The Historical Arthur

Nearly every area of Britain lays claim to at least some part of the Arthurian legend. He appears simultaneously throughout the British Isles, even some areas of continental Europe claim to have connections with the tales and history of his exploits. With all these claims the first requirement, therefore, in searching for the historical figure of Arthur, is to establish fundamental ‘terms of reference’, in order to verify the time and location of the legend’s origins.

The earliest references to a figure identifiable with Arthur appears in the ‘Welsh’ poem Y Goddodin, giving, at first glance, the ‘Welsh’ a prior claim to Arthur’s nationality and centre for his role as a purely ‘Welsh hero’ but as will be seen this is not as simple as first appears. However he also appears, virtually simultaneously, located in the other Celtic areas of Britain and these areas have also laid claim to Arthur as their hero. Here then, is the first indication of a philological anomaly that has clouded the issue of the ‘national’ location of Arthur.

The word ‘Welsh’, used today to denote people from the area known as Wales, is a derivation from the old English word ‘weala’ meaning foreigner, and later modified to ‘wealh’ (plural). The invading Germanic tribes, who became known in due course as the Anglo-Saxons, used the term to refer to the indigenous Celtic-British population. Therefore the term ‘Welsh’ can be taken to be a reference to the whole indigenous Celtic population of Britain, particularly those who came into contact with these Germanic invaders. The geographic area ‘Wales’ became synonymous with the area that became the final stronghold of some of the tribes that resisted the conquest of the Germanic tribes and was the easiest area to retreat into. Evidence for the varied location of these peoples is still to be found through the examination of place-name evidence for those areas that have for those areas that have awl as a component of their name; for example Wallasey on Merseyside, however this form of evidence is not without its problems. The modern town of Walton whilst appearing to be a clue to the whereabouts of the Welsh for example may originally have been the tun, ‘farmstead or village’ by the forest-weald; with a wall-weall; or belonging to the British - weala. The word weala is important however as it came to indicate both serf and Welshman; in both cases the word would seem appropriate to describe the status and identity of the Britons that were subjugated by the Saxon invaders.

The arguments around the location of Arthur geographically may seem superfluous but are important, as they serve to illustrate the power of the story. Arthur is such a potentially powerful figure that it is imperative for the ‘national integrity’ of a region to be associated with him.

Another historical fact that is frequently misinterpreted, if the legends of Arthur, or if evidence such as the kind above is taken too literally, is that the native British were down-trodden and enslaved by the newcomers. Examination of law-code’s of Saxon kings of the time clearly prove otherwise. The law-code of Ine for example, make it clear that whilst Welshmen might be substantial landowners, though at some legal disadvantage compared with Englishmen, they were still a definite and substantial element in society. The picture emerges of a society where English migrants, whilst socially superior, are holding land and tilling the soil alongside the native Britons, with one numerically superior in one area and the other predominant elsewhere.

Similarly the conditions that have been popularly associated with the appearance of the figure of Arthur have been subject to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. The majority of Arthurian ‘authorities’ put his existence around the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth centuries AD. This period of time is a confused and little recorded age. It stands at the supposed end of the influence of Imperial Rome over Britain, indeed over the majority of Europe. Under pressure from barbarian invaders from all sides, the Roman empire was fracturing and legions withdrawing to meet the threat on Rome itself. The apparent and traditional end of Roman involvement in Britain came with the often cited letter from the Roman emperor Honorius in AD 410. Removing, supposedly, the protection of the legions of Rome and told the Isle of Britannia to look to its own protection. The existence of such a letter arriving in Britain at this time is one of those pieces of information that has become fact out of clouded sources and historians requiring an ‘end’ to a certain event.

The Evidence

The evidence appertaining to the existence of Arthur is grouped under two main headings, literary and archaeological. Both are riddled with difficulties as is any other record from the immediately post-Roman era. Most of the early literary evidence concerning Arthur survives in the traditional Welsh tales of mythological heroes and their deeds.

The archaeological evidence for the period in which Arthur is supposed to exist is difficult to assess. The period after the Imperial Roman occupation was one of upheaval for Britain, beset on all sides by invaders the evidence that remained is scattered and contradictory. There have been many claims of the discovery of Arthurian artefacts and locations. Perhaps the most famous was the extensive excavation of an Iron Age hill fort known as Cadbury Castle by Leslie Alcock. Alcock refers to Cadbury as ‘Cadbury-Camelot’, he believed that evidence of reconstruction dating from the period in question, and its scale and quality indicated that it had been at the instruction of an exceptionally powerful lord. This he inferred must be the figure of Arthur. His claims remain controversial but are not really regarded as valid today. it does serve however to warn that the power and influence of the myth of Arthur is still as profound today as it was six hundred years ago.

The literary evidence can be divided roughly into two categories, historical and poetic. The ‘poetic’ category comprises a whole series of poems and oral traditions committed to writing. They are generated from all parts of Britain with additions from France and Germany. These follow a diverse selection of themes and characters, some of whom do not, at first glance, seem to correspond with Arthur at all. The historical evidence takes the form of several ‘histories’ and Annals written in and around the eleventh and twelfth centuries. These were in the main written by clergymen and are useful but full of pitfalls, many such as the famous Gildas, were interested in mainly passing over a lesson in Christian morals, not the dispassionate recording of historical events.

As indicated above one of the first contemporary authors to place the existence of Arthur in a historical context was a northern monk named Gildas. Gildas is important in the way that even though he had received a classical education he wrote for an audience of his own kind, he is also important as was writing within living memory of the period in question. Scholars are still in dispute about the geographic location of Gildas when he wrote, this is sounds an irrelevance but where he wrote helps us interpret what he wrote and explain what he left unwritten.

Gildas’ famous work is called 'De Excidio Britanniae', The Ruin of Britain, and it is possibly the closest thing to a written history for the century and a half that followed Roman rule and therefore is of crucial importance. It took the form of an impassioned appeal that the apparently lost civilisation and culture of his youth, and the past that he saw himself as spiritually part of, might yet be revived by the warlords who in his time ruled the land.

Gildas saw the past as a sad decline from the ordered and civilised rule of Rome. In a ‘history’, written though without mentioning dates, he told of invasions from the north when the Roman armies were withdrawn; of civil war and famine; then of a British revival and victory over the barbarians, followed by peace and the beginnings of kingship. After that came more barbarian invasions and an invitation to some Saxon mercenary troops to assist in their removal. The Saxons themselves then revolted against their paymasters after initial successes; there was war, civilised society was destroyed, and many of the British nobility retreated to Gaul. Unfortunately a major omission from Gildas’ work is any mention of the name, Arthur.

Other ‘histories’ are represented most strongly three works; the Gesta Regnum Anglorum written by William of Malmsbury, the Annales Cambriae, and the Historia Brittonum written by a monk named Nennius. There is a fourth, the Historia Regnum Britannia written by Geoffrey of Monmouth, but this is in reality a Romantic novel dressed up as history and of little historical use.

Arthur however is not the invention of Geoffrey of Monmouth - he is mentioned in both the Annales Cambriae and in Nennius’ Historia Brittonum. William of Malmsbury, writing at the same time as Geoffrey refers to, in his Gesta Regnum Anglorum, Arthur and the legends that had developed concerning him - Arthur aided the warrior Ambrosius Aurealianus in fighting the Angles. Ambrosius is also named by Gildas as the leader of the Britons against the Saxons sometime in the 460’s or 470’s. William also says that Arthur was the victor at Mount Badon, a battle whose location has been a source of debate ever since.

The Annales Cambriae were completed in the 950’s. Though little more than a list of dates with added notations, it includes two entries relating to Arthur: 518 - the battle of Badon, and 539 the battle of Camlann that saw the deaths of Arthur and Medraut (Mordred).

The Historia Brittonum, was compiled sometime in the 830’s, its author Nennius states that Arthur fought against Saxons on the death of Hengist who, as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle confirms, died in 488. Hengist was one of the original leaders of the Saxon people who had started to contest the rule of Britain. Nennius provides a list of twelve battles in which Arthur is supposed to have fought, including Badon where Arthur inflicts a great defeat over the Saxons, Arthur is referred to as a warrior, a leader of battles, but not a king.

Although there are problems with all these sources, from them we discover that Arthur was a warrior who led or was a leader of the Britons against the Saxons, and other Germanic invaders, in the late fifth or early sixth centuries. Three elements within these documents collectively associate with Arthur provide good evidence of his existence. These elements are; Badon, Ambrosius and Hengist, all of whom are mentioned by Bede and, importantly, Gildas, who wrote within living memory of the period in question. Hengist is referred to by Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a document compiled under the direction of Alfred the Great.

A recent re-evaluation of source evidence has come up with an interesting and persuasive thesis on the ‘truth’ behind the historical Arthur. It appears that during the late fifth century there was a warrior called Arthur who fought under Ambrosius Aurielanus. This warrior originated from a tribal people known as the Votadini, from the kingdom of Gododdin, The Votadini occupied the eastern coast of Scotland centred around Edinburgh. They were invited to settle in north west Wales in an effort to give them relief from the pressure of raids from the Picts, Irish and the Angles, all of whom were causing extreme difficulties for them. They colonised the area in Gwynedd in the 460s, they were encouraged to do this by Ambrosius in return for their aid in defending the area from incursions by the Irish. To swap three enemies for one in return for a secure living space would no doubt have seemed an attractive idea to the Votadini.

Here it is probably a good idea to explore what this tribal movement has to do with Arthur. In the malestrom that was Britain in the fifth century, a leader had appeared who had united some of the British tribes and led them against the invading Saxons with increasing effectiveness. As can be seen above this leader is mentioned by Gildas and Bede, who is paraphrasing Gildas, no other source mentions him except Nennius, although Nennius’ rendition is based upon legend it does clarify Gildas’ mention that he was from imperial stock. He is called Ambrosius Aurelianus, who was most likely the son of a Roman consul, possibly the Roman governor sent to Britain shortly after AD. 410, the Comes Britanniarum. This officer was withdrawn in 418, and the Britons saw to their own administration, perhaps creating a republic. It soon crumbled under pressure from warlords such as Vortigern, a powerful British chieftain from the midlands who seized power, and by 425 seems to have dominated a large part of Britain.

Here there seems to have been a conflict between two parties, one which wished to see all contacts with Rome dissolved and one which was in essence pro-imperial. There was also a religious tension, Vortigern appears to have been a supporter of Pelagius, the leader of the first ‘heretical’ Christian sect. The other Christian movement was the Roman Catholic Church, and considering the warmth which Gildas refers to Ambrosius, he is a strong candidate for both leadership of the pro-imperials and a Catholic.

With Ambrosius was a Votadini prince known as 'Arthur'. Although there are few references to a man using this name in the contemporary sources, an individual is mentioned who does correspond with him. There are references, even in Gildas, to an individual known as the ‘bear’. It was common practice for Celtic warlords to assume the ‘battle-name’ of an animal that denoted some admired attribute. The first element of Arthur’s name, Arth, in the British language, Brythonic, means bear. It may however have deeper political inference, the surviving ‘British’ kingdoms, as inscriptions show were still using Brythonic, whilst the pro-Roman, or imperial areas used Latin for inscriptions. For the leader of divided Britons to personify unity, he may well have adopted a name using both languages, the Brythonic word for bear, Arth and the Latin equivalent, Ursus. There is a possibility that his original title could have been a compound of the two elements; Arthursus, later being shortened to Arthur

If Arthur does mean ‘bear’ then there is a reference to him in De Excidio Britanniae. Gildas launches a stinging tirade against a cousin of the king of Gwynedd, an individual known as Maglocuncus, or Maelgwn in Welsh. This cousin was called Cuneglasus, and Gildas calls him the ‘charioteer of the Bear's stronghold’. As Cuneglasus was a king in his own right at the time, the passage in Gildas infers that he was in command or in control of what had been the Bear’s-Arthur’s stronghold. The thesis presented by Phillips and Keatman (1992), indicates that Cuneglasus held a kingdom centred upon Powys, and that its capital was the old Roman settlement of Virconium. If this thesis can be substantiated, it appears that the historical Arthur may have been tracked down at last. But whatever historians can prove, the legends will probably still stand foremost in the minds of the majority of people.

[ Chapter 2]