true if taking Riothamus as the real King Arthur of the Brits. The recent suggestions that Arthur was a Roman from lands not in Britain are also unlikely. Riothamus however was a true British King. Born with Brythonic ancestry.

Hey man, lemme give you a good advice.You really make great videos but one thing is bad, the topic. I don't think many people ask about this topic, so you should make videos about things that many many people ask or something that people don't ask, this will make your videos interesting and entertaining.Here are some ideas:What's inside a black hole?Neutron Stars, 3 Suns shrunk into just 3 kilometersWhat's hiding in the Mariana Trench?What will humans evolve into?How to terraform MarsWill a nuclear war happen in our lifetime?Are aliens hostile or neutral?And more related stuff, also if your videos start growing, start uploading more daily, like not once per 3 monthsAnyway, good luck!

This is very biased in terms of what information is actually presented, or calling works pseudohistories or fantasy. Halsall is often taken wildly out of context, I know that from personal experience as I've talked at length with him on the topic. For instance, people quote him right and left as having said Arthur absolutely didn't exist... When, you know. All he said was that his existence can't be proven. He himself believes some sort of British leader inspired the legends.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

I don't think I'm taking him out of context. I've also said pretty much the same thing at the end of the video, that there may have been an Arthur, but we don't know any details. Halsall calls the Historia Brittonum and Historia Regum Britanniae pseudohistories and mentions the fantastical elements in them, like Amr's grave in Historia Brittonum. And Geoffrey does include fantastical elements like giants and dragons. *EDIT - double checked, while Halsall highlights the questionable nature of aspects of both texts as a historical document, he does not call them pseudohistories in his book. Instead he talks about modern pseudo-histories derived from these texts. I think we are more in agreement about archeology as well. A good portion of my video was how context is important with archeological finds. While folk and oral traditions might contain some truth, by themselves they aren't. You would want to corroborate with a more trustworthy source. I've also said how there can be truth in them at the end of the video. I've also talked to Halsall a bit about how I was interpreting the historical context of Arthur, I sent him the video as well. That's by no means an endorsement by him, and I don't know if he watched the video either.

@geongleasere7693

7 жыл бұрын

I think you're ignoring some information we do have.

@geongleasere7693

7 жыл бұрын

Nennius is not a pseudohstory for instance.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

That's possible, what is some relevant do you think I left out? Keep in mind I couldn't go too much in depth on any one topic, with a short video, geared more as an intro to the subject.

@guyhalsall1326

5 жыл бұрын

Who are you?

Absolutely loved the video. I was really impressed. When it comes to who inspired King Arthur I personally believe it was Ambrosius Aurelianus. ( of course Arthur was really inspired by many people)

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I'm curious about a possibly conniction with Aurelianus myself, but there doesn't seem to be anything solid to connect the two, even early medieval scribes had them as seperate characters.

@johndamondavis6337

7 жыл бұрын

Well as you said in the video, the contemporary scholars never mentioned a King Arthur. Some of the earlier mentions hundreds of years later had him as the victor Of Badon Hill. Who was credited as the victor of badon hill in the contemporary texts? Aurelius. Of course the real King Arthur's name wasn't Arthur (seeing as it is French) so what we know is he was a king who drove out the saxons. Aurelius fits all the criteria to be the historical person who Arthur could have been mostly based on.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

John Damon Davis Ambrosius wasn't credited as the victor of badon hill in Gildas, the only somewhat contemporary source. He said he was born the same year as the battle, so that's as close as we can get. It's possible he was the leader, but Gildas only mentioned him decades early in the fight. He unfortunately never named the leader, if he did, I think much of the controversy would be over. It seems reasonable though, to think he could have been the leader. Even if he was I don't think it would preclude Arthur existing as a separate historical figure in the battle commander role that Nennius assigns to him. But we are left with more questions and not much in the way of answers.

People today still "alter facts to fit their purpose." We haven't progressed as much as we'd like to believe. But a nice video. Thank you.

who else came from exploring with josh's caverns of the lost souls video?

How you do those animations

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

It depends on the animation. For simple ones, I just do it right in Premiere, my editing program. For more advanced ones I use Adobe After Effects.

Jimiticus The church tower on Glastonbury Tor is St Michael's Tower and not the Abbey which is in the town below the Tor.

Haha i come from vinland saga lol

The story of Arthur, as we’ve received it, cannot be separated from its provenance through specific authors. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote much of the story, and his contemporaries accused him of fabrication. There is one British figure who excels Geoffrey’s description of Arthur’s character and achievements, and whose immediate family significantly parallel that of Geoffrey’s “King Arthur”. The main obstacle to identifying him with the legendary 6th century hero is that this man visited Monmouth in the 11th century. He was Alan Rufus, a Breton noble with an illustrious pedigree whose quick thinking saved William of Normandy at Hastings. Alan’s father was Eudon Penteur, his mother Orguen of Cornouaille, his paternal uncle Duke Alan III (who like Geoffrey’s Ambrosius Aurelianus was poisoned), his maternal uncle Duke Hoel of Brittany. Alan’s epitaph three times emphasises his British ancestry, four times mentions royalty, and alludes to both Persian and Roman heritage, particularly pointing out a 2nd century BC connection with the Aurelii. His achievements include great feats of battlefield prowess, founding the first English Parliament at York in 1089, building great ports and markets, strengthening the English navy, promoting domestic free trade, masterminding the Domesday Survey, innovating the architecture of both castles and abbeys, defeating a nationwide Norman baronial rebellion in 1088, and organising the popular English invasion of Normandy in 1091. Alan invariably forgave his enemies and spoke truth to authority. Reputedly his woman was Gunhildr, daughter of King Harold Godwinson. Domesday indicates a close link to Eadgifu the Fair, a very wealthy pre-Conquest East Anglian landowner. His brother Brian won three important battles in a few weeks in 1069, and in 1082 joined Bohemond in fighting the imperial army in Greece: Brian used a feint to destroy the Varangian Guard, ensuring victory. PS: the Aurelii were an Equestrian order of Plebeian origin who ascended the Roman ranks to Consular status by sheer merit. Their Hypogeum in Rome suggests they adopted Christianity not long after the reign of the philosopher emperor Marcus Aurelius. The Alans were an East Iranian steppe people (like the Sarmatians) who migrated both east and west. In the west they assimilated with the Bretons and Galicians, in the east with the Mongols. Genghis Khan’s tribe the Borjigin had legendary links to the Alans, he reputedly had Alan features, and his shock troops were Alans. In Bayeux Tapestry panel 53 you can see Alan Rufus single-handedly assailing the east side of the English vanguard. His fame was such that when he stood still long enough in France, as in 1083, all the most ambitious knights from across the country rushed to challenge him and his men to combat.

@calebhowells1116

6 жыл бұрын

What is your view of the sources concerning Arthur that predate Alan Rufus?

@zoetropo1

6 жыл бұрын

Caleb Howells: I concur with Jimiticus regarding Gildas, Nennius, the Annales Cambriae, and the Scottish Arthur. There are other Arthurs of interest such as Arthwys of the Pennines who lived in about the right period, but none has all the attributes that Geoffrey of Monmouth gives. The Continent may have other sources, but I don’t know of early ones that name Arthur except for a 9th century legal document from Brittany that has an Arthur and an Uther mentioned in it, but I think they were signatories, so too late for the 6th century. Slightly off-track: the Mabinogion is a modern compilation of old texts, but as with all of the above, the oldest manuscript is well after 1100. The original of Culwch and Olwen is stylistically dated to 1060-1100: contemporary with Alan Rufus and his half-brother Alan Niger.

@zoetropo1

6 жыл бұрын

Caleb Howells: There is further evidence for Alan Rufus being “Arthur”. His epitaph begins with the brief statement “Stella ruit.” A/The star falls to its ruin. (I intend to write later about the dramatic nature of his death.) The text indicates that the star in question is very bright, and orange-red in colour. This matches Arcturus, brightest star in the northern celestial hemisphere. Mythologically and etymologically Arcturus is the Guardian of the two Bears, Ursa Major and Minor, just as Alan Rufus was bodyguard to both William I and his son William II. Arcturus is due north of Virgo, and Alan’s emblem, on his shield and his surcoat, was ermine, a symbol of purity, honour and the Virgin Mary. Some scholars think that the reference to Dux Arthur in Nennius’s History of the Britons, who carried a representation of the Virgin Mary on his shoulders or shield (depending on the reading) may be a late interpolation, in which case that too could be based on Alan, whose epitaph called him Dux. In another fine touch, the memorial poem twice calls him “flos” (flower), “the flower of the kings of Britain” and “the flower of the satraps” (a Persian word for regional Governors). The flower is evidently the Rose, a pun on his Breton name “Alan ar-Rouz”, which in full means “the red deer” (hart) or, colloquially, “the red fox”. It is the “red fox” colloquialism that is employed to signify his name by rebus at the funeral of Edward the Confessor on the Bayeux Tapestry. Alan’s father Eudon, a former Duke of Brittany, was an elder maternal first cousin to King Edward, so Alan represented him at the funeral.

@zoetropo1

6 жыл бұрын

Caleb Howells: Wace, who translated Geoffrey’s Work into French, also admired Alan. Like Geffrei Gaimar, Wace made Alan the pivotal figure in the victory at Hastings. It’s Wace’s statement that “Alan ... did the English great damage”, combined with observation by the historian Stephen Morillo, that led me to look at Domesday Book to find Alan’s possession of many of Gyrth’s holdings, and then e to identifying Alan on the Bayeux Tapestry.

@zoetropo1

6 жыл бұрын

Caleb Howells: an arbitrarily selected site about Arthwys of the Pennines is bearmanpendragon.wordpress.com/2017/07/15/arthwys-first-battle/

I also don't understand why people use the argument that Gildas not mentioning Arthur is in any way evidence that he didn't exist. Though you do present the possibility that the victor at Badon was Ambrosius, you seem more inclined to conclude that Ambrosius had died by that time and that Gildas left the leader at Badon unnamed. If this is the case, then that is all it is. Gildas did not name the leader at Badon. But the Britons obviously *had* a leader at the battle. If Gildas not naming the victor at Badon is evidence that such a person did not exist, then this would be evidence that the self-evidently real, nameless victor at Badon wasn't real. But such a conclusion is obviously nonsensical. Yet that is the same as concluding that Gildas not naming Arthur is evidence that Arthur was not real.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

I was trying to be careful not to be so definitive about Arthur's exclusion, even making the onscreen joke how Gildas didn't name the leader specifically at Badon. I also agree that him NOT naming Arthur doesn't mean that Arthur wasn't the leader at Badon. In fact it's so frustrating that he didn't. Probably would have cleared up a lot! I am more on the side that Ambrosius, may not have been the leader at Baden due to the timespan of this conflict period.

@calebhowells1116

7 жыл бұрын

Regarding Ambrosius and the timespan, so am I. Bede (in a different work to the one commonly referred to, I believe) indicates that Ambrosius fought against the Saxons in the 470s or perhaps a little later. Nennius, meanwhile, has Ambrosius fighting in 437 (and I know it's not necessarily a reliable source, but we don't have anything more reliable to replace it with). There have been teenage warriors and even kings throughout history, so I don't have an issue with Ambrosius maybe being born in c. 420 and then fighting as a 17-year-old (this is in line with Geoffrey of Monmouth's description of Ambrosius being a child at the time of Vortigern's rise to power, which Nennius places in 425). This would allow him to still be at a fighting age in the 470s, though he would have been getting on a bit, and he would be very unlikely to have still been fighting in c. 500. Though it gets more significant than that, because in my opinion, the vast majority of the evidence points to the battle of Badon as having occurred in c. 548, which would make it completely impossible for Ambrosius to have been the leader. So yes, I definitely think that Gildas didn't name the leader at Badon, meaning there is, as far as I'm concerned, no obstacle to Arthur's historicity from Gildas.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

The whole dating controversy of On the Ruin really does through things for a loop. I'm actually surprised I don't see more "Ambrosius is Arthur' theories floating around.

@johndamondavis6337

7 жыл бұрын

Well the thing is that Arthur was probably not one single person but a composite of many different British leaders combined into one by later authors

@calebhowells1116

7 жыл бұрын

I don't see the need to conclude that there were more than two at most. One who fought the Saxons in Britain, and one who fought the Romans on the continent.

Also, archaeologists tend to give their field too much credit. After all, we're talking about people who try and reconstruct entire cultures based on a spoon they've found, but still. When they stop sexing by possessions in the grave and do it scientifically by pelvic size, I'll trust them a tad more. The legends are given far too little credit. The Mabinogion shows a tax system and haircutting ritual that would not have still existed when it was written, pointing to the fact those did exist when the story is set in the 6th century. Halsall himself says in the Worlds of Arthur that, with a lot of caution and salt, the legends can be useful tools to at least guess at the history.

@guyhalsall1326

5 жыл бұрын

I don’t think I have ever said that the legends are useful tools to guess at the history. Without knowing who you are it’s difficult to confirm whether you have ever spoken with me about this or in what context.

There is no reason to believe the history of this period was substantially different than Gildas' account. The first section of On the Ruin of Britain is not a sermon. It is an historical overview to set the stage for the sermons to follow. Gildas was not adverse to naming people. On the Ruin of Britain is filled with the names of notable people during this period. Arthur isn't mentioned because there was no King Arthur. Two thousand years from now 23rd Century historians will probably be debating the existence of Batman.

Great video man. You should post this on reddit.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Raize J Thanks! Reddit tends to frown on self promotion so its a little tricky

@dpatts

7 жыл бұрын

Found this on /r/mealtimevideos So glad I clicked the link, this is such high quality production. Subscribed without a second thought, looking forward to seeing your other videos!

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you! Didn't know about that subreddit.

Best documentary I have seen on King Arthur

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@leejohnstone2387

6 жыл бұрын

Jimiticus your welcome. In my research Arthur was based on a real person who was never king. Once you strip away the Christen De Troyes poems and text of Guinevere, Lancelot and Camelot a real picture of who Arthur might of been begins to form

Related to tales of Robin hood and based on William Marshall the greatest knight who ever lived. His brother is my ancestor. He was kidnapped as a child held for ransom. but his father didn't pay that king because he flipped to the side of his other cousin in favor of the royal seat instead and was removed from court. so the king who kidnapped the son raised him and the child served his court as Marshall. The chivalry and games come from then too which would stem from the traditions his ancestors held in early norway law before it was ruled by 1 king. That ancestor being ragnvald eysteinsson who United Norway under herald fairhair. The chivalry and rules of war were customary and became influential in the way modern court and law was practiced. Note William Marshall an honorary templar at burial. Do trust some of the stories that last, symbols are important.

Saint Dubricius crowned him he was the welsh Saint Dyfryg His Church was at caerleon and is buried at Llandaf cathedral

KING ARTHUR WAS REAL LOOK UP ALAN WILSON AND BARAM BLACKETT

@kylecross5749

6 жыл бұрын

sent vero yes, hopefully he gets permission to excavate the mound and find out weather it is the ark of the covenant or not

Like the video, but the repetitive background music is a bit much. Would have liked more on the Sarmatians.

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the feedback. It's been a bit of a challenge to find appropriate music and I haven't been putting as much time into that end, so I agree, it's too repetitive. Thanks for watching!

Yes King of Glamorgan and Gwent the bruts of England state that he was crowned king of Glamorgan, Saint Dubricius was the Welsh Saint Dyfryg who crowned King Arthur at caerleon Dyfryg is Buried at Llandaf cathedral

I love it. "EXCALIBUR" "KING ARTHUR" "KING ARTHUR The legend of the sword" I love all the movies and stories "ARTORIOUS"

People suggested by various sources to be King Arthur or parts of the compound character which formed Arthur: Arthnou of Tintagel Riothamus Lucius Artorius Castus Arthwys ap Mor Owain Ddantgwyn Arthwyr ap Pedr Artur Mac Aidan Cadwaladr ap Meirchion Ceredig ap Cunedda Wledig Arthwys ap Masgwid Gloff Arthur ic Uibar St. Arthmael Arthwys ap Meurig

@calebhowells1116

7 жыл бұрын

Athrwys ap Meurig should definitely be included in that list. His family and area of influence have a lot of extremely strong similarities to the Arthurian legends.

Very good explanation. Thank you.

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

No problem, thanks for watching!

The arthur you talk about was a 6th century king of glamorgan his father was meurig and grandfather tewdrig, ambrosius was emrhys wledig around 450. The battlesite of badon exists as does camlann. The illustrations you give are true to an extent in terms of hair colour, but the helmets you show to be saxon are actually british. They are based on the sutton who hoard said to be of an angle king named readwald, though with no apparent proof. The british buried their kings in large tumulus mounds, the sword found carries an ancient british coelbren writing inscription. So definitely not saxon, also there are golden decorative bowls that display stars of david attributed to the ten tribes of israel who are the khumry of ancient assyrian chronicles. The khumry are the ancient british, they are not celts. When strabo the greek geographer circumnavigated the islands of britain around 300 bc he landed and made this description of the people, "he came not clad in skins like a scythian, but with a cloak about him and breeches that went down to the souls of his feet, and a quiver hanging from his shoulders." He also remarked how the students in the colleges spoke greek with a fluency that matched those of the lyceum in athens. Caesar himself in 55bc told of their alphabet being similar to greek. The khumric kings of britain and the roman colonists actually intermarried to aquire new territories. This along with the fact that several 'roman emperors' were actually british by descent makes a mockery of the falsehood of 400 years of roman domination. I know this goes against the grain academically speaking, but its certainly true that welsh history states that the people are descended from the brutus migration to britain in 500bc and definitely makes no mention of them descending from central european celts or gauls. Look out for the brilliant work of alan wilson who has discovered the scale of the deception with which to extinguish ancient british history.

One can't help but note the apparent similarities between the achievements of Alfred and Arthur both achieved miraculous and unexpected victories against barbarian hordes and managed, against all odds, to consolidate and maintain English rule in southern England Could Arthur simply be Alfred viewed through the later medieval prism of Courtly Love and Chivalry? Is there any real necessity for an late Roman Empire Arthur to inspire the Arthurian legend, at all? some evidence has been found to substantiate the existence of a late Roman Empire Arthur, but it is quite limited, While legends of a great warrior named Arthur do pre-date Alfred the Great, this would not seem necessarily to exclude the possibility that much of the actual legend of Arthur might incorporate the personality and actions of Alfred the Great the parallels between Alfred and Arthur do seem rather striking Put another way, in the absence of Alfred the Great as a genuine historical figure, would the legend of King Arthur, as such, have ever fully developed in its present form? Alfred the Great is, the only English King seriously considered for canonization. Henry VI wanted the canonization of King Alfred the Great. But because it didn't happen King Alfred's memory was kept safe when England became protestant. However, Edward the Confessor used to be the patron saint of England. But, otherwise, Edward was a lousy King, and Alfred was a "great" one. They're both considered to have been devout and extremely important Christians. The point stands, though, that Alfred corresponds rather well to Arthur's achievements, much better than anyone else in English history. All we have of "Arthur" prior to Alfred the Great is Warrior circa 500 AD. So, were Arthurian poets simply tacking on Arthur's name and time to the achievements of Alfred the Great? One could, also, see the scholar-king Alfred as the genesis of both the Arthur and Merlin characters, since Alfred's successes were largely the result of his superior intellect. Many Catholics do consider him to be a Saint. His successful defense of Christianity in the Kingdom is highly consistent with the legendary Arthur's devout Christianity and the stories of the Holy Grail. Alfred modeled his Kingdom largely on Charlemagne, whose influence on the whole of medieval thinking is unquestionable. An English Charlemagne would inevitably attract the attention of medieval poets, and inspire a kind of legendary status, along the lines of Arthur. Alfred was a great scholar, whose learning may have even exceeded his military prowess, or, quite possibly, have been the source of it. Again, the medieval poets could hardly fail to find a scholar/king, a kind of English Solomon, unappealing in a unique way. But, poets are not historians. They write of legends, not of reality. Isn't it rather plausible that they created the legend of Arthur on the basis of an essential historical reality that only really conforms to the persona of Alfred the Great?

Upload consistenly bro dont wanna wait like 4 months for another video

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Glomo I'd love to, bit it's a lot of work to make these videos. I hope you'll stick around!

My one wish is when I die , I can go back in history somehow and fulfil my dream of true historical knowledge ! 🙏🏻

anyone else really into fate right now? xd

Your the first European I ever heard that admit truths about this fictional history your an asset to your people...

Lucius Artorius Castus

Nice video, but you're assuming that we have every source that existed when you assume later writers based their work exclusively on Gildas. The writers after Gildas could have based their works on sources that were not preserved. Also, if there was not a Saxon invasion/mass violence against the Britons, then what was Gildas talking about?

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I don't think I'm making assumptions, in fact I tried to go out of my way not too. It may still come across like that as I need to keep things moving so it's not too long of a video. The writers mentioned in the video coming after Gildas certainly seemed to draw from him, even indicating so themselves. Geoffrey of Monmouth did claim an 'ancient source in the British language' which would have been separate from Gildas, but that is highly contested by historians as that was a natural practice among writers of that time to claim authenticity when they were actually intentionally playing fast and loose with the facts. But that's still not 100% proof that there wasn't this ancient source in the British language (which Monmouth doesn't name) and it would be fantastic if it did exist somewhere. Contesting a mass invasion, all at once, or violence bordering on genocide, doesn't mean there wasn't battles, conflicts or migrations. It's the scale and scope that is questionable. As I said in the video, Gildas was likely talking about one specific conflict with germanic people, that many in Europe before and aftewards faced. It appears that it was Bede, writing hundreds of years that interpreted it as this great Anglo-Saxon invasion - the Adventus Saxonum. From what I gather from the historian I read, is that it's not NO INVASION versus GENOCIDAL MASS INVASION, but a critical look at the scale and scope of the violence and migration.

@CloudProductionsUSA

7 жыл бұрын

Jimiticus That makes sense, thank you for clarifying :)

@Jimiticus

7 жыл бұрын

My pleasure! Thanks for watching.

I think that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s claim that Arthur conquered the Romans is a politically correct way of referring to the Anglo-Breton leader Alan Rufus’s conquest of Normandy in 1091.

I think that the roman general Lucius Artorious Castus you mentioned is the most likely candidate as to who got the mythological lore of King Arthur rolling. What say you?

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

I think the book I reference at the end makes a good case for the lack of any compelling evidence to connect him to Arthur.

@lolwuttup420

6 жыл бұрын

I think Arthur's story seems to be close to 100% myth and folklore, but if I was told there was at least one person who started the myth (that's a big if of course) being passed down through British generations with the name "Arthur" I'd wager it was him. I'll check out the book you cited! :) Great channel btw! Subscribed and look forward to watching your future videos.

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

It really is an excellent read! It spends much more time around the fall of Roman Britain and the Anglo-Saxon migration, but honestly, I think it's more interesting because of it. Thank you for subscribing!

King Arthur and Merlin??? My mind: 7 deadly sins

Marmite I see good taste my friend

awesome video, outlining myth and written actual evidence. from my own research after 550ad the name Arthur became a lot more popular and people tend to name their children after historic figures, look at henry and john in England. One thing to bare in mind is that during the time of Arthur 450-550ad Christianity was on the rise and paganism on the decline, most history is written by Christians and there for he could well have been omitted from documentation due to his religious beliefs not aligning with the writers of the histories.

@Jimiticus

6 жыл бұрын

Thank you! I was actually trying to find these supposed regnal lists that showed Arthur/Artur names for royal children of the time period you mentioned but could never find them. Do you know where I could track them down?

@minisam1988

6 жыл бұрын

Jimiticus it was in a documentary. I think it was named following Arthur's legend. Also it was the common folk that took the name in Briton.

@calebhowells1116

6 жыл бұрын

Two I know off-hand are Artuir mac Aedan, born c. 550, and Arthur ap Pedr, born nearly at the end of the sixth century.