"After Arthur: A synoptic study of the Fate of the Britons." Topic

"The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain started around the middle of the 5th cent AD. After the first Saxon victories, the Britons were reorganized and had gone on the offensive against the invaders led by a succession of efficient Supreme rulers (Dukes) of the 5th-6th centuries: Voteporix, Ambrosius Aurelianus and the enigmatic Arthur, who repelled effectively the invaders.

‘King' Arthur may have been a historical personality, possibly a descendant of Artorius Castus (a Roman commander in Britain) and prince of the Dumnonii (in South-western Britain). Arthur or (more correctly) the historical person that he represents, was not the ‘King of the island' but rather the Supreme commander/ruler of the Britons. But he probably was the king of his own people/former civitas (probably Dumnonia). It is believed that his royal residence was in South-western Britain, probably in the royal fortress excavated at Cadbury. From there he was undertaking military and political action in all the Briton territories as far as the Antonine Wall in the North. The philological and archaeological data indicate that he managed to repel the Anglo-Saxon advance. According to the chroniclers, he defeated the Saxons in twelve major battles, killing many of them. Arthur managed to repel the Pictish and Irish raiders as well. He achieved his greatest victory in the Badonicus hill fort (Mount Badon, around 516 AD) on the Anglo-Saxons. After this victory, Arthur's ruling influence was extended to some of the Anglo-Saxon rulers, as well as to the Bretons of Armorica (in modern North-western France)…"

link

Full article here
link

Hope you enjoy!.

Amicalement
Armand

Armand

The evidence supporting this "history" is weak.

The Anglo-Saxon invasions were not a new thing. The Comes Littoris Saxonici per Britanniam (Count of the Saxon Shore for Britain, there was a comparable command on the other side of the Channel).

This was one of four major Roman Commanders for later Roman Britain. The others were the Count of Britain (field army), the Duke of Britain (border garrisons) and the Commander of the British Fleet. Thus, the angles, saxons, jutes and others were an ongoing sore well before the Roman forces evacuated Britain.

The Romano-British may well have tried to retain Roman customs but they were not unified. They may have agreed a local commander but not a Supreme Ruler (likewise, the Ducas Brittanarium was not all powerful).

The historical evidence for Arthur existing is weak, and the stories were written much later and contain pre-roman myths.

For all that, the once and future king is a good yarn, whether he be a Samartian Heavy cavalryman, the son of the last Emperor or just a local Romano-British warlord with some leadership ability.

Have a great day, Frank

Umm its not a very good article and the map is conjectural.

Gidlow is still the best and most useful single volume on the subject. The Arthur evidence is there, there's not much and it tells us little but on balance its more convincing than not.

Pretty much all we know about Arthur is that he was the victor at Baden Hill ( some modern claims have been made that Ambrosius was the commander at this battle , but they aren't very convincing and tradition ascribes the battle solely to Arthur ) and he probably died about 539-542AD after the battle of Camlann. Nennius gives us a list of other battles that he fought but these are not verified by other sources.AFAIR anyway.

Even the claim of Arthur as victor of Badon could be spurious.

It might be well to keep in mind that the 'Saxon Invasion' was not a kind of D-Day assault on Briton.

Well there's the rub. Nennius tells us all sorts of things and historians blithely take other personages and slot them into their narative while decrying Arthur who also appears there.

I find the Battle List acceptable it accounts for Arthur's place in tradition. Nennius, who ever he was, makes no great use of it.

As far as sources go we don't have much to go on and what we do have is often abused by those who should know better.

Peter Heather wrote a little on the period and its entirely plausible, significantly his theories easily accomodate an Arthur. He is also good on how the Saxon managed it.

Gildas is worth a read for anyone interested.

I certainly don't buy the 'Arthur as a tabboo'd god' theory or that the British were some sort of proto cabalists for whom the number 12 had sacred significance.

We know there was a battle of Badon Hill as it's mentioned in Gildas , our one cast-iron source for the period ( the ' obsessionis Mons Badonicus ' ). We know it was a British victory as the Saxon attacks stopped at this period and the country was divided between Saxons and Britains ( Gildas laments that many of the holy sites cannot be visited because of this ). The truce seems to have held for about 40-50 years.
The Annals Cambriae place Badon around 516-518 and Camlann around 537-539 , there is a suggestion that these entries were added at a late date but there is no particular evidence to support them being fake or to suggest that an association between these battles and Arthur was created later. Welsh myth and literature only ever associates one man with Badon , and whether Nennius's list is genuine or fiction it does at least strongly confirm the tradition that Arthur was the British commander at the battle.

There's the Arthur verse in the Gododdin too and that's early according to the linguists. It tells us Arthur was known as a famous warrior in the 6th century. It might also tell us that he bred and gave away horses if the anology holds true.

If there's a link between the Gododdin verse and Nennius' 'battle list', the circumstantial evidence might give Arthur a Northern provenance.

I agree with Oh : if others are given credence in Nennius/The Annals, why not Arthur? But if we take the dates as more/less accurate, we realise, for example, that if Arthur fought the battle at Guinnion fort in this period (late C5th/earlyC6th), he would in no way be carrying an image of the Holy Mary, whose cult had hardly taken off in the Middle East, let alone got anywhere near Britain by those dates.

The difficulty is sorting out original entry (if any) from later embelishment.

I understand that "Arthur" history is subject to controversy.
Imho an interesting period of history.

Amicalement
Armand

Have a look at Guy Halsall's recent 'Worlds of Arthur'. A very sceptical view is (to my mind) successfully presented.

I read that over Christmas and found it very poor. No references, lots of 'I'm a historian blather' with none of the transparency we expect historians use. There was some new speculation but no evidence to back it.

I recall sometime ago we were able to discuss his case for early Anglo Saxon cavalry here. In that case we were able to look at his references and conclude that it wasn't much of a case. Without references that becomes a harder task.

To be honest I cannot think why he bothered as it wont do his reputation any good. I read a library copy if I'd bought it I think I would have felt conned given that he is a professional historian and it bears the OUP inprint.

Still Arthur sells I suppose.