tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post110954900693626301..comments2023-11-04T01:41:23.277+00:00Comments on Memorabilia Antonina: ‘King of the who?’Tony Keenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-67706769097465669562009-02-08T10:41:00.000+00:002009-02-08T10:41:00.000+00:00An excellent and well-researched article; well don...An excellent and well-researched article; well done! It really annoys me when Hollywood films pretent to be accurate. I just have one slight problem:<BR/><BR/><I>"I do think that Arthur's absence from Gildas' account shows that, if he did exist, he certainly wasn't as important as later tradition makes him out to be."</I><BR/><BR/>I disagree with you there; one of Gildas' primary purposes in <I>De Excidio</I> was to draw attention to Biblical parallels in the recent history of Britain:<BR/><BR/><I>"to the end that our Lord might in this land try after His accustomed manner these His Israelites, whether they loved Him or not,"</I><BR/><BR/>For Gildas, the old Israelite pattern of foreign oppression, turning to God, victory, fall back into immorality, foreign oppression again was being repeated in Gildas' own time. As such, Gildas would have wanted to keep specific events and names to a minimum to let the parallels shine through the stronger. It could be argued (and indeed has been; see Gidlow, <I>The Reign of Arthur</I>) that the only reason Gildas names Ambrosius is that "his grandchildren have greatly degenerated from their ancestor's example". Since Arthur doesn't apper to have had any descendants, there was no similar reason to mention him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1147117926612983362006-05-08T20:52:00.000+01:002006-05-08T20:52:00.000+01:00If the history and archaeology are irrelvant, why ...If the history and archaeology are irrelvant, why should they be allowed to mess with the myths? But actually, I'm more of a "please can we have some evidence to back assertipons up, and not distort the history and archaeology in order to provide a spurious 'historical' background for myths" person.<BR/><BR/>And that's my problem with Malcor. As it happens, I have read her pieces, and I've now read them again. I'm not inclined to change my mind. At the heart of her argument is the proposition that Artorius Castus commanded the <I>ala Sarmatarum</I>, the Sarmatian cavalry stationed at Ribchester. As far as I can tell, there's no evidence for this. What evidence does exist seems to contradict this proposition. Artorius' British service, as attested on his grave monument, was when he was <I>praefectus</I> of the VI Legion. The natural way to read that information is that he was <I>prafectus castrorum</I> responsible for the legionary fortress, which for the VI Legion was at York (though Guy de la Bedoyere, in <I>Companion to Roman Britain</I>, p. 207, thinks he was an equestrian prefect placed in overall command of the Legion). The position of <I>prafectus castrorum</I> was usually held by someone who had previously achieved the rank of <I>primus pilus</I> (senior centurion), as Artorius had. Malcor rejects that as 'impossible', on the grounds that <I>prafectus castrorum</I> was a civilian post, and Artorius' military career was not over, as shown by his subsequent appointment as <I>dux</I>. I don't agree that <I>prafectus castrorum</I> was a civlian role, and even if it was, I don't think holding it would preclude a later appointment to the <I>ad hoc</I> role of <I>dux</I>. And A prefect who had served in charge of the <I>ala Sarmatarum</I> would have named that unit in the record of his career, not a legion. Malcor tries to get around this by suggesting that Artorius was prefect not of the unit, but of the fort they were based in - but I know of no evidence that such roles were divided in the Roman auxiliary. But even if Malcor is right that Artorius was a <I>praefectus alae</I>, there's no reason, as far as I know, to believe this must have been the command of the Sarmatians. <BR/><BR/>I must stress <I>as far as I know</I>. It's possible that there is some evidence I haven't been able to find. But if so, Malcor doesn't mention it. She talks about Artorius' probable experience of the Sarmatians when he served on the Danube frontier, but that is deduced from his command of the Sarmatians in Britain, not adduced to suggest that command. From her article, there is no reason to believe that Artorius commanded the Sarmatians other than the <I>a priori</I> assumptions that (a) Artorius is the historical original for Arthur, and (b) the Sarmatians are the historical originals for Arthur's knights. What Malcor is doing is using Artorius being the historical basis for Arthur as one of the main planks of her case that Artorius' biography can provide the basis for the Arthur legend. This is why I say that she uses circular arguments. This, together with her poor understanding of the Roman army (there appears to be an implicit assumption that auxiliary units were parts of legions - though they would be under the overall command of a legionary legate on campaign, the epigraphic evidence does not support permanent incorporation of such units into legions) and poor Latin, is why I consider this a poor piece of scholarship.<BR/><BR/>If my anonymous commentator would like to point to where I have misunderstood Malcor, then by all means let them do so. However, I will continue to apply basic rules of evidence, if if that makes me an 'ostrich' in their eyes, then so be it. And now I'm off to edit the relevant Wikipedia articles, as some of them are badly wrong.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1146267875338522812006-04-29T00:44:00.000+01:002006-04-29T00:44:00.000+01:00Jeesh, Tony, if you're going to rip Malcor so badl...Jeesh, Tony, if you're going to rip Malcor so badly, you should at least read what she said in her articles. It's pretty obvious you are solidly in the class of the "don't mess with our myths with irrelevant history and archeology" ostriches. Grow up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1114780483396669422005-04-29T14:14:00.000+01:002005-04-29T14:14:00.000+01:00I have enjoyed reading your comments just as much ...I have enjoyed reading your comments just as much as I enjoyed the movie. (I understand that what comes out of Hollywood is ALWAYS gonna be total fiction etc), however, the whole point of Hollywood is to entertain and entertain it certainly did do. The movie consequently prompted me to research into the quest for Arthur, never mind the Holy Grail, and I'm very much pleased I came across your writings. Ever since I was a child, like every, had understood of the existence of a mythical Arthur and, comparing this to Jesus, there's no smoke without fire as far as I'm concerned. Alike, no one alive today could ever be sure that the two existed we can only presume and so what! Again, we can only base what we know on ancient scripts etc but then, do we know that the people who wrote them were only making it up? Like Jesus I believe Arthur was a real-life living human being who obviously made an impact on society at that time(whenever that time was) for whatever reason. It is nice to think of the legends but like yourself I believe in fact and stories are guaranteed to change each time they are told, come on we've all played chinese whispers we know how it goes! Let us just leave this new epic just as it was intended - blockbusting entertainment. Why argue? No one will ever trully know the real facts, it would be nice to find out some day but I don't think any of us have got the time. And that's what happens with Hollywood, they may have researched, at least they did touch on something factual otherwise you, like thousand others, wouldn't be fending and proving and maybe that's a good thing, maybe it's giving someone the determination to find the 'holy grail'. I hope their quest will be worthwile and fulfilling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1109684383171083062005-03-01T13:39:00.000+00:002005-03-01T13:39:00.000+00:00I was somewhat bugged too by the claims made by de...<I>I was somewhat bugged too by the claims made by defenders of the film that the film-makers had gone to special efforts to make everything historically accurate</I>That was mostly the historical consultants, who were clearly being paid to talk it up. But however much accurate the detail may have been (and most of the costumes are accurate, but not for that period), the liberties taken with what is known of the fifth century are unforgivable.Tony Keenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07125792825206480340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10659275.post-1109642688507060732005-03-01T02:04:00.000+00:002005-03-01T02:04:00.000+00:00Thanks for that. I came here by way of zotz's LJ, ...Thanks for that. I came here by way of zotz's LJ, and you just said at much greater and more knowledgeable length what I've been trying to articulate since seeing that dodgy movie.<br /><br />I was somewhat bugged too by the claims made by defenders of the film that the film-makers had gone to special efforts to make everything historically accurate... apart from the props, costumes, armour, names, characters, story, setting, etc. It just seemed to be a standard crappy Hollywood movie, so that claim to be the "true" Arthur story was all the more annoying. I guess<br /><br />For me the strength of the Arthurian tradition is that every interpretation is just that, an interpretation. There is no longer a "true Arthur", if ever there was; each new movie, book, or song add to the tradition, just as it has done for hundreds of years. The Arthur of the Mabinogion is simply not as interesting as the Arthur of Malory, even if the former is somehow "truer" merely by virtue of being older.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com