Dispelling Some Myths: King Arthur

A legend is born In about 1138, possibly inspired by memories of the Cornish kings, Geoffrey of Monmouth chose to include King Arthur, the legendary ruler of Britain, Ireland and large parts of continental Europe, in his Historia Regum Britanniae (“History of the Kings of Britain”) [1]. It is this history that contains the earliest written mention linking Tintagel Castle in Cornwall to the tale of Arthur’s conception - the result of the magically assisted seduction of Queen Igerna (Igraine), wife of Duke Gorlois of Cornwall, by Uther Pendragon, King of Britain. Then, about 1480, the antiquary William Worcestre [2] made Tintagel not only the place of Arthur’s conception but also of his birth. Nearly two centuries later the name “King Arthur’s Castle” is first recorded in 1650. By then King Arthur and Tintagel Castle had become an inextricable mix of local folklore and literary legends.

Then, in 1998, a stone with the name “Artognou” inscribed on it was discovered in securely dated sixth-century contexts among the ruins at Tintagel Castle. Sometimes erroneously referred to as the “Arthur stone”, after its discovery the news media excitedly claimed it was possible evidence of a historical basis for the legendary King Arthur. The name “Artognou” was proposed as a variant of “Arthur”, but as Celticist John Koch points out, linguistically Artognou means “bear-knowledge” while Arthur is more likely derived from the Latin “Artorius”. Even so, with the full force of wishful thinking believers point to this as definitive proof of Arthur’s birth and historicity; but that is the thing with beliefs, they have no need for evidenced based facts. That said, myths and legends are woven into history, often inspired by real people, places and events, such that the fictions become accepted facts. So, what myths can be dispelled but more importantly, what can we learn from the tales of King Arthur?

A “Dark Age” setting The Arthurian legend is popularly set in the “Dark Ages” of post-Roman Britain, so-called because of a scarcity of written sources for historians to pore over and debate. The lack of documentary evidence, however, has in more recent decades been offset by archaeological excavations of early Mediæval sites and their related finds. Even so, the end of Roman Britain is frequently stated to have happened, or at least begun, in AD 410; a year often quoted by many populist historians in documentaries. Rather inconveniently, however, archaeological investigation at sites such as Canterbury, Cirencester, Wroxeter, Winchester, Gloucester and even Birdoswald Roman fort on Hadrian’s Wall have clearly shown that Romano-British life continued through the 5th- and into the 6th-century AD. Archaeological evidence from Wroxeter in Shropshire has revealed the occupation of the Roman town continued into AD 600, and the same is true of the former Roman fortress at Birdoswald in Northunbria.

Why 410? The year AD 410 is still widely advocated because of a letter from Emperor Honorius that has traditionally been seen as rejecting a British appeal to Rome for help against “barbarian” incursions into Britannia from the north and west. Awkwardly, it is increasingly suspected that the emperor’s letter may not have been addressed to the Britons at all but rather to the towns of either Bruttium or Bologna (Moorhead & Stuttard, 2012, 238). Nevertheless, the layers of imperial military and civil government did begin to collapse around this time consigning justice and the administration of Britannia to municipal authorities. The resulting power vacuum meant that anyone with an armed force could quickly become very political. Supported by their loyal soldiers, former military officers gradually emerged across Britain to become local warlords who, presumably, promised to protect the populace from aggressors out of today’s Scotland and Ireland. Such groups (warbands?) most likely still followed Romano-British ideals and conventions. Investigating this process, historian Stuart Laycock has noted elements of continuity from the British tribes in the pre-Roman and Roman periods, through to the native post-Roman kingdoms (Laycock, 2008). That meant the Roman way of life did not end in AD 410 (or after AD 446 as we shall see), but it is into this tumultuous post-Roman Britain that the legend of “King Arthur” is set.

A monastic history According to Gildas (c. 450/500 – c. 570), the 6th-century British monk and historian, some 1,600 years ago things were not going well in the former province of Britannia. His scathing religious polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (“On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain”), dated to ca. AD 540, recounts the history of the Britons before and during the arrival of the Saxons. Gildas records that in AD 446, after nearly 400 years of Roman rule, an appeal known as the “Groans of the Britons” was sent to the general Flavius Aetius requesting military assistance to defend Roman Britannia from invasions and attacks by Picts and Irish raiders [3]. Unfortunately, the Roman Empire, especially its western half, was in serious decline and had few military resources to spare. How Rome responded to this appeal, if there was a response at all, is frustratingly missing from the historical record. Even the 8th-century English monk, author and scholar Bede, who repeats Gildas’ earlier account in chapter 13 of his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (“Ecclesiastical History of the English People”), is silent on the appeal’s outcome. It is most likely that it was about this time (between AD 446 and AD 454) that the Romano-Britons finally discovered they were on their own.

Gildas is convinced the failure of the Roman armies to secure the province led the Britons to invite Anglo-Saxon mercenaries to the island, which precipitated the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. In the British tradition, or at least in the writings of the monks Gildas and Bede, the pagan Saxons were invited by Vortigern, the so-called “king of the Britons”, to assist in fighting the northern tribes of Picts, Scoti (Gaels), and Déisi. Gildas’ version of events refers to a “superbus tyrannus” (“proud ruler”) who welcomes the Saxons to this island, while Bede names him Vortigern. The existence of this warlord in post-Roman, 5th-century AD Britain is disputed by scholars, and information about him is obscure to say the least.

Vortigern The best-known form of the story of this enigmatic character is in Welsh author Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudohistorical chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae (“The History of the Kings of Britain”). The work, published sometime between 1135 and 1139, traces the British kings to the great-grandson of Aeneas, Trojan hero and legendary founder of Rome. Although the Historia was one of the most popular books of the Middle Ages, its value as a historical source is almost nil. Within its pages, however, Geoffrey fashions the image of a wicked and foolish Vortigern whose ambition leads to the treacherous killing of a king and whose folly leads to inviting the Saxons into Britain. Geoffrey tells of Vortigern persuading Constans, the brother of Uther Pendragon and Aurelius Ambrosius [4], to leave a monastery and ascend to the throne. Thoroughly unsuited to rule, Constans gives all real power to Vortigern, who then engineers the assassination of Constans and has himself named king. Geoffrey’s tale makes for a cracking read, but hard evidence that Vortigern ever existed is sadly lacking. Moreover, this mythical king may not even have been instrumental in instigating a widescale Germanic migration into Britain. The arrival on these shores of Angles and Saxons may have begun much earlier. There is documented evidence for example of auxiliary soldiers recruited from the Germanic provinces supporting Rome’s legions in the province of Britannia in the 1st- and 2nd-centuries AD. Scroll forward to the “Dark Ages”, however, and it appears that the new arrivals rebelled, plunging the country into a series of wars leading to the Saxon occupation of Lowland Britain by AD 600. In AD 577, for example, the Battle of Deorham led to the fall of the significant cities of Bath, Cirencester and Gloucester and allowed the Saxons to finally reach the western sea. Around this time, many Britons fled to Brittany (hence its name), to Galicia in Spain and probably westward to Ireland.

Arthur Rex It is into this turbulent period of post-Roman rule that Arthur strides onto the stage. The historicity of the king who supposedly resisted the Anglo-Saxon conquest according to later mediæval legends, however, is generally rejected by modern historians. At the very least “Arthur” is a Mediæval first name. It does not have the ring of an earlier age, so the Latin name “Artorius” has been suggested as a more fitting version to conveniently place Arthur in a late-Roman context. Usefully, this name is first recorded historically when one Lucius Artorius Castus is cited as the Roman commander of a detachment of Sarmatian conscripts stationed in Britain. Said to have led his contingent of mounted troops to Gaul (Latin: Gallia; today’s France) to quell a rebellion, one theory suggests Castus' actions are the basis for similar exploits in the Arthurian legend and furthermore that the name Artorius became a title, or honorific, ascribed to a famous warrior in the 5th-century AD (Gill, 2019).

Geoffrey of Monmouth certainly connects the British king with the tail end of the Western Roman Empire and also wrote that Arthur campaigned and “conquered Gaul”. Importantly Geoffrey’s pseudohistorical Historia Regum Britanniae draws on earlier Welsh sources, albeit ones written some 300 years after the events they claim to document. One of these is the purported history of Britain written around AD 828 and known as Historia Brittonum (“The History of the Britons”). Although its authorship may be an anonymous compilation, the work is traditionally attributed to Nennius, a 9th-century AD Welsh monk, but only survives in numerous revisions dated after the 11th-century. Historia Brittonum is the source of Britain’s origin story when, after the fall of Troy, the land was settled by fleeing Trojans. These refugees were led by a descendant of Aeneas [5] called Brutus from whose name Britain is derived. The tale included in Geoffrey’s very popular later work, Historia Regum Britanniae, meant the Trojan origin tradition was duly incorporated into subsequent chronicles of the long-running history of Britain. Regardless, Historia Brittonum was the first source to feature Arthur not as a king but as a dux bellorum (a late Roman term for a “military leader”) or more simply as miles (“warrior, soldier”). Along with Historia Brittonum and Welsh poems such as Y Gododdin, Geoffrey undoubtedly drew inspiration from at least one other Welsh source, Annales Cambriae [6]. Within this work are two entries on King Arthur, one on Medraut (Mordred), and one on Merlin (see below). Together they have been presented as proof of the existence of Arthur and Merlin. This view is no longer widely held since the Arthurian entries could have been added arbitrarily as late as AD 970 which is long after the development of the early Arthurian myth.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s (possible) connection to Wales probably gave rise to the notion that Arthur was himself Welsh. He was clearly not of Anglo-Saxon stock since our Welsh sources portray him as a leader in post-Roman Britain battling Saxons in the late 5th- and early 6th-centuries. It is conceivable that the Welsh connection might stem from the Old English word Wielisc [7] which meant “foreign” or, more significantly, “not Anglo-Saxon”. In other words, to the Anglo-Saxons Arthur would have been an indigenous Briton but perhaps not Welsh in the modern sense. Regardless, the character clearly developed through Welsh mythology, appearing either as a great warrior defending Britain from human and supernatural enemies or as a magical figure of folklore, sometimes associated with the Welsh otherworld Annwn.

Cast list The popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth's fanciful and imaginative 12th-century Historia Regum Britanniae developed Arthur into a figure of legendary international interest. Arthur was not just a king of Britain who defeated the Saxons but a king who established a vast empire in northwest Europe. Geoffrey's Historia is instrumental in establishing the many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story. These include introducing readers to Arthur's father Uther Pendragon, the magician Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur, Arthur's conception at Tintagel, his final battle against Mordred at Camlann, and his final rest in Avalon. Later, in the 12th-century, the French writer Chrétien de Troyes added Lancelot and the Holy Grail to the story. In fact, it was Chrétien who was responsible for introducing the romance element that became a significant strand of Mediæval literature. Romance stories in this sense emphasise Mediæval notions of courtly love [8] and are more concerned with tales of chivalry and knights in warfare as they rescue fair maidens and battle supernatural forces. In these French stories, the narrative often shifts from King Arthur to focus on other characters, such as various Knights of the Round Table. The 14th-century chivalric romance concerning Sir Gawain and the Green Knight is one of the best-known examples in the Arthurian corpus. The themes, events and characters of the Arthurian legend vary widely from text to text, and there is no one canonical version. Today Arthur is surrounded by a familiar cast of characters some of whom have a long tradition while others, like Sir Lancelot, were added by later authors. Here are just a selection.

Merlin One of the most famous characters associated with Arthur is the mystical Merlin. In some versions of the legend it is Merlin’s magic that aids Uther Pendragon’s seduction of Queen Igerna and the fathering of Arthur. The literary Merlin first appears in Prophetiae Merlini a 12th-century poem written in Latin hexameters by John of Cornwall. There is a strong possibility that Geoffrey of Monmouth, who popularised Merlin in his AD 1150 work Vita Merlini (“Merlin's Life”), knew of and plagiarised the poem. Geoffrey, as we have already discovered, drew on a Welsh tradition, specifically a poem dated to AD 600 concerning a bard or prophet named “Myrddin”. A somewhat similar individual appears in Cornish tales as “Marzhin” and in Breton as “Merzhin” but, apparently worried that an Anglo-Norman audience would take offense at the similarity between the name Merdinus and the French word merde, Geoffrey changed the prophet's name. Thus it is “Merlin” that helps Uther Pendragon, and Merlin who was instrumental in moving the stones from Ireland that would form Stonehenge. Geoffrey further developed the Merlin story by adapting a northern legend about a wild man of the woods, gifted with powers of divination, which led Geoffrey to the incorporate the “Prophecies of Merlin” into his Historia Regum Britanniae. Yet, being based on early British mythology, Vita Merlini provides insufficient evidence of an actual person. As reliable 5th- and 6th-century records have not survived, it is impossible to say confidently that a character named “Merlin” existed or was even contemporary with the equally legendary Arthur.

Early in the 13th-century, the poet Robert de Borron added a Christian dimension to the Merlin character making him a prophet of the Holy Grail, which by then had already been incorporated into the Arthurian legend. Later Merlin’s role as Arthur’s counsellor would be developed to mirror his earlier advice that Uther should establish the knightly fellowship of the Round Table. By this point in the legend’s evolution it was Merlin who suggested that Uther’s true heir would be revealed by drawing a sword set in a stone and also introduced Merlin’s infatuation with the Lady of the Lake, a passion that would eventually result in his death.

Was Merlin a sage, a mage or a druid? Merlin was certainly thought of as magician but, as the story evolved, he also became a sage providing wise or prophetic counsel. This has led some to believe that perhaps the name “Merlin” was more akin to a title held by a senior druid. For those drawn to this idea, it is worth cautioning that the definitive evidence for druids is sparse. Much is written by modern commentators emphasising they were some sort of superior class of priests as well as political advisors, teachers, healers and arbitrators among the Iron Age tribes. In truth little is known about the extent of druidic influence, their beliefs or rituals.

What we think we know relies almost solely on the Romans who, having first visited and later conquered France (Gaul) and Britain, reportedly met druids and wrote about their practices. Yet these accounts may not always have been completely truthful so the descriptions of Roman authors should be treated with scepticism. Archaeology rarely finds tangible evidence for priests in the Iron Age, but they do find evidence for religious rites and sacrifices. For many, it is assumed these were carried out by druids, but conclusive proof is at best scant. It is abundantly clear that the modern druidic revival, which started in earnest in the 19th-century, has no direct connection to the priests of the Iron Age. Many of the resulting popular notions of druids are therefore based on the misunderstandings and misconceptions of scholars some 200 years ago. There is, for example, no link between the Iron Age druids and the people who built and “worshipped” at Stonehenge. This ancient monument may have featured in the rites of a lost and unknowable religion, but this ended long before the Iron Age began. Even so, try convincing self-styled modern “druids” whose annual pilgrimage to Stonehenge at the summer solstice is of course welcomed by English Heritage, the site’s commercial custodians. A thought provoking, extensive and systematic history of the ways in which ideas about druids in Britain have developed over the last 300 years is presented in Professor Ronald Hutton’s work “Blood and Mistletoe” (2009).

All we can truly say is that Merlin is an enigmatic figure central to the Arthurian legend. The variations and inconsistencies in his character are seemingly dictated by the requirements of a particular narrative or by changing attitudes of suspicious regard toward magic and witchcraft. The treatments of Merlin do however reflect the different stages in the development of Arthurian romance itself.

Morgan le Fay The archetypal femme fatale, Morgan le Fay is styled as a powerful and ambiguous enchantress. Her epithet “le Fay” is a pseudo-French phrase coined in the 15th-century by Thomas Malory, author of “La Morte d’Arthur”. He most likely derived it from the original French descriptive form la fée (“the fairy”) thus establishing her as “Morgan the Fairy”, an enchanted or magical creature. Her early appearances in Arthurian literature establish Morgan’s role as a goddess, a fay (“fairy”), a witch or a sorceress who is generally benevolent and connected to Arthur as his magical saviour and protector. As with other characters, her prominence increased as the legend of Arthur developed over time, as did her moral ambivalence. In some texts there is an evolutionary transformation of Morgan to an antagonist, particularly in the Lancelot-Grail prose and the Post-Vulgate Cycle. A significant aspect in many of Morgan's mediæval and later iterations is the unpredictable duality of her nature, with a potential for both good and evil. Male prejudice in this period habitually seeks to undermine independent women either to marginalise them or, at the very least, to re-assert male dominance at a time when women were supposed to be subservient to men. Thus, it seems that Morgan came to represent “evil” in the ubiquitous “good versus evil” storyline.

Morgan le Fay depicted as a witch and temptress by Spencer Stanhope (1880)

The earliest documented account, by Geoffrey of Monmouth in Vita Merlini, associates Morgan with the Isle of Apples (Avalon), to which Arthur was carried after having been fatally wounded at the Battle of Camlann. In this version she is the leader of the nine magical sisters unrelated to Arthur. In fact, Geoffrey's description of Morgen and her sisters closely resembles the story of the nine Gaulish priestesses of the isle of Sena (now Île de Sein). Known as Gallisenae, they were originally described by the 1st-century Roman geographer Pomponius Mela. Subsequently it has been reasoned that Pomponius’ De situ orbis (“Description of the World”) was one of Geoffrey's sources.

Romance authors of the late 12th-century determined that Morgan was Arthur's supernatural elder sister. While in the 13th-century prose cycles – and the later works based on them, including Malory’s influential “Le Morte d'Arthur” – she is the youngest daughter of Arthur's mother Igraine and her first husband Gorlois. Arthur, being the son of Igraine and Uther Pendragon, is thus Morgan's half-brother. In more modern times, she was said to be the mother of Arthur's son and nemesis Mordred, but Mordred’s mother was the Queen of Orkney, Morgan’s full sister.

Some accounts have Morgan becoming an apprentice of Merlin, and a capricious and vindictive adversary of some knights of the Round Table, all the while harbouring a special hatred for Arthur's wife Guinevere. In this tradition, she is also sexually active and even predatory, taking numerous lovers that may include Merlin, while maintaining an unrequited love for Lancelot. In some variants, including in the popular retelling by Malory, Morgan is the greatest enemy of Arthur, scheming to usurp his throne and indirectly becoming an instrument of his death. Eventually, however, she reconciles with Arthur and resumes the role given her in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Vita Merlini of taking Arthur on his final journey to Avalon.

Eleanor Fortescue-Brickdale provided an illustration of Guinevere for a 1913 edition of Alfred, Lord Tennyson's book Idylls of the King (1859).

Guinevere According to Arthurian legend, Guinevere was an early-medieval queen of Great Britain and the wife of King Arthur. Her earliest datable appearance is once more in Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th-century pseudo-historical British chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae, written nearly 700 years after the purported times of Arthur. Geoffrey’s tale includes her seduction by Mordred during his ill-fated rebellion against Arthur while later developments to the Arthurian legend, from the French romance tradition, introduce the queen’s notorious tragic love affair with her husband's chief knight and trusted friend, Lancelot. In this version, popularised by Thomas Malory’s seminal English compilation “Le Morte d'Arthur”, the affair indirectly causes the death of Arthur and the downfall of the kingdom. Other themes found in Malory and other texts include Guinevere's barrenness, the scheme of Guinevere's evil twin to replace her, and the particular hostility displayed towards Guinevere by her sister-in-law Morgan le Fay.

Guinevere has continued to be a popular character featured in numerous adaptations of the legend since the 19th-century Arthurian revival. Many modern authors, usually following or inspired by Malory's telling, continue to define Guinevere’s character through her illicit relationship with Lancelot. Since Geoffrey of Monmouth’s introduction, Guinevere has been portrayed as everything from a fatally flawed, villainous, and opportunistic traitor to a noble and virtuous lady in the finest of chivalric traditions.

Lancelot du Lac King Arthur's close companion and one of the greatest Knights of the Round Table is Lancelot du Lac (“Lancelot of the Lake”). He is not present in the earlier versions of the legend but becomes a popular character through the chivalric romance tradition. Lancelot's first datable appearance as main character is found in Chrétien de Troyes' 12th-century French poem “Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart”. This was centred around his courtly love for Arthur's wife, Guinevere. However, another early Lancelot poem, “Lanzelet”, a German translation of an unknown French book, did not feature the secret love affair creating an uncertainty about a possible common source and how both texts may be related. Later, Lancelot’s character and his story from Chrétien's tale is expanded in the subsequent works of Arthurian romance, especially Malory’s “Le Morte d'Arthur”, to become the now-familiar version of his legend.

In his most prominent and complete depiction, Lancelot is a beautiful, orphaned son of King Ban of the lost kingdom of Benoïc. He is raised in a fairy realm by the Lady of the Lake while unaware of his real parentage before joining Arthur's court as young knight and discovering his origins. A hero of many battles, quests and tournaments, and famed as a nearly unrivalled swordsman and jouster, Lancelot soon becomes the lord of the castle Joyous Gard and personal champion of Queen Guinevere, to whom he is devoted absolutely. In some versions of the legend Lancelot suffers from frequent and sometimes prolonged fits of violent rage and other forms of madness. The romance tradition introduces Lancelot being magically seduced by the Lady Elaine which results in their son, Galahad. Devoid of his father's flaws of character, Galahad becomes the perfect knight who succeeds in completing the greatest of all quests, achieving the Holy Grail when Lancelot himself fails due to his sins. Eventually, when Lancelot's adulterous affair with Guinevere is publicly discovered, it develops into a bloody civil war that, once exploited by Mordred, brings an end to Arthur's kingdom. Both loyal and treasonous, Lancelot has remained a popular character for centuries and is often being variably reimagined by modern authors.

Excalibur While not exactly a “character” in the Arthurian legend, no account would be complete without mentioning “Excalibur”, the sword that plays such a central role in the tradition. Perhaps surprisingly, however, Excalibur is not the magical “sword in the stone” that the hereto unknown Arthur effortlessly withdraws from its lithic resting place to fulfil the prophesised return of the rightful king of the Britons. Very early in his reign, however, the young Arthur breaks it in his duel against King Pellinore. On Merlin's advice, Arthur accompanies him and, in exchange for a later boon, the Lady of the Lake gives Arthur the actual “Excalibur”. So, while the sword in the stone is the proof of Arthur's lineage, it is not sword he will carry until, on the brink of death, he enigmatically orders his surviving knight Griflet (later Bedivere) [9] to cast “Excalibur” into a nearby pool after the battle at Camlann [10]. The confusion probably stems from those versions of the legend that give both weapons the same name. According to Bromwich and Simon Evans (1992, 64–65) “Excalibur” derives from the Welsh Caledfwlch, a compound of caled meaning “hard” and bwlch, “breach, cleft”. It is unclear if the name was an early loan word from Welsh or represents an earlier, pan-Brittonic traditional name for Arthur's sword (Koch, 2006, 329). Either way, Geoffrey of Monmouth Latinised the name to “Caliburnus” in his Historia Regum Britanniae. When his influential pseudo-history made it to continental Europe, writers altered the name further until it finally took on the popular form “Excalibur”.

Incidentally, the “sword in the stone” trope may have something of a historical and archaeological precedent. The early casting of swords suggests the use of clay moulds but by the middle Bronze Age there is evidence of moulds carved in stone blocks. Such moulds have the advantage of being reusable, even though the casting process did not necessarily produce identical blades. Witnesses to the swordsmith’s creative art would have seen a blade physically drawn from a stone perhaps giving rise to the legend.

“Caliburnus”, however, is the name used in the movie “The Last Legion” which, according to the screenwriters, is the sword of none other than Gaius Julius Caesar. Unsurprisingly, this is complete nonsense. Never mind the ridiculous pentangle on the pommel, from a historical perspective the movie blade’s length is too long and the fittings, such as its eagle cross guard, are incorrect for the typical gladius wielded in the Roman Republic of the mid-1st-century BC. It is worth noting, however, that gladius (pl. gladii) is the general Latin word for “sword” and as such does not relate to a specific design. In the Roman Republic, the term gladius Hispaniensis (“Spanish sword”) referred (and still refers) specifically to a shorter sword, approximately 60 cm (24”) long, used by Roman legionaries as their primary weapon from the 3rd-century BC onward. Several different better-known designs followed, the most widely recognised being the “Mainz” pattern and the “Pompeii” pattern (the names referring to where or how the canonical example was found). The “Mainz” pattern, developed from the Hispaniensis, had generally wider, diamond-section blades of 50 to 75 cm (c. 20 in to 30 in) long. These were slightly waisted along their length, with a long tapering point. The “Mainz” pattern seems to have entered service in the 1st-century BC and continued in use until at least AD 40 and possibly beyond. A variation called the “Fulham” pattern (third from the left below) also had a long point but was only 5 cm (2 in) wide with straight edges that flared slightly at the hilt. The “Pompeii” pattern gladii were simpler derivatives of the “Mainz” type with a narrower diamond-section blade approximately 5 cm (2 in) wide and 45 to 50 cm (18 in to 20 in) long. Its edges were parallel with a shorter, triangular shaped point. Overall, these swords varied in length between 60 cm and 65 cm (24 in to 26 in) and weigh approximately 700 g (1.5 lb). The “Pompeii” pattern was in service by the AD 50s, remaining in general use into the 2nd-century AD. To confuse matters slightly, over the years the “Pompeii” pattern sword got longer, and these later versions were called semispathae or half-swords.

Literary tales So, there is no clear historical evidence for a real-life king named Arthur, and no one individual can be clearly identified as the inspiration for the character who has been so popular in English culture from the 12th-century onward. Drawing on its Mediæval foundations, the Arthurian legend has been repeatedly reinvented for each new audience. The tale has transitioned from the earliest Welsh stories and poems through the embellishments of the French chivalric romance tradition to novels and eventually to television and cinema. Each rendition mixes the various familiar elements in new ways often to reflect the prevailing mores of each age. Each retelling adds a little more to the legend as King Arthur emerges from or returns to the shadows of history.

Ultimately Arthur’s story is a great yarn whose many versions continue to captivate audiences today. But it is Rosemary Sutcliffe’s “The Sword at Sunset” (1963) that resonates the best with Tastes Of History. Her novel sets Arthur firmly in a “Dark Age” of Saxon invasions and British resistance. In this version Arthur is not the king - that role held by Ambrosius, a former Roman officer and a man determined to preserve Roman ideals. Arthur is instead the experienced leader of a warband, an element that echoes with the known post-Roman history of Britain. However, Sutcliffe’s excellent story line does follow the outdated version of British history that emphasised an Anglo-Saxon invasion and subjugation of the native Britons pushed ever westward to become the Cornish, Welsh and Cumbrians. Despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, this is unfortunately another myth that, in the popular imagination at least, refuses to die. Even so, “The Sword at Sunset” is well worth reading.

---

References:

Britannica, (2024), “Merlin: legendary magician”, Available online, accessed 10 March 2024.

Bromwich, R. & Simon Evans, D. (1992), “Culhwch and Olwen, An Edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale”, Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

Gill, N.S., (2019), “Did Merlin Exist?”, ThoughtCo, Available online (accessed March 10th, 2024).

Hutton, R. (2009), “Blood and Mistletoe: the history of the Druids in Britain”, Yale University Press.

Koch, J., (2006), “Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia”, Volume 1, ABC-CLIO, p. 329.

Laycock, S., (2008), ‘Britannia: the Failed State’, The History Press.

Moorhead, S. & Stuttard, D., (2012), ‘The Romans who Shaped Britain’, London: Thames & Hudson.

Endnotes:

1. Geoffrey’s fictional history had an enormous influence on later chroniclers, but for the most part, modern-day historians are unanimous in dismissing his claims of accuracy. Even so Historia Regum Britanniae was considered by some as a factual retelling of events and, in some areas, was given credence well into the 16th-century. Today it is now thought by most to be unreliable and hold almost no value at all as a historical source. ▲

2. Also known as William Worcester, William of Worcester, and William Botoner, he was an English topographer, antiquary and chronicler. ▲

3. The Groans of the Britons (Latin: gemitus Britannorum) is the final appeal made between AD 446 and AD 454 by the Britons to the Roman military for assistance against Pict and Scot raiders. The appeal is first referenced in Gildas' 6th century De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae. Gildas' account was later repeated in chapter 13 of Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum. According to Gildas, the message was addressed to one ‘Agitius’, who is generally identified with Flavius Aetius, magister militum (“master of soldiers”) of the Western Roman Empire who spent most of the 440s fighting insurgents in Gaul and Hispania. ▲

4. In De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (“On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain”) Gildas mentions Vortigern and Ambrosius Aurelianus thus gifting Geoffrey of Monmouth these characters. ▲

5. Aeneas, mythical hero of Troy and Rome, son of the goddess Aphrodite and Anchises. A member of the royal line, and cousin of Hector, he played a prominent part in defending Troy against the Greeks during the Trojan War. Aeneas was said to be the leader of the Trojan survivors after Troy was captured by the Greeks. ▲

6. The Annales Cambriae (Latin for “Annals of Wales”) is a complex of Latin chronicles compiled or derived from diverse sources at St David's in Dyfed, Wales. The earliest is a 12th-century presumed copy of a mid-10th-century original. Despite the name, the Annales Cambriae record not only events in Wales, but also events in Ireland, Cornwall, England, Scotland and sometimes further afield, although the focus for the events recorded in the latter two-thirds of the text is Wales. ▲

7. Also Wylisc in West Saxon or Welisc/Wælisc in Anglian and Kentish respectively. ▲

8. Courtly love was a Mediæval European literary conception of love emphasising nobility and chivalry. Medieval literature is filled with examples of knights setting out on adventures and performing various deeds or services for ladies because of their “courtly love”. Originally a literary fiction created for the entertainment of the nobility, as time passed these ideas about love spread to popular culture and attracted a larger literate audience. ▲

9. Griflet felt that such a great sword should not be thrown away, so after two failed attempts to deceive Arthur, he finally complies with the wounded king's request. A woman's hand emerges from the pool to catch Excalibur, and shortly afterward Morgan appears to take Arthur to Avalon. ▲

10. The Battle of Camlann is the legendary final battle of King Arthur in which he either died or was mortally wounded while fighting either alongside or against Mordred, who also perished. In the later French romance tradition, it became known as the Battle of Salisbury being fought on Salisbury Plain. ▲