King Arthur

King Arthur
True or false?

by Per-Erik Melander

Since the beginning of the twelfth century the story about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table has been a source of inspiration for many writers and poets. It was a Welsh cleric, Geoffrey of Monmouth, who paved the way when he, in 1136, wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain). In it he put together all the legends that in his days were told about Arthur in old Welsh poems.

Is there any substance behind the legend? Was Arthur a real person or just a legendary one? The historians have different views about Arthur, from David Dumvill´s: "the fact 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" to John Davies´: "it is reasonable to believe that a man of that name [Arthur] did exist and that he was the leader of Brythonic forces […] It is credible also that his forces won a victory of importance in about 496 and that he was killed - or that he vanished - in about 515, following the battle of Camlann."

The aim of this report is to investigate if Arthur is a historical person or not. To reach this aim I am using extant medieval sources in which Arthur is mentioned. I am also going to examine two different theories concerning Arthur trying to see how well founded they are. I am also using a recently written book on the subject. The medieval sources come from Internet. Hopefully I will find an answer to the question: Was King Arthur a real person?

Arthur in medieval sources

As mentioned in the introduction, it was the cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth who first popularised the stories about King Arthur, queen Giunevere (he called her Ganhumara), the magician Merlin, the magical sword Caliburn and the island of Avalon. Later medieval writers introduced new themes and people in the story. Robert Wace, a Jersey poet, invented the concept of the "Round Table" and he also changed the name of Arthur´s sword, from Caliburn to Excalibur. The French writer Chretien de Troyes introduced the legend of the Holy Grail, named Arthur´s queen Guinevere and his castle Camelot and he also created some new knights to fight for Arthur, e.g. Lancelot.

Did Geoffrey of Monmouth invent Arthur? No. Some ten years prior to Geoffrey, (1125) another writer, William of Malmesbury, mentions Arthur in a work called Gesta Regum Anglorum. From the end of the eleventh century a few books about English saints have been preserved. In them we find some passing remarks about Arthur. One of these books is called The Legend of St. Goeznovius, written c. 1019.

Annales Cambriae (c. 970) mentions Arthur twice: "Year 72 (c. 519 AD) The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulders for three days and three nights and the Britons were victors." "Year 93 (c. 540 AD) The strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut fell, and there was death in Britain and Ireland."

From Historia Brittonum (c. 830), written by a monk, Nennius, we learn this about Arthur: "Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them [the Saxons] in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander (dux bellorum)." Nennius adds that Arthur was victorious in twelve battles, the Battle of Badon being the last one.

Apart from this, admittedly scanty, evidence of the historical Arthur, there are some old Welsh poems in which he appears. The problem with these works is that they were not written down until the thirteenth century when the stories about Arthur already had gained in popularity thanks to the French and English poets who wrote about him earlier in the twelfth century.

This does not amount to much. But there are three other sources which, though they do not mention Arthur, deal with events and people associated with Arthur. De Excidio Britanniae (The Ruin of Britain) (c. 540) by a British monk named Gildas, Ecclesiastical History of the English People (c 731), also written by a monk, the Venerable Bede, and The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (c. 900). All three mention a British king, Vortigern, king of Powys, who fought against the invading Saxons in the middle of the fifth century. Bede and the chronicle tell us that two brothers named Hengest and Horsa led the Saxons. Gildas and Bede, finally, add that many years of warfare followed, when the leader of the British forces was called Ambrosius Aurelianus, ending in a British victory at a place called Mons Badonicus, Mount Badon. Other sources (Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae) tell us that Arthur fought the Battle of Mount Badon. Historia Brittonum, by Nennius, also mentions Ambrosius Aurelianus. If we combine all these sources the ensuing picture shows that in the concluding years of the fifth century there was a strong military leader in the western part of Britain who, with considerable success, was fighting against the Anglo-Saxons.

The Battle of Badon is a historical fact and the historians have fixed a date to the battle. It occurred in the last decade of the fifth century.

Ambrosius Aurelianus is a historical person. Already Gildas (c. 540) mentions him as leader of the British forces. He came from a Roman family (probably his ancestors had arrived in Britain during the Roman occupation) and his father had been a consul. According to Gildas he had succeeded Vortigern as some kind of warlord over the British. Gildas states that the Battle of Badon was a great victory for the British, but if it was Ambrosius who led the forces he does not say; only that peace reigned until his (Gildas) days.

Two certain facts can be deduced from the sources:

Ambrosius Aurelianus who had succeeded Vortigern as military leader led the British forces.
The Battle of Badon took place in the last decade of the fifth century.

All other facts about Arthur are fantasies of the late middle ages or legends from old Welsh poems.

Two theories

I am going to examine two different theories about King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table - one was put forward in the 1980s by a historian named Geoffrey Ashe and the other ten years later by the two young historians Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman.

Riothamus

According to Geoffrey Ashe, a British king by the name of Riothamus was on the continent, in today´s France, around the year 470. He is citing a medieval writer, Jordanes, who wrote a book about the Visigoths (Getica c. 551), a barbarous people from the region of the Black Sea, who invaded the western Roman Empire at this time. Jordanes recounts that a British king, with 12 000 men, departed for the continent when the western Roman emperor Anthemius (emperor 467-472) appealed for help against the Visigoths. The British intervention proved disastrous, though. Riothamus and his men were defeated by the Visigoths and had to escape to the south, to Burgundy.

There is also a letter written to Riothamus. It was written c. 470 by the bishop of Clermont-Ferrand, Sidonius Apollinaris (c. 431-489). The letter deals with some legal business that Sidonius wants Riothamus to attend to.

Geoffrey of Monmouth (History of the Kings of Britain c. 1136) relates that Arthur went to the continent where he won great victories. This he did when Leo I was emperor over the eastern part of the Roman Empire (457-474). In the late 12^th century, a British monk, known as the monk from Uriscampun, suggested that Riothamus and Arthur could be the same person. This is also the opinion of Geoffrey Ashe. He has shown, together with a French historian, Leon Fleuriot, that Riothamus is a title, not a name. Riothamus is the Latin form of a Celtic word, Rigotamus, meaning overlord or king.

Owain Ddantgwyn

Another theory has been put forward by two young historians, Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman. According to Phillips and Keatman two different factions appeared in Britain after the departure of the Romans. One faction wanted to create a completely Celtic dominion; the other wanted the links with the Roman Empire to remain. In the beginning the Celtic party took the lead, but after the Anglo-Saxon invasion when the Celts were defeated the pro-Roman party seized power. Their new leader, Ambrosius Aurelianus, king of Gwynedd, became the foremost British king of the period and he was fortunate enough to halt the Anglo-Saxon invasion for a while.

C. 460 a people from the northern part of Britain, the Votadini, began colonising Gwynedd. Either they came as conquerors or as peaceful settlers at the request of Ambrosius to aid him in the war against the Saxons, most probably the later alternative. According to old genealogies, attached to the work Annales Cambriae, the name of their king was Cunedda. There is also archaeological evidence of this migration.

When Ambrosius died, Enniaun Girt, the son of Cunedda, became king of Gwynedd. He was elected overking, "dux bellorum", and fought against the Saxons as leader of the British forces just as Ambrosius had done earlier. He carried a red dragon as a symbol of his power and he saw himself as the "foremost amongst dragons", which in Gaelic reads "pendragon". Geoffrey of Monmouth gives us the name of Arthur´s father as Uther Pendragon. Uther means "terrible" and, according to Phillips and Keatman, the name Uther Pendragon (the most terrible and the foremost amongst dragons) was only a title that the kings of Gwynedd had made for themselves.

The theory put forward by Phillips and Keatman is as follows: Enniaun Girt must have died some time prior to 490 and left the throne to his son. This son reigned, according to the old genealogies, at the time of the Battle of Badon. The name of this son was Owain Ddantgwyn, the most powerful man in Britain at this time. His heir and son, Cuneglasus, called his father "the Bear". The Gaelic word for bear is Arth.

Phillips and Keatman have an explanation of the name Arthur. The two factions, the pro-Roman and the Celtic, had united in the fight against the Anglo-Saxons. By combining the two words for bear, Arth in Gaelic, Ursus in Latin, making it Arthursus, an act of symbolic importance was achieved. Later generations simplified the name to Arthur. (This can not be true. Arthur is the Gaelic form of the Roman name Artorius. The first time this name appears in history is actually in Britain. In the year 184 the Roman commander Lucius Artorius Castus, stationed in Britain, leads a campaign to Gaul (France) to quell a rebellion, resembling the one Ambrosius made 300 years later).

Conclusion

After studying the different sources the following conclusions can be reached: When the last Roman troops left Britain in 407 a struggle for hegemony began in the vacuum that the Romans had created after their departure. Lesser kingdoms appeared, some nationalistic, some pro-Roman. The Celtic faction was the most powerful in the beginning. The king of Powys, Vortigern, became "dux bellorum", leader of all the British forces who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons. Vortigern was succeeded by Ambrosius Aurelianus, the king of Gwynedd and a Roman by birth. He managed to check the Anglo-Saxon invasion and restore peace in the country. This happened c. 470. At this time the western Roman emperor Anthemius asked the British for help against the Visigoths. Jordanes recounts that a British king, with 12 000 men, made for the continent to help the emperor. The leader of this expedition ought to have been Ambrosius, with the title of Riothamus. According to Jordanes the British were defeated and had to escape to Burgundy.

Once again Britain was devoid of troops and the Anglo-Saxons began harassing the countryside. The British had to choose a new "dux bellorum" and under his leadership they won a great victory over the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Mount Badon.

Not until 300 years later, c. 830, the name of Arthur appears in connection with this famed battle. It is Nennius who in his work mentions him as "dux bellorum". Evidently much has happened in the intervening time. The lives of several men have been confused. Nennius tells us a story about Ambrosius when he was elected king that resembles the story about Arthur under the same circumstances. The failure of Ambrosius in Gaul and also the campaign, accomplished in 184, by the Roman commander Lucius Artorius Castus, stationed in Britain, also aimed at Gaul and for the same reason, to quell a rebellion, have probably meant much for the subsequent legends about Arthur. The sixth and the seventh centuries are the real "Dark Ages" in British history. Hardly any contemporary sources have been preserved and the stories the people told about the old days were transmitted orally. And under the span of three hundred years such stories can take on a life of their own.

Finally, do we have an answer to the question put in the beginning of the report: Was King Arthur a real person? The answer to this question must be no. What people remembered about Vortigern, Ambrosius, the Battle of Badon and maybe Lucius Artorius Castus was, in the early medieval period, weaved together to become just one story, the legend about King Arthur. The British people, when finally conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, needed someone to put their hope to and this someone became the legendary figure of Arthur. In the legend he was not dead, he would return and once again defeat his enemies. Through the years the legend grew, material from old Welsh poems was added and in the 12^th century, when the Normans had conquered England, these kings used the Arthurian legend to justify their conquest. Arthur had, according to the legend, together with his warriors, departed for Gaul and now his descendants returned to the homeland to recapture the country from the Anglo-Saxons. With this perspective in mind it is not hard to understand why the legend became so popular in the late medieval times. With the help of the Norman kings, who used the legend as propaganda, the story grew. And, during the centuries, it has continued to grow.

Finally, if we should, amongst all these people, try to choose someone who possibly could have served as a model for the legendary Arthur, it must be Ambrosius Aurelianus. He is, in my view, the only possible candidate and he is also the only one who is mentioned by a contemporary writer, namely Gildas who wrote about him in the beginning of the sixth century.

Bibliography

Literature

Phillips, G. & Keatman, M. (1992). King Arthur: The True Story. London: Century

Internet

Ashe, G. A Quest for Arthur. (1982).