The Roman King Arthur?: Lucius Artorius Castus

By Tony Sullivan

The 2004 film, King Arthur, starring Clive Owen and Keira Knightley, introduced the audience to Lucius Artorius Castus as the basis to the much later legend of King Arthur. The book analyses the theories behind the film which link this second to third century Roman officer with the medieval Arthurian legends and a possible historical figure in post-Roman Britain. This first full academic study of Artorius Castus offers a number of potential timeframes and details his career through a turbulent and bloody period of Roman history, serving as primus pilus of V Macedonia and praefectus of the Sixth Legion in northern Britain. Turning to the historical narrative of the film it covers the archaeological and literary evidence for the break down of Roman Britain, arrival of Germanic peoples and emergence of petty kingdoms and new cultural identities. The penultimate chapter lays out the evidence for and against a historical Arthur, offering suggestions as to his identity, location of his battles and the possible political, military, social and cultural situation he lived and fought in. This is an entertaining and informative picture of two fascinating figures, one firmly historical, the other shrouded in myth and legend. The book leaves the reader with a clear picture of the lives of a Roman career officer and later dark-age warrior and the different worlds in which they lived. Anyone interested in the Roman period, post-Roman Britain and the possibilities for a historical Arthur should enjoy this book. “A fascinating investigation into the historical figure of Lucius Artorius Castus, camp prefect of VI Victrix based at Eboracum, York”. Dave Grainger, Legio VI Victrix, re-enactment group, York. “A welcome addition to modern discussions the roman army officer Lucius Artorius Castus which seeks to place him within an appropriate timescale and very properly disputes the links that have been suggested between this ‘real’ Roman army officer and the later and very much more fictional king Arthur”. Professor Nick Higham, historian and author

• Language: English
• Publisher: Open Road Integrated Media
• Release date: Jul 20, 2022
• ISBN: 9781399084031

Tony Sullivan

Tony Sullivan lives in Kent with his wife and children. He spent 31 years in the London Fire Brigade and have recently retired. He has been interested in dark age history and King Arthur in particular for many years.

Book preview

Introduction

The legend of King Arthur has fascinated people for hundreds of years. After Geoffrey of Monmouth penned his famous fantastical pseudo-history in

AD

1136, the Historia Regum Britannie (The history of the Kings of Britain), there was an explosion of interest across the medieval world. Much of the story we associate with the legend was added by writers many hundreds of years after the alleged events. However the core of the story should be familiar: a warrior leads the kings of the Britons against the invading Anglo-Saxons. Geoffrey partly based his Arthur on the earliest reference found in the Historia Brittonum, written around

AD

830. This describes him as a dux bellorum, or leader of battles. In fact the exact wording is ‘dux erat bellorum’ (he was leader of battles) which is more likely a description than a title.

However the earliest Welsh tradition has few references to Anglo-Saxons. These tales present us with a more magical mystical Arthur. He fights giants, witches and journeys to the underworld to steal a magical cauldron. It is the French Romances, and later Thomas Malory’s fifteenth century Le Morte d’Arthur, which gives us the story we know and love today. Camelot, the sword in the stone, the round table, knights and the Holy Grail were all added to the story from the late twelfth century onwards. Yet there is some consensus in the story. The Romans leave Britain to its own defences. A council lead by Vortigern invites Saxon mercenaries to defend against Picts and Irish raiders. These mercenaries revolt and devastate the former province. Gildas, writing in the later fifth to early sixth century, tells us a fight back is led by Ambrosius Aurelianus, which culminates in the battle of Badon and an ‘unhappy partition with the barbarians’. By the late sixth century the Anglo-Saxons expand once more as petty kingdoms emerge.

Into this timeframe our sources place Arthur, although there is much debate as to exactly when. In my first book, King Arthur, Man or Myth, I proposed three likely possibilities: An early Arthur (

AD

450–480); a middle Arthur (

AD

480–510); or a late Arthur (

AD

510–540). There is much debate among historians as to the nature of, or even whether there was, an invasion and widespread displacement of the population. This will be covered in more detail later. Regarding King Arthur, historians generally fall into one of two camps. Some dismiss him entirely as a fictional or mythical character. Others accept there may well have been a historical figure, but we simply have no evidence to say anything about him. This has not prevented a myriad of theories and scores of books attempting to identify him.

One popular theory, often referred to as ‘the Sarmatian connection’, links our hero to a Roman soldier from the second or third century. Lucius Artorius Castus was stationed in Britain and later led two or three legions (or more likely units from those legions). The only information we have comes from two stone inscriptions found in modern Croatia. As the only known figure in Britain called Artorius it is perhaps natural he should at least raise an eyebrow for anyone remotely interested in the legend. Attached to this theory are the Sarmatians. There are two main reasons why a group of folk tales, known as the ‘Nart sagas’, first recorded in the nineteenth century, are important. First, it is claimed these relatively recent tales have some similarity with the legends attached to Arthur and that these legends originated among the Scythian peoples from which the Sarmatians descended. Second, that Artorius Castus was stationed in Britain at the time of, or after, the Sarmatians were posted to the north of the province after their crushing defeat in

AD

175.

This theory formed the basis of the 2004 film, King Arthur, starring Clive Owen and Kiera Knightley. The idea being that the name Artorius was handed down to a fifth-century Roman commander of Sarmatian knights. These knights are claimed to have continued in Britain after the second century and formed the basis of Arthur’s knights in the later legends. These same Sarmatians allegedly brought their legends and tales with them, which included swords being thrust into the ground and red dragon banners.

Critics of this theory suggest much evidence is lacking. First, we don’t have a precise date for Artorius Castus. It must be demonstrated there is a direct link between Artorius and Sarmatians. If he is dated later than the second century, then evidence is required to show Sarmatians in Britain retained their cultural identity after their initial posting. We also need to ascertain which legends can be traced to the Sarmatians in the second century. We will cover the merits and criticisms in more detail later, but I would add two criteria of my own for this theory to hold water. The later legends and stories evolved between our earliest reference in the eighth century to the later middle ages; there must be something linking those tales to the Roman era. Alternatively, we should have something linking Artorius Castus in the second century with our later hero, set in post-Roman Britain.

We can dismiss this second possibility straight away. There is not a single reference to Artorius Castus from any of our Roman sources from the second to the fifth centuries. All we know of him are his military postings recorded on two continental inscriptions. We cannot show he fought a single battle. There are also no named battles from the Roman era that can be connected in any way with the famous battle list associated with Arthur. Nor is there anything remotely Arthurian from this era. Not a single play, poem, literary source or inscription gives any hint of the legend before the Historia Brittonum in

AD

830. It is possible the author had earlier sources perhaps even as early as the seventh century. There is also a thirteenth-century copy of a Welsh poem, Y Gododdin, which may contain a reference to Arthur and may derive from the early seventh century. But we have nothing from earlier centuries linking a second or third century Roman officer to our hero.

We are therefore left to look for clues in the later legends. Part of our investigation will be to look at these later tales for hints of an Arthur outside our traditional timeframe. Chapter one will begin with the man at the centre of this theory, Lucius Artorius Castus. We will discover who he was, the world in which he lived and attempt to date him as best we can. In chapter two we will look at the evidence for a historical Arthur and place him in the most likely timeframe. Next we will look at the history of Rome covering the widest period Artorius is likely to have lived. This will be followed by an investigation of the Sarmatians, before we compare their legends with the later Arthurian tales. Chapter five will lay out the career of Artorius Castus which should prove interesting in its own right, with or without any connection to the legend. Chapter six will investigate post-Roman Britain, the arrival of the Saxons, the battle of Badon and the emergence of petty kingdoms before the end of the sixth century. Chapter seven will look at the various theories for identifying King Arthur. The final chapter will conclude whether there is any link between Artorius Castus and King Arthur.

Before we begin I will briefly summarise the 2004 film and cover the most obvious historical inaccuracies. The film is set in the fifth century as Roman authority in Britain declines. Native ‘woads’ are rebelling, led by Merlin assisted by Guinevere, played by Kiera Knightley. Clive Owen as Arthur, is a Romano-British commander of a small group of Sarmatian ‘knights’, Lancelot, Tristan, Galahad, Bors, Gawain and Dagonet. Due to return home after their posting they are given one last mission. Bishop Germanus asks them to save a Roman family from north of Hadrian’s Wall before advancing Saxons, led by Cerdic and Cynric, reach them. In particular Germanus wants Alecto, a young boy tipped to be a future pope.

Artorius reaches the homestead and finds the local Roman leader, Marius, has enslaved the population and imprisoned a number of ‘woads’, including a young woman, Guinevere. Artorius rescues both Guinevere and Alecto and journeys south with the Saxons in pursuit. Marius attempts a coup but is slain by Guinevere. Alecto tells Arthur that his mentor and father figure, Pelagius, was killed by Germanus. These events lead Arthur to become disillusioned with Rome and he joins forces with Merlin and the ‘woads’ to fight the Saxons. En route, Arthur and his knights fight a dramatic battle on a frozen lake which forces the Saxons to retreat. Reaching Hadrian’s Wall Arthur decides to stand and fight. Despite being discharged, his Sarmatian knights stand with him and there is a climatic battle at Badon Hill which is placed next to Wall in the north of Britain. The film ends with Arthur marrying Guinevere and being proclaimed king by Merlin. Lancelot then narrates how the tales were passed down through the generations.

There is very little of the later tales in the film. There is no round table, sword in stone or Holy Grail. No Camelot nor Avalon, and Arthur doesn’t find his end at Camlan. However, it is set nearer to an accurate historical timeframe than most Arthurian films. There was indeed a St Germanus and he did visit Britain in

AD

429, and again possibly eight to nineteen years later. His purpose was to combat the Pelagian heresy. Pelagius had become famous for his theological views while living in Rome and his views had been influential. We shall look at the fragmentation of Roman Britain in more detail later. But it is worth noting that the scenario of a Roman family requiring rescue from north of Hadrian’s Wall is unlikely. We see an increase in Germanic material culture from around

AD

425, but this seems to be confined to the south and east of the island. The very areas that experienced the bulk of Romanisation and contain archaeological finds of Roman villas. As a rough guide, by the end of the fifth century the bulk of Germanic settlements appear to be along river valleys, coastal areas and around Romano-British politico-economic urban centres. These were confined to an area south and east of a line drawn between the River Tees and the Solent. There is no evidence of such activity as far north as Hadrian’s Wall.

Literary sources, though uncorroborated, do place Germanic mercenaries in the north. However Cerdic and Cynric are recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as landing on the south coast in

AD

495. The West Saxon kingdom appears to have been centred around the upper Thames Valley. Mathematical errors within the chronicle have led some academics to conclude a more accurate date would be c.

AD

535. This leads us to the Battle of Badon. Much ink has been spilt debating exactly where and when it was. A plethora of theories place it in various locations all over Britain. Its date too is hotly argued over, but a range of

AD

470–520 would cover the majority of the theories. Certainly none are outside the fifth or sixth centuries. We will cover this in far more detail later.

The ‘woads’ are clearly a reference to the blue dye used by Britons which was mentioned by Julius Caesar in De Bello Gallico, The Gallic Wars. They are portrayed as half naked savages, but in reality the Picts and Irish of the fourth and fifth centuries were sophisticated enough to overrun Roman defences on several occasions without any help from Sarmatian knights. The Britons too were not a homogenous group. Many in the south and east had become Romanised and urbanised. The later kingdoms of the west and the northheld off the emerging Anglo-Saxon kingdoms for several centuries.

The ‘Sarmatian connection’ and Artorius as Arthur theory.

The first suggestion Lucius Artorius Castus might be connected to King Arthur was made in 1924 by Kemp Malone, a professor of English literature. This was based largely on the likely etymology of the name Arthur, from the Latin Artorius. There was also an assumption at the time that the inscription on the tombstone of Artorius referred to a campaign in Armorica, and Malone theorised this might explain part of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s narrative that placed Arthur campaigning in Gaul. The theory was revived by Helmut Nickel in the 1975, who linked Artorius with Sarmatian cavalry posted to Britain. These ‘knights’, it was claimed, formed the basis of legends of the round table. The carrying of red dragon banners influenced the name Pendragon. This relies on the assumption, made in the 2004 film, that the Sarmatians stayed in Britain, or that the tradition of Sarmatian auxiliaries being posted there continued into later centuries.

An American anthropologist, Covington Scott Littleton, developed a similar ‘Sarmatian connection’ theory with Anne Thomas in the 1970s. He went on to co-author a book with Linda Malcor, From Scythia to Camelot. This linked Arthurian legend with Caucasian mythology, most notably the Nart sagas. These tales were written down in the nineteenth century but may date back to medieval times. The theory is that they were brought to the region by Alans, who in turn derived their stories from earlier mythology that the Sarmatians also brought to Britain. Specific parallels are alleged to have been found in the legend of the sword in the stone and the Holy Grail. The most recent evolution of this theory is from a journal article by Malcor, Trinchese and Alessandro in the Journal of Indo-European Studies, Missing Pieces: A New Reading of the Main Lucius Artorius Castus Inscription.

All these different threads can be summarised simply as follows: Sarmatians were posted to the north of Britain in

AD

175. There they were led by a Roman officer, Lucius Artorius Castus. They brought many of their legends and myths with them and these were mixed up with the military exploits of Artorius. These were passed down through the centuries and half remembered in Welsh tales. The figure of Artorius got misdated and evolved into the legend we know today.

A number of claims have become associated with this theory. The main ones are as follows: Artorius Castus was a legionary commander in the north of Britain; he was also a governor of Britain during the reign of Commodus; the Sarmatians travelled to Britain with their families numbering up to 20,000; there is archaeological evidence these Sarmatians remained throughout the centuries; the legends of swords in stones and magical cups can be traced back to the Sarmatians; Artorius Castus fought and led these Sarmatians in battle; and that Artorius Castus can be dated accurately. Lastly, that the stone inscription can only be interpreted as Armatos, ‘armed men’. Thus providing a window of opportunity for Artorius to be leading Sarmatians in Britain.

We will go through each of these in detail to see if they have any support. In addition to these the most recent claims I have come across in discussion with the proponents of this theory suggest the following exact dates reflect the career of Artorius Castus.

1. Prefect of the legion (commander) VI Victrix (twice)

AD

180–187;

2. Dux of the British legions

AD

187–191;

3. Governor of Liburnia and Ius Gladii (for 6 years)

AD

191–197

There is no suggestion that Artorius rose to the senatorial class, and this would indeed be an extraordinary career for an equestrian. While posted in Britain it is suggested that Artorius held the rank of praefectus Sarmatarum gentilium; roughly, ‘commander of the Sarmatian people’. The claim is there was a significant movement of 5,500 Sarmatian warriors along with many thousands of their families to Britain. The alleged links with Sarmatians has coined the phrase ‘the Sarmatian theory’, or the ‘Alano-Sarmatian hypothesis’. Alternatively, we can refer to it as the Artorius-Arthur theory. The purpose of this book is to investigate the merits of this theory. In addition, it will attempt to identify, and lay out, a credible timeframe for both Artorius Castus and a fifth- or sixth-century Arthur. Who, then, was this ‘original’ Artorius?

Chapter 1

Lucius Artorius Castus

A funerary inscription from Epetium, near Salona (Dalmatia), in modern Croatia, preserves the military career of a Roman equestrian. Lucius Artorius Castus was a Roman military commander who served in the second to third centuries. In fact, two inscriptions were discovered in the nineteenth century. We can see the location on the map below.

The first is a sarcophagus inscription broken into two pieces and found set in the wall of a churchyard. The second a memorial plaque, also broken, and found nearby. There is some dispute about the exact lettering and it has also suffered weathering damage. We can see the actual stone in picture two below.

An important point to mention is that some of the letters are ligatured. This is when two or more letters are joined together, similar to ‘AE’ when written as ‘Æ’ in the Anglo-Saxon name Æthelberht. In order to represent this I have underlined the relevant letters so it is clearer for the reader to decipher. Lastly the figure ‘7’ is used for the symbol which indicates the post of centurion. The dots indicate where the text has been lost to damage.

Figure 1: Map of location of inscriptions.

Figure 2: Picture of funerary inscription stone of Lucius Artorius Castus. (Wikimedia commons)

It must also be remembered abbreviations were common in inscriptions, such as leg for legionis, or P P for primus pilus.

L ARTORI…………………………………..STVS 7 LEG

III GALLICAE ITEM …………………..G VI FERRA

TAE ITEM 7 LEG II ADI………….TEM 7 LEG V M

C ITEM P P EIVSDEM …………….. PRAEPOSITO

CLASSIS MISENATIVM …………….AEFF LEG VI

VICTRICIS DVCI LEGG ………….M BRITANICI

MIARVM ADVERSVS ARM….S PROC CENTE

NARIO PROVINCIAE LI…………….… GLADI VI

VVS IPSE SIBI ET SVIS …………………ST……….

The second inscription is as follows:

L * ARTORIVS

CASTVS * P * P

LEG * VMAC * PR

AEFEC..VS * LE..

VI * VICTRIC *

Proposed translation (and expansion):

Lucius Artorius Castus

Primus Pilus legionis V Macedonia

Praefectus legionis VI Victrix

A third, unconfirmed, find is an eighteenth-century discovery of a signet ring bearing the following: LVCI ARTORI CASTI (Lucius Artorius Castus).¹ If the first two inscriptions are connected, as seems probable, then we can use the second to deduce the missing portion of the name from the first line of the sarcophagus inscription. Filling in the damaged section might reveal the following (missing letters and expanded abbreviations in brackets):²

L(ucius) Artori[us Ca]stus centurioni leg(ionis)

III Gallicae item [centurioni le]g(ionis) VI Ferra-

-tae item centurioni leg(ionis) II Adi[ut(ricis) (P{iae} F{idelis})

i]tem centurioni leg(ionis) V M[a]-

-c(edonicae) item p(rimo) p(ilo) eiusdem [leg(ionis)] praeposito

classis Misenatium [pr]aef{f}(ecto) leg(ionis) VI

Victricis duci legg(ionum) [triu]m Britan(n)ici-

–{an}arum adversus Arm[enio]s proc(uratori) cente-

-nario provinciae Li[burniae iure] gladi(i) vi-

-vus ipse sibi et suis [… ex te]st[amento]

One possible translation of the sarcophagus is as follows:³

To the divine shades, Lucius Artorius Castus, centurion of the Third Legion Gallica, also centurion of the Sixth Legion Ferrata, also centurion of the Second Legion Adiutrix, also centurion of the Fifth Legion Macedonica, also chief centurion of the same legion, in charge of (Praepositus) the Misenum fleet, prefect of the Sixth Legion Victrix, commander of three British legions against the Armenians, centenary procurator of Liburnia with the power of the sword. He himself (set this up) for himself and his family in his lifetime.

It is possible it reads two (duarum) British legions rather than three. We can lay out his career as follows:

Centurion of legion III Gallica

Centurion of legion VI Ferrata

Centurion of legion II Adiutrix (Pia Fidelis)

Centurion of legion V Macedonia

Prima Pilus of legion V Macedonia

Praeposito of the fleet of Misenum

Praefectus of legion VI Victrix

Dux of the British legions against the Armenians

Procurator of the Province of Liburnia

The Artorii were a family of Italian origin, possibly from the south of the peninsula.⁴ There is evidence they owned property in the area around Salona, Croatia, in the late second or third century.⁵ This would suggest either Lucius had family in that area, or their position derived from his appointment as procurator. There is no evidence of their presence from the first century. Nor do we get any reference to Lucius or his descendants from any other source. What we can be sure about is he finished his career in modern Croatia, probably at an advanced age, after a lifetime’s service to the empire.

Definitions and debates

It is worth briefly describing some of the definitions and terms used through the book. These will all be discussed in far more detail later and it is worth bearing in mind there were always exceptions, and ad hoc and temporary positions.

Social order: the Roman empire had a fairly rigid hierarchical social structure. The bulk of the Roman people, soldiers, townspeople and tradesmen, were plebeians. The second rank were equestrian. These filled various military and administrative posts. The top rank were the senators. In the second century it was generally only senators who led legions and governed provinces, with some important caveats.