The great debate: Did King Arthur Exist? | Arguments for

Historians have been debating the existence of King Arthur for generations. While some say that he is a completely fictional figure from the depths of Celtic folklore, others say that there is some evidence that the character of Arthur is an amalgamation of several notable people from the time.

Today we will look at the evidence for the existence of King Arthur. Want to catch up? Click here to check out the origins of the Arthur.

For now, let’s take a look at some of the evidence that proves that there was once someone called Arthur who did some of the things attributed to him in the legends.

To start with, a bit of background, the Arthurian legends are set in a time of great change and turmoil in Britain – the Romans had begun to leave Britain and Saxon invasions began to terrorise the population. Britannia fragmented into fiefdoms, each with its own king or ruler, something that continued up until the Norman invasion. So, it is entirely possible that there was a King called Uther Pendragon, who had a son that was seen as a great military leader. It is also important to note that there are very few records of the time between the Romans and the Normans. With that said, let’s look at what records we do have.

Ancient texts that mention Arthur, or at least someone we can infer is Arthur.

De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae – Gildas
This is the earliest text we’ll be looking at, and though it doesn’t mention Arthur by name, it does talk about the Battle of Badon, which is associated with the Arthur legend.
Gildas was a Welsh Monk and in his works, he talks about a Saxon invasion which resulted in the Battle of Badon. The British were victorious, they were led by a Romano-Britain general called Ambrosia Aurelianius, who was known as The Bear.
Interestingly, the Celtic word for bear is artos.
So, though the story itself isn’t about anyone called Arthur, the name could come from the General’s nickname and does reference the Battle of Badon, which features in several texts that mention Arthur.

Interestingly, there are many texts prior to those written by Geoffrey of Monmouth that reference Arthur as a military leader rather than a King. Many of these texts are Welsh in origin or were written by Welsh monks that were living in England.

For instance, as well as Gildas’ account of the Battle of Badon, we also have a mention in the 7^th century poem Y Gododdin, which says that the hero is a skilled warrior, but is no Arthur, indicating that there was a skilled fighter called Arthur that people would have prior knowledge of.

The Easter Annals
This set of Welsh manuscripts detail the conversion from Roman to British rule and cover the Saxon invasion. The Battle of Badon features here too and a hero called Arthur is credited with carrying the cross of Jesus Christ which helped the British win.

The Black Book of Carmarthen and the Welsh Triads

These texts are mostly a collection of Welsh traditional stories and histories. It is the Welsh Triads that first flout the idea that Arthur might be a king, he is described as being the Chief of the Lords of this Island, indicating that he was in charge of the British and Welsh.

Latin Vitae
It isn’t just the Welsh that have early mentions of Arthur, he also appears in a couple of Vitae, which were texts detailing the lives of post Roman saints. These aren’t generally considered to be reliable historical sources, but it is certainly interesting that he appears here, too.

Remember Gildas who is attributed to the earliest mention of Arthur?
Well, he later became a saint and in the story of his life, it is claimed that Arthur killed his brother and rescued his wife from Glastonbury. There is also mention of an incident in which Arthur demanded compensation for the loss of his men in the form of cattle. Something that comes up several times in Arthurian legends.

You’ll also find mention of Arthur in the Historia Brittonum, a book detailing the History of the Britons, which was written in the 9^th century and contains details of 12 battles that Arthur supposedly took part in and refers to him as a military commander rather than a King. Some see this as one of the earliest histories of Britain, but others claim that it is a work of fiction as some of the locations mentioned do not match up with places that currently exist.

The Annals of Cambraie

The Annales Cambriae, which date back to the 8^th century, also support the case for Arthur being a real person. They mention both the Battle of Badon and the Battle of Camlann, where Arthur is supposed to have died and dated that final battle as taking place in the late 530s.

Some say that Geoffrey of Monmouth was inspired by these texts, while others say that this proves that there was a respected leader called Arthur. This in turn may indicate that the Arthur of legend is an amalgamation of several people, rather than one singular person.

So, what do we know about this time?
We know that the period after the Roman occupation was one of great turmoil. There are very few records remaining from this time period, so even if there was someone called Arthur who rose to prominence, we wouldn’t have concrete evidence. Historians do say that there is evidence that the Saxons and the Britons fought several battles and though the Battle of Badon’s location isn’t concrete, there is evidence to suggest that it is in the West Country.

One location we can prove existed however is the Camlann, the site of Arthur’s final battle.

It wasn’t just Welsh texts that included mentions of Arthur, following the popularity of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work, the stories of Arthur started appearing in France too. It was these stories that introduced the Knights of the Roundtable, though again, we don’t know if these were written because they had come across the legendary fighter or because they were further inspired by Geoffrey’s stories.

The Cornish connection

Ok, so let’s talk about Cornwall.

The Arthur legend is hugely intwined with Cornish history, the generally accepted Arthur legends state that he was born in Tintagel, Cornwall after Uther Pendragon, a king of Britain used Merlin to deceive the wife of the Duke of Cornwall into believing that he was her husband. Arthur was conceived and was raised by the Cornish and Merlin alongside his mother, father and half siblings, which included Morgana, the infamous witch of the story. We all know how outspoken women were treated in history. If Arthur exists, did Morgana and did she just fall foul of misogony? 

In Tintagel, there is a bronze sculpture of a knight wearing a cloak and a crown and holding a sword that is said to be in commemoration of Arthur, though this addition is fairly recent. Tintagel does have the ruins of a castle and a cave known as Merlin’s Cave, which was coveted by the 13^th Century Earl of Cornwall, who wanted to claim Arthurian heritage.

Cornwall is also said to be where the Battle of Camlann took place. It is said to be located in the modern day village of Slaughterbridge where there is a Camel River, the name of which could have come from Camlann. There is also a stone column here known as the Slaughterbridge Stone which is believed to have been an ancient burial marker and archaeologists discovered a stone slab here which dated back to around the 6^th century that had Artognou engraved on it. Perhaps this was a headstone and perhaps Artognou is an old Cornish version of the name Arthur?

Other connections to Cornwall include a neolothic stone circle on Bodmin Moor which was said to have significance with the Knights of the Roundtable and St Nectan’s Glen, a waterfall which was supposedly visited by the Knights of the Roundtable before they went searching for the Holy Grail.

Other tangible evidence

Aside from places like Merlin’s Cave, Arthur’s Stone is another site that has connections with King Arthur. Believed to be around 5000 years old, Arthur’s Stone is constructed of nine upright stones topped by a massive capstone which weighs around 25 tons. It is believed to be an ancient tomb, though excavations haven’t proved anything concrete.

Could the mystery of Arthur be Edward I’s fault?

As we’ve seen, many of the original mentions of Arthur come from Welsh history and the name Arthur itself does have Welsh origins. Etymologists say the name originated from the Roman surname, Artorius, a latinised version of the Irish name Arti. We have also established that the Celtic word for bear is Artos. All of this together could indicate that Arthur became a popular name in Wales around the time of the Saxon invasions.

It is also worth noting that Henry Tudor, who became Henry VII of England, was Welsh, he was born in Pembrokeshire and the Tudors were a prominent Welsh family, named his oldest son Arthur and claimed to be a descendent of the original King Arthur. He also claimed that this relation to King Arthur strengthened his divine right to rule.

Henry VII wasn’t the only monarch that believed in the existence of King Arthur. King Edward I also acknowledged that Arthur was a real person and even visited his supposed grave site. Later, the brother of King Henry III, who became the Duke of Cornwall – was so convinced that Arthur existed and that they were related that he swapped several royal lands for Tintagel, which was said to have been Arthur’s birthplace and would regularly hold events nearby at Merlin’s Grotto, which still exists today, to commemorate Arthur’s victories. Another king, Edward III created his own Order of the Roundtable, which took inspiration from the Welsh Triads. There is a Round Table at Winchester Castle, which was originally created by Edward I and then repainted by Henry VIII that was modelled on the table used by King Arthur.

What does this have to do with Edward I?
Well, Edward I was the king that began England’s conquest of Wales and during this time, he claimed Arthur as being an English hero, shifting the origins away from the original Welsh stories and rooting him further into Cornish lore. Perhaps the lack of original documentation from the time itself and Edward’s erasure of Welsh culture is the reason why there isn’t more concrete evidence of Arthur’s existence.

It is also possible that Arthur was a Welsh leader or king – again, Welsh culture was actively being supressed and erased by those that conquered it. In fact, for a time, it was illegal to speak Welsh, forcing those that lived there to speak English, those that only spoke Welsh were not allowed to hold office or positions of power. There is a suggestion that King Arthur could have been the Welsh king Arthrwys ap Meurig, but again, so much was lost that we would never know for sure.

The Glastonbury Connection

So, you know how we said that Camlann was a real place? We might also be able to place Avalon in reality, too.

Avalon is said to be Glastonbury Tor, which at one time was surrounded by marsh land, which made it an Island. Though it wasn’t an island by the 12^th century, which coincidentally is when the word Arthurian began to be used to describe certain eras and architecture. Want more?  In Welsh, Glastonbury translated to Isle of Glass.

Glastonbury has long been shrouded in folk lore and is close to Bath, which is said to have healing waters, so it isn’t too much of a stretch to assume that a nobleman injured in battle wouldn’t have been taken somewhere known for its healing. The area of the Somerset Levels where Glastonbury can be found continues to be known as the Vale of Avalon, which adds a little more credence to the tale.

Furthermore, Arthur’s grave is said to have been uncovered in Glastonbury. Yes, you read that right. In 1190, monks at Glastonbury Abbey claimed to have discovered the bones of Arthur and Guinevere after their new abbot ordered them to search the grounds. The monks claimed to have found the bodies in an unmarked tomb within a massive coffin made from tree trunks and alongside an iron cross engraved with the phrase: HIC IACET SEPULTUS INCLITUS REX ARTURIUS IN INSULA AVALONIA.

It is said that this translates roughly to Here lies entombed the renowned King Arthur in the island of Avalon. However, others say that it actually makes mention of the Once and Future King – a phrase synonymous with King Arthur. We do know that Rex is Latin for King, we still use it today and Arturius is pretty similar to Arthur.

Following the discovery of the bodies, King Edward I and his wife, Eleanor of Castille visited Glastonbury to witness their reburial and to contribute silks and royal seals to the grave. The bones were then moved again when the abbey was extended but following the dissolution of the abbey, the grave site and any remains have been lost.

While some point to this as being proof that Arthur existed and was important enough to have been buried with an engraved cross at an abbey, others claim that the whole thing was a hoax on the part of the monks. After all, they desperately needed to raise money for the abbey as it had been damaged in a fire not long before the discovery. The king who was so keen for Arthur to belong to the British being involved adds to this theory, however others say that the discovery was legitimate and actually, the tomb had been found years before, but had been left alone.

People who could have been Arthur

One leading theory is that King Arthur wasn’t one single person but that the stories about him are an amalgamation of the lives of several notable people at the time. It is widely accepted that Geoffrey’s version of Merlin was based on a number of Welsh prophets.

There are a couple of people who could have potentially been the Arthur of those original stories or at least have had their actions credited to someone called Arthur. Firstly, there is The Bear, Ambrosia Aurelianius, who is mentioned in Gildas’ text.

Other candidates include Artuir mac Aedan, a prince of Dal Riata, which is now part of modern Scotland; Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman army commander and several English and Welsh kings, including Riothamus, who fought during an expedition to Gaul, Owain Danwyn and Arthwys ap Meurig.

So, with the mentions in ancient history prior to the publication of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s book, the significant locations being matched up with modern day places, several sources referring to the Battles of Badon and Camlann, more modern kings associating with and claiming heritage from Arthur, the discovery of his burial place and the mentions of other people from the legends, like Merlin, that concludes our evidence for the existence of Arthur.

Is this enough to convince you that King Arthur existed?

Next time we’ll be looking at the evidence against the existence of Arthur.