Historical Context for Arthur

2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT FOR ARTHUR THE POST-ROMAN PERIOD The Britons Arthur probably lived during the late fifth and early sixth centuries in a period formerly called the Dark Ages, a term that vividly indicates the scarcity of reliable contemporary written sources. The period has also been termed post-Roman Britain, sub-Roman Britain and the Brittonic Age.1 It was a turbulent time, when the Britons were under threat from foreign peoples: the Irish, the Picts and a newer threat, the Anglo-Saxons. The term ‘Briton’ had a different meaning in this context than it does today. The Britons were the Celtic-speaking peoples who had inhabited Britain from before the time of Christ.2 They were organised into tribes, each with their own king, and had a common Celtic language, British, an Indo-European language with close ties to Latin.3 In AD 43 the Britons began to lose political control of the island when the Romans invaded under Claudius. While under Roman rule, the British kings lost their power and Latin became the language of government and administration. Their Celtic language, British, lost prestige. It was probably not a written language in this period but remained the spoken language of the people in their home life, as argued by eminent Celtic linguist Kenneth Jackson.4 The Romans retained control for three and a half centuries, finally leaving by 410 to defend their crumbling empire on the continent. With the Romans gone, Britain came increasingly under attack from the Picts and the Irish. But the main threat lay elsewhere. Significant numbers of Anglo- Saxons had been settling in Britain from near the beginning of the fifth century, but at some point more were officially invited over as mercenaries to help fight the Picts and the Irish. Eventually they revolted against the Britons, being continually reinforced from their European homelands, and threatened to take over the island. Such is the traditional view of the Saxon takeover. Traditional Dates for Arthur Arthur has been dated by two references in the Latin text of the Annales Cambriae (the Welsh Annals), comprising part of the Harleian 3859 manuscript in the British Library. These annals do not have AD dates – they have to be calculated, as will be shown below. In Year 72 of the annals, Arthur is said to have been the victor at the Battle of Badon against the Anglo-Saxons. In Year 93, he is said to have died with Medraut (Mordred) at the Battle of Camlann. 2 Historical Context for Arthur To convert these annal dates to AD dates, Year 9 (when the annals record Pope Leo changing the date of Easter) can be equated to AD 455, the known date for this event.5 In this scheme, Year 72 becomes AD 518 (Badon) and Year 93 becomes AD 539 (Arthur’s death). However, this equating scheme gives datings for some later events in the annals which are two years too late, which could imply an alternative equating of 516 for Badon and 537 for Arthur’s death.6 Hence the date of Badon is often written as 516/518 and Arthur’s death as 537/539, as approximations for these events. These dates have been heavily contested by scholars, most regarding them as estimations retrospectively inserted into the annals, rather than a contemporaneous recording of events against a given year. GILDAS: THE RUIN OF BRITAIN The main source for this period is a fascinating work in Latin by a Briton called Gildas. Its title is The Ruin of Britain, in Latin, De Excidio Britanniae. It is unique, being the only surviving account of sixth-century Britain written by an eyewitness. Gildas was a British cleric whose writings became highly influential in the church. He states that he delayed writing his work for ten years and that many others in the church with similar critical views to him had urged him to write. He gives a blatantly one-sided account of the shortcomings of his fellow Britons, detailing the sins of five contemporary kings (about whom he was well informed), and referring to the British warriors as cowardly on the one hand, but constantly waging war amongst themselves on the other. He also berates the British clergy for their ungodly way of living.7 The Ruin of Britain was not primarily written as history, but has a ‘historical’ section which is somewhat inaccurate, but which presumably becomes more accurate as it approaches Gildas’ time. It covers the history of Britain from Roman times, based mostly on foreign works and the oral traditions of Britain, as Gildas indicates that any British written material had either been burnt by their enemies or removed overseas when the Britons fled the country, in particular to Brittany. Time of Writing According to the Annales Cambriae dates, Gildas should have been a younger contemporary of Arthur. His date of writing is not known but is often taken as circa 540, as indicated by John Morris. A date in the quarter from 525 to 550 is estimated by David Dumville. A possible upper limit of 540 may apply, as Michael Baillie identifies severe environmental conditions from 540 to 545 where the trees were affected, their rings showing minimal growth, as will be discussed in a later chapter. Given his providential view of history, Gildas could have referred to this as a chastisement from God, but apparently does not mention it, suggesting that he wrote a little earlier than 540.8 Historical Context for Arthur 3 He died in 570 according to the Annales Cambriae and states that he was writing at age 44. Assuming these details are correct, if Gildas wrote c. 540, then he was born around 496 and died aged 74 in 570. These values are not unreasonable. Gildas probably wrote not far from the 537/539 death date of Arthur.9 If Arthur existed as a historical figure, Gildas would surely have known about him. Yet he does not mention him explicitly and does not credit him with the decisive victory at Badon, as later works do, such as the Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae. This point will be discussed in detail in a later chapter. Location The most interesting and accurate part of the book is the complaint by Gildas against five contemporary kings whom he personally addresses. In blistering prose he excoriates the kings, lashing them for their sins and urging them to repent. The kings (or tyrants as he calls them) are all located in the southwest of Britain, giving a clue to Gildas’ location – Constantine from Dumnonia (Devon/Cornwall); Vortipor from Demetia in southwest Wales; Cuneglasus, probably from north Wales; Maglocunus, probably from the island of Anglesey in northwest Wales, and Aurelius ‘Caninus’, perhaps from the old British kingdom called Powys. Gildas seems remarkably well informed about these kings, listing vivid details about their personal lives, their marriages, family and even their appearance (for example, that the hair of Vortipor was starting to whiten), but he writes nothing about the kings in the north of Britain. He also writes with the perspective of someone from the south – he refers to the Picts as being in the north of Britain (Section 14) and as being in the far end of the island (Section 21). Since the Saxons controlled large parts of southeast Britain, it appears that he lived in southwest Britain (possibly Wales) but after publication probably lived at a location where he could not be found by the kings, possibly overseas. Alternatively, he may have written in hiding using a false name, as the name ‘Gildas’ does not appear to be British or any other language, as discussed by Patrick Sims-Williams.10 Threats from the Irish and Picts The Ruin of Britain relates that for many years before Arthur’s time, Britain had been terrorised by raids from the north. One threat was from the Scotti, Irish people from the Dál Ríata clan in the north of Ireland who had been raiding across the Irish Sea. Over time, they settled in the Argyll area in western Scotland, there founding the kingdom of Dalriada. They eventually became the Scots, giving their name to Scotland. A second threat came from the Picts (painted ones) who had settled mainly in central and east Scotland, north of the Firth of Forth. These threats had been occurring during the time of Roman occupation, but the disciplined Roman soldiers had kept them in check. Gildas states that after the Romans left, the Irish and the Picts had at one stage captured northern Britain down to Hadrian’s 4 Historical Context for Arthur Wall (The Ruin of Britain, Section 19.1). There had also been Irish incursions from the Déisi, a people from southeast Ireland, who had settled in north Wales and in southwest Wales. The Historia Brittonum (Section 62) describes how Cunedda and his sons, Britons from the Manau Gododdin region in southern Scotland (around modern Stirling), had moved to north Wales to expel the Irish there. David Dumville and Geraint Gruffydd give quite contrasting discussions on the historical validity of this event.11 Vortigern hires Saxon Mercenaries The Romans had left Britain by 410, with Rome itself being sacked in that year by the Visigoths led by Alaric. The terrifying raids of the Picts and northern Irish continued. In Section 23, Gildas gives a fascinating account of how the Saxons came to Britain. The earliest manuscript of The Ruin of Britain in which this story survives was written in the 900s at St Augustine’s, Canterbury. Gildas refers three times to a British overking, whom he does not name but calls ‘arrogant tyrant’, ‘Pharaoh’ and ‘ill-fated tyrant’.

Load more