There has been centuries-old debate on whether there was ever a real Arthur. Archaeological evidence proved fruitless. Historical literary sources have been scant and totally unreliable. Distinguishing history from legend is like trying to find a needle in a hay-sack. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s so-called history of the British kings (titled Historia regum Britanniae) was nothing more than an inventive history. Geoffrey of Monmouth (Galfridus Monemutensis) claimed thar he got his sources from an old book from Archdeacon, was also pure fabrication. Geoffrey’s Historia was based on three central figures: Brutus, the first British king and the great-grandson of Aeneas, a Trojan hero in Greek mythology. Brutus fled to the isle that was named after him. Then, there’s Belinus, the so-called British king, who sacked Rome about 390 BC.

Though, Rome was sacked in 390 BC. It definitely wasn’t from Celtic Britons. The Celtic tribes who defeated the Romans were from the Gauls, who migrated into Italy from France about fifth or fourth century BC. Therefore, Geoffrey was mixing history with his own invention. And of course, King Arthur, himself. Geoffrey portrayed Arthur as a world conqueror, who established an empire that comprised of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and France. With these sorts of people in his Historia, it really can’t be taken seriously to be history. It was Geoffrey who made the legend of King Arthur, popular in Britain and the Continent. Its influences were tremendous; its inspirations would cause later medieval authors to further enrich the legend. Those who take the Geoffrey’s Historia or another part of the legend as history, I believed had misunderstood the nature of literary art. As I see it, Geoffrey had used some elements of history in his compositions but in general his works were purely fictional. You may have wondered where Geoffrey got his sources from. Arthur appeared to be an early Celtic hero, particularly among the Welsh. There are a number of Welsh literature that could have inspired Geoffrey to write his History. Arthur seemed to have connection with a British victory over the Saxons at the battle or seige of Mons Badonicus or Badon Hills, possibly in Wessex. The earliest account of this battle come from the Celtic monk-historian named Gildas, who died in AD 570, recorded in his De excidio et conquestu Britanniae, about the battle in Mons Badonicus (Badon Hills, in Wessex). Though Gildas did not mention Arthur, the monk had indirectly associated the victory to the leader Ambrosius Aurelianus in the earlier paragraph. …that they might not be brought to utter destruction, took arms under the conduct of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a modest man, who of all the Roman nation was then alone in the confusion of this troubled period by chance left alive. His parents, who for their merit were adorned with the purple, kind been slain in these same broils, and now his progeny in these our days, although shamefully degenerated from the worthiness of their ancestors, provoke to battle their cruel conquerors, and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory. After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Bath-hill, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity. The Ruin of Britain

by Gildas (c. 6th century)

Edited by J. A. Giles

Six Old English Chronicles

Henry G. Bohn, London, 1848 St Bede the Venerable wrote in his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (“Ecclesiastical History of the English People”), in AD 731, about the arrival of the English people (Saxons and Angles). Bede recorded that the Saxons and Angles were led by Hengist (Hengest) and Horsa, arrived in Britain (AD 449) at King Vortigern’s invitation. Bede also recorded that Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Roman warlord, won his first decisive battle against the Angles at Badon Hills, in AD 493. Once again, Ambrosius Aurelianus appeared as the Briton resistance leader against the invaders, not Arthur. According to the Welsh historian Nennius, who flourished in the early 9th century, this victory (at Badon Hills) was associated with Arthur. Nennius wrote in his Historia Brittonum that eleven other victories were ascribed to Arthur, but he was more of British warlord or general, than a king. Nennius pushed the date of the battle of Mons Badonicus, to a later time, in AD 516. This was the first mention of Arthur in the historical (psuedo-historial) source. 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 te 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. Historia Brittonum

by Nennius (c. AD 796)

Edited by J. A. Giles

Six Old English Chronicles

Henry G. Bohn, London, 1848 Nennius had later also recorded that Arthur had a carn built at Buel for his dog Cabal, which had used in his hunt for the boar Troynt. On top of this stone pile is the pawprint of Cabal. Could this wildboar Troynt be Twrch Trwyth in the tale of Culhwch and Olwen? And he also mentioned the burial site of Anir, the son of Arthur. It was Arthur who had killed his own son. Nennius also recorded the episode of Vortigern and Hengist, but added a new person associated with Vortigern, Ambrosius. This Ambrosius is not the same Ambrosius Aurelianus mentioned in the works by Gildas and Bede. No. This Ambrosius was another name for the boy prophet, whom Geoffrey called Merlin. The story of Vortigern and Ambrosius (Merlin), the falling wall and the two sleeping dragons influenced Geoffrey’s own work (see Vortigern in Life of King Arthur). From the Annales Cambriae (the Annals of Wales) from 10th century, Arthur won the battle in Mons Badonicus (Mons Badon) and some other victories as well. The Annales also mentioned in a short passage that Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) falling in the battle of Camlann (537). AD 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. AD 537 The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell: and there was plague in Britain and Ireland. Annales Cambriae

Translated by Ingram, James

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Everyman Press, London, 1912 As it can be seen, Geoffrey had derived his sources, mainly from Nennius, but also from the Gildas, Bede and the Annales Cambriae. However, Geoffrey set the year of Arthur’s fall a little later on 542. Also, Geoffrey had cleverly turned Ambrosius Aurlianus into Aurelius Ambrosius, an uncle of Arthur. Most of the earliest legends of Arthur, before Geoffrey, come from Welsh sources, between the 8th and 10th century. So, whether Arthur exist or not, still remain in doubt. If there was ever a true Arthur in history, he would probably be Romano-British warleader, probably named Artorius, which is a Roman name for Arthur. Though the Roman legions may have left Britain in AD 410, the general population of mixed Romans and Celts, would have had generations of Roman law, education, culture and way of life. The name, Artorius, is similar enough to the Gallic god of the bear, Artaius or Artaios. The Roman had identified this god with their Mercury. In Latin, Arto means “bear”. So Arthur like other Welsh characters, could be derived from ancient Celtic god in Gaul (France). The female form of Artaius is Artio, the bear-goddess. Possibly the earliest reference about come from Y Gododdin written by the Welsh poet, Aneirin, c. 6th century. Here, the poem only mentioned his name, once, referring to a warrior in the poem as being brave “but he was no Arthur”. He charged before three hundred of the finest,

He cut down both centre and wing,

He excelled in the forefront of the noblest host,

He gave gifts of horses from the herd in winter.

He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress

Though he was no Arthur. Y Gododdin

by Aneirin (c. 6th century)

Translated by A.O.H. Jarman This extract is not actually talking about Arthur, but another warrior who couldn’t match Arthur in prowess in battle. There is no detail of who this Arthur was. Though, the poem was attributed to have existed in the 6th century, Gododdin was actually preserved as extant work, in the manuscript called Book of Aneirin, in c. 1250. The earliest tale where Arthur had more active role in early Welsh literature come from Culhwch and Olwen (before AD 1100), one of eleven tales found in the Mabinogion. Other tales found in the Mabinogion were composed of later date from Dream of Rhonabwy and the three Welsh romances: Geriant, Owein and Peredur. The last three mentioned parallel to those tales found in Chretien de Troyes’ three Arthurian romances – Erec, Yvain and Perceval, which were may have been composed earlier than the Welsh versions. So why did Geoffrey of Monmouth composed the warrior king of Britain? At the time, there was a change of order in Britain. Earlier, the Saxons and Angles had invaded Britain, driving the Britons (Romano-Celts) into Wales, Scotland and Brittany between the 5th and early 7th century. But in his time, the Normans from Normandy became the new masters of England, since the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Geoffrey was writing at the time of turmoil after the death of Henry I and in the reign of King Stephen (1135-1154), a period of anarchy and civil war. It could have been that Geoffrey wanted to give them a British hero, an identity to their pasts, like that of Charlemagne (768-814) in France and Germany. Charlemagne was the king of the Franks and the first Holy Roman Emperor, who had gained legendary status through a large collection of French epic poems or songs, known as the chanson de geste (“song of deeds”). But unlike Arthur, Charlemagne was a true historical figure. These epic poems were written between 1100 and 1500, and dealing with barons who fought for or against Charlemagne and his son Louis the Pious. Charlemagne had formed a group of heroes, known as the Twelve Peers (Twelve Paladins), which were almost as famous as the Knights of the Round Table. They were formidable knights who excelled in combat. The best knight was Charlemagne’s nephew, Roland. Roland and his sword Durendal were often mentioned in other texts. And even in Geoffrey’s History, he had mentioned Gerin of Chartes as one of heroes of the Twelve Peers, who had fought in Arthur’s army against Rome. The earliest chanson was that of Le Chanson de Roland (Song of Roland), c. 1100, was also the masterpiece in the chanson de geste, recorded the Battle of Roncesvalles (Roncevaux) in 778. It was the Saracens, not the historical Basques, who ambushed the rearguard force, led by Roland. The force was annihilated from numerically superior forces, but Charlemagne avenged their death by defeating a Saracen army. Though, Geoffrey was neither the earliest nor the best writer of the Arthurian legend, his contribution had at least sparked creativity among later writers so that the Arthurian legend had surpassed the legend of Charlemagne. While there are still people seeking the mysterious light of the elusive Grail and with champions like Lancelot and the knights of the Round Table defending the kingdom and the damsels, Arthur appeared very much alive today as he did in the Middle Ages.

Related Information Sources Historia regum Britanniae (“History of the Kings of Britain”) was written by Geoffrey of Monmouth (1137). Historia Brittonum was written by Nennius (8th century). De excidio et conquestu Britanniae (“The Overthrow and Conquest of Britain”) was written by Gildas (died c. AD 570). Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (“Ecclesiastical History of the English People”) was written by St Bede in AD 732. Annales Cambriae (The Annals of Wales) was written in 9th century. Culhwch and Olwen (before 1100) was one of eleven tales found in the Mabinogion. Y Gododdin was written by 6th century bard Aneirin, which was preserved in the Book of Aneirin (c. 1250). Le Chanson de Roland (Song of Roland), c. 1100. Related Articles Arthur, Aurelius Ambrosius, Mordred. The Life of King Arthur.

Legend of Excalibur (Vulgate),

Death of King Arthur (Vulgate). Historical Background. Mosaic of King Arthur

Detail from The Life Tree in Otranto’s Cathedral, Lecce (Italy) King Arthur and Emperor Charlemagne

From the Castle of La Manta, Saluzzo (Piamonte)