King Arthur Based On Who?

A single figure? Honestly, I find that dubious that a single figure led the resistance, and instead I'd think it likely that there were a multitude of figures leading multiple disconnected resistances. It's possible that those figures were distilled and combined to create one mythological figure.

This sounds like a higher probability scenario.
 
That position may have been the same one that vortigern occupied, a commander in chief selected by some council that Gildas alludes to.

Yeah, I've seen it suggested that Vortigern was actually just a local king and his "counsellors" were just an ad-hoc gathering of rulers trying to sort out the Saxon situation, but Gildas seems to assign him a more important position, judging by the amount of vitriol he reserves for him.

Another thing I've just thought of -- Gildas calls the Britons citizens (cives) and the wars between the British kingdoms civil wars. Now maybe he only means this in the sense that the Britons are united by a common language and culture, but I don't think there are many parallels of people using the term civil war to refer to conflicts between culturally similar but politically distinct entities. (E.g., I don't think the ancient Greeks or mediaeval Italians called wars between their city-states civil wars, even though they clearly had a sense of cultural distinctness from their neighbours.) So I think Gildas probably means that there is a central government with authority over the local kings, although given the impunity with which these kings wage their civil wars it seems that its authority was pretty nominal by the time Gildas was writing.
 
The Englis King Arthur is a legend constructed in layers taken from a number of different sources. One of the most influential is Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain. Written in 1135 and still in print. Geoffrey introduces the sword in stone story and merlin. It was an influence on Shakespeare, Pre Raphaelites and Tolkien
 
That position may have been the same one that vortigern occupied, a commander in chief selected by some council that Gildas alludes to.
Arthur do not need to have been a king so that role can very well be his real one...
And if he was the commander in chief of the Briton forces he would still be the leader of the British resistance and the commander at Badon
 
I'm not sure about validity of a comparison because Charlemagne definitely existed.
No I know that's what I'm saying, Charlemagne is real but the English, and British as a whole, don't have that figure so they created one from an amalgamation of people according to what people have posted in this thread

Oh I know this YouTuber! Didn't know she made this. Thanks for the info
 
Arthur do not need to have been a king so that role can very well be his real one...
And if he was the commander in chief of the Briton forces he would still be the leader of the British resistance and the commander at Badon

IIRC the earliest mention of Arthur as a hero is in Y Gododdin

In stanza 99, the poet praises one of the warriors, Gwawrddur:

He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress
Though he was no Arthur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_Gododdin
 
Yeah, I've seen it suggested that Vortigern was actually just a local king and his "counsellors" were just an ad-hoc gathering of rulers trying to sort out the Saxon situation, but Gildas seems to assign him a more important position, judging by the amount of vitriol he reserves for him
Part of the problem is that people of the past weren't as particular with their terminology as modern academics. Medieval historians often called emperors kings, even if the difference was subtle and later a polite legal fiction, because rome never had kings again (Livy says so).

That said, your point about a civil war is interesting and it may indicate that theres something to the mordred element of the legend if that short entry in the annales cambriae can be taken as some sort of evidence. Although if i may suggest something, it could be that the mordred named was arthurs heir presumtive and the civil war followed because of both of their deaths. His status as a usurper could be a medieval fabrication to fill in the gap of information
 
No I know that's what I'm saying, Charlemagne is real but the English, and British as a whole, don't have that figure so they created one from an amalgamation of people according to what people have posted in this thread

IIRC, Churchill wrote that if Arthur did not exist, he had to be created. :)

Nothing really unique it creating such a figure. In the Russian folklore there was "Prince Vladimir the Red Son", a mythological personage which had no direct links to any known ruler of that name but was something of an idealized feudal ruler (well, from time to time not a very good one but this is not the point). All the legendary great fighters are coming to his court to serve him and then each of these fighters goes on his individual sprees of the heroic adventures and then gets back to the never-ending feast. Sounds familiar?

Stories related to the legendary Charlemagne (not to be confused with a real one :)) are more or less the same and I suspect that something of the kind can be found elsewhere. AFAIK, in "Shahnameh" Kay Kavus is playing a role similar to one of "Prince Vladimir the Red Son".
 
Last edited:
Aren't you saying here that Arthur is comparable to the legendary Charlemagne?

No, I'm saying that his legends have a lot of common with the legends about other idealized rulers. In any specific case the ruler may or may not have a single historic "prototype" but this is not really important. Comparison is more or less meaningful only as far as the general structure of the legends is involved.
 
Also, the Saxon expansion seems to have been brought to a halt across the island, and the Saxon kingdoms all seem to have kept the peace for some half a century. Whilst it is possible that there were multiple disconnected resistances which all ended up enjoying a similar level of success and led to a similar outcome, it's more plausible that there was some form of co-ordination between the British kingdoms
Worth noting that while the Saxons may have halted the Angles didn't.
 
One interesting theory I've seen advanced by Dr. Ian Mortimer is that the Legend of King Arthur as a medieval, chivalric King was based on Edward III - a King of Medieval England who had a fairly interesting life in his own right, but sadly does not seem to have had his system of Government blessed by any watery tarts handing out cutlery ...
 
One interesting theory I've seen advanced by Dr. Ian Mortimer is that the Legend of King Arthur as a medieval, chivalric King was based on Edward III - a King of Medieval England who had a fairly interesting life in his own right, but sadly does not seem to have had his system of Government blessed by any watery tarts handing out cutlery ...
i really doubt it. Edward iii post dates a lot of arthuriana: Geoffrey of Monmouth did his bit in 1135 and Chrétien de Troyes came right after
 
That said, your point about a civil war is interesting and it may indicate that theres something to the mordred element of the legend if that short entry in the annales cambriae can be taken as some sort of evidence. Although if i may suggest something, it could be that the mordred named was arthurs heir presumtive and the civil war followed because of both of their deaths. His status as a usurper could be a medieval fabrication to fill in the gap of information

One interesting thing is that the Battle of Camlann crops up more in later Welsh legend than Badon does. This might suggest that Camlann happened somewhere in modern-day Wales, whereas Badon happened somewhere that subsequently became part of English and so any local traditions about it were lost.

Worth noting that while the Saxons may have halted the Angles didn't.

Do you have a source for that? IIRC the archaeological evidence suggests that there were no major Anglo-Saxon advances between about 500 and 550, although it's possible some new discoveries have been made since I/the books I read last checked.
 
i really doubt it. Edward iii post dates a lot of arthuriana: Geoffrey of Monmouth did his bit in 1135 and Chrétien de Troyes came right after

On the other hand Sir Thomas Malory post-dates Edward IV and that Honourable Member for Warwickshire* played at least as great a part in shaping our understanding of Arthur's Life & Death as those two other illustrious scriveners (courtesy of Le Morte D'Arthur) especially in the English language traditions - and during his lifetime the Great Model for Chivalric Kingship would have been Edward III (not least because the preceding century or so had seen rebellions, tyranny & short-loved hopes smoothly segue into a long period of Civil War - even Henry V might find his reputation in question, given his association with the Lancastrian faction).


*Knight, MP, Robber Knight, Convict, Author of the most famous work of Arthurian Legend in the English Language - given he appears to have dreamed of Camelot but died in Newgate Prison for his various misdeeds, it strikes me that his Life Story must have been even more remarkable than his own fiction!
 
One interesting thing is that the Battle of Camlann crops up more in later Welsh legend than Badon does. This might suggest that Camlann happened somewhere in modern-day Wales, whereas Badon happened somewhere that subsequently became part of English and so any local traditions about it were lost.
Well the name looks like it means crooked embankment, which to me at least suggests a battle at a river crossing (although it could also suggest an enclosure). Beyond that i don't think there's enough said in the earliest documents to be able to pin down a location.

For my purposes as a writer though, Cadbury castle (the one east of ilchester in South Cadbury) is the likeliest site of "Camelot" imo, and is on the river cam, so when i get around to actually writing my Arthurian story im going to say that arthur and his heir are ambushed by malcontents as they're returning to his stronghold.
 
Indeed, I've even heard of (though not read) a book claiming that Arthur was based on the British King Caratacus and that he was actually fighting Romans, not Saxons. Iirc, it claimed that "Camelot Dun" was actually Camelodunum, ie Colchester.

I'm afraid the title and author escape me.


Looks as is it was


Probably nonsense but maybe interesting nonsense.

Guardian of the Grail: A new light on the Arthurian legend
by John Whitehead
 
Top