The Road to Camlann

An.93. Gueith camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruerunt.
[The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut fell]

Part I – The North
The Strife of Camlann was the final battle of King Arthur in which he either died or was mortally wounded fighting with, or against, Medraut (Cornish = Modred). Whichever, after Camlann Arthur disappears and the golden age of the Round Table comes to an end. This period, the 10th century Welsh Annals date Camlann to 537 AD, coincides with the end of sub-Roman Britain and the onset of Anglo Saxon England.

The name 'Camlann' is said to derive from the Brittonic *Cambo-glanna (crooked-bank, of a river) or *Cambo-landa (crooked-enclosure). Scholars who argue against the existence of Arthur doubt Camlann was a real event and assert the location is unknown. However, advocates for a historical Arthur in the north of Britain claim it was a battle fought on Hadrian's Wall.

OGS Crawford1 concluded that, despite a derivation from the Celtic camb(o) = curved and landa = enclosure, there was no such place called "Camlann". He suggested the name was probably of Latin origin, i.e. "Camboglanna" which he identified as the Roman Fort of Birdoswald on Hadrian's Wall. Crawford saw the provenance of the Welsh Annals in Scotland which he used to support his northern Arthur theory. Accordingly, academic authors followed, indeed, Birdoswald on Hadrian's Wall is the preferred option for Richard Barber2 which fits well with his thesis that Arthur was a prince of Dalriada.

Along the line of The Wall

Norma Lorre Goodrich3 following OGS Crawford, envisaged the terrain of Camboglanna and its vicinity as the ideal land for Modred to lie in wait for King Arthur as he rode out from Carlisle and cites local lore that claims Arthur lies sleeping under Sewingshields Castle, a short distance to the east of Camboglanna. No doubt influenced by local landscape features such as King’s Crags, Queen’s Crags, King Arthur’s Well and King Arthur’s Chair, Goodrich's attempted reconstruction of an Arthurian history using facets taken from Geoffrey and later Romance is not taken seriously by academics today.

A possible early Arthurian reference in the Medieval Welsh poem Y Gododdin in which the poet Aneirin praises the prowess of one of the warriors, Gwawrddur, who fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress in comparison in valour to Arthur, has been seen a reference to a conflict at a old Roman fort in the north, possibly on Hadrian's Wall. John Koch has suggested that the earliest version of Y Goddodin could have been composed in the 6th or 7th century prior to a later transmission to Wales and if authentic would be the earliest known Arthurian reference.4

The proponents for a northern Arthur argue that the name Camlann most likely derives from that of the Roman fort Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall5. Indeed, Camboglanna has remained a favoured location for Camlann among academics in the argument for a Northern Arthur ever since Ekwall first made the suggestion in 1927, followed by OGS Crawford in 1935.6 Collingwood and Wright7 identified Camboglanna as Birdoswald, but recent research indicates that the Roman fort of Castlesteads by the Cam Beck is the correct identification.

There can be little doubt that the Roman garrison in Britain was severely weakened by successive troop withdrawals by Maximus, Stilicho and Constantine III, but the opinion that Hadrian's Wall was deserted after the late 4th century has, in the light of recent archaeological work, been abandoned in favour of continuous use well into the 5th century.

Following the end of Roman administration in Britain c.410 AD occupation of the fort at Birdoswald appears to have continued into the early 6th century by which time two granaries had been demolished and the northern one replaced with a large timber hall, probably occupied by a local warlord, a construction conjectured by size and type to have been similar to that evidenced at South Cadbury hill fort in Somerset. Today the position of the timber pillars of the hall are marked by modern posts. The hall seems to have survived into the 6th century when the site appears to have gone out of use around 520 AD.8

Thus, at Castlesteads (the Roman fort of Camboglanna) is situated above a winding stream, the Cam Beck, with a very crooked bank indeed (*Cambo-glanna = crooked bank, of a river). After the Roman withdrawal a local chieftain refortified the next Roman fort along Hadrian's Wall at Birdoswald (Banna) building a Dark Age Hall which was suddenly abandoned around the time the Welsh Annals date the battle of Camlann. Coupled with the fact that the earliest reference to Arthur may be contained within the poem Y Goddodin, the case for a northern Camlann appears strong.

Birdoswald Roman fort = Banna

Yet we struggle to find many recorded battles actually fought on the Wall. The Roman's record the Pictish wars of the 2nd Century and the Barbarian Conspiracy of 367 AD breached the Wall, but there is little evidence of any Dark Age battles that could fit a suitable timeframe for Camlann.

In the 6th century Gildas wrote that as soon as the Romans withdrew from the Island the Picts and Scots returned and seized all the country towards the extreme north as far as the Wall. A garrison was placed on the Wall but the hooked weapons of their enemies dragged the guards from the battlements. The Britons then abandoned the protection of the Wall and the enemy pursued them and butchered them like sheep. The Britons then appealed to Aetius, thrice consul for help (the Groans of the Britons):

“The barbarians drive us to the sea; the sea throws us back on the barbarians: thus
two modes of death await us, we are either slain or drowned.”

Then, Gildas continues, the Picts settled at the extremity of the island for the first time. Following this all the councillors, together with the Proud Tyrant invited into the country (like wolves into the sheep-fold), the fierce and impious Saxons, a race hateful both to God and men, to repel the invasions of the northern nations. First landing on the eastern side of the island, to fight for it but ending up fighting against it.9 If then we are to believe Gildas, the Saxon mercenaries were first settled by the eastern end of the Wall to guard against the threat from the north.

We find a Dark Age battle recorded on the Wall in the 7th century, some 200 years after the Romans departed from British shores. The Battle of Heavenfield, fought in 633 or 634 AD between the British kingdoms of Northumbria and Gwynedd where the Anglian King Oswald  defeated the Welsh Cadwallon ap Cadfon.

The same conflict was recorded by Bede as the Battle of Deniseburna, near Hefenfelth, where Oswald was said to have had a holy vision on the eve of the battle, and had his men erect a large wooden cross. In commemoration of the battle today a wooden cross stands at the entrance to St. Oswald’s church, on the line of the Wall, a few hundred yards off the B6318, some 4 miles north of Hexham.

Just when the search for a battle on Hadrian's Wall that could equate to Camlann appears fruitless, a serious contender emerges in the theory of C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor10 in which they argue that a number of features in the Arthurian legend could be Scythian in origin, and, they claim, the evidence of Scythians in Britain begins in the 2nd century, when a group of Sarmatian horsemen were brought over to northern Britain as Roman heavy cavalry by Marcus Aurelius in 175 AD. Littleton and Malcor do not attempt to identify Camlann but demonstrate a number of parallels between the Arthurian and Scythian legends, notably return of the hero's magical sword to the Queen of the Sea (Lady of the Lake). After Camlann, the mortally wounded Arthur insists Bedivere throws Excalibur into the lake; Littleton and Malcor argue that this ritual may have its origins in the Nartz legend when Batraz throws his sword into the sea after his final battle.

A potential link with Lucius Artorius Castus as the figure of Arthur behind medieval European literature was first suggested by Kemp Malone.11 In her re-construction of the career of Lucius Artorius Castus in Britain based on epigraphic evidence and the account of the Caledonian revolt in the 180s AD from Dio Cassius, Malcor presents a serious contender for Arthur, stationed at York, the City of the Legions, recovering much of the north. Malcor reconstructs several Arthurian battle sites along Hadrian's Wall, including Camboglanna, which must have seen heavy fighting against the Picts during the Caledonian invasion in the 2nd century, but does not argue for an northern site for Camlann as Castus did not die in Britain.

Accorded the tittle of 'Dux' Castus left Britannia with two Legions to engage in a Civil War that Malcor claims has strong parallels with Arthur's final battle at Camlann. Malcor argues that Lucius Artorius Castus is the only figure with this name whose military activities in Britain can be traced to the battles of King Arthur and would come in contact with the origins of the Arthurian legend through the Sarmatians (Nartz sagas).12 Malcor's theory was the inspiration behind Antoine Fuqua's 2004 film 'King Arthur' starring Clive Owen, in which she was historical advisor.

Antoine Fuqua's 'King Arthur'

However, as Prefect (Praefectus Legionis) to the Legio VI Victrix, an administrative position usually only held at an advanced age, it is unlikely that Castus actually fought in any battles while serving in Britannia and probably spent most, if not all, of his time at the Legion's headquarters in York. There is certainly no direct evidence that he commanded a contingent of Sarmatian heavy cavalry, which were permanently stationed at Bremetennacum (Ribchester), originally sent to Britannia in 175 AD by Emperor Marcus Aurelius. Dates for Castus's time in Britain vary; indeed, one scholar argues that he may have left Britannia before the Sarmatians arrived.

Malcor claims that before finishing his military career as a Dux Legionum, a term equivalent to Arthur's title of Dux Bellorum, Castus led an expedition of “Britanicimiae” to Armorica (Brittany). The unit's name probably derived from its early service in Britain, however, no units of this name are known to have been active in Britain during the late 2nd Century.

The epigraphic evidence for Castus is  known only from two inscriptions found in Croatia. An inscription on a sarcophagus which was broken in two and set into the wall of the Church of St Martin in Podstrana, Croatia, has been translated as:

“To the divine shades, Lucius Artorius Castus, Centurion of the Third Legion Gallica, also
Centurion of the Sixth Legion Ferrata, also Centurion of the Second Legion Adiutrix, also
Centurion of the Fifth Legion Macedonica, also Chief Centurion of the same Legion, in charge of (Praepositus) the Misenum fleet, Prefect of the Sixth Legion Victrix, Commander of two British Legions against the Armenians, Centenary Procurator of Liburnia with the power of the sword. He himself (set this up) for himself and his family in his lifetime.”

Lucius Artorius Castus inscription

No dates are given in either inscription, and scholars vary on their opinion of Castus' floruit. However, all tend to agree that the expedition of two British Legions was to Armenia not Armorica.13 Yet, even if we concede that Castus may have fought at Camboglanna on Hadrian's Wall during the Caledonian Wars in the 2nd century, the academics favoured location for Camlann, he was certainly not mortally wounded there and died some years later. After retiring from the army he became governor of Liburnia, in Roman Dalmatia (modern Albania and Croatia), where he probably died. In reality, nothing further is known of him.

However, the name is right ('Artorius' could have developed as 'Arthur' when taken into Welsh) and, according to Malcor, he even crosses to Gaul, putting him in direct contention with Geoffrey Ashes's Riothamus.

In The Discovery of Arthur,14 Ashe traces the legend of King Arthur to its roots, as he says, in the 12th-century chronicles of Geoffrey of Monmouth and argues for Riothamus as an actual 5th-century British monarch who crossed to Gaul "by way of ocean" with several thousand British troops as the legendary king of the Britons. Riothamus was betrayed by the local prefect and, claims Ashe, was last seen heading in the direction of Avallon. Here, where the sacred waters of Les Fontaines Salées, in the ‘Avallonnais’ region of Burgundy, with its natural salt springs and mineral waters was known as a healing sanctuary since prehistoric times.15

The 9th century Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons) records that Arthur's eleventh battle was fought on the hill called Agned. Geoffrey of Monmouth identified Monte Agned as Edinburgh, yet ‘Agned,’ has been explained as a corruption of Andegavum, i.e., Angers, capital of Anjou, in the lower Loire Valley. During the 460s Saxons were present on the lower Loire, and for some years in conflict with the Britons who were settling just north of them in Armorica. The Saxons were finally beaten and dispersed in a battle near Angers around 469 by a force of Britons that could have allied with Romans and Franks in the area. These Britons may have been the same force led by Riothamus who would certainly have been in this area around this time before his march on Bourges.

In the preface to the Legend of St. Goeznovius, a Cornish born bishop venerated as a saint around Léon during the 6th century settlement of Britons in Armorica, said to be written by William a Breton chaplain in 1019, it describes the traditional story of Vortigern inviting Saxons into the country until they were driven from the country by King Arthur who fought battles in Britain and in Gaul before being "summoned… from human activity”. Ashe weaves all these threads together to assert that Riothamus was indeed King Arthur, but to make his theory work Ashe is forced to reject any historical evidence for Arthur's presence at either Badon or Camlann.

Further, Rodney Castleden16 suggests we should consider if Arthur's adventures in Brittany are in fact misplaced altogether. Castleden quotes Stuart Piggott who has questioned if this should actually read as a North Welsh campaign; in Latin Gwynedd is 'Armonica' which could easily be confused by a copyist with 'Armorica', the early Latin term for Brittany.

Significantly, the best candidate for a northern Arthur cannot satisfy the requirements of Camlann. The best that we can conclude is that the Gallic excursions of either Lucius Artorious Castus or Riothamus may have provided the inspiration for Geoffrey Monmouth's tale of Arthur's invasion of Gaul. And yet Geoffrey opted for a southern location for Arthur's final battle.


Copyright © 2017 Edward Watson
http://clasmerdin.blogspot.co.uk/


Notes & References
1. OGS Crawford, Arthur's Battles, Antiquity 9, 1935.
2. Richard Barber, The Figure of Arthur, D S Brewer, 1972.
3. Norma Lorre Goodrich, King Arthur, Harper, 1986.
4. John T Koch, The Gododdin of Aneirin, University of Wales Press, 1997.
5. Leslie Alcock, Arthur's Britain, Penguin, 1971.
6. Eilert Ekwall, English River Names, Oxford University Press, 1927 (Reprint edition, 1968); OGS Crawford, Arthur's Battles, Antiquity 9, 1935.
7. Collingwood and Wright, The Roman Inscriptions of Britain. Vol. 1: Inscriptions on Stone. Oxford: Clarendon. 1965.
8. Tony Wilmott, Birdoswald Roman Fort, EH, 2005, p.12-13.
9. Gildas, On the Ruin of Britain, translated by J. A. Giles and T. Habington.
10. C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor, From Scythia to Camelot, Garland, 1990.
11. Kemp Malone, Artorius, Modern Philology 23, 1924–1925: pp.367–74.
12. Linda A. Malcor, Lucius Artorius Castus - Part 1: An Officer and an Equestrian, The Heroic Age, Issue 1, Spring/Summer 1999.
Part 2: The Battles in Britain, The Heroic Age, Issue 2, Autumn/Winter 1999.
13. The inscriptions were examined in 2012 during the international conference on Lucius Artorius Castus organized by authors Linda Malcor and John Matthews. Croatian archaeologist Željko Miletić dates Lucius Artorius Castus's military career to circa 121–166 AD and his procurator-ship of the province of Liburnia to circa 167–174 AD.
14. Geoffrey Ashe, The Discovery of Arthur, Henry Holt and Company, 1987.
15. Marilyn Floyde, King Arthur's French Odyssey, 2009.
16. Rodney Castleden, King Arthur: The Truth behind the Legend, Routledge, 2000.

* * *

Who Was The Real Arthur?

Poll Results
For the months of April/May Clas Merdin has been running a poll on the identity of the Real Arthur.
A select list of the most popular candidates was offered with the addition of a final category for those who doubt the King's historical existence.

Poll Results:

Lucius Castus Artorius   5%
Ambrosius  37%
Riothamus  37%
Vortigern  0%
Cerdic  1%
Cunegulasus  0%
Athwrys of Gwent  3%
Creation of Geoffrey of Monmouth  1%
Never existed  11%

Not surprisingly the two most likely candidates for an historical Arthur came joint top of the poll with 37% each:

Ambrosius Aurelius
According to Gildas the Last of the Romans who's family wore the purple, and led the beleaguered Britons to victory at the Battle of Badon Hill, c.495AD. Nennius claims Arthur was the leader of the Britons at Badon making Ambrosius a strong contender for the historical Dux Bellorum. Little is known of the historical Ambrosius outside of Gildas. Right time, right place, right result.

Riothamus 

The name Riothamus may actually have been a title meaning "high-king" which would agree with the chronicler Jordanes, who stated he was called "King of the Britons".  He was active in Gaul c.470 AD. In The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, Jordanes states that Riothamus supported the Romans and "came with twelve thousand men into the state of the Bituriges by the way of Ocean" against Euric's Visigoths. A letter from Sidonius Apollinaris implies that Riothamus was betrayed by the Praetorian Prefect of Gaul, Arvandus who told Euric that "the Britons stationed beyond the Loire should be attacked". Consequently the Goths intercepted Riothamus' army and he was heavily defeated fighting against overwhelming odds. He was last seen heading toward Avallon in Burgundy. Could Riothamus have been healed at Avallon and returned to Britain to fight he Battle of Badon some twenty odd years later?

The theory of King Arthur as Riothamus who met his demise in France is not a new one and has been championed in recent years by Geoffrey Ashe in The Discovery of King Arthur, (1985) and more recently by Marilyn Floyde, King Arthur's French Odyssey (2009).

However, Léon Fleuriot has argued that Riothamus is identical to Ambrosius Aurelianus which is compatible with the Poll result.

The only other serious contender to these two most likely candidates was that Arthur never existed coming in at 11%. This is suggestive of a growing number that see Arthur, pre-Geoffrey of Monmouth, as a non-historical character, a mythical figure of early Welsh poetry who journeys to the Otherworld at will, fighting monsters and accompanied by deities from the Celtic pantheon.

* * * 

Avallon in Burgundy

King Arthur's French Odyssey
by Marilyn Floyde

The Retreat from Bourges
"Arthur Riothamus, and what was left of his battle-weary troops, made their escape from Bourges (Avaricum), after their defeat by the invading Visigoths. They went east towards the Burgundians who were known to be allied to the Romans. There were still Roman strongholds in Avallon and Autun. The Romans had promised him reinforcements, but they had never materialised in Bourges, and Arthur Riothamus had been left to fight the Visigoths with his army alone, with disastrous consequences. The Burgundians would have offered him a safe haven. Along the Roman road to Avallon he would have passed through some of the most beautiful landscape in France. He would have reached the ‘Avallonnais’ region, surrounding Avallon itself, and the famous and sacred phenomenon for which Avallon was known throughout Gaul at that time, Les Fontaines Salées – literally, ‘the salt springs’. " [1]

The theory of King Arthur as Riothamus who met his demise in France is not a new one and has been championed in recent years by Geoffrey Ashe in The Discovery of King Arthur, (1985). Widely regarded as one of the leading Arthurian specialists, Ashe provides the foreword to Marilyn Floyde's new book, King Arthur's French Odyssey (published December 2009) endorsing the theory that the nearest we get to identifying an historical Arthur is Riothamus who was last seen heading towards the Burgundians in the direction of Avallon. Floyde, having lived in a small village near Avallon, Burgundy, France, for a number of years, has taken the theory a few steps further by investigating the Arthurian themes in the countryside around her French home.

Inspired by a question on the 'burgundytoday.com' message board asking ‘Avalon or Avallon', writer Marilyn Floyde set out to research the local area around her home in Burgundy. A strong case began to emerge that Arthur spent considerable time in Burgundy and was wounded in battle there. Despite the calls from Glastonbury in England, claiming Arthur as their own, Avallon in Burgundy now steps out of the shadows.

Floyde uses the two Geoffrey's, Ashe and Monmouth, as her main sources and provides a refreshing look at the Arthurian legend in a French context. It is Geoffrey of Monmouth's story that the author searches out the first clues and develops her Arthurian French Odyssey, combined with the use of ‘La Chanson de Girart de Roussillon' from a body of medieval French literature known as the Chanson de Geste (Old French for "songs of heroic deeds”), part of ‘The Matter of France’. The anonymous Chanson de Geste, is thought to be based on an ancient epic poem and recorded by a medieval monk either in Vézelay or Asquins some time between 1136 and 1180, around the same time Geoffrey of Monmouth penned his History of the Kings of Britain.

In exploring Arthur’s French connections, Floyde discusses the length of time he spent there, places he visited, wartime alliances, peacetime friendships, love affairs and his ultimate resting place. Floyde promotes a persuasive account containing all the typical components of a Dark Age tale full of fear, bloodshed and incest; a time for Arthur’s kinship with France to be acknowledged in the context of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s original story.

Not a heavy, scholarly work, but instead a very readable account which considers the real location of 'Avalon' as Glastonbury or the Burgundian town of 'Avallon', known as Aballo in the 12th Century. The story of Arthur's sword Excalibur (known as Caliburn in the earliest sources) and its connection with the forges of Avallon provides an adequate explanation for Geoffrey of Monmouth's account of the weapon's provenance. Floyde suggests that it is possible that from the earliest times in Gaul when the Roman Empire was in a state of terminal decay, Arthur's sword Caliburn was hidden, along with the body of Arthur, until King Richard the Lionheart set off on the Third Crusade. The last historical reference to Caliburn being when King Richard gave the magical sword to the King of Sicily while on his journey to the Holy Land.

Floyde considers the possibility of the King's bones being removed from the French town and taken to Glastonbury to be excavated later by the monks in the Abbey grounds c.1190. The transportation of Royal remains and martyr's relics was not an uncommon practice in medieval times. But perhaps the key factor in Floyde's argument for a French Avallon is the sacred waters of Les Fontaines Salées, in the ‘Avallonnais’ region of Burgundy, with its natural salt springs and mineral waters known as a healing sanctuary since prehistoric times, where she proposes the wounded King would have made for after being trounced in battle by the Visigoths.


Notes:
1. AVALLON – THE HEALING SANCTUARY – Marilyn Floyde.

*

UPDATE 2016

After the first edition of King Arthur's French Odyssey - Avallon in Burgundy by Marilyn Floyde sold out, and no longer available, the book has been republished in 2016 with fresh findings.

Expanding Geoffrey Ashe's theory of Arthur as Riothamus, which he outlines in the Foreword, this new edition presents an extraordinary revelation and challenges Glastonbury's claim to be 'The Island of Avallon',

The author's website [www.islandofavallon.co.uk]

The book was commissioned by www.burgundytoday.com where the initial research was first published.

* * *

Historic Figures of the Arthurian Era

Authenticating the Enemies and Allies of Britain's Post-Roman King

15th September 2009 saw the welcome publication in paperback of Frank D Reno's second Arthurian work Historic Figures of the Arthurian Era: Authenticating the Enemies and Allies of Britain's Post-Roman King. This book was published in first edition hardback in 1999, following Reno's earlier work The Historic King Arthur: Authenticating the Celtic Hero of Post-Roman Britain (1997). Some of us obsessive Arthur freaks couldn't wait for a paperback edition to be published and paid rather high prices for these two hardback books a few years ago, although at nearly £30 a piece the paperback editions don't exactly come cheap, but on saying that you do get a lot of Arthurian info for your money. If you are a fellow Arthurian klepto sufferer you'll have to have them, so put them on your Christmas wish list.

Historic Figures of the Arthurian Era
Authenticating the Enemies and Allies of Britain's Post-Roman King
Hardback, 450 pages, McFarland & Co 1999 – published in paperback edition, McFarland & Co, September 2009.

According to the Author's website, the title of this book is misleading, since in actuality scholars rightly claim that there was no Arthurian era in the fifth century. The content of Frank D Reno's second Arthurian book is more accurately described by the original working title, Ambrosius Aurelianus: Allies and Adversaries. Leon Fleuroit was probably the first in modern times to postulate that Ambrosius Aurelianus is a doublet of Riothamus; following Fleuroit, E.K. Chambers, among others, indicated that Arthur and Ambrosius are in all probability scribally corrupted names of the same persona.

Reno demonstrated in his first Arthurian book “The Historic King Arthur,” in attempting to separate fiction from history, that the true King Arthur was a Celtic king of post-Roman Britain who lived in the late fifth and early sixth century. This book is a further effort to authenticate the legendary Arthur as a historical Celtic king. In this work Reno examines the roles of six major figures of the period from AD 383 to 518: Vortimer, Vitalinus, Cunedda, Cerdic, Octha and Mordred in an attempt to unravel the mystery of Arthur's identity, which has proven to be a perennial problem for historians. The author provides an extensive analysis of Arthur's 12 battles as listed in the "Historia Brittonum", exploring not only the influences of the King's allies, but also the switch of allegiance by some Britons who joined forces with Arthur's English and German enemies. Providing suggested geographical locations for each of the battles, culminating in a proposed new site for Arthur's fateful battle at Camlann.

Table of Contents:
Prologue
1. New Perspectives of Ancient Insular History
2. Other Early Manuscripts
3. Riardd Ambrosius
4. Who's who: Ambosius's Father, the Superbus Tyrannus Vortigern.
5. Vortimer and Vitalinus: Arthurian Enigmas.
6. The Breach of Colours: Cunedda's Role in Civil War
7. The Breach of Colours: Romanitas Versus Cunedda's Progeny and the Saxons.
8. Arthur's Battle with the Saxons.
9. The Strife of Camlann
Epilogue
Appendix A: A Century and a Half of Dark-Age History
Appendix B: Two Tales of the Mabinogion
Notes
Glossary
Bibliography
Index

Reno's first Arthurian book discusses in detail who he considers to be the historical King Arthur of the 5th Century and how the story originated.

The Historic King Arthur
Authenticating the Celtic Hero of Post-Roman Britain
Hardback, 450 pages, McFarland & Co 1997 – published in first paperback edition, McFarland & Co, 2007.

Through careful research of primary documents, Reno produces a picture of who he claims is the true Arthur. The author claims that Arthur reached power shortly after the Romans left Britain at the end of the fifth century and died at the Battle of Camlann. Reno does not dismiss Geoffrey of Monmouth's account totally out of hand as some scholars do, claiming Arthur did became king at 15 years of age, but under the name of Ambrosius Aurelianus who fought against the Saxons on the mainland and on the continent as Riothamus. Reno claims this accounts for the regeneration motif so closely tied to the mythical Arthur.

The Author's website states that The Historic King Arthur focuses upon laying the foundation for authenticating a historic Arthur of Britain. Containing twelve chapters, the first eight (approximately two-thirds of the book) create the under- pinnings for the hypothesis that the Roman equestrian Officer Lucius Artorius Castus was an authentic figure whose origin is found to the end of the second century, and whose name became conflated with a British king named Ambrosius Aurelianus of the fifth century.

This is yet another one of those books claiming to reveal the truth about King Arthur, identifying a triad of Arthur-Ambrosius-Riothamus as one warrior King, claiming he fought in Britain as Ambrosius Aurelianus and on the continent as Riothamus. The literary and archaeological evidence is examined in some detail, calibrating the Arthurian chronology of the source documents is discussed and he stresses the importance of differentiating between Continental Saxons and the Saxons in Britain. You may not agree with all Reno has to say on Arthur but he certainly puts forward a persuasive argument.

Table of Contents
Preface
1. Introduction
2. The Ancient Manuscripts
3. The Cardinal and Ordinal Years for the Arthurian Chronology
4. Hillforts and Roman Roads
5. The Geography of Mount Badon
6. The Geography of Camlann
7. Other Sites: Camelot and Tintagel
8. The Isle of Avalon: Arthur’s Resting Place
9. Ambrosius Aurelianus: History and Tradition
10. Riothamus: The Briton from Across the Ocean
11. Arthur: Historical and Literary Data
12. The Phoenix Arises
Appendix A: The Arthurian Chronolgy
Appendix B: Harleian Manuscript 3859
Glossary
Notes
Bibliography
Index

>> Greenman Review of The Historic King Arthur


Visit the author's website based upon the texts and research of Frank D. Reno:

KING ARTHUR: THE NEMESIS OF HISTORY AND LEGEND

The Author's website provides an analytical breakdown, chapter by chapter, of the contents of each book. On this website, Reno discusses historical allusions and legendary accretions attached to Arthur, attempting to define the differences between legend and history. Reno argues that the legendary King Arthur has become melded with the historic “King Arthur” Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman Officer posted in Britain at the end of the second century. Castus left Britain to fight on the Continent, echoing Riothamus (said by the 6th century historian Jordanes, to be "king of the Brittones") and Arthur's continental adventures in Geoffrey's story, these accounts became conflated with “Historic King Arthur” Ambrosius Aurelianus of the fifth century, and onward to the legendary King Arthur memorialised by Sir Thomas Malory’s Morte D’Arthur in the sixteenth century.

King Arthur is undoubtedly the most enigmatic hero in literature, whenever his name is mentioned, it is commonly associated with what is now referred to Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th Century "pseudo- history" History of the Kings of Britain, but surprisingly Reno does not dismiss Geoffrey's account but uses it to assist in unravelling the confusions. The combining of the legendary King Arthur with a historic King Arthur has caused a great deal of confusion in chronology and distortion in the many Arthurian epithets: Arthus, Arthurex, Arcturus, Ursus (Bear), Pendragon, UterPendragon, Utherpendragon, and Riothamus.

However, neither of Reno's books will mark a definitive end of the quest for the historic “King Arthur” of the fifth century. Reno suggests that as public or private collections are studied, an even clearer picture will reveal the reality of Lucius Artorius Castus as “King” Arthur, and Ambrosius Aurelanius as a Briton/Celtic king. Reno is currently working on his third non-fiction book, an annotated paradigm of Arthurian history and legend, as a continuation of his first two books and various articles he has written.

More from Frank Reno:

Vortigern Studies:

Vitalinus/Guithelinus
Vitalinus appeared to be a minor character in British history, mentioned but twice in the Historia Brittonum, firstly 'son of Gloui' and a later reference to 'the discord between Vitalinus (Guithelinus) and Ambrosius'. Reno argues that far from being a minor part that Vitalinus plays, his was a role of major importance in Arthuriana.

Vortimer: Welsh Hero of the Arthurian Age
Vortimer is the "Over-Prince" who replaces his father Vortigern and defeats the Saxons in four crucial battles as recorded in the Historia Brittonum. Reno equates him with Cunedda, thus making him one of King Arthur's allies.

The Heroic Age:

O, Ambrosius, Ambrosius! Wherefore art thou Arthur?
Littleton and Malcor identify Arthur with the 2nd Century Roman Officer Lucius Artorius Castus and argue that there is no King Arthur in fifth-century Britain. Reno embarks on a quest to discover a great fifth-century Briton who can be identified as an "Arthur."


Frank Reno and his wife Lavinia have just completed a 1000-page historical novel Ambrosius Aurelianus: Legacy of the Phoenix King which is preparation for publication. Occasionally, Frank D. Reno gives presentations and lectures on a variety of Arthurian aspects, in 2002 was invited to Britain to contribute information to the BBC documentary Arthur: King of the Britons. He lives in Colorado, USA.

* * *

Warlords and Tyrants

“..... a land fertile in tyrants.”

The period in British history immediately following the ending of Roman rule has been variously labelled The Dark Ages, Sub-Roman or Post-Roman Britain, none of which seems to adequately describe the existence of Britain as a successful independent state during the turmoil created by the mass movements of peoples throughout Europe. Roman scribes were ejected along with the officials which has left historians with little or at best vague sources for the period leading to the assumption of a ‘dark age’. The term ‘sub-roman’ implies an inferior state, originally a term coined by archaeologists to define the standard of pottery finds from this time; a more suitable term ‘post-roman’ defines the period following the Roman ejection from this Island prior to Anglo-Saxon domination, from this we can deduce an independent British state in existence from 409 AD – c.596 AD which therefore must have had powerful leaders which, according to Gildas, “BRITAIN has kings, but they are tyrants.”

The lack of sources from this period in British history has left the way open to many authors putting forward their thesis of a conjectured history. Two books focusing on this period have been published recently; Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain by Edwin Pace in October 2008 and Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain by Stuart Laycock, April 2009.

Although the world’s bookcases bow under the strain of the myriad of books on the elusive Dux Bellorum, the fascination obsessive and eternal, you may be screaming “no more!”, but new books focusing on the enigmatic post-roman period are always of interest to the Arthurian aficionado. Before we can determine who or what, or if, Arthur was, we must establish the setting and both of these authors delve into the shadowy period with fresh enthusiasm. This being a subjective period owing the limitations of the sources, not all readers will agree with the proposals in these two books.

The Proud Tyrant

Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain
A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain
by Edwin Pace

Paperback: 358 pages
Published by Invermark Books (1 Oct 2008)
ISBN-10: 0955420148

From the Back cover:

“An evocative recreation of a vanished world, this is the first genuine narrative history for 5th Century Britain. The author demonstrates that the only plausible explanation for the extant evidence is that a powerful military ruler known as the Dux Bellorum dominated Post-Roman Britain for two decades. Known variously as the ‘Proud Tyrant’, Arthur and Riothmanus, his reign would be a major turning point in British History. A new and controversial narrative history for fifth century Britain. A serious history that places Arthur firmly back in the frame as an historical figure and a major one at that. A compelling story of a nation in crisis.”

Table of Contents:

Acknowledgements
Foreword
Introduction
1. Conflict with Their Cruel Enemies
2. Cavalry by land and Mariners by Sea
3. Left Without a Shepherd
4. The proud Tyrant
5. The Romans Therefore Left the Country
6. Forty Years of Fear
7. They Left Their Cities
8. They Overthrew Their Enemies
9. A Protection to Their Country
10. To Fight in Favour of the Island
11. Kings Were Anointed
12. A Most Extraordinary Plenty
13. A Humble Man
14. Most Kingly
15. By Way of Ocean
16. The Fire of Vengeance
Epilogue
Appendix I – A Chronology for Late Antique Britain
Appendix II – Happy Birthday Gildas!
Appendix III – Historia and Chronicle
Maps
References
Bibliography
Index

Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain claims to be like no previous book on Post-Roman Britain, aiming to demonstrate that the current image of 'Arthur' as a Dark Age chieftain fighting a last-ditch battle against Saxon invaders is very much a myth. Pace argues that this leader of the British was much earlier than previously suspected, far from being a Dark Age warlord, he continued Roman military and naval strategies to secure Britain, uniting the people in a series of battles in all corners of the island using alliances with various foreign mercenaries to bring about two decades of peace. Pace constructs his thesis on the argument that the earliest sources derive from the same basic fifth century series of events in Britain and Europe.

Pace reconstructs a history of Post-Roman Britain based on the earliest available sources; Gildas, Historia Brittonum and the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. Unfortunately none of these can be seen as particularly reliable for re-constructing history, but we have little else; Gildas was delivering a sermon loaded with religious rhetoric; The Historia Brittonum contains much fable and was produced to suit the politics of Gwynedd; the Chronicle was written some time after events in an attempt to provide the Germanic settlers a foundation myth in Britain and legibility to kingship. Personally, I’m not convinced there was an Anglo-Saxon invasion en masse, if at all, furthermore, only one of these sources mentions Arthur by name and only two mention the Battle of Badon; could the site of this battle really have been so far west (Bath?) at such an early date? It is rarely talked off in comparison to the location of the second Battle of Badon.

Unfortunately we do not have much else to construct our Post-Roman histories thereby leaving the path open to conjecture and leaps of faith. This is not meant as criticism of Pace but observed frustrations of the period. This was an exciting time in British history and Pace writes a good book which is essentially an account of Vortigern, generally agreed upon as the Proud Tyrant of Gildas’ rant, which the author proposes as the identity of the Dux Bellorum and constructs a thought-provoking chronology for the legendary Arthur based on this association.

Vortigern is of course infamous for inviting Saxon mercenaries to guard Britain, a practice adopted from the Romans, against Pict and Irish raiders, “wolves into the sheep-fold”. For this reason Vortigern fell from grace whereas Arthur was and is remembered as a hero, the saviour of the Britons.

Pace argues that Vortigern is synonymous with Riothamus both names meaning the same; “great king” or “overlord.” Gildas informs us, albeit it indirectly, that the British leader at Badon was Ambrosius and the Historia Brittonum recounts Badon as one of Arthur’s battles. Therefore we could deduce from the sources that Ambrosius is Arthur, but according to Pace, Ambrosius may have been Arthur’s (Vortigern’s) son, which certainly would require a new chronology and a change in colours, as Ambrosius is generally considered to have followed Vortigern by a generation and they would appear to be from different factions. In the final chapter Pace discusses the Battle of Camlann and identifies yet another British warlord having a name synonymous with the Dux Bellorum.

The author claims to have presented a comprehensive hypotheses for all of the earliest sources for fifth century Britain using evidence that was declared “inadmissable” by a certain scholar over thirty years ago, stating that the time for a re-examination of this data is long overdue, but in doing so his claims that Arthur is represented by four characters known by four different names throughout the sources is unconvincing.

>> The Author’s website



The Warlords

Stuart Laycock may be familiar to Post-Roman Britain enthusiasts through his previous work Britannia - the Failed State, nominated for Book of the Year 2009 by Current Archaeology, in which he argues that at its height Britain was wealthy Roman state, but by the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries AD, the province was at the point of collapse and it was soon replaced by an Anglo-Saxon culture which had migrated across the North Sea.

Laycock studied Classics at Cambridge, and has worked as an aid worker in Bosnia and Kosovo where he had first-hand experience of tribal conflicts. Using original research, analysing Roman Britain and providing an insight into the missing pieces of the complex jigsaw of the beginnings of British Dark Age history, he brings a unique perspective to the subject. During his studies of late Roman zoomorphic buckles he has built up one of the largest private collections in Britain.


Warlords
The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain
by Stuart Laycock

Paperback: 192 pages
Published by The History Press Ltd (1 April 2009)
ISBN-10: 0752447963

From the Back cover:

“An exciting and fresh approach that sees the Britons not as victims, but active players in the foundation of Anglo-Saxon England”- Dr Kevin Leahy

“The centuries after the end of Roman control of Britain in AD 410 are some of the most vital in Britain’s history – yet some of the least understood. ‘Warlords’ brings to life a world of ambition, brutality and violence in a politically fragmented land, providing a compelling new history of an age that would transform Britain.

By comparing the archaeology against the available historical sources for the period, 'Warlords' presents a coherent picture of the political and military machinations of the fifth and sixth centuries that laid the foundations of English and Welsh history. Included are the warring personalities of the local leaders and a look at the enigma of King Arthur. Some warlords sought power within the old Roman framework; some used an alternative British approach; and, others exploited the emerging Anglo-Saxon system - but for all warlords, the struggle was for power.”

Table of Contents:

Introduction
1. Gerontius
2. Vortigern
3. Hengest
4. Ambrosius
5. Riothamus
6. Aelle
7. The Five Warlords of Gildas
8. Arthur
9. Cerdic
10. Edwin, Cadwallon and Penda
After Post-Roman Britain
Notes
Bibliography
Index

Warlords follows on from Laycock’s previous work Britannia - The Failed State: Tribal Conflict and the End of Roman Britain, and it is recommended to read the earlier book before this so that one gets the full background of his thesis that the Iron Age tribal units and their internal struggles persisted through into the 5th century. In Warlords Laycock sets out to trace the development of these minor kingdoms and produces evidence of a land of British warlords with fertile ambitions in their pursuit of power since the days of Cassivellaunus, who led the British against Caesar’s second invasion of Britain in 54 BC.

Laycock uses each chapter to introduce to the reader to a figure from the sources, starting with little known Gerontius. According to most commentators it is the usurper Constantine III that ejected the Romans from Britain in 409 AD, disastrously crossing to the continent in pursuit of furthering his power of the Western Empire, following previous usurpers from this island like Magnus Maximus, but Laycock suggests it is his general, the British Gerontius that is the driving force behind his ambitions.

Hengest, and his brother Horsa, are usually dismissed as mythical characters from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the names meaning stallion and horse. I would agree with this and do not give much credence to the early accounts of the Anglo-Saxon foundation myth as contained within the pages of Bede, Nennius and the Chronicle, who put quill to parchment several hundred years after the supposed events but Laycock discusses Hengest as an historical character presenting his claim on context and geography without presenting any contemporary evidence to substantiate his claims. He states “it is possible he is mythical, but on balance it looks more likely that he was a real historical figure around whom more poetic and mythical stories layer clustered”.

The following chapters on Ambrosius and Riothamus predictably make the inevitable connection that they could be one and the same person, he concedes that the historical evidence for Arthur is decidedly thin, but cannot resist making the claim that if he was a historical character, then he may have been a Germanic warlord fighting on behalf of the British Catuvallaunian leaders, which he states would explain why he doesn’t get a mention by Gildas. Laycock provides a good chapter on Cerdic, the often neglected British leader, probably because he just doesn’t fit with the generally accepted Anglo-Saxon invasion theory – a Briton creating the great Anglo-Saxon kingdom of Wessex, surely not!

Following the ejection of the Romans, Laycock takes the British back to their pre-roman tribal boundaries; Vortigern leader of the Dobunni; Ambrosius an Atrebate; Riothamus a Dumnonian, citing often neglected Dark Age earth works as evidence of boundary markers.

Laycock makes good use of the available sources for the period in attempting to construct a possible scenario for Post-Roman Britain but the vagueness of those sources demands a fair amount of conjecture on the author’s part to complete such a work. His main source of archaeological evidence is, not surprisingly taken from his previous studies, late roman belt buckles. However, we must exercise caution in assuming every find of this particular item denotes the presence of a Germanic warrior.

more from Stuart Laycock:

>> Late Roman Buckles

>> Ditches, Buckles & a Bosnian End to Roman Britain
Article from Wansdyke Project 21, part of the Vortigern Studies group of websites, edited by Robert M. Vermaat, a unique web-based study which focuses on the enigmatic, least-known Dark Ages earthwork, known as Wansdyke.

* * *