This is where Arthur belongs, an unparalleled leader in an unparalleled war effort. Opinions differ as to what his status actually was. Opinions also differ as to whether he existed at all. However, attempts to interpret him as a warrior or demigod of Celtic myth, wrongly made out to be historical, have failed to convince. His name is a Welsh form of the Roman name Artorius, a perfectly human one. In the next century or so, we find several Arthurs up and down Britain, all presumably named after a great original.

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in British Heritage magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

Can we reconstruct him? We have many items of information, or semi-information, that have gone into the making of his story, and the best of them are earlier than Geoffrey of Monmouth, not inventions of his. Continental records mention a ‘King of the Britons’ who may well be the man himself. Welsh poems and tales extol Arthur as a peerless fighter with a formidable band of companions. A work ascribed to Nennius, a 9th-century Welsh monk, lists twelve victories won by him as the Britons’ war leader, giving him the credit for their crowning triumph at Badon. A Welsh chronicle reaffirms his Badonic role and adds a cryptic entry about a later battle at ‘Camlann’ where ‘Arthur and Medraut fell’, the first known hint of the fatal conflict with Modred. Arthurian place-names and local legends, more than 100 of them, extend in a vast sweep from Cornwall to Scotland.

Taken together, these items may look impressive, yet they need cautious handling, even apart from the fact that most were not written down until long after the time they refer to. Chronologically, they don’t cohere. They spread out too far, giving Arthur a lifespan of at least 100 years, from the mid-5th century to the mid-6th. To pin him down we must decide where in the time-range to place him, and then find explanations for the dates that don’t work.

There are ways of doing this. It appears, for instance, that a force called Arthur’s Men may have remained active after his death. Bards not sure of their facts might have attributed exploits of Arthur’s Men to Arthur himself as their patron or inspiration, prolonging his imagined life. That is a guess. Other interpretations are possible.

One of the most intriguing pieces to the puzzle is Nennius’ account of Arthur’s battles. His list is full enough to be interesting, and whether or not it is all authentic, it at least tells us how his people remembered him and helps answer the question, ‘When?’ The battles themselves are hard to identify. Nennius gives the battle sites pre-English names and several have vanished from the map. He speaks of Bassas, Guinnion, Tribruit, and Agned. No one is certain where these were. But he takes us on to safer ground with a river called Glein; with another river called Dubglas, in the region Linnuis; with the Forest of Celidon; and with the City of the Legion. These battles took Arthur to Lincolnshire, on the east side of England; to southern Scotland; and to Chester. As for Badon, at the end of the list, its whereabouts can at least be narrowed down to southern England. Geoffrey of Monmouth makes it a hill near Bath, and some historians agree. Other candidates are Badbury Rings in Dorset and Liddington Castle, near Swindon, which has a village of Badbury below it. On this occasion, says Nennius, Arthur single-handedly slew 960 of the enemy. A growth of legend has weakened his credibility. Still, legends can grow without disproving facts.

Two inferences follow. First, the list portrays Arthur as ranging over a large territory: as a national commander or paramount chief or both, not merely a local resistance leader. Second, in view of the times when enemies could have been active in the right area, the battles make good sense during an earlier rather than a later phase. They put Arthur’s warfare somewhere around the 450s and 60s. That fits in with the Continental texts mentioning a ‘King of the Britons’, which some now believe provide the best clues to Arthur. It is also the time that Geoffrey apparently has in mind. A numerical date that he gives, 542, is incompatible with his other indications and may be a mistake for a date actually in the same early phase.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to