Through the Eyes of St. Gildas: His View of a Doomed Land

When the Western Roman Empire finally eroded away in 476 A.C.E., the bureaucratic leadership, engineering, architecture and learning that had characterized the western world faded with it. So much remains unknown from the following centuries because so few were capable of recording it, as the need for learning agriculture and warfare superseded that of reading and writing. Yet reading and writing survived through the last standing institution of the old regime: the church.
Even after the teachings of Christ had been the official religion of Rome for over a century, the practices, rules and even the very structure of Christianity were not fully recognized or coherent. Nevertheless, the early Catholic  church survived, and to further their understanding of the gospel, as well as continuing to spread the holy message to the world, the priests and monks continued to read, copy and write. Our perspective of the Early Medieval period, therefore, comes from the point of view of the contemporary holy men. In regards to Britain at this time, our best sources come from the early British saints.
Christianity found a stronghold in the British Isles, even when the pagan Anglo-Saxons came to be the dominant power. Southern Britain and Wales alone recognized hundreds of Christian rulers, martyrs and holy men as saints, including the venerated Dyfrig, Iltyd, Samson, and Cadoc.  In fact, according to tradition, Ireland owes its strong Christian identity to the early Brythonic church, thanks to the missionary work of a faithful Briton named Patrick. None of these saints, however, are as intriguing, informative while at the same time frustrating as St. Gildas.
St. Gildas lived and preached in Britain during the 6th Century, before the completion of the Anglo-Saxon settlement. That much is known, and little else. A Life of St. Gildas was written by Caradoc of Llancarfan in the 12th Century, and ties in his life with the early years of Arthur, but this is a later, fanciful creation.  What little we know of Gildas, and of 6th Century Britain, comes mainly from his own writings, namely his De Excidio et Conquestu Britannaie (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain). Its content deals mainly with the sinful and destructive nature Gildas believes Britain and her kings have begun sinking into, but also includes a brief history of Britain, namely the invasions and "groans" that the island suffered during and after the Roman withdrawal. Of great concern is chapter 26, describing the British defensive against the Saxons. "ex eo tempore nunc ciues, nunc hostes, uincebant, ut in ista gente experietur dominus solito more praesentem israelem, utrum diligat eum an non: usque ad annum obsessionis badonici montis, nouissimaeque ferme de furciferis non minimae stragis, quique quadragesimus quartus (ut noui) orditur annus mense iam uno emenso, qui et meae natiuitatis est"/"After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Badon Hill, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month, and also the time of my own nativity" (Gildas, DEB, Ch.26). This account is the primary evidence for the Battle of Badon, and it is the only contemporary evidence. The account establishes that it was a siege, though which side was the besieged is not made clear, and it was the battle that ultimately tipped the balance in favor of the Britons, at least for the moment.
There are, however, several problems with Gildas' account. Firstly, his account does not always coincide with the archaeological evidence. Some of the content can not be verified, while other points conflict with other sources. This may be due to the fact that while Gildas was obviously educated, he was not a historian, nor was it his intention to write a detailed history of the Britons. His main intent was the epistle, a tirade against the  iniquities of the Britons and the local kings of the time.
The second problem with Gildas as a source for the Battle of Badon is that while it does prove that the battle occurred, it does not say where the battle occurred. The result is that a number of locations have been put forward, but no solid evidence has been found to verify any of the proposals. Given that Gildas' account implies that the Britons defeated the Saxons at Badon, the battle most likely occurred in the south. The likeliest suggestions in this region range from Bath, Badbury Rings and Badbury/Liddington Castle.
The largest conundrum that Gildas' source causes is that although Gildas names Badon and describes the Britain that Arthur would have lived in, but Gildas does not name Arthur at all, nor does he name the victor at Badon. On the other hand, Gildas names very few people in his epistle, save for five kings he describes as sin-ridden tyrants. The only figure that he names in a positive light is Ambrosius Aurelianus, whom Gildas credits as the head of the Briton resistance. Gildas describes him as one of the last of the Romans in Britain, as a modest man, whose parents "who for their merit were adorned with the purple" (DEB 24), most likely meaning that they were members of a roman senatorial family. Gildas describes him as either a "modest man" or "a man of unassuming character" (DEB 24), depending on the translation. In other words, Gildas admired this man, whom he gives the Roman title of "duce" (DEB 24) or "dux" in the original Latin. While Gildas does not openly connect him with the Badon victory, many modern researchers credit him as the commander at the conflict. 
 While no one can determine from the text, where the Battle of Badon occurred, nor the identity of the victor, Gildas does give some elusive hints as to when the battle took place. What evidence we have pinpoints the battle somewhere between the last decade of the 5th Century and the first two of the 6th. Gildas states elusively that the battle was fought 44 years and one month before his writing, coinciding with his birth. Given that the battle occurred around 500, the traditional year for DEB is usually pinpointed between 544 and 547, the last years of the reign of Maelgwyn Gwynedd, who traditionally died of plague in 547. However, further study, as demonstrated by this article by Robert Vermaat, the epistle was probably written many years earlier. This is supported by conclusions reached by Dr. David Dumville ("The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal Lists", 1989) and Mike Ashley ("The Mammoth Book of British Kings and Queens") suggests some time between 535 and 537. This would place the battle and Gildas' birth between 490 and 493.
In the end, Gildas' text provides just as many answers as it does questions. While many scholars use it as fuel to their argument that king Arthur never existed, countless others point out that aside from Ambrosius, the epistle only names those that Gildas wishes to berate and rebuke, hinting that if there was a real Arthur at the time, Gildas theoretically may have not had any reason to call him out. The hard truth, however, is that Gildas offers no solid proof for the existence of Arthur, save for verifying the historical battle that the Arthur figure may have been present at.


Here are some links to Gildas's DEB.


http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arthist/vortigernquotesgil.htm-Robert Vermaat's site, with original Latin text and English translation
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html-J.A. Giles translation, with some liberties taken

Arthur's Britain: A World in Transition in a Truly Dark Age

"How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons."
"King of the who?"
"Of the Britons."
"Well, who are the Britons?"
"We all are, and I am your king."
"I didn't know we had a king! I thought we were an autonomous collective!"
--Monty Python and the Holy Grail

To say one is British today carries a drastically different meaning than it did 1500 years ago, at the end of the Vth and beginning of the Vth Century. The Cymric or Brythonic-speaking peoples (members of what we call Celtic culture today) had inhabited the island for thousands of years, forming into a variety of different tribes, developing strong trade with the Gallic tribes across the channel, and allowing the druidic religion to flourish. Much of this, however, was pulverized by the Roman war machine during the 1st Century AD. While the Druids were virtually wiped out and the majority of the Britons' separate tribal identities faded away, becoming a territory of the Roman Empire did have its benefits. Great cities such as Londinium (London) were built, major roads (many of which are still utilized today) were paved, trade increased, and the native Briton population mingled with various ethnic identities from as far away as Sarmatia (modern Ukraine), Spain and Northern Africa. While the local aristocracy grew more comfortable with the Roman villa-based lifestyle, Britain retained its identity as a frontier province, namely due to the constant threat of raiders (the Picts from modern Scotland, Irish raiders and Germanic pirates), and that more rebellions began in Britain than any other region of the empire. Another great paradigm shift came to the island when Christianity was introduced during the IVth and Vth Centuries. While the Roman church was not devoid of heresy, Britain is remembered as the birthplace of the Pelagian heresy, which denied the principle of original sin.
Therefore, by the time the Romans pulled pulled out to relieve a crumbling western empire, Britain had developed what is usually referred to as a "Romano-British" identity, with the inherently Celtic society mixed with the cultures brought over with the Romans. Evidence from Tintagel proves that trade with the Mediterannean remained strong, and archaeology suggests that several of the Roman towns and villas, such as those at Corinium (Cirencester), Viriconoum (Wroxeter) and Deva (Chester) remained populated. On the other hand, many of the other settlements, such as Londinium, Calleva (Silchester) and Isca Silurum (Caerleon) were abandoned. Coinage ceased to be printed, and with the vacuum of unifying executive power, the local war leaders and magistrates appointed themselves kings, with various kingdoms dotting Britain. Certain kings and self-proclaimed emperors, called tyrants by chroniclers such as Gildas, attempted to gain dominance over each other, while the threat of the Picts and Irish grew so bad that one tyrant known as Vortigern hired Saxon and Jutish mercenaries to fight them off. According to tradition, Vortigern offered these germanic mercenaries land in exchange for military service, which resulted in a wave of Aengle, Jutish and Saxon invasions. While the archaeology does not always coincide with these sources (and that many Saxon and other Germanic peoples had probably been settling in Britain for centuries), it does show a sudden lack of Romano British artifacts in comparison to an increase in early Anglo-Saxon remains during the Vth Century.

The British and Saxon kingdoms during the Vth and early VIth Centuries. Map based on History Files: The Anglo-Saxon Conquests

Both the archaeology and the chronicles, however, show a sudden void in the Anglo-Saxon record towards the end of the Vth and beginning of the VIth Centuries, and they both suggest a reversal in the Saxon migration/settlement in Britain. So what happened? The sources outside of Britain just say that many Saxons were leaving the island, but most of their information on why was based on general hearsay and rumor. The only surviving contemporary source we have comes from the monk Gildas' work De Excidio et Conquestu Brittanniae (The Ruin and Conquest of Britain). According to Gildas, "After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might in this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Mount Badon, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month, and also the time of my own nativity" (DEB, Ch. 26).  This battle was apparently so important that it halted the proto-English/Anglo Saxon expansion for over a generation, though Gildas remarks in his same chronicle that the Briton tyrants began to bicker and sin in the following years, allowing the Saxons to return and rise to prominence on the island.

So now that we have established the importance of Badon, how does King Arthur tie into it all? Given that Gildas never mentioned the name of the victorous commander at Badon, the identity of the Briton leader was only recorded three hundred years later by the Welsh chronicler Nennius, who wrote that "Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the dux bellorum (leader of battles)" ( Harlean 3859, Historia Brittonum, Ch. 56). This view of Arthur as victor over the Saxons was supported roughly 150 years later in a welsh chronicle, under the entry for 516 (Annales Cambriae). With these three sources, it seems that the historical reality of Arthur has a strong case. Far too many problems arise, however, namely the credibility and interpretation of the sources, as well as the extreme gap in time between Gildas  and Nennius. Given that span of time, who is to say that Nennius didn't simply make Arthur up to create a hero for the Battle of Badon?

While the debate still rages over the actual connection between Arthur and Badon (more on that later), we have some evidence that the figure of Arthur was already known and quickly becoming more of a legend by the late VIth/early VIIth Centuries. Aneuirin's Y Gododdin, written roughly a century after Badon, describes the feats of one courageous warrior in battle, but makes it clear that "he was not Arthur". Again, the authenticity for the inclusion of Arthur in the poem is debated, but many scholars agree it is authentic. Along with that , the Welsh Genealogies list several kings and princes in Wales and Scotland being named Art(h)ur at this time, suggesting that the name had become very meaningful within that last several generations.

In the end, the picture we have of Arthur's Britain is of a land and society in a state of radical transition, when one way of life was crumbling and a new society, in fact a major reversal in the ethnic and social identity of Britain, was taking place. The sources say that this occurred slowly at times, and violently at others, but for a brief moment, a known battle at a vague date and an unknown location halted that transition for a time, and allowed the crumbling kingdoms of the Britons to survive a while longer in relative peace. And who was the man responsible for this victory? In a very fitting way, he is cloaked in more darkness and controversy than the period during which he may have lived.

Next Week: Gildas' De Excidio, our best window into Dark Age Britain, his clues about Badon, and what we may or may not be able to learn about Arthur from him.

First Post-The Biggest Step is the First Step Out the Door

Okay, well, here's the first post of what will hopefully be many in regards to Badon Hill and the historic king Arthur. Like Nennius before me, I've heaped together everything I could find over the past several years, along with some more recent things as they present themselves, and now I mean to put it all into cohesive thoguhts and organized structure here on this blog. I know many people will be disappointed that this does not concern the Romances, but it will touch on much of the original Brythonic (i.e. Welsh) legends concerning Arthur, as well as discovering the origins of certain romantic elements, and how Arthur was taken from Britain to the rest of the world (for example, why are some of the earliest depictions of Arthur found not in Britain or France, but in Italy??)

So, to start off, certain undeniable principles need to be established. For one, Arthur was never king of England. Even if Arthur was really a king (which is highly debatable), he would be a leader of the Britons, the native ancestors of the Welsh, rather than the Proto-English Aengles and Saxons (the ancestors of the English people). So when Graham Chapman said that he was "Arthur, king of the Britons", those are the Britons he was talking about.
Next, Arthur did not come from an idealized late medieval period full of magic, giant castles, courtly love, or knights in shining armour. The Britain that the Arthur figure hails from had been abandoned by the Romans nearly a century before (AD 407), and had been told to look to its own defenses. While woad covered Picts from the north, Irish raiders from the west, and germanic pirates and settlers from the mainland threatened the Britons, the local warlords and officials set themselves up as kings and fought with each other as well as with the outsiders for dominance. Coins were no longer printed, most of the writing stopped, and many of the Roman towns began to crumble,  or were abandoned altogether. As the Aengles and Saxons began to encroach further and further into Briton territory, their advance was suddenly stopped after a battle, referred to by the contemporary monk Gildas as "the siege of Mount Badon"(De Excidio Britannae), halted their settlement of the island for nearly half a century. Although the official leader of the battle was not named, later sources attributed it to a war leader and hero called Arthur.
Finally, and I have to make this clear, there is currently NO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE that a historical person named Arthur existed at this time. That's not to say that there wasn't, but no hard evidence shows that one did. Because of this everything that I or anyone else discussing the matter puts forward is CONJECTURAL until some sort of solid proof arises. That includes the crackpots, the rational hopefuls (like yours truly) and the disillusioned who are fixed on the idea that Arthur never existed. That's why I'm focusing on Badon. It happenned, that is a fact, and it is historically established that the Britons were the victors. If we can discover when, where and how the battle was fought, then more light will be shed on its victorious commander, and we will be one step closer to discovering the truth behind the Arthur Figure.

So there you have it. The search for the Historical King Arthur in a nutshell. The clock's approaching an unholy hour, so I'll leave you here, go say my prayers, and call it a night. I'll be back tomorrow, hopefully with my first scribbles and notes translated into something everyone can understand. The Lord's peace be with you.

-RRH