The Mammoth Book of King Arthur (45 page)

This happens quite often. Take, for instance, the Gunpowder Plot. If we were asked to name the chief conspirator, I suspect most of us would immediately name Guy Fawkes. But the mastermind was
not Fawkes at all, but Robert Catesby. We know this because the details are fully documented, but that still doesn’t stop us remembering Guy Fawkes above all others and, if it had happened
many centuries earlier and all documentation was lost, we’d probably only remember Fawkes.

In the case of Arthur, history has been revised and rewritten so many times that virtually all we are left with is the version people wanted to remember. In that case, identifying the real
Arthur may not mean identifying the victor of Badon, but identifying the person everyone
thinks
was the victor of Badon.

How, you may ask, do we know who they thought was the victor of Badon?

Because they told us. Gildas didn’t directly, but gave us some clues. Nennius told us he was the victor of eleven other battles.
The Dream of Rhonabwy
tells us his chief counsellor
was Caradoc Vreichfras, who is closely associated with Ergyng, and that his bishop was Bedwin, also named in the first of the Triads, which link Arthur, Bedwin and Caradoc with Celliwig in southern
Gwent. However, the story places the battle of Caer Faddon in Powys, which though this may not be the original Badon, may be the one they associate with the victor. Geoffrey makes him the
son and successor of Uther, the brother of Ambrosius. Uther and Ambrosius were allegedly the children of Constantine of Armorica, but we have surmised that this is not the Armorica
known today as Brittany, but Llydaw in Ergyng.

Those are just some of the secondary pointers which help us home in. But let us first examine all of the contenders once again in chronological order to refresh our memories, and see who we can
eliminate. The dates given are as per the tables in Chapter 3.

2. The Contenders

1. Lucius Artorius Castus (140–197)

He seems a rank outsider, but there is much about him that may have contributed to the legend. Littleton and Malcor put forward a compelling argument that the Sarmatian
folktales of the Iazygian soldiers captured by Castus in Brittany and settled in Ribchester (Bremetennacum) could have contributed to the later Arthurian legend, particularly the story of returning
Excalibur to the Lady of the Lake. They propose that Castus’s campaign in the north reflects Nennius’s sequence of battles, though their case for Dumbarton as Badon is perhaps the
weakest element. Castus’s exploits in Armorica possibly became associated with the character of Riothamus. Whilst Castus cannot be the original Arthur of Badon, his activities could certainly
have encouraged the initial development of the legend.

2. Riothamus (430–500)

The idea that Riothamus might have been Arthur has apparently been around since at least 1175, when a monk at Orcamp Abbey in France made the connection. The current champion of
the idea is Geoffrey Ashe in
The Discovery of King Arthur.
As Riothamus is another of those names that double as titles, and means “over king”, he could as easily be Arthur,
based on Ardd-ri, or “High King.” Others have suggested that he was Ambrosius.

Because we have only a brief glimpse of Riothamus, and that entirely in Gaul and, for that matter, as the loser of a battle, not as a victor, he hardly stands out as a hero who would form the
basis of legend. Some have equated him to the Breton King lahann Reeth, a name that may have been conflated with the later ruler
loanas Riotham. This may in turn be the laen
of Caer Dathal whom the
Mabinogion
states were Arthur’s kin.

The main problem with Riothamus also being Arthur of Badon, however, is one of timing. If Riothamus was Arthur, he would have to have been old enough to command troops in 469, and go on to be
victorious at Badon around 493–497, and fight at Camlann in 514–518. His activities in Gaul could certainly have added further fuel to the flames of legend, but he is unlikely to be the
victor of Badon.

3. Ambrosius Aurelianus (430–500)

This idea took root because Gildas, who was the first to name the battle of Badon, makes no mention of Arthur at all, but does name Ambrosius as leading the British in the
lead-up to the battle. Gildas describes the victories as shifting between the British and the Saxons, “
usque ad annum obsessionis badonici montis
” or “all the way to the
year of the siege of Mount Badon.” It is clear that he was describing a span of some years from when Ambrosius took command to the eventual victory at Badon.

That alone does not rule out Ambrosius being the commander at Badon. The evidence shows that Ambrosius took command a few years after the Saxons had been driven home by Vortimer. Since Vortimer
was dead and Vortigern disgraced, there was no other commander in charge until Ambrosius took control. We know that this has to be after 455, probably after 460 (
see
Table 6.2
), but not long
after. Ambrosius’s campaign may even have run into the 480s, but to have one commander leading a battle campaign, no matter how intermittent, for thirty years is expecting much. Ambrosius is
unlikely to have been born later than 435, which would make him 58 in 493 and nearly 80 at the time of Camlann. Ambrosius could still have been the victor of Badon, but he is unlikely to have been
the Arthur of Camlann.

Ambrosius’s dates coincide almost exactly with those of Riothamus, leading many to suggest that they are one and the same. If he had returned to Britain to continue his battles, this might
explain why Riothamus is not heard of again in France. Frank D. Reno, in
The Historic King Arthur
, takes that extra step by making Ambrosius / Riothamus / Arthur all the same person,
resulting in a rather aged Arthur. Reno suggests a birth year for
Ambrosius of 422 and that Arthur died in 518, making him 96. It is hard to imagine how he could have achieved
anything at Camlann, let alone attempt to do battle with Mordred.

The only way that Ambrosius could be Arthur is if Ambrosius’s campaign were shorter than Gildas implies, and therefore all of the preceding dates are shifted. This is a case to be argued,
because we have already suggested that the main Saxon invasion, the second or third
adventus
, was not until the 470s, even the late 470s. We might imagine a campaign running from, say, 477
(Aelle’s arrival) to 493, just sixteen years, which would not contradict Gildas. Still long, but perfectly manageable for one significant Roman. If Ambrosius was in his late twenties at the
start of this, he would be 43 at Badon and 64 at Camlann.

However, this causes problems at the start of the fifth century. If Ambrosius was not born until 450, his father by then (if still alive) would have been in his sixties at least and though this
is possible, it seems unlikely. This scenario would also rule out any possibility of Ambrosius being Riothamus.

So whilst we cannot rule out Ambrosius as being the victor of Badon, it is not realistic for him to have continued the Golden Age usually attributed to Arthur. Ambrosius must have handed over
power to someone, and this leads us to our next contender or contenders.

4. Pascent (430–500)

If Arthur was Ambrosius’s successor, we must consider Pascent, because Nennius tells us (§48) that when Ambrosius became king he installed Vortigern’s eldest
surviving son, Pascent or Pasgen, as ruler of the “provinces” of Builth and Gwrtheyrnion.

The use of the word “provinces” is intriguing as it has echoes of the old Roman term for one of the divisions of Britain. One might expect Ambrosius, upon becoming the High King (or,
a true Roman, the vicarius), to appoint governors to the former Roman provinces.

If Ambrosius were mounting a retaliatory campaign against the Saxons he would have needed strong, trustworthy provincial governors and a reliable right-hand man. Pascent’s descendants went
on to rule Gwrtheyrnion and later Powys, so we must
assume that Pascent was a reliable supporter of Ambrosius and not the rebel whom Geoffrey of Monmouth portrays.

So Pascent must be a part of the Arthur story, as he was one of the legitimate “kings” alive at that time. However, he was of the same generation as Ambrosius and would have been too
old to fight at Badon, so I do not regard him as a serious candidate for Arthur. He may well have done the solid work of governing Britain while Ambrosius led the battle campaign, but
administrators are never remembered.

It is the generation after him that is of more interest.

5. Cadell and Riocatus (both 460–530)

Pascent was in all likelihood succeeded by his son Riocatus. Ambrosius himself must have looked for a successor, not in Builth and Gwrtheyrnion where Pascent’s line
continued, but in Powys, which had been his central powerbase, governed from Wroxeter. I believe Ambrosius passed the succession on to Cadell (
see
Table 3.9
).

Cadell has his own origin tale, as related by Nennius (
see
Chapter 6). It’s a standard rags-to-riches folktale which may have some basis in reality. It is possible that, with
Vortigern disgraced, Cadell had nothing to inherit and so did live initially as a scullion. He may well have been fostered, as was the Celtic custom, but to a poor family.

Cadell was probably born in the early 450s, and thus may have received Garmon’s blessing around the age of 21 in the early 470s. He could have succeeded Ambrosius in the 480s and still
only have been about forty at the time of Badon. His nickname,
Durnluc
, is usually translated of “gleaming hilt” or “hilt of light”, significant with regard to
Arthur’s Excalibur.

The concept of the ruler of Viriconium, the last major city in Britain, wielding a bright sword and living in an area with which all of the battles have been associated, including Badon (at Caer
Faddon), is a compelling one. There is certainly a sufficient case for Cadell to be considered as a serious contender as one of the characters behind the historical Arthur.

His cousin Riocatus may be equally significant. We know virtually nothing about him except that in his youth he must have entered the church, as he is referred to as a cleric in a letter
by Sidonius to Bishop Faustus, Riocatus’s uncle. Since he seems to have succeeded to the kingship of Gwrtheyrnion, or at least is included amongst the pedigrees of the kings of
that land, he evidently did not stay in the church. We don’t know exactly when Riocatus visited Faustus, but it was probably in the 470s when he may have still been a young man. The
implications are that he may not have been ruling at the time of Badon, but could have inherited the kingdom soon after.

Nevertheless, someone who was alive at the time of Badon, who was called “king of battles” but was not himself a king, has much in common with Nennius’s meagre description of
Arthur. And Riocatus, like Cadell, was in the right place to have been able to fight a sequence of battles along the southern or western frontier.

6. Owain Danwyn (450–530) or Cynlas (480–560)

Owain Danwyn or “White Tooth” is put forward as a contender for Arthur by Keatman and Phillips in
King Arthur – The True Story.
I have already discussed
their basic premise in Chapter 7 and have little to add here. Owain was contemporary with Badon and may well have fought there, but he was a minor ruler at Rhos. Although he lived at the right
time, there are no other factors that would make him a likely candidate for Arthur.

On his website, , Mark Devere Davis puts forward several arguments to suggest that Owain’s son Cynlas was Arthur. Most of these, like the proposals for his
father, revolve around him living at the Fortress of the Bear, and make several other links with “bear” imagery. Davis highlights that Cynlas lusted after his wife’s sister, a
charge that was also brought against Arthur in later legend (with three Gueneveres). Davis also highlights Gildas’s odd comment that Cynlas possessed “arms special to himself”,
which is suggestive of Excalibur.

From Gildas’s tirade against Cynlas, it is apparent that he was a vicious despot who would not have been remembered as the heroic Arthur of Badon, or as a hero of any kind.

7. The Pendragons: Brychan (430–500) and Dyfnwal (455–525)

If we accept the date for Badon as being in the mid-490s, then
according to Table 7.2 the Pendragon was probably Brychan of Brycheiniog. Dyfnwal Hen would
have been Pendragon at the time of the
Welsh Annals
date for Badon in 518. Neither Uther nor Arthur appears in the list of Pendragons as detailed by Laurence Gardner.

Most of Brychan’s children entered the church; indeed, he is included in the Welsh Triad of the “Three Saintly Families” of Britain. According to legend, Gwynllyw of Gwent
abducted one of Brychan’s daughters, Gwladys, and Brychan pursued him in a violent fury. It needed Arthur, Cei and Bedwyr to stop the bloodshed. Although Arthur was probably added to this
story later, it shows that there is no tradition suggesting that Brychan and Arthur are one and the same. Brychan did have a son called Arthen (460–530), the first example of an Arth- named
child of a Pendragon. But he too entered the church. Cefn Arthur is on an old drovers’ road near Llandovery.

As we have seen, Dyfnwal was a warrior who was a constant threat to those tribes south of the Wall. There is a pattern of battles related to Nennius’s list that could represent an
offensive against the Gododdin and Angles, and could place Badon in the north at Bowden Hill, near Linlithgow. Though this clearly had been the site of an ancient battle, nothing has yet suggested
one as old as Badon, and the debris found there by the eighteenth-century antiquarian Sir Robert Sibbald is doubtless related to one of any number of battles in this area during Scotland’s
conflicts with England. Dyfnwal was obviously a powerful warrior, and he must have left behind significant memories, some of which may later have attached themselves to the Arthurian legend.

8. Vortipor (470–540) or Agricola (440–510)

Vortipor of Dyfed was a contemporary of Dyfnwal and may have operated in the same role in Wales as Dyfnwal did in the north. Vortipor was known as the “Protector”.
The title was not unique in Britain – Coel Hen had also used it, but probably with direct authority from Rome. With Vortipor, whilst he may have been pro-Roman, the title seems more one of
conceit than of rank.