Character history. Arthur Pendragon - High King of the Britons. British History When King Arthur Died

King Arthur

“...In the picture we show an image of a cross from a tomb considered today to be the tomb of King Arthur. The inscription on it is of great interest. You can consider it written in Latin: “Here lies...” and so on. At the same time, we can assume that the inscription begins with the Greek word NICIA, that is, NICEA, or NIKA, which means WINNER in Greek. Further, it is extremely interesting to see how the name of King Arthur is represented in the inscription. We see that it is written like this: REX ARTU RIUS. That is, KING OF THE HORDE RUS or TSAR OF THE RUSSIAN HORDE. Please note that ART and RIUS are separated from each other, written down as two separate words... Later, apparently, starting from the 18th century, the name of the king began to be written in a new way, as ARTURIUS, combining two words together, ORDA and RUS . And, thereby, slightly clouding the rather clear Russian-Horde origin of this name-title...”

In ancient times, the Slavic-Aryans lived on the territory of Foggy Albion and had a decisive influence on the culture and customs of the local people. In recent years, historians of the United Kingdom have also been forced to admit this...

In 2004, Hollywood released a new version of the story about the world famous King Arthur - the main character of the ancient British epic, the legendary leader of the Britons who defeated the Saxon conquerors in the 5th century AD. The version by Antoine Fuqua, director of the film King Arthur, shocked viewers with its unexpected interpretation of the canonical plot.

In the film, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table are in the service of Rome and are a kind of special forces protecting the westernmost borders of the Roman Empire in the province of Britain from Saxon raids. The most shocking detail in the plot of the film was the origin of the famous knights. They turned out to be “barbarians” - Sarmatians from the steppes Northern Black Sea region.

It probably goes without saying that such a seditious interpretation of traditionally British events was received with indignation in the West, and even in Russia. Critics placed the film in the category of "cranberry", on a par with the pseudo-historical "Gladiator". Their reaction is quite understandable. From childhood, everyone was brought up on the fact that King Arthur and his knights of the Round Table, the wizard Merlin and the Lady of the Lake are natives of Foggy Albion and the exclusive property of British history. It seems that there is nothing more English, and for a more enlightened public, Celtic, than the legends of the mysterious city of Camelot and the magic sword Excalibur.

What do we see in the film? A complete mockery of the “sacred” symbols of Britain. Noble English knights wear “barbaric” Sarmatian military clothing, profess their “barbaric” faith and shout out their battle cry before attacking in an equally “barbaric” manner “RU-U-U-S!”

There is something to be puzzled about and irritated by.

However, having abandoned their emotions, indignant critics were still forced to admit that there is no real, documentary evidence of the existence of King Arthur. Information about him was not preserved either in state decrees, or in lifetime chronicles or private letters. However, about many events of those “dark” centuries, only scattered rumors have reached us, recorded from hearsay many centuries later. So Arthurian history, as we know it, was finally formalized in 1139 (more than 500 years after the alleged events), when Bishop Geoffrey of Monmouth completed "History of the Kings of Britain" in twelve volumes, two of which were dedicated to Arthur. It was there that he was first named king.

Despite the fact that for the vast majority of British people the idea that the legends of King Arthur are based on the myths of the Sarmatian tribes from the Northern Black Sea region is almost sacrilegious, it was English historians who refuted the traditional version.

A book was published in New York and London in 2000. Scott Littleton And Linda Melko (L. Malcor and S. Littleton)"From Scythia to Camelot: a thorough revision of the legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table and the Holy Grail" (From Scythia to Camelot: Radical Reassessment of the Legends of King Arthur, the Knights of the Round Table and the Holy Grail). The book caused a real sensation. The authors explored the parallels between the legendary epics of the ancient British and Narts, which researchers trace back to the ancient inhabitants of the Black Sea steppes: the Scythians, Sarmatians and Alans, and convincingly proved the Scythian-Sarmatian basis most of the main elements of the Arthurian cycle.

For example, one of the key elements of Arthurianism is the cult of the sword: Arthur extracts it from the stone, and is therefore recognized as the rightful king of Britain; the sword is given to him by the Lady of the Lake and then she receives it back again, etc. It is known that the Alans worshiped the god of war in the form of a sword planted in the ground, and the sword of Batraz, the main character of the Nart epic, after death is thrown into the sea, and it is picked up by a hand emerging from the waves. The image of King Arthur is associated with the symbol of the dragon. It was dragons that were used on the standards of the warlike Sarmatians and Alans as a tribal symbol.

But when could Slavic myths penetrate British territory?

The answer to this question is given by Doctor of Anthropology from Cambridge University and ethnographer Howard Reed (Howard Reid). In 2001, his book “King Arthur - the Dragon King: How a Nomadic Barbarian Became Britain's Greatest Hero” was published. (Arthur the Dragon King: How a Barbarian Nomad Became Britains Greatest Hero). He studied 75 primary sources and came to the conclusion that the legends about King Arthur, Queen Guinerva, the wizard Merlin, the Knights of the Round Table go back to the history of the Rus who lived in the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region. Reed drew attention to objects with images of dragons stored in the St. Petersburg Hermitage; these items were found in the graves of nomadic warriors in Siberia and date back to 500 BC. Dragons similar to the Sarmatian ones are noted in an illustrated Irish manuscript written around 800. By the way, the British cavalry is still called dragoons today (dragoons).

Reed claims that the first troops tall, fair-haired horsemen, protected by metal armor, under banners with images of dragons, appeared in the Roman army in Britain in 175. Then about 5,500 Sarmatian mercenaries arrived on the island. It was they and their descendants who gave the basis to the legend of Arthur.

It is known that neither the Celts nor the Britons had professional cavalry, but the Russians did. Back in the 1st century AD, Plutarch colorfully described the heavily armed cavalry, the so-called cataphracts, who formed the core of the Sarmatian horsemen: “... they themselves are wearing helmets and armor made of Marcian, dazzlingly sparkling steel, and their horses are in armor of copper and iron.”

The Byzantine encyclopedic dictionary of the 10th century described in great detail the combat power of the cataphracts. Neither the Romans nor the autochthonous tribes of Foggy Albion had anything like this in the 5th, 6th or even 7th centuries AD. Cataphracts were not known in Europe before the arrival of the eastern “barbarians” there, and this means another shock for fans of chivalric novels - the origins of medieval European chivalry should be sought in the east, in the steppes of the Northern Black Sea region.

Reed suggests that the prototype of King Arthur could be the leader (king) Alan (rex alanorum) Eohar (Eothar) or Gohar, who lived in the 5th century and was an ally of the Romans in Gaul for 40 years. By the way, the author notes that the word "Alan" possibly comes from the word "Aryan", which meant “noble” and which today is given a certain racial stereotype, surprisingly coinciding with the description of the ancient Alans as tall, stately blondes with fierce blue or green eyes.

By the time the Romans gradually abandoned their possessions, the Sarmatians (Alans) had already become influential landowners, while fully maintaining their military position and influence, maintaining their reputation as the best cavalry in the world. The Sarmato-Alans occupied a high position of power in Europe until the 12th century. Among them were many bishops and even one saint named Alan. Many noble European families bore the same name. At least until the beginning of the 10th century AD, the counts of Brittany were called Alanus. By the way, Wilgelm the conqueror, the one who conquered Britain in the 11th century, claimed that his Breton mother was descended from King Arthur, and invited the Breton Count Alan the Red (Alan the Red) lead his cavalry at the Battle of Hastings, where many high-ranking nobles fought who also bore the name Alan.

French historian Bernard Bachrach wrote the book “The History of Alan in the West”, in which he argued that the West owed the emergence of medieval chivalry, first of all, to Scytho-Sarmatians, whose role in the conquest of Europe in the “dark” centuries is ignored by modern scientists, despite the fact that they lived for a long time in the territory of modern France, invaded Italy, together with the Vandals entered Spain and conquered Africa. In the book he notes that “...the highest circles of medieval society considered horse hunting with the pursuit of an animal as the main sport. Hunting of this kind was part of the life of the Alans during their nomadic times, and perhaps, having become landowners during the early Middle Ages in Europe, they continued to hunt deer and wolves for pleasure rather than for food, as they had previously done.".

It is worth remembering that to this day fox hunting is a traditional pastime for English aristocrats.

Based on the above arguments of serious European scientists, one can draw an unambiguous conclusion, which these scientists themselves were embarrassed to make, due to the political bias of historical science. This conclusion sounds very simple: famous English King Arthur was a Slav- a Sarmatian warrior, and all of Europe in ancient times spoke Russian and was inhabited by the Slavs, who came there from Southern Siberia after the onset of cold weather.

KING ARTHUR AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE

Bronze figure of King Arthur in armor, early 16th century. From the "Book of Knowledge" of the Grolier Society (1911)

There is a grave for Marge, there is a grave for Gwythir, a grave for Gugaun of the Scarlet Sword, but it is a sin to even think about the grave of Arthur.

Anglin graves (“Poems on the graves of warriors”)

King Arthur is a true warrior king, a national hero of Britain, a figure who is easily recognizable as both a real historical character and a mythical hero. For many, he is a ray of light in a troubled time in British history. Only when you mention the name of King Arthur do images of knightly fights, images of beautiful ladies, mysterious wizards and treachery in the castles of traitors appear in your imagination. But what is hidden behind these seemingly romantic stories of the Middle Ages? Of course, Arthur is a literary character. There is a cycle of legends relating to knightly romances about Arthur, for example in Celtic literature. But what is the real hero? Is there any reason to believe that the stories about the great British king, who led his compatriots in fierce battles against the Saxons, are real historical events? Briefly, the content of the Arthurian myth is as follows. Arthur, the firstborn son of King Uther Pendragon, was born in Britain during difficult and troubled times. The wise wizard Merlin advised to hide the baby so that no one would know about his real origin. After the death of Uther Pendragon, Britain was left without a king, and then Merlin, using magic, created a sword and stuck it in the stone. On the weapon was written in gold: “Whoever can pull the sword out of the stone will be the successor of the King of Britain.” Many tried to do this, but only Arthur managed to pull out the sword, and Merlin crowned him. When Arthur broke his sword in the battle with King Pellinore, Merlin took him to the lake, from the waters of which a magical hand appeared with the famous Excalibur.With this sword (which the Lady of the Lake gave him) Arthur was invincible in battle.

Having married Guinevere, whose father (in some versions of the legend) gave him the round table, Arthur gathered the greatest knights of his time and settled in the castle of Camelot. The Knights of the Round Table, as they came to be called, protected the people of Britain from dragons, giants and black knights, and also searched for treasures, in particular the cup from which Christ drank during the Last Supper, known to history as the Holy Grail. Arthur took part in many bloody battles against the Saxons. Under his leadership, the Britons won their greatest victory on Mount Badon, after which the Saxon advance was finally stopped. However, unpleasant news awaited Arthur at home. The glorious knight Lancelot fell in love with his wife Guinevere. Soon this affair became known, and Guinevere was sentenced to death, and Lancelot was banished. However, Lancelot returned to save the queen and took her to his castle in France. Arthur and his loyal warriors rushed to find Lancelot. Meanwhile, Mordred (Arthur's son from his half-sister Morgana, a witch with whom he had an affair in his youth, when he did not know who she really was) tried to seize power in Britain. When Arthur returned, father and son fought at the Battle of Camlan. Arthur killed Mordred, but was himself mortally wounded. They put him in a boat and sent him down the river. The boat landed on the island of Avalon, and its wounds were healed by three amazing queens in black robes. Soon after the news of Arthur's death spread. Lancelot and Guinevere died of grief. However, Arthur's body was never found. They say that he is dozing somewhere under a hill, waiting in the wings when he will again need to gather his knights to save Britain.

A number of sources report on King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, and their time range is quite wide. The first known mention is in the History of the Britons, written around 825 by the Welsh monk Nennius. In this work, Arthur is presented as a great commander: Nennius names 12 battles in which the corral defeated the Saxons. The most important of them was the victory on Mount Badon. Unfortunately, the geographical names of the places where the battles described by Nennius took place do not exist a long time ago, so today it is not possible to accurately determine their location. The Annals of Cumbria (Welsh Annals) states that Arthur and his son Mordred were killed at the Battle of Camlan in 537. The location of this battle is still unknown, but there are two versions. The battle was supposed to have taken place in the village of Queen Camel in Somerset (near South Cadbury, which some researchers consider the legendary Camelot), or slightly further north, near the Roman fort of Beardoswald (at Castlesteads on Hadrian's Wall).

Researchers draw basic information about Arthur from the History of the Kings of Britain, written by the Welsh priest Geoffrey of Monmouth around 1136. Here for the first time the noble warriors who would later be associated with King Arthur and his knights are mentioned, the rivalry with Mordred is described, there is the sword Excalibur, and the wizard, the king's advisor, Merlin, as well as the story of Arthur's last journey to the Isle of Avalon. However, Sir Lancelot, the Holy Grail and the Round Table are not mentioned in the History. Contemporaries of Geoffrey of Monmouth criticized his work (he also published two books about the prophecies of Merlin), considering them nothing more than the fruit of wild imagination. It must be said that most modern scientists are of the same opinion. As happened with the works of the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, archaeological finds gradually appeared that were consistent with some of Geoffrey's statements. An example is the British King Tenvantius. Until recently, the only source of information about him was Geoffrey's History. However, as a result of archaeological excavations, coins with the inscription “Taskiovantus” were discovered among Iron Age artifacts. Apparently, this is the Tenvantius mentioned by Geoffrey. This means that Galfried’s works require rethinking. Perhaps other episodes of Arthur's biography, which are described in the History of the Kings of Britain, will someday find documentary confirmation.

With the advent of Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, published in 1485, the story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table took on the form in which it has survived to this day. In his work, Malory, who was from Warwickshire, relied on earlier books by French authors - the poet Maistre Vas and Chretien de Troyes, who in turn used fragments of Celtic mythology, as well as the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth. The disadvantages of these literary sources include the fact that they were written no less than three centuries after the death of Arthur, around 500. How can we restore this lacuna in time and reveal the real basis of this story? Interesting are the cursory references to Arthur dating back to the 6th century in early Celtic literature, especially in Welsh poems. The oldest of these appears to be the Gododdin (594), which is attributed to the Welsh poet Aneurin: "He fed the black ravens on the bastion, although he was not Arthur." The Black Book of Carmarthen contains “Grave Stanzas”, in which there are the following lines: “There is a grave for March, there is a grave for Gwythyr, a grave for Gugaun of the Scarlet Sword, and it is a sin to think about the grave of Arthur.” These words mean that the burial places of the heroes from the legend are known, but the grave of the king himself cannot be found because Arthur is still alive.

In "The Treasures of Annwyn" from the Book of Taliesin, Arthur and his army go to the Welsh underworld of Annwn in search of a magical cauldron "warmed by the breath of nine maidens." It was not just a magical object - we are talking about a relic, a symbol of the religious beliefs of the Celts. He is also mentioned in the myth about the supreme god of Ireland, Dagda, who kept a cauldron capable of returning life to the dead. Arthur's search in the other world turned into a tragedy: only seven warriors returned from the journey. There is an obvious parallel between the search for Arthur in Celtic mythological literature and the search for the Holy Grail, but the mythical Arthur is clearly different from the image of the warrior who stopped the Saxons in 517.

Perhaps archaeological data will guide researchers on the right path and allow them to piece together the image of the real King Arthur. In literature, the name of King Arthur is most often associated with the western part of England: Tintagel is the estate in which he was born; Camelot, where the Knights of the Round Table met, and the supposed burial site at Glastonbury. The tombs of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere, which were allegedly discovered in 1190 by the monks of Glastonbury Abbey, are now considered a successful hoax. The monks came up with this deception in order to increase the income of the abbey, which had recently been damaged by fire. However, some researchers believe that Glastonbury actually had something to do with King Arthur. The area around Glastonbury Tor (today the mound is located outside the city) may well be the Isle of Avalon, where Arthur was sent after suffering mortal wounds at the Battle of Camlan. Just 12 miles from Glastonbury, Cadbury Castle, dating from the Iron Age, regained strategic importance during the Dark Ages and is increasingly associated with Camelot in modern times. In the VI century. the fortress was turned into a vast citadel with huge defensive bastions. A number of items have been discovered here, including wine jugs, which were imported from Mediterranean countries, suggesting that the site was the residence of an important and influential noble during the Dark Ages. Could the castle have been the seat of Arthur's power?

According to another version, Camelot is called Tintagel Castle, which is considered to be the birthplace of Arthur. It is located in the county of Cornwall, where many geographical names are associated with the name of King Arthur. The structure was erected in the Middle Ages, but archaeological excavations carried out in Tintagel showed that the castle was an important stronghold and trading center even earlier: many jugs for wine and oil from Asia Minor, North Africa and the Aegean coast were found here. In 1998, a small piece of slab was discovered on which was written in Latin: “Artognon, the father of a descendant of Colla, built this.” Artognon is the Latin variant of the Celtic name Artnu, or Arthur. But is this the Arthur described in the legend? Unfortunately, no one knows this. As with Cadbury Castle, we are again dealing with an important fortress and trading center, which was undoubtedly the residence of a powerful British ruler who lived in the 6th century when the Arthurian legend began. So, some facts that served as the basis for the legend were found out, but this is all the information available today.

There is now active debate as to who Arthur might have been if he had been a real historical figure. According to one version, he was the ruler of a Roman colony in Britain named Ambrosius Aurelius. He fought against the Saxons, but not in the 6th century, but at the end of the 5th century, a couple of decades after the Roman legions left Britain. Other scholars, based on the materials of researcher Geoffrey Ash, consider Arthur to be the military leader Riothamus (circa 5th century), who in one of the sources is designated as “King of the Britons.” He fought on the side of the Romans, took part in a military campaign in Gaul (France), directed against the Visigoth king Eric. However, around 470, his traces were lost in the territory of Burgundy. The name Riothamus appears to be a Latinization of "highest ruler" or "high king", and is therefore a title rather than a proper name and is not related to Arthur. A striking detail that supports the Riothamus-Arthur theory is the fact that this British king was betrayed by a certain Arvandus, who wrote a letter to the Gotts. He was soon executed for treason. In one medieval chronicle, the name Arvandus sounds like Morvandus and resembles a Latinized version of the name of Arthur's treacherous son Mordred. Unfortunately, apart from scant information about his activities in Gaul, nothing is known about Riothamus, so it is impossible to establish for sure whether the legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table originates from here.

Judging by archaeological and textual evidence, the most likely assumption is that the image of Arthur is collective. The legend is based on one or more real characters - rulers who defended Britain from the predatory raids of the Saxons. The legend incorporated elements of Celtic mythology and plots from medieval romances, which created the image of King Arthur that we know today. Thus, the Arthurian legend is based on real historical events. And the legend of Arthur lasted for so long only because this image touched the depths of people’s consciousness and met their inner needs not only for a hero, but also for a king who would embody the spirit of the British lands.