In Search of King Arthur

by Tim Walker

The search for a tangible King Arthur remains as inconclusive as ever due to lack of compelling, physical evidence, although some continue to try and convince us otherwise. There are many places in Britain that lay claim to have connections to a ‘real’ Arthur – Tintagel where he was said to have been conceived; Camalat (South Cadbury in Somerset), an impressive iron age citadel; Glastonbury Abbey where monks in 1190 claimed to have found his grave; Camelford – a village in Cornwall that claims to be the site of the Battle of Camlann, where Arthur was mortally wounded around the year 515 AD (a date arrived at through research by historian John Morris). Avalon, or The Island of Apples, where Arthur’s body was taken, is thought to be near Glastonbury – its proximity to Camelford lending support to the claims of this patch of the West country. There are other ‘Arthurian’ sites at various locations in Wales, at Birdoswald on Hadrian’s Wall, and north of the wall at Caledonian Wood.

At the visitor centre near Camelford at the aptly-named Slaughterbridge, I followed a path to a low cliff above the River Camel and look across to the meadow on which Arthur is said to have fought his last battle. On the muddy riverbank below lies The Arthur Stone – a granite tombstone dated to 540 AD engraved with Celtic runes that have been interpreted as stating ‘here lies the son of Arthur’, throwing up the intriguing possibility that it was not Arthur but his heir who fought and died on this spot some years after his illustrious father (or that both father and son fought battles there, as the keepers of the visitor centre would like us to believe). Legend has it that the victorious Saxons desecrated his burial site and rolled the tombstone down to the riverbank where it remains to this day. Hold on a minute, did King Arthur have a son? In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account, Arthur is succeeded by his cousin, Constantine of Cornwall.

In the absence of something more substantial from historians and archaeologists, these remain theories in the realm of legend. One theory is that Arthur may not have been a king at all, but a ‘leader of battles’ a ‘Dux Bellorum’ or a hired sword, working for a group of tribal leaders, in the immediate post-Roman era. Bernard Cornwell’s excellent novel, The Winter King, adopts this point of view.

Another perspective is offered by historical fiction author Chris Flynn (The Bear, The Dragon and The Wolf) who argues the case for a Northern Arthur who is a cavalry commander, possibly drawing on the influence of Sarmatian cavalry units once garrisoned at Hadrian’s Wall, who organises resistance to the spread of Anglo-Saxons in the north-east (www. botrbooks.com/blog). Also in this corner is Alistair Moffat, who puts forward the case for Arthur being a warlord based in the Scottish borderlands north of Hadrian’s Wall in the years after Roman evacuation, in his book, Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms. His book builds a case based on literary sources, historical documents and interpretations of place names to build a compelling and intriguing case for a Scottish Arthur. Add this to the Welsh chroniclers’ Arthur, and you have a folk hero claimed by three home nations.

Clearly, it was a troubled time for the Britons, left exposed by the removal of Roman protection. However, there is no physical or archaeological evidence for who the leaders were, where battles took place and when. It has been suggested that the legend of King Arthur is a composite of the feats of a number of Briton leaders over a broad period stretching from the mid-fifth to the mid-sixth centuries, embellished by bards over the years until written down in 1136 AD by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his book, The History of the Kings of Britain.

Victories in as many as seventeen battles on British soil have been attributed to Arthur, plus his overseas adventures, giving credence to the notion that this was not the work of one leader but of several – collapsed together for the purposes of engaging storytelling by bards to make one great heroic figure who battled to preserve a Romano-Briton way of life.

Contemporary historian, Miles Russell (writing in History Revealed magazine), has re-examined Geoffrey’s claim that the inspiration for his work was based on an ancient book ‘in the British tongue’ and found that it may have some credence (despite the source text never having been found or mentioned by any other). To support his theory he uses as an example Geoffrey’s telling of the coming of Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BC - an account that has similarities to the ‘official’ Roman version but differs in some details and is told from a British point of view. Geoffrey certainly did his homework, poring over source material as diverse as folklore, chronicles, church manuscripts, king-lists, dynastic tables, oral tales and bardic praise poems.

In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s ‘history’ we get a compelling story of a time of desperate struggle following the end of Roman Britain. He gives us a linage of Fifth Century kings – Constantine, Vortigern, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Uther Pendragon and then King Arthur.

Arthur becomes king at the age of fifteen and marries Ganhumara (‘Guinevere’) who is from a noble Romano-Briton family. Arthur forms an alliance with his nephew, King Hoel of Brittany, and they inflict defeats on the Saxons at Lincoln and Bath before crushing a combined force of Picts (Scots) and Hibernian (Irish) tribes at Loch Lomond. They then attack Ireland, the Orkneys, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and parts of Gaul (France), forcing the people to pay them homage. He lays waste to fields, slaughters the population of these places and burns down their towns – the exact opposite of a chivalric king. Geoffrey’s Arthur is an arrogant, aggressive and brutal warlord who kills and takes what he wants.

But Geoffrey’s story does not end there – Arthur is summoned by the Roman Emperor to face charges of war crimes and responds by raising a large army, sailing to Gaul, and meeting the Roman army in battle, defeating and killing the emperor. Arthur’s mind is set on capturing Rome, but he is forced to return home at news that his nephew Mordred has taken his queen, Ganhumara, and seized the kingdom. In a bloody civil war in which thousands die, both Mordred and Arthur fall in battle – Arthur’s body is taken to the Isle of Avalon and he is succeeded by his cousin, Constantine of Cornwall.

This is a summary of Geoffrey’s account in his Historia, and it is an intriguing thought that he MAY have taken it from a lost manuscript. Later generations lightened the blood-soaked narrative, adding more sorcery, the romance of Camelot, chivalric heroes (the knights of the round table), the quest for the Holy Grail, an evil foe in Morgana, and a doomed love triangle involving Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot.

Despite the fanciful tale of Arthur taking on the might of the Roman Empire, there is still the possibility that Geoffrey’s account was largely based on genuine source material that offers a glimpse of native Briton resistance to foreign invaders in the fifth and sixth centuries. Geoffrey’s King Arthur could not possibly have done all those things – he is most certainly a composite of several characters, including Ambrosius Aurelianus, who perhaps has better credentials as a noble leader who led the Britons to early victories over the Saxons.

Clearly, there was organised resistance to invaders, and tales of bravery told by chroniclers and bards from the Briton resistance point of view – and perhaps missing texts. Arthur is the embodiment of this oral tradition from the fifth and sixth centuries, offering us intangible glimpses of deeds in a period wedged between the gloating records of Roman and Anglo-Saxon conquerors.

*****

Tim Walker is an independent author based in Windsor, UK. Tim’s background is in marketing, journalism, editing and publications management. He began writing an historical series, A Light in the Dark Ages (set in the Fifth Century), in 2015, starting with a novella set at the time the Romans left Britain – Abandoned. This was followed in 2017 with a novel – Ambrosius: Last of the Romans, and the third installment, Uther’s Destiny, has just been released in March 2018.

His creative writing journey began in July 2015 with the publication of a book of short stories, Thames Valley Tales. In 2016 his first novel, a futuristic/dystopian thriller, Devil Gate Dawn was exposed on the Amazon Scout programme prior to publication. Both titles were re-launched with revised content, new covers and in print-on-demand paperback format in December 2016.
In January 2017 his first children’s book, The Adventures of Charly Holmes, co-written with his 12-year-old daughter, Cathy, was published. In September 2017 he published a second collection of short stories – Postcards from London.

Author Website: http://timwalkerwrites.co.uk
Newsletter sign-up: http://eepurl.com/diqexz
Amazon Author Page: http://Author.to/timwalkerwrites
Facebook Page: http://facebook.com/timwalkerwrites
Twitter: http://twitter.com/timwalker1666


In my historical book series, A Light in the Dark Ages, I have attempted my own alt-history of the period starting with the departure of the Romans and building to the coming of King Arthur, putting flesh on the mythical bones of early kings Vortigern, Ambrosius Aurelianus and Uther Pendragon.

Book one – Abandoned! – http://myBook.to/Abandoned
Book two – Ambrosius: Last of the Romans – http://myBook.to/Ambrosius
Book three – Uther’s Destiny – http://myBook.to/Uther

Digging Up Folklore

by Mary Anne Yarde

In 1846 William John Thoms, a British writer, penned a letter to The Athenaeum, a British Magazine. In this letter, he talked about “popular antiquities.” But instead of calling it by its common name, he used a new term — folklore.

What did Thoms mean by this new word? Well, let's break it down. The word folk referred to the rural poor who were for the most part illiterate. Lore means instruction. So folklore means to instruct the poor. But we understand it as verbal storytelling. Forget the wheel ~ I think storytelling is what sets us apart. We need stories, we always have and we always will.

Edward III

But what does folklore have to do with history? Quite a lot actually. Let's take a look at one of the greatest British stories ever told, and that is the tale of King Arthur and his Knights.

Historically, Arthur is difficult to pin down. There are so many theories about who he was and where he came from that it is like chasing a phantom. Some experts have their feet firmly planted in the 2nd Century when they talk of Arthur. Others believe him to be a Scottish Dark Age warlord or an English Christian King. Of course, the Welsh and the Breton's also have candidates that fit the role. For a person whose very existence screams folklore—screams myth—there seems to be an awful lot of interest in him. And that interest has never gone away. We love the stories of Arthur and his knights, there is no getting away from that, and these stories have helped shape a nation. Look how obsessed Edward III was with Arthurian Legend. Edward was determined that his reign was going to be as spectacular as Arthur's was. He believed in the stories of Arthur and his Knights. He had even started to have his very own Round Table built at Windsor Castle. He also founded The Order of the Garter— which is still the highest order of chivalry that the Queen can bestow. Arthur, whether fictional or not, influenced kings.

The Sculpture at Tintagel Castle by Rubin Eynon

Likewise, Arthur and his Knights are, and always have been, a lucrative tourist attraction ~ those pragmatic monks at Glastonbury in the 12th century can contest to that. But so can English Heritage. Arthur draws in the crowds. At this very moment, the story of Arthur is being retold on the big screen. There is something about Arthur. There is something about the story that we want to believe is true. So how do we separate the fact from the fiction?

With difficulty.

In our search for Arthur, we are digging up folklore, and that is not the same as excavating relics. We have the same problem now as Geoffrey of Monmouth did back in the 12th Century when he compiled The History of the Kings of Briton. His book is now considered a ‘national myth,’ but for centuries his book was considered to be factually correct. So where did Monmouth get these facts? He borrowed from the works of Gildas, Nennuis, Bede and The Annals of Wales. There was also that mysterious ancient manuscript that he borrowed from Walter, Archdeacon of Oxford, but let’s not get into that today! Monmouth then borrowed from the bardic oral tradition. In other words, he listened to the stories of the bards. Add to the mix his own imagination and Monmouth was onto a winner. Those who were critical of his work were brushed aside and ignored. Monmouth made Britain glorious, and he gave us not Arthur the general, but Arthur the King. And what a king he was.

Glastonbury Abbey

So is Arthur a great lie that for over a thousand years we have all believed in? Should we be taking the Arthurian history books from the historical section and moving them to sit next to George R. R. Martin's, Game of Thrones? No. I don't think so. In this instance, folklore has shaped our nation. We should not dismiss folklore out of hand just because it is not an exact science. We should embrace it because when you do, it becomes easier to see the influence these ‘stories’ have had on historical events.

 All photographs are my own, apart from the portrait of Edward III which can be found on Wikipedia.

~~~~~~~~~~

Mary Anne Yarde is the award-winning author of The Du Lac Chronicles series. 

Set in the 5^th and 6^th Century, The Du Lac Chronicles follows the fortunes and misfortunes of Lancelot du Lac’s sons as they try to navigate their way through an ever-changing Saxon world.

Book 3 of The Du Lac Chronicles is due to be released later on in the year.

Website/Blog

Amazon UK
Amazon US

Legend or Fiction: The Historical Evidence for Arthur

by Richard Denning

King Arthur, the Round Table and Camelot hold a central place in British mythology thanks to the 11th and 12th century romances/ fantasy stories penned by  Geoffrey of Monmouth  and Chretien de Troyes. It was these works that created a world filled by Chivalry, heroic quests, Merlin, Guinevere and  the Holy Grail.

Historians differ on the likelihood of a historical Arthur ever existing, but they generally agree that if he did exist he was not a figure from the age of chivalry but rather a warlord from the Dark Ages, desperately fighting battles to hold back the tide of the encroaching Anglo-Saxons whose spread across what is now England threatened to sweep all of the Celtic Britons away.

Today I am going to look at what evidence there is for an historical Arthur. When you begin to look into this period a reader or writer is immediately presented with an immense problem. That is that the mentions of Arthur refer back to that period between the departure of the Romans in the early 5th Century and the Establishment of a degree of order and organisation, and with that a return of literacy during the 7th Century. It is these - the Darkest Years of the Dark ages - as I tend to refer to them to which Arthur belongs if he did exist.

Let us look then at the evidence in a roughly chronological order.

De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain).

Gildas wrote this in the mid 6th Century (he died around 570). He records the coming of the Saxon invaders and their temporary defeat and the turning back (for a while) of the tide of conquest at a very significant battle.

...sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, ... until the year of the siege of Bath-hill, when took place also the last, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was ... forty-four years and one month after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity. 

Gildas does not mention Arthur but does record the date, fairly precisely to the  late 490's of a terrible battle and slaughter of the invaders. He says it was at Bath Hill. This has generally been identified as the Battle of Badon c500.

Historia Brittonum

The Historia Brittonum, usually attributed to Nennius, is a Welsh ecclesiastic writing  around the year 828 and the earliest work that clearly refers to Arthur. It lists twelve battles when the Britons were commanded by Arthur, using the title 'dux bellorum' or 'war commander'. The Historia Brittonum does not say that Arthur was a king - indeed it implies that he was not, but that he was appointed the role of commander, presumably due to his prowess.

Then it was, that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons. And though there were many more noble than himself, yet he was twelve times chosen their commander, and was as often conqueror. The first battle in which he was engaged, was at the mouth of the river Gleni. The second, third, fourth, and fifth, were on another river, by the Britons called Duglas, in the region Linuis. The sixth, on the river Bassas. The seventh in the wood Celidon, which the Britons call Cat Coit Celidon. The eighth was near Gurnion castle, where Arthur bore the image of the Holy Virgin, mother of God, upon his shoulders, and through the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy Mary, put the Saxons to flight, and pursued them the whole day with great slaughter. The ninth was at the City of Legion, which is called Cair Lion. The tenth was on the banks of the river Trat Treuroit. The eleventh was on the mountain Breguoin, which we call Cat Bregion. The twelfth was a most severe contest, when Arthur penetrated to the hill of Badon. In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the Lord affording him assistance. In all these engagements the Britons were successful. For no strength can avail against the will of the Almighty.

It is this entry from which we can draw out certain facts; Arthur was a warrior and commander rather than a king. He fought battles across the length and breadth of Britain - implying a general alliance of the British tribes against the Saxons (that list of battles has been identified with locations as far apart as Cornwall and Carlisle.) The final battle listed here - Badon - has been associated with various locations including Bath (here relying on the words of Gildas). It is seen as being the critical battle that led to the turning back of the Saxon tide for as long as two generations.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Ecclesiastical History of the English People

It may seem strange that Arthur is not mentioned at all in The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (c. 890s), nor in Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (Ecclesiastical History of the English People) (c. 731). However there is perhaps an explanation. Gildas and Nennius were both Britons. To them Arthur and the struggle against the invader were to be respected and celebrated whilst the ASC was penned by Saxon scribes, and of course Bede was also a Anglo-Saxon, and their version of history to some extent wanted to portray the Britons as being the enemy and not worthy of praise. Maybe there was no place for a great Celtic warlord in that version of history, so maybe he was ignored.

Annales Cambriae

The Annales Cambriae are chronicles of events recorded in Welsh monasteries. The earliest surviving versions date to the 10th century, and we do not know when they were recorded.

516 The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors.

537 The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell: and there was plague in Britain and Ireland.

The date for Badon is somewhat adrift of that given by Gildas, but one has to remember that they were written at least four hundred years later than the events to which they refer. That said, here again are TWO references to the existence of Arthur.

Welsh Poetry

Y Gododdin, written by the poet Aneirin around the year 600  survives from an 11th-century manuscript. In it is a reference to a warrior who "...glutted black ravens [i.e., killed many men] on the rampart of the stronghold, although he was no Arthur ..."

Saint's Lives or Vitas

The Legenda Sancti Goeznovii is a saint's life or hagiography of Saint Goeznovius. It appears to date back to 1019 and includes a segment dealing with Arthur and Vortigern:

..In the course of time, the usurping king Vortigern, to buttress the defence of the kingdom of Great Britain ... summoned warlike men from the land of Saxony and made them his allies in the kingdom. Since they were pagans and of devilish character, lusting by their nature to shed human blood, they drew many evils upon the Britons.

Presently their pride was checked for a while through the great Arthur, king of the Britons. They were largely cleared from the island and reduced to subjection. 

The significance of this Vita and those of six others is that they all mention in passing the existence of Arthur. Their dating implies that they were independent of Geoffrey of Monmouth's invention of a fantastical Arthur in Historia Regum Britanniae.

The significance of the name: Arthur.

The historian John Morris wrote a book last century called The Age of Arthur which was criticized by other historians in attempting to lay out a chronology for a historical Arthur.  One therefore has to read it with a degree of caution. Nevertheless Morris argued that the name Arthur became popular in the 6th and 7th centuries whilst it does not seem to have been popular before. Several significant individuals from the period bore the name. Could it be that they were named after a figure who was already a hero and significant individual in their recent past?

So did he exist?

If we peel away the confusion and distraction caused by the evolution of the post 11th century Arthur with its enchanting legends and tales of chivalry, I believe we can argue that there are enough references to a historical figure who lived in the later 5th and early 6th century perhaps called Arthur. He won a series of battles against the Saxons and in particular crushed them in a decisive victory at Mons Badonicus or Badon Hill, possibly near Bath.

This post is an Editors' Choice and was originally published on 19th Jan 2015
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Richard Denning is a historical fiction author whose main period of interest is the Early Anglo-Saxon Era. His Northern Crown series explores the late 6th and early 7th centuries through the eyes of a young Saxon lord.

Explore the darkest years of the dark ages with Cerdic.


www.richarddenning.co.uk