Second Post Redux (old summer post)

Anyway, my first post would be regarding the topic that has kept me pretty much thinking all the summer of 2005, as I spent it in London, England. It is my personal ramble about King Arthur as historical character.To set the record straight, there are two Arthurs already combined in the "King Arthur" we know today, from which all stuff is written.

One Arthur is the legendary King of Camelot, wielding the sword Excalibur and the Holy Grail. This is the stuff of the "Arthurmania" that exists even today, started by Geoffrey of Monmouth in medieval England. Geoffrey, picking on the few historical references and a misterious "secret book" as his sources, weaved a semi-legendary history of Britain, and created the basics of the Arthurian tales by mentioning the king and his origins as the son of Uther Pengradon and his association with Merlin the wizard.

Soon after, poems and legendary accounts started to float, alongside with elborate hoaxes crafted to justify the existence of this king. Finally, Arthur found an ultimate authority in Sir Thomas Malory, who wrote the "canon" on the legend called La Morte D'Arthur in the 15th Century. All later remixes of the tale, even the ones that have been written in the last 60 years, base the tale on the canon given life by Malory.

The other "Arthur" is a very obscure figure of the late 5th century AD, of which very little is known. We even do not know for sure whether this Arthur existed or not, since all of our pre-Geoffrey of Monmouth sources are very scant and not all of them talk of this guy.

So, what do we know? Well, we know that Britain in the late 4th Century was somewhat of a bastion of stability as the Roman Empire fell. Several of the generals and consuls of Britain in this late era went after the "Imperial Purple" (crown). Nevertheless, by the early 5th century, Rome evacuated Britain and left it to defend itself (I think the year is 420 AD). It seems that the Britons reorganized themselves in factions or groups ("kingdoms"?), probably following both the Roman division of Britain in provinces and tribal groups.

Nevertheless, the leader of one of this groups, which tradition calls "Vortigern" (Vitalinus?), foolishly invited the Angles and the Saxons, two germanic tribes, to live in Britain in exchange for their protection from Picts (highland scots) and Jutes (scandinavians). Soon after, the invitees became invaders, and while they started to attack the Britons, some of the Britons decided to strike back.

Chronicles of the era outside of Britain do not tell us much, only of things like "in 450, Britain fell to the Anglosaxons" and that "in 450, the British called for Bishop Germanus to come and help them, which he did", and "470, a man called Riothamus came from Britain to help its brethen of Armorica until he was defeated by the Franks". Archaeology depicts a gradual invation of the island by the anglosaxons, with rapid conquest until the mid-400's, then a complete stop for many years, and after 560, a restart of the conquest. The people looking for Arthur have made that era of 450-550 the place to search for him, since it is here that some chronicles, genealogies, legends, and poems point to his existence.

The earliest source of what happened in the island in those years is a 6th Century book called "De Excidio Britannia", written by the monk Gildas. The book talks about impeding apocalypse to the 4 corrupt leaders of roman-celtic Britain, and goes on and on about their crimes. Nevertheless, Gildas talks about what happened in the 450's, including the mistake to invite the Saxons, and then starts to talk candidly about a man called Ambrosius Aurelianus, whose family wore the "Imperial Purple" (that means he was a patrician and also related to somebody who claimed the title of Emperor once). It seems this guy reorganized the Britons to defend themselves and fight back. The Britons seem to have won a major battle fought in a place identified only as "Mons Badonicus" that somehow set back the Saxon invasion of Britain for a long time, a peace that was still enforced 40 years after the battle, when Gildas wrote his book. From latter sources and crosschecks, we believe that if this battle ever happened, it was fought in the period range of 490-515.

Guess what? This the ONLY thing we know. If you read what I posted before, you will realize that Gildas never claims that Ambrosius ever FOUGHT ON MONS BADONICUS. This is why the search for Arthur is becomes interesting. Since we don't know who fought it, and who won it, we kinda have a gigantic hole, which later chronicles have filled by naming an "Arthur" as winner of that battle. Two latter welsh chronicles, which are recopilations of earlier material and of which seem to have been composed in the late 8th Century, say that a man named Arthur, a "Dux Bellorum" (a general, a commander), but not a "king", won a series of battles against the Anglosaxons, culminating in Mount Badon.

Interestingly, the chronicles of the Anglosaxons have no mention of the battle or Arthur or of anything significant, for that matter, in the era. The silence of what happened in those years, aside from people coming from the sea, kinda justify Gildas. Besides, it is very doubtful that the Saxons would just let the britons go on with their lives, unless something stop them. There are tons of reasons why the saxons didn't mention this battle, of which only 2 are the simplest reasons: either it never happened, or the saxon warband was completely wiped out (an thus, no one came to tell the story).

So, although Badonicus likely happened, it is not a historical fact per se. And Arthur's is not quoted by all the sources. This casts a doubt of whether Arthur ever existed, but it doesn't prove he was an invention either. Somebody had to fight and win over the saxons, and the only name we have for that person is Arthur.That's it. No more to add.

Given the lack of evidence, studies and studies have been done ever since Geoffrey, with the world divided into two camps. Most orthodox and academic historians deny his existence, while arturian enthusiasts, a couple academics, and popular history writers claiming he did exist.I understand why most academics want to keep Arthur out of history books, but sometimes I just don't understand them. I mean, an 8th century mention of Arthur killing 960 saxons is dismissed as legend, but Alexander the Great defeating half a million persians with 40 thousand macedonians is "factual"?????

Anyway, what is my theory on Arthur? I think that in the lost British kingdoms of SE England, there was an Arctorius or Arturius of a romano-british family, and as the Dux Bellorum of the British, whopped saxon butt until he got killed. My candidate, aside from someone we do not about, is that the first of the Arthurs of which we have a record in the late 5th and 6th centuries, a guy going by the name Arthwyr Ap Mar (or "Arthur of the Penines" - around the 480-520 period), living in the lowlands of Scotland, came with his horsemen as a mercenary to sothern Britain, and championed the cause.

He could also get a title like Dux Bellorum since he was a high-class briton, a descendant of "Old King Cole" (Coel Hen), and superwarlord Cunneda Wleding. In my mind, an Aurelii, probably Ambrosius Aurelianus, was the leader or "high-king" of the romano-british at the time of Mons Badonicus and one of these two possible Arthurs was the hero of that day. In this way, we settle all early history records, letting Arthur be the winner of the battle as a warrior, and having Ambrosius as the overall leader of the struggle as Gildas mentions it in his book.

What happened then? well, Arthur gets killed somwhere, but his victories and the Aurelii diplomacy keeps the Saxons at bay for 50 years, until, probably smelling the weakness of the British kingdoms (maybe they read Gildas?), they decide to renew hostilities. The Britons are confined to Cornwall and Wales, or flee to Britanny, or get enslaved by the Saxons. Arthur's memory is kept alive in monasteries and by Welsh legends, and then Geoffrey decides to mix both when he makes his book on the History of England.