The British admitted that King Arthur was a Russian prince

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

The legendary King Arthur, who is the standard of Western European chivalry, was a Russian prince who arrived in England with his retinue in agreement with the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius. This sensational statement was made by the famous British historian Howard Read.

In the course of lengthy research and Great Britain, France and Russia, Reed came to the conclusion that King Arthur was one of the representatives of the tribes that lived in the Sarmatian steppes of southern Russia.

Famous for their tall and blond horsemen, these tribes came to the Danube at the beginning of the second century and met with the Roman legionaries.

In the course of lengthy negotiations, Rome managed to find a common language with them and the core of the "barbarian" army was taken into the imperial service. In the year 175 from N. H. L. about six thousand Russian soldiers arrived at Albion. Working in the archives of the St. Petersburg Hermitage, Howard Reed discovered numerous symbols from burials on the territory of Russia, coinciding with the samples on the banners under which the soldiers of the legendary King Arthur fought

And here's another:

The legendary King Arthur was a Sarmatian!

It has been written for a long time that the popular character of chivalric novels had a historical prototype. The figure of the king is too charismatic to be completely fictional. In addition, information about the great warrior of the Britons, who managed to organize and lead the resistance to the invasion of the Germans on the islands, is found in the poems of the Welsh bards, and in a number of Latin chronicles about the conquest of Britain dating back to the 6th century.

For a long time, scientists believed that a certain "Bear", a participant in the battle with the Saxons at Mount Bado Hill in 516, served as the prototype of the legendary king. Basically, the basis for such assumptions was based on the fact that in Welsh "bear" is "artos" which, according to experts, is etymologically close to the name Arthur. But not all historians share this point of view. So, some researchers are convinced that the real King Arthur was a Roman, and his name comes from the ancient Roman name Artorius, which was altered by the Celts. There are other, more, let's say, exotic theories. In particular, for example, the English historian Howard Reid seriously claims that King Arthur was a Russian, more precisely, a Rus who escaped from Roman captivity and, by the will of fate, became the leader of the Britons. The version is, of course, curious. In addition, it is always pleasant to realize that even in distant England there are scientists who are confident that the legendary king of the Celts was our tribesman. But unfortunately, Reid's version is just a version. Moreover, as studies by a number of Western European and Russian historians show, a Sarmatian could well become the prototype of the legendary King Arthur. Despite all the seeming fantastic nature of such theories, there are quite enough grounds for them. The very name of the king - Arthur (Arthur) according to experts comes from the name of the Sarmatian solar deity Arthuron, which means "Fire of the sun". There are other equally convincing arguments. At the present time, for example, there is every reason to believe that the Sarmatian cataphracts served as the prototype of the Knights of the Round Table, as well as medieval knights in general. So the Romans called the heavy Sarmatian, and then the Alanian cavalry. It is believed that it was the cataphracts who determined the entire basic set of knightly weapons and the tactics of equestrian combat for many centuries to come. Judge for yourself. This is how ancient historians described the fighting power of the cataphracts:

“… They all sat on their horses like statues, their limbs were fitted with armor that exactly matched the shapes of the human body. They covered the arm from wrist to elbow and from there to shoulder, while plate armor protected the shoulders, back, and chest. The head and face were covered with a helmet with a metal mask, which makes their wearer look like a statue, because even the thighs and legs, and the very tips of the legs, are covered with armor. It is connected to the carapace by a beautiful chain mail weave, like a fabric, so that no part of the body is visible or uncovered, because this braided covering protects the hands and is so flexible that wearers can even bend their fingers."

According to the testimony of Tacitus, a historian who lived in the II century A. D., the armor of the cataphractarius was so heavy that the warrior who was knocked down from his horse was not able to get up himself. Sarmatian scale armor in combination with chain mail existed until the XIV century. The knights' only addition to it was a shield, the use of which was considered unnecessary by the ancient Sarmatians. They protected the Sarmatians and their horses with armor. Why in the eyes of the enemy they looked "… like some kind of iron man or a moving forged statue."

As the main offensive weapon, the cataphracts used a long, up to 3 - 3, 5 meters spear, which was attached to the neck and rump of the horse with wide belts, thereby allowing the rider to easily direct him at his own discretion. When the battle began, they, lining up like an armored ram in a wedge, crashed into the enemy formation at full gallop, inflicting a crushing blow on it. Moreover, the force of the blow was such that, according to eyewitnesses, with one spear the cataphractarian often pierced through two opponents with shields and armor. An equally crushing weapon in the hands of the Sarmatians was a long, over a meter, two-handed sword, which they usually used after it became impossible to use a spear in the thick of battle.

Neither the Romans nor the Celts had anything like this at that time. Therefore, starting from the II century AD, the empire began to willingly hire detachments of heavy Sarmatian cavalry, armored by an armada that swept across the lands of Western Europe. As part of the Roman armies, the Sarmatians, and then the Alans, traveled to Gaul, Normandy, on the banks of the Rhine, and reached the coast of Britain, where their expeditionary force reached 5,000 heavily armed horsemen. It was then, according to scientists, that Iranian heroic stories, stories and traditions came to Western Europe, which later formed the circle of legends about King Arthur.

Indeed, Iranian motifs in the Arthurian cycle are quite noticeable. These include the plot with the Grail, which the knights of the Round Table were looking for. It is generally believed that the cult of the Holy Grail originated in medieval Britain and has Christian roots. But, as it turns out, the cult of a sacred and at the same time magical cup of heavenly origin is a typically Iranian idea, rooted in the Scythian or even Aryan times.

The story of the initiation of young Arthur bears in itself undoubted Iranian signs. Knightly novels say that the future king was able to prove his right of dominion over Britain only after he twice pulled out from under the stone under the altar the magic sword Excalibur, put there by the sorcerer Merlin.

Meanwhile, for the ancient Iranians, a sword stuck into the ground, a mountain of brushwood or a stone served as the idol of the god of war and victory. The tsar, in their views, was considered a living embodiment of God. Therefore, the Sarmatians believed that the sacred sword could only be picked up by a person in whose veins royal blood flows. Which is fully reflected in the plot with Excalibur. According to legend, except for young Arthur, none of the applicants who volunteered for this could not pull him out from under the stone.

As already mentioned, above, the earliest mentions of the legendary king of the Britons are found in the poems of the Welsh bards and Latin chronicles of the 6th century. True, in the poems, Arthur is not yet a king, but only a military leader of the Britons. The title of the king, like the laurels of a virtuous Christian, was "appropriated" to him much later, in about the 8th century. And before that, the valiant warrior and ideal ruler Arthur, according to legend, was headed by a well-armed paramilitary - semi-robbery squad of desperate thugs, "famous", by the way, not only victories over the Saxons, but also banal robbery and robbery of local residents. The moral character of Arthur is also far from the canonical in the poems. According to all the same bards, in his character both knightly straightforwardness and nobility, and extreme cruelty, reaching bloodthirstiness, were surprisingly combined. Which, according to historians, indicates the hero's barbaric origin. By the way, representatives of the Christian Church did not favor Arthur either. Which, in general, is quite understandable. The Lives of the British saints describe in some detail how this future "warrior of the Lord" of knightly novels in his real incarnation with enviable constancy robbed Christian churches and monasteries. From which, by the way, it follows that it is unlikely that the prototype of the legendary king was a Christian, and therefore a Roman. King Arthur was not a Celtic. And that's why. The Celts at that time did not have their own national well-armed cavalry. But it was possessed by the Sarmatians who remained on the island after the withdrawal of the main troops of the empire from Britain in 407. Left to themselves, the Sarmatians, who by that time had long been called Alans, quickly turned into a truly formidable force. Led by a tribal aristocracy, they engaged in robbery and fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons, gradually assimilating into the local environment. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the Celts, seeing in the Sarmatians natural allies in the fight against the Germans, easily adopted their military tactics, as well as heroic stories and myths, altering them in their own way. They adopted from the Sarmatians the name of their legendary leader Arthur, giving him a modern form - Arthur and making him their own. Just like the name of the Sarmatian ethnic group Alans (which, according to linguists, originates from the Indo-Iranian "aryana" - Aryans), the Celts eventually transformed into a proper name Alan (Allan), which is quite popular in Western Europe.

In conclusion, I would like to add the following. Unfortunately, in many historical works, be it a novel or a motion picture, outdated ideas about the Scythians and their kindred Sarmatians as barbarians, wild nomads, deprived of any significant material and spiritual culture, are still replicated. And yet this is absolutely not the case. The Scythians and the Sarmatians who succeeded them had in their own way a unique material culture, traces of the influence of which are found in the culture of most of the modern peoples of Europe, and especially in the Russian one.

And the last thing. Currently, the theory that the Russians are Sarmatians - Roksolans (Light Alans) or Rukhs-Ases (Light Ases) is quite popular, which means that the version of the Englishman Reid is perhaps not so far from the truth.