The Alano-Sarmatian Theory

There appears to be a view in Arthurian studies known as the Alano-Sarmatian Theory.

It is an answer to the old question: "What, if anything, is the historical origin of King Arthur?"

Of course, it is perfectly possible to enjoy stories about Arthur without caring about the "what really happened" question. They are literary texts, incitements to one's own imagination, etc. Further, they are always fascinating as reflections of the times in which they were written. T.H. White's THE SWORD IN THE STONE (1938) is worlds away from Tennyson's IDYLLS, and the difference is that between England in high-Victorian confidence and England in between-two-world-wars reflectiveness.

Still, some of us want to know whether there was a historical person behind it all and, if so, who the heck he was. And there are various theoreticians who presume to sort that out for us.

The predominant theory for a long time was that "Arthur" was an ancient Brit thoroughly assimilated to the civilization of the Roman conquerors, who sought to save that civilization on his home island in the chaotic circumstances of the late Empire, after the legions were withdrawn from that distant place to defend Italy. Arthur, then, would have been a leader of the resistance to the barbarian Angles and Saxons, a defender of the fading Roman ways. [Caution, if you use that link, you'll have to scroll down a bit before you find the relevant discussion.] This certainly seems like an appropriately romantic and doomed enterprise for him. And there is a name attached: Ambrosius Aurelianus.

The Alano-Sarmatian view is quite different. It places the original of Arthur a couple of centuries earlier and at the extreme opposite end of the Roman Empire, amidst the steepes of what we would now call the Ukraine, with the nomads then known as Alans or Sarmatians. A figure named Lucius Artorius Castus apparently earned his fame in the fighting in that area, and later was transferred to Roman Briton. He was not alone when he got there -- there were Alans and Sarmatians already in Britain, and he became a rallying figure for them, on this view. The mythologies from the two opposite ends of Europe merged to make the body of Arthurian legend.

At least, that's how I understand it. If I understand it.

Can I solve the question for you and tell you, or tell myself, who was the "real" Arthur, whether he was Aurelianus or Castus or somebody else. No.

Alas, I can not pull that sword out of the stone of complicated distant history.