King Arthur:Man or Myth?

Did Arthur exist? I think most definitely and even many academic historians believe so too. Was he a king? I don�t think so and I subscribe to the views of Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd in their books on the subject. He was probably a warrior and warband leader. The Vatican version of Nennius� Historia Brittonum (9th Century) even says so and calls him a �warrior�, and saying �there were others nobler than him�. Even the Harleian version points to him being the commander of the British but not a king. The Annales Cambriae don�t call him a king either. The first to give him that title is the Life of St Caradog but most early Welsh traditions don�t call him a king either. (One has been interpreted as calling him an emperor but this come from the Latin imperator, which is a military commander). We have Geoffrey of Monmouth (12th Century) and his so called 'History of the Kings of Britain' to thank for starting the legend we know of today. It wasn't a story, it was a 'history', believed to be true and used by the Normans and later English for political purposes. But it didn't fool everyone! Every Geoffrey's contemporary, William of Malmesbury, said this 'history', and especially the Arthurian bit, was a load of old cobblers... in and Anglo-Norman way, of course.

If he was a warband leader for one of the Welsh kings, and Blake and Lloyd point to this being the kings of Gwynedd, Cadwallon and Maelgwn (father and son reigning 500-517 and 517-549 respectfully), it also explains why in the Welsh tradition he didn�t even fight the Saxons. If he fought anyone it would have been the Irish who were constantly raiding west and north Wales and who Cadwallon expelled. Also in Welsh tradition he seems to fight mostly people with British (Welsh) names. He�s not even associated with the Siege Badon Hill. It also helps to explain why he isn�t liked much in the South Walian Lives of the Saints texts as Maelgwn had a habit of raiding them. It could also explain why the 6th Century cleric Gildas never mentions him as he only berates the kings of Britannia, and only the bad ones at that. Gildas also tell us that after Badon (c. 500) there was a peace between Britons and Saxons (Saxons, Angles, Jutes et al) that lasted for two generations and the Britons had turned to civil war. This is what archaeology sees and this would be why Arthur fights other Britons as Gwynedd tries to expand and dominate North Wales.

But you mustn�t think that a warband leader had no power. He was second to the king in medieval Wales, usually because he was also the prince but not always, and there�s no reason to suggest it wasn�t the same in the 6th Century. He took his place when the king wasn�t at court. He was also �crowned� with a battle coronet, a taith, and it may have been this so called Crown of Arthur that Edward I took from Wales and had destroyed along with many other relics and books during his conquest of Wales.

Did he exist? Yes? Was he a king? I don�t think so. Did he fight in all those twelve battles attributed to him? Probably not. Did he fight all over the isle of Britannia? Not if he�s who Blake and Lloyd think he was. His sphere of activity was not only limited to what was once the province of Britannia Prima (what is now Wales, the Marches and southwest Britain) but probably only North Wales with incursions into Mid and South Wales. Did he fight at Badon? Could have done but maybe not. Did he die to rise again in Britain's hour of need? Not according to Welsh tradition, he's definitely dead... and he missed his chance with World War II at saving Britain. Was the legend an amalgam of characters? Yes, and a load of fiction as well. Between the 12th and 15th Centuries he went from a warband leader to a king - and a King of England at that, not of Britannia - who developed a round table, chivalrous knights, a sword in the stone, Camelot, Lady of the Lake, Lancelot... to name but a few. No wonder everyone's confused!