King Arthur is the ideal of a just ruler, the embodiment of knightly virtues and a noble hero, known far beyond England. He experienced many magical adventures, fought in duels, won battles, gathered the best of the best at his court … But the most important question related to Arthur is whether he ever existed as a real person at all?
King Arthur, of whom the English are so proud, was not himself an Englishman. He was British. More precisely, a Briton, the leader of one of the Celtic tribes that inhabited the island of Britain before the Angles and Saxons sailed here, from which the modern name of the country and people originated. The British King Arthur fought with these same Saxons around the 6th century. He defeated them in 12 battles, the largest of which took place at Mount Badon. This is how the legends of Wales are told, where the descendants of the Britons - the Welsh - live.
Poetry and propaganda
The Angles and Saxons eventually conquered Britain and subdued the Britons. They did not forget the legendary hero who caused them so much trouble, but they did not seek to extol him either. So until the 12th century, Arthur was only mentioned as one of the leaders of the past. But in 1066 the history of Britain took a turn again: as a result of another conquest, the Normans began to rule in the country, and then the Plantagenets, a dynasty of French origin. In order to strengthen their power, they needed a certain symbol, the image of an ideal ruler, with which they could compare the ruling monarchs. It was then that the half-forgotten Arthur came in handy. He had nothing to do with the conquered Anglo-Saxons (moreover, at one time he rigidly put them in their place), and also had a very impressive biography, which included exploits, battles, and magic …
At first, serious (for their time, of course) historians wrote about Arthur. The first to describe the life of Arthur consistently and in detail was Galfried of Monmouth, who created an extensive work "History of the Kings of Britain". In doing so, he relied on the messages of the authors of the past and Welsh legends.
But the most interesting thing began when the poets reached the biography of the legendary king. In the middle of the XII century, a certain you from Jersey wrote a rhymed chronicle, where the Round Table appeared, at which the knights of King Arthur gathered. Before that, nothing like this had happened. But the wizard Merlin (Mirddin) accompanied the king already at Galfrid of Monmouth. The name of the sword that the hero fought with gradually changed from Caliburn to Excalibur.
The stories about King Arthur became so amusing and captivating that their popularity spread beyond Britain. In the XII-XIII centuries, a huge number of novels and poems were written about the adventures of Arthur and his knights. Moreover, the most outstanding of them were created by the Frenchman Chrétien de Trois and the German Wolfram von Eschenbach. Arthur's story has acquired an unthinkable amount of details and details. Moreover, the main characters in it were the knights who were sitting at the Round Table. And King Arthur himself participated in their adventures less and less. People, with bated breath, listened to stories about the brave Sir Lancelot and the unfaithful Queen Guinevere, about the betrayal of Sir Mordred and the exploits of Sir Gawaine. And, of course, about the last battle of Arthur, in which he was mortally wounded, but still alive, carried away by fairies to the magical island of Avalon.
Promotional video:
Sir Thomas Malory finally designed all the legends and their variants into one monumental work in the 15th century. It is on this version that most modern interpretations of the story of King Arthur and his knights are based.
However, behind all this splendor, perhaps the most important question is completely lost - did King Arthur ever exist in reality? And if so, what was his real biography, not embellished by courtly poets?
Roman roots
The very name Arthur was first mentioned in the Welsh poem "Gododin" (as one of the states of the ancient Britons was called), dating back to the 7th century. Although it is clear from the context that already at that time it was a legendary figure. The name, presumably, has two roots: arth - "mighty" and ythr - "terrible". In addition, the word arth was called a bear, and therefore many researchers believe that this name means "man-bear." Although it may well be translated as "possessing great power." In the Roman manner, this name was written Artorius. And some trace it to the ancient Greek Arcturus ("guardian of the bear") - this is the name of the brightest star in the constellation Bootes.
The Romans were mentioned for a reason. After all, it was to them that the family of the legendary king was erected by almost all early authors. Galfrid of Monmouth wrote that the brother of King Uther (Arthur's father) was Ambrose Aurelian, the son of Constantine III, who proclaimed himself emperor of the dying Roman Empire in 407. In 411, Constantine was overthrown and killed. But it was he who was the last leader of the Romans in Britain (and he declared himself emperor, being here, and only then crossed to the continent to defend his right to rule). Under him, the last Roman legions were withdrawn from the island, and the empire actually lost this remote province. The British kept a good memory of Constantine - before starting the struggle for power in the empire, he won many victories over the Scots, Picts and Norwegians who invaded the south of the island.
Modern historians, unlike their medieval colleagues, are not at all sure that Ambrose Aurelian was the son of Constantine III. In fact, nothing is known about Ambrose, except that he really lived in the 5th century, was the leader of one of the British tribes and fought with the Saxons. Medieval authors stubbornly refer to him as "the last of the Romans" left in Britain. It is quite possible - the historical Ambrose could indeed be the descendants of Roman legionnaires or even military leaders who lived in Britain. But his name was, most likely, in the local manner.
At the same time, analyzing the sources, historians came to the conclusion that there could be two Amvrosiev Aurelianov - a father and a son, who bore the same names (not so rare in the Middle Ages). The first lived in the beginning of the 5th century and died in the late 440s during the war with King Wortingern (also mentioned in the classic legends about Arthur as a villain who summoned those Saxons to Britain). And the second inherited the throne of his father and fought valiantly against the Saxons, which is repeatedly mentioned in sources. Well, only then, several centuries later, his exploits were attributed to the fictional King Arthur. The real hero, Ambrose Aurelian, migrated to his uncle's place of honor.
Cavalry Commander
Another Roman who is often considered the prototype of King Arthur is a completely historical character named Lucius Artorius Cast. He commanded auxiliary cavalry in the VI Legion, nicknamed the Victorious. True, Lucius Artorius lived already in the II century, during the time of the emperors Marcus Aurelius and Commodus.
Entering military service, he systematically made a career and, finally, found himself in a high officer position in the VI Legion, which stood in Britain and defended the famous Hadrian's Wall, repelling the constant raids of the wild Picts. It is even approximately known where his unit was stationed - in the village of Bremetennakum (modern Ribchester). There was also a corps of Sarmatian cavalrymen, which gave many reasons to consider Lucius Artorius also a Sarmatian by origin. However, as the name suggests, he was a classical Roman, born in southern Italy and belonging to the famous Artorian family.
In 185, the British legions revolted against the rule of Emperor Commodus, who was extremely unpopular due to his extravagant behavior (he spent time in endless orgies, and also liked to enter the arena as a gladiator). The uprising was quickly suppressed. Lucius Artorius Castus, apparently, did not take part in it, since he soon received a promotion and left Britain forever, going to serve on the continent. Subsequently, he became the governor of Liburnia (area in the area of present-day Croatia).
Actually, apart from the similarity of the name, nothing links this Roman officer with King Arthur. It is not known of any feats he performed while serving in Britain. Nevertheless, many are convinced that the necessary sources simply have not survived to our time. They say that the affairs of Lucius Artorius Castus were so great that legends were told about them - of course, distorting the facts. So the Roman cavalryman of the 2nd century gradually turned into the British leader of the 6th century.
God or hero?
However, in the history of Britain itself, there are several characters that could become the prototypes of Arthur. For example, Artwis ap Mor, who united several British states at once under his rule at the end of the 5th - beginning of the 6th century. In 495, he won a notable victory over the Angles, who captured the kingdom of Ebruk. Prior to that, he also gathered under his hand lands that had long belonged to the invaders. All this allows us to consider him a real hero of the struggle between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons, and if anyone is suitable for the role of a real Celtic Arthur, then it is he.
Atruis ap Meurig, who lived somewhat later, but also in the 6th century, did not become famous for his exploits and victories. But on the other hand, his biography has a number of amazing coincidences with the legend of Arthur: not only his own name is extremely similar to the name of the hero of legends, but his nephew's name was Medroud, which is very similar to the sinister Mordred, who inflicted a mortal wound on King Arthur in the last battle and fell from his hands. And Atruis ap Meurig married a girl named Guinefer - that is, Guinevere from the legends.
Two more contenders for the role of "historical Arthur" are again father and son, who consistently ruled the kingdom of Ros in north Wales in the first half of the 6th century. Father's name was Owain White-toothed (he had surprisingly good teeth, which was a novelty for the early Middle Ages). He reigned just at the time of the Battle of Mount Badon, between 490 and 510 years. And this is the main victory over the Saxons attributed to Arthur. However, sources have not retained any mention of Owain's involvement in this battle. And where this Mount Badon is located, it still has not been possible to find out.
There is still a similarity with Arthur in Owain's biography - he had an illegitimate son, Milegun, with whom he had a falling out, began to fight and died in this conflict. Just like Arthur and Mordred. In addition, the capital of Owain was called Dean Art, which literally means "Bear City." On the same basis, one of the prototypes of Arthur is considered the son of Owain White-toothed - Keenlas the Red. He also fought with Milegun, but he has nothing more to do with the legendary king.
There is even less reason to believe that Arthur was the ruler of the tiny kingdom of Meirionidd by the name of Cadwaladr, who lived at the end of the 5th century. The name Kadwaladr means "leader of the army", and Arthur in early works is often called not by name, but by nickname - Warlord. That's all the similarities.
Finally, perhaps the most exotic version - that Arthur was not a man, but a god! Namely, Artaius, who was responsible for agriculture among the Celts. However, he had much more functions, so the Romans identified him with the omnipresent Mercury. There is also an assumption that Arthur was Irish - the son of the mythical Nemed, who tried to recapture the Green Island from the terrible Fomorian monsters.
Whatever real life is reflected in the stories about King Arthur, its main meaning is just as a legend. Legends about wisdom, valor, love and what a true ruler should be. In this capacity, he is truly immortal. By the way, many English people believe that King Arthur did not die and did not sail to Avalon, but sleeps in a magical dream somewhere in a cave under the mountain. And I'm ready to wake up to protect Britain from new troubles.
Victor BANEV