During the summer of 2006 while reading a couple of medieval books about King Arthur, I began to wonder where the Arthurian stories originated. As this question continued to build momentum in my mind, I decided to research the topic to satiate my own curiosity. At my university library I found books about the historical basis of King Arthur that pointed me to other primary medieval sources. I pored over each of them and took notes about everything of interest I could find on this topic. Before long, what started as a few brief notes became many pages of notes. What was most striking to me was how much the earlier sources differed from the later Arthurian romances. The adaptations I was familiar with were clearly based on the later romances. But I realized I had never encountered any adaptation of the story of King Arthur that was consistent with the earliest references to him as a Christian hero and patriot who led the defense of his people against invaders. As I delved deeper, I came to understand that many of the later stories about Arthur incorporated foreign elements from other cultures, regions, and time periods. In my conversations with friends and acquaintances on this topic, I didn’t encounter anyone else who had heard about these earliest portrayals of Arthur as a great battle commander defending his people, just as I hadn’t before I delved into the subject.

The more I researched the topic the more interesting insights I had, and after compiling many pages of my findings over the course of months and years, I accumulated a considerable amount of content. Many writings from other researchers have been especially helpful in my study of this topic. I have included their most relevant observations in this text, with the appropriate citations. While some writings satisfy me in regard to particular facets of the Arthurian stories, I have not felt fully satisfied with the entirety of each’s conjectures about the origins of the stories of King Arthur. For that reason, I have undertaken this work to attempt to combine what I believe are the most probable explanations for each aspect of the Arthurian stories, including my own thoughts and insights, along with accompanying evidence. After putting much effort into this compilation, I wish to now share my research with others who may also have interest in this topic.

I’m not an academic, nor am I professional writer. I’m an amateur historian and independent researcher. My intent is to educate and inspire readers about the origins and significance of the earliest Arthurian references, and in doing so to contribute to a deeper appreciation of the culture and history of the early medieval inhabitants of the British Isles. The earliest story of Arthur is a fragmentary story of freedom and of faith that is sure to inspire and edify. Whether someone thinks Arthur may have existed or not, or whether someone agrees with my insights or not, this book is certain to better inform the reader on various aspects of the legend that they may not have considered before. My hope is that the reader will find something of interest in my compilation, and to find inspiration in the earliest story of Arthur, the renowned battle commander and greatest hero of the early medieval Britons.

Chapter 1: The Hero of the Battle of Badon

The grizzled warrior surveyed the terrible scene by the last light of day. Some of his brave warriors had perished in the conflict, but many more of the enemy had fallen. Their bodies lay strewn about from the base of the hill to the ramparts of the fortification at the top. Wooden spears, shields, axes, and helmets, and the occasional sword or chain mail littered the battlefield. The cries of the wounded Britons sounded in the air as villagers came to their aid. Others flocked to the battlefield to scavenge the spoils of war from the bodies of the dead.

The siege had been wearisome, requiring the utmost vigilance against the enemy over the course of three days and nights. The British defenders tenaciously held the hill fort, and ultimately the courage and faith of the Britons prevailed over their enemies. The charge down the hillside led by this valiant battle commander drove the besiegers back. After suffering heavy losses, the Germanic warriors abandoned their designs and fled. Nearly a thousand of the enemy had fallen. They would not return to these lands anytime soon. The memory of their ignominious defeat would linger for at least a generation before they would again consider attempting to subjugate the native people of these lands.

The marauding army had sought dominion over the people of these lands, but his people had only sought to defend their families, their freedom, and the cause of their faith. But who was this hero of the Britons, who led such a crushing blow to the invaders? The only source that names the commander of the Britons at the battle on Mount Badon calls him Arthur.

****************************************************************************************************

The stories of King Arthur originated among the native Celtic people of early medieval Britain, the Britons. The fame of this hero spread throughout all the lands inhabited by the then unconquered Britons: Wales, Cornwall, Brittany, and “the Old North,” the region covering what is now the southern Lowlands of Scotland and the northernmost regions of England. As time went on, some of the descendants of these people who remained unconquered from the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain – primarily the Welsh – perpetuated and expanded the Arthurian stories of their forebears.

After the Norman conquest of England in the 11^th century, they invaded Wales and gradually advanced for the next two centuries. During this time, the influence of Arthurian literature quickly spread to other regions as the Normans heard the Welsh and Breton stories and then disseminated them throughout England and to the continent beyond the borders of Brittany. This newly invigorated fascination led to the adoption of Arthurian themes by other western European cultures, who also introduced new foreign elements into the stories. By the 12^th century, the stories of Arthur had become widespread throughout continental Europe.

After the complete conquest of Wales by king Edward I of England, the Welsh hero Arthur came to be adopted as a symbol of the English people, who projected elements of their own times, culture, and geography to the earlier legends preserved by the Welsh. Late medieval romances introduced contemporary imagery: Norman castles, dueling knights clad in plate armor, and jousting tournaments to win the favor of fair damsels – none of which previously existed in Arthurian lore. These later romances largely overshadowed – and supplanted – the earliest stories of the heroic Celtic battle commander who valiantly defended his people from the onslaught of foreign marauders. The romance L’Morte D’arthur, or “The Death of Arthur,” by the 15^th century English writer Sir Thomas Malory came to be viewed as the definitive story of Arthur upon which most subsequent versions of the story are based.

Arthurian themes continue to permeate our culture down to the present day. The Sword in the Stone, the Knights of the Round Table, the Quest for the Holy Grail, the utopian society of Camelot, and others continue to find their way into literature, music, and film as elements of an elaborate Celtic myth. The stories of King Arthur have served as a source of inspiration for many renowned writers, including the likes of Dante Alighieri; Alfred, Lord Tennyson; Mark Twain; J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, and their fellow Inklings; John Steinbeck; and the stories even influenced composers Henry Purcell and Richard Wagner.

For many people in contemporary society, the legend of King Arthur has been relegated to myth, a mere icon of the fantasy genre of fiction. Yet even at the foundation of every myth are elements from the real world; a closer look at the origins of this legend suggests a much more inspiring story than the later romances present. Scholars continue to debate the historical basis of Arthur, but the question remains – Who was this battle commander that is mentioned in the “History of the Britons?” Was he the victor of the battle of Mount Badon? And why have stories about him endured and been revived throughout the generations for a millennium and a half?

Few insular British writings survive from the centuries following the Roman withdrawal from Britain. This may be rightly considered a dark age in Britain, in the sense that little is known of this time from contemporary sources. The only known surviving writings from this time period come from the British missionary to Ireland, Saint Patrick, and from the British monk, Gildas. The general lack of insular writings from this age of Britain, and the few surviving fragments, are insufficient to definitively confirm the existence of a historical British battle commander named Arthur. As noted by the 20^th century Celtic linguist Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson:

Did King Arthur ever really exist? The only honest answer is, ‘We do not know, but he may well have existed.’ The nature of the evidence is such that proof is impossible.[1]

Later in the same essay, he notes:

Nothing is certain about the historical Arthur, not even his existence; however, there are certain possibilities, even probabilities.[2]

My intent is to explore these probabilities by examining the supporting evidence. In doing so, my focus is to attempt to discover the Arthur that is consistent with the earliest sources – a British patriot and battle commander, who, in the most desperate of times, stood firm in the defense of his people during the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain in the late 5^th and early 6^th centuries AD. The earliest generally acknowledged source to mention Arthur, the History of the Britons, describes him as a Christian battle commander who led his people in the defense of their homes and families, and that they overcame their enemies through their faith in Christ.

The 19^th century Scottish historian William Forbes Skene compares the Arthur of the later medieval romances with how the earliest sources portray him:

That he bears here a very different character from the Arthur of romance is plain enough. That the latter was entirely a fictitious person is difficult to believe. There is always some substratum of truth on which the wildest legends are based, though it may be so disguised and perverted as hardly to be recognized; and I do not hesitate to receive the Arthur of [The History of the Britons] as the historic Arthur, the events recorded of him being not only consistent with the history of the period, but connected with localities which can be identified, and with most of which his name is still associated.[3]

And as the British historian Sheppard Frere, in his “Britannia: A History of Roman Britain,” notes:

The evidence is sufficient to allow belief that he had a real existence and that he was probably the victor of Mount Badon.[4]

An examination of the earliest sources about Arthur, as well as contextual evidence, seems to point to battles in northern Britain – in what is now southern Scotland and northern England. According to the first widely accepted source to mention Arthur, the History of the Britons, the rulers of the kingdom of Gwynedd in northern Wales claimed descent from Cunedda, a ruler of the Britons who came from the region around what is now Edinburgh and settled in northern Wales to drive out Irish colonists. Although the northeastern Britons were ultimately conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, the Welsh kingdoms remained independent for some time after, and in these places the stories of Arthur were preserved. The British Celticist Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson makes the interesting observation:

An important point in favour of a historical Arthur is the fact that we know of at least four, perhaps five, people called Arthur hailing from the Celtic areas of the British Isles who were born in the latter part of the sixth century and early in the seventh, whereas the name is unknown before (except for Arthur himself) and very rare later. Some national figure called Arthur must surely have existed at this time or a generation or two before, after whom they were all named, either directly or because their fathers or grandfathers had been. It is specially significant that Aedan mac Gabrain, king of Scottish Dal Riada, who had British connexions, christened one of his sons Arthur about 570 (and perhaps a grandson), since he headed what was meant to be a massive attempt to drive the English out of Northumbria.[5]

The 12^th century Norman poet Wace also describes the liberties taken regarding this legend:

I know not if you have heard tell of the marvelous gestes and errant deeds so often of King Arthur. They have been noised about this mighty realm for so great a space that the truth has turned to fable and an idle song. Such rhymes are neither sheer bare lies, nor gospel truths. They should not be considered an idiot’s tale, or given by inspiration. The minstrel has sung his ballad, the storyteller told over his story so frequently, little by little he has decked and painted, till by reason of his embellishment the truth stands hid in the trappings of a tale. Thus to make a delectable tune to your ear, history goes masking as fable.[6]

The man regarded as the greatest English historian of the 12^th century, William of Malmesbury, states:

This is that Arthur who is raved about even today in the trifles of the Britons —a man who is surely worthy of being described in true histories rather than dreamed about in fallacious myths—for he truly sustained his sinking homeland for a long time and aroused the drooping spirits of his fellow citizens to battle.[7]

In this book, I have gathered fragments of information from numerous historical and literary sources to attempt to piece together a picture of the Arthur described in the earliest sources, and to try to discover why his memory has been immortalized. Where possible, I have gone to the earliest manuscripts to obtain information, and if there is any confusion in the existing translations of these sources, I have gone back to the specific passages of text in question from the original Latin and Welsh languages for clarification. This work is not intended to be a comprehensive study of Arthurian literature, or a comprehensive study of the history of post Roman Britain, but the reader may find some additional insights through the study of those subjects. My hope for this search for Arthur is to inspire the reader with the stories of a man who led his people to defend their families and the cause of their faith, and also to educate the reader about some aspects of the peoples, cultures, and places of the late 5^th and early 6^th centuries.

Chapter 2: Objections to Arthur

The case against Arthur as a historical figure largely hinges upon the absence of direct references to him in three sources:

A more detailed investigation suggests that each of these omissions is wholly justifiable and reasonable when viewed in context.

On the Ruin of Britain

This 6^th century text was written by a British monk named Gildas, who bemoans the moral decadence of his people and chastises several British kings for their immorality. According to the 9^th century “History of the Britons” (of unknown authorship), Arthur led the Britons against the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Mount Badon. Gildas states he was born the same year as the Battle of Badon, making him a contemporary of Arthur. Although Gildas mentions the battle in his writings, he makes no mention of Arthur. This omission may be construed as evidence against the existence of a historical Arthur. However, a closer look at the purpose for which Gildas wrote his text shows a clearer perspective. Gildas himself states,

It is my present purpose to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the field.

True to his stated purpose, Gildas only mentions one British war hero, but seven British tyrants in the period of time immediately preceding and during the Anglo-Saxon invasion.[8] Although he does not name Arthur, he also does not specify who led the Britons at the Battle of Mount Badon. Another individual notably absent from Gildas’ writings is Germanus of Auxerre, the historically recognized 4^th-5^th century Roman Catholic Bishop from France who allegedly assisted the Britons to win an early victory against Saxon raiders without force of arms. Rather than take this as evidence against the existence of Germanus, this should also be taken in context of Gildas’ previously stated purpose. Leslie Alcock in his book “Arthur’s Britain” astutely notes:

It may seem strange that Gildas should not name the victor of Badon, and this line of argument would incline us to infer that Ambrosius is the subject of all this military activity. But two further points arise. First, Gildas is altogether sparing of names of persons and places. In the whole of Section B, apart from biblical passages and classical writers whom he wishes to quote, he names only two Roman emperors, Tiberius and Diocletian; three British martyrs, Alban, Julian and Aaaron, the usurper Magnus Maximus; Aeitus the commander-in-chief in Gaul; and Ambrosius. Even in the critical incident of the invitation to the Saxons he names neither the superbus tyrannus nor the Saxon leaders. We may therefore be gratefully surprised that he should name Ambrosius and Badon at all. Secondly, bearing in mind that his purpose is homily and not history, we need not expect names, and the name of the general might fit oddly with that of the battle in what is, in the main, a sermon. It has been said, ‘what English bishop, castigating the vices of his compatriots about 1860, would be so clumsy as to allude to “the battle of Waterloo, which was won by the Duke of Wellington”?’[9]

An additional explanation comes from the 12^th century text The Life of Saint Gildas by Caradoc of Llancarfan. In this manuscript, he claims that Gildas’ older brother Hueil rebelled against Arthur by raiding settlements and pillaging them until he was killed by Arthur on the Isle of Man. This could explain why Gildas does not mention Arthur in his text, but the validity of this source is uncertain.

The Ecclesiastical History of the English People

This 8^th century text was written by the English monk Bede, a Roman Catholic. Bede recounts the defeat of the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Badon Hill in his “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” but he does not mention Arthur – who other sources claim as the commander of the British forces in that battle. However, he also does not name who the battle commander of the Britons was at this battle. The reasons for Bede’s omission are unknown, although he clearly uses Gildas’ writings as the source material for his own writings on this time period. Thus, he may have omitted the name of Arthur simply because Gildas did not include it in his text.

Another possibility may be both political and ecclesiastical in nature. Bede, an English monk, followed the Roman Christian beliefs and practices, while many of the Britons of his time – the Welsh – retained practices and beliefs that differed from the Roman Church. The fact that Arthur was a renowned hero of the Welsh people, who were in constant conflict with the English due to differing beliefs and practices, could possibly justify Bede’s omission. Writing in AD 731 AD, Bede writes that while the Picts had converted to Roman Catholicism, the majority of the Britons retained their Celtic Christian beliefs.

The Britons for the most part have a national hatred for the English, and uphold their own bad customs against the true Easter of the Catholic Church; however, they are opposed by the power of God and man alike, and are powerless to obtain what they want. For, although in part they are independent, they have been brought in part under subjection to the English.[10]

Perhaps some of the Arthurian traditions were intertwined with Pelagianism or Celtic Christian beliefs, and which would therefore be excluded by Bede, although this remains only conjecture.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

This 9^th century history was compiled during the reign of King Alfred the Great. The “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,” a collection of manuscripts documenting a timeline of significant events from the Anglo-Saxon perspective, mentions neither Arthur nor the Battle of Badon Hill. This may be taken as evidence against a historical Arthur. However, it must be noted that the entries in the Chronicle only record the victories of the Anglo-Saxons and the losses of the Britons. Since Arthur was a Briton who was renowned for defeating the Anglo-Saxons multiple times in battle, we can reasonably expect an absence of an account of his victories in the early Anglo-Saxon histories.

Furthermore, The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is not concerned with events north of the Humber River but only records events south of it, whereas the 9^th century text Historia Britonum, or, “History of the Britons” (one of the earliest sources to name Arthur), indicates a northern locale for Arthur’s battles, as suggested by the 19^th century Scottish historian W. F. Skene.

That the events here recorded of him are not mentioned in the Saxon Chronicle and other Saxon authorities, is capable of explanation. These authorities record the struggle between the Britons and the Saxons south of the Humber [River]; but there were settlements of Saxons in the north even at that early period, and it is with these settlements that the war narrated in the ‘Historia Britonum’ apparently took place.[11]

Probable locations for the sites of Arthur’s battles listed in the “History of the Britons” will be presented later in this work.

Composite Figures

Theories abound that the legendary Arthur may be based on or a composite of several historically recognized figures or an extrapolation of one of them. Some of these historical figures considered as forming the basis for King Arthur include:

- Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman military commander over the Roman Legion garrisoned at the city of York in Britain during the 2^nd – 3^rd century AD, as proposed by Kemp Malone.

- Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romano-Briton nobleman who instigated the British resistance against the Anglo-Saxon invasion in the 5^th century AD.[12]

- Riothamus, a Romano-Briton military commander in Gaul[13] who was defeated in battle against the Visigoths in the late 5^th century AD, as proposed by historian Geoffrey Ashe.

- Artur son of Aedan, an Irish Dalriadan prince killed in battle against the Picts[14] of eastern Scotland in the late 6^th century AD[15] as proposed by David F. Carroll and Michael Wood, and championed by Adam Ardrey in his book “Finding Arthur: The Origins of the Once and Future King”.

- Arthuis[16], son of Masgwid, a British ruler of the kingdom of Elmet in the 6^th century AD.

- Arthur[17], son of Petr, a Welsh ruler of the kingdom of Dyfed during the late 6^th – early 7^th century AD.

- Athrwys son of Meurig, a Welsh prince of the kingdom of Gwent in the 7^th century AD.

The suggestion that one of these figures, or a composite of multiple figures, may have inspired the legend of Arthur presents more problems than it resolves. Most of the candidates are from different time periods – either too early or too late – for the Arthur presented in the “History of the Britons.” Of the possible contemporaries of Arthur, Riothamus was active on the continent with no known activity in Britain, while attempts to conflate Ambrosius Aurelianus with Arthur assume that because Gildas mentions Ambrosius in the sentences prior to mentioning the battle of Badon, that Ambrosius was the British commander of that battle. However, Gildas does not explicitly state who commanded the Britons at Badon hill. He writes:

After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might in this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Mount Badon, 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 early Welsh traditions portray Arthur as the son of Uther Pendragon, and as a British war commander who battled Anglo-Saxon invaders in the late 5^th to early 6^th century AD.

The Sources

While examining the sources that reference the battle commander Arthur, it is important to note that many records may not have survived from the 5^th or 6^th Centuries AD due to wear, decay, the ravages of war, and other factors. This period in the history of Britain is a relative “dark age” due to the limited surviving sources from this time. The 6^th century British monk Gildas states:

I shall not follow the writings and records of my own country, which (if there ever were any of them) have been consumed in the fires of the enemy, or have accompanied my exiled countrymen into distant lands, but be guided by the relations of foreign writers, which, being broken and interrupted in many places, are therefore by no means clear.

Researchers who applied a statistical model for unseen species to medieval manuscripts estimate that up to about 68% of medieval works have survived, with only up to about 9% of physical manuscripts surviving to the present.[18] From the early medieval time period in Britain it is not uncommon to find information that comes from only one source and can’t be found directly anywhere else. The fact that some manuscripts survived while others didn’t in no way invalidates surviving information that comes from a single source. That being said, it is important to explore additional evidence to support or dispute that information.

As noted by F. F. Bruce, the fact that the surviving manuscripts about Arthur come from later centuries, does not detract from the possibility or probability of Arthur’s existence:

The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight (manuscripts), the earliest belonging to circa A.D. 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era. The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest (manuscripts) of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.[19]

Fragments of information from earlier manuscripts, which have perished, certainly have been incorporated into later compilations, and in some cases, have been embellished. The 12^th century Norman cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth claims that he translated “a very old book in the British tongue,” into Latin, “which set out in excellent style a continuous narrative of all their deeds…”, forming the basis for his “History of the Kings of Britain.” Geoffrey probably did indeed base some of his work on an earlier source and there is no reason to suppose this was a mere fabricated literary device. However, his writings are not reliable due to the introduction of many fantastical elements into the story, such as the portrayal of Arthur as conqueror of northwestern Europe and would-be conqueror of Rome. Thus, it is challenging, if not impossible in many instances, to differentiate between Geoffrey’s source material and what may be his own embellishments to it. But to indiscriminately reject every detail of Geoffrey’s work is unfounded since there are certainly elements of truth embedded within his fictional narrative.

Another source, the 13^th century Welsh manuscript the “Book of Aneirin,” contains a reference to Arthur in the epic poem “The Gododdin”, which was most likely from a poem actually written by the British bard Aneirin in the 7^th century. If correct, this would be the earliest Arthurian source.

Some may suggest that references to Arthur in early sources may have been interpolated by later scribes to fabricate a false historical basis for him, but the evidence for this theory is lacking. Thus, rather than utterly discarding some sources because they don’t mesh with a particular narrative, it is reasonable to expect that there may be fragments of truth from earlier sources imbedded even within some embellished tales. The presence of mythological material in some sources neither negates nor discredits the truthfulness of earlier source material. Although the sources merely provide limited fragments of information about Arthur, we can piece together an understanding, albeit limited, of who he was and why he became legend. As would be expected, the primary sources about Arthur mainly come from early Welsh writers.

Chapter 3: Historical Context

The End of Roman Britain

After centuries of occupation, the Romans were gone. From the reconnaissance campaign of Julius Caesar in 55 BC to the full-scale invasion of the Roman Emperor Claudius in AD 43 down to the final withdrawal of the Roman soldiers around AD 410, the Roman Empire had left its imprint on the island of Britain. The Romans developed an unprecedented infrastructure in Britain by building towns and constructing a vast network of roads to better facilitate transportation. Additionally, they introduced some of the comforts of Rome to the people of Britain, including luxurious baths, stately villas, and exotic imported goods. The increased urbanization and the integration of the Latin language and culture into the native British tribes led to the development of a Romano-British culture.

To defend their provinces in Britain, they established forts at key locations and constructed two walls in the north – Hadrian’s Wall and the Antonine Wall – to protect against incursions of the Caledonian tribes. With three legions garrisoned in Britain, the Roman military presence there was more considerable than in most provinces. While some studies suggest that the Romans did not leave much of an imprint on the genetics of Britain, they certainly left one on the landscapes and the culture.

The Roman conquest of Britain began in the southeast and gradually spread to the west and then to the north. Although the Roman soldiers were not nearly as numerous as the Britons, their superior discipline and military tactics proved highly effective against the less organized and less well-equipped Britons. Additionally, the Romans exploited existing rivalries between neighboring British tribes to conquer them one tribe at a time.[20]

As Roman control increased, the province of Britannia was established by the Senate and governors were appointed to maintain order, exert Roman influence, and expand the dominion of the Roman Empire. But the entirety of the island never fell under Roman rule and governance of the province of Britain proved to be unstable. Some refused to submit to Roman rule. Rebellion among conquered tribes, incursions of foreign raiders, and usurpation by Roman governors defined the Roman occupation of Britain. The betrayal and brutality of the Romans toward their allies, the British Iceni tribe, during the reign of the Emperor Nero led to the revolt of Queen Boudicca and her people in southeastern Britain from 61-60 AD. But this revolt was quickly crushed and Roman order was once again established.[21]

Within a couple of decades, the Roman Emperor Vespasian appointed the nobleman Gnaeus Julius Agricola governor of Britain. Upon arriving in Britain, Agricola immediately attacked and subjugated the British Ordovices tribe in Wales and conquered the island of Angsley (modern day Mona). He pressed northward, conquering what is now northern England and southern Scotland, and established forts across the line from the Clyde River to the Firth of Forth line.[22] Agricola continued northward, leading a military campaign against the Caledonians of northern Britain by land and sea. In 84 AD he defeated the Caledonians led by Calgacus at the Battle of Mons Graupius but withdrew the campaign for the winter. Shortly thereafter, Emperor Domitian recalled Agricola to Rome to celebrate his triumph over the Britons and Caledonians, and the Roman soldiers withdrew to the forts along the Firth-Clyde line.[23] The Caledonian tribes retaliated by destroying several Roman forts around 105 AD, and the Romans retreated to defenses retreated south of the line from the Solway Firth to the Tyne River.

In 117 AD, the Emperor Hadrian appointed the general Quintus Pompeius Falco as the governor of Britain. Upon arriving in Britain, the governor quelled an uprising in the north. While touring the Roman provinces, Emperor Hadrian visited Britain in 120 AD. While there, he ordered the construction of a wall spanning the width of Britain from the Solway Forth to the River Tyne in northern Britain, a distance of 73 miles (75 Roman miles) to “separate the Romans from the barbarians.”[24] A newly appointed Roman governor oversaw construction of the wall. East of River Irthing, the wall was made of squared stone, 9.8 feet wide and 16-20 feet high; west of the river the wall was made of turf, 20 feet wide and 11 feet high. The wall was completed ca. AD 128.

Hadrian’s successor, Emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161), advanced Roman rule 100 miles north of Hadrian’s Wall, where he commissioned the construction of a second northern wall spanning from the Firth of Forth to the River Clyde, a distance of 38 miles (40 Roman miles). The new Antonine Wall was completed in 142 AD. This expansion proved to be short-lived when the Brigantes, a northern British tribe, revolted and drove the Romans south again to Hadrian’s Wall. Between 155-157 AD. A Roman Governor suppressed the uprising and recaptured the Antonine Wall, only to abandon it again by 163 or 164 AD. The main force of the Romans retreated back to Hadrian’s Wall, but a few small Roman outposts beyond the wall continued to be held by the Romans until at least 180 AD, including Newstead and 7 other small outposts. The Roman dominion there lasted no more than 20 years in most areas, but in some parts it lasted nearly 40 years.

In 175 AD, a company of 5,500 cavalry levied in the province of Sarmatia arrived in Britain. In what was referred to in antiquity as the “greatest struggle” of Emperor Commodus’ reign, Hadrian’s Wall was breached by the northern British tribes, who overran the forts and killed the Governor of Britain in 180 AD. In 184 AD, a Roman general drove them back to the north of Hadrian’s wall.[25] By 187, the Roman garrison in Britain rebelled, and a new governor, Publius Helvius Pertinax Augustus, was appointed to quell the uprising, only to be resign his commission after being attacked by the soldiers there.[26] After the death of Emperor Commodus, Pertinax briefly became Emperor (AD 193) until he was murdered, after which Emperor Septimius Severus (193-211) ascended to the throne.

Three Roman legions were stationed in Britain to quell uprisings among the conquered Britons and to defend against the incursions of the Britons and Picts beyond Roman jurisdiction to the north. The legions were stationed in York (Eboracum), Chester (Deva), and Caerleon (Isca Silurum). With 3 legions under their command, the Governors of Britain were disproportionately powerfully provincial governors in the Roman Empire, posing a potential threat to the Emperor’s rule.

The temptation became too great, and the governor of Britain, Clodius Albinus, usurped the title “Emperor” and crossed over into Gaul with the legions of Britain. Emperor Severus battled against Albinus in Gaul in 195, and ultimately defeated him in 196. Desperate for peace, the next Roman Governor of Britain paid tribute to one of the British tribes to appease them during his rule, beginning in 197 AD.[27] Recognizing the need to reduce the power of the Roman governor of Britain, Severus divided the province into two provinces in 197 AD: Britannia Superior and Britannia Inferior, ushering in the period referred to as “The Long Peace.”

The next governor, Lucius Alfenus Senecio (AD 205-207), appealed to Emperor Severus in 207 for military aid against the northern tribes, who were “rebelling, over-running the land, taking loot and creating destruction.”[28] Upon learning of the conflict in Britain, the Emperor Severus personally led a military campaign north of Hadrian’s Wall against the Maetae and Caledonians with 20,000 soldiers in 208 or 209 AD. Guerilla raids amidst the unfamiliar terrain incurred heavy casualties on the Roman soldiers. Though the Caledonians and Romans didn’t meet in battle, the Caledonians sued for peace; Severus signed peace treaties with them, allowing Roman occupation of the central Lowlands. Later that year, the Caledonians and Maetae resumed the conflict against the Romans.[29] Emperor Severus prepared to launch another campaign against them to exterminate them, but fell ill and withdrew to Eboracum (York) where he died shortly thereafter.[30] The Roman frontier reverted back to Hadrian’s Wall.

In AD 260, the Roman general Postumus usurped the title “Emperor” and established a “Gallic Empire” comprising the Roman provinces of Gaul, Germania, Britannia, and Hispania to battle against Emperor Gallienus. However, Postumus was murdered by his own soldiers in AD 269. By 274, Emperor Aurelian reclaimed the rebellious provinces and reunited them with the Roman Empire. In 281 a tribune named Bonosus proclaimed himself “Emperor,” which was shortly thereafter quelled by Emperor Probus. By AD 285 the Roman Empire split into Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.

In AD 286, the fleet commander of the Britannic Sea, Carausius, proclaimed himself Emperor of Britain and northern Gaul. Emperor Maximian attempted to cross over to Britain to suppress the revolt, but failed when his fleet was destroyed by storms in 288. In AD 293 Emperor Constantius Chlorus became co-Emperor with Emperor Maximian and invaded Gaul.[31] Carausius was overthrown by one of his men, who was in turn defeated by Emperor Constantius in 296.[32] Constantius set things in orders and divided the two Provinces of Upper Britannia and Lower Britannia into four Provinces to attempt to reduce the power of the governors even more:

- Maxima Caesarensis (from Upper Britannia)

- Britannia Prima (from Upper Britannia)

- Flavia Caesariensis (from Lower Britannia)

- Britannia Secunda (from Lower Britannia)

Constantius repaired Hadrian’s Wall and the associated forts. In the same year, Emperor Diocletioan made Britain a diocese of the prefecture of Galliae – along with Gaul, Germania, and Hispania – so a fifth governor was added to Britain.

Around this time, in the late 3^rd century AD, Saxon raids by sea provoked the Romans to construct forts on the southern and eastern shores of Britain, becoming known as the “Saxon Shore” (litus Saxonicum).[33]

In 305 AD, Emperor Constantius and his son, Constantine began a military campaign beyond Hadrian’s Wall to subjugate the Picts – the people the Romans previously called the Caledonians.[34] After achieving some success, they withdrew to Eboracum (York) for the winter to plan the next stages of the campaign, but Emperor Constantius unexpectedly died. His son, Emperor Constantine I “the Great” was proclaimed Roman Emperor in York in 306 – the first legitimate emperor to be given that title while in Britain. His son Emperor Constans succeeded him, but was assassinated in 350.

In AD 368 the Roman garrison stationed at Hadrian’s Wall rebelled. At the same time, the Attacotti, Scotti, Picts, and Saxons coordinated an attack, conquering the northern and western regions of Britannia. Roving bands of soldiers and slaves raided the towns and countryside, wreaking havoc. The 4^th century Roman historian Ammianus Marcellinus noted that: “It will be sufficient here to mention that at the time the Picts, divided into two tribes called Dicalydones and Verturiones, and likewise the Attacotti, a very warlike people, and the Scots were all roving over different parts of the country and committing great ravages. While the Franks and the Saxons who are on the frontiers of the Gauls were ravaging their country wherever they could effect an entrance by sea or land, plundering and burning, and murdering all the prisoners they could take.” [35]

Emperor Valentinian I dispatched Theodosius with an army, who reconquered the cities granting amnesty to deserted soldiers, executing mutineers, and driving the invaders out of the provinces, thereby establishing peace. They retook Hadrian’s Wall and reestablished the garrisons in the forts. In AD 369 Count Theodosius established a fifth Roman Province, Valentia, in the far north.

Maximus

Incursions by the Scots and Picts ravaged the Roman lands to the north, and in AD 381, the Roman general Magnus Maximus drove them back beyond the Roman frontier. In AD 383 he was proclaimed Emperor of the Western Roman Empire by his soldiers. Crossing over to Gaul, he took with him much of the Roman infrastructure of Britain – soldiers, armed bands, governors, and youth – never to return and therebyexposed Britain to foreign incursions.[36] Leading the Roman soldiers from Britain to Gaul, he battled Emperor Gratian and defeated him, usurping rule of Britain and Gaul as Emperor Augustus. In the early Welsh stories, Maximus is acclaimed as the founder of British kingdoms and is referenced in numerous stories. Early Welsh poems and genealogies refer to him as “King Maximus” (Wledig Macsen/Maxen). [37] According to the “History of the Britons,” Maximus settled some of the British soldiers who came with him to Gaul in a place called Armorica, which later came to be known as “Britanny,” or “little Britain.” The British men married Gallic women, becoming the ancestors of the modern Bretons. Maximus’ ambitions got the best of him, and while invading Italy to secure control of the entire Western Roman Empire, he was defeated by Emperor Theodosius in 388. Following his defeat, the Roman Senate passed “Damnatio Memoriae” or “Damnation to the Memory” on Maximus to expunge him from the memory and writings of the people. While the Romans purged him from their memory, the Britons revered him as the founder of a royal dynasty. Inscriptions on the Pillar of Eliseg, a 9^th century Welsh monument, mentions an ancestral line through Britu, the son of Sevira, daughter of Maximus. Gildas writes of Maximus:

At length also, new races of tyrants sprang up, in terrific numbers, and the island, still bearing its Roman name, but casting off her institutes and laws, sent forth among the Gauls that bitter scion of her own planting Maximus, with a great number of followers, and the ensigns of royalty, which he bore without decency and without lawful right, but in a tyrannical manner, and amid the disturbances of the seditious soldiery. He, by cunning arts rather than by valour, attaching to his rule, by perjury and falsehood, all the neighbouring towns and provinces, against the Roman state, extended one of his wings to Spain, the other to Italy, fixed the seat of his unholy government at Treves, and so furiously pushed his rebellion against his lawful emperors that he drove one of them out of Rome, and caused the other to terminate his most holy life. Trusting to these successful attempts, he not long after lost his accursed head before the walls of Aquileia, whereas he had before cut off the crowned heads of almost all the world.

The withdrawal of the Roman soldiers under Maximus marked the beginning of the end of Roman rule in Britain. The provinces of Britain continued under some degree of Roman control, albeit significantly weakened. During an invasion by the Picts in AD 398, the Roman general Flavius Stilicho sent aid to fortify the frontier at Hadrian’s Wall.[38] It may have also been during this time that the legendary Irish king Niall “of the Nine Hostages” raided the western and southern coasts of Britain and captured and enslaved some of the inhabitants.

Constantine III

In AD 407 the provinces in Britain rebelled, and the remnants of the Roman army chose a common soldier by the name of Constantine to lead them as their general. Constantine proclaimed himself Emperor Constantine III and mustered all the soldiers he could from Britain and crossed with them over the British Sea (Mare Brittonum) to Gaul.

Not long thereafter, the Britons threw off the Roman yoke and armed themselves to defend against the Anglo-Saxon invaders. According to the Byzantine historian Zosimus, Constantine was to blame for the expulsion of the Romans because he hadn’t taken strong enough measures against the Saxon raids.[39] The Britons and Gauls revolted, rejected Roman law, and took up arms.

The barbarians above the Rhine, assaulting without hindrance, reduced the inhabitants of Britain and some of the Celtic peoples to defecting from the Roman rule and living their own lives, independent from the Roman laws. The Britons therefore took up arms and, braving the danger on their own behalf, freed their cities from the barbarian threat. And all Armorica [Brittany] and the other Gallic provinces followed their example, freed themselves in the same way, expelling the Roman officials and setting up a constitution such as they pleased.[40]

Gerontius … winning over the troops there [in Spain] caused the barbarians in Gaul to rise against Constantine. Since Constantine did not hold out against these, the greater part of his strength being in Spain, the barbarians from beyond the Rhine overran everything at will and reduced the inhabitants of the British Island and some of the peoples in Gaul to the necessity of rebelling from the Roman empire… Now the defection of Britain and the Celtic peoples took place during Constantine’s tyranny, the barbarians having mounted their attacks owing to the carelessness in administration.[41]

In another text describing the 16^th year of the reign of Honorius – AD 409 or 410, the Byzantine historian Zosimus writes:

The Britains were devastated by an incursion of the Saxons.[42]

In AD 410, the city of Rome was sacked by the Visigoths under Alaric I and the British Roman Emperor Constantine III was defeated by a general of Emperor Honorius. With Constantine’s defeat, the Roman standard no longer flew over Britain after over 300 years of Roman occupation. The Byzantine historian Procopius (ca. 500-570) writes:

From that time onwards it remained under [the rule] of tyrants.[43]

Pictish and Irish Raiders

After the departure of the Romans, the Britons reverted to their tribal allegiances and emerged as numerous independent British kingdoms. Alliances were formed between some of the British kingdoms to defend their people against the threats and internal strifes began between others. The Britons were not a wholly unified people; they were made up of tribes governed by regional kings. In Britain a process of de-urbanization began as people moved from the cities and villas to the hillforts and the surrounding countryside. The Britons stopped using coins, pottery, but still used metal, glass, and leather or wood vessels. The regions that had been occupied by the Romans retained much of the Romano-British culture.

The withdrawal of the Romans left the borders of Britain largely undefended. After centuries of occupation, the native Britons had grown accustomed to the protection of the Roman soldiers from foreign raids so that one almost contemporary writer states they were “utterly ignorant…of the art of war.”[44] Seizing this opportunity to prey upon their complacent neighbors, the Picts of northern Britain and the Scots of Ireland ventured beyond their borders and plundered the weak and ill-prepared Britons, enslaving many and taking the spoils of their raids back to their own lands. Gildas writes of the situation in Britain:

After this, Britain is left deprived of all her soldiery and armed bands, of her cruel governors, and of the flower of her youth, who went with Maximus, but never again returned; and utterly ignorant as she was of the art of war, groaned in amazement for many years under the cruelty of two foreign nations—the Scots from the north-west, and the Picts from the north.

It was in these tragic circumstances that a young man named Patricius was abducted from his home in Britain by Irish raiders and enslaved for the next several years in Ireland. These experiences became a major turning point in his life, leading him to believe in the Christian faith of his parents and grandparents, and devoting the remainder of his life to a Christian ministry among the pagan Irish, thereby gaining renown down to the present day, the celebrated Saint Patrick. He writes:[45]

I, Patrick, a sinner, the rudest and least of all the faithful, and most contemptible to very many, had for my father Calpornius, a deacon, the son of Potitus, a priest, who lived in Bannaven Taberniae, for he had a small country-house close by, where I was taken captive when I was nearly sixteen years of age. I knew not the true God, and I was brought captive to Ireland with many thousand men, as we deserved; for we had forsaken God, and had not kept His commandments, and were disobedient to our priests, who admonished us for our salvation. And the Lord brought down upon us the anger of His Spirit, and scattered us among many nations, even to the ends of the earth, where now my littleness may be seen amongst strangers. And there the Lord showed me my unbelief, that at length I might remember my iniquities, and strengthen my whole heart towards the Lord my God, who looked down upon my humiliation, and had pity upon my youth and ignorance, and kept me before I knew him, and before I had wisdom or could distinguish between good and evil, and strengthened and comforted me as a father would his son.

Colonists from Ireland secured footholds on the western coasts of the island (Dalriada and Ui Liathain); while Pictish warriors launched incursions from the north. Unable to or ignorant of how to defend themselves, the suffering Britons dispatched messengers to Rome, pleading for protection and promising submission to the rule of Roman law. Upon receiving the British ambassadors, Roman officials swiftly dispatched a legion to Britain to repel the foreign raiders. The Roman soldiers landed on the shores of Britain at a site occupied by Pictish or Irish raiders, and immediately a battle ensued in which large numbers of raiders were slain and the remainder were driven beyond the borders. Once the raiders had been driven back, the Romans advised the Britons to refortify the Antonine Wall.

Upon the departure of the Romans, the raiders returned. The Britons appealed to Rome for help once more, and again, the Roman soldiers came to Britain and drove the raiders back. This time they informed the Britons that they could not return again to assist due to troubles on the continent, and:

[T]hat the islanders, inuring themselves to warlike weapons, and bravely fighting, should valiantly protect their country, their property, wives and children, and, what is dearer than these, their liberty and lives…”

Seeing the extremity of the Britons, the Romans supervised the fortification of Hadrian’s Wall and taught the Britons how to make weapons. They fortified towers on the south coast, the “Saxon shore” and trained the Britons in the art of war, and then departed Britain. The Picts and Scots shortly thereafter attacked with greater force, and conquered all the northern lands up to the wall. They drove the Britons from their fortifications and pursued them and many were forced to flee without any provisions. In desperation, some of the Britons drafted a letter to the Roman General Flavius Aetius (391-454 AD), who was serving as a Consul – one of the two senior administrative magistrates of the Roman Empire. The letter reads:

To Aetius, now consul for the third time: the groans of the Britons.

The barbarians drive us to the sea; the sea throws us back on the barbarians: thus two modes of death await us, we are either slain or drowned.”[46]

Flavius Aetius served as the Consul or Rome for the third time between 446 and 454, dating the letter between those years. However, the Romans could not help, and many of the fleeing Britons surrendered to the raiders for provisions, while others hid in the wild and came out to battle against the invaders. Gildas writes:

And then it was, for the first time, that they overthrew their enemies, who had for so many years been living in their country; for their trust was not in man, but in God; according to the maxim of Philo, “We must have divine assistance, when that of man fails.”

This success drove the invaders back, but before long they returned. The Scots established a foothold at the northwestern extremity of Britain and returned to plunder, as well as the Picts. After a brief period of prosperity, they Britons received intelligence that the raiders were returning in greater force.

The Arrival of the Anglo-Saxons

Amidst the Irish pirates from the west and the Pictish raiders from the north, one of the powerful British kings by the name of Guorthigern (usually Latinized as Vortigern, although no letter “v” exists in the Old Welsh language),[47] met with a council and devised a plan to deal with these raiders and pirates. Since the Britons had lost the art of war during the Roman occupation, they determined that they would hire mercenaries from Germanic tribes on the continent who were skilled in warfare – including Angles from Anglia, Saxons from Saxony, and Jutes from Jutland – each of these tribes close kin of each other. The British monk Gildas writes:

For a council was called to settle what was best and most expedient to be done, in order to repel such frequent and fatal irruptions and plunderings of the above-named nations.

…

Then all the councilors, together with that proud tyrant Gurthrigern [Vortigern], the British king, were so blinded, that, as a protection to their country, they sealed its doom by inviting in among them like wolves into the sheep-fold), the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men, to repel the invasions of the northern nations. Nothing was ever so pernicious to our country, nothing was ever so unlucky. What palpable darkness must have enveloped their minds-darkness desperate and cruel! Those very people whom, when absent, they dreaded more than death itself, were invited to reside, as one may say, under the selfsame roof.[48]

The “fierce and impious Saxons” practiced the old pagan belief in the Norse gods and had not received Christianity. The History of the Britons states of this time:

Vortigern then reigned in Britain. In his time, the natives had cause of dread, not only from the inroads of the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans…

The Anglo-Saxons agreed to fight against the raiders to relieve the Britons from this trouble, and arrived in three ships with their leaders, Hengest and Horsa – princes descended from Woden, the Anglo-Saxon name for the Old Norse name Odin. Gildas writes of the arrival of the Anglo-Saxon mercenaries:

A multitude of whelps came forth from the lair of this barbaric lioness, in three cyuls, as they call them, that is, in their ships of war, with their sails wafted by the wind and with omens and prophecies favourable, for it was foretold by a certain soothsayer among them, that they should occupy the country to which they were sailing three hundred years, and half of that time, a hundred and fifty years, should plunder and despoil the same. They first landed on the eastern side of the island, by the invitation of the unlucky king, and there fixed their sharp talons, apparently to fight in favour of the island, but alas! more truly against it. [49]

Bede, in his 7^th-8^th century “Ecclesiastical History of the English People” writes from the Anglo-Saxon perspective of the arrival of his own ancestors, and places the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in AD 449 at the start of the reign of Emperor Marcian. When the Anglo-Saxons arrived, Bede writes they:

[H]ad a place in which to settle assigned to them by the same king, in the eastern part of the island, on the pretext of fighting in defence of their country, whilst their real intentions were to conquer it.

Bede writes of the Germanic tribes who came to Britain:

Those who came over were of the three most powerful nations of Germany—Saxons, Angles, and Jutes. From the Jutes are descended the people, of Kent, and of the Isle of Wight, including those in the province of the West-Saxons who are to this day called Jutes, seated opposite to the Isle of Wight. From the Saxons, that is, the country which is now called Old Saxony, came the East-Saxons, the South-Saxons, and the West Saxons. From the Angles, that is, the country which is called Angulus, and which is said, from that time, to have remained desert to this day, between the provinces of the Jutes and the Saxons, are descended the East-Angles, the Midland-Angles, the Mercians, all the race of the Northumbrians, that is, of those nations that dwell on the north side of the river Humber, and the other nations of the Angles. The first commanders are said to have been the two brothers Hengist and Horsa… They were the sons of Victgilsus, whose father was Vitta, son of Vecta, son of Woden; from whose stock the royal race of many provinces trace their descent.[50]

The 8^th century “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” for the year 449 appears to quote Bede, but adds that the Anglo-Saxons first landed at a place called Ebbesfleet.

In their days the Angles were invited here by King Vortigern, and they came to Britain in three longships, landing at Ebbesfleet. King Vortigern gave them territory in the south-east of this land, on the condition that they fight the Picts. This they did, and had victory wherever they went.

Another manuscript of the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” calls this place Wippidsfleet. The “History of the Britons” provides some additional information, including that they were given the Isle of Thanet off the coast of Britain, in addition to supplies, in return for their service as mercenaries, and dates the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons to 447 AD:

In the meantime, three vessels, exiled from Germany, arrived in Britain. They were commanded by Horsa and Hengist, brothers, and sons of Wihtgils. Wihtgils was the son of Witta; Witta of Wecta; Wecta of Woden; Woden of Frithowald; Frithowald of Frithuwulf; Frithuwulf of Finn; Finn of Godwulf; Godwulf of Geat, who, as they say, was the son of a god, not of the omnipotent God and our Lord Jesus Christ … but the offspring of one of their idols, and whom, blinded by some demon, they worshipped according to the custom of the heathen. Vortigern received them as friends, and delivered up to them the island which is in their language called Thanet, and, by the Britons, Ruym. Gratianus Aequantius at that time reigned in Rome. The Saxons were received by Vortigern, four hundred and forty-seven years after the passion of Christ….[51]

Bede describes the conditions of this agreement:

The newcomers received of the Britons a place to inhabit among them, upon condition that they should wage war against their enemies for the peace and security of the country, whilst the Britons agreed to furnish them with pay.

According to the “History of the Britons,” their pay was in clothing and provisions. After arriving in Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, under the command of Hengest and Horsa, defeated the raiders and drove them back.

The Anglo-Saxon Conquest

The peaceful relations that initially existed between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons quickly spiraled downward. The Anglo-Saxons requested additional provisions, but King Vortigern refused, saying they had multiplied and their numbers were too great to support, that their services were no longer required, and that they should return home. Hengest persuaded Vortigern to allow him to send for more warriors from the continent, and that he would continue to fight for the cause of the Britons, to which Vortigern agreed. Bede writes:

When the news of their success and of the fertility of the country, and the cowardice of the Britons, reached their own home, a more considerable fleet was quickly sent over, bringing a greater number of men, and these, being added to the former army, made up an invincible force.

In the “History of the Britons,” Hengist tells Vortigern:

We are, indeed, few in number; but, if you will give us leave, we will send to our country for an additional number of forces, with whom we will fight for you and your subjects.

Vortigern agreed to this proposal, and Hengist sent messangers back to the continent. Sixteen ships came with warriors and family members, including Hengest’s own daughter, Rowena. Hengest hosted a dinner, and when Vortigern was intoxicated, he was inflamed with lust for the beauty of Rowena and insisted that she must be his, and that he would give anything for her. Vortigern offered the kingdom of Ceint (Kent) to Hengest in return for his daughter, and Hengest agreed. Unfortunately, the kingdom of Ceint was not his to give, and the rightful king, Guoyrancgonus, was defrauded of his own kingdom by the wiles of Vortigern and was forced to relinquish it due to the unexpected occupation of it by numerous Anglo-Saxon warriors. Since the numbers of the Anglo-Saxons had greatly increased, Vortigern was unable to fulfill his obligation to them, so the Anglo-Saxons began threatening and committing aggressive acts against the Britons. The “History of the Britons” states:

[T]he Britons replied, “Your number is increased; your assistance is now unneccessary; you may, therefore, return home, for we can no longer support you;” and hereupon they began to devise means of breaking the peace between them.

Gildas writes of the threats of the Anglo-Saxons:

Yet they complain that their monthly supplies are not furnished in sufficient abundance, and they industriously aggravate each occasion of quarrel, saying that unless more liberality is shown them, they will break the treaty and plunder the whole island. In a short time, they follow up their threats with deeds. [52]

Bede adds that the Anglo-Saxons allied with their former enemies, the Picts:

In a short time, swarms of the aforesaid nations came over into the island, and the foreigners began to increase so much, that they became a source of terror to the natives themselves who had invited them. Then, having on a sudden entered into league with the Picts, whom they had by this time repelled by force of arms, they began to turn their weapons against their allies. At first, they obliged them to furnish a greater quantity of provisions; and, seeking an occasion of quarrel, protested, that unless more plentiful supplies were brought them, they would break the league, and ravage all the island; nor were they backward in putting their threats into execution.

Hengest persuaded Vortigern to allow him to send for more warriors to fight the Scots and Picts and to conquer their lands from them and claim them for their own, including his own son Octa and his son’s brother Ebusa. Vortigern agreed, and additional warriors arrived in the north in forty ships to launch an invasion of northern Britain. The “History of the Britons” states:

Hengist, after this, said to Vortigern, “I will be to you both a father and an adviser; despise not my counsels, and you shall have no reason to fear being conquered by any man or any nation whatever; for the people of my country are strong, warlike, and robust: if you approve, I will send for my son and his brother, both valiant men, who at my invitation will fight against the Scots, and you can give them the countries in the north, near the wall called Gual.” The incautious sovereign having assented to this, Octa and Ebusa arrived with forty ships. In these they sailed round the country of the Picts, laid waste the Orkneys, and took possession of many regions, even to the Pictish confines.

But Hengist continued, by degrees, sending for ships from his own country, so that some islands whence they came were left without inhabitants; and whilst his people were increasing in power and number, they came to the above-named province of Kent.

The 8^th century “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” writes of these reinforcements:

449 … They then sent to Angel, commanded more aid, and commanded that they should be told of the Britons’ worthlessness and the choice nature of their land. They soon sent hither a greater host to help the others…

According to the “History of the Britons,” Vortigern’s son Vortimer became deeply concerned by the growing aggression and spread of the Anglo-Saxons, and the aggressions led to battles:

At length Vortimer, the son of Vortigern, valiantly fought against Hengist, Horsa, and his people; drove them to the isle of Thanet, and thrice enclosed them within it, and occupied, hit, threathened and freightened them on the western side.

The Saxons now despatched deputies to Germany to solicit large reinforcements, and an additional number of ships with many men: and after he obtained these, they fought against the kings of our peoples and princes of Britain[39], and sometimes extended their boundaries by victory, and sometimes were conquered and driven back.

Four times did Vortimer valorously encounter the enemy[40]; the first has been mentioned, the second was upon the river Darent, the third at the Ford[41], in their language called Epsford, though in ours Set thirgabail[42], there Horsa fell, and Catigern, the son of Vortigern;

Of the latter battle, Bede writes:

Of these Horsa was afterwards slain in battle by the Britons, and a monument, bearing his name, is still in existence in the eastern parts of Kent. [53]

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle writes of this battle:

455 This year Hengist and Horsa fought Vortigern the king, in the place called Aegelesthrep, his brother Horsa was killed, and after that Hengist and Aesc received the kingdom.

Continuing the battles of Vortimer from the “History of the Britons”:

[T]he fourth battle he fought, was near the stone[43] on the shore of the Gallic sea, where the Saxons being defeated, fled to their ships[44].

After a short interval Vortimer died; before his decease, anxious for the future prosperity of his country[45], he charged his friends to inter his body at the entrance of the Saxon port, viz. upon the rock where the Saxons first landed; “for though,” said he, “they may inhabit other parts of Britain, yet if you follow my commands, they will never remain in this island.” They imprudently disobeyed this last injunction, and neglected to bury him where he had appointed.

From these descriptions, the battles of Vortimer were at the following locations in southeastern Britain:

1. At the Isle of Thanet

1. Upon the river Darent (A tributary of the Thames in Kent)

1. At the ford of Epsford or Set Thirgabail (Battle of Aylesford) = Aegelesthrep

1. On the shore of the Gallic sea

According to the “History of the Britons”:

And let him that reads understand, that the Saxons were victorious, and ruled Britain, not from their superior prowess, but on account of the great sins of the Britons: God so permitting it.

Hengest and his elders developed a plan to overthrow Vortigern – at a feast they would get Vortigern and his 300 nobles intoxicated and then massacre them, keeping Vortigern alive for ransom. The plan was effected, and Vortigern offered the provinces of Essex, Sussex, and Middlesex in (whether or not he had the right to offer those regions) to secure his own release.

Hengist, under pretence of ratifying the treaty, prepared an entertainment, to which he invited the king, the nobles, and military officers, in number about three hundred; speciously concealing his wicked intention, he ordered three hundred Saxons to conceal each a knife under his feet, and to mix with the Britons; “and when,” said he, “they are sufficiently inebriated, &c. cry out, ‘Nimed eure Saxes,’ then let each draw his knife, and kill his man; but spare the king, on account of his marriage with my daughter, for it is better that he should be ransomed than killed.”

The king with his company, appeared at the feast; and mixing with the Saxons, who, whilst they spoke peace with their tongues, cherished treachery in their hearts, each man was placed next his enemy. After they had eaten and drunk, and were much intoxicated, Hengist suddenly vociferated, “Nimed eure Saxes!” and instantly his adherents drew their knives, and rushing upon the Britons, each slew him that sat next to him, and there was slain three hundred of the nobles of Vortigern. The king being a captive, purchased his redemption, by delivering up the three provinces of East, South, and Middle Sex, besides other districts at the option of his betrayers.

The 8^th century “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle” writes of Hengest and his people:

First of all, they killed and drove away the king’s enemies; then later they turned on the king and the British, destroying through fire and the sword’s edge.

Forever after, Vortigern was remembered as a traitor to the people of Britain.

The Lowlands of Scotland were inhabited by several kingdoms of Britons who formed a resistance against the invaders. When the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain, they established kingdoms along the south and eastern coasts of Britain; the Britons who escaped fled to their kin in Southern Scotland, Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany in France where their descendants remain to this day. Thus, the descendants of the ancient Britons include the Welsh, the Cornish, the Bretons of France, some of the Lowland Scots, and the conquered Britons intermingled with the Anglo-Saxons to eventually become the English. Gildas writes of the destruction caused by the Anglo-Saxons. Bede writes:

For here, too, through the agency of the pitiless conqueror, yet by the disposal of the just Judge, it ravaged all the neighbouring cities and country, spread the conflagration from the eastern to the western sea, without any opposition, and overran the whole face of the doomed island. Public as well as private buildings were overturned; the priests were everywhere slain before the altars; no respect was shown for office, the prelates with the people were destroyed with fire and sword; nor were there any left to bury those who had been thus cruelly slaughtered. Some of the miserable remnant, being taken in the mountains, were butchered in heaps. Others, spent with hunger, came forth and submitted themselves to the enemy, to undergo for the sake of food perpetual servitude, if they were not killed upon the spot. Some, with sorrowful hearts, fled beyond the seas. Others, remaining in their own country, led a miserable life of terror and anxiety of mind among the mountains, woods and crags.[54]

Vortigern may be mentioned on the Pillar of Eliseg, erected in the 8^th or 9^th century monument in Denbighshire, Wales. The Latin text on this pillar was transcribed by Edward Llwyd in 1696 although the inscription is now mostly worn away. A translation of part of this text states:

Britu moreover son of Guarthigern, whom Germanus blessed and whom Severa, bore to him, the daughter of Maximus the King, who slew the king of the Romans.[55]

Robert Vermaat in his article “The Text of the Pillar of Eliseg,” notes that the Germanus mentioned here is the 5^th century Germanus of Man, and not the 4^th/5^th century Germanus of Auxerre.

The Anglo-Saxons had secured a strong foothold in southeastern Britain, where they established the first Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Kent. Their kinsman – Angles, Saxons, and Jutes – continued to arrive from the continent to strengthen their efforts to subdue the island of Britain. In a desparate bid for survival, some of the British kingdoms banded together to oppose their quickly advancing foes.

The British Resistance

Gildas describes the conditions in some regions of Britain in the most desperate terms:

Some therefore, of the miserable remnant, being taken in the mountains, were murdered in great numbers; others, constrained by famine, came and yielded themselves to be slaves for ever to their foes, running the risk of being instantly slain, which truly was the greatest favour that could be offered them: some others passed beyond the seas with loud lamentations instead of the voice of exhortation.

“Thou hast given us as sheep to be slaughtered, and among the Gentiles hast thou dispersed us.”

Others, committing the safeguard of their lives, which were in continual jeopardy, to the mountains, precipices, thickly wooded forests, and to the rocks of the seas (albeit with trembling hearts), remained still in their country.

In these alarming circumstances, an armed resistance to the invaders rallied under the one hero who Gildas names – a Romano-Briton named Ambrosius Aurelianus.[56]

But in the meanwhile, an opportunity happening, when these most cruel robbers were returned home, the poor remnants of our nation (to whom flocked from divers places round about our miserable countrymen as fast as bees to their hives, for fear of an ensuing storm), being strengthened by God, calling upon him with all their hearts, as the poet says,—”With their unnumbered vows they burden heaven,” 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, had 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.”[57]

Ambrosius Aurelianus is an intriguing figure. Although his parent’s names are unknown, the statement that his parents “for their merit were adorned with the purple” suggests they may have been granted that right by his father serving as a military tribune or a provincial governor of consular rank, and that he was therefore of high birth.

The Roman surname Aurelianus is of special interest. This suggests he came from the Roman plebeian gens (clan) Aurelia. The original surname would be Aurelius, but the –anus/-enus suffix suggests he was formally adopted into another gens, similar to how Gaius Octavius changed his name to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus when adopted by Julius Caesar as noted by Dr. Tim Venning. This passage by Gildas also indicates several more things about Ambrosius: that his parents were killed by invaders – probably Anglo-Saxons; that he was a “modest man,” suggesting a sense of humility and that he was not seeking power and glory through conquest, but only sought to defend his people; and that he was a devout Christian along with those he led into battle. Gildas also indicates that the descendants[58] (probably grandchildren) of Ambrosius were his own contemporaries, and that they continued to “provoke to battle their cruel conquerors, and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory,” although they had “shamefully degenerated from the worthiness of their ancestors.”

The 7^th–8^th century Anglo-Saxon monk Bede mentions Ambrosius in his “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” but his mention of him only paraphrases Gildas and does not provide any additional information about him.[59] A youth named Ambrose, or Ambrosius, appears in the “History of the Britons,” who seems to be the same Ambrosius Aurelianus mentioned in the writings of Gildas. In the “History of the Britons,” Vortigern seeks counsel from his twelve “wise men” since the Anglo-Saxons had seized control of several kingdoms of the Britons. They advise him to flee and built a fortress to defend himself.

Vortigern travelled “to a province called Guenet” in the mountains of Heremus, and there he found a summit that was well-adapted to a fortification. His “wise men” counseled him to build there. After attempting to collect building materials that kept disappearing at night, he asked his “wise men” what was causing this trouble. They told him that he “must find a child born without a father, put him to death, and sprinkle with his blood the ground on which the citadel is to be built, or you will never accomplish your purpose.”

In a region called Glevesing, Vortigern’s messengers found a boy that other children were mocking for not having a father. One boy says to the other, “O boy without a father, no good will ever happen to you.” Upon hearing this, the messengers inquire of the boy’s mother who claims, “’In what manner he was conceived I know not, for I have never had intercourse with any man,’ and then she solemnly affirmed that he had no mortal father.”

The boy was taken to king Vortigern and confounded him and his wise men and told them the true reason for the disturbance of the fortress’s foundation. He instructed them to dig down, where they found a pool, and a tent in which were two sleeping dragons – a red dragon, symbolizing the Britons, and a white dragon, symbolizing the Anglo-Saxons, which upon being awoken, battled each other. Although the red dragon was weaker, it ultimately prevailed and drove the white dragon out of sight. After this impressive display, the king asks him his name, and he replies, “I am called Ambrose (in British Embresguletic),”[60] and when asked his origin he replies “A Roman consul was my father.” Impressed by the wisdom of this youth, “the king assigned him that city, with all the western Provinces of Britain…” The explanation of the fatherhood given by Ambrosius and given by his mother as told in this story clearly conflict. Either the mother in this story is dishonest or a later interpolation introduced this inconsistency. Another explanation is perhaps that his mother was reluctant to divulge information about her husband, since he had been a Roman. The site of the fortress given to Ambrosius by king Vortigern came to be known as Dinas Emrys – “the Fortress of Ambrosius.” The “History of the Britons” then states:

Then the king assigned him that city, with all the western provinces of Britain; and departing with his wise men to the sinistral district, he arrived in the region named Gueneri, where he built a city which, according to his name, was called Cair Guorthegirn.

In this case, the word “sinistral” denotes “to the north,” as noted by Ranko Matasovic in the 2011 Addenda et Corrigenda to his 2009 “Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic,” in which he states that the proto-Celtic word ufo-kliyo means both “left” and “north.”

The evidence that suggests this Ambrosius is the same as Ambrosius Aurelianus are that he is called in the British language “Embreis guletic” – meaning King Emrys, Emrys being the Welsh form of the Roman name Ambrosius. Additionally, in the “History of the Britons” he is given command of the western provinces of Britain and later in the same text it describes “Ambrosius, who was the great king among the kings of Britain,” granting the provinces of Builth and Guorthegirnaim to Pascent, one of the sons of Vortigern, after Vortigern’s passing. The “History of the Britons” also mentions that Ambrosius’ father was a Roman consul, which matches the description given by Gildas. However, the one possible disparity is that his mother is still alive whereas Gildas’ text suggests that she perished during the Anglo-Saxon invasion. It may be possible that both are correct if she was later killed by the Anglo-Saxons prior to the resistance led by Ambrosius. The “History of the Britons” states of this time:

Vortigern then reigned in Britain. In his time, the natives had cause of dread, not only from the inroads of the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans, and their apprehensions of Ambrosius.

The somewhat successful resistance of devout Christian Britons led by Ambrosius Aurelianus against the Anglo-Saxon invaders marked a significant event among the Britons.

After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might in this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not….

The Britons desperately fought to defend their families, their homes, their freedom, and their faith. But the superior discipline and arms of the Anglo-Saxons proved difficult for the Britons to withstand. As war ravaged the land, the remaining Britons held out in 4 main regions: Cumbria in the north, Wales in the west, Cornwall in the southwest, and some crossed the channel to Brittany[61] in France to the south.

The text by Gildas indicates that some time passed between the beginning of the resistance led by Ambrosius, and the subsequent decisive Battle of Badon Hill. Thus, the beginning of the resistance led by Ambrosius and the subsequent defeat of the Anglo-Saxons at the Battle of Badon Hill were regarded as the two most significant events in the British resistance at that time – bookends in the defense of their country. But the text does not indicate that Ambrosius led this great culminating victory at Badon Hill. While the commander of the Britons at this battle is not named in this text, he is named in another text, the “History of the Britons.” During the generation succeeding the battles of Ambrosius, in the most perilous of times, another leader emerged to continue the resistance and to rally the Britons in the defense of their freedom – a man named Arthur.

Chapter 4: Arthur

The etymology of the name Arthur probably derives from the proto-Celtic word “arto,” meaning “bear,” which is which is preserved in the Welsh word “arth.”[62] The earliest sources consistently suggest that Arthur was a Briton, one of the native Celtic inhabitants of Britain during the late 5^th to early 6^th century AD. Later individuals who were probably named after him include the 6^th century Irish Dalriadan prince Artuir son of Aedan, and the late 6^th to early 7^th century Welsh ruler of Dyfed, Arthur (Arthwyr), the son of Peter (Petr), among others.

The Warrior

The earliest writings about Arthur describe him first and foremost as a great warrior. In what may be the first source to name Arthur, albeit indirectly, the 7^th century Welsh poem “The Gododdin” (Y Gododdin) describes the prowess of a British warrior named Gwawrddur from the Kingdom of Gododdin during an attack by the Britons on the invading Angles at the Battle of Catraeth, circa 600 AD. Most of the Britons were defeated, but the poet Aneirin survived the battle and writes of champion of the Britons:

He fed black ravens[63] on the rampart of a fortress
Though he was no Arthur
Among the powerful ones in battle
In the front rank, Gwawrddur was a palisade. (Stanza 99)

Aneirin notes that although Gwawrddur was a great warrior in strength and valor, he did not measure up to the ideal of Arthur as the pinnacle of valor. If original to the text, this would be the earliest surviving reference to Arthur in literature. The British historian Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson notes:

Arthur is treated here as a famous historical chief; Aneirin might easily have personally known old men who had met Arthur in their boyhood, if the generally accepted dates for his floruit are right. Unfortunately there are interpolations in the Gododdin, and it is impossible to prove that this is not one of them. Otherwise the historicity would be established beyond doubt.[64]

However, in his translation and thorough linguistic and stylistic analysis of this text, Celtic Studies expert Dr. John T. Koch concludes that this stanza that mentions Arthur is almost certainly from the Archaic Neo-Brittonic language (the ancestor of Welsh) and is therefore original to the text, probably dating from before AD 638.

As the [stanza] that contains the famous reference to Arthur, proved by rhyme, it has naturally attracted attention as well as worry over its possible status as a later interpolation. Recent thinking has tended towards caution cum scepticism. In Jarman’s 1988 edition, he lists this [stanza] as a possible interpolation (Gododdin lxiv). Charles-Edwards (Arthur of the Welsh 15), building on the theory of textual transmission that he set forth in [Astudiatethau ar yr Hengerdd, Studies in Old Welsh Poety], concluded that the reference to Arthur need not go back before the 9^th or 10^th century because the lines occurred only in E Gododdin’s Text B and were not paralleled in A. Therefore, he thinks it cannot with certainty be attributed to the [Archaic Neo-Brittonic] common ancestor of the two extant versions (which is understood in the present book as actually three textual versions). Sims-Williams similarly regards E Gododdin’s reference to Arthur as being of uncertain date (Arthur of the Welsh 37). I see no stylistic, linguistic, or thematic reason to exclude [this stanza] from the Ur-Text. From the point of view of style, the use of enjambment in the second half of the [stanza] (in which the name Arthur occurs) is consistent with usage in other [Archaic Neo-Brittonic] segments. Similarly, the occurrence of the hero’s name in syntactic isolation in the last line is not unusual for the Ur-Text. Padel (CMS xxvii.14) makes the point, that Arthur’s role in E Gododdin, as a paragon of heroism not present at the events described, does not guarantee his historicity. However, with the early dating of [this stanza] proposed here, Arthur’s possible non-existence demands one of the following problematic assumptions: either (1) the poets of dark-age Britain had invented a fictional military superhero and placed his career within the era of living memory (c. 500) or (2) the battle list synchronism of [Historia Brittonum] 56 and the Badon and Camlann entries of [Annales Cambriae] 516 and 537 reflect a radical and untraditional chronology for Arthur, devised between c. 638 and 829.[65]

If this analysis of the text is correct, then this suggests that Arthur was a genuine historical figure.

The next known source to name Arthur, the 9^th century “History of the Britons,” describes him as a dux bellorum – a supreme war commander of the Britons[66] who led a coalition army of the kings of Britain in defending their people against invaders. This source lists twelve battles led by Arthur – at nine different locations.[67] Similarly, the Old Welsh poem “What Man is the Porter?” from the “Black Book of Carmarthen”[68] in the 13^th century also portrays at least two battles led by Arthur, with two of those battles likely the same as two of the battles described in the “History of the Britons.” Each of the battles and their likely locations will be presented hereafter.

The single most striking statement about Arthur in the “History of the Britons” is that “…in all his battles he emerged as victor.” The most significant of his battles against invaders was the Battle of Badon Hill – a battle attested to by several credible sources. This battle proved to be a decisive victory against the Anglo-Saxons, curbing their expansion in that region for at least a generation, and ushering in a period of peace among the Britons. The stories of Arthur’s victories inspired his fellow Britons in their continued struggles to resist the ever-encroaching Anglo-Saxons, and his legendary prowess in battle came to form part of their cultural identity.

The heroism of Arthur became legendary among the Britons. The Welsh poem the “Death-Song of Uther Pen” in The Book of Taliesin states:

I shared my shelter,
a ninth share in Arthur’s valour.[69]

Cynddelw’s praise of Madoc ap Maredudd’s warriors upon Madoc’s death in 1160 states:

The warband of Madog, a greatly-praised wall (of defense),

Like the battle cry of Arthur’s warband.[70]

A 10^th century Welsh poem from the “Black Book of Carmarthen” refers to Arthur as “emperor,”[71] but apparently not in the traditional sense of the word. The context suggests this title may refer to his preeminent role not only as a local ruler, but also as a regional battle commander over a combined army of several British kings:

In Llongborth I saw Arthur,

And brave men who hewed down with steel,

Emperor, and conductor of the toil.[72]

The wording here seems to suggest that he was the emperor of the toil, in the sense that he was a supreme battle commander over the warriors of several kings. William Forbes Skene, who translated this poem and many others from the original Welsh, also suggests:

Geraint was the last recorded king of Dumnonia, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records his battle with Ine and Nun, in 710. If this is the same Geraint, Llongborth could mean Langport, south-east of Glastonbury; Arthur may only have been seen in vision, and the poem can no longer be attributed to Llywarch Hen.[73]

The King

It may be conjectured that Arthur was not a king since the “History of the Britons” does not explicitly refer to him as one. One of the later recensions – the Vatican recension, estimated from the late 11^th century – even adds that Arthur was chosen as the battle commander, “though there were many more noble than himself.”[74] However, this particular phrase only occurs in this later recension and does not appear in the earlier manuscripts, suggesting it may be a later interpolation. None of the recensions of the “History of Britons” explicitly call Arthur a king. However, the later Welsh poems consistently refer to Arthur as a king[75], and the Welsh pedigrees also claim his descent from numerous royal Britons, including Cunedda, the ancestor of the kings of Gwynedd. The exact kingdom Arthur would have come from is not known, nor is the full extent and number of the various British kingdoms at this time. The known British kingdoms of this region at the time included the Kingdom of Strathclyde, based at Alt Clut, the kingdom of Manaw Gododdin (not to be confused with Manua, the Isle of Man), based at Din Eidyn, and the kingdom of Rheged, believed to be based at Trusty’s Hill in Dumfries and Galloway.

The 12^th/13^th century English poet Layamon in his Brut writes:

It is not all sooth nor all falsehood that minstrels sing; but this is the sooth respecting Arthur the king. Was never ere such king, so doughty through all things! For the sooth stands in the writings how it is befallen, from beginning to the end, of Arthur the king, no more nor less but as his laws (or acts) were.[76]

Arthur does not explicitly appear as a king in the “History of the Britons,” but in the later Welsh poems he consistently appears as a king.

The Christian

Christian themes form an integral part of the Arthurian legend. In many sources, Arthur appears as a faithful Christian.[77] The 6^th century British monk Gildas bemoans the wickedness of his people and their tyrannical kings, of which the 19^th century Scottish historian William Forbes Skene notes:

Gildas, in his epistle, written probably from Armorica, draws a dark picture of the state of Britain. The colours may be overcharged and the lines deepened; but, exaggerated though it may be by a Christian zeal, which may have driven him from the country, his language, if there is any reality in it at all, implies a great departure from the Christian faith, and a deep corruption of manners.

…

There is here indicated a wide-spread apostasy from the Christian church founded by Ninian…

…A struggle seems to have taken place between the Christian and Pagan elements in the country, in which the latter at first prevailed, but which terminated in the triumph of the Christian party, and the consolidation of the various petty states into regular kingdoms under its leaders.[78]

W. F. Skene proceeds to suggest that “Arthur was pre-eminently a Christian leader.” Two sources describe Arthur obtaining victory in his battles through his faith in Christ. The earliest reference to Arthur as a Christian leader comes from the 11^th century “History of the Britons,” which describes Arthur’s prowess through his faith in Christ at the Battle of Badon Hill, his greatest victory:

In this engagement, nine hundred and forty fell by his hand alone, no one but the Lord offering him assistance. In all these engagements the Britons were successful. For no strength can avail against the will of the Almighty.[79]

The assertion that Arthur alone slew 940 people during the battle is ridiculous, but this may reasonably reflect the actual number of enemy casualties from the battle while emphasizing the belief that the Britons were victorious because of their faith in Christ under the leadership of Arthur.

According the “Vatican Recension” of the late 11^th century manuscript of the “History of the Britons” – so named because the original is kept in the Vatican, describing one of Arthur’s earlier battles:

Arthur carried the image of the Holy and Ever-Virgin Mary on his shoulders, and the pagans were put to flight, and there was great slaughter on that day, by the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and by the power of His Mother, Saint Mary.[80]

This introduces the concept of Mary being a perpetual virgin, a doctrine that was generally accepted at the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. However, at the same council, Pelagianism was condemned as a heresy, yet that belief persisted in Britain, so it is uncertain whether the doctrine of the perpetual virgin was widely accepted among the British Christians at this time. This passage also indicates the veneration of saints, which began in the 3^rd. The use of images is also indicated in this passage, which began in the 3^rd century but was banned in the early 4^th century at the Synod of Elvira but continued to be practiced. However, these elements are unlikely to have originated in the earliest manuscript, which is believed to have been written in the 9^th century or earlier.[81]

The 12^th century “K” manuscript of the Historia Brittonum adds the following in the margin:

For Arthur proceeded to Jerusalem, and there made a cross to the size of the Saviour’s cross, and there it was consecrated, and for three successive days he fasted, watched, and prayed, before the Lord’s cross, that the Lord would give him victory, by this sign, over the heathen; which also took place, and took with him the image of St. Mary, the fragments of which are still preserved in great veneration at Wedale, in English Wodale, in Latin Vallis-doloris.[82]

This addition introduces two more elements to the Arthurian legend – a purported pilgrimage to Rome, as well as the veneration of saints. The concept of Christian pilgrimages became common among believers in the 4^th century, and relics as part of the veneration of saints in the 3^rd century. However, this appears to be a gloss since it only appears in one manuscript and is written in the margin.

The “Annals of Wales” bears an interesting resemblance to the prior accounts, but describes a different battle at a place called the Fort of Guinnion:

Arthur bore the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders, and the Britons were victorious.

Both sources – the “History of the Britons” and the “Annals of Wales” – contain the curious similarity of Arthur bearing images on his shoulder into battle. The English scholar Robert Huntington Fletcher suggested these references may be mistranslations that actually refer to images on Arthur’s shield, due to similarities between the Welsh words for shield (ysgwyd),[83] and shoulder, (ysgwydd), a suggestion which assumes the existing Latin manuscripts were translated from an older Welsh source.[84]

Very much to the point, then, is the fact that the Welsh word for ‘shield’ (ysgwydd) differs only in a single letter from that for shoulder (ysgwyd). If the story was originally recorded or told in Welsh, as was doubtless the case, and contained the word for ‘shield,’ a later transcriber or narrator, whose influence manifests itself in the existing versions of Nennius, may easily have substituted ‘shoulder’ by mistake. The theory is so probable that it may be accepted as a fact, and evidently it is equally good for the entry in the Annales, though there the mention is of the cross, not of the image.[85]

The Lives of the Saints

Several 11^th and 12^th century hagiographies – the lives of the saints – contain references to Arthur in connection to each saint. Five of the hagiographies are about British saints, while two of them are about Breton saints. These texts appear to be entirely independent of the “History of the Kings of Britain” by the 12^th century Geoffrey of Monmouth, lending credibility to the historicity of King Arthur. In contrast to other early writings about Arthur, five of the seven hagiographies portray Arthur in a less than noble light, even in some cases as a villain that is portrayed in opposition to the piety of a saint.[86] According to one writer:

Perhaps the most notable feature of the majority of these texts is that Arthur is usually portrayed not in the heroic terms encountered in other early texts, but as a tyrant – in fact what we are seeing is the use of Arthur as a ‘foil’ for the saint. The Vitae are ecclesiastical hero-tales that share many features with their secular counterparts and as such require conflict, this conflict being generally between the religious hero and the secular power, with the ruler being belittled in defeat. Thus Arthur is “an arrogant, grasping tyrant who is humbled in ignominious defeat, not in any armed struggle but in his childish greed and even in his failure to fulfil his traditional role as giant or dragon slayer…the Arthurian episodes appear to be genuine fragments of Arthurian legend manipulated so that they may display Arthur in the worst possible light.[87]

The Life of Saint Goeznovius, a Latin text that states it was written in 1019 AD is of especial interest since it claims to predate the Norman conquest of England and Wales. Goeznovius was a 6^th or 7^th century Cornishman who served as a Bishop in Brittany. Arthur is mentioned while relating the history of earlier years, and not in direct connection with the saint.

[I]n the year of the Lord’s incarnation, 1019…

…In the course of time, the usurping king Vortigern, to buttress the defence of the kingdom of Great Britain which he unrighteously held, 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. But when this same Arthur, after many victories which he won gloriously in Britain and in Gaul, was summoned at last from human activity, the way was open for the Saxons to go again into the island, and there was great oppression of the Britons, destruction of churches and persecution of saints. This persecution went on through the times of many kings, Saxons and Britons striving back and forth…

In those days, many holy men gave themselves up to martyrdom; others, in conformity to the Gospel, left the greater Britain which is now the Saxon’s homeland, and sailed across to the lesser Britain (Brittany).[88]

The authors of “The New Arthurian Encyclopedia” make the observation:

The relevance of the Legenda Sancti Goeznovii lies in the prologue. This contains the only early historical narrative in which Arthur is mentioned plainly, with no obviously dubious or fantastic touches.

…

Goeznovius cannot be derived from the Historia whatever its date. It tells a story different from Geoffrey’s: glaringly different, in its account of the beginnings of Brittany; and just as surely, if not quite so glaringly, in its account of Arthur and his aftermath. It contains matter that occurs in other contexts but not in Geoffrey, proving the use of a prior tradition independent of him. [89]

The subsequent six hagiographies all appear to have been written after the Norman conquest of England and Wales that began in 1066 AD. These texts also demonstrate the introduction of more fantastical elements into the stories. The next five lives of the saints either portray Arthur as ignoble at best, or villainous at worst.

The Life of Saint Cadoc by the Welsh monk Lifris of Llancarfan circa 1086 describes a circumstance where Arthur plays dice with his knights Cai and Bedwyr, and sees king Gwynllyw of Wales fleeing his enemies with a young woman named Gwladus. Upon seeing the young woman, Arthur lusts after her and is only held back by his knights who remind him it would be a crime to snatch her, and that they must help those in distress. Arthur agrees and he and his two knights run to the aid of king Gwynllyw, and they drive back his enemies who are pursuing him. The text states:

Then Gwynllyw in triumph through Arthur’s protection together with the aforesaid virgin Gwladus, reached his own residence, which was situated on that hill, which thenceforward took from his name the British appellation Alit Wynllyw, that is, Gwynllyw’s Hill.[90]

The text later portrays Arthur’s pursuit of a man named Ligessauc who had killed three of Arthur’s warriors. The man flees to Cadog, who promises him protection from Arthur:

But, Arthur pursuing him everywhere, he nowhere found a safe place, and none dared to protect him for fear of the aforesaid king, until at length, wearied by very frequent flights, he came a fugitive to the man of God. He, bewailing his hardships, the more kindly received him, trusting in the Lord, fearing Arthur not at all, according to that word of the Lord, ‘Fear not those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul, but rather fear him who is able to cast soul and body into hell.’ Therefore he remained with him in the region of Gwynlliog, Arthur not knowing it, for seven years in security.

When Arthur discovers his location, he consults with St. Cadog, who calls a council of other renowned Welsh saints, including St. David, St. Teilo, and St. Illtud (Arthur’s cousin). These saints decree that Arthur should be compensated for his slain men with cattle, which Arthur insists must be multi-colored. St. Cadog prays and the cattle are all changed to being multi-colored, “in accordance with Arthur’s perverse desire.” But when the cattle are delivered to Arthur, they magically transform into ferns and the cattle are later found safe in their stalls by their owners. Arthur then submits to the faith of the saint, who pardons him for his “wrong”:

Arthur, seeing this wonder, humbly asked the blessed man, that the wrong which he had inflicted on him should be forgiven him. He bestowed pardon on him for the fault according to that gospel precept, ‘Forgive, and it shall be forgiven you.’ Therefore the aforesaid king, having entered into counsel with his army, prolonged the period of his refuge for seven years and as many months and the same number of days [91]

Later in the same text – after Arthur is pardoned by submitting to the faith of the saint – king Maelgwn refers to Arthur as “the bravest of heroes.”

The Life of Saint Carannog, a hagiography written circa 1100 AD, portrays the 6^th century Welsh saint taming a dangerous, giant serpent that was ravaging the land that Arthur was seeking to capture and destroy. Arthur receives a blessing from Carannog and promises to tell him where his missing altar is if he summons the serpent as a sign that he is a servant of God.

Then the blessed Carannog went and prayed to the Lord, and immediately the serpent came with a great noise like a calf running to its mother, and it bent its head before the servant of God like a slave obeying his lord with humble heart and with sidelong glance. And he placed his stole about its neck and led it like a lamb, nor did it raise its wings or claws. And its neck was like the neck of a bull of seven years, which the stole could scarcely go round. Then they went together to the citadel and greeted Cadwy, and they were welcomed by him. And he led that serpent down the middle of the hail and fed it in the presence of the people, and they tried to kill it. He did not allow it to be killed because he said that it had come at the word of God to destroy the sinners who were in Carrum, and to show the power of God through him. And after this he went outside the gate of the citadel and Carannog loosed it and bade it to depart and not to hurt anyone nor to return any more. And it went forth and remained as he had foretold, according to God’s ordinance.[92]

Upon seeing this, Arthur gives the altar back to Carannog and grants him lands to build a church. This story portrays Arthur’s power and dominion as insignificant to the power of the saint, and once again results in his submission to the power of the saint’s faith.

The Life of Saint Efflam, written circa 1100 AD, tells the story of a British or Irish saint who lived in Brittany who encounters Arthur hunting a monster in Brittany that was living in a cave near the shore. They see tracks leading out of the cave, but none leading into it. Arthur, armed with a club and a lion-skin shield, battles the creature all day but fails to overcome it. At night the company has run out of water, so Efflam prays to God and strikes a rock from which water flows. Arthur then submits to Efflam and asks him for a blessing, which he receives. He then defers to the prowess of Efflam, and the next day, Efflam confronts the dragon, which he defeats by pronouncing the name of Jesus Christ and banishing it to depart into the sea.[93]

This story once again demonstrates that the faith of the saint can overcome the dragon, while the might of Arthur cannot. Dr. Judy Shoaf astutely writes of this story:

The writer may have gotten this idea from the classical story of Hercules and Cacus (Aeneid VIII). Cacus was a monster who stole cattle by making them walk backwards into his cave, so that their footprints pointed away from it. Arthur appears in the story of Efflam with a club and lion-skin, two items associated with Hercules and not found in any other Arthur stories that I know of. [94]

The Breton scholar Charles de la Monneraye noted in 1849 that a relief on one of the capitals on the porch of the church at St-Jacques at Perros-Guirec in Brittany depicts the legend of St. Efflam and Arthur battling the dragon.[95] According to the Roger and Laura Loomis in their 1938 Arthurian Legends in Medieval Art the capital of one of the nave pillars also depicts this legend.

The Life of Saint Padarn, written circa 1120, seems to conflate the 6^th century Welsh saint with the earlier Padarn “Redcoat,” whose coat was one of the “Thirteen Treasures of the Island of Britain” described in 15^th and 16^th century Welsh texts. The hagiography portrays Arthur as a tyrant who becomes consumed with avarice and seeks to steal Padarn’s coat:

When Padarn was in his church resting after so much labour at sea, a certain tyrant, Arthur by name, was traversing the regions on either side, who one day came to the cell of saint Padarn the bishop. And while he was addressing Padarn, he looked at the tunic, which he, being pierced with the zeal of avarice, sought for his own. The saint answering said, `This tunic is not fitting for the habit of any malign person, but for the habit of the clerical office.’ He went out of the monastery in a rage. And again he returns in wrath, that he might take away the tunic against the counsels of his own companions. One of the disciples of Padarn seeing him returning in fury, ran to saint Padarn and said, `The tyrant, who went out from here before, is returning. Reviling, stamping, he levels the ground (beneath) with his feet’. Padarn answers `Nay rather, may the earth swallow him.’ With the word straightway the earth opens the hollow of its depth, and swallows Arthur up to his chin. He immediately acknowledging his guilt begins to praise both God and Padarn, until, while he begs forgiveness, the earth delivered him up. From that place on bent knees he begged the saint for indulgence, whom the saint forgave. And he took Padarn as his continual patron, and so departed.[96]

The Life of Saint Gildas, written by the Welsh cleric Caradoc of Llancarfan circa 1130-1150, portrays the 6^th century British monk Gildas – the same who wrote “On the Ruin of Britain” – as a devoted follower of Arthur, but becomes deeply saddened when Arthur slays Gildas’ brother Hueil during an uprising against him. The saint forgives Arthur, who goes on to change his ways and lead an “amended course” for the rest of his life.

St. Gildas was the contemporary of Arthur, the king of the whole of Britain, whom he loved exceedingly, and whom he always desired to obey. Nevertheless his twenty-three brothers constantly rose up against the afore-mentioned rebellious king, refusing to own him as their lord; but they often routed and drove him out from forest and battle-field. Hueil, the elder brother, an active warrior and most distinguished soldier, submitted to no king, not even to Arthur. He used to harass the latter, and to provoke the greatest anger between them both. He would often swoop down from Scotland, set up conflagrations, and carry off spoils with victory and renown. In consequence, the king of all Britain, on hearing that the high-spirited youth had done such things and was doing similar things, pursued the victorious and excellent youth, who, as the inhabitants used to assert and hope, was destined to be king. In the hostile pursuit and council of war held on the island of Minau, he killed the young plunderer. After the murder the victorious Arthur returned, rejoicing greatly that he had overcome his bravest enemy. Gildas, historian of the Britons, who was staying in Ireland directing studies and preaching in the city of Armagh, heard that his brother had been slain by King Arthur. He was grieved at hearing the news, wept with lamentation, as a dear brother for a dear brother. He prayed daily for his brother’s spirit; and, moreover, he used to pray for Arthur, his brother’s persecutor and murderer, fulfilling the apostolic commandment, which says: Love those who persecute you, and do good to them that hate you.

…

Meanwhile, the most holy Gildas, the venerable historian, came to Britain, bringing with him a very beautiful and sweet-sounding bell, which he vowed to offer as a gift to the Bishop of the Roman Church. He spent the night as a guest honourably entertained by the venerable abbot Cadocus, in Nant Carban. The latter pointed out the bell to him, and after pointing to it, handled it; and after handling it wished to buy it at a great price; but its possessor would not sell it. When king Arthur and the chief bishops and abbots of all Britain heard of the arrival of Gildas the Wise, large numbers from among the clergy and people gathered together to reconcile Arthur for the above-mentioned murder. But Gildas, as he had done when he first heard the news of his brother’s death, was courteous to his enemy, kissed him as he prayed for forgiveness, and with a most tender heart blessed him as the other kissed in return. When this was done, king Arthur, in grief and tears, accepted penance imposed by the bishops who were present, and led an amended course, as far as he could, until the close of his life.

Another section from the same text describes Arthur reclaiming his abducted wife Gwenhwyfar from a King Melvas of Glastonia.[97] In this text, Arthur is once more referred to as a tyrant, and in this instance, as a murderer.

The Life of Saint Illtud, written circa 1140, portrays the 5^th century Welsh monk as a first cousin of Arthur, and describes a visit to his cousin’s court.

In the meantime, the magnificent soldier hearing of the magnificence of his cousin, king Arthur, desired to visit the court of so great a conqueror. He left what we call Further Britannia, Brittany, and arrived by sailing, and here he saw a very great company of soldiers, being also honourably received in that place, and being rewarded as regards his military desire. His desire to receive guerdons being also satisfied, he withdrew very pleased from the royal court.[98]

This story, like The Life of St Goeznovius does not portray Arthur negatively like the earlier five hagiographies do, and this section of the text does not include anything of a fantastical nature.

The strange portrayals of Arthur as a spiritually weak and faithless king in five of the hagiographies sharply contrasts with most portrayals of him in other sources. In one, he is portrayed as one consumed with lust, in another with avarice, and in another, hatred. In the others, his might and strength are shown to be useless compared to the power of the faith of each saint.

This begs the question – what is the motive of the writers? Six of the seven hagiographies all seem to have been written between approximately 20 to 80 years after the Norman invasion of Wales, and five of these portray Arthur in a less than noble light. Considering the timeframe and the context that each of these are expressly ecclesiastical texts, they could possibly represent the influence of the Normans to supplant Arthur, the hero of the Welsh with more “orthodox” Christian leaders. Perhaps the stories of Arthur carried earlier religious elements – such as some of the unique beliefs or practices of the early Celtic Christians that were not consistent with the Christianity of the 11^th and 12^th centuries, but this is entirely speculation. The distinctly ecclesiastical texts – the lives of the Saints – mostly portray Arthur negatively, whereas secular histories and poems written by court entertainers portray Arthur as a devout Roman Catholic, and – in line with the Norman values – as a powerful and ambitious conqueror.

It could be possible that Arthur had beliefs and practices that were distinct and separate from those of the Roman Church at that time – as many Britons before and after his time did. Differences such as “Pelagianism,” a belief in support of free will and against original sin, were quite common from the 4^th to 6^th centuries until it was abolished at the Synod of Brefi in AD 560. Another difference was that the Britons generally rejected the date of Easter established at the Council of Nicaea, suggesting there may have been other beliefs or practices they rejected as well. The Britons retained the pre-Nicaean calculation for the date of Easter that was based upon the Judaic calendar. This different calculation of Easter became representative of all the other beliefs and practices in which the British Church differed from the Roman Church, and became a point of conflict from the 4^th century into the 8^th century. Perhaps with the invasion of the Normans the final vestiges of Celtic Christianity were swept away.

By the 14^th century, Arthur had become an ideal worthy of emulation throughout the Christian world. In 1312 the French writer Jacques de Longuyon portrayed Arthur as one of the “Nine Worthies,” comprising three people identified as paragons of virtue from each of the Pagan, Jewish, and Christian traditions, with Arthur representing one of the Christian paragons of strength and nobility.[99] One of the later Welsh Triads also includes an explanation of the “Nine Worthies”:

Here are the names of the nine bravest and most noble warriors of the whole world; of whom there are Three Pagans, Three Jews, and Three Christians:

The Three Pagans: Hector of Troy, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar

The Three Jews: David the Prophet, Judas Maccabeus, Duke Joshua

The Three Christians: Arthur, Charles (Charlemagne), Godfrey of Boulogne[100]

The fabricated coats of arms of each of the “Nine Worthies” began to appear in heraldic manuscripts by the 15^th century, such as in the 1459 Ingeram Codex, which shows Arthur’s coat of arms with 3 gold crowns on a blue shield.

Considering the portrayal of Arthur as a devout Christian in the “History of the Britons,” and the fact that many Britons before and after his time had accepted Christianity, suggests it is quite probable that Arthur was indeed a Christian, and a leader among the Christians of his time and region. Of this the 20^th-21^st century British historian Sheppard Frere notes:

Concomitantly with the decay of paganism, our evidence for Christianity itself becomes richer with the emergence of historical personalities such as Pelagius, Ninian or Patrick, and with the survival of the writings of early fifth-century British Christians such as Patrick or Fastidius; while the suggestive description of the occasion in 429, when St Germanus met the immense multitude and converted it from Pelagianism to orthodox Catholicism, points to a cult now at last making headway as a popular movement. On the other hand, it is true to add that we are now entering an era when events are recorded from the Christian viewpoint. It would be wrong to regard the conversion of Britain as complete: Vortigern could still find ‘magi’ to consult. Nevertheless, the British church at this late date began to show a new activity with the missionary movements of Ninian and Patrick outside the old province, and was sufficiently entrenched to survive the Dark Ages. [101]

Ancestry and Family

The medieval Welsh stories about Arthur, such as Culhwch and Olwen and the Welsh Triads, are replete with a rich and complex array of colorful characters and stories, many of which seem to have been commonplace knowledge at one point, but which over time now only exist as fragmentary details of more elaborate stories.

The Welsh and Latin sources consistently state that Arthur was the son of Uther Pendragon[102], a King of the Britons, and his queen consort Igraine[103]. The poem Culhwch and Olwen names Arthur’s maternal uncles: Llysgadrudd Emys, and Gwrbothu Hên, Gweir Gwrhyd Ennwir, and Gweir Paladyr Hir. A brother of Arthur named Madawg or Madoc[104], and a sister named Gwyar[105] and/or Anna also appear in the early Arthurian stories.[106] A half-brother, “Gormant the son of Ricca [was] Arthur’s brother by his mother’s side; the Penhynev of Cornwall was his father.”[107] The pedigree Bonedd y Arwyr, “Descent of the Heroes,” claims that Arthur descended from legendary kings and heroes of Britain, among them King Leir[108], the subject of one of William Shakespeare’s renowned plays; Conan Meriadoc, the alleged founder of Brittany in France; and the 5^th century king Cunedda, the founder of the Kingdom of Gwynedd in northern Wales.[109]

Early sources name Gwenhwyfar, or Guinevere, a daughter of King Ogrfan “the Giant,” as the wife of Arthur.[110] Several adult children of Arthur are named in Welsh sources: Llacheu,[111] Duran[112], Amr[113], and Gwydre[114]. The Welsh pedigrees also name yet another son, Kyduan[115], as the son of Arthur and of Eleirch, the daughter of Iaen.[116] Eleirch’s brothers – the sons of Iaen – include Dirmig of Cornwall, Gwyn Goluthon, Siaun, Kyradawg, Ievannwy, and Llychlyn.[117] Another source names them as Teregud, Sulyen, Bradwen, Moren, Siawn, and Cradawc, men of Caer Dathal.[118] Llacheu or Llachau is the most frequently mentioned son of Arthur. He appears as a warrior and a champion of the Britons who battled alongside his father in the Welsh poem Pa Gur. He is also mentioned in the “Black Book of Carmarthen,” in conversation between two British warriors, Gwyn son of Nudd and Gwyddno Garanhir.[119]

Llachau is also mentioned in two of the Welsh Triads together with Arthur’s nephew Gwalchmai, the son of his sister Gwyar:

Three Well-Endowed (Wealthy) Men of the Island of Britain:

Gwalchmai son of Gwyar

And Llachau son of Arthur…[120]

Another states:

Three Fearless Men of the Island of Britain:

The first was Gwalchmai son of Gwyar,

The second was Llachau son of Arthur,

And the third was Prydyr (Peredur) son of Earl Efrog.[121]

The Welsh poem Culhwch and Olwen states of Gwalchmai:

He called Gwalchmai the son of Gwyar, because he never returned home without achieving the adventure of which he went in quest. He was the best of footmen and the best of knights. He was nephew to Arthur, the son of his sister, and his cousin.

Arthur’s son Duran is only mentioned in one text, The Death of Duran son of Arthur.[122] His son Amr, or Amhar, appears in the “Wonders of Britain” section of the “History of the Britons,” as is one of Arthur’s attendants in the Welsh poem Geraint and Enid.[123] His son Gwydre is only mentioned in the poem Culhwch and Olwen, in which he is slain by the giant, monster boar Twrch Trwyth.[124]

Other relations to Arthur claimed in the Welsh poems and pedigrees include as his first cousins Culhwch son of Cilydd – the subject of the Welsh poem Culhwch and Olwen, Goreu son of Constantine the sheepherder, Geraint son of Erbin, and Saint Illtud of Wales.[125] Arthur’s cousin Kilhwch, son of Kilydd, son of Lord Kelyddon and Kilydd’s wife Goleuddydd, the daughter of Prince Anlawdd, is the subject of the Welsh poem Culhwch and Olwen. According to “The Descent of the Saints,” Arthur is a great-uncle to David, the patron saint of Wales, through his sister Anna. Among Arthur’s nephews are Gwalchmei son of Gwyar,[126] Eliwlod son of Madawg (Madoc), and Hoel, who is purported to be the same as Hoel I “the Great,” a historical ruler in Brittany.[127] These relations interconnect Arthur with the other British regions: Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany. In later stories, Gwalchmai is called Gawain. “Culhwch and Owen” names Gwalchmai’s brother, Gwalhauet mab Gwyar. Modred appears in later stories as a son of Gwyar, and therefore, a nephew to Arthur. Interestingly, Clan Campbell of Scotland (which shares a common origin with Clan Arthur) claims descent from “Meirbi son of Arthur son of Uther” in their earliest pedigrees. Two pedigrees claim Arthur as the son of Uther, while a third – the Kilbride manuscript – claims Arthur as a son of Ambrosius.

The MS 1467 only goes back to the Arthur’s father whose name is difficult to read in the original MS but probably intended to be `Uther’. The Kilbride MS goes back beyond the Arthur through a number of generations of Arthurs and others to one `Briotain’, the eponym of the British race. MacFirbis is more interesting as there is no attempt to do the impossible and equate the (c.10th century) Arthur with the legendary dark age figure of that name, and beyond him appear a string of curious names like `Coiel’ and `Catogain’, which, in Sellar’s words “have an archaic Welsh or British look about them.”

“The first is the early genealogical account of various Scottish clans known usually as `MS 1467′, after its supposed date, but which, it now appears was probably written rather earlier in the … century.”

“The second is the Kilbride MS c.1550, edited in Collecteana de Rebus Albanicis in 1847 but now lost (MacKinnon 1912:217-19) …”

“Thirdly there is the Campbell pedigree given by the great seventeenth-century Irish genealogist Duald MacFirbis but certainly dating from before his time.”

Sellar then set out side by side, from each of the three Gaelic genealogies listed above, the ten generations from before Cailein Mor who died in 1296. The MS 1467 only gives ten generations but for these ten generations a strong similarity can be seen between the three, making obvious Duncanson’s later padding in his 17th century Ane Accompt of the Genealogie of the Campbells.[128]

Arthur’s Retinue

The most prominent of Arthur’s warriors in the early Welsh stories are the heroes Cei the Tall son of Cynyr Ceinfarfog (Fair-Bearded) and Bedwyr, son of Bridlaw. Bedwyr is described as being a one-handed warrior. The Welsh poem “What Man is the Porter?” (Pa Gur) describes Cei’s and Bedwyr’s prowess on the battlefield: at Celli, Awarnach, Dissethach, Mydyd Eiddyn (Edinburgh), Trywruid (Fords of Frew), Ystavingon, and at Mona (the Island of Angsley in Northwestern Wales).

Cai entreated him,
While he killed every third person.
When Celli was lost,
Cuelli was found; and rejoiced
Cai, as long as he hewed down.
Arthur distributed gifts,
The blood trickled down.
In the hall of Awarnach,
Fighting with a hag,
He cleft the head of Paiach.
In the fastnesses of Dissethach,
In Mynyd Eiddyn,
He contended with Cynvyn;
By the hundred there they fell,
There they fell by the hundred,
Before the accomplished Bedwyr.
…

On the strands of Trywruid,
Contending with Garwlwyd,
Brave was his disposition,
With sword and shield;
Vanity were the foremost men
Compared with Cai in the battle.
The sword in the battle
Was unerring in his hand.
They were stanch commanders
Of a legion for the benefit of the country- Bedwyr and Bridlaw;
Nine hundred would to them listen;
Six hundred gasping for breath
Would be the cost of attacking them.
…
Before the chiefs of Emrais
I saw Cai in haste.
Booty for chieftains
Was Gwrhir among foes;
Heavy was his vengeance,
Severe his advance.
When he drank from the horn,
He would drink with four.
To battle when he would come
By the hundred would he slaughter;
There was no day that would satisfy him.
Unmerited was the death of Cai.
Cai the fair, and Llachau,³
Battles did they sustain,
Before the pang of blue shafts.
In the heights of Ystavingon
Cai pierced nine witches.
Cai the fair went to Mona,
To devastate Llewon.
His shield was ready
Against Cath Palug
When the people welcomed him.
Who pierced the Cath Palug?[129]

In the Welsh Triads, both Cei is named among the “Three Diademed Battle-leaders of the Island of Britain, with Bedwyr being added as a fourth:

Drystan son of Tallwch,

And Hueil son of Caw,

And Cai son of Cynyr of the Fine Beard.

And one was diademed above the three of them: that was Bedwyr son of Bedrawc.[130]

The Welsh Triads also name “Long-Necked Chestnut, horse of Cai,” as one of the “Three Sprightly Steeds of the Island of Britain.”[131]

The Welsh poem “What Man is the Porter?” (Pa Gur) says of Bedwyr:

They fell by the hundred

Before Bedwyr of the Perfect-Sinew.
On the shores of Tryfrwyd

Fighting with Garwlwyd

Furious was his nature

With sword and shield.

Bedwyr’s son Amhren and daughter Eneuawg, as well as Cei’s son Garanwyn, are also named as part of Arthur’s retinue. The poem Culhwch and Olwen even names several of Arthur’s belongings, including his mare Llamrei, his dog Cavall, his ship Prydwen, his hall Ehangwen. The Welsh Triads also name “Slender-Hard, horse of Gwalchmai…”, Arthur’s nephew, as one of the “Three bestowed Horses of the Island of Britain.”[132] The Welsh poem Culhwch and Olwen names numerous people associated with Arthur:

Trachmyr (Arthur’s chief huntsman), Henwyneb (an old companion to Arthur); Gwadyn Odyeith; Huarwar the son of Aflawn (who asked Arthur such a boon as would satisfy him. It was the third great plague of Cornwall when he received it. None could get a smile from him but when he was satisfied.); Hir Eiddyl, and Hir Amreu (they were two attendants of Arthur); Rhacymwri, the attendant of Arthur; Bedwini the Bishop (who blessed Arthur’s meat and drink); and Arthur’s servants Hygwyd and Cachamwri.

One of the Welsh Triads names the “Three Chieftains of Arthur’s Court:

Gobrwy son of Echel Mighty-Thigh

Cadr(i)eith (‘Fine-Speech’) son of Porthawr Gadw,

And Ffleudur Fflam (‘Flame’).[133]

Three Licensed Guests at Arthur’s Court, and Three Homeless/Dissatisfied Ones:

Llywarch the Old,

And Llemenig,

And Heledd.[134]

Three Skilful Bards were at Arthur’s Court:

Myrddin son of Morfryn,

Myrddin Emrys,

And Taliesin.[135]

Three Splendid (Famous) Maidens of Arthur’s Court:

Dyfyr Golden-Hair

Enid daughter of Earl (Y)niwl,

And Tegau Gold-Breast.[136]

Three Men who specified their sufficiency from Arthur as their Gift (perquisite):

Culhwch son of Cilydd son of Celyddon Wledig,

And Huarwar son of Aflawn,

And Gordibla of Cornwall.[137]

Three Wanderers of Arthur’s Court

Heledd,

And Llywarch,

And Llemenig.[138]

Others of Arthur’s court include his chief architect Gwlydyn Saer, who was slain by the monster boar Twrch Trwyth, who also “slew four of Arthur’s champions: Gwarthegyd the son of Kaw, Tarawc of Allt Clwyd, and Rheidwn the son of Eli Atver and Iscovan Hael.”[139]

While the earliest sources suggest that most of Arthur’s retinue were Britons, some Irish Scots were also among his warriors. One them by the name of Llenllewag Gwyddel, or “the Gael” son of Llwch Llawwynnyawg even wields Arthur’s legendary sword Caledfwlch on one occasion to slay the Irish king Diwrnach “the Gael.” Another warrior of Arthur named Garselit “the Gael” is mentioned in the Welsh poem Culhwch and Olwen.[140]

“The Old North”

While many stories place Arthur in southern Britain at locations like London, Caerleon in Wales, Tintagel in Cornwall, or Glastonbury, the earliest sources strongly support northern locations in connection with the Arthurian stories. Based on the sites associated with Arthur in the early literature, he was most likely a Cumbrian Briton, one of the “Men of the North” (Gwŷr y Gogledd) of Welsh tradition who inhabited northern Britain.[141] Although the Britons (or Romano-Britons) south of Hadrian’s Wall had been under Roman rule for centuries, the northern Britons “between the walls” of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius had largely remained independent of Roman governance although they were heavily influenced by Roman culture.

British Celticist and medieval scholar Rachel Bromwich notes:

Arthur may have been the first and the most prominent of many North-British heroes concerning whom traditions were brought south from the ‘Old North’ and from the ninth century onwards were freshly localized and elaborated in Wales…

It would seem possible that Arthur could have been in origin an early Romano-British opponent of the Anglian raiders and settlers in the Catterick area of Yorkshire, who were in the process of laying the foundations of what was later to be the kingdom of Deira, since the Gododdin reference could imply that Arthur had been an adversary in a previous generation of the same enemies as those who are later said to have opposed Mynyddawg Mwynfawr’s force at Catraeth circa 600.[142]

One of the Welsh Triads describes “Arthur’s Three Principal Courts”:

Caerleon-on-Usk in Wales,

And Celliwig in Cornwall,

And Penrhyn Rhionydd in the North.[143]

Similarly, another Welsh Triad describes the “Three Tribal Thrones of the Island of Britain”:

Arthur as Chief of Princes in Mynyw (St David’s), and Dewi as Chief of Bishops, and Maelgwn Gwynedd as Chief of Elders;

Arthur as Chief of Princes in Celliwig in Cornwall, and Bishop Bytwini as Chief of Bishops, and Caradawg Strong-Arm as Chief of Elders;

Arthur as Chief of Princes in Pen Rhionydd in the North, and G(w)erthmwl Wledig as Chief of Elders, and Cyndeyrn Garthwys as Chief of Bishops.[144]

The location of Penrhyn Rhionydd or Pen Rhionydd, meaning “the Prince’s Headland,” in Welsh, is unknown, although the 19^th century Welsh historian Robert Owen proposed this was at Penrith in Cumberland.[145]

The appellation “in the North,” strongly suggests that Penrhyn Rhionydd was located somewhere in the lands occupied by the northern Britons. Interestingly, each of these locations – Wales, Cornwall, and Cumbria to the north – represent the regions occupied by the as-yet unconquered Britons on the island of Britain. The placing of courts and thrones at each of these locations may be due to the close alliances between these groups who were of common ethnic, cultural, and linguistic origins, although they had been separated on land by the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

The Welsh have come to call the region occupied by the Britons in the southern Lowlands of Scotland and northern England “the Old North,” (Welsh: Hen Ogledd) signifying it as the place their ancestors came from.[146] The Welsh who established the kingdom of Gwynedd in northern Wales claimed descent from these northern Britons. The “History of the Britons” describes how Cunedda, a 5^th century tribal leader from a place called Manaw Gododdin, (widely accepted as the region surrounding Din Eidyn – modern day Edinburgh), led some of his people from there to northern Wales ca. 450 AD and drove out the Scotti invaders who had colonized the area. He became the ancestor of the kings of Gwynedd, including his great-grandson Maelgwn, establishing the beginnings of the history of modern Wales:

Maelgwn, the great king, was reigning among the Britons in the region of Gwynedd, for his ancestor, Cunedag, with his sons, whose number was eight, had come previously from the northern part, that is from the region which is called Manaw Gododdin, one hundred and forty-six years before Maelgwn reigned. And with great slaughter they drove out from those regions the Scotti who never returned again to inhabit them.[147]

One of the medieval Welsh genealogies lists some of their royal progenitors, entitled “This is the Descent of the Men of the North, [148] which includes king Coel Hen (“the Old” – presumably the origin of the rhyme about “Old King Cole”) and king Clydno of Eidyn (Edinburgh).

Other “Men of the North,” in the early Welsh stories may have lived during or shortly after the time of Arthur but seem to have been absorbed into the Arthurian legend. One of these, named Llewdwn Lluydauc (“of the Hosts”), also called Leudonus or Loth, ruled Gododdin – the region around Edinburgh, and became the namesake for the region he ruled in southeastern Scotland – Lothian. His grandson, Kentigern, also known as Saint Mungo, become the historically attested founder of Glasgow in the late 6^th century. Others include the late 6^th century King Urien of Rheged, his son Owain, and Urien’s cousin Peredur (Percival). In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12^th century History of the Kings of Britain, he portrays Urien, Loth, and and a third named Augusel as brothers who rule different regions of what is now Scotland.

Later stories place Arthur’s court at other locations. In the 11^th century Welsh poem “Culhwch and Olwen,” Arthur’s court is located at Celliwig, somewhere in Cornwall.

The subsequent placement of Arthur’s primary court at Caerleon may have originated with the 12^th century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth, who lived in southern Wales.

Camelot seems to be a much later addition to the story, and was first mentioned briefly in the late 12^th century poem Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart by the French poet Chretien de Troyes:

King Arthur, one Ascension Day, had left Caerleon and held a most magnificent court at Camelot with all the splendour appropriate to the day.[149]

In this particular story, Camelot isn’t even Arthur’s primary court, which is at Caerleon in Wales – consistent with Geoffrey’s story. However, considering the late appearance into the Arthurian story, with no earlier supporting evidence, the utopian court of Camelot may be nothing more than a later invention of the French and Norman writers. Camelot does not replace Caerleon as the primary court of Arthur until the 13^th century French romances. By the 15^th century, the English writer Sir Thomas Mallory still places Arthur’s court at Camelot, but in his version, Camelot is at Winchester in England.

Lenora D. Wolfgang of Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, in her article “Chretien’s Lancelot: Love and Philology, suggests that the name Camelot (Chamaalot) may be an error in some manuscripts, since one of the manuscripts uses the phrase “con lui plot” instead of “Camelot.”

As for Camelot, although somehow it is not “Lancelot” without Camelot, we cannot say with certainty that Camelot is Chretien’s invention. Once we have it, however, it is almost impossible to give it up, and we cannot resist attributing it to the author. If, however, a scribe did add to the “master”, it would be in the spirit of clarifying, interpreting or explaining…[150]

The “History of the Kings of Britain” by Geoffrey of Monmouth also connects Arthur with three northern kings: Lot, Urian, and Angusel. The Welsh “Bruts” name them as Llew, Urien, and Arawn.

Lot, the Latinized form of the Welsh Llew, also appears in the 14^th century “Life of St Kentigern,” by John of Tynemouth, as the grandfather of Kentigern, the founder of Glasgow. Legends from this time also claim that Lothian, the eastern region of the Scottish Lowlands, is named after him since he was believed to have ruled there. In the “History of the Kings of Britain,” he marries Arthur’s sister and is the father of Gawain and Modred. Urian, or Urien is granted Moray, and Angusel is granted the lands of Albany, an archaic term for the lands of the Picts in Scotland; which in the Bruts is called Yscotlant. W. F. Skene suggests:

The ‘Bruts’ probably relate a fact, in which there is a basis of real history, when they state that he gave the districts he had wrested from the Saxons to three brothers – Urien, Llew, and Arawn. To Urien he gave Reged, and the district intended by this name appears from a previous passage, where Arthur is said to have driven the Picts from Alclyde into “Murief, a country which is otherwise termed Reged,” and that they took refuge there in Loch Lomond. Loch Lomond was therefore in it, and it must have been the district on the north side of the Roman wall or ‘Mur,’ from which it was called Murief. To Llew he gave Lodoneis or Lothian. This district was partly occupied by the Picts whom Arthur had subdued at the battle of Mynyd Agned; and this is the Lothus of the Scottish traditions, who was called King of the Picts, and whose daughter was the mother of Kentigern. And to Arawn he gave a district which they call Yscotlant or Prydyn, and which was probably the most northern parts of the conquered districts, at least as far as Stirling.[151]

At this moment of extreme crisis – the Anglo-Saxon invasion from the southeast, the Irish invasion from the northwest, and the Pictish raids from the north – several British kingdoms banded together against the encroaching threats, under their supreme battle commander, Arthur.

Attempts to identify the locations of the battles listed in the “History of the Britons” suggests that most, if not all of the battles led by Arthur took place in northern Britain.[152] The battles are assumed to be in chronological order in the “History of the Britons”. The evidence suggests a northern site for Arthur, as proposed by W. F. Skene, who notes:

[W]e shall see that the localities of his twelve battles, as recorded by [the “History of the Britons”], are all more or less connected with the disctricts in the vicinity of the northern wall.[153]

In addition to Pictish and Irish incursions into the northern lands of the Britons, the “History of the Britons” also describes the Anglo-Saxon attacks on the northern Britons, led by Octa and Ebusa:

[I] will send for my son and his brother, both valiant men, who at my invitation will fight against the Scots, and you can give them the countries in the north, near the wall called Gual.” The incautious sovereign having assented to this, Octa and Ebusa arrived with forty ships. In these they sailed round the country of the Picts, laid waste the Orkneys, and took possession of many regions, even to the Pictish confines.

The British historian Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson notes:

A British leader in the last years of the fifth century could have fought the Picts in Strathclyde, and conceivably the English in Northumbria if we regard it as plausible that an early immigrant body was planted by their British hosts in Lothian as a defence against the Picts, and later abandoned this ungrateful task, turned against the Britons, and joined their kinsmen in Kent.[154]

The list of Arthur’s battles from the “History of the Britons” appears in between two references to northern Britain. The statement immediately preceding the battle list says that Octa, son of Hengist abandoned his campaigns in northern Britain to go rule over the kingdom of Kent after the death of his father. The statement immediately following the battle list indicates that additional Saxon reinforcements came from Germany until the reign of Ida, the first Saxon king of Bernicia, which was the northernmost Anglo-Saxon kingdom at that time. Bernicia was technically an Anglian kingdom, and Ida was an Angle. The usage of the word “Saxons” throughout the “History of the Britons” and in the writings of Gildas is clearly a reference to the collective confederation of Germanic tribes that invaded Britain, including Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Frisians. The term Anglo-Saxon is of modern origin, but the early medieval Britons appear to have used the term “Saxons” collectively after the most preeminent tribe, and didn’t differentiate between the different Germanic tribes. The first mention of the different Germanic tribes by name comes from Anglo-Saxon sources, including the writings of Bede and the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.” Therefore, if Arthur fought against a Germanic tribe in the north of Britain, it would have certainly been against the Angles.

While Anglo-Saxon warfare in northern Britain at this time is not known to have been as extensive as it was in the south, we also cannot conclusively rule out the existence of a northern Anglo-Saxon campaign. The fact that Gildas states that the Germanic invaders reached the other side of the island to the western ocean (the Irish Sea) suggests that the extent of Anglo-Saxon settlement efforts were more varied geographically than just in southeastern Britain.

In the 6^th century the Anglo-Saxons established the kingdom of Bernicia, and additional campaigns were carried out against the northern Britons. We can reasonably suppose that there may have been an initial Anglo-Saxon campaign in the north which was unsuccessful and which was abandoned until a northern campaign was undertaken in a later generation. We can reasonably suppose that the Anglo-Saxons launched an earlier unsuccessful northern campaign which was abandoned but which was attempted again a generation or two later, this time successfully.

While his battles were against Anglo-Saxons, it does not exclude the possibility that he also may have fought other tribes of invaders by region if the battles were in the north, including the Irish to the northwest and the Picts to the northeast. If so, it may be possible that the focus on Arthur battling against Saxon invaders in the “History of the Britons” was due to them being the greatest threat.

Attempts to relegate the battles that obviously appear to be northern (such as the river Dubglas and the Caledonian Forest) to a mythical status because they don’t fit neatly within a “southern Britain” theory for Arthurs battles require us to assume that the compiler of the “History of the Britons” fabricated some of the battles listed and ascribed them to Arthur. Rather than make that assumption, the assumption of this work is that the earliest manuscripts of the first widely-acknowledged text to mention Arthur contain genuine information about him and his battles, and each deserves to be taken at face value and examined closely.

The battle locations of Arthur described in the “History of the Britons” include:

- 1: At the mouth of the river Glein

- 2, 3, 4 & 5: Above the river Dubglas in the region of Linnuis.

- 6: Above the river Bassas

- 7: In the Caledonian Forest (Cat Coit Celidon)

- 8: Gurnion Castle

- 9: At the City of Legion

- 10: On the banks of the river Trat Treuroit

- 11: On mount Agned

- 12: On Badon Hill.

Chapter 5: The Battles of Arthur

The First Battle: The Mouth of the River Glein

The first battle was at the mouth of the river which is called Glein.

– History of the Britons

The River Glen

According to the “History of the Britons,” the first battle led by Arthur commenced at the mouth of the River Glein, or Glen. The only other reference to a River Glen in Britain during antiquity is the one located in Northumberland, England, mentioned by the English monk Bede. This early reference to the river, as well as the presence of an adjacent British hillfort, and the fact that this was a contested location that later became the site of an Anglo-Saxon royal burgh, strengthens the argument that this is a likely candidate for the Arthurian battle site at the River Glein. The 18^th century English historian Thomas Carte first placed the Glein River in Northumberland:

The first of Arthur’s battles is placed at the mouth of the river Glen, probably that which runs through Glendale in Northumberland on the borders of Scotland.[155]

During this battle at the mouth of the river, the Anglo-Saxons were successfully repulsed by the Britons, but no other details of the battle are known.

The British Hill Fort of Din Gefrin

Overlooking the River Glen in Northumberland stands a hill called the Yeavering Bell, upon which once stood a fortification of the Goddodin tribe of Britons.[156] The Yeavering Bell hill fort, also called Din Gefrin, occupies a strategic location and a commanding view of the adjacent countryside. This was also the largest hill fort of its type in Northumberland – consisting of 12 acres of land occupied by numerous round stone huts and a small inner fort all enclosed by a 10-foot thick stone wall, defended at each of the four entrances by a guard house. Approximately three miles northeast of the Din Gefrin hill fort is the mouth of the River Glen where it flows into the River Till.

The ruined ramparts of the Yeavering Bell hillfort

The Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Ad Gefrin

Within a couple generations after Arthur, the Angles resumed their advances and conquered the Britons at Din Gefrin. By the 7^th century the Angles of the kingdom of Northumbria had constructed the royal palace of King Edwin and Queen Aethelburh and established a settlement in the shadow of the old Din Gefrin hill fort.[157] The palace and settlement were located between the hill and the river and were called Ad Gefrin, a name probably adopted from the old Brittonic name of the site. The Roman Catholic missionary Paulinus of York accompanied Edwin and Aethelburh to Ad Gefrin, where he preached Christianity to the pagan Angles for 36 days and baptized converts in the waters of the adjacent River Glen in 627 AD. After King Edwin was killed[158], Ad Gefrin was subsequently abandoned by the Angles and a new royal palace was built for King Edwin’s successors at Maelmin, approximately 3 miles north-northeast of Ad Gefrin.

Glen Water in Ayrshire

William Forbes Skene proposed the Glen Water in Ayrshire as the location of this battle. The mouth of the river is where the Glen Water flows into the River Irvine at the modern settlement of Darvel. Two miles east stands Loudon Hill, a site of strategic importance once occupied by a Roman settlement and earlier British settlement.[159] The mouth of the river is about 12 miles due south of Glasgow. Skene writes:

There are two rivers of this name in Northumberland, mentioned by Bede as the river where Paulinus baptized the Angles in 627, and the other in Ayrshire. It rises in the mountains which separate that county from Lanarkshire, and it falls into the Irvine in the parish of Loudoun. It is more probably that Arthur advanced into Scotland on the west, where he would pass through the friendly country peopled by the Cymry, than through Bernicia, already strongly occupied by bodies of Angles; and it is at the mouth of the latter river, probably, that he first encountered his opponents.[160]

Although Skene notes that Angles had occupied parts of Bernicia, the hill fort at Yeavering Bell may have still been occupied by Britons. Additionally, the presence of Angles penetrating as far as Ayrshire in Scotland is not attested in any known source until Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12^th century History of the Kings of Britain. This also notes Skene’s assumption that Arthur advanced north into Scotland from a more southerly region rather than already being in that area.

Glen River in Lincolnshire

The Glen River in Lincolnshire has been proposed as an alternate location of the battle. However, a comparison of a map of Lincolnshire (ca. 1610) by the renowned cartographer, John Speed, with the modern-day waterways suggest the River Glen as we know it today did not exist at that time since the waterways do not correspond. This River Glen follows the Baston Dike, but then cuts across to the southwest until it meets the Baston Drain and then intersects with the Welland River just north of Spalding. This suggests a change in the waterways during the past 400 years, either through natural phenomena or through the digging of canals to unite waterways. The name “Baston” is even preserved today in the street names running alongside the river Glen. Thus, the river Glen in Lincolnshire is an unlikely location for Arthur’s battle.

Of these proposed sites, the River Glen in Northumberland has the strongest claim as the site of Arthur’s battle at the river Glein.

The Second through Fifth Battles: On The River Dubglas in the Region Linnuis

The second, third, fourth, and fifth were above the river which is called Dubglas, in the region of Linnuis.

– History of the Britons

The Douglas Water in the District of Lennos

The Douglas Water flowing through Glen Douglas

The second, third, fourth, and fifth battles led by Arthur were fought at the river Dubglas in the region Linnuis. Dubglas derives from Old Welsh, meaning “black stream,” which is identical in meaning to the Old Irish dubhglas, and which is anglicized as “Douglas.” The “History of the Britons” takes care to differentiate the river Dubglas from other rivers of the same name by specifying the region it is located in. As early as Renaissance times, the region of Scotland immediately west of Loch Lomond was called “Lennos” as depicted on John Speed’s 1610 map of Scotland. Within the Lennos district is the Douglas Water, a river flowing eastward for several miles from Loch Long, through Glen Douglas, and emptying into Loch Lomond. Since Speed’s time, the district of Lennos was combined with the district of Lenox immediately south of Loch Lomond to become the modern district of Lennox. The Douglas Water was first proposed as the location of these battles by the 19^th century Scottish antiquarian William Forbes Skene:

Here must have been the first severe struggle, as four battles were fought on the same river, and here he must have penetrated the ‘regions near the wall,’ occupied by the Saxons. Dubglas is the name now called Douglas. There are many rivers and rivulets of this name in Scotland; but none could be said to be ‘in the region of Linnuis,’ except two rivers – the Upper and Lower Douglas, which fall into Loch Lomond, the one through Glen Douglas, the other at Inveruglas, and both are in the district of Lennox, the Linnuis of Nennius. Here, no doubt the great struggle took place, and the hill called Ben Arthur at the head of Loch Long, which towers over this district between the two rivers, perpetuates the name of Arthur in connection with it.[161]

Inset of John Speed’s 1610 Map of Scotland showing the region of Lennos

The region of Lennos may be the same as the “Linnuis” of the “History of the Britons.” Linnuis can be derived in Latin as “the region surrounding Lindum”, Lindum being one of the principal “towns” or settlements of the British Damnonii tribe described by the 2^nd century Greek geographer Ptolemy.[162] Interestingly, the name Lindum may be the Latin form of the Brittonic word Lindon, meaning “lake,” a possible allusion to Loch Lomond, around which the Damnonii tribe are historically known to have inhabited.[163] Five miles west of Glen Douglas (and 25 miles northwest of Dumbarton), on the other side of Ben Donich, stands Ben Arthur[164] – “Arthur’s Mountain,” more commonly known as “The Cobbler.”[165] The 1842 “The Topographical, Statistical and Historical Gazetteer of Scotland” calls this “Arthur’s Seat,” the same name given to the mountain in Edinburgh:

Not far from the top of Loch Long, which separates Argyle and Dumbarton, there is a conical hill that is called Arthur’s Seat.[166]

Ben Arthur, known popularly as “The Cobbler”

The Kingdom of Strathclyde

Loch Lomond and the surrounding region, including Glen Douglas and the Douglas Water, were once part of the ancient British Kingdom of Strathclyde (5^th to 11^th Centuries AD).[167] The Britons who established the kingdom of Strathclyde in the post-Roman period likely descended from the earlier Damnonii tribe described by Ptolemy. Their capital, the fortress of Alt Clut (“the Rock of the Clyde”) stood on a distinctive rock formation overlooking the river Clyde as the capital of the Kingdom of Strathclyde. Today, Dumbarton Castle occupies the same rock outcropping where the earlier British fortress once stood. Interestingly, the modern name Dumbarton is derived from the Gaelic Dùn Breatainn, meaning “fortress of the Britons.”

A 5^th century letter from the British bishop St. Patrick to “the soldiers of Coroticus” (almost certainly king Ceretic of Alt Clut), chastises his people for murdering and enslaving his Christian converts from Ireland and selling them to the pagan Picts.[168] Nearly 200 years later the Irish Abbott Adomnan mentions Rhydderch Hael, a descendant of Coroticus, as the ruler of Alt Clut[169]. The later Battle of Alclud Ford between the Britons and the Angles is mentioned in the writings of Taliesin, indicating this was a disputed site.

Arthur’s battle here was likely against Irish Scots and/or Picts since the British kingdom of Strathclyde bordered both. Beyond the northernmost edge of Loch Lomond is a distinctive formation on a mound described as “at least partly man-made” in Glen Falloch called Clach Na Breatann, or “Rock of the Britons” in Scottish Gaelic. This rock outcropping is traditionally believed to have marked the border between the British Kingdom of Strathclyde, the Irish kingdom of Dalriada, and the Pictish kingdoms. This stone is also associated with “Minvircc” or “Minuirc”, a stone near which a battle between the Strathclyde Britons and the Dalriadans was fought in 717 AD.[170] Another stone called Clach nam Breatunnaich, also meaning “Rock of the Britons” in Scottish Gaelic is traditionally believed to be a boundary marker between the Strathclyde Britons and the Irish Dalriadans is located near the modern town of Lochgoilhead.[171] [172]

Traditions

As early as the 11th century AD, the laws of King Malcolm III of Scotland refer to Dumbarton Castle as Castello Arturius – “Arthur’s Castle,” remarkably pre-dating Geoffrey of Monmouth’s reference to Arthur relieving a siege there. During the reign of King David II of Scotland in 1367 AD, a parliamentary record of the king’s rents and profits from Dunbartonshire also describes Dumbarton as “Castri Arthuri,” a Latin term meaning the fortress of Arthur.[173] The 18^th-19^th century Scottish historian George Chalmers refers to three places in nearby Renfrewshire that have traditional associations with Arthur – Arthur-lee, Low Arthur-lee, and West Arthur-lee. Modern day Arthurlie, meaning, “Arthur’s Meadow”, is located within the town of Barrhead in Renfrewshire.[174] Shortly after the time of Arthur, the nearby city of Glasgow was founded by Kentigern, a purported grandson of king Llew/Loth of Arthurian legend.[175] As noted in the section on Arthur’s family, the earliest surviving pedigrees of the Scottish Highland Clan Campbell (including its septs Arthur and MacArthur) claim descent from “Artuir son of Uibar,” the Gaelic spelling of Arthur, son of Uther. The ancestral lands of Clan Campbell are in the Argyllshire region, including the region surrounding the Douglas Water.

Other Theories

Geoffrey of Monmouth suggested the province of Lindsey as a possibility for the region Linnuis but no river Douglas exists nearby. The existence of a Gaelic place name in modern day Lincolnshire on the southeast coast of Britain is highly unlikely considering the geographic distribution of Gaelic historically only included Ireland, Scotland, the Isle of Man, and some parts of the west coast of Britain. Additionally, by ca. 450 AD, Lindsey was already an Anglo-Saxon kingdom.[176]

Several other locations have been proposed as possible sites of the River Dubglas – the Douglas Water in Lanarkshire, Scotland; and the River Douglas in Lancashire, England, but neither is in a district that historically bears any resemblance to the name Linnuis. The river Douglas in Lanarkshire, Scotland is in the historic district of Clidesdale[177] as shown on John Speed’s map of Scotland; the river Douglas in Lancashire, England is in the historic district of Lailand[178] as depicted on John Speed’s 1610 map of Lancashire and in the Domesday Book. Thus, the Douglas Water in the region of Lennos is the only one of the proposed sites that matches both the place name and region given in the “History of the Britons.”

The Sixth Battle: On the River Bassas

The sixth battle was above the river which is called Bassas.

– History of the Britons

Insufficient evidence exists to identify this site with any degree of confidence, although several candidates can be considered. One candidate for the battle site is Bassington, Northumberland, on the River Aln. However, the River Aln has been known by this name since early times and no evidence exists to suggest it was ever called “Bassas.”[179] Bassa as a placename is mentioned in an Old Welsh poem “Churches of Bassa” (Eglwyssau Bassa), which is still called Baschurch, and is located in Shropshire, England.[180] Baschurch is the site of an ancient British fort commonly called “The Berth.” However, no evidence exists to suggest the river Perry was ever known as “Bassas.” Other potential sites include Basford in Chesire, Basford in Staffordshire[181], and Bass Rock in Scotland. From the writings of Bede, we also find a “a gallant warrior of King Edwin” by the name of Bassus of Northumbria escorting Paulinus.[182] The Scottish antiquarian W. F. Skene notes:

There is now no river of this name in Scotland, and it has been supposed to have been somewhere near the Bass Rock, the vicinity of which it is presumed may have given its name to some neighboring stream. The name Bass, however, is also applied to a peculiar mound having the appearance of being artificial, which is formed near a river, though really formed by natural causes. There is one on the Ury river in Aberdeenshire termed the Bass of Inverury, and there are two on the bank of the Carron, now called Dunipace, erroneously supposed to be formed from the Gaelic and Latin words ‘Duni pacis,’ or hills of peace, but the old form of which was ‘Dunipais,’ the latter syllable being no doubt the same word Bass. Directly opposite, the river Bonny flows into the Carron, and on this river I am disposed to place the sixth battle.[183]

None of these sites seem especially convincing. Without a strong candidate, it may be possible that the name of the river Bassas has not endured the test of time and does not bear a similar name today.

The Seventh Battle: In the Caledonian Forest

The seventh battle was in the Caledonian Forest, that is, the Battle of the Caledonian Forest.[184]

– History of the Britons

The Caledonian Forest first appears in the 2^nd century Claudius Ptolemy’s “Geography,” as a region in northern Britain. The Romans gave the name Caledonia (after the native Caledonii tribe), to all the lands in Britain north of their province of Britannia, corresponding to Scotland and the northernmost region of England.[185] At the end of the Roman occupation of Britain in the early 5^th century AD, Hadrian’s Wall marked the boundary between Britannia and Caledonia.[186]

In 43 AD, the Roman Emperor Claudius invaded and conquered southeast Britain, and successive campaigns by the Emperor Vespasian and numerous governors expanded the territory under Roman rule. But the attempts to conquer Caledonia proved problematic for the Romans.

Scotland had the highest density of Roman marching camps in Europe, attesting to the challenges faced by the invaders.

Thirty-five years after the Roman occupation of Britain, the Roman General Agricola invaded Caledonia and defeated the Caledonians at the Battle of Mons Graupius, but the Roman soldiers withdrew shortly after Agricola was recalled to Rome by Emperor Domitian.[187]

After attempts to subdue the Caledonians failed, the Roman Emperor Hadrian ordered the construction of a 73-mile wall across the northern borders of Britain under Roman control “to separate the Romans from the barbarians.”[188]

Hadrian’s successor Antoninus Pius advanced the Roman frontier 100 miles further north and constructed a 37-mile wall from the Firth of Clyde to the Firth of Forth, thereby annexing the southern part of Caledonia (corresponding to southern Scotland) into the Roman province of Britannia.[189] However, this new frontier was short-lived and within 20 years, the Roman legionnaires abandoned the forts along the Antonine Wall and withdrew back to Hadrian’s Wall during the reign of Marcus Aurelius.[190]

Forty years later, the Roman emperor Septimius Severus launched another invasion of Caledonia, once again advancing the frontier northward to the Antonine Wall, which he repaired and refortified. While the Caledonians did not win many open battles against the more disciplined and better equipped Roman soldiers, they employed guerilla warfare to inflict heavy losses on the Roman army. Shortly thereafter, the Romans once again abandoned the Antonine Wall and retreated back to the border fortified by Hadrian’s Wall; from this time until the end of the Roman occupation of Britain, all the lands north of the border were known as “Caledonia.”[191] Thus, the Caledonian Forest could reasonably be anywhere in Britain north of Hadrian’s Wall. This forest is first mentioned by the 1^st century Roman historian Pliny the Elder as the furthest extent of Roman exploration of Britain during his time.[192]

Leslie Alcock in his book “Arthur’s Britain” states:

The battle about which we can have most confidence is the seventh…There is full agreement that this was in Scotland, but if we attempt greater precision, dispute begins…[I]n Welsh tradition Coit Celidon (in modern Welsh, Coed Celyddon) lay not far north of Carlisle, most probably in the Southern Uplands. This is therefore by a narrow margin the more likely location for Arthur’s battle.[193]

In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account of the battle, a band of Saxons who had been defeated by Arthur in battle flee to the Caledonian Forest with Arthur’s army hot in pursuit. The Saxons regroup in the forest and make a stand against the Britons. After not being able to gain any advantage over them, Arthur orders his men to cut down trees to form barriers around that part of the forest, and they besiege the Saxon warriors. The Britons patrol the barriers for three days, upon which the starving Saxons surrender out of desperation and are permitted to go free on the condition that they swear in oath to depart in peace and return to the continent. The Saxon warriors agree and depart in their ships – only to reconsider their oath and turn back to Britain. Upon landing at a different location, they continue their campaign to conquer the Britons. Arthur learns of their treachery, and marches against them, leaving his nephew Hoel sick at the city of Alclud – the “Rock of the Clyde” – the capital of the British kingdom of Strathclyde, known today as Dumbarton, the “Fortress of the Britons.” After he departs, a coalition of Picts and Scots besieges Alclud. Hearing this, Arthur returns with his army to lift the siege and pursues the Picts and Scots to Loch Lomond, where they seek refuge on the islands there. Arthur beleaguers them with patrol boats to prevent their escape by the waterways.

Later Welsh stories tell how Myrddin[194] son of Morvyrn, one of the great prophets of the Britons, wandered the Caledonian Forest after the defeat of his ruler, King Gwenddoleu at the Battle of Arfderydd, more of which will be presented later.[195] The Mabinogian names Arthur’s cousin Culhwch (Cylwch) as the grandson of a king named Celyddon Wledig, or the king of Caledonia.[196]

The Eighth Battle: The Fort of Guinnion

The eighth battle was in the fort of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried the image of the Holy and Perpetual-Virgin Mary on his shoulders, and the pagans were put to flight on that day with great slaughter, through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of His mother, the holy Virgin Mary.

– History of the Britons

Vinovia Roman Fort

This site bears the distinction in the battle list as the only one explicitly taking place at a fort. The usage of the word fort can refer either to a Roman fort or to a British hill fort settlement.[197] The 20^th century Welsh scholar Alfred Anscombe first proposed the Roman Fort of Vinovia in Northumberland, England as a probable location for this battle. He writes:

Guinnion may be Vinovia, a station on the road from Cataracto to Bremenium, 22 m. p. from the former town and 48 from the latter. It is believed that Binchester marks the site of the Roman Vinovia and preserves the first syllable of the Roman name.[198]

The Roman fort Vinovia appears as Vinovium in Claudius Ptolemy’s 2^nd century “Geography”.

The Latin name most probably derives from “vino + via or vium”, meaning, “wine road,” or “on the wine road.” While no vineyards are known this far north in Britain due to the cooler climate, wine may have been shipped to this region from southern Britain, and lending the name “on the wine road” to the fort. Vinovia is more commonly known by its anglicized name, Binchester (bin, most likely derived from the Latin “vin[o]”, + Old English ceaster, “fortification”). Guinnion may be the Welsh form of Vinovia, derived from the Old Welsh “gwin”, meaning “wine.”[199] The Roman fort Vinovia occupies a strategic position over the River Wear, defending the crossing of Dere Road – the major Roman road connecting York to Hadrian’s Wall and to the Antonine Wall. Considering the evidence, and the lack of other good candidates, the Roman fort Vinovia most probable as the location of Arthur’s battle at Guinnion.

The British historian Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson notes that the differences between the battle at the Guinnion described in the “History of the Britons” and the battle of Badon described in the “Annals of Wales,” as well as the unique mentioning of the battle of Camlann in the “Annales of Wales”:

[T]he second [entry] proves that the compiler knew Arthurian material not quoted by Nennius, and the differences from Nennius’s account of Badon are more marked than the likenesses (a cross, not an image, the battle Badon not Guinnion, and three days instead of one). It is obvious that the compiler used information closely allied to but different from Nennius’s source, and this makes it especially valuable…[200]

The Ninth Battle: In the City of the Legion

The ninth battle was waged at the City of Legion.[201]

– History of the Britons

In the years immediately prior to the withdrawal of the Romans, three legions were garrisoned in Britain, one at each of the following cities:

- York (Eboracum) Legion VI “Victrix”

- Chester (Deva Victrix) Legion XX “Valeria Victrix”

- Caerleon (Isca Silurum) Legion II “Augusta”

Out of the 28 cities in Britain named by the British monk Gildas, only these three cities could reasonably be called “the City of Legion.” [202] While legionnaires were stationed throughout Roman Britain, the fortresses in the three cities were the primary “cities of legion.” Gildas describes “the City of Legion”[203] as the residence of two Christian Britons named Aaron and Julius, who were martyred for their faith during the barbaric persecution of Christians in the reign of the Roman Emperor Diocletian (AD 284-305). The succeeding reign of Constantine the Great (AD 306-337) brought this brutality to an end, ushering in the era of religious tolerance toward Christians in the Roman Empire. During this time of relative religious freedom, the places of martyrdom and burial of these two Christian martyrs, and the shrine of another martyr, St Alban of Verulamium[204], became sacred memorials to the believers in Christ. According to Gildas, a visit to those sites “kindled in the minds of the beholders no small fire of divine charity.”

However, peace did not endure. By the 6^th century AD, these shrines were “taken from [the Britons] on account of [their] transgressions, through the disastrous division caused by the barbarians.”[205] Whether this refers to a loss of access to the shrines, or the utter destruction of them is unclear, but the wording suggests the former may be more likely. The “barbarians” he mentions most certainly refer to the pagan Anglo-Saxon invaders. Gildas states:

Such were St. Alban of Verulam, Aaron and Julius, citizens of the City of Legion and the rest, of both sexes, who in different places stood their ground in the Christian contest.

The text goes on to describe St Alban’s execution on the Thames, suggesting his shrine was likely at London or nearby Verulamium. The text also suggests that the shrines of Aaron and Julius were located at the City of Legion. Gildas’ statement suggests both the City of Legion and the City of Verulamium may have been conquered by the Anglo-Saxons before or during his lifetime.[206] The Roman town Verulamium[207] was indeed occupied by Anglo-Saxons during the 5^th century AD[208], but the question remains as to which of the three cities is the most likely candidate for the City of Legion.

York (Eboracum, Caer Ebrauc)

The Britons called the Roman legionary fortress at York, “the fortress of Ebrauc.”[209] During the Roman occupation of Britain, York became the capital of the northern province, Maxima Caesariensis,[210] and as such, was the second most significant administrative city in Britain, second only to London,[211] the oldest Roman capital in Britain and the capital of the southernmost province, Britannia Prima.

York appears to have also been one of the ecclesiastical centers of Britain as evidenced by the presence of a Celtic Christian Bishop, Eborius of York, at the Synod of Arles in Gaul, which was only attended by British clergymen from two other cities – London and Caerleon-on-Usk[212]. Strangely, York seems to be lost from the historical record for the next 300 years until the next definite reference to this city is the place of baptism of the Anglo-Saxon king Edwin of Northumbria in the 7^th century AD[213] Archaeological evidence suggests the Anglo-Saxons occupied Ebrauc during the 5^thcentury AD, making it a likely location for the City of Legion. As Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson writes in his “Language and History of Early Britain” of those who eventually established the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Deira:

Beginning as early as the fifth century, the first focus was the open country of the Yorkshire Wolds, especially in the neighborhood of Driffield, whence the newcomers spread into Holderness and the Vale of Pickering. At the same time they settled at York itself, where the Anglo-Saxon cemetery is one of the earliest in the whole country.

…

The early name Ripon, and scattered finds at Aldborough, Catterick, and Darlington, suggest a northerly movement up the Roman road, until the advance was held up by the wild hilly country in Durham beyond the Tees, which remained a barrier to early settlement.”[214]

Similarly, Sheppard Frere in his “Britannia: A History of Roman Britain” notes:

The earliest Germanic cemeteries in Britain are found near the estuaries of the east coast, the Humber, the Wash and the Thames. These river-mouths are natural entries for invaders, but the cemeteries themselves, at least in their opening phase, are best interpreted as representing defenders placed in these regions to resist sea-borne Pictish invaders, and even perhaps to meet them on the seas.[215]

Anglo-Saxons were known to inhabit York in the fifth century, and the Humber estuary was an accessible entry point no more than 30 miles southeast. Frank Stenton in his “Anglo-Saxon England” notes:

In the centre and east of what is now Yorkshire a number of Anglian peoples had been settled for more than a century before the year 600. They were known collectively as the Dere, and their name, which is derived from the British word deifr, ‘waters’, suggests that the first settlements had been founded along the rivers which converge upon the Humber. Archaeological evidence seems to imply that they had reached York by the year 500, and further north, the place-name Ripon represents a tribal name of archaic character which may well go back to the fifth century.

…

The distribution of their recorded burial-places suggests that in the heathen time they were settled most thickly in the neighbourhood of the Yorkshire Wolds, beneath which, in the plain around Beverley, the name Dera wudu preserved the memory of their common woodlands until the age of Bede.[216]

Interestingly, the contemporary name of the Roman road leading up into Scotland is Dere Road. In another place he notes:

Extensive settlements had been founded in central and eastern Yorkshire before the middle of the sixth century, and it is at least probable that the invasion had begun before the end of the fifth. [217]

…

Until the early part of the seventh century the independent British kingdom of Elmet stretched weswards for many miles from the marshes at the head of the Humber, and separated the Angles of the northern midlands from those of the plain of York. In an earlier age this kingdom must have been a serious obstacle to any military co-operation between the invaders of northern and southern Britain. In particular, it must have kept the Northumbrian invaders apart from any of the early confederacies formed among the southern peoples by leaders such as Aelle and Ceawlin. The particularism which at a later time distinguished the Angles beyond the Humber may well be due to the isolation of their ancestors in the age of the migration. [218]

Geoffrey of Monmouth claims that the Romano-British battle commander Ambrosius Aurelianus besieged the Anglo-Saxons led by Octa who had taken York and retook it. After the death of Ambrosius, the Anglo-Saxons reoccupied York and the British king Uther Pendragon battled them there unsuccessfully. Sometime after his death, his son Arthur besieged York, but broke the siege when Anglo-Saxon reinforcements arrived.

According to the Vatican Recension of the Historia Brittonum, the 6^th century Anglo-Saxon king Ida was the first ruler of the Anglian Kingdom of Bernicia “and ruler over Cair Ebrauc,” or York. While York is not clearly documented in other sources as “urbs legionis”, it may be possible that the early Britons once called it City of Legion, an appellation which may have fallen into misuse and been forgotten sometime after its conquest by the Angles.[219] If Gildas’ meaning was that the city where shrines of Julius and Aaron were located was occupied by the Anglo-Saxons, then York is the most probable location of the City of Legion, a case convincingly made by P. J. C. Field.[220]

Chester (Deva Victrix)

The Britons called the Roman legionary fortress at Chester Cair Legion, or, “the fortress of the Legion.”[221] In Thomas Carte’s 1747 “A General history of England,” he places Arthur’s battle at the City of Legion in Chester. The “Annals of Wales” mentions a synod at the City of Legion[222], between the Celtic Christian British clergy and the Roman Catholic Anglo-Saxon clergy led by Augustine.[223] British Bishops came from Bancornaburg[224] to the synod at the City of Legion, suggesting the synod likely took place at Chester due to its close proximity. After failing to persuade the British clergy to worship after the manner of the Roman church, Augustine cursed them, with the Battle of Chester[225] following several years later at the instigation of the pagan king of Northumbria[226]. The “Annals” differentiate between “the city of legion” and “the fortress of legion”; either they are two different cities or they may represent a division in the same city between the fortress and the civilian settlement.[227] The context strongly suggests they are one and the same.

However, if the shrines of Aaron and Julius were in the City of Legion, and the city was conquered by Anglo-Saxons before or during the lifetime of Gildas, then this could possibly rule out Chester as the City of Legion since it was not occupied by the Angles until well after the lifetime of Gildas (ca 500-570).[228][229] If Gildas’ intended to convey that the shrines of Julius and Aaron at the city of Legion were destroyed by an Anglo-Saxon attack, and not occupied by them, this could be a possible battle site.

Caerleon (Isca Silurum, Cair Legeion guar Uisc)

The Britons called the Roman legionary fortress at Caerleon “the fortress of the Legion on the River Usk,” to differentiate between “the Fortress of Legion” at Chester and the legionary garrison at York.[230] The early Welsh seem to have placed the churches of Julius, Aaron, and St. Alban all at Caerleon. A 9^th century charter in the The Book of Llandaff[231] “records a regrant[232] of “all the territory of the holy martyrs Julius and Aaron” on the River Usk. In 1290 the church (or churches) of the saints Julius and Aaron, and St Alban, with all its appurtenances was granted to the priory at Goldcliff.[233] The placement of all three shrines at the same location seems to contradict the writings of Gildas and Bede, suggesting the Churches of Julius, Aaron and St. Alban in Caerleon were founded based on Bede’s description and not necessarily due to any historical basis in Caerleon. Gerald of Wales places 3 churches in Caerleon, one for Aaron, one for Julius and one metropolitan church. There is no evidence Caerleon ever fell into Saxon hands. In the 6^th century, the Welsh king Tewdrig of Gwent repelled the Saxon attempts to conquer Caerleon, although Tewdrig later died in battle against them. This makes Caerleon an unlikely location for Arthur’s battle at the City of Legion.

Carlisle

Robert de Boron’s 12^th/13^th century poem Merlin places Uther Pendragon’s court at Carduel, believed to be the same as Carlisle. While this city did have Roman legionnaires stationed in it, they were cohorts (sub-divisions) of the legion based at York or Chester. Elements of the Legion at York were at Carlisle and York, but no legionnaires were stationed along Hadrian’s Wall, only auxiliary regiments fortified the northern border. For these reasons this site was probably not referred to as the City of Legion.

Based on the preceding evidence, York appears to be the most probable location for the City of Legion, although Chester could also be a candidate.

The Tenth Battle: On the bank of the River Tribruit

The tenth battle was waged on the shore of the river which is called the Tribruit.

– History of the Britons

William Forbes Skene identified the river Tribruit as the same as Tryfrwyd, an Arthurian battle site named in the Welsh poem “What Man is the Porter?” (Pa Gur) .[234] The champions of Arthur, Cei the Tall, Bedwyr son of Bridlaw and his father, battled against a foe named Garwlwyd.[235] Manawydan, son of Llyr seems to be named as a survivor of the battle.

Manawydan, the son of Llyr,
Deep was his counsel.
Did not Manawyd bring
Perforated shields from Trywruid? [236]…

On the strands of Trywruid,
Contending with Garwlwyd,
Brave was his disposition,
With sword and shield;
Vanity were the foremost men
Compared with Cai in the battle.
The sword in the battle
Was unerring in his hand.
They were stanch commanders
Of a legion for the benefit of the country- Bedwyr and Bridlaw;
Nine hundred would to them listen;
Six hundred gasping for breath
Would be the cost of attacking them. [237]

W.F. Skene suggests the Links of Forth, a series of dramatic windings of the river Forth in Stirlingshire, Scotland as the location of this battle. He writes:

The tenth battle was ‘on the shore (or bank) of the river called the Treuruit.’ There is much variety in the readings of this name, other manuscripts reading it ‘Trath truiroit,’ or the shore of Triuoroit; but the original Cymric form is given in two of the poems in the Black Book of Carmarthen; it is in one ‘Trywuid,’ and in the other ‘Tratheu Trywruid.’ There is no known river bearing a name approaching to this. ‘Trathau,’ or shores, implies a sea-shore or sandy beach, and can only be applicable to a river having an estuary. An old description of Scotland, written in 1165 by one familiar with Welsh names, says that the river which divides the ‘English and Scottish kingdoms and flows close to the town of Stivelin’ was called ‘Froch’ by the Scots, and ‘Wreid’ by the British.’ (Chronicle of the Picts and Scots, p. 136. – It may seem strange that I should assert that Grwyd and Forth are the same word. But Gwr in Welsh is represented by Fear in Irish, the old form of which was For, and find d in Welsh is in the Irish ch, in Pictish th. The River which falls into the Dee near Bala, in North Wales, is called the Try-weryn, a very similar combination). This Welsh name for the Forth at Stirling has disappeared, but it closely resembles that last part of Nennius’ name, and the difference between ‘wruid,’ the last part of the name ‘Try-wruid,’ and ‘Werid’ is trifling. The original form must have been ‘Gwruid’ or ‘Gwerid’ the ‘G’ disappearing in the combination. If by the ‘tratheu Try-wruid’ the Links of Forth are meant, and Stirling was the scene of this battle, Arthur’s name is also connected with it by tradition, for William of Worcester, in his Itinerary, says that at one time King Arthur kept the round table in Stirling Castle. William of Worcester’s curious garbled language reads: ‘Rex Arthurus custodiebat le round table in castro de Styrlyng aliter Snowdon West Castle.’[238]

James Lothian, in his book “The Banks of the Forth: A Descriptive and Historical Sketch,” states:

The semicircular windings of the Forth are particularly lovely. The little peninsulas formed by these windings are called ‘links’ from their resemblance to the links in a chain…[239]

Just to the west of Stirling, still on the river Forth, are the Fords of Frew, a natural strategic position for crossing the Forth between the Lowlands and the Highlands of Scotland due to the shallowness of the water there. The Surname Database states of the name “Frew”:

This is a Scottish locational name from the Fords of Frew (also known as “The Frews”), a fortified site on the River Forth. The name derives from the Olde English pre 7th century “frwd” meaning a “current” or “stream”. Frequently, settlements grew up at the lowest crossing point of a river as happened in this case.[240]

Based on this evidence, Arthur’s battle at Tribruit, or Tryfrwyd may have taken place on the river Forth at the Fords of Frew, or the Links of Forth.

The Eleventh Battle: On the hill Agned

The eleventh battle was in the mount that is called Agned.

– History of the Britons

The next earliest reference to “Agned” is in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “History of the Kings of Britain.” Interestingly, this source mentions “Mount Agned”, but not in connection with Arthur. According to this source, Mount Agned was a town, one of three northern British settlements founded by a legendary British king named Ebraucus:

Then Ebraucus built a city on the other side (to the north) of the Humber and called it Kaerebrauc (York) after himself. Ebraucus also founded the city of Aldclud (Alt Clut) towards Albany (Scotland) and the town of Mount Agned, now called the Castle of Maidens, the Mountain of Sorrows.

The two cities mentioned are easily identifiable – York[241] and Alt Clut (modern Dumbarton), but the location of the town of Mount Agned is still obscure. The grouping with two other northern strongly suggests a northern location for Agned.[242]

Edinburgh

Several medieval sources identify the town of Mount Agned as Edinburgh. The 12^th and 13^th century Kings of Scotland identified Edinburgh Castle as the “Castle of Maidens” in their royal charters.[243] The 14^th century Scottish chronicler John of Fordun also identifies Agned as an early name for Edinburgh. If these sources are correct, the town of Mount Agned is almost certainly the same as Edinburgh. The city of Edinburgh has been occupied since very early times and was the site of a British fortress-town on the Firth of Forth bordering the kingdoms of the Picts. The Britons called the preeminent hill fort Din Eidyn, or “the fortress of Eidyn,” most likely referring to the hill fort that once stood on the distinctive rock formation in the center of Edinburgh known as Castle Rock (the site of Edinburgh Castle). It’s possible that the “fortress of Eidyn” could also refer to one of the sites where hill forts once stood in Edinburgh, including Blackford Hill or Arthur’s Seat – so named for its traditional associations with the legendary King Arthur. “Arthur’s Seat”, towers over 800 feet over the city of Edinburgh. At the foot of the mountain lies Holyrood House, the official royal residence in Scotland. Regarding the antiquity of the name of Arthur’s Seat, the 1842 “The Topographical, Statistical and Historical Gazetteer of Scotland” says:

The name of Arthur’s Seat at Edinburgh is said by a late inquirer, “to be only a “name of yesterday.” Yet that remarkable height had that distinguished name before the publication of Camden’s Britannia in 1586 … and before the publication of Major in 1521… and even before the end of the 15th century, as Kennedy in his flyting with Dunbar, mentions ” Arthur Sate or ony hicher hill.”[244]

Din Eidyn was located in the region called Manaw Goddodin south of the Firth of Forth.[245] Eidyn became the royal capital of the northern branch of the Gododdin tribe, after the former capital Dunpendyrlaw (the Traprain Law hill fort) in Lothian[246] was abandoned in the early 5^th century AD.

During the 5^th century AD, a Briton from Manaw Gododdin named Cunedda, an ancestor of Arthur, led the Gododdin Britons in battle against the encroaching Picts and Irish in the regions south of Hadrian’s Wall. With the Irish invading the west coast of Britain, he led a campaign in Wales to drive out the Liethali[247] Irish who had settled there and to defend the coasts. In northern Wales[248], he established the Kingdom of Gwynedd.[249] The southern branch of the Gododdin tribe established the kingdom of Bryneich, of which the Yeavering Bell hillfort[250] discussed in a previous section was a major center. But by the 6^th century, the Anglo-Saxons established the kingdom of Bernicia upon the older British kingdom of Bryneich.

The 5^th century Welsh poem Pa Gur places one of the battles of Arthur “on the heights of Eidyn [where] he fought with dog-heads.” The “heights of Eidyn” likely refers to one of the three hills previously mentioned, probably Castle Rock or Arthur’s Seat. The poem is unclear about who the “dog-heads” (chinbin) are, but the close proximity to Pictland suggests it may be a derogatory term directed at the Picts, the Angles, or a coalition comprised of both. The poem describes the British champions under Arthur:

And Anwas the Winged,
And Llwych of the Striking Hand,
Who defended
Eidyn on the borders.
Its lord sheltered them,
My nephew destroyed them,
Cei pleaded with them
While he slew them three by three.

“Eidyn on the borders” likely refers to the location of the the fortress town of Eidyn at the northern edge of the British Kingdom of Gododdin, bordering the kingdoms of the Picts.

As the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms grew in strength, the British kingdoms waned. The Welsh poem Y Gododdin recounts a final strike of the Britons of the Old North [251] against the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. Mynyddog Mwynfawr, the King of Goddodin gathered a coalition of warriors from the northern British Kingdoms – Goddodin, Strathclyde, and Gwynedd – and hosted them in his halls at Din Eidyn for a year of feasting and drinking. After the year of revelry was completed, they set off to attack the Anglian stronghold of Catraeth[252] in what they knew would be their final engagement against the encroaching Angles. The battle of Cartraeth proved to be disastrous for the Britons as their warriors were overwhelmed by the more numerous Angles. Nearly the entire army was decimated. Among the four British survivors were Cynon, son of Clydno Eiddin, and Aneirin, the bard of King Urien of Rheged, who elegized the British warriors in his epic poem Y Gododdin.

Aneirin describes Gwawrddur, a formidable champion of the Britons as follows:

He fed black ravens[253] on the rampart of a fortress
Though he was no Arthur
Among the powerful ones in battle
In the front rank, Gwawrddur was a palisade. (Stanza 99)

Edinburgh was finally conquered in 638 AD and became part of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria.[254] W.F. Skene also locates this battle at Edinburgh:

The eleventh battle was fought ‘on the hill they call Agned,’ –that is, ‘Mynyd Agned,’ or Edinburgh, and here too the name is preserved in the ‘Sedes Arthuri’ or Arthur’s Seat. This battle seems not have been fought against the Saxons, for one manuscript adds ‘Cathregonnum,’ and another ‘against those we call Cathbregyon.’ They were probably Picts.[255]

Arthur’s battle on Mount Agned was most likely the same as Din Eidyn, or Edinburgh.

The Twelfth Battle: On Mount Badon

The twelfth battle was on Mount Badon in which there fell in one day, nine hundred and sixty men from one charge by Arthur, and no one struck them down except Arthur himself, and in all his wars he emerged as victor.”

– History of the Britons

The Battle of Mount Badon is the most significant – and the most attested – of any of the battles associated with Arthur. The earliest reference to Mount Badon is in the writings of the British monk Gildas[256]. Other early sources that mention the battle include: the “History of the Britons,” the “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” and the “Annals of Wales.” Gildas describes the battle as “the siege of Mount Badon.” The context suggests that Badon was probably a strategically significant British hill fort being besieged by an Anglo-Saxon army. This battle was a major victory for the Britons, a culmination of the British resistance, ushering in a season of relative peace from invaders among the northern Britons. The British victory at the Battle of Badon Hill ushered in a period of peace, of which Gildas states, “the peace, which, by the will of God has been granted her (Britain) in these our times.” Gildas describes the enduring desolation, the period of peace, and the religious degradation which took place among the Britons after the battle of Badon.

And yet neither to this day are the cities of our country inhabited as before, but being forsaken and overthrown, still lie desolate; our foreign wars having ceased, but our civil troubles still remaining. For as well the remembrance of such terrible desolation of the island, as also of the unexpected recovery of the same, remained in the minds of those who were eyewitnesses of the wonderful events of both, and in regard thereof, kings, public magistrates, and private persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live orderly according to their several vocations. But when these had departed out of this world, and a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this troublesome time, and had only experience of the present prosperity, all the laws of truth and justice were so shaken and subverted, that not so much as a vestige or remembrance of these virtues remained among the above-named orders of men, except among a very few who, compared with the great multitude which were daily rushing headlong down to hell, are accounted so small a number, that our reverend mother, the church, scarcely beholds them, her only true children, reposing in her bosom.[257]

According to Gildas, the battle took place in the year of his own birth, 44 years and one month after the initial landing of the Anglo-Saxons in Britain. “The Annals of Wales” has been given a date of AD 516 for this battle. Of this battle the Annals state:

The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur bore the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders, and the Britons were victorious.

The “Annals of Wales” also mentions a second Battle of Badon (calculated by some as AD 665), over 150 years after the first, of which the outcome is unknown.

Regarding the dating of the Battle of Badon, medieval historian Dr. David Woods of University College Cork shares an interesting observation on the theme of light and darkness in the writings of Gildas.

Gildas then asks regarding contemporary priests:

“Which of them can fulfil this even for a single day? Rather does a dense cloud and black night of their sin so loom over the whole island that it diverts almost all men from the straight way and makes them stray along the trackless and entangled paths of crime; and by their works the heavenly father is intolerably blasphemed rather than praised.”

The comparison of the sinfulness of the priests to a dense cloud and black night that covers the whole of the island of Britain is striking. So what inspired this particular image? The text of the DEB [De Excidio Britonum] contains many images of light and dark where light represents virtue and dark represents sin. [258]

After then giving several examples in the text of references to darkness and clouds of sin veiling Britain, he notes:

Perhaps it is merely a coincidence, but there is evidence to suggest that a persistent dust veil or fog darkened the sky over Europe for about a year in 536–7. [259]

He also observes:

The dendrochronological evidence from throughout the world, including Ireland, proves that there was a sudden, unusually cold snap in 536, and this supports the literary evidence that something blocked the light of the sun during this period, and not just over Europe, although the cause may have been most noticeable there. Furthermore, entries in the surviving Irish annals prove that something caused ‘a failure of bread’ in Ireland in 536 or thereabouts. [260]

Dr. Woods concludes:

In the light of this evidence, it is not unreasonable to ask whether it was his experience of this event in 536–7 which inspired Gildas to describe the sinfulness of some of his contemporary priests as a dense cloud and black night covering the whole of the island of Britain. …

Firm proof is impossible one way or the other, but there does not seem to be any good reason to exclude the possibility that Gildas alludes to the mysterious cloud of 536–7 in his choice of imagery at DEB 93.3. 16 Certainly, he cannot be blamed for not knowing that this cloud extended much further than Britain. Indeed, this raises the question as to whether it was his experience of this event which inspired him to publish this text.

…

In conclusion, it is arguable that Gildas alludes to a mysterious cloud which darkened the sky over Europe for much of 536–7, and that he wrote as he did in the belief that the day of judgement was at hand, that is, during the continued presence of this cloud. It is impossible to prove this beyond doubt, but this apparent allusion represents an addition to the basket of arguments already placing the composition of the DEB firmly during the second quarter of the sixth century.[261]

Dr. Andrew Breeze, a Celtic philologist at the University of Navarra notes:

A volcanic eruption in the Americas, producing both a world famine and a world cycle of literature, is one of history’s stranger tricks, yet seemingly happened in the year 535. The traditional suspect is in El Salvador, where Ilopango is thought that year to have exploded and collapsed, leaving a crater ten miles long. Whatever its exact date, the paroxysm (amongst the greatest in 200,000 years) was catastrophic for the local Mayas. Ilopango or another volcano on the American Continent will further explain the famines of 536–37 noted by chroniclers in Byzantium, Wales, Ireland and China.[262]

He then refers to Dr. Woods article:

The first of these allows dating of Gildas’s De Excidio to the summer of 536, after the cloud could be seen but before it caused crop-failure and famine (which Gildas would have been sure to mention); Gildas’s birth and the British victory at Mount Badon were therefore in early 493, forty-three years and a month previous. [263]

This proposed date of early 493 for the battle of Badon seems to be quite sound, and improves upon prior attempts to calculate the year of this battle.

Battle Commanders

The “History of the Britons” names Arthur as the British battle commander at the battle of Mount Badon. The opposing battle commander at the battle of Badon is unknown, although the Welsh poem the “Dream of Rhonabwy” names Osla Gyllellwawr as the leader of the opposing host at Badon. However, Daniel Glynn Helbert notes in his thesis “The Arthur of the March of Wales” some of the problems with the “Dream of Rhonabwy”:

The student of Arthurian history will note that there are some significant discrepancies in the narrative timeline of this story: first, in this version of the Arthurian world, the battle which was to mark the end of Arthur’s empire and life, the Battle of Camlann, has already taken place more than seven years previous, while Arthur’s greatest victory, the Battle of Badon Hill, has yet to occur. Furthermore, Osla Gyllellwawr is presented as Arthur’s ally in Culhwch ac Olwen, as one of the many who assisted Arthur and Culhwch in the hunting of the mythical boar, Twrch Trwyth. Yet, in Rhonabwy, Osla is apparently the head of an enemy host. As Lloyd-Morgan has noted, “all the normal rules are broken” in Rhonabwy and the story displaces conventional conceptions of the Arthurian time line. Some critics have tried to make sense of the inversions; Edgar Sloktin, for example, suggests that Rhonabwy’s narrative runs continuously backwards. Though an inverted chronology might explain the incongruence of the two battles, Osla’s presence at the head of an enemy force, which should by all accounts be a Saxon army, still defies explanation. This Arthurian dreamscape, much the same as the one reported in Fouke’s prophecy of Cahuz and the candelabra, is a dangerous and disorienting literary spectacle. [264]

He continues that in the “Dream of Rhonabwy,” the battle of Badon doesn’t even happen and is ultimately called off by Arthur.

Neither the present or past protectors of Britain, it turns out, are particularly deserving of the praise which has been heaped upon them hitherto. Arthur and his warriors are pompous, flashy, overdressed and utterly stagnant. The great impending Battle of Badon Hill—the apex of the Arthurian Golden Age—never happens and the armies have been gathered in vain. Instead of clashing in battle with Osla, the allies and two most beloved kings of the Welsh past, Arthur and Owain, go inside their tent and play gwyddbwyll [a board game] on an elaborately wrought golden game set. While the game goes on, Arthur’s best warriors and Owain’s magical ravens (another feature of the author’s parody of the magical, heroic past) become embroiled in a full-scale battle. Arthur and Owain only reluctantly interfere, and eventually the internecine squabble begins to take its toll on the army. Arthur crushes the board game, calls off the Battle of Badon Hill and orders his armies to return to Cornwall. In praise of this day, the bards chant a new poem about the greatness of Arthur, but only one person can actually understand the poem. It is at this point that Rhonabwy awakens on the yellow-ox hide and the author informs us in his colophon that no one can recite Breuddwyd Rhonabwy without the aid of a book.[265]

In the “History of the Britons,” the Anglo-Saxon attacks on the north of Britain led by Octa and Ebusa are described:

Hengist, after this, said to Vortigern, “I will be to you both a father and an adviser; despise not my counsels, and you shall have no reason to fear being conquered by any man or any nation whatever; for the people of my country are strong, warlike, and robust: if you approve, I will send for my son and his brother, both valiant men, who at my invitation will fight against the Scots, and you can give them the countries in the north, near the wall called Gual.” The incautious sovereign having assented to this, Octa and Ebusa arrived with forty ships. In these they sailed round the country of the Picts, laid waste the Orkneys, and took possession of many regions, even to the Pictish confines.

Later in the text it states:

Octa, after the death of his father Hengist, came from the sinistral part of the island to the kingdom of Kent, and from him have proceeded all the kings of that province, to the present period.

Since the word “sinistral” means “on the left side”, some may assume this is referring to western Britain. However, as William Gunn notes in his 1819 translation of the Vatican recension of the “History of the Britons,” notes:

In the “Ordo Romanus,” and other ancient rituals, “pars sinistralis” of the altar, signifies the north side.

…

“In the Celtic – Deheu, signifying right when applied to the hand, signifies south when applied to the heavens; and in both cases it is understood to imply a preference ordained by nature; the one arising from the construction of the human, body, the other from the useful and beneficial operation of the sun from the southern parts of the heavens. The opposite word chwith always means the reverse.” (Critical Review, Feb. 1806, p. 124).[266]

Later he states:

Here sinistralis means north.[267]

Similarly, Ranko Matasovic notes that the proto-Celtic word ufo-kliyo means both “left” and “north.”

The motivation of the development from ‘left’ to ‘north’ lies in the fact that the north is on the left side when one is facing the east (the rising sun).[268]

The genealogies at the end of the “History of the Britons” name Octa as the father of Ossa, who was the father of Eormenric. The British Library Cotton Vespasian manuscript names Hengist as the father of Octa, who was the father of Oisc. However, the the 8^th century English monk Bede states:

This Ethelbert was the son of Irminric, whose father was Octa, whose father was Oeric, surnamed Oisc, from whom the kings of Kent are wont to be called Oiscings. His father was Hengist, who, being invited by Vortigern, first came into Britain, with his son Oisc, as has been said above.

And the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle names Aesc as a son of Hengist who inherited the kingdom of Kent from his father ca. AD 488. Based on these different sources, the relation of Octa to Hengist remains a matter of controversy.

In Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain, Octa and his kinsman Ebissa are accompanied by a warrior named Cherdich. In this version, Octa is beseiged by Ambrosius Aurelianus at York, and surrenders to him. After the death of Ambrosius, Octa resumes his attacks on northern Britain with his kinsman, Eosa. Eosa is presumably the same as Ebissa who appears earlier in the same text. Uther battles them near York and defeats them, and later kills them in battle at Verulmium, St. Albans in southern Britain. William Forbes Skene notes:

All Welsh traditions with this war invariably designate Octa and Ebissa, or Eossa as they termed him, and their successors, as Arthur’s opponents…[269]

He continues:

Tradition equally points to the northern Saxons as opponents, and in Ossa Cyllellaur, who is always named as Arthur’s antagonist, there is no doubt that a leader of the Saxons of Octa and Ebissa is intended.[270]

The next mention of the northern Anglo-Saxons in the “History of the Britons” is Ida, son of Eoppa, who “was the first king in Bernicia and in Cair Ebrauc (York).”

The City of Bath

The location of Mount Badon has been a subject of intense controversy, but most consider the City of Bath as the battle site. The 12^th century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth first identified Mount Badon as the city of Bath, probably due to similar-looking etymologies, and most writers since then have accepted this view. W. F. Skene notes of the battle of Badon:

At this date no conflict between the Britons and the West Saxons could have taken place so far west as Bath.

It has been supposed to have been near Bath, but the resemblance of names seems alone to have led to this tradition.[271]

While the City of Bath itself is not a hillfort, the nearby Little Solsbury hillfort lies approximately 4 miles to the northeast. However, several factors strongly suggest Mount Badon and the city of Bath are not the same place.

The etymology of “Badon” is unclear since Gildas gives a Latin form of the place name, but it is not derived from Latin. [272] The City of Bath[273] was named by the Anglo-Saxons, and comes from the Old English word meaning “bath”[274], referring to the earlier Roman baths built upon the natural hot springs there. Geoffrey may have assumed that the Latin form Badoniciderives from this Old English root for the word “bath.” However, the City of Bath was not conquered by the West Saxons until after the Battle of Deorham[275], which was shortly after the lifetime of Gildas, making an Old English root of the word highly suspect. Additionally, according to an entry in the earliest surviving recension of the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,”[276], the conquerors first called the city Akemancester[277], but later aptly renamed it “Bath.” This is not the first instance in which Geoffrey confuses the etymology of place names in his “History of the Kings of Britain.” Thus, it is highly unlikely that the Britons ever called the City of Bath by its later Old English name before it was ever conquered by the Anglo-Saxons. At the time of Gildas, the city of Bath was probably known to the Romano-Britons by its Latin name – Aquae Sulis[278] – or some derivative thereof.[279]

The Mount of Boars

Since Gildas mentions the battle of Badon prior to the Saxon conquest of Bath, the most likely origin of Gildas’ Latinized form Badonici is from the Brittonic language, the ancestor of modern Welsh, Cornish, and Breton. The Old Welsh word baedd, meaning “wild boar”, bears a striking similarity in both writing and pronunciation to the Anglo-Saxon word bæþ, meaning “bath.” [280] In both cases, the Welsh dd and the Old English þ, produce a th sound. The confusion of Mount Badon with the City of Bath is almost certainly due to coincidences between these words from different languages.[281] If so, Mount Badon may mean “the Mount of Boars” in the Brittonic language.

Northern Site

Based on the most probable locations for the prior battle sites, the siege of Mount Badon may have also taken place in “the Old North”[283] – in northern England or southern Scotland. The Second Battle of Badon mentioned in the “Annals of Wales” could possibly signify the final conquest of the strategic Mount Badon hill fort by the Anglo Saxons in AD 665. This seems around the right timeframe for renewed Anglo-Saxon incursions into the north, as attested by the Pictish Chronicle that recounts the conquest of the fortress of Eidyn by the Angles in AD 638. William Forbes Skene proposes a possible northern location for this battle:

The twelfth battle was on Badon Hill (‘in Monte Badonis’). This is evidently the blocade or siege of Badon Hill of Gildas, and was fought in 516. It has been supposed to have been near Bath, but the resemblance of names seems alone to have led to this tradition. Tradition equally points to the norther Saxons as the opponents, and in Ossa Cyllellaur, who is always named as Arthur’s antagonist, there is no doubt that a leader of the Saxons of Octa and Ebissa is intended; while at this date no conflict between the Britons and the West Saxons could have taken place so far west as Bath. The scene of the battle near Bath was said to be on the Avon, which flows past Badon Hill. But on the Avon, not far from Linlithgow, is a very remarkable hill, of considerable size, the top of which is strongly fortified with double ramparts, and past which the Avon flows. This hill is called Bouden Hill. Sibbald says, in his Account of Linlithgowshire in 1770: — ‘On the Buden Hill are to be seen the vestiges of an outer and inner camp. There is a great cairn of stones upon Lochcote hills over against Buden, and in the adjacent ground there have been found chests of stones with bones in them, but it was uncertain when or with whom the fight was.’ As this battle was the last of twelve which seem to have formed one series of campaigns, I venture to identify Bouden Hill with the ‘Mons Badonicus.’[284]

The 20^th century archaeologist Leslie Alcock proposed Badbury as a possible location for Badon Hill, but this name is of Anglo-Saxon origin and is therefore highly unlikely. Based on the preceding evidence, Mount Badon was almost certainly not located at Bath, but may have been at another that may have had the Brittonic name “Mount of Boars.” Skene suggested the site may be Bowden Hill in Linlithgowshire, Scotland. However, Bowden derives from the language of the Anglo-Saxons – Old English. A more probable location for this battle may be the hillfort called “the Castles” in East Lothian. The hill fort is located on a promontory that projects into the Dumbadam Burn and is the more prominent of the two hill forts on the burn.[285] This name appears to be similar to Dumbarton (Scottish Gaelic: dun breatainn, “fortress of the Britons”), where the prefix is a corrupted form of the Scottish Gaelic dun, meaning fortress. Based upon this, badam may be a corruption of badon (which probably derives from Old Welsh baeddon). “The Castles” hill fort on the Dumbadam Burn may be the best candidate for the location of Arthur’s greatest victory against the Anglo-Saxon invaders.

Chapter 6: Arthurian Legends

Excalibur and the Sword in the Stone

In the early Welsh poems, Arthur wields the legendary sword “Caledfwlch,” later adapted in Latin by Geoffrey of Monmouth as “Caliburnus,” and in Old French as “Excalibur.” During the early medieval period it was a common practice in northern Europe to name swords of renown.[286] In the epic Welsh poem “Culhwch and Olwen”, the sword Caledfwlch is used one one occasion by one of Arthur’s warriors, Llenlleog the Gael [287] to slay the Irish King Diwrnach the Gael.[288] The “Spoils of Annwn” from the “Book of Taliesin”[289] describes the sword:

A sword bright gleaming to him was raised, And in the hand of Lleminawg it was left.

The sword is further described in the Welsh poem “The Dream of Rhonabwy”:

Thereupon they could hear Cadwr earl of Cornwall called for. Lo, he arising, and Arthur’s sword in his hand, and the image of two serpents on the sword in gold; and when the sword was drawn from its sheath as it were two flames of fire might be seen from the mouths of the serpents, and so exceeding dreadful was it that it was not easy for any to look thereon. [290]

In later stories, the mysterious “Lady of the Lake” gives Arthur the sword Excalibur. And in “Le Morte d’Arthur,” after Arthur is mortally wounded at the Battle of Camlann, he charges Bedivere (Bedwyr), one of his closest warriors, to return the sword to the Lady of the Lake. Bedivere eventually throws the sword into the lake, and a hand reaches out to grasp it, before submerging with it into the depths of the lake.

A different sword, “the Sword in the Stone” first appears in the 12^th-13^th century epic poem Merlin by Robert de Boron. In this version, the sword is embedded in an anvil atop a stone that magically appears in a churchyard in London on Christmas Eve, and Merlin prophesies that only “the true king” will be able to pull the sword from the anvil, and will thereby inherit the British throne. On Christmas day, Arthur pulls the sword from the anvil, and is recognized as the true king, and heir of his father, the late king Uther Pendragon. This story is echoed by the English writer Sir Thomas Mallory in his 15^th century “Le Morte d’Arthur,” who places this story in London. The 14^th century Welsh poem Kaledvwlch makes the Sword in the Stone and Caledfwlch one and the same, but this is not consistent with the earlier stories.[291] Perhaps the story of the sword in the stone found inspiration from the continent, such as the 12^th century claim that Roland threw his sword which embedded in a stone crevice at Rocamadour in France, or the 12^th century sword of San Galgano that is embedded in a stone in Chiusdino, Italy.

The Golden Dragon

Perhaps the description of golden serpents on the hilt of Arthur’s sword has a parallel in the “History of the Kings of Britain” by Geoffrey of Monmouth. This source describes the golden dragon as the symbol and battle standard of Uther “Pendragon” – whose appellation means “dragon’s head” in Welsh – a title which may suggest preeminence among other British lords. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth,

[T]here appeared a star of wonderful magnitude and brightness, darting forth a ray, at the end of which was a globe of fire in form of a dragon…

He summons Merlin, who informs him that the dragon represents him, and that he will ascend to kingship. Upon becoming a king, Uther has two golden dragons made, one to take into battle and one to remain at his capital city. His son and successor Arthur also employed one of the golden dragons made by his father as a battle-standard:

[P]lanting…his standard of a golden dragon, so that the wounded and weary could retire to it as a fortress, should it prove necessary.[292]

Geoffrey also describes Arthur donning “a golden helmet engraved with the image of a dragon” before battle. This association of the golden dragon as a symbol of Arthur continued for generations. Many centuries later, the early 15^th century Prince of Wales, Owain Glyndwr, adopted “The Golden Dragon” (Y Ddraig Aur) of Arthur and Uther as his battle standard on a white background.

The Golden Dragon standard used by Owain Glyndwr, Prince of Wales (ca. 1359-1415) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Dragon#/media/File:Y_Draig_Aur_Owain_Glyndŵr.jpg

An interesting phrase from the “Appletrees,” one of the prophecies ascribed to Merlin, refers to the “Dragon Kings”:

Chwyfleian foretells,
A tale that will come to pass
A staff of gold, signifying bravery
Will be given by the glorious Dragon Kings.
The grateful one will vanquish the profaner,
Before the child, bright and bold,
The Saesons shall fall, and bards will flourish.[293]

While the golden dragon symbolized Arthur and his father Uther “Pendragon”, the red dragon anciently symbolized the Britons as a people. The earliest recorded mention of the red dragon as a symbol of the ancient Britons appears in connection with Arthurian legend in the 9^th century “History of the Britons.” In this legend, the British king Vortigern is advised by his council of twelve wise men to build a fortress in the mountains of northern Snowdonia in Wales. Construction began but the work was destroyed each night for three nights, making their work ineffectual. Consulting his wise men again, they advised him to find a child without a father and sacrifice him there at the site of the fortress to be able to accomplish his purpose. They found a boy without a father and brought him to the construction site. The boy, far wiser than the council of wise men, questioned them and told them to dig at the foundation to see what was beneath it. Upon digging into a pool they found a tent containing two sleeping serpents – a white dragon and a red dragon. After discovering the serpents, they awoke and began to struggle with each other.

The serpents began to struggle with each other; and the white one, raising himself up, threw down the other into the middle of the tent, and sometimes drove him to the edge of it; and this was repeated thrice. At length the red one, apparently the weaker of the two, recovering his strength, expelled the white one from the tent; and the latter being pursued through the pool by the red one, disappeared. Then the boy, asking the wise men what was signified by this wonderful omen, and they expressing their ignorance, he said to the king, “I will now unfold to you the meaning of this mystery. The pool is the emblem of this world, and the tent that of your kingdom: the two serpents are two dragons; the red serpent is your dragon, but the white serpent is the dragon of the people who occupy several provinces and districts of Britain, even almost from sea to sea: at length, however, our people shall rise and drive away the Saxon race from beyond the sea, whence they originally came; but do you depart from this place, where you are not permitted to erect a citadel; I, to whom fate has allotted this mansion, shall remain here; whilst to you it is incumbent to seek other provinces, where you may build a fortress.” “What is your name?” asked the king; “I am called Ambrose (in British Embresguletic),” returned the boy; and in answer to the king’s question, “What is your origin?” he replied, “A Roman consul was my father.”

Then the king assigned him that city, with all the western Provinces of Britain; and departing with his wise men to the sinistral district, he arrived in the region named Gueneri, where he built a city which, according to his name, was called Cair Guorthegirn.[294]

The fortress that was built there was called Dinas Emrys – “the fortress of Ambrose.” The 12th or 13^th century Welsh story “Lludd and Llefelys” from “The Mabinogian” – Welsh stories compiled in the 12^th and 13^th centuries – gives an origin story about how the white and red dragons came to be at that place.

The struggle between the red dragon and the white dragon at Dinas Emrys https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Vortigern-Dragons.jpg

“The Red Dragon” (Y Ddraig Goch) remains a national symbol of the largest distinct group of descendants of the Britons – the Welsh – many centuries later, as depicted on the Flag of Wales. Tradition associates “The Red Dragon” with Cadwaladr son of Cadwallon, a 7^th century ruler of the Welsh kingdom of Gwynedd and the last of the early medieval rulers designated as “King of Britain” by Geoffrey of Monmouth.[295] In the 15^th century, both King Edward IV and King Henry VII claimed descent from Cadwaladr and saw their accession to power as the restoration of the rightful line of “Kings of Britain.” Henry VII adopted what began to be called “The Red Dragon of Cadwaladr” into his coat of arms.

The Red Dragon of the Britons, later called “The Red Dragon of Cadwaladr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadwaladr#/media/File:Welsh_Dragon_(Y_Ddraig_Goch).svg

The coat of arms of King Henry VII, who adopted “*The Red Dragon of Cadwaladr*” into his arms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadwaladr#/media/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Henry_VII_of_England_(1485-1509).svg

The modern flag of Wales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Wales#/media/File:Flag_of_Wales_(1959–present).svg

Merlin

The name of Arthur can hardly be mentioned without also mentioning Merlin. The first source in which Merlin is mentioned in connection with King Arthur is in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12^th century “History of the Kings of Britain. In this version of the story, it mentions “Merlin, who was also called Ambrose,” also calling him “Merlin Ambrose.” The name Merlin is Geoffrey’s Latinization of the Old Welsh name Myrddin, the name of a 6^th century Welsh bard.

The combined names used by Geoffrey of Monmouth also seems to conflate the lives of two different people – that of Ambrose, the young 5^th century Romano-Briton who confounded the “wise men” of king Vortigern and established the fortress of Dinas Emrys (“the fortress of Ambrose”), and Myrddin, the 6^th century British prophet who witnessed the defeat of his lord, king Urien of Strathclyde at the battle of Arfderydd.

Geoffrey included his work “The Prophecies of Merlin” (Prophetiae Merlini), which he claimed to have translated, into his “History of the Kings of Britain.” He subsequently wrote “The Life of Merlin” (Vita Merlini) to flesh out the character. The earliest known association of the British bard Merlin with Arthurian legend is in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain.[296] Geoffrey’s portrayal of Merlin conflates the figures of the 5^th century Romano-British battle commander Ambrosius Aurelianus (described in detail in an earlier section) with the 6^th-7^th century British bard Myrddin. Often portrayed as a prophet, magician or “wizard.”

Merlin Ambrose

True to the Norman storytelling tradition, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12^th century History of the Kings of Britain takes the more fantastical elements of the story and embellishes them. In the “History of the Britons,” Ambrose acknowledges his father was a Roman consul, despite his mother claiming there was no mortal father – perhaps out of shame for having married a Roman due to grievances the Britons may have had against the Romans. However, Geoffrey portrays Merlin Ambrose as being fathered by an incubus. In Geoffrey’s version of the story, Merlin Ambrose demonstrates great magic in transporting the Giant’s Dance (Stonehenge) from Ireland to Britain, he interprets a comet as signifying the coming reign of Uther as king, and he uses his magic to change the appearance of Uther to adulterously sleep with a beautiful woman named Igraine – thereby conceiving Arthur. Interestingly, Geoffrey portrays Ambrosius Aurelianus as a great king of the Britons who preceded Uther Pendragon, yet portrays Merlin Ambrose as a distinct and separate person. In Robert of Boron’s 12^th/13^th century poem Merlin, Merlin also persuades Uther Pendragon to establish the Round Table.

Myrddin

Myrddin, the 6^th century bard and prophet, appears in several Middle Welsh poems as an adviser to his king, Gwenddoleu. At battle of Arfderydd (Arthuret), Gwenddoleu was killed, and Myrddin subsequently wandered the forests of Caledonia (Scotland) as a madman. The “Annals of Wales” (Annales Cambriae) places the battle in AD 573, and states:

The battle of Arfderydd (between the sons of Eliffer and Gwenddolau, son of Ceidio; in which battle Gwenddolau fell; Merlin went mad).[297]

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “Life of Merlin” (Vita Merlini) follows this version of Myrddin. Several Welsh poems and prophecies are attributed to Myrddin.

In the Black Book of Carmarthen:

- The Dialogue of Myrddin and Taliesin (Ymddiddan Myrddin a Thaliesin)[298]

- The Black Book of Carmarthen: Appletrees (Yr Afallennau)[299]

- The Black Book of Carmarthen: Greetings (Yr Oianau)[300]

- The Birch Trees (Gwin y Bid hi y Vedwen)[301]

In the Red Book of Hergest:

- Dialogue Between Myrddin and His Sister Gwenddydd (Cyfoesi Myrddin a Gwenddydd ei Chwaer)[302]

- Lament of Myrddin in His Grave (Gwasgargerdd fyrddin yn y Bedd)[303]

In Peniarth Manuscript 50:

- Commanding Youth (Peirian Faban)[304]

In these poems, Myrddin son of Morvryn, recounts the destruction at the Battle of Arfderydd, the killing of his nephew in battle on the opposing side, [305] and his exile in the woods of Celyddon. The common theme in his prophesies is of the eventual victory of the Britons over the Anglo-Saxons.

The early 10^th century poem “The Prophecy of Britain” (Armes Prydein) from the Book of Taliesin refers to a prophecy of Myrddin that the Anglo-Saxons will ultimately be driven out of Britain by the native Britons, Gaels, Manx, Cornish and Scots:

Myrdin foretells these will meet,
In Aber Peryddon, the stewards of the kings;
And though there be no right of slaughter they complain.
Of one will of the mind they will refuse.
Stewards their taxes would collect;
In the treasures of Cymry, there was not that they would pay.
One that is a proprietor says this.
There will not come one that will pay in slavery.[306]

Whether or not Arthur would have known either Ambrosius Aurelianus or Myrddin is unclear, since they were either contemporaries or near-contemporaries since Ambrosius lived a generation before Arthur, while Myrddin lived a generation after.

Lailoken

In the 12^th century “Life of Kentigern”, Jocelyn of Furness describes “a certain foolish man, who was called Laleocen,” who prophesies of the death of king Rydderch Hael.

In the same year that Saint Kentigern was released from the affairs of men and departed into heaven, King Rederech, who has been named often, stayed for a longer time than usual in a royal village which is called Pertnech. A certain foolish man, who was called Laleocen, lived at his court, and he received his necessary sustenance and garments from the bountifulness of the king. For it is customary for the chief men of the earth and for sons of kings to be given to vain things and to retain with them men of the sort who are able to excite these lords and their households to jests and loud laughter by foolish words and gestures. But after the burial of Saint Kentigern, this man was himself afflicted with the most severe mourning, and he would not receive any comfort from anyone.

When they sought why he grieved so inconsolably, he answered that his lord King Rederech and another of the first men of the land, named Morthec, would not be long in this life after the death of the holy bishop, but that they would succumb to fate in that present year and die. The deaths of those whom he mentioned that followed in that year clearly proved that the words of the fool were not spoken foolishly, but rather they were spoken prophetically.[307]

According to the 15^th century “Lailoken and Kentigern”, or “Life of Merlin of the Woods” (Vita Merlini Sylvestris)[308], it says of Lailoken:

Certain people say that he was Merlin who was regarded by the Britons as unique in his powers of prophecy, but the identification is uncertain.[309]

In his 1939 article “Lailoken A Llallogan,” AOH Jarman associates Lailoken with Myrddin, who is called Llallogan and Llawag in the poem “The Conversation of Merlin and his Sister Gwenddydd” (Cyfoesi Myrddin a Gwenddydd ei Chwaer).[310]

Stained glass of Myrddin being converted to Christianity by Saint Kentigern, Stobo Kirk

The Grail Legend and Joseph of Arimathea

The Holy Grail

As the Norman poets and clerics spread the stories of Arthur across Europe, foreign elements found their way into the Arthurian story. Relics were introduced to the story, most notably the Grail, and the pilgrimage-quest to obtain it that could only be successfully undertaken by the worthiest of heroes. In the late 12^th century stories, this worthiest of knights is Percival, but that role was replaced by Galahad beginning in the 13^th century. In his late 12^th century story “Perceval, the story of the Grail,” the French writer Chretien de Troyes presents his adaptation of a tale from a book “of the story of the Grail” that was given to him by his lord, Philip of Flanders. The word “grail” comes from the Old French word “graal,” meaning a vessel – like a cup or bowl. Chretien portrays the quest for obtaining the Grail by the Arthurian knight Perceval, but his story is unfinished. In Chretien’s story, the Grail is mentioned in connection with “the bleeding lance,” the spear used to pierce the side of Jesus while he was on the cross. Both holy objects are in the possession of the enigmatic figure “the Rich Fisher King.”

The late 12^th century Norman poet Robert de Boron’s poem Joseph of Arimathea (Joseph d’Arimathie) introduces the titular person, the New Testament-era Jewish leader in connection with the quest for the Grail and into Arthurian legend. In this poem, he seems to use Joseph of Arimathea as a literary construct to connect the Grail with Arthurian legend, and creates an origin story for the Grail that explains how it came to be in Britain, who “the Rich Fisher King” was, and he links the table used by Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper story with the Breton traditions of the Round Table.

The Biblical account relates sparse information about Joseph of Arimathea. Joseph “was of Arimathea, a city of the Jews,” and served as a member of the Great Sanhedrin, the Jewish religious governing council at the time of Jesus of Nazareth. The New Testament describes him as “an honourable counsellor, which also waited for the kingdom of God,” “and he was a good man, and a just,” who “had not consented to the counsel and deed” of the Sanhedrin in condemning Jesus of Nazareth worthy of death under the charge of “blasphemy.” Joseph was “a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews.” After the illegal trial of Jesus and His subsequent crucifixion, Joseph approached the Roman governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilate. While the body of Jesus was still nailed to the cross, Joseph of Arimathea “went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus,” who delivered it to him. “And he bought fine linen, and took Him down,” from the cross. Joseph was assisted by a fellow member of the Sanhedrin and member of the sect of Pharisees – Nicodemus, probably the Nicodemus Ben Gurion described in the Talmud, as noted by the 19^th century English clergyman Frederick Farrar. “And there came also Nicodemus…and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight. Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices.” Nearby was the garden of Joseph of Arimathea, and his sepulcher. “Now in the place where He was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.” Joseph took the body “And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.”[311]

In the spirit of the old tradition of relics – objects of religious significance imbued with holy power (also part of Celtic mythology) – Chretien de Troyes and Robert de Boron introduce Christian relics into the Arthurian legend. Robert’s poem describes a fanciful story of how a vessel was used during the Last Supper of Jesus and his Twelve disciples, that was found in the house afterward by a Jew and given to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. When Joseph of Arimathea comes to beg for the body of Jesus, Pilate grants his request, also giving him the vessel to get rid of the object that would remind him of his unjust condemnation of Jesus. After removing the body of Jesus from the cross, Joseph of Arimathea cleans the body and catches the blood of Jesus in the vessel. The body of Jesus is buried in the tomb, but when He is resurrected, the tomb is empty with the stone rolled away. Some of the Jews heard this and conspired to imprison Joseph of Arimathea, who had buried the body of Jesus in his own tomb. In the story, Joseph is beaten and left imprisoned in a pit. While there in the depths of despair, the resurrected Jesus appears to him, bearing the vessel still filled with his blood, which Joseph had concealed at his house. Jesus tells him that he will be the keeper of the vessel, which he calls the chalice and gives it to him, which provides him light and sustenance. After languishing in the prison for 35 years, Joseph is eventually freed from the prison by the Roman Emperor Vespasian, who comes to him. After his release he leads his family and friends out of Judea to find a new home. A famine strikes, up on which Joseph kneels before the vessel, and Jesus speaks to him, telling him to build a table:

As I sat at the table of the Last Supper at Simon’s house, said the voice, ‘and foresaw my suffering to come, make another table in its name;’

After making the new table he is told to summon his brother-in-law Bron, to ask him to go fishing and bring the first fish he catches, which he does. Joseph is told to set the table with the vessel and prepared fish at the center of the table. He is to sit at the place occupied by Jesus, with Bron sitting to his right, but with an unoccupied seat between them – representing the seat vacated by Judas Iscariot when he betrayed Jesus – which would remain vacant until it was filled by Bron’s grandson (Perceval). The 12 men sit at the table and they designate the vessel as “the Grail,” as they feast on food that onlookers are unable to see. They bask in the presence of the Grail, which “only virtuous men could sit in the presence of the Grail, so they enjoyed God’s grace.” An onlooker by the name of Moyse begs to join them and is eventually permitted to join. He sits at the only vacant seat – the one to the immediate right of Joseph, and upon sitting there he disappears, swallowed up into abysmal depths because he was unworthy to sit there before the Grail.

A heavenly visitor comes to Joseph and gives him a letter to entrust with his follower Petrus, and that he should carry the letter wherever he traveled to save it for the grandson of Bron, who must come find him. A voice speaks to Joseph again and tells Joseph to entrust the Grail with Bron and to teach him “the holy words of the sacrament of the Grail.” The voice also tells him that Bron will henceforth be known as “the rich Fisher King,” for having caught the fish used at the supper. Upon receiving these instructions,[312] Petrus departs with the letter west to the “vales of Avalon,” to await the coming of Bron’s grandson to give him the letter before he can leave this life and join Jesus in paradise. The rich Fisher King” also travels west with the Grail to Britain, while Joseph of Arimathea returns to Judea where he lives out the rest of his days.

This provided an origin story for Chretien’s quest for the Grail and was part of a trilogy that Robert de Boron wrote, also including “Merlin,” and “Perceval.” These tales set the stage for future stories about the quest for the Grail.

Joseph of Arimathea

In William of Malmesbury’s 12^th century text “On the Antiquity of Glastonbury,” he claims that Joseph of Arimathea was commissioned by Philip, one of the twelve Apostles chosen by Jesus – to preach Christianity in Britain:

While preaching in the region of the Franks, as narrated by Freculf, Philip chose and ordained twelve disciples, whom he put in charge of his beloved friend, Joseph of Arimathea, who buried the Lord. In the sixty-third year of the Incarnation, and the fifteenth of the Assumption of Mary, these missionaries arrived in Britain.[313]

He then describes the founding of the church at Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea and his twelve companions:

The king gave them an island on the borders of his country, surrounded by woods and thickets and marshes, called Yniswitrin. Two other kings in succession, though pagans, granted to each of them a portion of land: hence the Twelve Hides have their name to the present day. These saints were admonished by the archangel Gabriel to build a church in honour of the Blessed Virgin. They made it of twisted wattles, in the thirty-first year after the Lord’s Passion and the fifteenth after the Assumption of the glorious Virgin. Since it was the first in that land, the Son of God honoured it by dedicating it to His Mother. ‘Now that all this was so, we learn alike from the Charter of St Patrick and from the writings of the seniors. One of these, the historian of the Britons, as we have seen at St Edmund’s and again at St Augustine’s the Apostle of the English, begins as follows:

“There is on the boundary of western Britain a certain royal island. … Here the first neophytes of the Catholic law among the English found by God’s guidance an ancient church, built, as it is said, by no human skill, but made ready by God for the salvation of men, which afterwards the Maker of the heavens … shewed that He had consecrated to Himself and to Mary the Holy Mother of God.” [314]

These later traditions also associate Joseph of Arimathea with the Glastonbury Thorn – also called the Holy Thorn, a unique hawthorn tree there that blooms twice a year, rather than the normal once a year for hawthorn trees.[315] In this tradition, when he arrived at Glastonbury, he thrust his staff into the ground and it sprouted into a tree.

While the legend of the Grail is interesting, and quite bizarre, it appears to be a later medieval invention fueled by an obsession with relics that was common to that time. Joseph of Arimathea may have been used in the story as a way to connect Arthurian legend with the events of the New Testament in an effort to grant legitimacy to the quest for this relic.

The Round Table

Perhaps the earliest mention of the Round Table comes from the Norman poet Wace ca. 1155, which he says was a tradition among the Bretons:

Arthur made the Round Table, so reputed of the Bretons. This Round Table was ordained of Arthur that when his fair fellowship sat to [eat] meat their chairs should be high alike, their service equal, and none before or after his comrade. Thus no man could boast that he was exalted above his fellow, for all alike were gathered round the board, and none was alien at the breaking of Arthur’s bread.

The 12^th/13^th century English poet Layamon similarly states:

[T]his was the same board that Britons boast of, and say many sorts of leasing, respecting Arthur the king. [316]

While the Round Table is not known from any Welsh sources in Britain prior to this, it may have been a long-standing oral tradition that was solely preserved by the Bretons – Britons who fled to Brittany in France during the Anglo-Saxon invasion – as Wace, and subsequently Layamon, both claim.

In Robert of Boron’s 12^th/13^th century poem Merlin, Merlin counsels Arthur’s father, Uther Pendragon, to reestablish the table and order patterned after the order of the Twelve Apostles established by Jesus of Nazareth. Merlin states that a position at the table used during the Last Supper of Christ with his disciples was vacated when Judas Iscariot departed to betray the Lord. He then claims that sometime after the crucifixion, Joseph of Arimathea was told by the Lord to make another table, with one vacant seat at the table that was filled by the newly called Apostle Matthias. Merlin persuades Uther Pendragon to establish a third table at Carduel (Carlisle) – the Round Table.

…[O]ur Lord bade [Joseph of Arimathea] make a table in memory of the Last Supper. And on this table the knight placed a vessel which he covered with white cloths so that he alone could see it. This vessel separated the good people from the bad. Anyone who was able to sit at this table found the fulfilments of his heart’s desires. But there was always an empty seat at the table, sire, signifying the place where Judas had sat at the Last Supper when he realized that our Lord’s words referred to him. This place was left symbolically empty at the knight’s table, until such time as our Lord should seat another man there to make up the number of the twelve apostles. And so our Lord fulfilled men’s hearts; and at the second table they called the vessel which bestowed this grace the Grail. If you’ll trust in my advice, you’ll establish a third table in the name of the Trinity, which these three tables will signify. And if you do this, I promise you it will greatly benefit your body and your soul, and such things will happen in your time as will astound you. If you’re willing to do this I will lend you aid, and I assure you it will be a deed of high renown in this world. If you have faith you will do it, and I shall help you. [317]

The establishment of the Round Table triggers the quest for the Grail, since the Grail was now needed at the Round Table, as it was set on the prior two tables.

The table passes to Uther’s son Arthur, as told in the late 12^th to early 13^th century prose “Didot Perceval” – believed to be a retelling of an earlier Perceval written by Robert de Boron:

[T]here were so many good knights at the court of the noble King Arthur that one spoke in all the world of nothing but the high knighthood of the Round Table that the noble King Arthur ruled, until Arthur bethought himself of that which Merlin had told him. Thereupon he came to his nobles and his knights and he said to them: “Lords, know that it is desirable that you all return at the Pentecost; for I shall wish to hold the greatest festival on this day that ever any king held in any land. And also I wish that each of you may bring his lady with him for I shall wish to honor the Round Table greatly that Merlin made in the days of Uther Pendragon my father. And also I wish to seat the twelve peers of my court in the twelve places. And know also that all those who will be at my festival and who will wish to dwell with me will always be of the Round Table and will have the greatest honor wherever they may come for each will have pennon or blazon of the Round Table.

And when the Mass was sung the king brought his twelve peers and seated them in the twelve places, and the thirteenth remained empty, for it signified the place where Judas sat when he withdrew himself. And at the table of Uther Pendragon, Merlin had kept it empty, and for this reason the king did not dare to fill it.[318]

According to Robert of Boron, the significance of the Round Table lies not in the table itself, but rather in the order it represents. Patterned after the order established by Jesus of Nazareth who called and ordained His Twelve Disciples in which each has an equal voice in council, the Round Table signified a continuation of that order which Robert calls, “The Knights of the Round Table.” While the term “knight” was not used until much later, this may echo the 9^th century “History of the Britons,” in which the earlier British king Vortigern – a contemporary or near-contemporary of Arthur – is advised by his council of twelve “wise men” to build a fortress to defend himself from the Anglo-Saxons he betrayed. When they are unable to make progress with the construction, the twelve “wise men” tell Vortigern he must sacrifice a child without a father on the site – a situation which is fortunately averted.[319] This may represent a form of that order – a council of twelve patterned after the disciples of Christ – albeit in a clearly depraved and corrupted form. A similar tradition may be in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, which recounts the slaying of twelve Welsh aldermen, or elders, at the battle near Wippidsfleet circa AD 465:

This year Hengist and Æsc fought against the Welsh near Wippidsfleet, [Ebbsfleet?] and there slew twelve Welsh ealdormen, and one of their own thanes was slain there, whose name was Wipped.

The Round Table had no head and no foot so there was no preeminent place at the table. Wace notes that this represents the equality among Arthur’s retinue at mealtimes, but in the previous context, this represents the equal voice of the members of Arthur’s council.

The vacant seat at the Round Table is called the “The Perilous Seat” by Sir Thomas Mallory, that remains vacant until a worthy knight who has obtained the Grail can fill it and destroys any unworthy knight who sits upon it – a position ultimately filled by Perceval in early stories, and by Galahad in later stories. Later within the same poem the number of seats quickly becomes conflated from 13 seats to 50 seats, and then to 250 seats. In the 12^th/13^th century English poet Layamon’s Brut, based on Wace’s writings, he portrays the fanciful story of a Cornish craftsman fashioning a “board” for Arthur that seats over 1,600 men that can be transported everywhere Arthur takes it in his travels!

In Sir Thomas Mallory’s 15^th century, “Le Morte D’arthur,” he portrays Arthur giving a charge to the Knights of the Round Table, reflecting the medieval ideals of chivalry:

God make you a good man and fail not of beauty. The Round Table was founded in patience, humility, and meekness. Thou art never to do outrageousity, nor murder, and always to flee treason, by no means to be cruel, and always to do ladies, damosels, and gentle women succour. Also, to take no battles in a wrongful quarrel for no law nor for no world’s goods.
Thou shouldst be for all ladies and fight for their quarrels, and ever be courteous and never refuse mercy to him that asketh mercy, for a knight that is courteous and kind and gentle has favor in every place. Thou shouldst never hold a lady or gentle woman against her will.
Thou must keep thy word to all and not be feeble of good believeth and faith. Right must be defended against might and distress must be protected. Thou must know good from evil and the vain glory of the world, because great pride and bobauce maketh great sorrow. Should anyone require ye of any quest so that it is not to thy shame, thou shouldst fulfil the desire.
Ever it is a worshipful knights deed to help another worshipful knight when he seeth him a great danger, for ever a worshipful man should loath to see a worshipful man shamed, for it is only he that is of no worship and who faireth with cowardice that shall never show gentelness or no manner of goodness where he seeth a man in any danger, but always a good man will do another man as he would have done to himself.
It should never be said that a small brother has injured or slain another brother. Thou shouldst not fail in these things: charity, abstinence and truth. No knight shall win worship but if he be of worship himself and of good living and that loveth God and dreadeth God then else he geteth no worship here be ever so hardly.
An envious knight shall never win worship for and envious man wants to win worship he shall be dishonoured twice therefore without any, and for this cause all men of worship hate an envious man and will show him no favour.
Do not, nor slay not, anything that will in any way dishonour the fair name of Christian knighthood for only by stainless and honourable lives and not by prowess and courage shall the final goal be reached. Therefore be a good knight and so I pray to God so ye may be, and if ye be of prowess and of worthiness then ye shall be a Knight of the Table Round.

A tradition of interest is the “King’s Knot” at Stirling Castle in Scotland. These earthworks were part of a medieval royal garden. In 1842, Queen Victoria ordered the earthworks to be restored. Recent excavations uncovered that these earthworks were built on the site of a much earlier round feature – “a circular ditch and other earth works beneath the King’s Knot.” [320] Stirling may be the earliest site claimed as the location of the “Round Table.” The 12^th century Norman poet Beroul in his poem Tristan also writes that the Round Table was located at Stirling:

He inquired for news of the king and learned that he was at Stirling, Fair Yseuts [Isolde’s] squire went along the road which led in that direction. He asked a shepherd who was playing a reed-pipe: “Where is the king?” “Sir,” said he, “he is seated on his throne. You will see the Round Table which turns like the world; his household sits round it.” [321]

This tradition continued with the Scottish poet John Barbour, who wrote in his epic poem in The Brus ca. 1377:

And beneath the castell went thai sone

Rycht be the Rond Table away…

And towart Lythkow…[322]

The English scholar William of Worcester wrote ca. 1450:

“King Arthur kept the Round Table at Stirling Castle.”

The Scottish writer Sir David Lindsay writes in 1529:

Adew, fair Snawdoun, with thy towris hie, /

Thy Chapell-royal, park, and Tabyll Round…/

By the 16th century it became common throughout Britain to associate old circular structures with the Round Table so other sites were claimed as the location of the Round Table. These include the Roman amphitheater in Chester, the amphitheater at Caerleon in Wales, and the henge called “King Arthur’s Round Table” near Penrith, Cumbria.

The Winchester Round Table https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/King_Arthur%27s_Round_Table_at_Winchester_Castle%2C_Winchester%2C_Hampshire%2C_England.png

A more recent artifact, the Winchester Round Table, a tabletop in Winchester Castle, was constructed to commemorate Arthur’s Round Table. Dendrochronology dates the table from the 13^th century with paintwork from the 16^th century, portraying the names of 24 knights from Arthur’s court, with king Henry VIII in Arthur’s seat portrayed above the Tudor rose. Beginning in the 13^th century, “Round Table” tournaments are documented in Britain.[323] The story of the “Giant’s Dance,” or Stonehenge, in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s 12^th century the “History of the Kings of Britain” could possibly be a conflated story of the Round Table, in which Merlin and Uther Pendragon transport stones from Ireland to construct the megalith.

Guinevere: Stories of Abduction and Betrayal

Arthur’s wife Gwenhwyfar is named as a daughter of King Ogrfan “the Giant.” The “History of the Kings of Britain” by Geoffrey of Monmouth claims that she was of Roman descent:

At last, when he had re-established the state of the whole country in its ancient dignity, he took unto him a wife born of a noble Roman family, Guenevere, who, brought up and nurtured in the household of Duke Cador, did surpass in beauty all the other dames of the island.

In the 12^th century Life of St. Gildas by Caradoc of Llancarfan, Guinevere is abducted by Melwas, king of “the summer country” (Somerset), and taken to Glastonia (Glastonbury). The text describes Arthur’s siege of Glastonia to save his wife:

It was besieged by the tyrant Arthur with a countless multitude on account of his wife Gwenhwyfar, whom the aforesaid wicked king had violated and carried off, and brought there for protection, owing to the asylum afforded by the invulnerable position due to the fortifications of thickets of reed, river, and marsh. The rebellious king had searched for the queen throughout the course of one year, and at last heard that she remained there. Thereupon he roused the armies of the whole of Cornubia and Dibneria; war was prepared between the enemies.

When he saw this, the abbot of Glastonia, attended by the clergy and Gildas the Wise, stepped in between the contending armies, and in a peaceable manner advised his king, Melvas, to restore the ravished lady. Accordingly, she who was to be restored, was restored in peace and good will. When these things were done, the two kings gave the abbot a gift of many domains; and they came to visit the temple of St. Mary and to pray, while the abbot confirmed the beloved brotherhood in return for peace they enjoyed and the benefits which they conferred, and were more abundantly about to confer. Then the kings reconciled, promising reverently to obey the most venerable abbot of Glastonia, and never violate the most sacred place nor even the districts adjoining the chief’s seat.[324]

The Porta dell Pescheria of Modena Cathedral showing the Arthurian archivolt, 1110-20, “The rescue of Winlogee” showing the names Isdernus, Artus de Bretani (Arthur of Britain), Burmaltus, Winlogee (Guinevere), Mardoc, Carrado, Galvagin (Gawain), Galvariun, and Che (Cai). Photo by Jacqueline Poggi.

Another abduction story is from a relief carved on an arch on the 12^th century Modena Cathedral in Italy. This relief portrays “Arthur of Britain” with man named Isdernus besieging a castle to apparently rescue Winlogee (Guinevere) from a lord named Mardoc. Arthur is shown battling a defender of the castle named Burmaltus. On the other side of the castle, Galvagin (Gawain) is accompanied by Che (Cai) and Galvariun, and is attacking another defender of the castle named Carrado (Caradoc?). The characters are all portrayed in the Norman style – the Norman castle, arms, and armor – all suggesting a Norman retelling of a Welsh or Breton story.[325]

Another abduction story also introduces the theme of Guinevere’s infidelity. In Chretien de Troyes’ 12^th century story “Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart,” “Meleagant, a tall and powerful knight, son of the King of Gorre,” abducts Guinevere and takes her to his father’s kingdom. This story introduces Lancelot du Lake to the Arthurian legend –as the secret lover of Guinevere. Lancelot seeks her out, and in the final conflict, Lancelot defeats Meleagant and rescues Guinevere.[326]

In the “History of the Kings of Britain” by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Guinevere (Guanhumara) is portrayed as betraying Arthur with his nephew Modred. As Arthur is crossing the Alps to invade Italy:

[H]e had news brought to him that his nephew Modred, to whose care he had entrusted Britain, had by tyrannical and treasonable practices set the crown upon his own head; and that queen Guanhumara, in violation of her first marriage, had wickedly married him.[327]

After Arthur returns to Britain and drives Modred back, the text states:

As soon as queen Guanhumara heard this, she immediately, despairing of success, fled from York to the City of Legions, where she resolved to live a chaste life among the nuns in the church of Julius the Martyr, and entered herself one of their order.[328]

One of the Welsh Triads mentions the “Three Violent (reckless/costly) Ravagings of the Island of Britain” inflicted by Medrawd (Modred):

One of them (was) when Medrawd came to Arthur’s Court at Celliwig in Cornwall; he left neither food nor drink in the court that he did not consume. And he also dragged Gwenhwyfar from her royal chair, and then he struck a blow up on her.

The second Costly Ravaging (was) when Arthur came to Medrawd’s court. He left neither food nor drink in the court nor in the cantref.[329]

The existence of different variants of the abduction of Guinevere may suggest that the core story comes from an earlier version of the story. Additionally, it is of great interest that the relief on the arch at Modena Cathedral pre-dates Geoffrey of Monmouth’s writings, suggesting that the abduction theme did not originate with Geoffrey.

Stories of the infidelity of Guinevere permeate the early legends. The Welsh Triads describe her as the most faithless wife of the island of Britain “since she shamed a better man than any (of the others).”[330] In the Welsh Triads one of the “Three Sinister (ill-omened) Hard Slaps of the Island of Britain” states that a contention led to Gwenhwyfach striking her sister Gwenhwyfar – the wife of Arthur – initiated a chain of events that ultimately led to the Battle of Camlan.[331] This is echoed in the Welsh Triad on the “Three Futile Battles of the Island of Britain” states, “the third was the worst: that was Camlan, which was brought about because of Gwenhwyfar’s contention with Gwenhwy(f)ach.”[332]

The origins of the traditions about Guinevere are unknown, but stories of her abduction existed from an early date, with stories of her infidelity following.

Mordred: Friend or Foe?

Mordred, also called Medraut or Medrawd, is an enigmatic figure from the Arthurian legend. Two seemingly opposing versions of Modred seem to exist – in one as a possible ally of Arthur’s, and in the other as his arch-rival.

Medrawd the Good

Medrawd appears in a positive light in the writings of some of the 12^th century Welsh poets. In his lament for the death of Gruffud ap Cynan (d. 1137), Meilyr Brydydd describes him as possessing “the warrior nature of Medrawd.” [333] Gwalchmai ap Meilyr described Madog ap Maredudd king of Powys (d. 1160) as having “Arthur’s strength, the good nature of Medrawd.”[334] In his thesis “The Arthur of the March of Wales, Daniel Glynn Helbert gives the following translation:

Arthur gadernyd / Menwyd medrawd / Madawg” [The strength of Arthur and the intelligence of Medrawt (had) Madoc].[335]

Rachel Bromwich notes that these “early medieval poems…support T. Gwynn Jones’s assertion that Medrawd was traditionally regarded as a paragon of valour and of courtesy.”

Brynley Roberts suggested that Medrawt took on the attributes of the personality of Melwas, the abductor of Gwenhwyfar, to become Arthur’s antagonist at Camlan, from the unfavourable character of Melwas as portrayed in early poetry and in the Life of St Gildas.

It is notable that prior to the [History of the Kings of Britain] the early sources do not claim that Medrawd was Arthur’s nephew, or even that he was Arthur’s opponent at the battle of Camlan: [Annales Cambriae] merely states that Medrawd and Arthur together died in 537 at this battle. There appears to be no allusion by the poets to Medrawd’s treachery earlier than that by Tudur Aled.

[T]he post-Geoffrey triads (nos. 51-4) here cited from the WR version, reflect a tradition of hostility between Arthur and Medrawt which is echoed in Breudwyt Ronabwy, and which may well antedate Geoffrey of Monmouth.[336]

Leslie Alcock in his book “Arthur’s Britain,” notes:

[I]t is only in the light of later tradition that we identify Medraut with ‘Modred’ and assume that Arthur and Medraut fought on opposite sides.[337]

In his thesis “The Arthur of the March of Wales, Daniel Glynn Helbert states:

Medrawt has been associated with the Arthurian legend since at least the tenth century Annales Cambria, but Geoffrey’s story of him is the first to record the character in unambiguously negative terms—as the captor/lover of Gwenevere and the usurper of the throne. The Annales merely report that at the Battle of Camlan, “Arthur et Medraut corruere” [Arthur and Medraut fell]—the authors give no indication as to the causes of the conflict nor do they even imply that the two are fighting against each other. “Breuddwyd Rhonabwy” hints at a similar alternate background to the conflict, and places the blame for the fight squarely on intentional translator error—not adultery or a coup—which opens up the potential for early positivist readings of Medrawt. For the Annales, see E. Faral, La légende arthurienne: Études et documents, le plus anciens textes (Paris: Libraire Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1929): 45; for “Rhonabwy,” see Breudwyt Ronabwy allan o’r Llyfr Coch o Hergest, ed. Melville Richards (University of Wales Press, 1948). I discuss the intentional mistranslation in Breuddwyd Rhonabwy further in Chapter Four.[338]

Medrawd the Traitor

While the earlier Welsh stories portray Medrawd in a positive light, the later Norman stories portray Medrawd as a nephew to Arthur – and as a usurper who instigates Arthur’s final battle at Camlan that results in the loss of his life, as well as the end of Arthur’s reign. Although only fragmentary, several sources suggest that some Britons conspired against Arthur and formed a coalition to attempt to overthrow him, which led to Camlann.

In one story, a man named Iddawc incites Medrawd to battle. The 12^th-14^th century Welsh poem The Dream of Rhonabwy portrays Iddawc describing the role he played:

I was one of the messengers between Arthur and Medrawd his nephew, at the battle of Camlan; and I was then a reckless youth, and through my desire for battle, I kindled strife between them, and stirred up wrath, when I was sent by Arthur the Emperor to reason with Medrawd, and to show him, that he was his foster-father and his uncle, and to seek for peace, lest the sons of the Kings of the Island of Britain; and of the nobles, should be slain. And whereas Arthur charged me with the fairest sayings he could think of, I uttered unto Medrawd the harshest I could devise. And therefore am I called Iddawc Cordd Prydain, for from this did the battle of Camlan ensue. And three nights before the end of the battle of Camlan I left them, and went to the Llech Las in North Britain to do penance.[339]

Possibly related to this is the description of “Gwynnhyvar mayor of Cornwall and Devon” as “the ninth man that rallied the battle of Camlan” in the Welsh poem Culhwch and Olwen.[340] Whether this refers to him playing a part in inciting the battle or in assembling soldiers is unclear.

A most curious expression appears in another Welsh Triad. The third of the “Three Unfortunate Counsels of the Island of Britain,” was “the three-fold dividing by Arthur of his men with Medrawd at Camlan.”[341] While it’s unclear what this is referring to, it sounds as though Arthur gave charge of part of the army to Medrawd, with apparently catastrophic consequences but nothing more of this statement is known.

One version of the events leading up to Arthur’s final battle – as contained in the 12^th century History of the Kings of Britain by the writer Geoffrey of Monmouth, as well as in some of the Norman-influenced “Welsh Triads,” portrays Arthur as the Norman ideal of a conquering hero. In this version, Arthur becomes king of the entire island of Britain, after which he subdues Ireland, Iceland, Gothland (Sweden), the Orkney Islands, Norway, Gaul, and even Dacia (Romania). Upon returning to Britain, he is crowned with regal pomp, after which he receives a letter from a Roman Procurator named Lucius Tiberius who demands Arthur come to Rome to pay tribute to his “masters.” Arthur decides to assemble his army and march on Rome to conquer them and to demand tribute from them. Meanwhile, Lucius Tiberius assembles his Roman soldiers, combined with the armies of Greece, Africa, Spain, Parthia, Media, Libya, Phrygia, Iturea, Egypt, Babylon, Bithynia, Syria, Boeotia, and Crete, each army led by the king of that land. Arthur assemblies the armies of each land he has subdued and meets the opposing forces for battle on the continent. The Britons win the battle, with some of the Romans fleeing while others surrender as slaves. The following summer he resumes the march on Rome, and as they are journeying through the Alps, he is informed that his nephew Mordred has usurped the throne of Britain in his absence and that his wife Guanhumara (Guinevere) “had wickedly married him.” Arthur returns to Britain, battling Modred’s forces – made up of rebel Britons, Saxons, Picts, and Gaels – at Winchester during which Mordred is killed and Arthur is “mortally wounded…being carried thence to the isle of Avallon to be cured of his wounds…”

This story of epic and ridiculous proportions underlies the Norman concept of Arthur. While clearly fabricated, the earlier stories of Roman soldiers in Britain who usurped parts of the Roman Empire was a historical pattern the Britons were familiar with during the period of Roman occupation: the 2^nd century Roman General Clodius Albinus, the 3^rd century Roman commander Postumus, the 3^rd century Roman naval officer Bonosus, the 3^rd century Roman commander Carausius, the 4^th century Roman commander Magnus Maximus, and the 5^th century Roman soldier Constantine III, all proclaimed themselves as emperor of that region of the Roman Empire and asserted control over it until they were each ultimately defeated.

Magnus Maximus, called Macsen Wledig – Lord Maximus – in the Welsh texts, even gathered the Roman soldiers from Britain and marched into Italy, where he was defeated. He is named as the progenitor of several royal Welsh lines. Constantine III also invaded Italy with the intent to conquer Rome, but was also defeated. Geoffrey of Monmouth claims Constantine III as the father of Uther Pendragon – and grandfather of Arthur. Perhaps one or several of these stories were conflated with the story of Arthur, portraying him as a tragic Welsh hero akin to Magnus Maximus or Constantine III. Some of the Welsh Triads follow this same story:

The third and worst [man of shame in the Island of Britain] was Medrawd, when Arthur left him with the government of the Island of Britain, at the time when he himself went across the sea to oppose Lles, emperor of Rome, who had dispatched messngers to Arthur in Caerleon to demand tribute to him and to the men of Rome, from this Island, in the measure that it had been paid (from the time of) Caswallawn son of Beli until the time of Custennin the Blessed, Arthur’s grandfather. This is the answer that Arthur gave to the emperor’s messengers: that the men of Rome had no greater claim to tribute from the men of this Island, than the men of the Island of Britain had from therm. For Bran son of Dyfnwal and Custennin son of Elen had ben emperors in Rome, and they were two men of this Island. And then Arthur mustered the most select warriors of his kingdom (and led them) across the sea against the emperor. And they met beyond the mountain of Mynneu (= the Alps), and an untold number was slain on each side that day. And in the end Arthur encountered the emperor, and Arthur slew him. And Arthur’s best men were slain there. When Medrawd heard that Arthur’s host was dispersed, he turned against Arthur, and the Saxons and the Picts and the Scots united with him to hold this island against Arthur. And when Arthur heard that, he truned back with all that had survived of his army, and succeeding in landing on this Island in opposition to Medrawd. And then there took place the Battle of Camlan between Arthur and Medrawd, and Arthur slew Medrawd, and was himself mortally wounded. And from that (wound) he died, and was buried in a hall on the Island of Afallach.[342]

Medrawd son of Llew, son of Cynvarch is regarded in the Welsh Triads as one of the “arrant traitors of the Isle of Britain”, and goes on to state:

[F]or when Arthur left the government of the Isle of Britain in his custody, whilst he marched against the Roman emperor, Medrawd took the crown from Arthur by usurpation and seduction; and in order to keep it, he confederated with the Saxons; and, on this account, the Cambrians lost the crown of Lloegria and the sovereignty of the Isle of Britain.[343]

Whether Medraut was an ally of Arthur, as seemingly portrayed in the earlier Welsh sources, or whether he was the most formidable enemy of Arthur, as portrayed in the later Norman sources, is unclear, but at the very least he fought at Camlann.

Camlann: The Final Battle

AD 537: The Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell, and there was death in Britain and Ireland.[344]

– The Annals of Wales

After years of prosperity, the Britons of the north eventually degenerated into a civil war. Separate British factions opposed each other, leading to the battle of Camlann, at which only Arthur and Medrawd are named as battle commanders.

Outcome

The battle apparently did not bode well for either side of the conflict. The loss of life at Camlann was likely significant, with The 9^th/10^th century Welsh poem “Stanzas of the Graves” mentions another warrior killed during the battle:

The grave of the son of Osfran is in Camlan.[345]

According to the “Annals of Wales,” both Arthur and Medraut fell in battle. Camlann may have also been the conflict in which one – or several – of Arthur’s sons were slain.

The Welsh poem “The Death of Duran son of Arthur” suggests that Arthur’s son Duran was killed at the battle of Camlann since he appears in connection with Saint Bryd, one of the survivors of Camlann mentioned in the poem “Culhwch and Olwen”:

Sandde Bryd Angel drive the crow

Off the face of ?Duran [son of Arthur].

Dearly and belovedly his mother raised him.

Arthur sang it.[346]

At Camlann or perhaps another battle, one of Arthur’s warriors, Gwyn son of Nudd, also describes seeing Arthur’s son Llachau fall in battle:

I was there when Llachau was slain
Arthur’s son, wondrous in wordcraft,
When ravens croaked on gore.[347]

Arthur’s son Amr, or Amhar, also meets an untimely death. The “Wonders of Britain” section of The “History of the Britons” states:

There is another wonder in the region which is called Ercing. A tomb is located there next to a spring which is called Licat Amr; and the name of the man who is buried in the tomb was called thus: Amr. He was the son of Arthur the soldier, and Arthur himself killed and buried him in that very place. And men come to measure the grave and find it sometimes six feet in length, sometimes nine, sometimes twelve, sometimes fifteen. At whatever length you might measure it at one time, a second time you will not find it to have the same length—and I myself have put this to the test.

At Camlann or another conflict, Arthur’s brother Madawg was killed, but the circumstances of this are unknown. The Welsh poem from The Black Book of Carmarthen states:

Madawg, the joy of the wall,

Madawg, before he was in the grave,

Was a fortress of abundance

Of games, of society.

The son of Uthyr before he was slain,

From his hand he pledged thee.[348]

The reference to “the wall” almost certainly refers to one of the northern walls built by the Romans – most probably Hadrian’s Wall or possibly the Antonine Wall.

At some point – either at the Battle of Camlann or earlier – one of the British warriors of Arthur named Gwyddawg son of Menestyr slew Kai, who was avenged by Arthur, who slew Gwyddawg and his brothers as stated in the Welsh poem “Culhwch and Olwen.”[349] The Triad on the “Three Faithless War-Bands of the Islands of Britain” describes a lord who was deserted by his warriors enroute to Camlan, stating “the war-band of Alan Fyrgan, who turned away from him by night, and let him go with his servants (subordinates) to Camlan. And there he was slain.”[350] The 12^th century Welsh text Culhwch and Olwen names three renowned survivors from the Battle of Camlann: Morvran the son of Tegid, Saint Bryd, and Saint Kynwyl, “the third man that escaped from the battle of Camlan, and he was the last who parted from Arthur on Hengroen his horse.”[351]

The events at Camlann destroyed the British alliance and weakened them to become vulnerable to the advances of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Bernicia. The Battle of Camlann was a tragic tale to recall by the later Welsh. In the Gwentian Code, a law book for the county of Gwent in medieval Wales, it states:

When the queen shall will a song in the chamber, let the bard sing a song respecting Camlan, and that not loud, lest the hall be disturbed.[352]

Location

W. F. Skene conjectured the site of the battle as being the Roman fort of Camelon, located about a mile to the north of which was in close proximity to the Antonine Wall. This is supported by the fact that Camlann is the name in Gaelic of the Roman fort Camelon:

In 537, twenty-one years after, the Chronicle of 977 records, ‘Gweith camlan in qua Arthur et Medraut coruere;’ the battle of Camlan in which Arthur and Medraut perished. This is the celebrated battle of Camlan, which figures so largely in the Arthurian romance, where Arthur was said to have been mortally wounded and carried to Avalon, that mysterious place; but here he is simply recorded as having been killed in battle. It is surprising that historians should have endeavored to place this battle in the south, as the same traditions which encircle it with so many fables, indicate very clearly who his antagonists were. Medraut or Mordred was the son of that Llew to whom Arthur is said to have given Lothian, and who, as Lothus, King of the Picts, is invariably connected with that part of Scotland. His forces were Saxons, Picts, and Scots, the very races Arthur is said to have conquered in his Scottish campaigns. If it is to be viewed as a real battle at all, it assumes the appearance of an insurrection of the population of these conquered districts, under Medraut, the son of that Llew to whom one of them was given, and there we must look for its site. On the south bank of the Carron, in the heart of these districts, are remains which have always been regarded as those of an important Roman town, and to this the name of Camelon has long been attached. It has stronger claims than any other to be regarded as the Camlan where Arthur encountered Medraut, with his Picts, Scots, and Saxons, and perished; and its claims are strengthened by the former existence of another ancient building on the opposite side of the river – that singular monument, mentioned as far back as 1293 by the name of ‘Furnus Arthuri,’ and subsequently known by that of Arthur’s O’n.[353]

However, historian Alexander Gibbs suggested that Camelon may not be the original name of this camp:

Carmore or Carmure, the earliest known and proper name of the Roman camp and station near Falkirk.[354]

Alternatively, a 1793 map shows the ruins of Camelon as a separate and distinct site adjacent to Carmuir. Perhaps Camelon and Carmuir were two different but immediately adjacent sites. Geoffrey of Monmouth places Camlann on the Camel River in Cornwall. Wace follows this as well, as does Layamon who places it in Camelford. But the most probably location for this is at the Roman fort of Camelon.

The Aftermath of Camlann

Consistent with the migrations of the British peoples from the Hun Ogledd (“the Old North”) to the establishment of the kingdom of Gwynedd in northern Wales by Cunedda.

Reconquered northern Wales from the Gaels. In his “Chronicle of the Kings of England,” the 12^th century English historian, William of Malmesbury (1095-1143) claims the discovery of the tomb of Walwin (Gawain, also called Gwalchmai), the nephew of Arthur during the reign of William the Conqueror (William I of England) 1066-1087 in the province of Ros (Rhos) in Wales:

In a province of Wales, called Ros, was found the sepulcher of Walwin, the noble nephew of Arthur; he reigned, a most renowned knigh, in that part of Britain which is still named Walwerth; but was driven from his kingdom by the brother and nephew of Hengist…though not without first making them pay dearly for his expulsion. He deservedly shared, with his uncle, the praise of retarding, for many years, the calamity of his failing country…[T]he tomb…was found in the time of king William, on the sea-coast, fourteen feet long: there, as some relate, he was wounded by his enemies, and suffered shipwreck; others say, he was killed by his subjects at a public entertainment. The truth consequently is doubtful; though neither of these men was inferior to the reputation they have acquired.[355]

According to the text, Walwin ruled a land that came to be known as Walwerth or Walweitha (Galloway) but was driven from his kingdom by the brother and nephew of Hengest, presumably referring to Hengest’s son Octa and his brother Ebusa, as named in the “History of the Britons.” The Stanzas of the Graves from the Black Book of Carmarthen places Gwalchmai’s grave at an unknown location:

The grave of Gwalchmai is in Peryddon,

Where the ninth wave flows:

A village named “Gwalchmai” in northern Wales on Angsley is no doubt named after Arthur’s nephew. The Stanzas of the Graves also mentions the final resting place of the mighty warrior Bedwyr at Tryfan in northern Wales:

After many a slaughter

The grave of Bedwyr is in

Gallt Tryvan.

Bedwyr seems to be one of the few Arthurian heroes of which no violent end is mentioned.

Of Arthur, the British historian Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson states:

He was still vividly remembered towards the end of the sixth century, when boys were named after him and heroes compared to him. His deeds were told in the traditional Welsh oral literature, and at some time in the next two centuries may have been briefly related in a panegyric poem by an antiquarian who had heard that he won twelve victories…[356]

The Legend of Arthur

The King Who Never Died

Although the “Annals of Wales” states that Arthur fell at the battle of Camlann, other beliefs about Arthur’s fate spread. A curious early tradition among the Britons is the widespread belief that Arthur never died, and that he would someday return to aid his people when they were once again in peril. This belief is attested in several sources. The “Stanzas of the Graves” (Englynion y Beddau) from the “Black Book of Carmarthen” lists the graves of numerous British heroes and some of their locations. Part of verse XLIV states:

The grave of March, the grave of Gwythur;
The grave of Gwgawn Gleddyvrudd
A mystery to the world, the grave of Arthur.[357]

The 12^th century English historian William of Malmesbury writes:

The sepulchre of Arthur is no where to be seen, whence ancient ballads fable that he is still to come.[358]

Hermann of Tournai, a 12^th century Abbott from Belgium toured France and England with relics to obtain funds for the rebuilding of Laon Cathedral in France, which had been destroyed by fire. While traveling to Devon and Cornwall in 1146 he recounts an unusual experience:

Then we came from Exeter into the area which is called Dumnonium [Devon and Cornwall], where people showed us the chair and overn of King Arthur, famous in the stories of the Britons, and they said that this had been Arthur’s land…In the town which is called Bodmin…

There was a certain man with a withered hand, who was keeping watch beside the shrine, hoping to recover his health. However, just as the Bretons are accustomed to quarrel with the French about King Arthur, so this man began to dispute with one of our household, called little Hagan, who was from the household of Guy, archdeacon of Laon, saying that Arthur was still alive. From this argument arose a great uproar; many people rushed into the church with weapons and, if Algard the cleric had not intervened, it would probably have resulted in bloodshed. We believe that God was displeased with the riot beside his shrine, for the man with the withered hand, who caused the disturbance over Arthur, did not recover his health.

The French poet Alain de Lille writes in his English Prophecies of Merlin Ambrosius (ca. 1167-1183):

Arthur’s fate will be uncertain. It is indeed true that today there are various opinions among men about his life and death. If, however, you should doubt me, visit the kingdom of Armorica (that is, Lesser Britain [Brittany]) and proclaim through the streets and villages that Arthur the Briton died just as other men die. Then, certainly, you will discover the truth of that prophecy of Merlin which says that Arthur’s fate will be in doubt since, even should you manage to escape unharmed from that place, you will be either overwhelmed by the curses of those who hear you, or pelted with stones.” P. 516

The 13th century Norman chronicler Robert of Gloucester also mentions the tradition that Arthur never died.[359] The prior sources suggest this tradition was firmly rooted among the Bretons and the Welsh by the 12^th century, as observed by Norman and French writers.

Other stories add the detail that Arthur was taken to the Isle of Avalon to be healed of his wounds. The 12^th century Norman poet Wace writes in his “Roman de Brut”.

So the chronicle speaks sooth, Arthur himself was wounded in his body to the death. He caused him to be borne to Avalon for the searching of his hurts. He is yet in Avalon, awaited by the Britons; for as they say and deem he will return from whence he went and live again. Master Wace, the writer of this book, cannot add more to this said of Arthur – if I read aright – that his end should be hidden in doubtfulness. The prophet spoke truly. Men have ever doubted, and – as I am persuaded – will always doubt whether he liveth or is dead. (Wace, Roman de Brut) p. 143

Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his 12^th century History of the Kings of Britain, writes:

And even the renowned king Arthur himself was mortally wounded; and being carried thence to the isle of Avallon to be cured of his wounds, he gave up the crown of Britain to his kinsman Constantine…[360]

The 12^th century English poet Layamon writes in his “Brut”:

And yet said him Merlin more that was to come, that all that he looked on to his feet to him should bow. The yet said him Merlin, a marvel that was greater, that there should be immoderate care (sorrow) at this king’s departure. And of this king’s end will no Briton believe it, except it be the last death, at the great doom, when our Lord judgeth all folk. Else we cannot deem of Arthur’s death, for he himself said to his good Britons, south in Cornwall, where Walwain was slain, and himself was wounded wondrously much, that he would fare into Avalon, into the island, to Argante the fair, for she would with balm heal his wounds,—and when he were all whole, he would soon come to them. This believed the Britons, that he will thus come, and look ever when he shall come to his land, as he promised them, ere he hence went.

Arthur was wounded wondrously much. There came to him a lad, who was of his kindred; he was Cador’s son, the Earl of Cornwall; Constantine the lad hight, he was dear to the king. Arthur looked on him, where he lay on the ground, and said these words, with sorrowful heart: “Constantine, thou art welcome; thou wert Cador’s son. I give thee here my kingdom, and defend thou my Britons ever in thy life, and maintain them all the laws that have stood in my days, and all the good laws that in Uther’s days stood. And I will fare to Avalun, to the fairest of all maidens, to Argante the queen, an elf most fair, and she shall make my wounds all sound; make me all whole with healing draughts. And afterwards I will come again to my kingdom, and dwell with the Britons with mickle joy.”

Even with the words there approached from the sea that was a short boat, floating with the waves; and two women therein, wondrously formed; and they took Arthur anon, and bare him quickly, and laid him softly down, and forth they gan depart.

Then was it accomplished that Merlin whilom said, that mickle care should be of Arthur’s departure. The Britons believe yet that he is alive, and dwelleth in Avalun with the fairest of all elves; and the Britons ever yet expect when Arthur shall return. Was never the man born, of ever any lady chosen, that knoweth of the sooth, to say more of Arthur. But whilom was a sage hight Merlin; he said with words—his sayings were sooth—that an Arthur should yet come to help the English.[361]

The Life of Merlin (Vita Merlini) by Geoffrey of Monmouth also describes Merlin taking the wounded Arthur to Avalan, “the island of apples”, or “The Fortunate Isle,” and committing him into the care of a mysterious woman named Morgen and her eight sisters:

Thither after the battle of Camlan we took the wounded Arthur, guided by Barinthus to whom the waters and the stars of heaven were well known. With him steering the ship we arrived there with the prince, and Morgen received us with fitting honour, and in her chamber she placed the king on a golden bed and with her own hand she uncovered his honourable wound and gazed at it for a long time. At length she said that health could be restored to him if he stayed with her for a long time and made use of her healing art. Rejoicing, therefore, we entrusted the king to her and returning spread our sails to the favouring winds.”[362]

The 13^th century Gervaise of Tilbury in his “Imperial Leisure,” ca. 1211, writes:

Arthur was mortally wounded, although he had destroyed all his enemies. After this, according to a popular British tradition, he was carried off to the Isle of Avalon to be healed of his wounds, which break open again every year, by Morgan the fairy’s restorative cure. The British foolishly believe that he will return to his kingdom after a period of time.

Claims from Glastonbury

Amidst the frenzied fascination with Arthur among Norman and French writers, Ralph of Coggeshall in his “English Chronicle” (1187-1224) wrote the sensational news that in AD 1191 the grave of Arthur was “discovered” by monks at Glastonbury Abbey:

AD 1191 In this year were found at Glastonbury the bones of the most famous Arthur, formerly king of Britain, in an extremely old sarcophagus, in the vicinity of which were placed two ancient pyramids on which there were engraved certain letters, but, because of their barbarous character and worn state, they could not be read. These things were found for the following reason: for when people were digging the earth to bury a certain monk who had had a strong desire to be buried in this place during his lifetime, they found this coffin, over which was placed a lead cross, upon where were engraved the following words: ‘Here lies the famous King Arthur, buried in the Isle of Avalon.’ This place had formerly been surrounded by marshes, and was called the Island of Avalon, that is ‘Island of Apples.’

Gerald of Wales claims the same in his “Instruction of a Prince” ca. AD 1193-9 and “Mirror of the Church” in AD 1216, as well as the 13^th century Adam of Domerham in his “History of the Affairs of Glastonbury.” If these claims didn’t already seem dubious at best, their legitimacy was challenged by a study led by Roberta Gilchrist from the University of Reading. An article from The Guardian in 2015 notes:

The monks’ greatest ingenuity came after a disastrous fire in 1184 which left them the problem of rebuilding with few resources and no major relics to attract pilgrims. The solution was the increasingly popular legend of King Arthur, creator of the Knights of the Round Table, the identification of Glastonbury as the legendary isle of Avalon where he was buried, and the supposed discovery of the grave of Arthur and Guinevere – together with a helpful lead cross with a Latin inscription naming the king. The cross has been lost for centuries, but Gilchrist says that images suggest it was a careful piece of fakery based on an Anglo-Saxon original.

When the church was rebuilt, she says, it was in a consciously old-fashioned style, giving the impression of a much older building.

“With the other legends there is a possibility of genuine belief or misunderstanding, but with Arthur and Guinevere I’m afraid there can be no question – the monks just made them up.”[363]

It is especially noteworthy that this “discovery” of the grave of Arthur came about 150 years after the Norman invasion of Wales and during a time when the belief that Arthur still lived was widespread among the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons. Perhaps this fraudulent claim at Glastonbury Abbey was also an attempt to put to rest the traditional belief that Arthur never died.

The Continuing Legend

Despite the claims from Glastonbury, many people continued to believe that Arthur never died and would return to save his people. During the 13^th century there appears to have been an obsession with Arthur “sightings” in Britain and Brittany, and even as far afield as Italy. Gervase of Tilbury in his “Imperial Leisure” ca. 1211 claims contemporary sightings of Arthur in Sicily at Mount Etna. He also claims:

Indeed, as I have heard from local accounts which provide evidence that he is still alive, there are many records of sightings and fabulous stories reported. Similar stories are also told of the woods of both Greater and Lesser Britain, according to the accounts of guards, called ‘foresters’ by the common people, who protect the royal animals. On certain days at about noon, and in the first silence of night, at the time of the full moon, frequently a large group of knights is seen hunting with dogs, and hunting horns are heard; the foresters swear that these are the followers and household of Arthur.

Caesarius of Heisterbach in his “Dialogue of Miracles” ca. 1240 relates a story in which an old man invites someone to Arthur’s court at Mount Gyber in Sicily. And Etienne de Bourbon in his “Treatise on Various Prophetic Matters” ca. 1251-1260 states a belief that demons who turn into knights hunting at night, who when encountered claim to belong to Arthur’s household.

After the conquest of the Principality of Wales in 1283 by the English king Edward I, the alleged bones of Arthur were exhumed, and the crown of Arthur was presented to Edward as a symbol of the supremacy of England over Wales as recounted in the Waverly Annals ca. 1278-84:

In 1283 the crown of the famous King Arthur, which had been kept by the English for a long time in great honour, together with other precious jewels, was presented to our lord the king [Edward I]; and thus the spoils of the Welsh were transferred, albeit unwillingly, to the English.

This act marked the appropriation of Arthur, the hero of the previously unconquered Britons – the Welsh, Cornish, and Bretons, as the hero of the English. This act also granted legitimacy to the claims from Glastonbury that Arthur was dead, and many no longer believed in a king who never died.

Centuries later, Sir Thomas Malory writes of the enduring tradition of Arthur’s deathlessness at the end of his book “Le Mort D’arthur”:

“Thus of Arthur I find no more written in books that be authorized, nor more of the very certainty of his death I never read…”

“Now more of the death of King Arthur could I never find…”

“Yet some men say in many parts of England that King Arthur is not dead, but had by the will of Our Lord Jesu into another place; and men say that he will come again, and he shall win the Holy Cross. Yet I will not say that it shall be so; but rather I would say, here in this world he changed his life. But many men say that there is written upon the tomb this:

“Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.”[364]

The translation of the final line is “Here lies Arthur, the once and future king.”

Eugene Mason, in an excursus in his translation of “Roman de Brut” by Wace, astutely notes:

The belief that Arthur would return to earth, which was firmly established among the Britons by the beginning of the twelfth century, does not in early records appear clothed in any definite narrative form. In later sources it assumes several phases, the most common of which is that recorded by Layamon that Arthur had been taken by fays from his final battle-field to Avalon, the Celtic otherworld, whence after the healing of his mortal wound he would return to earth. Layamon’s story conforms essentially to an early type of Celtic fairy-mistress story, according to which a valorous hero, in response to the summons of a fay who has set her love upon him, under the guidance of a fairy messenger sails over seas to the otherworld, where he remains for an indefinite time in happiness, oblivious of earth. It is easy to see that the belief that Arthur was still living, though not in this world, might gradually take shape in such a form as this, and that his absence from his country might be interpreted as his prolonged sojourn in the distant land of a fairy queen, who was proffering him, not the delights of her love, but healing for his wounds, in order that when he was made whole again he might return “to help the Britons.” Historic, mythical, and romantic tradition have combined to produce the version that Layamon records. Geoffrey of Monmouth (xi. 2), writing in the mock role of serious historian and with a tendency to rationalisation, says not a word of the wounded king’s possible return to earth. Wace, with characteristic caution, affirms that he will not commit himself as to whether the Britons, who say that Arthur is still in Avalon, speak the truth or not. Here, as in the story of the Round Table, it is Layamon who has preserved for us what was undoubtedly the form that the belief had already assumed in Celtic story, through whatever medium it may have passed before it reached his hands.[365]

Epilogue

The stories of Arthur that originated among the Britons spread across the European continent through the influence of the Normans, who introduced their own themes and embellishments. But a look at the historical, linguistic, and geographical evidence, however fragmentary, from the earliest sources outweighs the claims against his existence. The British patriot who led a successful resistance against marauders in northern Britain became a legend and source of inspiration throughout the Brittonic lands for centuries to come.

The evidence may not definitively “prove” that Arthur was a historical figure – but they do suggest that a battle commander named Arthur probably did exist in northern Britain during the late 5^th and early 6^th centuries. The evidence for the existence of Arthur outweigh the claims against his existence. And if he did exist, he may very well have been a devout Christian who not only defended the Britons with the force of arms, but whose faith in Jesus Christ to overcome their enemies served as an inspiration for his people and for those that came after. It could even even be possible that he was a king of an obscure kingdom in the north.

The battles of Arthur as recorded in the “History of the Britons” and the early Welsh poems point to sites in northern Britain, some whose names have been preserved, while others have been lost in foreign conquests and through the passage of time. And while some of the legends appear in earlier sources, others are only mentioned with the Norman and French writers who in many instances introduced their own culture and faith to the Arthurian stories. The original story of the hero of the Britons remains only fragmentary, although many traditions certainly survived. The greatest hero of the darkest age of Britain continues to intrigue people around the world from a time when history mingles with myth. The legend claims that Arthur never died, and indeed, he never did. The public fascination with the legend of Arthur continues today as it has in centuries before, and future generations will continue to find inspiration from the stories of King Arthur.

END

Bibliography

Jackson, Kenneth H. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. Oxford: University Press, 1979.

Skene, W. F. “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” Edited by Derek Bryce. Felinfach: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988.

Frere, Sheppard. “Britannia: A History of Roman Britain.” London, Henley and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1978.

Bede. “Ecclesiastical History of the English People.” Translated by Leo Sherley-Price. London: Penguin Classics, 1990.

Gildas. “On the Ruin of Britain (De Excidio Britanniae).” Translated and edited by J. A. Giles, 1891. Reprint, Dodo Press, 2010.

Gildas. “De Excidio Britanniae; Or, the Ruin of Britain.” Translated by Hugh Alders Williams. City: Dodo Press, 2010.

De Boron, Robert. “Merlin and the Grail: Joseph of Arimathea, Merlin, Perceval: The Trilogy of Arthurian Romances attributed to Robert de Boron.” Translated by Nigel Bryant. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2001.

“Saint Efflam: Texte de sa vie Latine Ancienne et Inedite,” edited by Arthur de La Borderie. (Rennes: J. Plihon and L. Herve, 1892). Reprint, Rennes: Hachette Livre-BNF, 2018.

“The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle – Illustrated and Annotated.” Translated by James Ingram and J. A. Giles. London: Everyman Press, 1912). Reprint, edited by Bob Carruthers. Arden: Coda Books Ltd., 2012.

Caradoc of Llancarfan. “Two Lives of Gildas.” Translated by Hugh Williams. Cymmrodorion Record Series, 1899. Felinfach: Llanerch Enterprises, 1990.

“Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. City: University of Wales Press, 2006.

Saint Patrick. “The Confession of Saint Patrick, Epistle to the Soldiers of Coroticus & The Tripartite Life.” Milton Keynes: Aziloth Books, 2012.

Sulpicius Severus, Paulinus the Deacon, Possidius Bishop of Calama, Hilary Bishop of Arles, & Constantius of Lyons. “The Western Fathers Being the Lives of Martin of Tours, Ambrose, Augustine of Hippo, Honoratus of Arles and Germanus of Auxerre.” Edited by F. R. Hoare. City: Harper Torchbooks, 1965.

“William of Malmesbury’s Chronicle of the Kings of England,” edited by J. A. Giles. (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1847). Reprinted, Charleston: BiblioBazaar LLC., 2008.

Tacitus. “Agricola and Germania.” Edited by James Rives and Translated by Harold Mattingly. City: Penguin Classics, 2010.

“King Arthur in Legend and History.” Edited by Richard White. London: J. M. Dent, 1997.

“Domesday Book: A Complete Translation.” Edited by Martin, G. H. and Williams, Ann. City: Penguin Classics, 2004.

Sir Thomas Malory. “Le Morte Darthur: The Winchester Manuscript.” Edited by Helen Cooper. City: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Wace. “Arthurian Chronicles: Roman de Brut.” Translated by Eugene Mason. Charleston: BiblioBazaar, 2007.

Geoffrey of Monmouth. “The History of the Kings of Britain.” Edited by Michael D. Reeve and Translated by Neil Wright. City: BOYE6, 2009.

Geoffrey of Monmouth. “The History of the Kings of Britain.” Translated by Lewis Thorpe. City: Penguin Classics, 1977.

Nennius. “The History of the Britons: Historia Brittonum.” Translated by J. A. Giles. Reprint, Forgotten Books, 2008.

“The Life of Merlin, Vita Merlini.” Forgotten Books, 2008.

Matasovic, Ranko. Addenda et corrigenda to Ranko Matasovic’s “Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Brill, Leiden 2009).” Zagreb, 2011.

Koch, John Thomas. “The Gododdin of Aneirin: Text and Context from Dark-Age North Britain.” Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1997.

Anscombe, Alfred. “Local Names in the ‘Arthuriana’ in the ‘Historia Britonum.’ Zeitschrift Fur Celtische Philologie, Vol. 5, 1905.

Jackson, Kenneth. “Language and History in Early Britain.” Edinburgh University Press, 1963. Pp. 211-212.

Stenton, Frank. “Anglo-Saxon England,” 3^rd ed. Oxford: University Press, 1971.

“Annales Cambriae,” edited by John Williams. (London: Longman, Green, Longman, & Roberts, 1860). Reprint, 2018.

Lothian, James. “The Banks of the Forth: A Descriptive and Historical Sketch.” Palala Press, 2018.

Claudius Ptolemy. “Geography of Claudius Ptolemy.” Translated by Edward Luther Stevenson, et al. Cosimo Classics, 2011.

Adomnan of Iona. “Life of St. Columba.” Penguin Classics, 1995.

“Zeitschrift für celtische Philologie : Meyer, Kuno, 1858-1919,” Internet Archive, Accessed October 15, 2021. https://archive.org/details/zeitschriftfrc05meyeuoft/page/108/mode/2up

Alcock, Leslie. “Arthur’s Britain: History and Archaeology AD 367–634.” Bath: Penguin Books Ltd., 2001. P. 88.

Ardrey, Adam. “Finding Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend of the Once and Future King.” Abrams Press, 2013.

“Vortigern and the Pillar of Elised,” Vortigern Studies, Accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/pillartex.htm

“Vortigern in the Sources, Historia Brittonum by Nennius,” Vortigern Studies, Accessed October 14, 2021. http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm

“Layamon’s Brut,” Free eBooks, Accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14305/pg14305-images.html.

“The Death-song of Uther Pendragon,” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14305/pg14305-images.html

Fletcher, Robert Huntington (1906), “The Arthurian material in the chronicles”, Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature 10: 32–4, archived from the original (GOOGLE) on 2008-03-11

https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/goeznovius.html Ashe, Geoffrey, “The Landscape of King Arthur,” Anchor Press Doubleday, London, 1985, p.103

The New Arthurian Encyclopedia: New Edition. Ashe, Geoffrey, et. Al. https://books.google.com/books?id=7Yu0AAAAQBAJ&pg=PT421&lpg=PT421&dq=legenda+Sancti+Goeznovii&source=bl&ots=I8oz6vdJu_&sig=ACfU3U25eY3FGXD_sPkTneLXovsZBzeK7g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjTrIqr2fjoAhWKtJ4KHUT_DGcQ6AEwCXoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=legenda%20Sancti%20Goeznovii&f=false

“The Life of Saint Cadog,” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/cadog.html

“The Life of St. Carannog,” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/carannog1.html

“Bulletin archéologique de l’Association bretonne,” Gallica, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2074644.image.f305.langFR

“Vita Sancti Paternus: The Life of St. Padarn.” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/padarn.html

“The Life of Gildas.” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/gildas06.html

“The Life of St. Illtud.” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 14, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/illtud.html

De Longuyon, Jacques. Voeux du Paon (Vows of the Peacock), 1312.

“Gereint and Enid.” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 14, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/gereint.html

“Culhwch ac Olwen.” Celtic Literature Collective, Accessed October 14, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch3.html

Carte, Thomas. A General History of England. 1747.

Delamarre, Xavier. Dictionnaire de la langue gauloise Errance, 2003 (2^nd ed.).

“The Topographical, Statistical, and Historical Gazetteer of Scotland.” https://archive.org/stream/topographicalsv11842scot/topographicalsv11842scot_djvu.txt

“Arthur and the Porter,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/bbc31.html

Gunn, William. Translation of the Historia Britonnum.

“Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru.” Accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.geiriadur.ac.uk/

“Jocelyn, a monk of Furness: The Life of Kentigern (Mungo).” Internet History Sourcebooks. Accessed October 14, 2021. https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/jocelyn-lifeofkentigern.asp

“Vita Merlini Silvestris : Winifred and John Macqueen.” Internet Archive. Accessed October 14, 2021. https://archive.org/details/Silvestris/mode/2up

“Lailoken A Llallogan : AOH Jarman.” Internet Archive. Accessed October 14, 2021. https://archive.org/details/LailokenALlallogan

“The Dream of Rhonabwy,” Translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/rhonabwy.html

“The Welsh Triads,” Translated by John Rhys and J. Gwenogyrvan Evan, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/triads1.html

“Culhwch ac Olwen,” Translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch.html

“The Death of Duran ap Arthur,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/duran.html

“The Stanzas of the Graves,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc19.html

“Arthur and Kaledvwlch,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/kaledvwlch.html

“Appletrees,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc17.html

“Didot Perceval,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/pd01.html

“The Dialogue of Myrddin and Taliesin,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc01.html

“Greetings,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc18.html

“The Birch Trees,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc16.html

“The Dialogue Between Myrddin and His Sister Gwenddydd,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/h01.html

“A Fugitive Poem of Myrddin in His Grave,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/h02.html

“Armes Prydein Vawr: The Prophecy of Prydein the Great,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 15, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/t06.html

Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, 1841. Peniarth 37. The Laws of Howel Dda. Book 1. XXXVII Section 7.

Gibb, Alexander (1904). The Stirling Antiquary: Reprinted from “The Stirling Sentinel,” 1888-[1906]. Stirling: Cook & Wylie. Pp. 349-365.

Ammianus Marcellinus, “The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus,” Vol. III. Loeb Classical Library Edition, 1939, p. 53.

Bruce, F. F. “The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?” Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Michigan. 6^th Edition, 1981, p. 11.

Breeze, Andrew. “Arthur’s Battles and the Volcanic Winter of 536-37,” Northern History 53.2 (2016): 161-72.

Woods, David. “Gildas and the Mystery Cloud of 536-7,” Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2010): 246-34.

[1] Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. University Press, Oxford. 1979. P. 1.

[2] Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. University Press, Oxford. 1979. P. 10.

[3] W. F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” P. 34

[4] Frere, Sheppard. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London. 1978. P. 427.

[5] Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. University Press, Oxford. 1979. Pp. 3-4.

[6] Roman de Brut.

[7] Chronicle of the Kings of England.

[8] Magnus Maximus, Gurthigern (Vortigern), Constantine, Aurelius Conanus, Vortipore, Cuneglasse, Maglocune.

[9] Leslie Alcock, quoting from Jackson, K. H. in Loomis, R. S., ed., Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages, Oxford, 1959, p. 3.

[10] Bede. Book V Chapter 23.

[11] P. 34

[12] History of the Britons.

[13] Britanny, France.

[14] Miathi/Maeatae.

[15] Adomnan, Life of St. Columba.

[16] Athrwys.

[17] Arthwyr. Another Arthur (Arthwyr), son of Petr (Peder) appears in the Welsh pedigrees as one of the rulers of the small British kingdom of Dyfed and a descendent of Magnus Maximus (Harleian 3859 and Jesus College MS 20). Likely named after King Arthur.

[18] Kestemont, Mike, et. Al. “Forgotten Books: The Application of Unseen Species Models to the Survival of Culture.” Science. Vol. 375 Issue 6582, 18 February 2022. The numbers cited here are from the average of the estimate ranges in the article.

[19] Bruce, F. F. “The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable?” Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, Michigan. 6^th Edition, 1981, p. 11.

[20] Tacitus.

[21] Gildas, etc.

[22] Tacitus

[23] Tacitus

[24] Scriptories Historiae Augustae, Vita Hadriani

[25] Cassius Dio, Roman History, Epitome of Book LXXIII

[26] Cassus Dio 74:4 & Historia Augusta

[27] Cassius Dio, History of Rome LXXV.v.4

[28] Herodian

[29] Cassius Dio, Epitome of Book 77

[30] Dio Cassius, Epitome of Book LXXVI Chapter 15

[31] Diocletian divided the Roman Empire in half. The Augustus ruled and the Caesar co-ruled.

[32] Aurelius Victor, Liber de Caesaribus, 39

[33] Notitia Dignitatum

[34] Eumenius, “Panegyrici, Latini” in 297 AD.

[35] Ammianus Marcellinus, “The Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus,” Vol. III. Loeb Classical Library Edition, 1939, p. 53.

[36] Gildas.

[37] Breuddwyd Macsen Wledig & Annales Cambriae & Old Welsh genealogies from Harleian MS. 3859 & Welsh Triad 35R. “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 82. Triad 35R.

[38] Claudian, Eutropium

[39] Byzantine historian Zosimus (490-510)

[40] Zosimus (490-510). Historia Nova, Book VI.5.2-3

[41] Zosimus Historia Nova, Book VI.5-6. Note: “The Rescript of Honorius”, a response from the Roman Emperor to pleas for help, is widely acknowledged as being directed to the Italian people of the city of Bruttium, but Zosimus mistakenly writes it as Britain, even though the letter of Honorius is talking about circumstances in southern Italy.

[42] Chronica Gallia a CCCCLII, Honorius, 16th year : (AD 409 or 410)

[43] Procopius

[44] Gildas.

[45] Confession. Letter to Coroticus.

[46] Gildas, “On the Ruin of Britain.”

[47] Appears as Guorthigirni, Guorthigirno, and Guorthigirnus in Gildas.

[48] Gildas.

[49] Gildas.

[50] Bede, “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” Book I, Chapter 15.

[51] History of the Britons.

[52] Gildas, “On the Ruin of Britain.”

[53] Bede, “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” Book I, Chapter 15.

[54] Bede, “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” Book I, Chapter 15.

[55] http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/pillartex.htm

[56] Ambrosio Aureliano.

[57] Gildas p. 18.

[58] Avita.

[59] Bede paraphrases this paragraph, including Gildas’ description of Ambrosius Aurelianus in Book I, Chapter 16.

[60] Latin: Ambrosius. Embreis guletic. http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquoteshb.htm

[61] “Little Britain”, so named for the Britons who settled there.

[62] Ranko Matasovic, “Addenda et Corrigenda to Ranko Matasovic’s ‘Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Brill, Leiden 2009).’” (Zagreb, 2011), p. 2.

[63] A reference to the slaughter.

[64] Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. University Press, Oxford. 1979. P. 3.

[65] Koch, John Thomas. “The Gododdin of Aneirin: Text and Context from Dark-Age North Britain.” University of Wales Press, Cardiff; Celtic Studies Publications, Andover, Massachusetts, 1997. Pp. 147-148.

[66] Dux bellorum.

[67] History of the Britons, Harley 3859 – Theodore Mommsen translation.

[68] “What Man is the Porter?” (Pa Gur yv y Porthaur)

[69] “The Death-song of Uther Pendragon,” Celtic Literature Collective, “The Book of Taliesin XLVIII” from “Four Ancient Books of Wales” by W. F. Skene, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/t48.html

[70] https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0314265 Footnote 225 “Teulu madawc mawrglod mur / Mal gawr toryf teulu Arthur” Myv. Arch. 44.

[71] Amerauder.

[72] “Geraint, son of Erbin”

[73] Skene, W.F. “Arthur and the Britons of Wales and Scotland.” P. 130.

[74] Historia Brittonum, Vatican Recension. MS Latin 1964

[75] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 1. Welsh Triad 1.

[76] http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14305/pg14305-images.html

[77] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 133. Triad 47b, Pen. 216.

[78] Skene, W. F. Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland, pp. 49-50.

[79] History of the Britons, p. 36.

[80] My translation.

[81] Interestingly, all the surviving manuscripts of the “History of the Britons” date from after the Norman conquest of Wales in 1066 AD.

[82] Nennii, “Historia Britonum,” Josephus Stevenson. (London: English Historical Society, 1838), p. 49

https://www.yorku.ca/inpar/nennius_giles.pdf

A later addition to the same manuscript states in the margin:

Wodale is a village in the province of Lodonesia, but now of the jurisdiction of the bishop of St. Andrew’s, of Scotland, six miles on the west of that heretofore noble and eminent monastery of Meilros.

K. adds, in the margin, regarding Arthur, ‘Artur Hierosolymam perrexit, et ibi crucem ad quantitatem salutiferae crucis fecit, et ibi consecrate est, et per tres continuos dies jejunavit, et vigilavit, et oravit, coram cruce Dominica, ut ei Deus victoriam daret per hoc signum de paganis; quod et factum est. Atque secum imaginem S. Mariae detulit, cujus fracturae adhue apud Wedale servantur in magna veneration.’ Then is added, by a later hand, ‘Wedale, Anglice; Vallis Doloris, Latine. Wedale villa es in provincial Lodonesiae, nunc vero juris episcopi S. Andreae Scotiae, sex miliaria ab occidental parte ab illo quondam nobili monasterio de Melros.’[82]

[83] Middle Welsh: scuit.

[84] (Fletcher, Robert Huntington (1906), “The Arthurian material in the chronicles”, Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature 10: 32–4, archived from the original (GOOGLE) on 2008-03-11)

[85] Fletcher, Robert Huntington. The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles Especially Those of Great Britain, pp. 32-33.

[86] “Ecclesiastical Literature,” British Saints, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/index_christian.html

[87] (B.F. Roberts, ‘Culhwch ac Olwen, the Triads, Saints’ Lives’ in R. Bromwich et al (edd.) The Arthur of the Welsh (Cardiff 1991), pp 73-95 at page 83). Green, Thomas. Arthuriana: Early Arthurian Tradition and the Origins of the Legend.

[88] “The Legend of Saint Goeznovius,” Geoffrey Ashe, “The Landscape of King Arthur,” Anchor Press Doubleday, London, 1985, p.103, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/goeznovius.html

[89] “The New Arthurian Encyclopedia: New Edition.” Ashe, Geoffrey, et. Al. Garland Publishing, 1986.

[90] “The Life of St. Cadog,” “Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogie, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/cadog.html

[91] “The Life of St. Cadog,” “Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogie,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/cadog.html

[92] “The Life of St. Carannog,” “Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogie,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/carannog1.html

[93] http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jshoaf/Efflam.html

[94] http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jshoaf/Efflam.html

[95] http://users.clas.ufl.edu/jshoaf/Efflam.html https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k2074644.image.f305.langFR

[96] “Vita Sancti Paternus: The Life of St. Padarn,” “Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogie,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/padarn.html

[97] Caradoc of Llancarfan. “Two Lives of Gildas.” Translated by Hugh Williams. Cymmrodorion Record Series, 1899. Felinfach: Llanerch Enterprises, 1990.

[98] “The Life of St. Illtud,” “Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et Genealogie,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/illtud.html

[99] De Longuyon, Jacques. Voeux du Paon (Vows of the Peacock), 1312.

[100] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 133. Welsh Triad 47b.

[101] Frere, Sheppard. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London. 1978. P. 373-374.

[102] “Head-Dragon” or “Chief Dragon.”

[103] Eigyr. The Welsh poem Pa Gur names “Mabon, the son of Modron, the servant of Uther Pendragon;” this same Mabon is also mentioned in the poem Culhwch and Olwen.

[104] “an intrepid warrior.”

[105] The name of his sister later appears as Anna.

[106] (The Death Song of Madawg “Marwnad Madawg” from the Book of Taliesin, “Arthur and the Eagle, Englynion y Beddau, Culhwch and Olwen, Bonedd y Saint) Madoc was killed by Erof.

[107] “Culhwch and Olwen,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch.html

[108] Llyr.

[109] Others include Bran “the Blessed”, Caradog (Caradog ap Bran), Eudaf Hen (Outham, Octavius), and Paternus “of the Scarlet Robe” from northern Britain.

[110] Her father is called Ogrfan Gawr. Bizarrely, three Gwenhwyfars are mentioned in one of the Welsh Triads, all as wives of Arthur: Gwenhwyfar daughter of (Cywryd) Gwent, and Gwenhwyfar daughter of Gwythyr son of Greidiawl, and Gwenhwyfar daughter of Gogfran the Giant.

“Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 161. Triad 56.

One of the Welsh Triads even claims Arthur had three concubines!

Indeg daughter of Garwy the Tall,

And Garwen (‘Fair Leg’) daughter of Henin the Old,

And Gwyl (‘Modest’) daughter of Gendawd (‘Big Jaws’?)

“Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 164. Triad 57.

[111] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), pp. 9, 234. Triads 4 & 91.

“Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), pp. 9, 234.

[112] The Death of Duran ap Arthur.

[113] Amhar. From The History of the Britons and Geraint and Enide.

[114] From Culhwch and Olwen.

[115] Cydfan.

[116] Culhwch and Olwen, Bonedd yr Arwyr.

[117] Bonedd yr Arwyr – Hanesyn Hen Pedigree.

[118] “Culhwch and Olwen,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch.html

“See T. Green, Concepts of Arthur (Stroud: Tempus, 2007), pp.151–5; R. Bromwich and D. Simon Evans, Culhwch and Olwen. An Edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1992), pp.76–7, 107-08 — the latter note that the sons of Iaen appear to have been kinsmen of Arthur on their father’s side, not Arthur’s father’s side, i.e. they were Arthur’s in-laws via their sister.”

[119] Ymddiddan Gwayddno Garanhir ac Gwyn fab Nudd.

[120] Welsh Triad 4. “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), pp. 9.

[121] Welsh Triad 91. “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 234.

[122] “The Death of Duran ap Arthur,” Mostyn 131 and “Early Welsh Sage Poetry: A Study and Edition of the Englynion” by J. Rowland, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/duran.html

[123] “Gereint and Enid,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/gereint.html

[124] “Culhwch and Olwen,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch3.html

[125] Goreu is named as Arthur’s cousin in the Welsh Triads, number 52:

And one (Prisoner) was more exalted than the three of them, he was three nights in prison in Caer Oeth and Anoeth, and three nights imprisoned by Gwen Pendragon, and three nights in an enchanted prison under the Rock of Echeifyeint. This Exalted Prisoner was Arthur. And the same lad released him from each of these three prisons: (that lad was) Goreu, son of Custennin, his cousin.

“Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 146. Triad 52.

[126] Gawain.

[127] Other more distant relatives in the Welsh texts include St David of Wales, King Maelgwn of Gwynedd, and Geraint son of Erbin, the hero of the south.

[128] https://www.ccsna.org/origins-of-the-campbells

https://www.1467manuscript.co.uk/kindred%2015.html

https://www.1467manuscript.co.uk/transcript%20all%20recto.html

[129] “Arthur and the Porter,” Celtic Literature Collective, “The Black Book of Carmarthen XXXI from “The Four Ancient Books of Wales” by W. F. Skene, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/bbc31.html

[130] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 41. Triad 21.

[131] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 111. Triad 42.

[132] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 127. Welsh Triad 46A.

[133] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 17. Triad 9.

[134] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 181. Triad 65.

[135] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 228. Triad 87.

[136] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 230. Triad 88.

[137] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 238. Triad 93.

[138] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 207. Triad 77.

[139] “Culhwch and Olwen,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch3.html

[140] “Culhwch and Olwen,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch3.html

[141] As suggested by the 19^th Century Scottish antiquarian, W.F. Skene in his “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.”

[142] Trioedd Ynys Prydein, 3^rd edition, p. 282.

[143] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 223. Triad 85.

[144] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 1. Triad 1.

[145] Owen, Robert. “The Kymry: Their Origin, History, and International Relations.”

[146] Yr Hen Ogledd

[147] History of the Britons.

[148] Bonhed Gwyr y Gogled Yw Hyn

From Peniarirth 45, 291-2. Book p. 256.

[149] A un jor d’une Acenssion / Fu venuz de vers Carlion / Li rois Artus et tenu ot / Cort molt riche a Camaalot, / Si riche com au jor estut.

[150] https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/GCMS/RMS-1991-01_L._D._Wolfgang,_Chretien’s_Lancelot_Love_and_Philology.pdf pp. 11-12, 15.

[151] Skene, W. F. Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland. P. 45.

[152] W.F. Skene proposes Arthur was a “man of the north.” (Skene 1868)

[153] Skene, W. F. p. 35

[154] Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press, 1979. P. 10.

[155] Thomas Carte, “A General History of England,” Vol. 1. (London: 1747), p. 205.

[156] Descendants of the Votadini tribe of Ptolemy’s time.

[157] Bede, “Ecclesiastical History of the English People,” Translated by Leo Sherley-Price. (Penguin Classics, 1991).

[158] At the Battle of Haethfelth, AD 633.

[159] https://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk/

[160] William F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” (Somerset: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988), p. 35.

[161] William F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” (Somerset: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988), p. 36.

[162] Claudius Ptolemy, “Geography of Claudius Ptolemy,” Translated by Edward Luther Stevenson, et al. (Cosimo Classics, 2011).

[163] Xavier Delamarre, “Dictionnaire de la Langue Gauloise Errance,” 2003 (2^nd ed.), p. 203.

The Modern Welsh word for lake is llyn.

[164] Beinn Artair in Scottish Gaelic.

[165] According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, Arthur battled an invasion force consisting of Irish and Picts and defeated them in successive battles at the River Douglas.

He also states that the Britons were besieged at Dumbarton by an army of Irish and Picts until the coming of Arthur with an army of Britons relieved the siege. This is also stated by Sir Thomas Grey in his “Scalacronica”, who states that Arthur left his nephew Hoel sick “at Alcluit in Scotland” before the Irish and Picts besieged it.

[166] “The Topographical, Statistical, and Historical Gazetteer of Scotland,” Vol. 1. (Glasgow: A. Fullarton & Co., 1842), pp. 66-67. https://archive.org/stream/topographicalsv11842scot/topographicalsv11842scot_djvu.txt p. 67

[167] Ystrad Clud “Valley of the River Clyde” in Cumbric, later called Strathclyde (Srath Chluaidh in Gaelic)

[168] Saint Patrick. “The Confession of Saint Patrick with the Tripartite Life and Epistle to the Soldiers of Coroticus.” (Aziloth Books, 2012).

[169] Adomnan of Iona. “Life of St. Columba.” Penguin Classics, 1995.

[170] Annals of Ulster; A D Lacaille 1929; J Pinkerton nd.; W F Skene 1886-90.

[171] E B Rennie, 1996.

[172] Years after the British northern alliance had self-destructed in civil war, the Irish more fully established the kingdom of Dal Riata in this region of western Scotland and introduced the Gaelic language to the Scottish highlands. The kingdom of Strathclyde endured until Vikings sacked Alt Clut during the 9^th Century AD (Strathclyde in AD 870).

[173] 1367 AD.

[174] George Chalmers, Caledonia.

[175] Aka St Mungo, who also has Arthurian connections through King Loth.

[176] Lindum Colonia (Lincoln).

[177] Clydesdale.

[178] Leyland.

[179] The River Aln was called the River Alaunos by Ptolemy, Geography.

[180] Canu Llywarch Hen XI.46, Red Book of Hergest “Eglwysseu Bassa”

[181] Domesday Book.

[182] Ca. 633 AD, p. 141.

[183] W.F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” (Somerset: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988), p. 36.

[184] Cat Coit Celidon in Old Welsh, Coed Celyddon in Middle Welsh.

[185] Tacitus, Pliny, Ptolemy, Lucan.

[186] Pliny the Elder IV.16, Tacitus)

[187] Tacitus.

[188] Ca. 122-128 AD.

[189] Ca. 142-154 AD.

[190] Ca. 164 AD.

[191] Dio Cassius, 208 AD.

[192] 23-79 AD.

[193] Leslie Alcock, “Arthur’s Britain.” (Penguin Books, 2002), p. 61.

[194] Merlinus.

[195] According to the Annals of Wales, the battle was fought in AD 573. See also The Life of Merlin.

[196] Culhwch and Olwen.

[197] Castell. Castell Collen, Castell Nedd, Castell Henllys, Hufenfa’r Castell, Castell Coch, Castell y Twr, Castell Pen y Coed, etc. Dun or Caer. Examples: Ca

[198] Anscombe, Alfred. “Local Names in the ‘Arthuriana’ in the ‘Historia Britonum.’ Zeitschrift Fur Celtische Philologie, Vol. 5, 1905. P. 109. https://archive.org/details/zeitschriftfrc05meyeuoft/page/108/mode/2up

[199] No “v” in Welsh, “gu” is equivalent to “w” or “v” – Uinouium = Guinnion. Other examples: Walwen = Gawain, Walweitha = Galloway. Other possible, but less probable meanings include the Old Welsh guiannuin, meaning “spring”, or the Middle Welsh gwynnyon or gwynion, meaning “white.” Etymological Glossary of Old Welsh.

[200] Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. (Oxford: University Press, 1979), p. 5.

[201] The Historia Brittonum uses the term urbe legionis to describe the battle site.

[202] Gildas lists each of these towns as one of the 28 civitates of Britain – Historia Brittonum says 28, 21, or 33, depending on the recension.

[203] Gildas – Legionum Urbis.

[204] It has been suggested that the story of St Alban is of dubious historicity.

[205] Gildas.

[206] 500-570 AD.

[207] Modern St. Albans.

[208] The Anglo-Saxons renamed it Verlamchester.

[209] Cair Ebrauc. Historia Brittonum. The Romans called it Eboracum.

[210] Previously the capital of Britannia Inferior.

[211] Londinium.

[212] 314 AD.

[213] Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 626 AD.

[214] Jackson, Kenneth. “Language and History in Early Britain.” Edinburgh University Press, 1963. Pp. 211-212.

[215] Frere, Sheppard. Britannia: A History of Roman Britain. Routledge & Kegan Paul. London. 1978. P. 426.

[216] Stenton, Frank. “Anglo-Saxon England.” Pp. 74-75.

[217] Frank Stenton, “Anglo-Saxon England,” 3^rd ed. (Oxford: University Press, 1971), p. 32.

[218] Frank Stenton, “Anglo-Saxon England,” 3^rd ed. (Oxford: University Press, 1971), p. 33.

[219] Urbs Ebrauc is mentioned elsewhere in the Annales Cambriae, AD 866.

[220] P. J. C. Field, “Gildas and the City of Legions,” The Heroic Age 1 (Spring/Summer 1999).

[221] Cair Legion.

[222] Urbis Legion (Legionum in B.C.)

[223] Ca. 601 AD.

[224] Bangor-is-y-Coed, Clwyd.

[225] Caer Legion.

[226] Ca. 613 AD. Recording this battle, Bede calls it civitatem legionum in Latin, which the Anglo-Saxons call Legacaestir (Chester), and the Britons call Carlegion.

[227] Bede.

[228] P. J. C. Field, “Gildas and the City of Legions,” The Heroic Age 1 (Spring/Summer 1999).

[229] The Vatican Recension, a later version of the Historia Brittonum, also includes the statement “…which is called Cair Lion”, suggesting Chester or Caerleon as the battle site, but this addendum/interpolation is not found in the earlier (Chartres or Harleian) recensions and may be a gloss reflecting the interpretation of a later scribe or monk.

[230] Historia Brittonum – Harleian 3859; uisc is misspelled usic.

[231] Libe Landavenis.

[232] Ca. AD 864.

[233] Cal Charter Rolls vol 2, 1257-1300, p. 362 Dugdale’s “Monasticon”, 12^th Century.

[234] Frwydr = battle.

[235] From Garw Llwyd, “Rough Gray”.

[236] “Arthur and the Porter,” Celtic Literature Collective, “The Black Book of Carmarthen XXXI from “The Four Ancient Books of Wales” by W. F. Skene, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/bbc31.html

[237] “Arthur and the Porter,” Celtic Literature Collective, “The Black Book of Carmarthen XXXI from “The Four Ancient Books of Wales” by W. F. Skene, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/bbc31.html

[238] Pp. 39-42.

[239] Lothian, James. The Banks of the Forth: A Descriptive and Historical Sketch.” P. 33.

[240] https://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Frew#ixzz6vcRzQqSB

[241] Caer Ebrauc, or Eboracum.

[242] Agned/Eidyn is not mentioned in the list of cities given by GIldas; this was likely since it was a frontier fort rather than a Roman city.

[243] One of them even refers to it as “the Castle of Maidens of Edinburgh.”

[244] Ramsay’s Evergreen, v. ii., p. 65. https://archive.org/stream/topographicalsv11842scot/topographicalsv11842scot_djvu.txt

[245] The Goddodin were a tribe of Britons who were descendants of the Votadini tribe of Ptolemy’s time.

[246] Lleuddiniawn.

[247] Uí Liatháin.

[248] Venedotia.

[249] Cunedda secured a marriage to Gwawl, the daughter of King Coel Hen of Eboracum “Old King Cole”.

[250] Din Gefrin.

[251] Hen Ogledd.

[252] Catterick, Yorkshire.

[253] A reference to the slaughter.

[254] Later medieval writers believed the city was named after King Edwin of Northumbria and erroneously referred to the city as Edwinesburh, but this is clearly incorrect since usage of the name Din Eidyn used in the Welsh poem Pa Gur predates this reference.

[255] Skene, W. F., “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland,” P. 42.

[256] Badonici Montis.

[257] Gildas, “De Excidio Britanniae; Or, the Ruin of Britain,” Translated by Hugh Alders Williams. (Dodo Press, 2010), p. 18.

[258] Woods, David. “Gildas and the Mystery Cloud of 536-7,” Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2010): 246-34.

[259] Woods, David. “Gildas and the Mystery Cloud of 536-7,” Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2010): 246-34.

[260] Woods, David. “Gildas and the Mystery Cloud of 536-7,” Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2010): 246-34.

[261] Woods, David. “Gildas and the Mystery Cloud of 536-7,” Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2010): 246-34.

[262] Breeze, Andrew. “Arthur’s Battles and the Volcanic Winter of 536-37,” Northern History 53.2 (2016): 161-72.

[263] Woods, David. “Gildas and the Mystery Cloud of 536-7,” Journal of Theological Studies 61.1 (2010): 246-34.

[264] D. G. Helbert, “The Arthur of the March of Wales.” (University of British Columbia, 2016), Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0314265

[265] D. G. Helbert, “The Arthur of the March of Wales.” (University of British Columbia, 2016), Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0314265

[266] “Historia Brittonum,” Translated by William Gunn. (London: John and Arthur Arch, 1819), p. 170.

[267] “Historia Brittonum,” Translated by William Gunn. (London: John and Arthur Arch, 1819), p. 178.

[268] Matasovic, Ranko. Addenda et corrigenda to Ranko Matasovic’s “Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic (Brill, Leiden 2009).” Zagreb, 2011.

[269] W.F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” (Somerset: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988), p. 35.

[270] W.F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” (Somerset: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988), pp. 43-44.

[271] W.F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” (Somerset: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988), pp. 43-44.

[272] Gildas: Badonici Montis. History of the Britons (Harleian): Monte Badonis. Bede: Badonici Montis. Annals of Wales: Bellum Badonis (516 AD), Bellum Badonis (665).

[273] Baþan

[274] Bæþ

[275] Ca. 577 AD, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

[276] Winchester or Parker Recension.

[277] 973 AD, Acemannesceastre. Manuscript B: Cotton Tiberius A.vi – Baþan (974 AD). Manuscript C: Cotton Tiberius C.i – Baþa. Manuscript D: Cotton Tiberius B.iv – Hatabaþum (972 AD).

[278] Waters of Sulis.

[279] The Anglo-Saxon poem “The Ruin” is probably about the fascination they had with the Roman ruins after the conquest of the city.

[280] Baedd, Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru.

[281] Middle Welsh baed=boar, baeddon=boars (plural); baddon=bath. Mynydd Baedan or Baedon (which may have been latinized into Badon or Badonicus) would mean the mount of Boars.

[282] Baram Blackett and Alan Wilson. “Artorius Rex Discovered.” Cardiff: King Arthur Research, 1986. P. 113.

[283] Welsh: Hen Ogledd.

[284] W.F. Skene, “Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland.” (Somerset: Llanerch Enterprises, 1988), p. 44.

[285] http://hillforts.arch.ox.ac.uk/records/SC3865.html

[286] Beowulf, The Nibelunglied, the Eddas, etc.

[287] Llenlleawg Wyddel.

[288] The sword is initially named in connection with Arthur’s spear Rhongomyniad, his shield Wynebgwrthucher, and his dagger Carnwennan. http://www.culhwch.info/ Diwrnach Wyddel.

[289] The Raid on the Otherworld, Preiddeu Annwfn or Preiddeu Annwn, XXX.

[290] Jones and Jones Translation. This description is mimicked and embellished by Sir Thomas Mallory in his romance The Death of Arthur “L’Morte d’Arthur.”

[291] “Arthur and Kaledvwlch,” “Arthur a Kaledvwlch: a Welsh Version of the Birth of Arthur (From a Fifteenth Century M. S., with Translation,” Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/kaledvwlch.html

[292] The text describes Arthur’s soldier Cai (Kaius) retreating to the golden dragon with the body of Bedwyr (Beduerus) in the midst of a battle.

[293] “Appletrees,” The Black Book of Carmarthen XVII, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc17.html

[294] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1972/1972-h/1972-h.htm

[295] According to Geoffrey of Monmouth.

[296] Historia Regum Britannia.

[297] The first part of this comes from the Harleian manuscript; the text in parentheses comes from a later 13^th century manuscript from the Cistercian Abbey of Neath in South Wales.

[298] “The Dialogue of Myrddin and Taliesin,” The Black Book of Carmarthen I, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc01.html

[299] “Appletrees,” The Black Book of Carmarthen XVII, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc17.html

[300] “Greetings,” The Black Book of Carmarthen XVIII, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc18.html

[301] “The Birch Trees,” The Black Book of Carmarthen XVI from “The Four Ancient Books of Wales” by W. F. Skene, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc16.html

[302] “The Dialogue Between Myrddin and His Sister Gwenddydd,” Red Book of Hergest 577 1.7 – 583 1.38, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/h01.html

[303] “A Fugitive Poem of Myrddin in His Grave,” Red Book of Hergest 583 1.39 – 585 1.23, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/h02.html

[304] MS Peniarth 50.

[305] Son of Gwenddyd and King Rhydderch Hael, the ruler of Alt Clut, or Strathclyde.

[306] “Armes Prydein Vawr: The Prophecy of Prydein the Great,” Book of Taliesin VI from “The Four Ancient Books of Wales” by W. F. Skene, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/t06.html

[307] https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/jocelyn-lifeofkentigern.asp

[308] MS Cotton Titus A. XIX

[309] https://archive.org/details/Silvestris/mode/2up

[310] https://archive.org/details/LailokenALlallogan

[311] Matthew 27: 57-60, Mark 15:43-46, Luke 23:50-56, John 19:38-40. See also Farrar, Frederic. The Life of Christ.

[312] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08520a.htm

[313] William of Malmesbury, “On the Antiquity of Glastonbury,” 1903, p. 466, JSTOR, accessed October 21, 2021. https://archive.org/stream/jstor-456546/456546_djvu.txt

[314] How the twelve disciples of St Philip and St James the apostles first founded the church of Glastonbury. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Somerset_Historical_Essays/William_of_Malmesbury_%27On_the_Antiquity_of_Glastonbury%27

[315] The tree is first mentioned in the early 16^th century composition The Lyfe of Joseph d’Arimathie.

[316] http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14305/pg14305-images.html

[317] https://d.lib.rochester.edu/teams/text/conlee-prose-merlin-vortigers-demise-the-battle-of-salisbury-and-the-death-of-pendragon

[318] “Didot Perceval,” “Didot Perceval, or The Romance of Perceval in Prose” translated by Dell Skeels, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/pd01.html

[319] https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/nennius-full.asp

[320] http://finding-merlin.com/news/2/21/King-Arthur-s-round-table-may-have-been-found-by-archaeologists-in-Scotland

[321] Finding Arthur: The True Origins of the Once and Future King

[322] Finding Arthur: The True Origins of the Once and Future King

[323] Waverly Annals ca. 1278-84. Also Matthew Paris, History of the English ca. 1253.

[324] https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/1150-caradoc-lifeofgildas.asp

[325] Left to Right: Unnamed, Isdernus (Yder), Artus de Bretania (Arthur of Britain), Burmaltus, Winlogee (Guinevere?), Mardoc (Mordred?), Carrado, Galvagin (Gawain), Che (Cai), Galvariun (Galeshin).

[326] http://www.gutenberg.org/files/831/831-h/831-h.htm

[327] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Six_Old_English_Chronicles/Geoffrey%27s_British_History/Book_10

[328] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Six_Old_English_Chronicles/Geoffrey%27s_British_History/Book_11

[329] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 153. Triad 54.

[330] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 210. Triad 80.

[331] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 150. Triad 53.

[332] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 217. Triad 84.

[333] Gwanei yg kynhor (kinnor) eissor (eisor) Medravt.

[334] Arthur gerdernyd, menwyd Medrawd.

[335] https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0314265 Footnote 225

[336] pp. 445-446

[337] Alcock, L 1971 Arthur’s Britain: History and Archaeology AD 367–634 . Allen Lane, The Penguin Press. ISBN 0-14-139069-7. P. 88.

[338] https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0314265 Footnote 227

[339] “The Dream of Rhonabwy,” Celtic Literature Collective, translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/rhonabwy.html

[340] “Culhwch and Olwen,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch.html

[341] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 166. Triad 59.

[342] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 139. Triad 51.

[343] Triad 21. Another Medrawt, the son of Kawrdaf is named in the Welsh genealogies as the father of Saint Deunawc.

[344] Gueith Camlann, in qua Arthur et Medraut corruere; et mortalitas in Britannia et Hibernai fuit.

[345] “The Stanzas of the Graves,” The Black Book of Carmarthen XIX, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc19.html

[346] “The Death of Duran ap Arthur,” Mostyn 131 and “Early Welsh Sage Poetry: A Study and Edition of the Englynion” by J. Rowland, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/duran.html

[347] Exchange Between Gwyn ap Nudd and Gwyddno Garanhir in the manuscript of The Black Book of Carmarthen. Gwynn son of Nudd is mentioned as one of Arthur’s warriors in Cuhlwch and Olwen.

[348] Madawg, as quoted by W. F. Forbes Skene, p. 121.

[349] Culhwch and Olwen.

[350] “Trioedd Ynys Prydein: The Triads of the Island of Britain.” 3^rd ed. Edited by Rachel Bromwich. (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2006), p. 66. Triad 30.

[351] “Culhwch and Olwen,” translated by Lady Charlotte Guest, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/culhwch.html

[352] Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, 1841. Peniarth 37. The Laws of Howel Dda. Book 1. XXXVII Section 7.

[353] Arthur and the Britons in Wales and Scotland, pp. 45-46.

[354] Gibb, Alexander (1904). The Stirling Antiquary: Reprinted from “The Stirling Sentinel,” 1888-[1906]. Stirling: Cook & Wylie. Pp. 349-365. https://archive.org/details/stirlingantiqua01unkngoog/page/n361/mode/2up?view=theater&q=camelon

[355] P. 315

[356] Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. “The Arthur of History.” Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages. Oxford University Press, 1979. Pp. 10-11.

[357] “The Stanzas of the Graves,” The Black Book of Carmarthen XIX, Celtic Literature Collective, accessed October 21, 2021. https://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/bbc19.html

http://www.zendonaldson.com/twilight/camelot/skene/versesofthegraves.htm

[358] William of Malmesbury. “Deeds of the English Kings.” P. 315.

[359] Quoted from King Arthur in Legend and History, Edited by Richard White.

[360] http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/geoffrey_thompson.pdf

[361] https://d.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/text/death-arthur-layamon

http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/layamon_madden.pdf

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/14305/pg14305-images.html

[362] https://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/eng/vm/vmeng.htm

[363] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/nov/23/glastonbury-myths-made-up-by-12th-century-monks

[364] (Le Mort D’arthur by Sir Thomas Malory The Winchester Manuscript. Oxford Worlds Classics, Edited and Abridged by Helen Cooper)

[365] EXCURSUS III.–THE HOPE OF BRITAIN – by Eugene Mason

(Wace, _Brut_, 13681 ff.; Layamon, 23080 ff., 28610 ff.) http://www.gutenberg.org/files/10472/10472.txt

Table of Contents

Introduction