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

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 that disproves the existence of King Arthur.

Want to catch up? Click here to check out the origins of the Arthur legend and the arguments for Arthur being a real person here.

So, just to recap with some background, Arthurian legends are set in a time period that saw a lot of turmoil – the Romans had just left and the Saxons were starting to throw their weight around. Britannia began to split into fiefdoms, with their own kings or rulers and there are very few records from this time period. However, we do have records of other rulers from this time, which begs the question, why isn’t their concrete proof of a king called Arthur?

So, like last time, let’s look at the textual records that we have.

Those in the Arthur was real camp look to the monk, Gildas and his work De Excidio et Conquesti Britanniae, however, this doesn’t mention anyone called Arthur. It talks about the Battle of Badon, and there is archaeological proof that the Saxons were moving around  Britain and there were several battles, one of which, Badon, appears in a variety of texts, but Gildas’ concentrates on a Romano-British General known as Ambrosius Aurelianius – not someone called Arthur.

To be clear, the General was known by the nickname, The Bear and bear translated into Celtic is artos – this could be argued that Gildas was talking about Arthur OR it could be argued that people mistranslated his work and that there was no Arthur, simply a very skilled General who had a nickname that sounded like Arthur.

We mentioned before that most of the stories attributed to Arthur are from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s book, but that Arthur is mentioned by name in several texts prior to Geoffrey’s work. However, there is no mention of anyone called Arthur in Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of the English People or in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle, both of which are considered to be the most reliable texts from the time period.

If Arthur was such a significant person from the time period, he certainly would have made an appearance in at least one of those texts.

Also, it is worth mentioning that even the records prior to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work are either disputed, like the Latin Vitae that talk of Arthur being a post Roman saint, or were written centuries after the events were supposed to have happened. So, it is possible that the events that inspired Geoffrey were misinterpreted, misremembered or mistranslated.

The Matter of Britain

While this sounds very important, it is actually the name given to the body of medieval literature and legendary material associated with Great Britain, Brittany and legendary kings and heroes. King Arthur does make an appearance here, which suggests that he is a fictional character.  Geoffrey of Monmouth’s text is the central part of the Matter of Britain and the Arthur and Brutus of Troy stories that we know come primarily from him.

Similarly, there is also the Matter of France, which concerns the stories of Charlemagne and the Matter of Rome, which features the figures from Roman mythology. So, if we are saying that Charlemagne is a French folk hero and the figures from Roman mythology, including the twins that founded Rome, Romulus and Remus are fiction, so too is Arthur.

While we’re on the subject, the phrase Arthurian began to be used in the 12^th century but this would coincide with the Matter of Britain. So, we can certainly explain that too.

The Christianity of it all

You might have noticed throughout this debate that the majority of people who told stories of Arthur were monks. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Gildas, even those that wrote poems about him were religious figures.

After the Roman departure, Christianity was spreading across Britain and Arthur appears to be a Christian crusader. In one story, he retrieves the Holy Grail. In another, he spends an entire battle carrying Christ’s cross. He is also said to have been descended from Constantine, the Emperor that is credited with the spread of Christianity. It is entirely possible that religious figures would have created a Jesus like figure that the Britons could relate to. The fact that Arthur has a God-like quality to him would also explain why so many monarchs claiming “the divine right” to rule would want to claim kinship with him.

Geoffrey of Monmouth and the French writer De Troyes created much of the legend that we know today including a magical sword and the Lady in the Lake, both of which can be likened to the miracles that happened in the bible.

The lack of archaeological evidence

As we’ve said, there is little to no archaeological evidence to back up the existence of Arthur or any of the other characters in the stories. There is proof to suggest that battles between the Saxons and the Britons took place, and there is proof of several notable military leaders who were victorious against the Saxons, however, there is nothing concrete to say that any of these leaders were called Arthur.

In 1190, monks at Glastonbury Abbey claimed to have discovered the grave of Arthur and his wife Guinevere, they say they found the bodies within a coffin made from a tree trunk and with an iron cross engraved with a phrase that roughly translated to “Here lies King Arthur”.

However, there is evidence to suggest that this whole thing was a hoax – shortly before the discovery, the abbey had been damaged by a fire and the monks were keen to raise money for repairs. Following the reburial of the remains, the abbey became a pilgrimage site which would have brought much needed funds. Plus, King Edward I came to personally witness the reburial of the bodies. The same King Edward who was keen to claim Arthur as an ancestor and an English hero, stealing him away from the Welsh.

Many historians see Edward’s presence as proof that the whole thing was a hoax – interestingly, the remains haven’t been seen since. Following the dissolution of the monasteries, Glastonbury Abbey fell into disrepair and the grave site has been lost.
Even more interestingly, King Henry VII also claimed kinship with Arthur, going as far as to name his son and heir Arthur after the great king and using his familial connection with King Arthur as being proof of his “divine right to rule.” Despite this, Henry VII didn’t have the remains of Arthur and Guinevere moved into the royal vaults, though he did do this for other former monarchs. Could it be that he knew Arthur wasn’t real? That although he was related to the nobility through the Tudor line, that line didn’t include a legendary Arthur?  Or can we put this back down to Edward I’s erasure of Welsh culture? That Henry didn’t want to rock the boat by pointing out the fact that he was Welsh?

However you look at it, the grave site that was supposedly discovered in 1190 has never been rediscovered and it doesn’t appear that any of the things that were in the grave with the remains were kept and displayed.

Similarly, in the Midlands, there is Arthur’s Stone, which is believed to be a neolithic burial site. However, excavations on the area haven’t found anything conclusive.

Last time, we did say that some places in the Arthur myths could be attributed to real places, like Camlann could be the origins of the area around the River Camel in Cornwall. We can also link Avalon to Glastonbury, there is evidence to suggest that Glastonbury Tor was at one time an island and the surrounding area is known as the Vale of Avalon. However, historians have been unable to place Camelot anywhere in the United Kingdom and as that was supposedly where Arthur ruled from, there should be some way of knowing where it is.

Another issue that historians have with the Arthur stories is the location of Annwn. Annwn is established as being part of Welsh mythology and is described as being an “otherworld” either on an island or under the ground. Some say it can be found in modern day Pembrokeshire, but there is little evidence to support this.

There is some evidence to suggest that Arthur was created as a hero using the deeds of several other notable people of the time. There’s no concrete proof of this but as we said, Gildas’ text does mention  Ambrosius Aurelianius who was known as The Bear, which translates into Artos in Celtic, which could be where the origins of Arthur in texts prior to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s came from. Similarly, one of the people thought to have inspired King Arthur, is a Welsh King but as Edward I’s campaign to conquer Wales eradicated a lot of their history and culture, we can’t be sure of this either.

So, after everything we’ve gone over the last few months, what do you think? Was King Arthur a real person? You can join in the debate by following us on X, Facebook and Instagram.