by Tim Walker
Many readers will be familiar with the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table, his court at Camelot, the ill-fated love affair between his queen, Guinevere, and Sir Lancelot, and the search for the Holy Grail. These romantic and chivalric embellishments were added by various writers in the Middle Ages to a less glamorous King Arthur in a story first told by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his History of the Kings of Britain in 1136 AD. The effects of these additions to an already fantastical tale is to leave the impression that King Arthur is a made-up character, invented to fill the black hole in British history known as the Dark Ages (specifically, the late fifth and sixth centuries).
However, Geoffrey did not invent Arthur. There are earlier sources, mainly from Welsh literature, who mention a valiant military leader named Artur, Arthur (or Artorius in Latin) who may or may not have been a king. Undoubtedly, one of Geoffrey’s main sources would have been Nennius, the first compiler of early British history, in his work, Historia Brittonum (The History of the Britons c. 820 AD).
Historian Miles Russell in Arthur and the Kings of Britain (2018), describes this work as “a structurally irregular mix of chronicle, genealogical table, legend, biography, bardic praise poems, itinerary and folklore.” It is Nennius who gives us our first tantalising glimpse of a ‘real’ Arthur in the listing of his twelve battles. Nennius tells us, “Arthur fought... together with the kings of the Britons and he was Dux Bellorum.” He describes Arthur as a Dux Bellorum (a leader of battles), who leads the combined armies of the kings of Britain against their enemies, primarily the Angles and Saxons. Some interpret this to mean that Arthur was not a king, just a hired military commander. Others argue that Nennius assumes the reader knows that Arthur is one of the kings of Britain and that as Dux Bellorum, he was first amongst equals.
Miles Russell is of the opinion that Geoffrey originated the legend of King Arthur by taking the name of a real character in Welsh folklore and then deliberately constructing a Dark Ages superhero by piling on his shoulders the deeds of earlier heroic Briton leaders. This was perhaps done to satisfy his sponsors. It was a record of history they would welcome, the story of a Briton hero who fought against the unpopular Saxons whom they had recently defeated. His story of a busy and destructive Arthur fuelled the imaginations of later writers, who further embellished the legend and imbued him with the more romantic and chivalrous qualities of the day.
Whilst researching my new novel, Arthur, Dux Bellorum, I came across an article by historian David Nash Ford (www.britannia.com/history/arthur) who speculates on the locations of the twelve battles of Arthur as outlined by Nennius. Ford suggests that Arthur’s first five battles could have taken place in the modern English county of Lincolnshire. He then places other battles further north in Yorkshire/Northumberland and has a further two, possibly three, battles in Scotland. These locations may or may not be correct, but they suited my storytelling, as I send Arthur and his comrades on a journey north, finally arriving at one of the many Roman forts on Hadrian’s Wall. From his base on the Great Roman Wall, Arthur sallies northwards, fighting northern tribes at three locations in Southern Scotland.
I think it perfectly achievable that he could cover such distance (some historians have suggested the spread of locations is too wide) – travelling by horseback on Roman roads. It is a mere three hundred miles from Winchester, where the story begins, to Newcastle, at the eastern end of Hadrian’s Wall. He had plenty of time, as my story covers roughly a ten-year period, taking Arthur from late teens to late twenties. There is scope for a second book that takes Arthur southwards to the English Midlands and Wales for more adventures and to complete Nennius’s battle list.
There are other problems with Nennius’s list. For one, he mentions Badon Hill, most likely a battle associated with an earlier king such as Aurelius Ambrosius (or, as in my previous book, Uther Pendragon). Also, he doesn’t mention Arthur’s final battle, Camlann, mentioned by earlier Welsh sources and included in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story.
My description of Arthur is partly based on the picture I chose for the book cover (Arthur Dux Bellorum by Gordon Napier). I was instantly drawn to this superb work of art when I recognised one element of Nennius’s scant description of Arthur: “The eighth battle was in Guinnion fort, and in it Arthur carried the image of the holy Mary, the everlasting Virgin, on his shield and the heathen were put to flight on that day, and there was a great slaughter upon them, through the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the power of the holy Virgin Mary, his mother.” The artist had clearly been inspired by this description in his portrayal of the young leader. Yes, Nennius was a Christian monk who was clearly keen to portray Arthur as a Christian leader fighting the pagan Saxons and Picts – a theme reflected in my storytelling.
What really happened in the late fifth and early sixth centuries? Perhaps one day a lost manuscript will be found, or archaeologists will uncover a definitive battle site or evidence of Arthur’s fortress (almost certainly not called Camelot) or his burial site (almost certainly not Glastonbury Abbey). A recent theory by historian Graham Phillips in his book, The Lost Tomb of King Arthur, makes the intriguing case for the location of Arthur’s kingdom, his final battle and burial place, to be in Powys, central Wales.
His entertaining, if tenuous, case hangs on the possibility that ‘The Bear’ or ‘ur Arth’ was a title given to the kings of Powys, and one particular king was the Arthur of legend. There are still plenty of ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybes’ in his extensively researched and passionately-argued case, but perhaps the most lasting impression is his enthusiasm for the search and deep commitment to the task of uncovering the definitive lost history of Arthur.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Walker published his latest book, Arthur Dux Bellorum, on 1st March and it is available in e-book and paperback from Amazon and other online book stores. Although in a series, it can be read as a standalone novel.
Book Link: http://mybook.to/Arthur
Author Links:
Author website: http://timwalkerwrites.co.uk
Amazon author link: http://author.to/TimWalkerWrites
Goodreads author link: https://www.goodreads.com/timwalker1666
Twitter: https://twitter.com/timwalker1666
Facebook: https://facebook.com/TimWalkerWrites
Instagram: https://instagram.com/timwalker1666
Many readers will be familiar with the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table, his court at Camelot, the ill-fated love affair between his queen, Guinevere, and Sir Lancelot, and the search for the Holy Grail. These romantic and chivalric embellishments were added by various writers in the Middle Ages to a less glamorous King Arthur in a story first told by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his History of the Kings of Britain in 1136 AD. The effects of these additions to an already fantastical tale is to leave the impression that King Arthur is a made-up character, invented to fill the black hole in British history known as the Dark Ages (specifically, the late fifth and sixth centuries).
However, Geoffrey did not invent Arthur. There are earlier sources, mainly from Welsh literature, who mention a valiant military leader named Artur, Arthur (or Artorius in Latin) who may or may not have been a king. Undoubtedly, one of Geoffrey’s main sources would have been Nennius, the first compiler of early British history, in his work, Historia Brittonum (The History of the Britons c. 820 AD).
Historian Miles Russell in Arthur and the Kings of Britain (2018), describes this work as “a structurally irregular mix of chronicle, genealogical table, legend, biography, bardic praise poems, itinerary and folklore.” It is Nennius who gives us our first tantalising glimpse of a ‘real’ Arthur in the listing of his twelve battles. Nennius tells us, “Arthur fought... together with the kings of the Britons and he was Dux Bellorum.” He describes Arthur as a Dux Bellorum (a leader of battles), who leads the combined armies of the kings of Britain against their enemies, primarily the Angles and Saxons. Some interpret this to mean that Arthur was not a king, just a hired military commander. Others argue that Nennius assumes the reader knows that Arthur is one of the kings of Britain and that as Dux Bellorum, he was first amongst equals.
Miles Russell is of the opinion that Geoffrey originated the legend of King Arthur by taking the name of a real character in Welsh folklore and then deliberately constructing a Dark Ages superhero by piling on his shoulders the deeds of earlier heroic Briton leaders. This was perhaps done to satisfy his sponsors. It was a record of history they would welcome, the story of a Briton hero who fought against the unpopular Saxons whom they had recently defeated. His story of a busy and destructive Arthur fuelled the imaginations of later writers, who further embellished the legend and imbued him with the more romantic and chivalrous qualities of the day.
I think it perfectly achievable that he could cover such distance (some historians have suggested the spread of locations is too wide) – travelling by horseback on Roman roads. It is a mere three hundred miles from Winchester, where the story begins, to Newcastle, at the eastern end of Hadrian’s Wall. He had plenty of time, as my story covers roughly a ten-year period, taking Arthur from late teens to late twenties. There is scope for a second book that takes Arthur southwards to the English Midlands and Wales for more adventures and to complete Nennius’s battle list.
There are other problems with Nennius’s list. For one, he mentions Badon Hill, most likely a battle associated with an earlier king such as Aurelius Ambrosius (or, as in my previous book, Uther Pendragon). Also, he doesn’t mention Arthur’s final battle, Camlann, mentioned by earlier Welsh sources and included in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story.
What really happened in the late fifth and early sixth centuries? Perhaps one day a lost manuscript will be found, or archaeologists will uncover a definitive battle site or evidence of Arthur’s fortress (almost certainly not called Camelot) or his burial site (almost certainly not Glastonbury Abbey). A recent theory by historian Graham Phillips in his book, The Lost Tomb of King Arthur, makes the intriguing case for the location of Arthur’s kingdom, his final battle and burial place, to be in Powys, central Wales.
His entertaining, if tenuous, case hangs on the possibility that ‘The Bear’ or ‘ur Arth’ was a title given to the kings of Powys, and one particular king was the Arthur of legend. There are still plenty of ‘ifs’, ‘buts’ and ‘maybes’ in his extensively researched and passionately-argued case, but perhaps the most lasting impression is his enthusiasm for the search and deep commitment to the task of uncovering the definitive lost history of Arthur.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Walker published his latest book, Arthur Dux Bellorum, on 1st March and it is available in e-book and paperback from Amazon and other online book stores. Although in a series, it can be read as a standalone novel.
Book Link: http://mybook.to/Arthur
Author Links:
Author website: http://timwalkerwrites.co.uk
Amazon author link: http://author.to/TimWalkerWrites
Goodreads author link: https://www.goodreads.com/timwalker1666
Twitter: https://twitter.com/timwalker1666
Facebook: https://facebook.com/TimWalkerWrites
Instagram: https://instagram.com/timwalker1666
A concise summary of a remarkably complex and entirely fascinating field of study and speculation.
ReplyDelete