Dux Bellorum

Flint F. Johnson
{"title":"Dux Bellorum","authors":"Flint F. Johnson","doi":"10.2478/scp-2020-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper will explore the accuracy and intent of the term dux bellorum, leader of war, as used in the Historia Brittonum with regards to Arthur. A discussion of Post-Roman archaeology, supplemented with contemporary historical documents, will establish that no Roman commands, such as the dux Britanniarum or comes Britanniarum, survived into the “Arthurian” period of the late fifth or early sixth centuries. A broader search of historical records will indicate that a linguistic cognate of dux bellorum was twice conferred on Celtic kings when leading a coalition of tribes in times of mutual threat according to the historical record; one was known to the author of the Historia Brittonum. A review of Historia Brittonum scholarship will show it came to its present form in c. 829 Gwynedd, ruled at the time by Merfyn Frych. The contemporary historical context was that the British kingdoms had been pressured for decades by the English and were specifically invaded by Wessex at around this time. This will be followed by a discussion of several biases in the history including a focus on Gwynedd’s dynasties and Merfyn in particular and British success against the English when united and failure when they were divided. Arthur was the best example of the latter agenda and because of this the most likely example of what Merfyn hoped to create. A summary of Merfyn’s political career in this context can be used to explain Arthur’s entire description in the work.","PeriodicalId":32192,"journal":{"name":"Studia Celtica Posnaniensia","volume":"5 1","pages":"61 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Celtica Posnaniensia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/scp-2020-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This paper will explore the accuracy and intent of the term dux bellorum, leader of war, as used in the Historia Brittonum with regards to Arthur. A discussion of Post-Roman archaeology, supplemented with contemporary historical documents, will establish that no Roman commands, such as the dux Britanniarum or comes Britanniarum, survived into the “Arthurian” period of the late fifth or early sixth centuries. A broader search of historical records will indicate that a linguistic cognate of dux bellorum was twice conferred on Celtic kings when leading a coalition of tribes in times of mutual threat according to the historical record; one was known to the author of the Historia Brittonum. A review of Historia Brittonum scholarship will show it came to its present form in c. 829 Gwynedd, ruled at the time by Merfyn Frych. The contemporary historical context was that the British kingdoms had been pressured for decades by the English and were specifically invaded by Wessex at around this time. This will be followed by a discussion of several biases in the history including a focus on Gwynedd’s dynasties and Merfyn in particular and British success against the English when united and failure when they were divided. Arthur was the best example of the latter agenda and because of this the most likely example of what Merfyn hoped to create. A summary of Merfyn’s political career in this context can be used to explain Arthur’s entire description in the work.
Dux Bellorum
本文将探讨《不列颠历史》中关于亚瑟王的“战争领袖”dux bellorum一词的准确性和意图。对后罗马考古学的讨论,加上当代历史文献的补充,将会证实,没有任何罗马命令,比如《不列颠纪事》(dux Britanniarum)或《不列颠纪事》(comes Britanniarum),能延续到5世纪末或6世纪初的“亚瑟王”时期。对历史记录进行更广泛的搜索会发现,根据历史记录,当凯尔特国王在相互威胁的时期领导部落联盟时,dux bellorum的语言同源词被两次授予;其中一个是《英国历史》的作者所知道的。对布里顿历史学者的回顾表明,它在公元829年的格温内斯形成了现在的形式,当时由默芬·弗里奇统治。当时的历史背景是,英国王国几十年来一直受到英国人的压力,特别是在这个时候被威塞克斯入侵。接下来将讨论历史上的一些偏见,包括对格温内斯王朝的关注,尤其是对默芬王朝的关注,以及英国在联合时对英国的成功和分裂时的失败。亚瑟王是后一种议程的最好例子,正因为如此,他最有可能成为默芬希望创造的例子。在此背景下总结默芬的政治生涯可以用来解释亚瑟王在作品中的整个描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书