There are theories that King Arthur is based on a leader of a left-behind or stayed-behind regiment of Romano-british soldiers based out of what is now Wales in the 4th and 5th century.
The regiment in question would have been Dacian cavalry, known to ride into battle with a dragon like battle standard called a draco.
Anyway, the historicity of this is doubtful, but that’s why he’s often shown with Roman armor etc.
It’s considered plausible because there are texts from the 9th and 10th c. that suggest that the people in Wales and Cornwall did know of someone named Arthur who was good at fighting and leading men. Then the entire legend came after Monmouth picked up that name from some tales, and used him to claim a connection between him and the Normans to legitimize the Norman rule over the Saxons. It wouldn’t have made sense to do that if people didn’t already know who Arthur was and already thought there was beef with the Saxons. As in, “remember this Arthur guy that you like and who didn’t like the Saxons? Well, the Normans are just like him.” Everything else in the legend was copied from older cycles and boosted with the crusades and the growing romance period - and we don’t know what tales Monmouth used as basis (or claimed to use), to the point he might only have had the name and made up the rest too. But the fame has to have existed before.
Once you have that, someone Roman-related is the only spot that fits with everything else we do know. The Dacian cavalry is not necessary though, we know that “Arthur’s court”’ was literally filled with Celtic, Irish, Welsh etc. mythical figures from the beginning, as well as contemporary real people who didn’t belong to any Arthur.
There are theories that King Arthur is based on a leader of a left-behind or stayed-behind regiment of Romano-british soldiers based out of what is now Wales in the 4th and 5th century.
The regiment in question would have been Dacian cavalry, known to ride into battle with a dragon like battle standard called a draco.
Anyway, the historicity of this is doubtful, but that’s why he’s often shown with Roman armor etc.
It’s considered plausible because there are texts from the 9th and 10th c. that suggest that the people in Wales and Cornwall did know of someone named Arthur who was good at fighting and leading men. Then the entire legend came after Monmouth picked up that name from some tales, and used him to claim a connection between him and the Normans to legitimize the Norman rule over the Saxons. It wouldn’t have made sense to do that if people didn’t already know who Arthur was and already thought there was beef with the Saxons. As in, “remember this Arthur guy that you like and who didn’t like the Saxons? Well, the Normans are just like him.” Everything else in the legend was copied from older cycles and boosted with the crusades and the growing romance period - and we don’t know what tales Monmouth used as basis (or claimed to use), to the point he might only have had the name and made up the rest too. But the fame has to have existed before.
Once you have that, someone Roman-related is the only spot that fits with everything else we do know. The Dacian cavalry is not necessary though, we know that “Arthur’s court”’ was literally filled with Celtic, Irish, Welsh etc. mythical figures from the beginning, as well as contemporary real people who didn’t belong to any Arthur.