By Steve Haas

The Rise of Constantine the Great

In order to understand Arthur, you have to have a little time-sense. Rome was in the process of decay; Rome fell to Alaric, the Hun in 403, A.D., and this marked the effective end of the Eastern Roman Empire, though it continued on in various forms for a few years after. The story of Arthur is also the story of the fall of the Roman Empire. I shall give a brief history of THAT as it relates to Britain (don't worry, I'm not doing a Gibbons here, re-writing 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.' Just insofar as Britain is concerned).

Arthur lived in the period of 460 to about 540 A.D., so you can see, from these dates, what was happening in Britain; they couldn’t depend on Rome anymore, and were on their own, so to speak. Most of this story has to deal with the decline of Roman power in Britain, and the attempts by the British to defend themselves without the Imperial Legion.

You have to understand, also, that Britain was important to Rome; it was the breadbasket of Gaul (France); it supplied most of the food to support the Roman Legions who were defending Gaul against barbarian attacks….and Gaul was important to Britain, because it was the site of most of Rome’s strength. If Gaul fell, Britain would be isolated. There was a very close relationship here, and many British rulers had lands in Gaul.

We shall start the story of Arthur in about 280 A.D. Britain had just recently become the target for raids by the Angles and the Saxons; these were two Germanic tribes who lived in and around Denmark. You can look upon them as Vikings.

In any case, Britain had no defense against these attacks, from the West. The Saxons would land a few ships on Britain, each with about 75 men, spend a few days raiding and, by the time help arrived, would be on their ships heading for home.

The Roman response to this was to create a British Navy, the Classis Britannica. They put a man in charge of this called Mausaeus Carausis, a native of Roman Belgicum (modern Belgium). He did a good job, but it wasn’t long before there were charges of collusion with the Anglo-Saxons…and he was dismissed.

Rather than taking this lying down, he declared himself Emperor, adding the Imperial names “Marcus Aurelius” to his own…he defeated two Roman Fleets sent against him and ruled Britain and Northern Gaul from A.D. 287 to A.D. 293.

In A.D. 293 The Ceasar, or junior Emperor Constantius Chlorus (under the short-lived political reforms institutued by Emperor Diocletion, Rome was ruled by four Emperors at this time, two Senior and two Junior Emperors. Constantius was one of the junior Emperors) finally defeated Carausis in a battle fought near Bononia Morinorum (Boulogne) in north Gaul. Carausis was assassinated by his own deputy in charge of finances, Allectus, and this is all we hear from Carausis.

Constantius Chlorus then proceeded to go pacify Gaul (which was in turmoil because of all this fighting), while Alectus returned to Britain and declared HIMSELF Ceasar. Well, it wasn’t too long before Constantius invaded Britain to attack Alectus in 296. Alectus was defeated and beheaded.

Britain, however, was in shambles with all this fighting, and the Picts, in the North, took advantage of it to invade. They ravaged, pillaged and burned down as far as Eboracum (York), in Britain, until Constantius led an army against them and defeated them, decisively, in 306 A.D. Constantius, unfortunately, died at Eboracum. His troops immediately proclaimed his son, Constantine, Emperor of Rome, which, though highly illegal under the Diocletion reforms, was highly popular with the Roman Armies.

Constantine spent some time in Britain, garrisoning the country against the Barbarians, and then led his legions out of Britain towards Rome. Civil War followed for many years, but in 324, Constantine defeated his last rivals and was officially proclaimed Emperor of Rome.

Constantine was the last, great Roman Emperor. He stabilized the Empire, and was given the name ‘the Great’ for his efforts. He ceased the persecution of the Christians and adopted the Christian religion, himself, making it the official religion of Rome. His reign was generally peaceful.

However, a British Army commander had forcefully seized the throne of Rome. He was the third Britain to declare himself Emperor in a very short period of time. The Britains remembered the glory of this, and the precedent would be set, to Britain's misfortune.

The The Rise of Vortigern

Skipping ahead a couple of decades, in 382 A.D., another Roman general in Britain, Maximus Magnus, seizing the opportunity of disorder in the Empire, declared himself Ceasar and invaded Gaul, taking with him two Legions in Britain, which never returned. The current Roman Emperor, Theodosius, was willing to accept a join regentship with Maximus, but this was not good enough for Maximus. In 387, Maximus invaded Italy, taking Milan, was defeated by Theodosius in two battles and was beheaded. The memory of Magnus Maximus was retained by the people of Britain, later to become the Welsh, in the Mabinogion, a collection of Celtic stories first written down in 1300. The relevant story is entitled, "The Dream of Macsen Wledig," and is the only one of the Mabinogion which bears any relevance to history.

The troops lost by Britain in Magnus' aborted attempt to seize the throne of Rome affected Britain deeply. The Picts and the Scotii again invaded Britain. Two distinct invasions are recorded, both of which were repelled only by the intervention of Roman troops from the continent.

In the early years of the 5th century, in 401 and 403, the Visigoths, under Alaric invaded Italy, and were defeated, but only by calling in as many Legions as could be called, further weakening Britain. The instability caused by THIS brought the rise of even another Imperial pretender in Britain, a common soldier named Constantine (no relationship to the others). The time seemed propitious, due to the instability. Constantine crossed into Gaul and seized the province, The current Roman Emperor, Honorious, was forced to recognize Constantine as co-regent in the West.

Rome was sacked by Alaric in 410. The Emperor, Honorious, moved the capital to Milan and then Ravena. By this time, there was no effective Roman help for Britain. In 410, Honorious wrote to a British high council of some sort stating this very fact, telling Britain that Rome could not help them. They were on their own.

All I have written up to this point is history. From now on, we venture into scholarly speculation. We know that some sort of British council existed, because they sent an appeal to Honorious, and he replied to them. We know that, in 425, a leader arose named Vortigern. In the next letter, I shall go into the history of Vortigern, the man who saved Britain and ultimately doomed it to Anglo-Saxon conquest due to passion and poor judgement…but you must understand that all of what I say is my own interpretation of the works I have read. It should be right…but it could be all wrong.

The first history of Britain that we are aware of was written in 540, A.D. by a mad monk called Gildas. Unfortunately, it is much more concerned with the moral failings of the British kings than with any particular detail. Besides providing a framework within which to work, Gildas has caused more problems than he has solved by writing his work. He doesn't mention Arthur.

The next history, though, was written in 731 A.D. by a monk named Nennius. Nennius is considered to be one of the genius' of the age. He lists his sources, and provides good detail; unfortunately, his sources have not been found, and the details he describes are often obscure. For instance, he is the first to list the twelve battles of Arthur, and the first to mention Arthur…but he doesn't say where the battles were fought and we cannot identify the sites even now. He probably never visited Britain, and was only working from sources.

Bede, writing about the same time as Nennius, uses the same sources but organizes them better; many phrases of Bede's are exactly the same as in Nennius, suggesting they are using the same work.

Finally, we come to Geoffrey of Monmouth.Written in the 12th century, Geoffrey's book is the origin of the Arthur legend as we know now. Claiming to have used ‘ancient sources' for his book, he makes claims that are wild and strange; in this we see the legend of Merlin arising, the Sword in the Stone, the legend of Arthur's birth by Uther….Geoffrey is probably the least realiable author, since he is so far removed from the events, but we can't reject what he says out of hand.

There are other sources, snippets of information here, linguistic studies, archaeological studies and anthropological studies, all of which go into deciding who Arthur really was. Over all of this is the notion that maybe there WAS no Arthur…and that possibility exists, also.

Vortigern

We are currently in the year 410 A.D. Rome has told Britain that Britain cannot expect help from Rome to stave off the attacks of the Picts, from the North, the Scotii (Irish) from the West and the Anglo-Saxsons from the East. Arthur is not even a twinkle in his father's eye at the moment, but events are shaping Arthur's world so that when that twinkle occurs, Arthur will be thrust into a maelstrom.

We start now with Vortigern, and I shall spend a bit of time on this gentleman, partially because he is so interesting, and because he has such a strong influence on future events.

Who is Vortigern, you might ask?

I don't know, is the answer I might give.

There is no real history on this person. We know someone by that name appeared in some events at this time, but we know nothing, really, about who he was or what his life was like.

We CAN infer certain things, though. His age, for one. He came to prominence in 425 A.D., by seizing power in Britain. He died in 468 or so; he couldn't have been much younger or older than 20 years old in 425; at the age of 20 in 425, in 468 he would have been 63, a ripe old age for the time. It is not likely he was much older than that, and not likely he was younger than 20 in 425 when he seized power.

We know his name was not Vortigern. Vortigern is derived from the Celtic words vor, meaning "over", and gern, meaning "chieftan." His correct Latin title probably meant superbus tyrranus, which is how Gildas describes him in de Excidio Brtannia. The translation of this would be tyrant; it must be understood that this was not a pejorative word at the time. A tyrant was someone who wielded power without real authority to do so. Vortigern assumed the kingship of Britain without any legitimate authority.

We can also infer his name. Geoffrey of Monmouth refers to him, wrongly, as the betrayer of Constans, the son of Emperor Constantine III. Constantine's betrayer bore the name Gerontius (Geraint, or Gerient in Welsh). In addition, the surviving fragment of a lost Welsh poem alludes to a Saint Germanus receiving command of a Briton army from a ruler called Gereint. This incident occurred when Vortigern governed in Britain, so the Gereint from whom Saint Germanus received command must have been Vortigern. Finally, a hillfort on Deeside by Llangollen in Clwyd (Northeastern Wales), which was recaptured by the Britons from the Irish during Vortigern's reign is calld "Fort of Geraint." This fort was probably reconquered and renamed for Vortigern.

We also know a son of Vortgern bore the impressive title of Brutus Catellus Durnolucius. Thus, Vortigern's name was possibly Gerontius Catellus Durnolucius.

In 425, as was said before, Vortigern assumed power of the British Council. He did this by the simple means of marrying the daughter of the former emperor Maximus; her name was Severa, and she came with a large dowery of land and money. The influence of Maxiums' name, plus the wealth of the dowery ensured Vortigern the opportunity to claim a piece of British politics. The force of his personality must have been the rest of what Vortigern needed to claim ultimate authority over the British Council. Note that there was still no legitimacy to his claim; anyone else could have made the same claim. The fact that Vortigern was able to maintain this position for over 25 years is a tribute to his political skill.

At this time the biggest threat to the Britons were the Picts. The Picts, at this time, were led by Drust macErp, who reigned from A.D. 414 to A.D. 458, and was said to have participated in over a hundred battles. Most of these were with the Britains. Also, the Irish were raiding the Welsh Coast, and even settling in certain areas.

In 428 A.D., Vortigern made the momentous decision to invite three shiploads (about 200 men) of Anglo-Saxons to settle in Britain, in exchange for the use of their swords. The agreement was that the Anglo-Saxons would settle on Thanet Island, off the coast of the province of Kent. This was a good agreement, and not terribly original, as the Romans had often used barbarian mercenaries to fight other barbarians. Giving them Thanet Island was a risk, but they were not on the mainland, and could still be contained. However, it was a precedent.

Using these Anglo-Saxons, as well as former Roman Legion members who had settled in Britain around the towns that had been the base of those legions as well as native soldiers, Vortigern met and fought the Picts somewhere in the vicinity of Hadrian's Wall, in and about A.D. 431. We know nothing about this battle, but after it, the Picts never troubled the British again. It must have been a great victory. Now Vortigern was free to deal with the Irish.

The Irish had, by this time, settled extensively in Wales. The principal Irish kingdom in Britain was Demetia, in southeaster Wales (essentially the southern part of modern-day Dyfed). The Irish settlement in Demetia was extensive, involving a major tribal relocation.

Vortigern's solution to this was simple; he decided, again, to pitch one barbarian tribe against another. To do this, he relocated many of the unreliable Votadini from far north Britain to north Wales. These Votadini had allied themselves with the Picts during the recent wars. Rather than destroying them, Vortigern made very good use of them in this manner.

This solution was brilliant. The Votadini, led by Cunedda and his sons, carved out a new kingdom for themselves, which they called Gwynedd (Latinized as "Venedotia") meaning ‘desirable land." The war between the Votadini and the Irish lasted at least three generations, in Wales, and while these two fractious peoples were fighting against each other, they were no trouble to the rest of Britain.

With northern Wales out of his problem area, Vortigern was able to turn his attention to other areas in Wales…capturing Devon and Cornwall and making them a part of Britain again. Now, his only real problem was the Anglo-Saxons, who were still raiding his Eastern Coast.

The Beginning of the End

We are now at 435 A.D., and are getting closer and closer to Arthur. Unfortunately, the closer we get to Arthur, the further we get from facts. In fact, I shall probably not be able to finish this story to anyone’s satisfaction because any answer would be as good a speculation as any other. I’ll give several lines of speculation, but that is probably the best I can do.

Vortigern’s policies had proven successful. He had neutralized the Picts and the Irish, and his treaty Anglo-Saxon troops were successful in keeping the foreign Anglo-Saxons at bay. There were internal problems, however, and these had to do with another player in the field, the Ambrosii.

The Ambrosii were an old, Roman family who had holdings in Wales, probably in Devon and Cornwall. I know this contradicts, in some ways, my previous assertion that Vortigern defeated the Irish in Devon and Wales, and I accept that. One can’t go through this without contradicting oneself…

The Ambrosii led the faction that wanted a return to Roman rule; they believed that if they held out long enough, Rome would return and Britain would be returned to the Roman fold. They were in distinct opposition to Vortigern, who was establishing Britain as a power in and of itself. They held aloof from Vortigern’s wars, probably refused to send troops to help him and opposed his introduction of Anglo-Saxon treaty troops into Britain. The leading member of the family, Aurelianus Ambrosii counciled that the introduction of these troops would inevitably be fatal to the British cause. They waited patiently for Vortigern’s policy to fail.

In 449, Vortigern expanded the lands that the Anglo-Saxons were allowed to include most of the province of Kent. For the first time, the Anglo-Saxons were being given land to settle on the mainland of Britain. Why Vortigern did this is open to speculation; perhaps he was feeling comfortable with his foreign allies, and wanted to cement the relationship with them. More likely, his earlier promises of providing food and weapons to them were becoming burdensome, and he wanted to pay them in other ways.

However, as part of the deal, Vortigern married the daughter of the Saxon leader, Hengist, Reweina. To me, this is a far more compelling reason. Vortigern might have been in his 40’s by this time. His former wife was dead, and she had been ten years older than him when they married, It is not at all unforeseeable that Vortigern became smitten with a beautiful young woman and, as a result, sold out Britain in the hopes of becoming part of his family. This is the idea that I like, best, as it gives a hint of romance and passion to the story, though there is absolutely no evidence for this in literature or history.

Nevertheless, Ambrosius reacted strongly to this move, which would have blown red flags in front of his eye from East to West. There is record of a battle between Vortigern’s troops and Ambrosius,’ which Ambrosius lost. In retrospect, Ambrosius was right.

The demands of the Anglo-Saxons became more and more insistent, and finally Vortigern could not meet them. In 455 there is a record of a battle between in ‘a place that is called Aylesford.” The son of the Anglo-Saxon leader, Horsa, was killed there, and so was Vortigern’s son, Vortimer. Ayelesford can be found on the Medway river, and it is the place the Anglo-Saxons would have to cross to break out from Kent. No one knows who won the battle, but it is known in the British language as Saessenaeg Habail, “The Slaughter of the Saxons,:” so maybe Vortigern won this one.

Two years later the Anglo-Saxons inflicted a crushing defeat on the Britons at Crayford, where they claimed to have killed 4000 men. The Britons, says the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, fled to London. The defenses of London were strong, and the Anglo-Saxons had to pass London to break out from Kent, but it was a matter of time.

In 473 that breakout occurred. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has a laconic and terrible entry: “This year, Hengist and Esc (his son) fought with the Britons and took immense booty. And the Britons fled from the English like fire.’ The reference to immense booty must mean either that the Saxons so completely broke the army of Britain, or they captured a great city. Both probably happened; Vortigern’s army was destroyed and London taken and sacked. There was nothing holding the English (for this is how they are now called) back from sacking and taking the rest of Britain.

With Vortigern’s policy of treaty troops discredited, the people of Britain looked to Ambrosius, who had always opposed this policy, for help. Ambrosius now became the acknowledged leader of Britain. His first campaign was not against the Saxons, but against Vortigern. Vortigern, his army in disarray, his political support gone, took refuge in a fortified town, someplace, and there Ambrosius besieged him. Ambrosius used sieged engines against the walls, reminding us that he was a Roman with a Roman equipped army, and that he was still fighting a classical war. But, he was using Roman methods against a Roman fortified town, and his methods failed. Finally, he set fire to the town and Vortigern perished in the flames. Thus we see the last of Vortigern.

Ambrosius was able to hold the English back for 17 years, from 473 to about 490. The people who had rallied to Ambrosius in utter dispair must have gleaned some hope for final victory over the Saxons…but Ambrosius was not able to defeat them, only prevent their further breakout from their strongholds. Hengist was defeated and beheaded in 488, and his place taken over by other Saxon kings. In 490, the English took their revenge, for Aelle and his sons landed in Sussex, capturing the Roman fort of Pevensey. It is said that Ambrosius died here, but he would have been over 80 at the time, and this is doubtful. Nevertheless, the Saxons were triumphant, and Britain was in need of a new leader.

Now we are at the point of searching for Arthur, for he was the new leader. I shall give various lines of speculation of who he was but, to me, the most likely was that he was connected with the Ambrosii, somehow, more than likely a son.

Who was Arthur?

Now we come to the essential question. Who was Arthur? Did he exist? What do we know about him? What did he accomplish that was so significant? I am appending a text file to this listing all the current scholarly claimants to the identity. It is not necessary to post it here. It is just for your information.

First, the question of his existence. There is no independent documentation as to the existence of Arthur. The earliest reference is a Welsh drinking song, known to exist in 630 or so, where there is a line about the hero which says, “he fought like Arthur.” After this, we have Gildas, writing about the same time, who writes a panagyric against the British kings, and doesn’t mention Arthur at all, though he does mention Arthur’s final battle at Mount Badon. Gildas’ lack of mention is actually considered a plus for those who favor Arthur’s existence; he was inveighing against the British kings that he thought were sinful, and the lack of mention of Arthur might just mean that Arthur didn’t do anything that pissed Gildas off…

The first, real, documented mention of Arthur was Nennius and Bede, writing in the 700’s. This is almost 200 years after Arthur lived and died, and there is question about their veracity. Nennius mentions twelve battles that Arthur was supposed to have fought. Unfortunately, he gives names for the battles that are virtually impossible to place in Britain. Again, this might be a plus; he was using local names that are not in existence anymore, which gives some claim to his veracity…but we just don’t know.

I believe that Arthur did exist. SOMEONE at the time did what Arthur was supposed to have done. After 530 A.D., the supposed date of the Battle of Mount Badon, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle does not list a single Anglo-Saxon victory in Britain for close to 50 years. Someone defeated the Anglo-Saxons decisively. Maybe it was someone other than Arthur…but why go someplace else, when we have a person named already?

Ok, so, assuming Arthur existed, who was he? Again, there are many claimants for the identity, but I don’t see a need to go any further than the narrative I have given here. Ambrosius Ambrosii fought the Saxons for close to 20 years, and then died fighting the Saxons. Does it make more sense to look for someone else, or someone who was closely associated with Ambrosius? To me, it makes a lot more sense that Arthur was either a close associate of Ambrosius, a trusted lieutenant or, most likely, a son of Ambrosius. This would place Arthur in the Ambroii family, and give him a name and a pedigree.

Another question is why Arthur became so prominent, and not Ambrosius…this is an important question because it reflects on another conflict that was going on in Britain. Arthur was a Christian, and was pushing the Christian cause. Nennius says that Arthur went into battle ‘Wearing the image of the Holy Virgin Mary on his shield.” Ambrosius was a Roman, and sought Roman values and Roman gods. Vortigern was a pagan, and sought to restore Pagan values to Britain. Arthur was the Christian champion; his victory was seen as a victory of the Christian god over godless heathens, and helped spread the cause of Christianity in Britain. He possibly recognized that if Roman qualities were to survive in Europse, they had to be identified with the Christian cause; and that the barbarians had to be conquered no only because they were seizing the island from the citizens, but quite simply because they were heathens. He was fighting not only for the land of Britain, but for civilization. His motives and greatness could thus be recognized by Christian elements throughout Europse. The ages that succeeded were Christian, and the acts of Arthur the Christian champion acquired a significance and permanence that were denied to the more ancient virtues of Ambrosius.

Ok, now, about the other of the Arthur legend….Merlin, Guinivere, Lancelot, Ban, etc…who were they? I don’t know. There is plenty of speculation. You take your pick. To me, they aren’t important….though there is one thought that Merlin was actually Ambrosius. As the story goes, Vortigern was seeking to build a castle in Wales, and it kept falling down. The Druid priests suggesting sacrificing a young child in order to placate the gods. They brought a young child, Merlin, to be sacrificed but, instead, he told them that underneath the site of the castle were two dragons fighting each other, a red dragon and a white dragon. Until one or the other won, they couldn’t build the castle. This story is possibly an allegory for the victory of the Britains over the Saxons, and Merlin was telling Vortigern that he couldn’t build the castle until he triumphed…but that is all speculation.

In the next post I shall give a reasonable time line and location for Arthur’s battles, but first I want to say something about his form of combat. Every account of Arthur has he and his soldiers on horses; they were always knights, fighting on horseback. That is a very significant fact.

The Saxon style of combat was something that had little real discipline. If you saw the film Braveheart, the Saxons would usually line up against an enemy, build their courage, and then charge like madmen. There were few troops, even trained troops, that could withstand this kind of maniac charge. They were excellent warriors, with excellent war leaders, but did not have the discipline of trained troops.

Ambroius’s victories most likely occurred because of the Roman training of his troops; they would form a solid wall of shields, each shield locked to the next one by special grips. Each soldier carried a short spear, which was thrown just before the two sides met in combat, and a short thrusting sword. It was the discipline of these troops which overcame the Saxons; if one man fell, another took his place in the line of battle, thus maintaining the shield wall.

However, with the Saxon break-out at Pevensy, this was no longer effective. The Saxons were everywhere, and foot soldiers simply did not have the mobility to go where they had to go and strike hard.

Arthur’s innovation, probably, was mounted cavalry. No Saxon line could withstand a charge by lightly armored cavalry , and the Saxons would have had no experience with this. The knights would charge the line, break it up into segments, and either mop up on horseback, or get off the horses and fight on the ground. The horse gave Arthur the mobility to be where the Saxons were, wherever they were. It was a true innovation in warfare at the time.

Arthur, King of the Britons

Arthur, it seems, is claimed as the King of nearly every Celtic Kingdom known. The 6th century certainly saw many men named Arthur born into the Celtic Royal families of Britain but, despite attempts to identify the great man himself amongst them, there can be little doubt that most of these people were only named in his honour. Princes with other names are also sometimes identified with "Arthwyr" which is thought by some to be a title similar to Vortigern.

Breton King
Geoffrey of Monmouth recorded Arthur as a High-King of Britain. He was the son of his predecessor, Uther Pendragon and nephew of King Ambrosius. As a descendant of High-King Eudaf Hen's nephew, Conan Meriadoc, Arthur's grandfather, had crossed the Channel from Brittany and established the dynasty at the beginning of the 5th century. The Breton King Aldrien had been asked to rescue Britain from the turmoil in which it found itself after the Roman administration had departed. He sent his brother, Constantine, to help. Constantine appears to have been the historical self-proclaimed British Emperor who took the last Roman troops from Britain in a vain attempt to assert his claims on the Continent in 407. Chronologically speaking, it is just possible he was King Arthur's grandfather. Arthur's Breton Ancestry was recorded by Gallet.

Riothamus the King
Geoffrey Ashe argues that King Arthur was an historical King in Brittany known to history as Riothamus, a title meaning "Greatest-King". His army is recorded as having crossed the channel to fight the Visigoths in the Loire Valley in 468. Betrayed by the Prefect of Gaul, he later disappeared from history. Ashe does not discuss Riothamus' ancestry. He, in fact, appears quite prominently in the pedigree of the Kings of Domnonée, dispite attempts to equate him with a Prince of Cornouaille named Iaun Reith. Riothamus was probably exiled to Britain during one of the many civil wars that plagued Brittany. He later returned in triumph to reclaim his inheritance, but was later killed in an attempt to expel Germanic invaders. The main trouble with this Arthurian identification is that it pushes King Arthur back fifty years from his traditional period at the beginning of the sixth century (See Ashe 1985).

Dumnonian King
Welsh tradition also sees Arthur as High-King of Britain but tends to follow the genealogies laid down in the Mostyn MS117 and the Bonedd yr Arwr. These show Arthur as grandson of Constantine but, this time, he is Constantine Corneu, the King of Dumnonia. Traditional Arthurian legend records three Kings of Dumnonia during Arthur's reign: Constantine's son, Erbin; grandson, Gereint and great grandson, Cado. Nowhere is there any indication that these three were closely related to Arthur, nor that he had any claim on the Dumnonian Kingdom. Nor is their any explanation as to why a Dumnonian prince would have been raised to the High-Kingship of Britain. Arthur's connection with this area of Britain is purely due to his supposedly being conceived at Tintagel, the residence of his mother's first husband, and buried at Glastonbury, the most ancient Christian site in the country.

Cumbrian King
The Clan Campbell trace their tribal pedigree back to one Arthur ic Uibar: the Arthur son of Uther of tradition. Norma Lorre Goodrich uses this fact to argue that Arthur was a "Man of the North". This idea was first proposed by the Victorian Antiquary, W.F.Skene, and there is some evidence to recommend it, especially the possible northern location of Nennius' twelve battles. Goodrich places Arthur's Court at Carlisle. As the capital of the Northern British Kingdom of Rheged, this seems an unlikely home for Arthur, who was not of this dynasty. Prof. Goodrich relies heavily on late medieval literary sources and draws imaginative conclusions. (See Goodrich 1986 & Skene 1868).

Pennine King
There was a Northern British King named Arthwys who lived in the previous generation to the traditional Arthur. He was of the line of Coel Hen (the Old) and probably ruled over a large Kingdom in the Pennines. Many of Nennius' Arthurian Battles are often said to have taken place in the Northern Britain. These and other northern stories associated with the King Arthur may, in reality, have been relating the achievements of this near contemporary monarch.

Elmet King
Another Northern British Arthwys was the son of Masgwid Gloff, probably a King of the Elmet region of modern West Yorkshire. Nothing is known of this Prince who was exactly contemporary with the real King's traditional period. Though it is unlikely that he held his own kingdom, his exploits may have contributed to King Arthur's story.

Saxon Ally
There is also the possibility, proposed by August Hunt in his downloadable book "The Road from Avalon", that Arthur developed from King Cerdic, founder of the Saxon dynasty of Wessex. The name Cerdic is Celtic, not Germanic, and he may well have been Ceredig son of Cunedda Wledig. Arthur's battles as recorded in Nennius may be identified with Cerdic's battles in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.

Merionydd King
August Hunt, as a second alternative, suggests that King Arthur was really King Cadwaladr of Meirionydd. His name translates as "Battle-Leader", exactly identical to Nennius' description of Arthur as Dux Bellorum; while one probable location for Arthur's death at the Battle of Camlann is the Camlan Valley on the border of Meirionydd and Powys.

Scottish King
The Scots, though fresh from Ireland, also used the name Arthur for a Royal Prince. Artur, the son of King Aidan of Dalriada, was probably born in the 550s. David F. Carroll has recently argued that this man was the real Arthur, ruling Manau Gododdin from Camelon (alias Camelot) in Stirlingshire. Details can be found on the author's web site. (Carroll 1996)

Powysian King
Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman identify Arthur as Owain Ddantwyn (White-Tooth), a late 5th century Prince of the House of Cunedda (more specifically of Gwynedd). Their arguments, however, are wholly unconvincing, and contain many unresolved discrepancies. Owain's son, Cuneglasus (known from Welsh pedigrees as Cynlas) was among the five Celtic Kings condemned in the writings of Gildas. Through a misinterpretation of this account, Keatman & Phillips imply that Cuneglasus was the son of one Arth, ie. Arthur. They further claim that he, and therefore his father, Owain, before him, must have ruled Powys, as this is the only Kingdom un-reconciled with Gildas' Kings. However, Cynlas lived at Din Arth in Rhos. He was not the son of Arth. In traditional Welsh manner the Kingdom of Gwynedd had been divided between his father, Owain, who received Eastern Gwynedd (ie. Rhos) and his uncle, Cadwallon Lawhir (Long-Hand) who took the major Western portion. During this period, Cyngen Glodrydd (the Renowned) was ruling Powys. He was probably the Aurelius Caninus mentioned by Gildas. (See Phillips & Keatman 1992).

Rhos King
A much simpler and thoroughly more convincing thesis from Mark Devere Davies suggests that Arthur may have been Cuneglasus himself. I can do no better than recommend you to the author's website.

Dyfed King
A King Arthwyr ruled in Dyfed in the late 6th century. He was the son of King Pedr ap Cyngar, but little else is known of him. Though he was probably merely named after the great man, it is possible that some of his accomplishments may have become attached to the traditional legend.

Glamorgan King
Baram Blackett & Alan Wilson have theorised that the legendary King Arthur was an amalgam of two historical characters: Anwn (alias Arthun), the British King who conquered Greece and Athrwys (alias Arthwys) the King of Glywyssing and Gwent. Arthun was a son of the British Emperor Magnus Maximus, who lived in the late 4th century. He is better known as Anwn (alias Dynod) and his title of King of Greece is generally thought to be a misreading of his Latin name, Antonius Gregorius. He actually ruled much of South Wales. Arthwys of Glwyssing & Gwent is widely accepted as a seventh century King who lived in South-East Wales. His home in the traditional Arthurian region around Caerleon is part of this man's attraction. Blackett & Wilson argue, not unconvincingly, that he really lived in the early 6th century and that his father, King Meurig was called "Uther Pendragon", a title meaning Wonderful Commander. They also make the important assertion that Arthur lived, not in Cerniw (ie. Cornwall), but in Cernyw (ie. Glywyssing). (See Blackett & Wilson 1980).

St. Arthmael the King
Like Blackett & Wilson, Chris Barber & David Pykitt identify the King Arthur with King Athrwys of Glywyssing & Gwent. However, here the similarity stops, for there are important differences in the identification of people, places and events. Their major addition is the supposition that after Camlann, Arthur/Athrwys abdicated and retired to Brittany where he became an important evangeliser. He was known as St. Armel (or Arthmael) and his shrine can still be seen at St.Armel-des-Boschaux. Their ideas have much to commend them and make compelling reading. (See Barber & Pykitt 1993).

Roman King
It has been suggested, many times over the years, that King Arthur may have been a descendant of one Lucius Artorius Castus: a theme most recently taken up by P.J.F. Turner. Castus was an historical 2nd century Dalmatian general stationed in Britain who commanded the Roman auxiliary troops, known as Sarmations, on an expedition to crush an uprising in Armorica. It is highly unlikely that the two had any connection with each other. (See Turner 1993).

Arthur's Twelve Battles

Nennius, the earliest witness to mention Arthur, in his History of the Britains, written somewhere between 700 and 800 A.D, describes Arthur's twelve Battles this way:

"In that time, the Saxons increased in numbers and their strength grew in Britain.
When Hengist was dead, Octha, his son crossed from the left hand side of Britain into the kingdom of the Cantii, and from him descended the Kings of the Cantii.  Then Arthur fought against those people in those days with the Kings of the Britons, but he himself was the dux Bellorum, or General in these battles.
The first battle was on the mouth of the river, which is called Glein. The second, and the third, and the fourth, and the fifth upon another river, which is called Dubglass, and is in the Kingdom of Linnus. The sixth battle was upon the river which is called Bassas.
The seventh was the battle in the wood of Celidon, that is Cat Goit Celidon (which is "The Battle of the Wood of Celidon" in the old British tongue.)
The eighth was the battle in the stronghold of Guinnion, in which Arthur carried upon his choulders the image of the Blessed Mary, the Eternal Virgin. And the pagans were turned to flight on that day, and great was the slaughter brought upon them through the virtue of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and through the virtue of the Blessed Virgin Mary, his Mother.
The ninth battle was fought in the City of the Legion. He fought the tenth battle on the shore of the river which is called Tribruit. The eleventh battle was waged in the mountain which is called Agned.
The Twelfth battle was on Mount Badon where in one day nine hundred and sixty men fell in one charge of Arthur's. And no one ladi them low but himself alone.
And in all these battles he stood as victor".

As has been stated before, all these names are local British names, and their location has been lost to history. Scholars have been debating where they were, especially the last site, the Battle of Mount Badon, for a few centuries. The following commentary on where these battles actually were I am taking from one source, Beram Saklatvala's "Arthur: Britain's Last Champion." I like his commentary, because I think he does something none of the others have done; instead of trying to match names in Nennius with places in Britain, he looks at the political and military situation and tries to match the names with what he thinks was happening at the time. Please refer to the enclosed map to follow this. I shall try to post it as a separate message, also.

For instance, most people have Arthur fighting all over Britain; this makes no sense. What was going on is that the English were trying to break out from their bridgehead in Kent, into the rest of Britain. Most of these battles had to have been fought in the South of Britain.

Also, notice how many of these battles were fought on rivers. It is quite natural for Arthur to have been defending river crossings against English attempts to break out from the river.

SO…we have the first battle, the mouth of the river Glein. Of course there is no river Glein in England…however, forty miles south of Modern Lincoln (Lindum Colonia, at the time), is the modern town of Bourne. Hereabouts, because of the great bay of the Wash, the road is only some twenty miles from the coast. To attempt to hold the road south of this point would be difficult. An enemy approaching from the south would have the width of Norfolk to maneuver. But, at Bourne, the sweeping coastline approaches the road. The Briton's left flank would be secured on the marshlands, and an enemy could only make frontal attacks.

Morever, about ten miles north of Bourne rises a small river, the Glen; it runs parallel with the road and to the west of it. As it turns eastward to the Wash, the road crosses it. Here, strategically and tactically, a battle might well have been fought.

The second, third, fourth and fifth battles were on the river Dublas. This has often been identified with the river Duglas, in Leicesterhsire. It is sensible, however, to seek a river whose modern name is a translation of the old British one. Du, or dhu, meant 'black' in the British tongue, and there are several Blackwater rivers. One such is in Hampshire, forming part of the boundary with Sussex. Here might well be the Dublass of the battle, and it makes sense; having established a northern boundary with the first battle, now the Saxons were trying to break out in the West….

The sixth battle, on the river Bassas, is unknown. The suggestion that Basingstoke marks the site is feasible; it presupposes that, after the engagements on the Dubglass, Arthur had withdrawn some few miles to the northwest. The name Basingstoke, considered to be of Saxon origin, not British, means the village built by the followers of a Saxon leader named Basa. This leader might have given his name to the river.

Beram suggests that the site of the seventh battle was in Scotland, north of the wall, for the wood of Celidon is the wood of Caledonia. This seems improbable to me, for the reasons given above (i.e. it is too far away). However, almost everyone agrees on this one, and who am I to argue? It does make some sort of sense, if one supposes that the Picts tried to take advantage of the fighting in the South…but why in the world would Arthur travel that distance when he had a real menace in front of him. Maybe he thought he had beaten the English enough. I don't know.

The ninth battle was fought at the castle of Guinnon. This could be Winchester, which, in the Breton poem of Chretien de Troyes is spelt 'Guincestre,' or even Windsor, which, in the same text is spelt "Guinesores'. Neither is geographically impossible, one being at the southern, the other at the northern extremity of Arthur's defensive line which held the Saxons from breaking out in the West.

It is in this battle that Arthur carried the image of the Virgin, and the choice is rather interesting, both in the timing and the choice. Maybe, at this time, Arthur finally declared his Crusade a holy crusade? If Arthur had been brought up in the Romanised western kingdom of Ambrosius, and if he had been a follower of the Marian cult of Glastonbury, his use of Mary's image as his standard becomes credible and reasonable.
The Ninth battle was at the 'City of the Legion.' This has always been a problem, as there were many cities identified with Roman Legions; each one used a particular city as its base. Chester seems a logical choice, as it is in the same general area that Arthur has been fighting….and, in light of the battle at Winchester (or Windsor), one can see him swinging North to quell another attempted breakout.

The tenth battle, the Battle of Truibruit, is documented in other sources than Nennius. The 'Black Book of Carmarthen,' a medieval book of Welsh poetry, tells of one of Arthur's companions who came back with a broken shield from 'Tryvrwd'. To lose one's shield in Battle has always been taken by the Romans as a sign of disgrace and defeat. This poem conveys that the victory was barely won, and the defeat narrowly avoided. The same poem tells us that the casualties were heavy; that one of Arthur's men killed his enemies three at a time, another a hundred at a time. It also refers to 'the shores of Tryvwyd'. So, Tribruit was a river, and again a battle for a crossing. Unfortunately, we don't know where this river is, but it has been placed in the North, maybe another campaign against the Picts….or maybe Rebellious Celts? It has been suggested that the Northern Celts didn't see the danger of the Anglo-Saxons as the southern ones did, and were less cooperative than Arthur might have wanted…who knows?

The eleventh battle was fought on the hill called Agned. According to a marginal note in some of the manuscripts, this was in Somerset. If this is so, it would appear that, while Arthur's main army was engaged in the North, the English had broken through in the South and marched deep into the West country.

This theory is borne out by the twelfth, and most desperate, battle, the battle of Mount Badon. Geoffrey Ashe places this at Badbury, in Wiltshire, just south of Liddington. 'Badbury' as he points out, could be derived from 'Badon-Byrig', the fort of Badon. There is another possibility, though. A few miles to the south-west is the small village of Baydon, standing on the old Roman road from Calleva Atrebatum northwards to Corinium, the modern Cirencester. North of this village rises the steep hill of Baydon, on the slopes of which can be still seen the scars and ditches of ancient fortifications.

The fighting here must have been desperate, for Arthur was fighting the combined strength of the Anglo-Saxon forces. His victory must have been absolute, for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records no Saxon victories in Britain for the next 50 years. Here, at his final battle, Arthur finally achieves the goal for which he has been fighting most of his life…a goal for which his father had fought all of his life, the halting of the Anglo-Saxon advance into Britain and the survival of the Celtic people and Celtic culture.

For the Celts did survive, even though their nation was eventually conquered. Celtic culture is still present in Wales, the home of Arthur and the Ambrosii, and in the place names around Britain. This was the result of the stolid resistance of men like Arthur through the ages, and an essential part of the steel that makes up the British national character.

* * *

© 2025 Steve Haas

* Views expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent those of MilitaryHistoryOnline.com.