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.