I’m thrilled to welcome Tony Sullivan to my blog today with an article on the evidence of King Arthur. Tony has published a number of books, more information can be found below. Many thanks to Tony for such an intriguing read.
The subject of King Arthur has fascinated people for centuries. Historians however either dismiss him as mythological or, accepting the possibility of a historical figure, state there’s nothing we can say, shrug and turn away. This hasn’t stopped a huge variety of different theories and candidates.
The problem with many of these theories, if not all, is they rely on very unreliable and late sources. None have succeeded in convincing a sceptical academic community let alone supplying enough evidence to support an identification. As they are mutually contradictory they cannot all be correct. However it is possible they are all wrong.
We are left with two main proposals. Arthur was a mythological figure historicised by later writers. Or he was a historical figure mythologised. In order to answer this question one must turn to the original sources rather than modern theories. It is at this point one discovers just how fast and lose recent theories have played with the evidence. This left me feeling rather mislead and bemoaning the time and money I had spent on, what I now realised, were dubious pseudo-historical theories.
It was for this reason I wrote my first book, King Arthur Man or Myth which attempted to weigh the evidence for and against a historical figure. What this shows is the development of two slightly different traditions. The first attested reference to Arthur occurs in the ninth century Historia Brittonum in which Arthur is described simply as fighting with the kings of the Britons as ‘the leader in battle’ in twelve victorious battles, the last of which at Mons Badonicus. In the tenth century the Annales Cambriae helpfully provides two dates: The siege at Mons Badonicus in 516 and in 537 ‘the battle of Cam lann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell’. No indication here of Mordred’s villainous reputation.
Neither of these documents can be completely trusted for dates or content. Yet on this, much Arthurian tradition rests. The trail falls largely silent until Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his fantastical pseudo-historical Historia Regum Britanniae, ‘The History of the Kings of Britain’ in 1138. We know an Arthurian tradition already existed prior to Geoffrey dipping his quill into the ink. The earliest appearance of Arthur and his knights in art appear on the north doorway of Modena Cathedral in northern Italy. It has been securely dated to between 1099–1120. Around the same time, the Vitae Cadoci refers to Arthur as the ‘illustrious king of Britannia’, the first time he is titled king in Welsh sources.
Yet it was Geoffrey’s book that spawned an enormous interest and a host of medieval ‘fan-fictions’. On one side French Romance writers developed a chivalric Arthur often using Arthur’s court as a backdrop for the exploits of various knightly heroes. Wace introduced the Round Table, Robert de Boron the Sword in an anvil on a stone, Chrétien de Troyes the elusive Camelot. This latter placed firmly near to Geoffrey’s original court at Caerleon. This didn’t prevent later writers of placing it all over the country. The Holy Grail, Lancelot, Lady in the Lake were all added. Perhaps the final incarnation of this tradition was Thomas Malory’s Le Morte D’Arthur written in a Yorkist jail c. 1470 in the middle of the Wars of the Roses.
In contrast the Welsh tradition presents a darker, more mythical figure often in a magical world. Tales and poems such as Culhwch and Olwen; Rhonabwy’s Dream; Pa gur; Preiddeu Annwfn; and many others such as Saint’s Lives and the Triads of Britain. Here Arthur is more a warlord, often petty and badly behaved. Stealing a saints cloak or alter, raiding in Ireland or even the underworld. The problem with these tales is the earliest copies all post date Geoffrey of Monmouth and so it is difficult to determine if they contain hints of an earlier, perhaps more accurate, portrayal. There are some indications some of them may have originated in the tenth century. If so this might point to a mythical figure.
We could dismiss all these later stories as dubious and written many centuries after Arthur is supposed to have lived. However we are still left with two early documents, the Historia and Annales, which seem to imply he was considered historical by a ninth century audience. Of course these writers may be mistaken but I felt it would be a useful exercise to consider what sort of context a historical figure may have lived and fought in.
With that in mind I wrote my second book, The Battles of King Arthur. If my first book looked at whether, and to a less extent when, this book focused on where. Here is what I found. In terms of timeframe all the sources that do date him point to the same rough period, 480-540. The Historia places him between after the deaths of St Patrick (461 or 493 depending on source) and Hengest (c. 488 according to Anglo-Saxon Chronicles). But before the reign of Ida of Bernicia, possibly dated to 547. The Annales has 516 and 537 and Geoffrey of Monmouth follows with his only date provided, Arthur’s death in 542. In addition all the Saints’ Lives that do reference him attach him to saints living between the late-fifth and mid-sixth century. No source points to a date outside the fifth to sixth centuries.
Concerning where many a theory will attempt to place Arthur in their favoured part of the country In order to do this they often shoehorn sources and battle locations into an area, twisted etymologies, genealogies and sources as they do so. I felt it was best to lay out the political, cultural and military situation in Britain. A difficult task given the paucity of evidence.
However there are some sources: In the Vita Germani we get the impression of a Britannia still culturally Roman and Christian in 429 and possibly 437. Archaeology suggests Germanic immigration began to increase around this time, rapidly accelerating in the late fifth to sixth centuries. The Chronica Gallica of 452 and 511, notes Britain falls to the power of the Saxons around c. 441. Bede in 731 dates what he calls this adventus saxonum to 449. Decades later a British monk Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, ‘On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain’, looks back in horror. He describes how a proud tyrant, later identified by Bede as Vortigern, led a council in hiring mercenaries to fight the Picts. It was a revolt of these mercenaries rather than an invasion that the sources agree was the pivotal moment.
So what we have is a fragmenting diocese and provincial structure alongside the emergence of petty kingdoms. Alongside significant cultural and social change. The pax Romana gave way to a warband culture. The Roman villa gave way to mead halls which now rang with the tales of Y Gododdin and Beowulf. By the end of the sixth century Brythonic and Germanic kingdoms (and perhaps in places a hybrid of both) had emerged. It is this process that is covered in my recent book, The Early Anglo-Saxon Kings. Where then is Arthur in all this?
It appears he was on the cusp of this change. How much of the old Romano-British culture and structures survived are lost to us. Arthur could thus be fighting to hold what remains of the former diocese together. Holding a former military title like Dux or Comes or a governor-type position as a praeses or consul perhaps inheriting Vortigern’s role leading a council. Alternatively he could be a warlord in a world of petty kings and small emerging kingdoms. A man successful enough to rise to prominence. Someone the ‘kings of the Britons’ would turn to.
When I looked at the twelve battles from the Historia I found that some at least could be identified on the balance of probabilities. No twisted etymologies, leaps of logic or huge speculations are necessary. The regione Linnuis is considered almost certainly in Lindsey even if the river Dubglas cannot be located. That accounts for four of the twelve. The battle at Urbe Legionis can only be Chester or Caerleon. The battle in silua celidonis places Arthur somewhere around or between the two northern walls built by the Romans. Many of the other battles had candidates in the north, either side of Hadrian’s Wall, the old Roman command of the Dux Britanniarum. Badon I argue is more likely in the south which gives us a warrior operating across the length of the former province.
What I find was slightly different from previous theories. This Arthur could well be a warband leader or Romano-British commander fighting to keep the provincial structures together against increasing Germanic immigration. Yet the battles did not appear to be in those areas. Many are on the borders between Brythonic and Germanic sub-kingdoms suggesting a defensive campaign. However others appear deep inside Brythonic areas, well away from any early Germanic settlements. Could this be an Arthur clearing out former mercenary garrisons? An Arthur ethnically cleansing early Germanic settlements is far from the chivalric hero of French Romances.
This leaves the final question of who? I might be a fool to put my head above the wall and join the plethora of dodgy theories. I dismantled one such popular theory in The Roman King Arthur? Lucius Artorius Castus. This formed the basis of the 2004 film King Arthur starring Clive Owen. A great film but a theory that falls apart on investigation.
Nevertheless I think a case can be made as to why none of the candidates to date have passed scrutiny. There is in fact a reasonable consistency in the genealogies. Whilst they are all late and unreliable Arthur is never presented as any of the common candidates. They have their own genealogies. He is sometimes placed in the context of a list of high-king type figures, Vortigern, Ambrosisu Aurelianus, Uther and then Arthur. But he is never portrayed as a king of any of the early kingdoms. They too have their own genealogies.
Instead what we find is this. On his maternal side he is connected to Dumnonia in the South West. His paternal side is from either Cornwall or Armorica (Brittany) depending on the source. It could be telling that Welsh sources reject Geoffrey’s emphasis on the Bretons. We are left with a surprisingly simple answer. For a complete explanation the reader will have to wait until 2024 for my latest book, King Arthur and the Battle for Britannia. An investigation of the evolution of the legend, a thorough dismantling of prevues theories and an explanation of who or what a historical figure may have been. Until then we continue to hope that the scrape of an archaeologists trowel will uncover a coin or a stone revealing an inscription last seen 1,500 years ago on the battle fields of Britannia: Artorius, dux erat Bellorum.
Tony Sullivan lives in South East London with his wife and three children. His first book, King Arthur: Man or Myth? was published in 2020. Three further books followed in 2022: The Battles of King Arthur investigating the famous battle list from the Historia Brittonum; The Real Gladiator, looking at the historical reality behind the 2000 film; and The Roman King Arthur?: Lucius Artorius Castus, which dismantles the Artorius-Arthur theory and places this historical Roman officer in the reigns of Severus and Caracalla.
You can find out more about Tony on the following links:
Well I don’t know about anyone else but I certainly want to read more about Arthur now.
Amy McElroy 