King Arthur, page 9
Straight after the battle list the text describes how the English continued to increase their numbers despite their defeats and brought their kings from Germany to rule over them until the time when Ida reigned. It records him as the son of Eobba and titles him the first King of Bernicia, also known as Berneich. The interesting thing about Berneich, or Bryneich, is it has a Brythonic etymology and so implies a former British area taken over by Angle settlers. Bernicia was the northern part of the later kingdom of Northumbria, although at that time it was likely confined to the eastern coastal area. Arthur’s time was before Ida, who we know from other sources was king in that part of Northumbria from around 547. Thus if we were to trust the accuracy and chronology of the text Arthur is militarily active from the time of St Patrick (died 461 or 493), after Hengist (died 488) to some time before the reign of Ida (547). In other words, we have a tentative timeframe of 450s–550 if we can trust the dates. Indeed, the text suggests some time passed between Arthur’s victories and the time of Ida. If we trust the more likely later date for St Patrick’s death, then we could tentatively suggest an orbit of 490–520 for Arthur being militarily active. Sadly it is not that simple as we can’t be certain, and definitive support is lacking.
It is true to say there are a number of known historical characters in the text. It’s difficult to be certain if any of the others are knowingly fictitious. The early part concerning Brutus appears completely unhistorical and is not supported by any evidence, archaeological or otherwise. The magical elements of the Wonders of Britain and the tale of Emrys Ambrosius also detract from it as a historical source. First, where it impinges on history the text is either demonstrably wrong, or evidence has been distorted. Second, the weaving together of different strands of stories such as St Germanus and Vortigern, then Vortigern and Hengist, and Ambrosius and the two dragons, suggests the author is manipulating sources and legends for a purpose; but still we cannot prove that for the key passages there are fictitious persons.
The author then goes on to list various genealogies, the cities of Britain and the wonders of Britain. In the latter he lists two wonders concerning Arthur.
The first is in the country of ‘Builth’, modern Wales, and describes a heap of stones with the footprint of Cafal, Arthur’s dog. When he hunted a great Boar (Twych Trwyth, also found in the later legend of Culhwch and Olwen) Cafal, the warrior-Arthur’s hound impressed his footprint on the stone, and Arthur later brought together the pile of stones called Carn Cafal. Men can come and take the stone for a day and a night, but on the next day it is miraculously found back on the stone pile.
The second is the tomb of Arthur’s son, Amr, in the country of Ergyng, South Wales. Arthur himself is said to have killed and buried him there though the circumstances are not recorded. It is claimed it’s length changes every time someone measures it and the writer himself has tested this.
So in this section we have a purely mythical Arthur, and some have suggested it negates the whole text. It certainly detracts from the validity of the source overall. What it does show is there were legends of Arthur circulating as early as 830. How much these legends changed over 300 years from Arthur’s time is lost to us, but we can say that by the ninth century there was already a mythical Arthur as well as a historical one in people’s minds. There are plenty of examples in history of mythical persons being made real in stories and legends. Historians require proof and one account 300 years later is not proof enough on it’s own.
In summary, we have a ninth-century text that could be drawing on earlier sources.
Concerning this document we have two opposing Arthurs. One is portrayed as a historical figure fighting the Saxons at a particular time in history, but that portrayal is slightly misleading because it is clear from Bede and later archaeological evidence that these aren’t Saxons at all. If he fought those who had came from the north as the text claims, then he fought Angles, not Saxons. And if he fought the Kentish men it is likely they were Jutes. In fact, as we will see from later DNA and archaeological evidence, it is debatable what percentage of the population was Germanic at all, and how much of the original Romano-British population stayed where they were. We will see later this could be anything from 50 to 90 per cent. The other Arthur is a mythical figure with magical stones and tombs embedded in a narrative which includes the story of Emrys and the magic pool containing two worms or dragons. There is no good reason to pick one and dismiss the other. The source is neither contemporary nor regarded as valid by historians in general. But we can’t dismiss it completely – and not just because it’s the first reference of Arthur in any known source. Despite it’s magical elements and possible propaganda purpose, it was written for an audience who understood who or what Arthur represented.
Chapter 7
The Welsh Annals
We will now move on to the Welsh Chronicles, The Annales Cambriae, the earliest copy of which is found with a copy of the Historia Brittonum discussed previously. They are a number of Welsh-Latin chronicles thought to derive from St David’s in Dyfed, south-west Wales. The Annales would have had a number of different authors using sources from three main areas: Irish Chronicles, northern sources, and from Dyfed. The earliest text is a twelfth-century copy of a mid-tenth-century text. They include events from across the British Isles. It was likely written in 954–5,1 around a century-and-a-quarter after the Historia Brittonum. However, others have argued the earliest date of composition of some parts could be in the late eighth century, although the Arthurian entries are likely to be mid-tenth century.2 The political situation was rather different compared to the Historia Brittonum. The Annals were compiled in the middle of the Viking age, the Mercian threat is reduced and there is less antagonism towards the Saxons as a result. It is also written in Dyfed rather than Gwynedd, so the target audience is different. It contains the first attempt at dating the Battle of Badon.
The earliest source is found attached to a copy of the Historia Brittonum held in the British Library and was written around 1100. The annal starts in 445 and ends in 954. I have used the translation from Morris that we used with the evidence for Nennius. The first few entries are provided below; the relevant years and the two entries relating directly to Arthur are in bold:
Table 11
Year
Entry
447
Days as dark as night.
453
Easter altered on the Lord’s day by Pope Leo, Bishop of Rome.
454
St Brigid is born.
457
St Patrick goes to the Lord.
458
St David is born in the thirtieth year after Patrick left Menevia.
468
Death of Bishop Benignus.
501
Bishop Ebur rests in Christ he was 350 years old.
516
The battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors.
521
St Columba is born. The death of St Brigid.
537
The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell: and there was play in Britain and Ireland.
544
The sleep of Ciaran.
547
A great death in which Maelgwn, King of Gwynedd died. Thus they say ‘The long sleep of Maelgwyn in the court of Rhos’. Then was the yellow plague.
558
The death of Gabran, son of Dungart.
562
Columba went to Britain.
565
The voyage of Gildas to Ireland.
569
The ‘Synod of Victory’ was held between the Britons.
570
Gildas wisest of the Britons dies.
573
The battle of Arfderydd between the sons of Eliffer and Gwenddolau son of Ceidio; in which Gwenddolau fell; Merlin went mad.
The 573 entry concerning the battle of Arfderydd may well be the battle of the Caledonian Forest listed as one of Arthur’s battles. A further entry in 613 lists the Battle of Caer Legion referencing a known battle at Chester, which also could have been misappropriated. There is also the interesting reference to Merlin, which would date him decades after Arthur. You will note there is no reference to Vortigern, Ambrosius, or the coming of the Saxons. This could be because the Author dated these events prior to 445 when the Annals begin.
There appears to be some similarity in wording concerning Badon and the battle of Guinnion fort in the Historia Brittonum. The Annals state:
The battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors.
Whereas the Historia states:
The eighth battle was in Guinnion fort, and in it Arthur carried the image of the holy Mary, the everlasting virgin, on his shoulders and the heathen were put to flight on that day, and there was a great slaughter upon them…
The twelfth battle was on Badon hill and in it 960 men fell in one day, from a single charge of Arthur’s, and no-one laid them low save him alone; and he was victorious in all his campaigns.
The Badon entry may have derived from the Historia Brittonum, but the discrepancies between the texts are significant.3 The carrying of a cross rather than the image of Mary, and the reference to the duration make it difficult to draw any conclusions. It could be poetic licence, or the three days and nights might be a biblical reference. Alternatively, there is a later entry in the Historia Brittonum relating to Urien of Rheged besieging Lindisfarne in the Saxon kingdom of Bernicia for three days and nights before being poisoned by Morcant. Urien, and his son Owain (Gwain), have often been linked to the Arthur legend in later literary works. The Christian image carried into battle is also similar to Constantine the Great ordering his army to paint the Christian chi-rho symbol on their shields before the battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312.
Concerning Badon, there has been debate over the source for this entry; whether it was from a distinct northern source, or from the Chronicles of Ireland.4 The date of the battle appears, on the face of things, at odds with the narrative of either Historia or Bede, which place the Adventus Saxonum in either 428 or 449. There is a second battle of Badon recorded in the Annals for 665 alongside the first celebration of Easter by the Saxons. If we take these to be connected, then at this time Bath would indeed have been within the land of the West Saxons and known as Badon, but that wouldn’t explain why Gildas, a sixth-century writer in Britain, would Latinise a later Saxon word for a town that was in British territory at the time of writing. Bede does mention the conversion of the South Saxons and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles dates this to AD 661. For the same year there is a record of the Mercian king, Wulfhere, campaigning ‘as far as Ashdown’ (possibly in Sussex) which would cover many of the suggestions for a southern Badon. The entry for AD 675 mentions a battle at Biedan Heafde between the Mercians and West Saxons, but neither of these references mention any British involvement. So the location of the second battle of Badon becomes as mysterious as the first.
Regarding the Camlann entry, this is the first reference to this battle and it is impossible to confirm the source or historicity of it. The entry is unverifiable and possibly ‘entirely unhistorical’.5 The two Arthurian entries are thus suspect and could easily be later erroneous insertions. Interestingly, Medraut is seen as a virtuous and valorous figure in his earlier appearances in Welsh legends and seems to be on the same side as Arthur. He did not begin his long slide into villainy until Geoffrey’s twelfth-century work portrayed him as Arthur’s nephew and cause of his ruin. It may be worth noting there is no mention of anyone knowingly fictitious in the Annals.6
The Arthur of the Annales Cambriae should be seen in a southwest-Wales context. The Arthur of the Historia was, therefore, being used to support the political agenda of King Owain (of Deheubarth) in the mid-tenth century. This Arthur is intended as a Demetian ancestor figure. There is indeed an Arthur mentioned in the genealogies: Arthur map Petr (son of Peter), thirteen generations before Owain, but he appears too late and there is no evidence connecting him to the legend. Both the Annales and Historia are non-contemporary politically biased tracts. The Annales therefore lacks credibility for anything other than the time in which it was constructed. This is not to dismiss the Annales completely. There is a possibility that it reflects a now-lost northern, or even Irish, source that contained information on both Badon and Camlann, drawn upon by the author. Similarly to the Historia Brittonum, the Annales is generally regarded with scepticism among academics; in terms of trying to construct a historical Arthur, they are viewed as valueless.7 However, they were written to be read and, presumably, believed.
In summary then, we have two pieces of evidence so far, neither of which are generally considered credible sources by the majority of academics. However, they suggest that a ninth- and tenth-century audience would have read and understood the entries; the implication is that they were believed to be true. This doesn’t of course make it true. People today may well believe all sorts of erroneous things about events in the 1600s, books and films may contain all sorts of factual errors and fictional characters, even when intended to be accurate. But if taken at face value, both sources point to an Arthur fighting sometime between 490 and 537. Even if we accept a historical Arthur, it is unlikely he was militarily active for fifty years, although there are generals throughout history who campaigned late in life. If his association with Badon is accurate, we also now have a range of dates for that battle. From an implied 493–500 in Bede, 490–503 in Gildas, after Hengist (488?) and St Patrick (493?) in the Historia, and now a definite date of 516 in the Annales Cambriae. On face value this latter date seems like an outlier, but there is one interpretation that could reconcile it with the others which we will cover later.
Chapter 8
The Anglo-Saxons
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles had their origins towards the end of the ninth century, possibly commissioned by King Alfred of Wessex.1 They were most likely written in the south west as they appear more knowledgeable about that part of the country. The year, rather than the event, is the primary significance;2 it is the first continuous history of any western people in their own language. There are a number of surviving manuscripts, the oldest being the Winchester Manuscript written around 891. It begins with a genealogy of the Wessex kings from Cerdic to King Alfred. It proceeds from the time of Julius Caesar and goes up to just after the Norman conquest in 1066, although other manuscripts go a little further.
I will begin with the entries from the end of Roman Britain to the appeal to the Romans:
Table 12
Year
Entry
409
Here the Goths destroyed the stronghold of Rome, and afterwards the Romans never ruled in Britain; that was eleven hundred and ten years after it was built. In all they had ruled there four hundred and seventy years after Julius Caesar first sought out the country.
418
Here the Romans assembled all the gold-hoards which were in Britain and hi class="tbodyc"d some in the earth so that no one afterwards could find them, and took some with them into Gaul.
423
Here Theodosius the younger succeeded to the kingdom [Western Empire].
430
Here the Bishop Palladius was sent from Pope Celestine to the Scots [Irish class="tbodyc"] in order to strengthen their faith.
443
Here the Britons sent to Rome and asked them for help against the Picts, but they had none there because they were campaigning against Attila, king of the Huns; and then they sent to the Angles and made the same request to the princes of the Angle race.
So this deviates from some of the other evidence. There is Palladius’s mission, but nothing about St Germanus or St Patrick. The appeal is dated as 443, a little earlier than in Bede. There is no reference to explain the Gallic Chronicle entry of 441 which stated Britain fell to the ‘power of the Saxons’. The entry for 449 does however appear to have been influenced by Bede.
It notes Mauricius and Valentinian succeeded to the kingdom (i.e. the Roman Empire) and ruled for seven years. Then ‘in their days’, Hengist and Horsa arrive, invited by Vortigern, who is titled king of the Britons. They land at Ebba’s Creek (Ebbsfleet, East Kent). At first they assisted the Britons winning victories over the Picts in the north. They then ‘sent to Angeln’ requesting more help, implying they are Angles, although next it states: ‘these men came from three tribes of Germany: from the Old Saxons, from the Angles, from the Jutes.’ It then confirms much of what Bede says listing the the tribal areas:
• Jutes: Kent, Isle of Wight, parts of Wessex still called ‘the race of the Jutes’ (likely the New Forest area).
• Old Saxons: East Saxons (Essex), South Saxons (Sussex) and West Saxons (Wessex).
• Angles: East Angles (East Anglia), Middle Angles (Mercia) and Northumbrians.
