Among the written records of antiquity and the early Middle Ages, there are not many as convincing and romantic as the cycle of legends associated with the name of King Arthur. In their classical form, they are most familiar to us from the writings of the English knight of the 15th century, Sir Thomas Mallory. It tells the story of how Arthur, secretly born of the seed of King Uther Pendragon, ascended the British throne in the midst of a fierce civil war, proving his right by being able to take out "the sword in the stone."
It's a great story, but too good to be true. It is believed that the events described took place a thousand years before Mallory, who claims that Lancelot's son, the pious Sir Galahad, became a member of the Round Table 454 years after the crucifixion of Christ - that is, about 487 AD. e. Given the vast period of time, it is highly unlikely that the Arthurian cycle of legends reflects any historical reality. And did King Arthur, the central character of this story, actually exist?
Back in the days of Mallory, this issue caused some controversy. William Caxton, the English printing pioneer who published Mallory's work in 1485 (titled La Morte dArthur), took the trouble to list in the foreword the available evidence of Arthur's existence. Caxton's archaeological evidence is laughable by today's standards, and not there is no doubt that most of them were fabricated to attract tourists or were the result of sincere delusion. Caxton must have known that the famous Round Table at Winchester was actually made under King Henry III (1216-1272) or under one of his successors in a vain attempt to revive the chivalrous epic of King Arthur's golden age.
The main source of information during the time of Caxton and Mallory was various written stories about King Arthur and his deeds. Mallory himself drew heavily on somewhat earlier French writings.
We are faced with the problem of a huge time gap between the composition of medieval knightly novels and the supposed life of King Arthur (V-VI centuries AD).
However, in this time frame, there are two key pieces of evidence to support King Arthur's historical existence. One of these is contained in the Annals of Wales, a historical chronicle commissioned by Hywell, King of Wales in the 10th century.
The second evidence brings us even closer to the legendary era of King Arthur. Around 830, a monk named Nennius, vexed by the indifference of the native British to their own past, compiled the first work on the history of his people. Nennius paid attention to the chronology of events. Although he does not give exact dates for King Arthur's reign, his account falls between the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons (428 Nennius) and the reign of the Saxon Queen Ida in Northumbria (which began around 547). Thus, we find ourselves in the era indicated by Mallory: the "dark ages" of early Middle Ages in Britain, following the departure of the Romans (about 410).
Promotional video:
All in all, it would not be a great exaggeration to suggest that Nennius recorded some genuine memories of the historical figure. Based on this premise, what else can we say about Arthur? According to Nennius, he gathered the local British kings under his command and organized an efficient army. Their enemies in most battles were the Anglo-Saxon invaders, as well as the Picts and Scots in the north. Judging by the results of the most thorough identification of the sites of the alleged battles, Arthur's activities, perhaps, covered the whole of Britain.
To repel the "barbarians", who often fought on horseback, the late Roman emperors successfully used units of heavily armed cavalry. Such cavalry is often mentioned in the heroic poetry of Wales, and there is every reason to believe that the legend of King Arthur's "mounted knights" reflects the reality of Britain in the 5th-6th centuries. The fact that Arthur took advantage of Roman achievements is consistent with his role as successor to the Romanized King Ambrosius (former Roman consul). Even the name "Arthur" itself comes from the Latin "Artorius".
Using such hints, 20th century historians have constructed the image of a hypothetical military leader named Arthur, the last defender of the Roman tradition in Britain. Using the Roman military title dux, for many years he organized a successful resistance to foreign invaders and, perhaps, even pacified them.
The earliest work of art dedicated to Arthur is a sculptural group in the cathedral of Modena, Italy, dating from the period 1099-1120, which depicts the king and his knights saving Guinevere from some villains. Arthur's enduring popularity on the continent is inextricably linked to the legend that his empire stretched far beyond Britain.
At first glance, the legend that Arthur fought overseas, while things were far from the best at home, seems completely implausible. The historic Arthur had enough trouble without having to fight the Saxons anywhere other than his homeland. In addition, in the French chronicles of that time there is not the slightest hint of invasion and war with the Britons, but what if the network was spread a little wider? This approach was taken by Geoffrey Ash, the great connoisseur of the Arthurian era.
First, Ash turned to Galfrid of Monmouth again. The main contribution of this author to the development of the Arthurian tradition was a detailed description of the military campaign on the continent, which occupies more than half of his account of the reign of King Arthur. According to Galfried of Monmouth, he used some ancient book.
The existence of such a book seems highly unlikely. Scholars either completely ignore the statement of Galfrid of Monmouth about the mysterious book, or believe that he had at his disposal some work, written in the Welsh language - the dialect of the native people of Britain. However, one alternative has long been known. The word "British" also referred to the Britons who colonized the Brittany Peninsula, or "Little Britain", in the early Middle Ages. Today these people call themselves Bretons and still speak their own dialect, very close to Welsh.
So, in Britain there really was a powerful king who fought on the continent in the 5th century. n. e. We know about him from various references in the continental chronicles, where he is called Riotem, or Ryotamus, "King of the Britons."
In the middle of the 5th century, Gaul (modern France) was still nominally under the rule of the Western Roman Empire, but was raided by several barbarian tribes. The very notion of imperial power centered in Rome began to crumble, and barbarian leaders erected a number of puppet rulers on the throne. Leo I, Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, made a final attempt to stabilize the situation in the Western Empire. He sent a large army to Rome under the command of his relative Anthimius, who was to be crowned the new emperor of the West. Gaul could be controlled from Rome only by concluding various alliances with barbarian settlers or by seeking help from other allies. Anthimius chose the latter: in order to crush the power of the Goths and establish imperial power, he invited the king of the Britons Riotem,who was not slow to appear with an army of 12,000 soldiers. The size of this army is in itself noteworthy. Many of the battles of the Dark Ages in Britain were fought between tiny troops of only tens or hundreds of soldiers.
The name is Riotem. according to Ash himself, it could hardly have begun the legends of King Arthur. However, what is this name? Ash points out that "Ryotem" in Celtic means something like "vested with supreme power", which is more like a title than a name. Perhaps the warlord, recognized on the continent as the high king of the Britons, was known at home as Arthur?
Regardless of its origins, Ryotem was a major actor in the political scene of the early Middle Ages. Previous historical interpretations, representing him as a local ruler from Brittany, according to Ash's just remark, do not hold water: in the medieval chronicles describing his arrival, it is clearly stated that the king of the Britons appeared at the head of the fleet, which means that he made a sea voyage from Britain. Thus begins a series of remarkable coincidences with the military campaign of King Arthur in the description of Galfried of Monmouth.
Ash also traced the route of Ryotem's army from available sources from the time. Riotem supposedly landed in Britain and led his army to Bury in central France, where he was defeated by the Goths, before he could join forces with his allies in Imperial Rome. The battle took place in 470. The British retreated east and were defeated again at the Battle of Bourges. There are, of course, obvious differences between the legend of Arthur's continental campaign and the activities of the historic Riotema. Arthur fought the Romans, while Riotem was their ally in the war with the Goths. Arthur "won" and Riotem was defeated.
Ash has built a very compelling script and is now continuing to fill it with additional details in various articles. Perhaps most compelling in this scenario is Mordred's explanation of Arthur's betrayal, which is central to the final portion of the legend. The prefect of Gaul under the emperor Anthimia was a certain Arvandus. In 469, he was brought before a Roman court on charges of conspiracy that ultimately led to the destruction of Riotem's army. Arvandus entered into secret relations with the Goths and encouraged them to attack the British troops in Gaul, in order to then divide the country with the Burgundians.
"Arvandus" is an extremely rare name, and, of course, the fact that the traitor to the king in one of the medieval chronicles about Arthur is called "Morvandus" cannot be a mere coincidence. This name looks like an attempt to connect Arvandus with Mordred. Ash refers to him as indirect evidence in support of Ryotem's identification with Arthur.
As Ash puts it, Ryotem “is the only king of the Britons to rule during the Arthurian period; he is the only well-established historical figure whose career resembles that of Arthur's reign. If he's right, King Arthur can finally go down in history as a real person. We even have a letter addressed to him (that is, Riotem) by the Roman bishop Sidonius, who asked him to deal with the fugitive slaves in the area of northern France that was under his control.
Ash's theory of "Riotem, King of the Britons" opened up the most promising line of Arthurian research in decades. Is it possible that the British subjects of King Arthur did not preserve the memories of the disappearance of their savior in an overseas adventure? Ash discovered Avallon in French Burgundy, where the last mention of the king of the Britons occurs, but what about the claim that Glastonbury in England is Avallon and the final resting place of "the king of the past and the future"? Or Riotem, whose fate, according to information from continental sources, seems extremely vague, actually returned to Britain, like the victorious King Arthur from legend, and died in his homeland? King Arthur, despite centuries of vigorous research, remains the greatest mystery of early British history.
From the book "Secrets of Ancient Civilizations" authors: James, Thorpe.