Historians locate King Arthur's Round Table?

[Amagi]

Historians locate King Arthur's Round Table

Historians claim to have finally located the site of King Arthur’s Round Table – and believe it could have seated 1,000 people.



By Martin Evans
Published: 11:46AM BST 11 Jul 2010
21 Comments


Historians claim to have found the site of Camelot Photo: photolibrary.com


Researchers exploring the legend of Britain’s most famous Knight believe his stronghold of Camelot was built on the site of a recently discovered Roman amphitheatre in Chester.

Legend has it that his Knights would gather before battle at a round table where they would receive instructions from their King.


But rather than it being a piece of furniture, historians believe it would have been a vast wood and stone structure which would have allowed more than 1,000 of his followers to gather.
Historians believe regional noblemen would have sat in the front row of a circular meeting place, with lower ranked subjects on stone benches grouped around the outside.
They claim rather than Camelot being a purpose built castle, it would have been housed in a structure already built and left over by the Romans.
Camelot historian Chris Gidlow said: “The first accounts of the Round Table show that it was nothing like a dining table but was a venue for upwards of 1,000 people at a time.
“We know that one of Arthur’s two main battles was fought at a town referred to as the City of Legions. There were only two places with this title. One was St Albans but the location of the other has remained a mystery.”

Chester



The recent discovery of an amphitheatre with an execution stone and wooden memorial to Christian martyrs, has led researchers to conclude that the other location is Chester.
Mr Gidlow said: “In the 6th Century, a monk named Gildas, who wrote the earliest account of Arthur’s life, referred to both the City of Legions and to a martyr’s shrine within it. That is the clincher. The discovery of the shrine within the amphitheatre means that Chester was the site of Arthur’s court and his legendary Round Table.”

Now that´s great! If true.. I am not sure if the Arthur legend was real? Maybe someone could clear that up for us?
Anyhow +Rep for anyone who finds me Excalibur!

[removeduser_487563287433]

Pf, they've found a late Roman building and tried to fit it into a French fairy tale. Nonsense.

[Dodge]

I froze your tears and made a dagger,
and stabbed it in my cock forever.
It stays there like Excalibur,
Are you my Arthur?
Say you are.

Take this cool dark steeled blade,
Steal it, sheath it, in your lake.
I'd drown with you to be together.
Must you breathe? Cos I need Heaven.

[Getwulf]

I froze your tears and made a dagger,
and stabbed it in my cock forever.
It stays there like Excalibur,
Are you my Arthur?
Say you are.

Take this cool dark steeled blade,
Steal it, sheath it, in your lake.
I'd drown with you to be together.
Must you breathe? Cos I need Heaven.

Wait... Whaattt....!?

...LOL...

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

I froze your tears and made a dagger,
and stabbed it in my cock forever.
It stays there like Excalibur,
Are you my Arthur?
Say you are.

Take this cool dark steeled blade,
Steal it, sheath it, in your lake.
I'd drown with you to be together.
Must you breathe? Cos I need Heaven.

Rofl

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

The name Arthur is a mangled version of the name Aurelianus. Ambrosius Aurelianus is the most likely candidate for Arthur, as he was ex roman govenor of britan and managed to hold the provence together under the tide of saxon invasions. Another candidate is Riothamus, and my favorite is Germanus of Auxerre, who was a roman general under Aetius and Bishop of Auxerre. He visited Britan twice, once in 429 and once in 446 right after the letter known as the groans of the britans was sent to Aetius. The Battle of Badon hill is most likely located at Mynydd Baedan, which translates from welsh into latin Mons Baedan, in which Mons is latin for mountain. Another possibility is that it's one of the roman saxon shore fortifications. Germanus participated in this battle from this quote:
"Germanus led the native Britons to a victory against a Pictish and Saxon army, at a mountainous site near a river, of which Mold in North Wales is the traditional location" - Wikipedia, from Gildas De Excido Brittaniae
Gildas states that this was to win the Romano British over to Aetius and to support him. So this could be a candidate for battle of Badon hill also.

[Dodge]

Did you get the double meanings?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I've read a nice theory that the myth has Sarmatian roots.
When Marcus Aurelius defeated the Iazyges (a Sarmatian tribe), he captured many men of this tribe to keep the tribe without many good soldiers and he sent teams of them in various places, one of them being England. As many as as 5000 Iazyges were settled along the Hadrian's wall and of course these men were fighting in the Sarmatian way, being a formidable heavy armored horse unit (hence the myth that Arthur was a knight).. One of their best leaders was a man named Artorius, that is probably where the name Arthur derives from..

[Farnan]

I got a better theory:

There was a Romano-Celtic leader with a name that translates to Author (or a composite of figures) who became a hero to the Welsh during the invasion of the Saxons. Myths of him were later merged with pre-Christian Briton legends. In the late Middle Ages his story was picked up by an English nationalist who added his own bits and used it to create a founding myth for England that conviently includes fighting invaders from the continent.

[NikeBG]

In the late Middle Ages his story was picked up by an English nationalist who added his own bits and used it to create a founding myth for England that conviently includes fighting invaders from the continent.

Wait, what? So there was nationalism in the Middle Ages after all?! Or it's an "England-only" thing?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I think the Sarmatian theory can be supported by a number of factors..
The British/Roman citizens would had been amazed by these warriors.
Their mysterious Asiatic/Barbaric look, their frightening Sarmatian face and the mysterious culture would had surely caught the attention of these citizens who were certainly not used to the look of Asiatic people.. Their brave behavior in battles and probably the nature of the battles they fought (I don't think they remained static in the Hadrian's Wall, but I guess they attacked north, deep into the enemy's Kingdoms) and the awesome ability to use horses (seeing cavalry in Britain wasn't common as only Legions with very few numbers of cavalry were stationed there) combined with the look of the heavy armored horses/men are things that are clear reasons for a myth to be born.. Many stories would had arisen by the time these warriors got there and these stories got more famous following the battles they fought.. After Britain was captured by the barbarians, these stories of brave, mysterious heavy cavalry units would have served as a hope that these glorious days would return..

[Farnan]

Actually their Asian looking nature goes against them being regarded that way as they would have been seen as outsiders.

And what proof do you have of them charging deep into the enemy's kingdoms?

Next, the Britons were also a warrior culture so you know. Oh and they also had cavalry and Cavalry would have been not too uncommon there.

Your basing your argument off a movie plot...

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I just guess.. You can't have 5.000 cavalry sitting behind Adrian's wall..
I guess they would just leave the safety of the wall and they would try to counterattack the northern barbarians in open plains or even just raid their towns..
The Sarmatians/Iazyges were always known for living riding their horse their whole life.. They were fighting in horses, they were eating in horses, they were moving their horses.. I don't think they could have been of any use as infantry serving along the Hadrian's Wall, in static positions..

I doubt the Romano-British/Barbarians ever used cavalry in such large scale as that of the Eastern Roman Empire, where fighting between the Romans/Sassanids was just between cavalry units.. Also I doubt that the Roman Empire would send elite heavy cavalry units in a so distant land such as Britain.. Except for the Sarmatians there are no other proofs of cavalry being widely used there by the Romans or the Barbarians.. Battles were usually fought along the Hadrian's Wall, between infantry..

[Farnan]

I just guess.. You can't have 5.000 cavalry sitting behind Adrian's wall..

It's Hadrian's, not Adrian's.

And you sure can. Having cavalry as a reserved to counter enemy attacks that penetrate the walls is very important.

And what do you mean there is no proof there is cavalry in Roman Britain besides the Sarmations? I'm positive Britain had Comintatis (sp) units that included cavalry like the rest of the Western Empire.

[Flavius Nevitta]

I just guess.. You can't have 5.000 cavalry sitting behind Adrian's wall..
I guess they would just leave the safety of the wall and they would try to counterattack the northern barbarians in open plains or even just raid their towns..
The Sarmatians/Iazyges were always known for living riding their horse their whole life.. They were fighting in horses, they were eating in horses, they were moving their horses.. I don't think they could have been of any use as infantry serving along the Hadrian's Wall, in static positions..

I doubt the Romano-British/Barbarians ever used cavalry in such large scale as that of the Eastern Roman Empire, where fighting between the Romans/Sassanids was just between cavalry units.. Also I doubt that the Roman Empire would send elite heavy cavalry units in a so distant land such as Britain.. Except for the Sarmatians there are no other proofs of cavalry being widely used there by the Romans or the Barbarians.. Battles were usually fought along the Hadrian's Wall, between infantry..

Nope.

First of all why do you think the Sarmatians would just roam around? They were payed soldiers and did what they were told.

2nd the Ala Gallorum was stationed at the limes. One of the few Alae millariae in the empire. So it actually IS a special and very strong (1000 men) cavalry unit.

found some more online here

[Mr. Crow]

"camelot is a silly place"

[DAVIDE]

The round table an amphitheatre? An interesting idea, but not exactly ‘new’. We recall that the Roman amphitheatre at Caerleon has long been similarly claimed to be the prototype for this ’round table’ of the Arthur King. Indeed, the National Museum of Wales seems to take it as a fact (if this page is associated with them). And before we get too excited, back in 2000 someone was suggesting a round building in Scotland. And a decade before that, the same round building location (Stenhouse) in Scotland was being cited by no less than Burke’s Peerage (and connected, sort of, to the Kennedy clan).
That said, if we think an ‘amphitheatre’ can be taken as a table, we can look at a list of amphitheater remains in the UK (besides Caerleon and Chester) we see there’s one at Cirencester … Arthur was supposedly crowned there (at Cirencester; not necessarily the amphitheatre); that seems to have a potential claim too. There’s one at Colchester, and Colchester is a Camelot candidate; that seems to have a potential claim too. There’s one at Wroxeter, and Arthur may have had a ‘base’ there; that seems to have a potential claim too. Plenty of places are connected with Arthur and plenty of those places have remains of an amphitheatre of some sort. At best, though, I think we can charitably put this in the ‘imaginative suggestion’ category

[NotYetRegistered]

Oh, on Arthur candidates, I read somewhere that there was this warlord named Ar'ur, which meant 'Bear Man'. Can't say if it's true, though.

[PointOfViewGun]

Even though it's a work of fiction I find the depiction of the tale by Bernard Cornwell in his Warlord Chronicles to be the most logical story and the most realistic one.

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

You have an excllent point Manuel, as Sarmatian cataphracts could be "translated" into medieval knights due to their similar apperance. And the Sarmatians were Iranian nomads, and they had a more European appearance comparatively. Also it is highly unlikely that they ate, slept and errrmm... reproduced on the bcks of their horses. It is highly unlikely that the huns did so their entire lives. Also they would not have made good ingantry, as because of their nomadic horseback ridiing nature they would be bow-legged, and would stumble and falter as infantry in the chaos of battle.

"Camelot."

"Camelot."

"Camelot!"

"It's only a model."

"Shhhh! Quiet Patsy."