Exploring the Historical Origins of King Arthur

King Arthur. Arguably one of the most famous figures in all of mythology. Whether it's Lancelot, the Holy Grail, Excalibur, or the Knights of the Round Table, everyone has likely heard something about Arthur. Despite these famous stories, many historians believe that Arthur was a real figure. But why? Where do they think he came from? What are the origins of this story? This topic has been done before, but it's never been done very well. From YouTube videos filled with inaccurate information, to the dozens of published books proclaiming to have found the real Arthur. The discourse surrounding this figure is a mess, so today I'd like to properly discuss the historical origins of King Arthur. I'd like to address the very question of who was Arthur, and work our way backwards to see what, or who, historians believe inspired the legend. The reason you've likely heard anything about King Arthur before is because of this man. the 12th century French romance writer Chrétien de Tras. Arthur's most famous elements, the ones I mentioned earlier, all had their starts here, and his stories were incredibly popular. The King Arthur that many people are familiar with exists solely as a literary figure, and is famous just because of Chrétien. We aren't going to analyze these elements today, and no one is claiming that this man existed, including Chrétien. These were solely fictional works, but they did play a huge role in bringing the figure of King Arthur and elements surrounding him into the popular imagination. Arthur's reinvention as the King of England would be based upon these stories. Edward I, inspired by Chrétien, even held his own round table upon his conquest of Wales. However, King Arthur was not one of Chrétien's creations. He owed this character, and many elements surrounding him, to another fiction writer, although this one would try very hard to convince you that he was telling the truth. Joffrey of Monmouth, a 12th century bishop and writer desired, for unknown reasons, to compile what he called the history of the kings of Britain, supposedly from an ancient Brythonic text that was given to him by Walter Mapp, another writer. Joffrey sought to pass this book off as real, but to historians today, and even to many at the time, his fictitious elements are obvious, if frustrating. Joffrey likes to use real names and places, and made-up names and places, and due to the age of the text, it is very difficult to determine which of these names and places are fake, and which of them may derive from a now lost source. And there is no better example of this than of King Arthur, the supposed King of Britain who Joffrey claimed conquered half of Europe. Joffrey was not writing history, despite his claims, which is a mistake that I've seen so many people make, trying to figure out Arthur based even partially on his depiction by Joffrey. But this depiction is a work of fiction. Arthur himself, though, was once again a real name, plucked out of existing stories and sources, and made a central character in Joffrey's work. So just like what we asked with Chrétien, where did this Arthur come from? Joffrey's primary source appears to be the mythologies of Wales, which might come as a surprise for many of you, as Arthur is typically seen as an English or a French figure, but before his adoption as the King of England or as a paragon of French chivalry, he was a popular character in the oral traditions of Wales, and no one else knew anything about him. He hardly had a standardized canon though, another mistake I've seen a lot of people make. From one story to another, his servant becomes his son, his parents go unmentioned, three separate individuals are named as his wife. Some stories paint him as a man with supernatural strength and skill, while others depict him as an evil autocrat who needs to be taught a lesson on the power of God. So clearly the Welsh were not all describing the same man. Arthur is a character in these myths, just like with Joffrey and Chrétien, and he is morphed and moulded to fit the frame of whatever the author wanted. Joffrey would pluck dozens of elements from these stories to mould his own version of Arthur. Uther Pendragon, one of Arthur's knights? He can be his dad. What's that? Arthur doesn't have a mother? We'll just make one up. Three women are married to Arthur? Not in this Christian household. Joffrey's work is a hideous Frankenstein that will look disturbingly familiar to anyone knowledgeable of medieval Welsh poetry or history. But as I've shown you, he did not invent the name Arthur. He simply took it from Welsh mythology and moulded it to fit the character he wanted. So, once again, where did this Arthur come from? Why was this man, this name, so popular, both with Joffrey and with medieval Welsh poetry? It is here that we now move into the shadowy realm of the historical sources. So many people are content just to tell you the old mentions of the name Arthur, and happy to completely ignore the debate on how reliable they even are. The question of who was Arthur goes unanswered, but the question of the question... What do you mean when you ask who was Arthur goes entirely ignored, but I'll come to that in a bit. For now, let's examine the oldest mentions of Arthur and see why he became so famous. Many of the videos that I've already complained about will tell you this, that the name Arthur first appears all the way back in the in the 6th century, in a Welsh poem titled A Godolin, that describes the disastrous invasion of Northern England by the Bartholic Kingdom of Godolin. Who could have guessed? Here we encounter many descriptions of the warriors that took part in the war, but only one is of interest to us. Gwarðr, if you'll allow me. He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress, and though he was no Arthur, among the powerful ones in battle, in the front rank, a palisade, was Gwarðr. This is fascinating. Here we have the description of one of the most powerful warriors in the army, who fights in the front rank, who's a palisade to his companions, and yet he is nothing compared to this man, Arthur. Not only would this definitely hurt his feelings, but if this poem dates all the way back to the 6th century, then surely this proves that some warrior named Arthur was already famous by this time. So is this our King Arthur? The man who appears in so many Welsh myths and legends? And if it is, does he have his historical roots in the 6th century? around the time that this poem is set. That's the conclusion that many people, books, and videos have drawn, and just like I said at the start, it's completely incorrect. While the events of the poem date to the 6th century, the manuscript itself dates to the 13th, which is after Joffrey already made Arthur famous, and likely even after Chrétien's French romances. However, the spelling and the typography match 9th and 10th century texts, which would place it before Joffrey, but not in the 6th century. We have absolutely no evidence that this text or Arthur are that old. Furthermore, this line, though he was no Arthur, only appears in one of the manuscripts of Ogadoddon, meaning that it was likely added sometime during its transcription. In fact, there seem to be a lot of additions, as both manuscripts vary quite a bit from each other. Despite these glaring errors, this conclusion of a 6th century Arthur makes it into nearly every video on this subject, and is the basis for so many theories on who the real Arthur was. but in reality, all that Ogadovan proves is that this name, Arthur, might have been famous by at least the 9th or 10th centuries. So was Joffrey and the mythologies of Wales inspired by this Arthur? Probably not, or at least only partially. After all, it is a small throwaway line, and it doesn't explain who Arthur was, meaning that the author probably assumed you would already know him. Another source purporting to be one of the oldest mentions of Arthur is another 13th century manuscript. known as the Annals Cambria, which records the dates of two battles being fought by a man named Arthur, the Battle of Baden in 516, and the Battle of Camlann in 537. The problem, once again though, is that this manuscript dates to after Joffrey already made Arthur famous. And the historian T. Charles Edwards has suggested that these records were either invented, or maybe just elaborated to include Arthur at a later date. We actually have a primary source from the Battle of Baden, and this source doesn't mention Arthur at all. But more on that later. You see, this is really the problem with a lot of discussion on the historical King Arthur. So many people attribute him to the 6th century, just because some manuscripts set in this era reference him. But these documents are not that old. They were all written after Arthur had already become famous, and there was nothing stopping the authors from including a reference to him. Especially because Joffrey claimed that he was a real historical person. So what then is the oldest historical mention of King Arthur? one that predates Joffrey of Monmouth. Were these manuscripts inspired by the same individual as Joffrey and the Welsh myths? To attempt to answer this question, let's go back to the early 9th century. The kingdoms of Wales had suffered a lot of turmoil by this time. Old dynasties had collapsed and new ones arose in their place. The English kingdom of Mercia had been attempting to conquer the country for centuries, and they'd only just recently stopped their invasions. In the face of all of this, an incredibly fascinating document was written, the Historia Britannum, the History of the Britons. This manuscript aimed to, well, document the history of the Britons, who were the Celtic-speaking people of Great Britain, all the way from the biblical flood to the present day, which would have been around AD 829. Despite its title and its premise, the Historia Britannum is not a history. Its focus on exaggerating the power of the new kings of this region, known as Gwynedd, turn it into a glorified propaganda piece, claiming that these rulers were the ones to unite and defend all of Wales. It has a very heavy anti-English bias, mirroring the anti-Welsh bias in the writings of English monks such as Bede, and most importantly it is extremely religious. Its author even calls it a sermon. Within all of this lies our main objective, as the Historia Britannum dedicates a significant portion of its time to describing how the Welsh were to beat back the English three times. The first had already happened. and it was by a Welsh general named Vortimer. The third was prophesied to take place in the future under the leadership of those new kings of Gwynedd that I mentioned. But the second, and what would have been at the time the most recent, was under the command of a man named Arthur. Arthur, despite his modern adaptations, is not a king here. He's a leader of battles, dux bellorum, said to not be as noble as the kings under his command. Despite this, by wielding the power of Christianity, and no I'm not joking, he was able to beat back the Saxons in 12 decisive battles, forcing them to summon hordes of reinforcements from Germany, who eventually went on to founder the kingdoms of England. Whatever happened to Arthur, the author doesn't say, but it's implied that he staved off Saxon advancement across the whole of Britain for at least a few years. These twelve battles have become central to most analyses on the figure of Arthur, despite how different the source makes him. He's no king, he has no birthplace, no companions, no knight to the round table, no chivalrous adventures, that element of superhuman strength and skill that we can see in some of the Welsh myths is present, but Arthur isn't unstoppable. The author and the audience weren't blind. Arthur may have held off the Saxons for a while, but nowadays they were right outside the door. Arthur was, though, thanks to this document, made a national hero, an ancient defender of Great Britain against what was seen as an unstoppable force. So it's no wonder Joffrey of Monmouth was so captivated by this character. Joffrey's Arthur is clearly inspired by this Arthur. Although Joffrey elaborates just a bit, by making him a king, with a birthplace in Tintagel and Cornwall, with his knights and a family, and while he still fights these 12 battles, he also goes on to wage war against the Roman Empire, and conquer half of Europe. The superhuman strength of Arthur, seen in his capability to defeat hundreds of foes single-handedly, may have inspired many of the abilities of Arthur seen in the Welsh myths, while Joffrey seems to have taken inspiration from both of these sources. So, then, is this the oldest historical mention of Arthur, the one that made the name famous? Does the Historia Britannum depict the original, historical Arthur? Well, Joffrey and the Welsh myths are clearly inspired by this. The poem of Ogadothan could easily be referring to this Arthur as their warrior of supreme strength, and as we've seen, Cretien took inspiration from all of these, but mostly Joffrey. The problem, though, lies in a question that's rarely even asked when discussing this topic. When you say, who was the original Arthur, or what man inspired the Arthurian legends, who exactly are you talking about? Plenty of people have dedicated time to finding Arthur, based on his depictions by Joffrey or in Welsh mythology, or on the false assertion that he must be from the 6th century, but hardly anyone stops to acknowledge that these men are characters. As we've seen, the Arthur of Joffrey was different from the Arthur of the Welsh myths, and these Arthurs were vastly different from the Arthur of the Historia Brittonum. From one text and one author to another, Arthur's father becomes his knight, his mother pops in and out of existence, his councilman becomes his son, his servant becomes his son, and his number of wives constantly changes. He's either the righteous king of Britain, an evil autocrat, or not even a king at all. In some stories, the saints of Wales must convince him of the power of God, but in others he carries a cross on his shoulders for three days and nights, and defeats the Saxons while displaying Mary on his shield. You can't find Arthur based on these depictions. And as I've hopefully shown you so far, the Arthur that many people know is simply a character, based on centuries upon centuries of different stories and adaptations, shifting and changing to meet the author's needs. These stories don't depict an individual waiting to be discovered, the only thing they all have in common is the name, Arthur. Nothing else about this character is even remotely consistent. It does seem that this name was originally made famous by this book, the Historie Brutonum, describing Arthur as this great warrior in general. and as a national hero of the Britons. But does this source depict an original historical Arthur? Is this the source that historians point to when they assert that Arthur may have been a real person? Well, no. There's nothing historical about this book either. If you recall, the Historia Britannum is not a history. It's a hyper-religious, self-described sermon filled with political bias and designed as a propaganda piece. The entire plot, the conflict between the Britons and the Saxons, starts because the Britons weren't Christian enough. A pagan ruler named Vortigern, who consorts with Druids, is convinced by Satan to allow the Saxons to enter Britain. Luckily, his son, in a great act of redemption, holds the invading army back at Kent for a while, until eventually Arthur, bearing the image of the Mother of Jesus on his shield, defeats the invading force 12 times, all across Britain. Not only does the guest appearance of the Devil immediately betray the lack of historical value, but these 12 victorious battles also do not do us any favours. Despite supposedly being so famous, these conflicts are almost entirely lost to us. We can only properly identify three actual battles in this list, and only two of these come with a date. The Battle of the City of the Legions is likely referring to Caerthion Fawr, or Chester, which was taken by the Northumbrians in 616. The Battle of Badon was likely somewhere near Caerfathon, or Bath, and actually has a primary source, the work of a monk named Gildas, along with a potential date of 516. And finally, the Battle of Breagwyn appears to be the Battle of Breagwyn, or Brewyn in Welsh, but we don't know when this took place. The first problem we can see is that two of these battles that Arthur supposedly fought at took place 100 years apart, making it biologically impossible that they were fought by the same person. The second problem lies with the sources we have on this battle, none of which attribute them to a man named Arthur. The Battle of Chester was fought by King Seliv of Powys, alongside King Cadwal of Ross and King Iago of Gwynedd, and it wasn't even a victory. The Battle of Brewyn was fought by a man named Urien Reged, and the Battle of Badon, the only one with a primary source, is said to have been fought by a man named Ambrosius Aurelianus. In fact, as I said earlier, this 6th century source does not mention Arthur at all. The remaining battles are completely lost to us. Some may have connections to Welsh poetry, but we really can't say for sure. All the historians can say is that out of the 12 supposed victories of Arthur, only 3 can be identified. two of which took place over a century apart from each other, one of which wasn't a victory, and none of which are attributed to Arthur anywhere except for the Historia Brittonum. This is hardly a historical account of a real person's career, and as I've shown you, any hope of constructing a real historical individual from this text, whether they were named Arthur or not, is completely impossible. It seems that once again, Arthur has been used as a character here, just like in the Welsh myths, and in Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, and in the French romances. This time as a military commander of superhuman ability, who fought the Saxons all across Great Britain, fighting and winning famous battles regardless of whether or not he was even there, or if they were even victories, or if it was even chronologically possible to fight at all of them. So while the Historia Britannica may have made the name Arthur famous, you can't figure out who Arthur was based on this source, or on any of these sources I've mentioned so far, and we can't yet determine if he was even a real person. The Arthur that most people know is a character. His most famous elements originate from 12th century French romances, which adopted this mythical King of Britain from the 11th century fictional work of Joffrey of Monmouth. Many of the surviving Welsh myths seem to have taken a lot from Joffrey too, mainly by making Arthur a king, although it's clear that Joffrey borrowed a lot from these stories as well. The name itself, Arthur, was made famous by the book we just covered, but this manuscript isn't describing a person who's waiting to be discovered, it's describing a character with an eclectic career of pre-existing historical and mythological battles. So can we identify who Arthur was from any of the sources we've examined so far? No. This character is so wildly inconsistent that absolutely any fact that you can discern will be disputed in another text. His offspring, his parents, his career, where he lived, how Christian he was, whether or not he was a king, these all change constantly to fit the author's need. So if Arthur is a character in the Historia Britannum too, where did the author get him from? As we've seen so far, all iterations of this character have been inspired by something else. Yet, unlike these past iterations, the Historia Britannum does not seem to have been inspired by the adventures of a single individual, as the name Arthur becomes extremely rare if we go further back than this source. Even though these Arthurs are so wildly different from each other, we can still trace one Arthur to another Arthur to another, but now the trail is run cold. That's not to say that some historians don't believe that there may have been a real individual named Arthur, who perhaps was a military general that inspired these initial legends, but as the historians John Davis and T. Charles Edwards both say, we know absolutely nothing about this hypothetical Arthur. Where did he live? Where did he come from? The myths disagree, and now that the trail is run cold, were forced to look elsewhere. So just like what we asked with Chrétien, Joffrey, the Welsh myths, the Godolin poem, and now the Historia Brittonum, we're going to finish off this video by asking, where did this Arthur come from? And can we discern if there was ever a real Arthur, and who he might have been? The Arthur of the Historia Brittonum, while it's uncertain if he's based on another man named Arthur, certainly takes influence from other individuals in history. The first and most obvious candidates are the three generals who fought the battles that Arthur is claimed to have won, Ambrosius Aurelianus, King Seliv, and Urien Reged. Unfortunately, due to the age of these individuals, the documentation surrounding them is very scarce, and it's hard to reconstruct much of their lives, an issue that will come up again when we examine some of the more popular theories about Arthur. Ambrosius Aurelianus is a clear inspiration. He fought and won the Battle of Badon, leading the Britons in holding off the Saxon advance for a generation, mimicking the outcome of Arthur's career in the Historia Britannica. He was apparently a Roman, descended from a Roman family remaining in Britain, and he He may have been leading forces to defend what was left of the Roman government, an endeavour that his parents had supposedly undertaken before him. Does this make him Arthur, though? Well, what does that mean? He certainly inspired the figure of Arthur, fighting the Saxons, holding their advance. But did he fight twelve battles? No. Did he fight at Chester or Brewen? No. Was he a king? No, but the earliest versions of Arthur weren't either. Was he a Christian? We don't know. Is he connected to any of Arthur's supposed family? No. So it really depends on what you mean by who was Arthur. Some people are looking for an individual to match Arthur's career, even if their names are completely different. But as we've seen so far, there is no concrete career to even be matched to. Ambrosius fought at Badon, his leadership staved off the Saxons, he is very obviously an influence to the character of Arthur that the Historia Britannum created. But to say that he was Arthur would rely on you ignoring everything else about both individuals. The Battle of Chester, for example, King Seliv fought and died defending his home here, and this battle was later credited to Arthur. Despite his loss, he seems to have been described as an excellent general, being named as Sarfgadai, the Serpent of Battles, and as one of the three battle leaders of Great Britain, a title that would be translated into Latin and given to Arthur. Dux Bellorum, the Leader of Battles, so he's clearly an influence on the figure of Arthur too. Urien, a king of the kingdom of Reged, is a bit trickier. He is claimed to have defeated the Northumbrians several times, and he is the subject of eight surviving praise poems. The historic Brutonim includes him, but they make him Arthur's successor in the north, fighting and dying against the newly arrived kings of Bernice. His career doesn't match up with Arthur's much aside from defeating the Northumbrians, but only one of his battles are given to Arthur, Broen, although other battles such as Gwynon and the Glyne have been theorized to be located in this area. The Gwynon, perhaps, is even meant to be the battle of the Gwyn Valley, also fought by Urien, but this isn't confirmed to any degree. It's possible that Urien and Ambrosius both form an overarching inspiration for the figure of Arthur in the Historia Breton. Two successful generals combating the encroaching Saxons, one in the south and one in the north, with their victories both being attributed to Arthur. Again, though, neither of these men are Arthur. Arthur's career and life are not concrete, it isn't possible for him to have fought all of these battles. Urien and Ambrosius just seem to have been an inspiration for this figure in the Historia Britannum. Arthur's name itself must also have come from somewhere, although as I said, this name is very uncommon amongst the Britons prior to the 9th century. It's important to note again that we aren't looking for a guy named Arthur who fits this character, because there is no individual who fits this character. We're looking for someone who may have inspired him. One candidate is King Artur Apedder of Doverd in South Wales. This name and kingdom was Irish, which I made a video about if you're interested, but it was adopted into Welsh as Arthur. Though the author of the Historia Britannum could have used this king as inspiration. But his Arthur wasn't a king, and the author doesn't mention anything about this region of Wales. But even if he was knowledgeable on this area, this Arthur doesn't have a very notable career at all. He's hardly more than just a name. Hang on, did I just say that this name came from Irish? Does that mean Arthur was Irish? No, he isn't connected to a single Irish story until the 13th century, after Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was translated. Also, it's a bit misleading to say that this name was Irish, because it wasn't used in Ireland, but it was used by Irish people only in Britain. If you aren't aware, there was quite a substantial Irish migration into Britain following the Roman withdrawal, and they adopted plenty of uncommon names, Tribunus, Agricola, Voltiporius, and now Arturius. If you notice, these are all Latin names. Unlike the native Britons, the newly arrived Irish seem to have been much more eager to adopt the names of the Romans, many of which would have still been circulating around Great Britain, including Arturius, an Irish form of the Latin Artorius. If Arthur entered Welsh from Artur, Arturius, and ultimately from Artorius, then was there someone with one of these names that were an inspiration for Arthur? If we go all the way back to Artorias, then only a single candidate comes up, Lucius Artorias Castus, a senior officer in the Roman 6th Legion. This Lucius Artorias led an army from Britain into Gaul to suppress a rebellion, which mimics King Arthur's invasion of Gaul in Joffrey of Monmouth's book. But again, Joffrey was writing fiction, we have no reason to believe anything that he says. In addition, Lucius' career wasn't exactly famous or notable in Britain. If Joffrey was mimicking anything, it's much more likely that he was inspired by one of the self-proclaimed Roman emperors, leading their legions from Britain in an attempt to conquer Rome, just like his King Arthur. The Historia Britannum's fondness for Northern Britain suggests that we should look up here too, and if we do, we find one Artur son of Aedan, from the Irish kingdom of Dalriada. This man, like Arthur, was never a king, instead he served as a general, fighting against the Picts of Northern Britain. The historian N. Hyam suggests that this Arthur very well could have inspired the author of the Historia Britannum, as he is the only general named Arthur that we know of. Although again, it's worth noting that he isn't suggesting Arthur is Arthur, just that he inspired part of his character. We have no records of this man fighting the Battle of Badon, or Browen, or Chester. The final mention of Arthur that occurs before the Historia Britannum is actually in this manuscript. At the very end, two miracles are listed. The first is the existence of a giant pawprint in a rock near Biest, supposedly belonging to Arthur's dog, and the second is a tomb belonging to Arthur's son that apparently changes in size every time it's measured, something that the author has observed themselves. If this miraculous portion of the manuscript is a part of the original document, and this is disagreed upon, then some portions of the legend of Arthur appear to have already existed by the 9th century. Although these are hardly the island-spanning adventures of a leader of battles, Arthur here is just a milas, a soldier, connected with two legends in southern Wales. In fact, Arthur is connected to this area in many of the later Welsh myths too, as his court is placed at the town of Caerleon here, and the peak of the nearby mountain range, Pen Yvan, was known as Cadar Arthur. The historian Enhaim also suggests that Arthur may have been a local legend that was familiar to the author of the Historia Brittonum. Clearly, as we've seen, the name already existed. and the author said himself that he's visited one of these sites. Was a man named Arthur a local figure famous to the people of this region, allowing the author to easily adopt and adapt him for a much grander purpose? Maybe. But that does depend on if these miracles were a part of the original manuscript. And if they weren't, then we're right back at square one. Other people have suggested some less than stellar candidates for the origins of Arthur. many of which end up ignoring the fundamental fact that you can't find an individual who fits all of these attributes, as they simply pick and choose individual aspects and try to fit them onto a person. A common one is Athruis Apmurig. The theory goes that the names are similar, they lived in the same place, and around the same time, so they must be the same person. Armed with all the knowledge that you've already seen, can you identify what's wrong with this? That's right, all of it. Who says Arthur is from the 6th century? Joffrey, the fiction writer? Some of the saint's lives place Arthur in the 5th century. The Historia Britannum places him in the 7th. Which one of these is correct? Also, who says that Arthur is from South Wales? Some of the Welsh myths place him at Caerleon, yes, but some of the potentially older stories of Arthur connect him to Brychniog. Aethurus himself is also not from the 6th century. He lived at the same time as a man named Saint Oedokius. His great-grandson died in 775. His father is in charters dated from 620 to 685. The names are a bit similar, but Arthur is consistently spelt like this, except for in Irish sources and in a single 13th century manuscript. No story about Arthur ever spells his name as Arthurus, or as the older form Atreus, and vice versa. As I said, this theory relies on simply choosing these aspects of the character of Arthur, and then trying to find someone who matches them. This also disregards the fact that Arthurus is only ever mentioned three times as a genealogical link between his father and his son. He's never referred to as a king, and some of the early genealogies leave him out, hardly the famous island-spanning career of a legend. Other theories place Arthur outside of Britain entirely. We've already discussed how the Roman officer Lucius Artorius may have inspired Joffrey to write about Arthur crossing the Channel to invade Gaul. Although again, he was probably inspired by the way more famous Roman emperors who did the same thing. But some have connected Arthur to a unit of Sarmatian cavalry that Lucius may have commanded. This theory relies on a connection to Arthurian mythology that the historian Enheim describes as superficial, except for a similar story about the sword and the stone. The problem though is that the sword and the stone was invented by French writers. It's an interesting connection, but it's one that comes up 500 years after the first mentions of Arthur. This isn't even mentioning how this unit of Sarmatian cavalry was very small, stationed in only a single city, and was so Romanised that they weren't even considered to be foreign troops. Hardly the environment for an island spanning cultural pollination. And finally, Rheothamus is a 5th century figure whose career mimics that of Arthur. Some people think that this man is Arthur. and that the reason these names are so different is that Rheothamas is a title. Disregarding the fact that we don't have any proof that this is a title, Rheothamas first appears in a manuscript dated later than Joffrey of Monmouth's work, meaning that his story was almost certainly just inspired from this. As we've seen, the figure of Arthur that most people know is a work of French fiction, based upon centuries of Welsh myths and legends. These stories are not consistent. They aren't depicting the adventures of an individual. They don't agree on when or where Arthur lived, if he was a king, if he was Christian, if he had a family. Four different people are named as his son, but two of them become regular people on other stories, and the other two go unmentioned. He has three different wives, his knight becomes his father in some stories, and in others his mother faces in and out of existence. Historians are not looking for an individual named Arthur that has done all of these things. Because look at this, it isn't possible to be all of these things at once. So many people attempt to find Arthur by picking and choosing what to consider real and what to consider fake, despite the fact that all of these stories are fake. Arthur isn't named as a king until Joffrey made him one. Arthur's from Cornwall, or the north of Britain, or Carleon, or Brecheniog, depending on what story you're reading. He supposedly fought two battles a hundred years apart from each other, despite the fact that neither of these battles are attributed to him. Some people attach him to people whose names simply start with the same letter. even though nothing else about these people match the figure of Arthur. It's clear that the oldest story of Arthur, the Historia Brittonum, made this name famous. It hardly existed at all before this. His inspirations here are sometimes obvious, like the Saxon defeating commanders of Urien, Reged and Ambrosius Aurelianus, or the battle leader of Seliph Safgadai. But other times, they are not. Why Arthur? Why such a rare name? Was the author inspired by the glories of the Brittonic prince Artur? or perhaps a local legend of a soldier in Brcheignach that the author had heard of himself? We don't know. Arthur is one of the most profoundly fascinating figures in all of history, whether you believe that he was purely mythological or not, to the people of the time, he was very real. Welsh society forgot about Arthur and then readopted him in the 1800s. Even though he's commonly seen today as an English or a French figure, he has his origins here. You may side with Davis and Charles Edwards, who think that Arthur may have been a Welsh general who we don't know anything about. You may side with Jackson's theory that his origins lie in a praise poem that's been completely lost to time. You may believe Haim's theory that Arthur MacAden was the original inspiration, or that those old miracles betray Arthur's origins as a small, local legend. Or maybe you believe that Arthur was completely invented by the author of the Historia Butonum. In the end, this figure, one of the most famous and most arguable historical figures of all time, has his origins here. We can't find a man to fit all of these attributes, but we can find the individuals who made Arthur what he is. A soldier, a general, or a king, living, fighting, and dying in battles centuries apart from each other, none of which actually mention his name. He was inspired by Brythonic commanders and Roman emperors. He became one of the most influential figures in all of history, but his origins remain elusive. There is no one individual that inspired these stories of Arthur. That isn't possible, unless you pick and choose what to consider real. and what to consider fake. Historians have been searching for the people that made the earliest versions of Arthur, and I hope I've shown you that today. But for now, the origins of Arthur lie mostly in mystery, although maybe we found the people who inspired the character in the first place. Thank you very much for watching. If you want to see more mysteries, I made a video covering a mysterious kingdom that went missing from medieval Britain.

Where do they think he came from? What are the origins of this story? This topic has been done before, but it's never been done very well. From YouTube videos filled with inaccurate information, to the dozens of published books proclaiming to have found the real Arthur.

The discourse surrounding this figure is a mess, so today I'd like to properly discuss the historical origins of King Arthur. I'd like to address the very question of who was Arthur, and work our way backwards to see what, or who, historians believe inspired the legend. The reason you've likely heard anything about King Arthur before is because of this man. the 12th century French romance writer Chrétien de Tras. Arthur's most famous elements, the ones I mentioned earlier, all had their starts here, and his stories were incredibly popular. The King Arthur that many people are familiar with exists solely as a literary figure, and is famous just because of Chrétien.

We aren't going to analyze these elements today, and no one is claiming that this man existed, including Chrétien. These were solely fictional works, but they did play a huge role in bringing the figure of King Arthur and elements surrounding him into the popular imagination. Arthur's reinvention as the King of England would be based upon these stories. Edward I, inspired by Chrétien, even held his own round table upon his conquest of Wales.

However, King Arthur was not one of Chrétien's creations. He owed this character, and many elements surrounding him, to another fiction writer, although this one would try very hard to convince you that he was telling the truth. Joffrey of Monmouth, a 12th century bishop and writer desired, for unknown reasons, to compile what he called the history of the kings of Britain, supposedly from an ancient Brythonic text that was given to him by Walter Mapp, another writer. Joffrey sought to pass this book off as real, but to historians today, and even to many at the time, his fictitious elements are obvious, if frustrating.

Joffrey likes to use real names and places, and made-up names and places, and due to the age of the text, it is very difficult to determine which of these names and places are fake, and which of them may derive from a now lost source. And there is no better example of this than of King Arthur, the supposed King of Britain who Joffrey claimed conquered half of Europe. Joffrey was not writing history, despite his claims, which is a mistake that I've seen so many people make, trying to figure out Arthur based even partially on his depiction by Joffrey.

But this depiction is a work of fiction. Arthur himself, though, was once again a real name, plucked out of existing stories and sources, and made a central character in Joffrey's work. So just like what we asked with Chrétien, where did this Arthur come from? Joffrey's primary source appears to be the mythologies of Wales, which might come as a surprise for many of you, as Arthur is typically seen as an English or a French figure, but before his adoption as the King of England or as a paragon of French chivalry, he was a popular character in the oral traditions of Wales, and no one else knew anything about him. He hardly had a standardized canon though, another mistake I've seen a lot of people make.

From one story to another, his servant becomes his son, his parents go unmentioned, three separate individuals are named as his wife. Some stories paint him as a man with supernatural strength and skill, while others depict him as an evil autocrat who needs to be taught a lesson on the power of God. So clearly the Welsh were not all describing the same man.

Arthur is a character in these myths, just like with Joffrey and Chrétien, and he is morphed and moulded to fit the frame of whatever the author wanted. Joffrey would pluck dozens of elements from these stories to mould his own version of Arthur. Uther Pendragon, one of Arthur's knights? He can be his dad. What's that?

Arthur doesn't have a mother? We'll just make one up. Three women are married to Arthur? Not in this Christian household. Joffrey's work is a hideous Frankenstein that will look disturbingly familiar to anyone knowledgeable of medieval Welsh poetry or history.

But as I've shown you, he did not invent the name Arthur. He simply took it from Welsh mythology and moulded it to fit the character he wanted. So, once again, where did this Arthur come from? Why was this man, this name, so popular, both with Joffrey and with medieval Welsh poetry?

It is here that we now move into the shadowy realm of the historical sources. So many people are content just to tell you the old mentions of the name Arthur, and happy to completely ignore the debate on how reliable they even are. The question of who was Arthur goes unanswered, but the question of the question...

What do you mean when you ask who was Arthur goes entirely ignored, but I'll come to that in a bit. For now, let's examine the oldest mentions of Arthur and see why he became so famous. Many of the videos that I've already complained about will tell you this, that the name Arthur first appears all the way back in the in the 6th century, in a Welsh poem titled A Godolin, that describes the disastrous invasion of Northern England by the Bartholic Kingdom of Godolin. Who could have guessed? Here we encounter many descriptions of the warriors that took part in the war, but only one is of interest to us.

Gwarðr, if you'll allow me. He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress, and though he was no Arthur, among the powerful ones in battle, in the front rank, a palisade, was Gwarðr. This is fascinating. Here we have the description of one of the most powerful warriors in the army, who fights in the front rank, who's a palisade to his companions, and yet he is nothing compared to this man, Arthur. Not only would this definitely hurt his feelings, but if this poem dates all the way back to the 6th century, then surely this proves that some warrior named Arthur was already famous by this time.

So is this our King Arthur? The man who appears in so many Welsh myths and legends? And if it is, does he have his historical roots in the 6th century?

around the time that this poem is set. That's the conclusion that many people, books, and videos have drawn, and just like I said at the start, it's completely incorrect. While the events of the poem date to the 6th century, the manuscript itself dates to the 13th, which is after Joffrey already made Arthur famous, and likely even after Chrétien's French romances.

However, the spelling and the typography match 9th and 10th century texts, which would place it before Joffrey, but not in the 6th century. We have absolutely no evidence that this text or Arthur are that old. Furthermore, this line, though he was no Arthur, only appears in one of the manuscripts of Ogadoddon, meaning that it was likely added sometime during its transcription. In fact, there seem to be a lot of additions, as both manuscripts vary quite a bit from each other.

Despite these glaring errors, this conclusion of a 6th century Arthur makes it into nearly every video on this subject, and is the basis for so many theories on who the real Arthur was. but in reality, all that Ogadovan proves is that this name, Arthur, might have been famous by at least the 9th or 10th centuries. So was Joffrey and the mythologies of Wales inspired by this Arthur?

Probably not, or at least only partially. After all, it is a small throwaway line, and it doesn't explain who Arthur was, meaning that the author probably assumed you would already know him. Another source purporting to be one of the oldest mentions of Arthur is another 13th century manuscript.

known as the Annals Cambria, which records the dates of two battles being fought by a man named Arthur, the Battle of Baden in 516, and the Battle of Camlann in 537. The problem, once again though, is that this manuscript dates to after Joffrey already made Arthur famous. And the historian T. Charles Edwards has suggested that these records were either invented, or maybe just elaborated to include Arthur at a later date. We actually have a primary source from the Battle of Baden, and this source doesn't mention Arthur at all.

But more on that later. You see, this is really the problem with a lot of discussion on the historical King Arthur. So many people attribute him to the 6th century, just because some manuscripts set in this era reference him.

But these documents are not that old. They were all written after Arthur had already become famous, and there was nothing stopping the authors from including a reference to him. Especially because Joffrey claimed that he was a real historical person. So what then is the oldest historical mention of King Arthur? one that predates Joffrey of Monmouth.

Were these manuscripts inspired by the same individual as Joffrey and the Welsh myths? To attempt to answer this question, let's go back to the early 9th century. The kingdoms of Wales had suffered a lot of turmoil by this time. Old dynasties had collapsed and new ones arose in their place.

The English kingdom of Mercia had been attempting to conquer the country for centuries, and they'd only just recently stopped their invasions. In the face of all of this, an incredibly fascinating document was written, the Historia Britannum, the History of the Britons. This manuscript aimed to, well, document the history of the Britons, who were the Celtic-speaking people of Great Britain, all the way from the biblical flood to the present day, which would have been around AD 829. Despite its title and its premise, the Historia Britannum is not a history. Its focus on exaggerating the power of the new kings of this region, known as Gwynedd, turn it into a glorified propaganda piece, claiming that these rulers were the ones to unite and defend all of Wales. It has a very heavy anti-English bias, mirroring the anti-Welsh bias in the writings of English monks such as Bede, and most importantly it is extremely religious.

Its author even calls it a sermon. Within all of this lies our main objective, as the Historia Britannum dedicates a significant portion of its time to describing how the Welsh were to beat back the English three times. The first had already happened.

and it was by a Welsh general named Vortimer. The third was prophesied to take place in the future under the leadership of those new kings of Gwynedd that I mentioned. But the second, and what would have been at the time the most recent, was under the command of a man named Arthur. Arthur, despite his modern adaptations, is not a king here.

He's a leader of battles, dux bellorum, said to not be as noble as the kings under his command. Despite this, by wielding the power of Christianity, and no I'm not joking, he was able to beat back the Saxons in 12 decisive battles, forcing them to summon hordes of reinforcements from Germany, who eventually went on to founder the kingdoms of England. Whatever happened to Arthur, the author doesn't say, but it's implied that he staved off Saxon advancement across the whole of Britain for at least a few years. These twelve battles have become central to most analyses on the figure of Arthur, despite how different the source makes him. He's no king, he has no birthplace, no companions, no knight to the round table, no chivalrous adventures, that element of superhuman strength and skill that we can see in some of the Welsh myths is present, but Arthur isn't unstoppable.

The author and the audience weren't blind. Arthur may have held off the Saxons for a while, but nowadays they were right outside the door. Arthur was, though, thanks to this document, made a national hero, an ancient defender of Great Britain against what was seen as an unstoppable force.

So it's no wonder Joffrey of Monmouth was so captivated by this character. Joffrey's Arthur is clearly inspired by this Arthur. Although Joffrey elaborates just a bit, by making him a king, with a birthplace in Tintagel and Cornwall, with his knights and a family, and while he still fights these 12 battles, he also goes on to wage war against the Roman Empire, and conquer half of Europe. The superhuman strength of Arthur, seen in his capability to defeat hundreds of foes single-handedly, may have inspired many of the abilities of Arthur seen in the Welsh myths, while Joffrey seems to have taken inspiration from both of these sources.

So, then, is this the oldest historical mention of Arthur, the one that made the name famous? Does the Historia Britannum depict the original, historical Arthur? Well, Joffrey and the Welsh myths are clearly inspired by this.

The poem of Ogadothan could easily be referring to this Arthur as their warrior of supreme strength, and as we've seen, Cretien took inspiration from all of these, but mostly Joffrey. The problem, though, lies in a question that's rarely even asked when discussing this topic. When you say, who was the original Arthur, or what man inspired the Arthurian legends, who exactly are you talking about?

Plenty of people have dedicated time to finding Arthur, based on his depictions by Joffrey or in Welsh mythology, or on the false assertion that he must be from the 6th century, but hardly anyone stops to acknowledge that these men are characters. As we've seen, the Arthur of Joffrey was different from the Arthur of the Welsh myths, and these Arthurs were vastly different from the Arthur of the Historia Brittonum. From one text and one author to another, Arthur's father becomes his knight, his mother pops in and out of existence, his councilman becomes his son, his servant becomes his son, and his number of wives constantly changes.

He's either the righteous king of Britain, an evil autocrat, or not even a king at all. In some stories, the saints of Wales must convince him of the power of God, but in others he carries a cross on his shoulders for three days and nights, and defeats the Saxons while displaying Mary on his shield. You can't find Arthur based on these depictions. And as I've hopefully shown you so far, the Arthur that many people know is simply a character, based on centuries upon centuries of different stories and adaptations, shifting and changing to meet the author's needs.

These stories don't depict an individual waiting to be discovered, the only thing they all have in common is the name, Arthur. Nothing else about this character is even remotely consistent. It does seem that this name was originally made famous by this book, the Historie Brutonum, describing Arthur as this great warrior in general. and as a national hero of the Britons. But does this source depict an original historical Arthur?

Is this the source that historians point to when they assert that Arthur may have been a real person? Well, no. There's nothing historical about this book either.

If you recall, the Historia Britannum is not a history. It's a hyper-religious, self-described sermon filled with political bias and designed as a propaganda piece. The entire plot, the conflict between the Britons and the Saxons, starts because the Britons weren't Christian enough. A pagan ruler named Vortigern, who consorts with Druids, is convinced by Satan to allow the Saxons to enter Britain. Luckily, his son, in a great act of redemption, holds the invading army back at Kent for a while, until eventually Arthur, bearing the image of the Mother of Jesus on his shield, defeats the invading force 12 times, all across Britain.

Not only does the guest appearance of the Devil immediately betray the lack of historical value, but these 12 victorious battles also do not do us any favours. Despite supposedly being so famous, these conflicts are almost entirely lost to us. We can only properly identify three actual battles in this list, and only two of these come with a date.

The Battle of the City of the Legions is likely referring to Caerthion Fawr, or Chester, which was taken by the Northumbrians in 616. The Battle of Badon was likely somewhere near Caerfathon, or Bath, and actually has a primary source, the work of a monk named Gildas, along with a potential date of 516. And finally, the Battle of Breagwyn appears to be the Battle of Breagwyn, or Brewyn in Welsh, but we don't know when this took place. The first problem we can see is that two of these battles that Arthur supposedly fought at took place 100 years apart, making it biologically impossible that they were fought by the same person. The second problem lies with the sources we have on this battle, none of which attribute them to a man named Arthur.

The Battle of Chester was fought by King Seliv of Powys, alongside King Cadwal of Ross and King Iago of Gwynedd, and it wasn't even a victory. The Battle of Brewyn was fought by a man named Urien Reged, and the Battle of Badon, the only one with a primary source, is said to have been fought by a man named Ambrosius Aurelianus. In fact, as I said earlier, this 6th century source does not mention Arthur at all.

The remaining battles are completely lost to us. Some may have connections to Welsh poetry, but we really can't say for sure. All the historians can say is that out of the 12 supposed victories of Arthur, only 3 can be identified. two of which took place over a century apart from each other, one of which wasn't a victory, and none of which are attributed to Arthur anywhere except for the Historia Brittonum. This is hardly a historical account of a real person's career, and as I've shown you, any hope of constructing a real historical individual from this text, whether they were named Arthur or not, is completely impossible.

It seems that once again, Arthur has been used as a character here, just like in the Welsh myths, and in Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, and in the French romances. This time as a military commander of superhuman ability, who fought the Saxons all across Great Britain, fighting and winning famous battles regardless of whether or not he was even there, or if they were even victories, or if it was even chronologically possible to fight at all of them. So while the Historia Britannica may have made the name Arthur famous, you can't figure out who Arthur was based on this source, or on any of these sources I've mentioned so far, and we can't yet determine if he was even a real person. The Arthur that most people know is a character.

His most famous elements originate from 12th century French romances, which adopted this mythical King of Britain from the 11th century fictional work of Joffrey of Monmouth. Many of the surviving Welsh myths seem to have taken a lot from Joffrey too, mainly by making Arthur a king, although it's clear that Joffrey borrowed a lot from these stories as well. The name itself, Arthur, was made famous by the book we just covered, but this manuscript isn't describing a person who's waiting to be discovered, it's describing a character with an eclectic career of pre-existing historical and mythological battles. So can we identify who Arthur was from any of the sources we've examined so far? No.

This character is so wildly inconsistent that absolutely any fact that you can discern will be disputed in another text. His offspring, his parents, his career, where he lived, how Christian he was, whether or not he was a king, these all change constantly to fit the author's need. So if Arthur is a character in the Historia Britannum too, where did the author get him from?

As we've seen so far, all iterations of this character have been inspired by something else. Yet, unlike these past iterations, the Historia Britannum does not seem to have been inspired by the adventures of a single individual, as the name Arthur becomes extremely rare if we go further back than this source. Even though these Arthurs are so wildly different from each other, we can still trace one Arthur to another Arthur to another, but now the trail is run cold. That's not to say that some historians don't believe that there may have been a real individual named Arthur, who perhaps was a military general that inspired these initial legends, but as the historians John Davis and T.

Charles Edwards both say, we know absolutely nothing about this hypothetical Arthur. Where did he live? Where did he come from? The myths disagree, and now that the trail is run cold, were forced to look elsewhere.

So just like what we asked with Chrétien, Joffrey, the Welsh myths, the Godolin poem, and now the Historia Brittonum, we're going to finish off this video by asking, where did this Arthur come from? And can we discern if there was ever a real Arthur, and who he might have been? The Arthur of the Historia Brittonum, while it's uncertain if he's based on another man named Arthur, certainly takes influence from other individuals in history.

The first and most obvious candidates are the three generals who fought the battles that Arthur is claimed to have won, Ambrosius Aurelianus, King Seliv, and Urien Reged. Unfortunately, due to the age of these individuals, the documentation surrounding them is very scarce, and it's hard to reconstruct much of their lives, an issue that will come up again when we examine some of the more popular theories about Arthur. Ambrosius Aurelianus is a clear inspiration. He fought and won the Battle of Badon, leading the Britons in holding off the Saxon advance for a generation, mimicking the outcome of Arthur's career in the Historia Britannica.

He was apparently a Roman, descended from a Roman family remaining in Britain, and he He may have been leading forces to defend what was left of the Roman government, an endeavour that his parents had supposedly undertaken before him. Does this make him Arthur, though? Well, what does that mean?

He certainly inspired the figure of Arthur, fighting the Saxons, holding their advance. But did he fight twelve battles? No. Did he fight at Chester or Brewen? No.

Was he a king? No, but the earliest versions of Arthur weren't either. Was he a Christian?

We don't know. Is he connected to any of Arthur's supposed family? No.

So it really depends on what you mean by who was Arthur. Some people are looking for an individual to match Arthur's career, even if their names are completely different. But as we've seen so far, there is no concrete career to even be matched to.

Ambrosius fought at Badon, his leadership staved off the Saxons, he is very obviously an influence to the character of Arthur that the Historia Britannum created. But to say that he was Arthur would rely on you ignoring everything else about both individuals. The Battle of Chester, for example, King Seliv fought and died defending his home here, and this battle was later credited to Arthur. Despite his loss, he seems to have been described as an excellent general, being named as Sarfgadai, the Serpent of Battles, and as one of the three battle leaders of Great Britain, a title that would be translated into Latin and given to Arthur. Dux Bellorum, the Leader of Battles, so he's clearly an influence on the figure of Arthur too.

Urien, a king of the kingdom of Reged, is a bit trickier. He is claimed to have defeated the Northumbrians several times, and he is the subject of eight surviving praise poems. The historic Brutonim includes him, but they make him Arthur's successor in the north, fighting and dying against the newly arrived kings of Bernice.

His career doesn't match up with Arthur's much aside from defeating the Northumbrians, but only one of his battles are given to Arthur, Broen, although other battles such as Gwynon and the Glyne have been theorized to be located in this area. The Gwynon, perhaps, is even meant to be the battle of the Gwyn Valley, also fought by Urien, but this isn't confirmed to any degree. It's possible that Urien and Ambrosius both form an overarching inspiration for the figure of Arthur in the Historia Breton.

Two successful generals combating the encroaching Saxons, one in the south and one in the north, with their victories both being attributed to Arthur. Again, though, neither of these men are Arthur. Arthur's career and life are not concrete, it isn't possible for him to have fought all of these battles. Urien and Ambrosius just seem to have been an inspiration for this figure in the Historia Britannum.

Arthur's name itself must also have come from somewhere, although as I said, this name is very uncommon amongst the Britons prior to the 9th century. It's important to note again that we aren't looking for a guy named Arthur who fits this character, because there is no individual who fits this character. We're looking for someone who may have inspired him.

One candidate is King Artur Apedder of Doverd in South Wales. This name and kingdom was Irish, which I made a video about if you're interested, but it was adopted into Welsh as Arthur. Though the author of the Historia Britannum could have used this king as inspiration. But his Arthur wasn't a king, and the author doesn't mention anything about this region of Wales. But even if he was knowledgeable on this area, this Arthur doesn't have a very notable career at all.

He's hardly more than just a name. Hang on, did I just say that this name came from Irish? Does that mean Arthur was Irish?

No, he isn't connected to a single Irish story until the 13th century, after Geoffrey of Monmouth's work was translated. Also, it's a bit misleading to say that this name was Irish, because it wasn't used in Ireland, but it was used by Irish people only in Britain. If you aren't aware, there was quite a substantial Irish migration into Britain following the Roman withdrawal, and they adopted plenty of uncommon names, Tribunus, Agricola, Voltiporius, and now Arturius.

If you notice, these are all Latin names. Unlike the native Britons, the newly arrived Irish seem to have been much more eager to adopt the names of the Romans, many of which would have still been circulating around Great Britain, including Arturius, an Irish form of the Latin Artorius. If Arthur entered Welsh from Artur, Arturius, and ultimately from Artorius, then was there someone with one of these names that were an inspiration for Arthur? If we go all the way back to Artorias, then only a single candidate comes up, Lucius Artorias Castus, a senior officer in the Roman 6th Legion. This Lucius Artorias led an army from Britain into Gaul to suppress a rebellion, which mimics King Arthur's invasion of Gaul in Joffrey of Monmouth's book.

But again, Joffrey was writing fiction, we have no reason to believe anything that he says. In addition, Lucius' career wasn't exactly famous or notable in Britain. If Joffrey was mimicking anything, it's much more likely that he was inspired by one of the self-proclaimed Roman emperors, leading their legions from Britain in an attempt to conquer Rome, just like his King Arthur.

The Historia Britannum's fondness for Northern Britain suggests that we should look up here too, and if we do, we find one Artur son of Aedan, from the Irish kingdom of Dalriada. This man, like Arthur, was never a king, instead he served as a general, fighting against the Picts of Northern Britain. The historian N.

Hyam suggests that this Arthur very well could have inspired the author of the Historia Britannum, as he is the only general named Arthur that we know of. Although again, it's worth noting that he isn't suggesting Arthur is Arthur, just that he inspired part of his character. We have no records of this man fighting the Battle of Badon, or Browen, or Chester.

The final mention of Arthur that occurs before the Historia Britannum is actually in this manuscript. At the very end, two miracles are listed. The first is the existence of a giant pawprint in a rock near Biest, supposedly belonging to Arthur's dog, and the second is a tomb belonging to Arthur's son that apparently changes in size every time it's measured, something that the author has observed themselves.

If this miraculous portion of the manuscript is a part of the original document, and this is disagreed upon, then some portions of the legend of Arthur appear to have already existed by the 9th century. Although these are hardly the island-spanning adventures of a leader of battles, Arthur here is just a milas, a soldier, connected with two legends in southern Wales. In fact, Arthur is connected to this area in many of the later Welsh myths too, as his court is placed at the town of Caerleon here, and the peak of the nearby mountain range, Pen Yvan, was known as Cadar Arthur.

The historian Enhaim also suggests that Arthur may have been a local legend that was familiar to the author of the Historia Brittonum. Clearly, as we've seen, the name already existed. and the author said himself that he's visited one of these sites.

Was a man named Arthur a local figure famous to the people of this region, allowing the author to easily adopt and adapt him for a much grander purpose? Maybe. But that does depend on if these miracles were a part of the original manuscript. And if they weren't, then we're right back at square one.

Other people have suggested some less than stellar candidates for the origins of Arthur. many of which end up ignoring the fundamental fact that you can't find an individual who fits all of these attributes, as they simply pick and choose individual aspects and try to fit them onto a person. A common one is Athruis Apmurig. The theory goes that the names are similar, they lived in the same place, and around the same time, so they must be the same person. Armed with all the knowledge that you've already seen, can you identify what's wrong with this?

That's right, all of it. Who says Arthur is from the 6th century? Joffrey, the fiction writer?

Some of the saint's lives place Arthur in the 5th century. The Historia Britannum places him in the 7th. Which one of these is correct? Also, who says that Arthur is from South Wales?

Some of the Welsh myths place him at Caerleon, yes, but some of the potentially older stories of Arthur connect him to Brychniog. Aethurus himself is also not from the 6th century. He lived at the same time as a man named Saint Oedokius. His great-grandson died in 775. His father is in charters dated from 620 to 685. The names are a bit similar, but Arthur is consistently spelt like this, except for in Irish sources and in a single 13th century manuscript. No story about Arthur ever spells his name as Arthurus, or as the older form Atreus, and vice versa.

As I said, this theory relies on simply choosing these aspects of the character of Arthur, and then trying to find someone who matches them. This also disregards the fact that Arthurus is only ever mentioned three times as a genealogical link between his father and his son. He's never referred to as a king, and some of the early genealogies leave him out, hardly the famous island-spanning career of a legend. Other theories place Arthur outside of Britain entirely. We've already discussed how the Roman officer Lucius Artorius may have inspired Joffrey to write about Arthur crossing the Channel to invade Gaul.

Although again, he was probably inspired by the way more famous Roman emperors who did the same thing. But some have connected Arthur to a unit of Sarmatian cavalry that Lucius may have commanded. This theory relies on a connection to Arthurian mythology that the historian Enheim describes as superficial, except for a similar story about the sword and the stone. The problem though is that the sword and the stone was invented by French writers. It's an interesting connection, but it's one that comes up 500 years after the first mentions of Arthur.

This isn't even mentioning how this unit of Sarmatian cavalry was very small, stationed in only a single city, and was so Romanised that they weren't even considered to be foreign troops. Hardly the environment for an island spanning cultural pollination. And finally, Rheothamus is a 5th century figure whose career mimics that of Arthur.

Some people think that this man is Arthur. and that the reason these names are so different is that Rheothamas is a title. Disregarding the fact that we don't have any proof that this is a title, Rheothamas first appears in a manuscript dated later than Joffrey of Monmouth's work, meaning that his story was almost certainly just inspired from this.

As we've seen, the figure of Arthur that most people know is a work of French fiction, based upon centuries of Welsh myths and legends. These stories are not consistent. They aren't depicting the adventures of an individual.

They don't agree on when or where Arthur lived, if he was a king, if he was Christian, if he had a family. Four different people are named as his son, but two of them become regular people on other stories, and the other two go unmentioned. He has three different wives, his knight becomes his father in some stories, and in others his mother faces in and out of existence.

Historians are not looking for an individual named Arthur that has done all of these things. Because look at this, it isn't possible to be all of these things at once. So many people attempt to find Arthur by picking and choosing what to consider real and what to consider fake, despite the fact that all of these stories are fake.

Arthur isn't named as a king until Joffrey made him one. Arthur's from Cornwall, or the north of Britain, or Carleon, or Brecheniog, depending on what story you're reading. He supposedly fought two battles a hundred years apart from each other, despite the fact that neither of these battles are attributed to him. Some people attach him to people whose names simply start with the same letter.

even though nothing else about these people match the figure of Arthur. It's clear that the oldest story of Arthur, the Historia Brittonum, made this name famous. It hardly existed at all before this. His inspirations here are sometimes obvious, like the Saxon defeating commanders of Urien, Reged and Ambrosius Aurelianus, or the battle leader of Seliph Safgadai. But other times, they are not.

Why Arthur? Why such a rare name? Was the author inspired by the glories of the Brittonic prince Artur? or perhaps a local legend of a soldier in Brcheignach that the author had heard of himself? We don't know.

Arthur is one of the most profoundly fascinating figures in all of history, whether you believe that he was purely mythological or not, to the people of the time, he was very real. Welsh society forgot about Arthur and then readopted him in the 1800s. Even though he's commonly seen today as an English or a French figure, he has his origins here. You may side with Davis and Charles Edwards, who think that Arthur may have been a Welsh general who we don't know anything about.

You may side with Jackson's theory that his origins lie in a praise poem that's been completely lost to time. You may believe Haim's theory that Arthur MacAden was the original inspiration, or that those old miracles betray Arthur's origins as a small, local legend. Or maybe you believe that Arthur was completely invented by the author of the Historia Butonum.

In the end, this figure, one of the most famous and most arguable historical figures of all time, has his origins here. We can't find a man to fit all of these attributes, but we can find the individuals who made Arthur what he is. A soldier, a general, or a king, living, fighting, and dying in battles centuries apart from each other, none of which actually mention his name.

He was inspired by Brythonic commanders and Roman emperors. He became one of the most influential figures in all of history, but his origins remain elusive. There is no one individual that inspired these stories of Arthur. That isn't possible, unless you pick and choose what to consider real. and what to consider fake.

Historians have been searching for the people that made the earliest versions of Arthur, and I hope I've shown you that today. But for now, the origins of Arthur lie mostly in mystery, although maybe we found the people who inspired the character in the first place. Thank you very much for watching. If you want to see more mysteries, I made a video covering a mysterious kingdom that went missing from medieval Britain.

Transcript for:Exploring the Historical Origins of King Arthur

Transcript for:
Exploring the Historical Origins of King Arthur