Артур король: тарихи тұлға ма, әңгімелердегі кейіпкер ме?

Debate about whether King Arthur was a historical person

The historicity of King Arthur has been debated both by academics and popular writers. While there have been many claims that King Arthur was a real historical person, the current consensus among specialists on the period holds him to be a mythological or folkloric figure. Enniaun Girt, and Athrwys ap Meurig.

Until the late 20th century, there was academic debate about the historicity of Arthur among historians and archaeologists. In the 21st century, the academic consensus rejects it. In 1936, R. G. Collingwood and J. N. L. Myres treated Arthur as a Roman comes Britanniarum. They asserted that "the historicity of [Arthur] can hardly be called into question", though they were careful to separate the historical Arthur from the legendary Arthur. In 1971, Leslie Alcock claimed to "demonstrate that there is acceptable historical evidence that Arthur was a genuine historical figure, not a mere figment of myth or romance". Also in 1971, while conceding that Gildas does not mention Arthur, Frank Stenton wrote that this "may suggest that the Arthur of history was a less imposing figure than the Arthur of legend" but then argued that "it should not be allowed to remove him from the sphere of history." In 1977, John Morris argued in favour, David Dumville took the opposite position in the same year: "The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books." By 1986, Myres, who had written in 1936 (with Collingwood) that Arthur was historical, said "It is inconceivable that Gildas  should not have mentioned Arthur's part  " (that is, if he had existed) and complains that "No figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian’s time." By 1991, the Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain stated that "historians are tending to take a minimal view of the historical value of even the earliest evidence for Arthur, but most probably still see him as an historical figure  " while "the chivalric Arthur  was essentially the creation of Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century." In 2003, Thomas Charles Edwards' book on the period only mentioned Arthur in the context of a later Welsh story. In 2004, Francis Pryor dismissed the evidence that Arthur existed but says that proving he did not exist is as impossible as proving that he did. In 2007, O. J. Padel in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography described Arthur as a "legendary warrior and supposed king of Britain". He was less dismissive in 2014, describing Arthur as "originally legendary or historical", but also cited the failure of the tenth century Welsh poem Armes Prydein, which prophesied the expulsion of the English from Britain, to mention Arthur among the ancient heroes who would return to lead the resistance. In a 2007 review, Howard Wiseman followed Sheppard Frere (1967), saying that "the evidence allows, not requires belief", and follows Christopher Snyder (2000) in emphasising the need for a better understanding of the period, regardless of whether Arthur existed. In 2013, Guy Halsall reported that "among the academic community, the sceptics have decisively carried the day". In 2018, Nicholas J. Higham refuted all the outstanding claims for a historical Arthur, summarising his position as: "That Arthur has produced extraordinary quantities of 'smoke' is in large part because he is so well suited to be a fulcrum of make believe. But there is no historical 'fire' underlying the stories that congregated around him, just 'highland mist'." His book has been generally praised. Andrew Breeze argued in 2015 and 2020 that Arthur was historical, and claims to have identified the locations of his battles as well as the place and date of his death. However, his conclusions were disputed.

The origin of the name Arthur is unclear. One proposed etymology is from the Roman family name Artorius, itself of obscure and contested etymology, possibly of Messapic or Etruscan origin. According to linguist and Celticist Stephan Zimmer, it is possible that Artorius has a Celtic origin, being a Latinization of the hypothetical name *Artorījos derived from the patronym *Arto rīg ios, meaning "Son of the Bear" or "Warrior King". *Arto rīg ios is unattested, but the root *arto rīg is the source of the Old Irish personal name Artrí. Some scholars have noted that the legendary King Arthur's name only appears as Arthur, Arthurus, or Arturus in early Latin Arthurian texts, and never as Artōrius (although the Classical Latin Artōrius became Arturius in some Vulgar Latin dialects). However, it may not refer to the origin of the name Arthur, as Artōrius would regularly become Art(h)ur when borrowed into Welsh. John Morris argued that the appearance of the name Arthur among Scottish and Welsh figures suggests the name became popular in early 6th century Britain for a short time. He proposed all such occurrences were due to the importance of another Arthur who may have ruled temporarily as Emperor of Britain, and suggested a period of Saxon advance was halted and turned back before resuming in the 570s.

Arthur is not mentioned in Gildas' 6th century book De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. Gildas does mention a British victory against the Saxons at the "Badonic mount" (mons Badonicus), which occurred in the year of Gildas' birth and ushered in a generation of peace between the two warring peoples. This engagement is now referred to as the Battle of Badon. Gildas describes the battle as taking place "in our times" and being one of the "latest, if not the greatest" slaughter of the Saxons, and that a new generation born after Badon had come of age in Britain. Later Cambro Latin sources give the Old Welsh form of the battle's location as Badon, such as in the Annales Cambriae, and this has been adopted by most modern scholars. Gildas' Latin is somewhat opaque; he does not name Arthur or any other leader of the battle. He does discuss Ambrosius Aurelianus as a great scourge of the Saxons immediately prior, The Historia says: "Then in those days Arthur fought with the kings of the Britons against them [the Saxons] but he himself was the commander of battles (dux bellorum)". Twelve battles fought by Arthur are listed. Commenting on Arthur's post Conquest portrayal as a king, the historian Nicholas Higham observes "Earlier texts are uniform in depicting Arthur solely as a warrior or a leader of warriors, whether ‘real’ or supernatural  In the context of the central Middle Ages, it was a king's role to head the army, leading the forces of subaltern rulers. ‘Overkingship’ was well known, in Wales as elsewhere. It was a small step therefore from ‘commander of battles’ to a quasi imperial figure commanding the Welsh kings as well as their forces. This was to prove a landmark shift within the Arthurian tradition, leading directly to 'King' Arthur."

The earliest version of the Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals) was composed in the mid 10th century. It gives the date of Badon as 516 and lists Arthur's death as occurring in 537 at the Battle of Camlann. Like the Annals, all other sources that name Arthur were written at least 400 years after the events which they describe. The work considered Arthur as historical and featured Ambrosius Aurelianus as his apparent employer. Malmesbury also mentioned the finding of a tomb of a certain "Walwin" (a supposed nephew of Arthur) in the time of William the Conqueror.

Arthur was first styled as a king of the Britons in Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudo historical chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), which dates to c. 1136. Historia Regum Britanniae draws upon Gildas' De Excidio Britanniae, the Historia Brittonum, and the Annales Cambriae, among other sources. Geoffrey also refers to Ambrosius Aurelianus (whom he calls Aurelius Ambrosius) as a king of Britain and an older brother of Uther Pendragon, father of Arthur, thus establishing a familial relationship between Aurelianus and Arthur. He identifies Aurelius Ambrosius as the son of Constantinus, a Breton ruler and brother of Aldroenus.

Arthur is mentioned in several 12th to 13th century hagiographies of Welsh and Breton saints, including those of Cadoc, Carantoc, Gildas, Goeznovius, Illtud, and Paternus. The Legenda Sancti Goeznovii is a hagiography of the Breton saint Goeznovius which was formerly dated to c. 1019 but is now dated to the late 12th to early 13th century. It includes a brief segment dealing with Arthur and a leader known as Vortigern.

There are a number of mentions of a legendary hero called Arthur in early Welsh and Breton poetry. These sources are preserved in High Medieval manuscripts and cannot be dated with accuracy. They are mostly placed in the 9th to 10th century, although some authors have dated them to as early as the 7th century. The earliest of these would appear to be the Old Welsh poem Y Gododdin, preserved in a 13th century manuscript. It refers to a warrior who "glutted black ravens [i. e., killed many men] on the rampart of the stronghold, although he was no Arthur." The Welsh poem Geraint, son of Erbin describes a battle at a port settlement and mentions Arthur in passing. The work is a praise poem and elegy for King Geraint, usually presumed to be a historical king of Dumnonia, and is significant in showing that he was associated with Arthur at a relatively early date. compiled around 1250, though the poem itself may date to the 10th or 11th century. Artorius is known from two inscriptions that give details about his service. After a long career as a centurion in the Roman army, he was promoted to prefect of Legio VI Victrix, a legion headquartered in Eboracum (present day York, England). He later commanded two British legions on an expedition against either the Armoricans (in present day Brittany) or the Armenians. He subsequently became civilian governor of Liburnia in modern Croatia, where he died. Littleton and Malcor argued that Artorius and the Sarmatian cavalry were the inspiration for King Arthur and his knights, but that many elements of Arthur's story derive from Caucasian mythology, ostensibly brought to Britain in the 2nd century by Sarmatians and Alans. They find parallels for key features of the Arthurian legend, including the Sword in the Stone, the Holy Grail, and the return of Arthur's sword to a lake, in the traditions of the Caucasus, and connect Arthur and his knights to Batraz and his Narts, the heroes of the legends of the North Caucasus. Some Arthurian scholars have given credence to the Sarmatian connection, but others have found it based on conjecture and weak evidence. Few of the Caucasian traditions cited to support the theory can be traced specifically with the Sarmatians; many are known only from orally transmitted tales that are not datable before they were first recorded in the 19th century. Additionally, many of the strongest parallels to the Arthurian legend are not found in the earliest Brittonic materials, but only appear in the later Continental romances of the 12th century or later. Cognates of the name Riothamus survive in Old Welsh (Riatav/Riadaf) and Old Breton (Riatam); all are derived from Common Brittonic *Rigotamos, meaning 'Most Kingly' or 'Kingliest'.

According to Gildas, Ambrosius Aurelianus (also sometimes referred to as Aurelius Ambrosius) was a powerful Romano British leader in Britain. He was renowned for his campaigns against the Saxons, and there is some speculation that he may have commanded the British forces at the Battle of Badon Hill or that the battle was a continuation of his efforts. Scholars such as Léon Fleuriot identified Ambrosius Aurelianus with the aforementioned Riothamus figure from Jordanes, an idea which forms part of Fleuriot's hypothesis about the origins of the Arthurian legend. Others, such as Geoffrey Ashe, disagree, since Ambrosius is not called "king" until the somewhat legendary Historia Brittonum.

Artuir mac Áedán was the eldest son of Áedán mac Gabráin, an Irish king of Dál Riata (in present day south west Scotland) in the late 6th century. Artuir never himself became king of Dál Riata; his brother Eochaid Buide ruled after their father's death. However, Artuir became a war leader when Áedán gave up his role and retired to monastic life, though Áedán was officially still king. Thus it was Artuir who led the Scoti of Dál Riata in a war against the Picts, separate from the later war with Northumbria. That Artuir is the historical basis of King Arthur has been proposed by both David F. Carroll and Michael Wood. Under this hypothesis, Artuir was predominantly active in the region between Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall, the kingdom of the Gododdin. However, he was ultimately killed in battle in 596 – thus, he lived far too late to have been the victor at the Battle of Badon, as mentioned by Gildas in the early 6th century.