AGE OF ARTHUR: PART 10

This is the Tenth-part of our discussion of Britain in the so-called Age of Arthur: the 5th though the mid-6th Century A.D. It is a fascinating period, with the Classical civilization of Greece and Rome giving way to the Germanic “Dark Ages”. It was the sunset of Celtic-Roman culture in Britain; it was the Age of Arthur!

But who was Arthur?

Before we answer that question, it is necessary we understand the world in which he lived.

(Read Part Nine here. Or start from the beginning, with Part One!)

CERDIC THE SAXON

In the last decade of the 5^th century, Romano-British civilization in Britain was locked in a death-struggle with the Germanic Saxon and Angle invaders. From Humber-mouth to the Channel, all of Eastern Britain was lost to the newcomers; these lands to be known in later Welsh chronicles and poems as the “Lost Lands of Lloegyr”. All along an imaginary line that divided the island roughly east from west, Anglo-Saxon warbands probed and raided; new settlements pushing ever westward. The “debatable lands” between Anglo-Saxon and Briton were in constant flux, but the archeology supports that before 500 AD the Britons were losing ground.

In 495, a momentous event occurred in the history of Britain: According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for that year, “Cerdic landed in Hampshire with his son, Cynic, in three ships.” He arrives along the swampy coastal region near modern Portsmouth, establishing an enclave.

This was a time when the Saxon’s Angle cousins were establishing enclaves in the northeast, from the mouth of the Humber to the Highlands. These incursions would, over the next century, solidify into the early Angle kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia. In 495, their presence was far more threatening to the Britons than a few hundred Saxons establishing an outpost in the swamps at the mouth of the Avon.

However, Cerdic is a significant player in the history of England. His outpost would grow into a bleeding sore in the side of the British kingdom of Damnonia: the Saxon kingdom of Wessex! In the next century, Wessex would steadily grow in size and power, ultimately devouring Damnonia; as well as the earlier Saxon kingdoms of Sussex and Kent.

But that was in the distant future, beyond the vision of any in Arthur’s (or Cerdic’s) own time. Few at the time  would have ventured a bet that this “swamp pirate” represented a mortal threat to Briton’s strongest kingdom. In the first 20 years of his time in Hampshire, Cerdic was but a nuisance; expanding in the forests and swamps along the southern coast, and battling occasionally with the local British authorities.

As with most of the key personalities that moved events in this period, little is known of the origins of Cerdic “the Saxon”. He is described initially as an Ealdorman (literally, “Elder Man”); the title held by Anglo-Saxon officials in charge of shires. Ealdormen were not independent rulers. They were officers serving the various monarchs of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

So who was Cerdic’s master?

The likely possibility is Ælle, King of the nearby South Saxe.

Just four years after the fall of the British coastal fortress of Anderitum gave Ælle control of the Sussex coast and a port on the Channel coast, Cerdic is perhaps sent as his lieutenant; an advance party to establish a westward base in British territory.

Scholars are puzzled by Cerdic’s name, which is in fact Celtic, not Germanic.  Some have suggested he was a British turncoat. Others, that he was a “half-breed”; the offspring of a Saxon nobleman and a British mother. If so, he might have been born in the earliest days of the Saxon Advent, in the late 440’s or early 450’s; thus old enough by 495 to have earned a high place among the Saxons, and to have a grown (or nearly grown) son.

In 508, Cerdic fought and killed a local British petty king, called  Natanleod, at Netley Marsh. In 519 he declared his independence from whatever overlord held his fealty, and declared himself independent king of Saxon Wessex (the “West Saxons”). The date of this declaration may be significant, as will be shown soon. During all of this, he doesn’t seem to have drawn the full attention of Arthur or triggered a major effort to eradicate the presence of this Saxon outpost so close to the heart of Damnonia. This might well have been a deliberate policy of Cerdic’s: to “lay low”, biding his time, waiting till bigger players vacated the stage.

In time, Cerdic’s patience would bear fruit.

THE PENDRAGON

At about the same time (give-or-take a few years) as the Battle of Netley Marsh, Ambrosius Aurelianus at last died. With his death, authority as supreme leader of the British passed to his successor, Arthur. If we accept that along with being High King (or Riothamus, “Supreme King”) Ambrosius may have been sub-king of an area centered on Avebury as well, then Arthur is may have assumed this dignity upon his uncle’s death. In later years, it was common that the Celtic “High King” was also a lesser king of one of the Briton (and later Welsh) petty kingdoms. However, we know from surviving genealogies that neither Ambrosius nor Arthur were kings of the greater kingdoms; nor founded lasting dynasties of their own.

Both were warlords, military leaders who led the coalition forces of British kings. Tradition has both men ruling Britain as High King (though Geoffrey of Monmouth and Thomas Mallory, perhaps drawing on an earlier list of British kings, both seem to place an intermediate figure, Uther Pendragon, between them; see below).  There is reason to believe that the transition of power from one to the other was not uncontested.

In both Geoffrey of Monmouth and Mallory, Arthur is forced to fight his rivals in order to claim and hold his newly acquired crown. This tradition of British reluctance to accept his authority may echo historical reality, the chronicles of which are now lost.  It is not unlikely that some of the British petty kings were hesitant to give Arthur the same authority and obedience they accorded Ambrosius. As previously discussed, the petty kings of Celtic Britain were jealous of each other and reluctant to cede any authority to another. Arthur had to prove he was worthy to rule them.

As Dux Bellorum (“Leader of Battles”, or “War Leader”), leading a hard-riding band of armored horsemen, Arthur now undertook an ambitious plan: to stop the seemingly inexorable westward drive of the Germanic invaders; and to recover the lost lands of Logress. Such a project may have been one he and his young comrades had entertained in long discussions while deep in their cups, around the midnight camp fires or beside the hearth fires in winter garrisons. It was the one project sure to unite in spirit all the rival Celtic petty rulers; and more importantly, fire the imaginations of the young generation of warriors coming of age throughout Britain, hungry for a cause to fight for and for a hero to lead them!

It is at this time that Arthur comes to be known as the “Pendragon”. The term means “Head Dragon”, and though we can in no way be sure how this name came to be associated with the leader of Britain in the 6^th century, it is one applied to powerful British/Welsh leaders who obtain a position of primacy over the other regional kings of Celtic Britain. Could Arthur have been the first, and his fame and success lent the title a dignity other leaders in later generations wished to attach to themselves?

In an early medieval list of the kings (Overkings) of Britain, starting in the pre-Roman days; and continuing to the age of Arthur. For the 5^th and 6^th century, it lists the kings (in chronologic order):

GORTHEYRN (Vortigern). GWETHUYR VENDIGEIT (Vortimer/Vortigern the Younger). EMYRS WLEDIC (Ambrosius the Overking). UTHERPENDRIC (Uther Pendragon). ARTHUR. CONSTANTINUS (Constantine of Dumnonia). AURELIUS (Aurelius Caninus/Cynan). IUOR (?). MAELGON GOYNED (Maelgwn of Gwynedd).

None of these before Uther are called Great Dragon (“Pendragon”). After Arthur, Maelgwn of Gwynedd is called by Gildas “Great Dragon of the Island”; perhaps in imitation of the hero.

Uther Pendragon is a mystery. He is mentioned in the early Welsh chronicles/poems; and is fleshed-out by Geoffrey of Monmouth as Arthur’s father. But Rodney Castleden argues persuasively in “King Arthur: the Truth Behind the Legend”, against the existence of Uther Pendragon; that the confusion stems from a misreading of the original source.

Uter means wonderful or terrible. If one takes the early list of Overkings (above); and spells “Uther” as Uter (an easy transcription error), then the list changes meaning. Instead, it may have originally read, UTHERPENDRIC ARTHUR: “The Wonderful/Terrible Great Dragon Arthur”! During his life, Arthur became known as “The Great Dragon”, or Pendragon. He was remembered by later Welsh chroniclers as “uter-pendragon”, the wonderful great dragon.

A question arises: why was Arthur called “Pendragon”; where previous British leaders (such as Vortigern, Vortimer, or Ambrosius Aurelianus were not?

Arthur’s cavalry troopers, and perhaps Arthur himself, had Sarmatian or Alan ethnic roots. Both these peoples used the “Draco” windsock standard; as, for that matter, did many late Roman military units. In his campaigns, it is likely that Arthur used such a standard. Somehow, this became very closely associated with him in a personal way. He became the living embodiment of the dragon standard that followed him; bringing terror and death to the enemies of Britain!

RESTORING LOGRESS

Writing centuries later (but perhaps drawing on now-lost contemporary sources), Nennius states that Arthur fought no less than twelve battles; culminating in the final confrontation at Mount Badon.

“At that time the English increased their numbers and grew in Britain … Then it was that the magnanimous Arthur, with all the kings and military force of Britain, fought against the Saxons…

Then Arthur fought against them in those days, together with the kings of the British; but he was their warleader (or ‘dux bellorum’).

The first battle was at the mouth of the river called Glein.

The second, the third, the fourth and the fifth were on another river, called the Douglas, which is in the country of Lindsey.

The sixth battle was on the river called Bassas.

The seventh battle was in Celyddon Forest, that is, the Battle of Celyddon Coed.

The eighth battle was in Guinnion fort, and in it Arthur carried the image of the holy Mary, the everlasting Virgin, on his [shield,] and the heathen were put to flight on that day, and there was a great slaughter upon them, through the power of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The ninth battle was in the City of the Legion.

The tenth battle was on the bank of the river called Tribruit.

The eleventh battle was on the hill called Agned.

The final battle was on Badon Hill, in which 960 men fell in one day from a single charge of Arthur’s, and no one laid them low save he alone; and he was victorious in all his campaigns”

The likely location of these twelve battles gives some indication of the priority of threats as seen by Arthur and his advisors; and perhaps reflects a concerted effort to establish his popularity and authority over all of the Celtic kingdoms, from the Pictish Highlands to Armorica in Gaul.

Arthur’s twelve battles begin in the east midlands, in the district of the old Roman city of Lindum (Lincoln). Here Angle settlers, perhaps newly reinforced from abroad or from the incipient kingdom of East Anglia, threatened the British kingdom of Elmet. Geoffrey of Monmouth even gives the enemy leader a name: an Angle chieftain named Colgren.

Lindum (Lincoln) was a key fortress along the main north-south road. An Anglo-Saxon kingdom here would cut this road, partially separating the northern British kingdoms from the south. Nennius’ list supports that Arthur was aware of the grave threat posed by the Angles in this area; and took immediate steps to eradicate it.

Nennius states that the first battle took place “in the mouth of the river which is called Glein”.

The word Glein stems from the Celtic for “pure”, and likely in Nennius’ time many rivers carried this name. But a likely candidate for this battle’s location is the River Glen in Lincolnshire, near modern Spalding. This river empties into the Wash, and the area here borders Britain’s Fenlands. Historically a place of refuge for outlaws and rebels, the Fens were a natural place for Angle and Saxon pirates to hide in.

The River Glen near in Lincolnshire

Perhaps this first battle was against a force of Anglo-Saxon pirates newly landed at the river’s mouth. We can imagine a camp of Anglo-Saxon warriors, longships pulled up on the river’s muddy bank. Out of the morning mist, Arthur and his mounted “Cymbrogi” suddenly appear! Horns blowing, the armored lancers charge in amongst the startled and unsuspecting German warriors, swords rising and falling, lances stabbing! Carnage and slaughter follows, and few of the pirates survive to flee into the fens!

Riding rapidly north, Arthur’s men outstrip news of their coming, and the slaughter at the Glein. A day later, they appear at Lindum, where an Angle army is investing the British stronghold.

Roman Lindum (Lincoln), viewed from the southside of the Witham River (Dubglas?)

Nennius tells us that “The second, the third, the fourth and the fifth were on another river, called the Dubglas, which is in the region of Linnuis”. There is a River Douglas in modern Scotland, and some Arthur scholars place these battles there, in the far north. But in Brythonic/Gaelic, dubglas means “black water”, a name that could describe any number of rivers.

Linnuis, however, is easier to identify: it is very likely the area around Lindum (Lincoln), still called Lindsay today. If we accept that “Linnuis” is Lindsay, then where is the “Black Water” River?

Lincolnshire has many small muddy rivers, flowing off the peet moors of the Midlands into the Wash or directly into the North Sea. Some scholars have identified the Trent as the possible candidate; but the Trent is too far to the west of Lincoln: it is unlikely for the Angles to have advanced that far westward with untaken Lindum in their rear. The most likely candidate is another of the great rivers of Britain: the Witham. This flows in a great curve through Lindsay, past Lindum and then bending southeast, flowing eventually into the Wash. Its dark flow could easily be described as the “black water”.

Witham River (the “Black Water”?)

It is no coincidence that many of Arthur’s battles take place at rivers. Rivers are naturally defensible obstacles, often forming the borders between peoples. The recent Angle settlements in Lindsay were likely near the coast; separated from British at Lindum by the Witham/Dubglas. Many of the battles between the Britons and the Anglo-Saxons over the next century were fought at the fords of such boundary-rivers.

Another question arises. Arthur fights his next four battles along the “Dubglas”: Why so many?

It must be remembered that Nennius gives no time-frame for these next 4 battles. Were they fought in rapid succession; or over a period of years?

While we can never know for certain that the puzzle pieces, however well fitted, are correct; a working hypothesis presents itself:

Once the thriving capital of the Roman province of Flavia Caesariensis, by the first decade of the 6^th century Lindum had long been on the frontier-zone, and was nearly

                           Ruin of old Roman gate at Lincoln/Lindum

deserted by its civilian populace. But its location was strategic, as two major Roman roads met here: Ermine Street, the main north-south artery in the east, connecting Londinium to Eburacum and beyond, to the foot of the Highlands; and the Fosse Way, the main cross-island highway connects Lindum and the kingdom of Elmet with Arthur’s own Dumnonia! It is very likely that the king of Elmet (who Castleden identifies as Gurgust Lethum, descendent of Cole Hen, born 490AD) maintained a beleaguered garrison here.

It was perhaps this garrison that was under siege, precipitating Arthur’s hasty move against the Angles in this region. The previous fight at the Glein was but an unplanned meeting engagement; as moving north up the Fosse Way, Arthur learns from local peasants about an Angle warband landing at the River’s mouth; reinforcements for the main Angle army at Lindum. These destroyed, Arthur now rides swiftly northward.

Surprise is the greatest of all assets in war. As the German Panzers showed during the blitzkrieg, and the Mongols demonstrated 700 years before them, rapidly moving forces can maneuver faster than a defenders ability to react; achieving strategic or tactical

Late Roman reenactors: Arthur’s Cymbrogi might have looked very much like this!

surprise. In the ages before modern communications, fast moving cavalry could strike where least expected, moving faster than word of their coming. In this fashion, Arthur and a small force of hard-hitting cavalry could seem to appear out of nowhere; strike a heavy blow, and then fade away, leaving terror and death in their wake.

It is only 40 some miles to Lindum from the Glein/Glen near Spalding; the following day Arthur arrives suddenly and unexpectedly in the rear of the Angle host besieging the fortress!  Perhaps his arrival has been coordinated in advance with the local forces of King Gurgust. Or, alternatively, the young King of Elmet and his household troops are themselves beleaguered within Lindum’s Roman walls; and it is he that Arthur has come to rescue.

Close beneath the southern walls of Lindum, the Dubglas/Witham flows west to east, before turning southeast toward the Wash. It was in the meadows on the south bank of the river that Colgren’s army was camped. It is here that the second of Arthur’s twelve battles took place!  Arriving late in the day, Arthur and his Cymbrogi break the Angle siege with a fierce cavalry charge, the far more numerous barbarians panicking at his sudden appearance and fleeing!

After feasting Arthur and his heroes within the fortress, the combined forces set off in pursuit of the fleeing enemy.

Ford of the Witham

The Angles have crossed the Dubglas/Witham, camping now on the east bank, opposite a ford. Here is fought the third of Nennius’ battles. The British attempt to force the crossing; the Angles, holding the opposite bank, resist with their customary ferocity.

A ford of the Witham River This is an infantry fight: the ford restricts the frontage, and even the best cavalry cannot force its way frontally through a determined shieldwall. Arthur and his armored Cymbrogi sit their horses behind the British line, watching as Gurgust’s household troops and local militia battle in the ford. Though Nennius indicates that, as in all of these, Arthur was victorious, what is more likely is that the battle resulted in a stalemate; with both sides withdrawing to lick their wounds.

It is late in the season. The belligerents return to their homes for the winter.

THE LEGEND GROWS

Britain did not exist in a vacuum, and events in Britain reverberated across the Channel. Arthur’s “word fame” had spread beyond Britain’s shores.

Warriors seek three things in life: A cause to fight for; comrades to fight beside; and a leader to follow! We can only imagine that individual warriors, “free lances” in search of employment, flocked to Arthur’s standard; swelling the ranks of the Cymbrogi of his Comitatus.  In 507, the fame of the “Dragon Lord” attracted a more substantial reinforcement.

That year, a decisive battle was fought in Gaul. Clovis, first King of the Merovingian dynasty of the Franks, defeated the Visigoths at Battle of Vouillé/Campus Vogladensis. The result was the end of Visigoth rule in Gaul, as the descendents of Alaric and Euric retreated for good back into their territories in Spain.

Gaul was on the way to becoming France.

John Morris suggests that as a result, a Visigoth noble named Theodoric, commanding the Visigoth naval squadron in the Bay of Biscay, arrived in Cornwall seeking sanctuary for himself and his forces.

The evidence supporting this theory is scanty. But it is an interesting one to contemplate.

We know a Theodoric ruled in Western Cornwall from about this time, into the middle of the century. During which time he repelled Irish incursions and settlements in Cornwall and south Wales. The theory that Theodoric was a Visigoth expatriate is mostly based upon his name; which is indeed Visigoth.

With the Franks driving the Visigoths from Gaul, could Theodoric have brought a Visigoth fleet and band of warriors to join the Pendragon of Britain?

Cornwall (Kernow) was ruled by several petty king; all subjects of the King of Dumnonia. It is highly unlikely that such a Visigoth settlement in Cornwall would have been tolerated had not the newcomers been accepted by Arthur; who while not yet accepted as High King of Britain, was acknowledged in his role as Dux Bellorum, the de facto warlord of Britain.

If we accept that Theodoric may have been a Visigoth émigré, and that he was welcomed by Arthur and the Dumnonii, then we are left with the picture of a powerful naval lieutenant based near “Lands End”, at the tip of Cornwall. He is charged by Arthur with patrolling the southwestern coast; both warding against and eradicating Irish settlements. This is the role Theodoric played faithfully for the next several decades. His loyalty and competency secured Britain and Arthur’s southwestern flank; allowing Arthur to concentrate on defeating his Germanic enemies, and recovering the Lost Lands of Logress.

The following spring, Arthur returns to Lindum, to continue the war against the Angles under their chieftain, Colgren. This time he brings  a force of infantry to augment the Elmet levy; perhaps even some of Theodoric’s Visigoth warriors. Young King Gurgust of Elmet is waiting at Lindum with the levy of his kingdom, stiffened by his own household “Teulu” (household troops). The combined forces were likely not more than 3,000; and very likely closer to 1,000. Of these, the professional warriors of Arthur’s Cymbrogi numbered no more than 300; Gurgust’s Teulu likely another 120 men. If Theodosius’ came with some of his Visigoths, perhaps these numbered as many as 300 more (anymore would have been a threat to the British themselves). All or most of these professionals would have been cavalry. The rest, the levy militia of Elmet (perhaps including some of the town militia of Eburacum/York and Lindum/Lincoln) would have been infantry levies, armed with spear; and a small number of archers.

Once again, the armies engage at the River Dubglas (the “Black Water”, which we have tentatively identified as the Witham), in the fourth of Nennius’ Twelve Battles. We don’t know the outcome (Nennius states that Arthur was triumphant in them all; but if so they were indecisive victories); but a plausible scenario is this:

Colgren’s host (perhaps augmented by additional bands of Angles and Saxons as winter gave way to spring) would have mustered behind the Dubglas/Witham; prepared to oppose the Britons at the fords. With is cavalry advantage, Arthur would have had little trouble locating the enemy; the Anglo-Saxons, an infantry host, less so. On the day of battle, Arthur drew up the British infantry (likely led by Gurgust) at a ford opposite the Angles. Pushing across, the Britons engage the Anglish shieldwall in close combat!

Meanwhile, Arthur leads a flying column of cavalry and his lightest infantry across the river at a higher crossing place. Lindum is on the left-bank; perhaps Arthur set out before the rest of the host, taking the circuitous route along the left-bank. At the height of the fighting, he appears behind and on the right flank of the fully-engaged Anglish! The Anglish are brave warriors, and fight stubbornly; but their flank crumbles under the sudden assault.

It is unlikely that the surprise was complete, and Colgren is able to withdraw the bulk of his forces to fight another day; perhaps his doomed right flank buys the rest time to get away.

But the Britons are across the river, and now advance down the river. We don’t know where the main stronghold of this early Angle settlement was. But if it was near the mouth of the Witham (a logical place for a pirate stronghold: near the sea) than it makes sense that still another battle was fought beside this river (the 5^th of Nennius’ battles, and the final along the “Dubglas”). Pursuing the retreating Anglish toward their chief stronghold, the more mobile Britons catch Colgren’s host before it can reach safety; forcing them to battle again.

We know nothing of Colgren (there is no evidence that he even existed; he is a placeholder, invented perhaps by Geoffrey of Monmouth for lack of a historical identification for the Angle leader); but one didn’t become leader of a band of hardened Germanic warriors by any means except ability. The Germans followed proven leaders, men whose “word fame” was praised by bards and poets. We can assume that Colgren was no incompetent.

But having the cavalry advantage allowed Arthur to harry the Angle rearguard as they attempt to withdraw south to their stronghold. This forces the Angle carls at the end of the column to stop and form shieldburg. Colgren can abandon his rearguard to certain destruction, or stop and fight. A courageous warrior, he chooses battle!

The Anglish form their shieldburg in a loop of the river; both flanks securely resting on the bending river. Arthur hems them in with infantry, his cavalry waiting on either flank. The Britons harass the Anglish with arrows and javelins, then attack!

The Anglish shieldwall repels the British assault, the levies no match for these hardened Germanic warriors! Then, as the Britons disengage, Colgren’s warriors go over to the offensive! They pursue the British infantry, and tactical withdrawal threatens to become rout!

Hypothetical reconstruction of the Fourth Battle of Dubglas River (Nennius’ 5th Battle)

But as they rush past the safety of the river’s loops, the Anglish flanks are exposed. Horns blare, as Arthur orders both wings of heavy horse to charge! This is also the signal for the infantry to halt, turn about and reengage their pursuers!

Feigned flight, common tactic for both Alani and Sarmatian warriors, has drawn the Anglish into a trap! Both of their flanks are crushed back onto their center by Arthur’s armored lancers! The flanks crumble, the center soon follows, and the Angles break and flee for their lives!

In the ensuing pursuit, Arthur’s riders hunt-and-harry the fleeing Anglish, riding down the fugitives without mercy! Their blood lust is loosed, and British swords rise and fall like threshers at harvest! Few Angles survive to reach their stronghold; and those that do are too panicked to bar the gates against the close-pursuing Britons!

Colgren’s body is found the next day, drowned in the river attempting to escape. The Angles are broken utterly, the survivors surrendering at the discretion of the conquering Britons!

Arthur takes the best of the prisoners into his service; the Germanic warriors bending their knee, swearing an oath to Wotan as well as the Christian God to serve Arthur faithfully. (The practice of taking prisoners of war into military service within a successful general’s bodyguard was common in the 5^th and 6^th century. The concept of nations or national loyalties did not exist in this age of ever-changing alliances, shifting tribal confederations, and ad hoc armies of military adventurers. The warrior class from Persia to Scotland was often quite willing to accept service with whatever successful leader would employ them!) The remaining Angle survivors are allowed to retain their farms as military settlers (Feoderatii), in fealty to Arthur’s ally, the King of Elmet. They will protect this section of coast from their pirate cousins!

Next: Nennius’ Twelve Battles Continued

Battle of Granicus, 334BC: Alexander the Great’s First Battle in Asia!

May, 334BC, Alexander of Macedon led an army of between 34,000 and 40,000 against a smaller Persian army led by the Persian Satraps of Asia Minor (mostly modern Turkey).

This was Alexander’s first victory over the Persians. It would take two more, along with several hard-fought sieges, before Alexander would earn the title of “Great”. Granicus was perhaps his most dangerous battle; in that Alexander was very nearly killed. Had he not been saved from a blow from behind by Cleitus the Black, commander of his bodyguard, Alexander III of Macedon would be remembered today as but a footnote in history!

Here is a really terrific video presentation of the Battle of Granicus!

The Age of Arthur: Part 9

This is the Ninth-part of our discussion of Britain in the so-called Age of Arthur: the 5th though the mid-6th Century A.D. It is a fascinating period, with the Classical civilization of Greece and Rome giving way to the Germanic “Dark Ages”. It was the sunset of Celtic-Roman culture in Britain; it was the Age of Arthur!

But who was Arthur?

Before we answer that question, it is necessary we understand the world in which he lived.

(Read Part Eight here. Or start from the beginning, with Part One!)

ORIGINS OF ARTHUR

If King Arthur was indeed a historical character, we must place his life somewhere between the last decades of the 5^th century, and the first decades of the 6^th. He occupies a place as leader of the British resistance against the Anglo-Saxon invaders following Ambrosius Aurelianus (mid-to-late 5^th century) and Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (“On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain”), in the 540s.

The name Arthur, itself, is the subject of some debate. It doesn’t appear in usage among the Britons (or any other Celts) till after the mid-6^th century. John Morris argues that the name Arthur, appearing as it does suddenly after this time among Scottish, Welsh and Pennine princes; and the absence of the name in usage at any time earlier, suggests that in the early 6th century the name became popular amongst the indigenous British due to the celebrity of some great warrior-hero of that name: the historical/legendary Arthur.

The Brythonic/Celtic word for bear is “Arth”, or “Artos”. One theory is that the name “Arthur” derives from this root . Gildas the Monk refers to “the Bear”, or Artos; possibly in reference to Arthur.

Another possible source of the name may have its roots not in the Celtic languages, but in Etruscan! A Roman officer stationed in Britain in the 2^nd or 3^rd century bore the name Lucius Artorius Castus; whose family’s origin may have come from Etruria, in Italy. The family name may have lived on in Britain after his departure; if he perhaps sired children with a local woman.

Unhelpfully, Gildas’ references to “the Bear” are, at best, oblique. Though he writes primarily of the events following the life Arthur, Gildas also mentions such events as the Battle of Mount Badon (or, Badon Hill); an event before his time but fresh in the minds of he and his contemporaries.

The Battle of Badon is named by later writers as Arthur’s crowning victory. Yet in mentioning Badon, Gildas omits to give credit to Arthur (or Artos).  If Arthur indeed led the Britons to victory over the Saxons at Badon, why does Gildas’ fail to name him as the hero of that day?

One explanation may be a personal animus held by Gildas against Arthur. 

According to Gildas’ biographer, Caradoc of Llancarfan, Gildas’ brother was one Huail/Hueil ap Caw; a Scot or Pictish warlord from the area near Dumbarton Rock in Strathclyde (though alternate theories place Caw and his warlike son’s stronghold to the east, near modern Glasgow). Huail was an opponent of Arthur, refusing to acknowledge his leadership. A pirate, he was captured and executed by Arthur in North Wales. Gildas, away ministering in Ireland at the time, was grieved by the news and bore towards Arthur an eternal grudge. For this reason, perhaps, he deliberately and steadfastly refused                                                                                                      Statue of St. Gildas

to acknowledge or even name Arthur in his Comentary. The chronicler Gerald of Wales even claimes that Gildas destroyed “a number of outstanding books” praising Arthur!

                                                                                                   

With Gildas, the nearest contemporary, obstinately silent as to the existence of Arthur; historians are left only with accounts from later sources (Bede, Nennius, Annales Cambriae, Geoffrey of Monmouth, etc). Trying to piece together the disparate chronicles and legends and to come up with a coherent theory for a “historical Arthur”; has been the cause of much spent  ink, particularly in the last four decades.

Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman, in their book, King Arthur: The True Story (1992) concluded that the true identity of the historical King Arthur was a Welsh prince, named Owain Ddantgwyn (“White Teeth”).

This tenuous identification rests solely on a reference in Gildas’ to a certain contemporary Welsh prince named Cynlas; who Gildas states was “charioteer of the Bear”. In ancient Celtic Britain, chieftains rode into battle in chariots, often driven by their eldest son. Though chariots had long been obsolete in Romano-Celtic Britain, the title of “Charioteer” (chariot driver), may well have continued in usage among the Celtic nobility as a ceremonial one; designating perhaps a chieftain’s heir; his right-hand man; constable; or even bodyguard commander.

Phillips and Keatman assume that the name, “the Bear” (Artos), was Arthur’s nickname, rather than his proper name. Then assuming further that as his charioteer, Cynlas must have been his son and heir; the authors then used existing genealogies to arrive at the “true” identity of Artos the Bear: Cynlas’ father, the Welsh prince Owain Ddantgwyn.

Thin thread from which to hang such a weighty theory.

Even accepting the premise that “the Bear” for whom Cynlas was “charioteer” is, indeed, Arthur; there is no reason to assume that he was Cynlas’ father. Without knowing the true significance of the title “charioteer” in 6^th century Romano-British society, the relationship between Cynlas and Artos the Bear is wildly speculative.

Another equally specious theory would place Arthur after Gildas, rather than before. This “Northern Arthur” theory identifies Arturius, son of Aidan, king of the 7^th century Dalriada Scots, as the model for Arthur! Aidan supported the Britons in their local fights in the north against Angle and Pictish enemies. The documentation for the existence of this Scottish prince comes from the 7th century AD manuscript, known as the ‘Vita Columba’, written on the remote island of Iona on the west coast of Scotland. While Aidan’s son was indeed a prince named Arturius, to identify him as the historic Arthur solely on their shared name is, at best, a stretch. Morris’ point seems pertinent here: that this Scottish prince was likely named after the famous hero, rather than being the hero.

While some theories have Arthur a northern British hero, others place him in the southwest of Britain.

Geoffrey Ashe placed Arthur in the Sub-Roman British kingdom of Damnonia; with Camelot, Arthur’s legendary stronghold, at South Cadbury Castle, in Somerset. Excavation (primarily by Leslie Alcock) has revealed that in the Arthurian period, South Cadbury was reoccupied and fortified. It may indeed have been a stronghold of a powerful south British warlord.

In King Arthur: the truth behind the legend (2000), Rodney Castleden makes a strong case for a Cornish-based Arthur. The ubiquity of Arthur name-sites and related sites (the Camel River, possible site for Arthur’s last battle, at Camlann; Tintagel, where in the legend Arthur was conceived; to name two) in the southwest, and particularly in Cornwall, suggest a strong connection.

Cornwall, in post-Roman Britain, was the western half of the strong Sub-Roman British kingdom of Dumnonia. Dumnonia has much to recommend it as a possible base of power for Arthur. Its eastern regions bordered (and perhaps included) the Salisbury Plain, where as discussed previously Arthur’s predecessor and possible kinsman, Ambrosius Aurelianus, had his chief stronghold (Amesbury). This also bordered the “debatable lands” between those under British control and that of the emerging Saxon kingdoms Sussex and Kent (and, soon, Wessex). Whoever led Dumnonia, he perforce would have been a prince in the forefront of the war against the Saxon invader.

Another alternative identification for Arthur sinks his roots more deeply in Roman history. C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor have suggested in recent scholarship that the archetype for the Arthur legend lies in the life of Lucius Artorius Castus, the 2^nd/3^rd century Roman officer. They deduce that this Roman officer’s name and exploits lived on in the memories of the Britons long after his departure from Britain (in the early 3^rd century?); later attaching themselves to an unknown hero or heroes who led the British resistance against the Saxons.

Though Lucius Artorius Castus had a successful career in Roman service, his exploits were hardly the stuff of legend. Far more celebrated Roman commanders, such as Agricola or Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig in Welsh) would seem more likely candidates to have their name and exploits handed down to future generations, than this rather obscure figure; whose only real recommendation is the similarity of his name to the hero.

While a direct link seems highly improbable, a connection between Lucius Artorius and the Sarmatian cavalry that were stationed in Britain at the time of his posting is possible. While it is not known for certain if Lucius Artorius Castus actually ever commanded these Sarmatian feoderatii, Littleton and Malcor attempt to make that case.

What is highly likely is a connection between the 5th century Arthur and the descendents of these Sarmatian warriors. That they provided the nucleus of his mounted strike force seems likely, as will be discussed later. That their customs and legends bled into the Arthur myth seems a certainty.

There are many tantalizing similarities between Sarmatian culture and legends and pieces of the Arthurian legends; too many for mere coincidence.

Some are superficial, such as dragon standards: the Sarmatians used the draco-windsock as a standard. Arthur, known as Pendragon, used a similar standard in the legends. The chief British warlords after Arthur are called “Great Dragon of the Island”; perhaps a title adopted by later British and Welsh High Kings in emulation of Arthur.

Another similarity is the “Sword-in-the-stone” legend: Arthur pulls the sword of the king from a stone; thus symbolizing his rightful claim to the throne. In Sarmatian religious practice, swords thrust into the ground were part of religious observance.

The strongest connection, however, between the Sarmatians and the Arthur legend lies in the close similarities between Arthur and the Sarmatian legendary hero, Batraz.

In the Arthur story, the sword is pulled from the stone. In the Sarmatian tradition, the hero Batraz pulls his magical sword from the roots of a great tree. At his death Arthur commands his close companion, Bedivere, to cast his sword into the lake. This is mirrored in Sarmatian legend of Batraz: As he lies mortally wounded, Batraz too orders his magical blade cast into the sea. Like Bedivere in the Arthurian myth, Batraz’s companion is reluctant to lose such a wonderful sword and lies to his master twice before finally casting the sword into the water. In both legends, an enchanted lady (the Lady of the Lake) catches the sword and takes it beneath the waves.

That the Sarmatian settlers in northern Britain retained their national legends, and these in time spread amongst their Celtic neighbors and comrades-in-arms seems a plausible explanation for these similarities. More of this later, but it seems likely that the Sarmatian legends of Batraz merged with that of the Romano-British hero that we know as Arthur; fusing together into the Arthurian myth over the centuries that followed his death.

If we accept that there can be, at this stage of archeology and scholarship, no certainty of a historical Arthur; we can at least build a plausible theory of who Arthur may have been, within the working premises already established.

DUX BELLORUM

Sometime  in the last decade(s) of the 5^th century, a new leader emerges among the Britons. He is Arthur/Artorius/Artos; and his name might either have been a nickname (“the Bear”) or his given name. In either case, his exploits as a war leader soon catapulted him into a position of primacy among the Celtic warlords.

Arthur is perhaps a kinsman (nephew?) of Ambrosius Aurelianus, the Riothamus (“Supreme King”) of Britain. If he’s  a nephew, it is likely to have been by marriage: Gildas states that Ambrosius “alone” of his family survived slaughter by either Vortigern or the Saxons. Though Ambrosius was almost certainly a southern Briton, from the Belgae territory around Salisbury; it is not contradictory to suggest that Arthur could have been raised by a northern branch of the family (Ambrosius’ wife’s family). Perhaps (and this is a stretch) Arthur was even related to descendents of Lucius Artorius Castor; Ambrosius marrying a daughter of that house, Arthur’s aunt. Alternatively, Ambrosius’ exile in Armorica (Brittany) as a young man could have resulted in marriage to a daughter of the Alans; and Arthur could then have been of Armorican-Alan blood. Either origin would gives Arthur proximity in his childhood to the Sarmatian-Alans; and perhaps even kinship.

It should not be ignored that Arthur is linked by Geoffrey of Monmouth with the royal house of Dumnonia. During the dark days following the Saxon Terror, many of the Britons who fled to Armorica were from Dumnonia. They founded there a “Lesser Dumnonia”. Arthur could have been related to the royal house as a son of an exiled Dumnonian royal. This would not contradict a familial connection with Ambrosius, himself perhaps connected to the Dumnonian royal house.

Arthur serves first in his uncle Ambrosius’ mounted Comitatus; perhaps among Alani kinsmen or childhood companions; or (if north British) neighbors and boyhood friends of Sarmatian extraction. Like them, he is a horseman born-and-bred! He handles lance and sword, bow or javelin from horseback with equal skill. In battle he and his comrades are covered in armor of scale or mail, wearing conical helmets sporting horsetail crests. Arthur’s comrades (the Welsh word is Cymbrogi, meaning “Compatriots”, “Sword Brothers”, or “Comrades-in-arms”) spend many a day-and-night in the saddle, forging unbreakable bonds of fellowship and camaraderie. These are the archetypes of the “Knights of the Round Table”, perfecting their warrior skills in countless minor skirmish and foray into enemy lands. In the later Welsh poems and annals, two names appear most often as his closest companions: Cei/Cai the Tall (Arthur’s foster-brother in some versions, including Mallory) and Bedwyr Bedrydant (of the Perfect Sinews), one-handed champion. These are heroes in their own right, and are celebrated in Welsh poems of later ages.

In the tenth century poem Pa Gur, Cei is described thus:

“Prince of the plunder,

The unrelenting warrior to his enemy;

Heavy was he in his vengeance;

Terrible was his fighting.”

The same poem describes Bedwyr:

“They fell by the hundred

Before Bedwyr of the Perfect-Sinew…

Furious was his nature

With sword and shield.”

This is a period of “small war”, in which creeping Saxon settlements and incursions into the “debatable lands” separating the two races must be constantly  beaten back. These are not great battles for the most part; but raid and skirmish by relative handfuls. Here Arthur and the sworn “knights” of his Teulu/Comitatus built up around themselves a legend that would endure to the present day!

Not all the fighting was against the “Sassanach”. Celtic culture celebrated cattle reaving, maiden stealing, vendetta and vengeance. The earliest tales of Arthur include stories of personal feuds; quests far-and-wide for magical or sacred items; and women kidnapped and rescued (most notably Arthur’s own wife, Gwenhwyfar; who according to Caradoc of Llancarfan was kidnapped by Melwas, king of the “Summer Country” and held prisoner at his stronghold at Glastonbury).

A showdown is brewing between the two races, vying for dominance of the island. During the last decades of the 5^th century, the Saxon menace has only grown. Saxon settlements dot the whole of eastern Britain (the “lost lands of Logress/Lloegyr”). In the south they have founded enduring kingdoms: in Kent, under the son of Hengist, Osic/Æsc; and to the west of this, the kingdom of the South Saxe (Sussex). This last is led by the ruthless Saxon leader, Ælle; who in the last decade of the century has united the Saxons loosely under his over-lordship, being proclaimed “Bretwalda”. (This title, the equivalent of “High King”, may actually be a bastardization of the Welsh Brit Gweldig; “High King/Emperor of Britain”.)

As Ambrosius ages, and the eastern horizon grows ever darker, the old man comes to rely more on Arthur to lead his Comitatus against the enemy. Perhaps he names Arthur his Magister Equitum (“Master of Horse”), commander of his mobile cavalry force and second-in-command. It is Arthur who, in time, is leading the armored band of lancers on big, swift horses; responding to hilltop beacons warning of dark sails on the horizon or war-parties raiding along the frontier!

Arthur steadily builds a reputation as an effective war-leader, and an extraordinary warrior. In possibly the earliest literary reference to Arthur, by the Welsh poet, Aneirin (c. 6^th century) and recorded in the Y Gododdin; a warrior is praised for his valor, “but he was no Arthur”.

Roman Britain in the late 5^th century was becoming increasingly tribal. Three generations after the Roman withdrawal, Rome’s legacy of civil rule was in decline. The Eastern and southern parts of the Island, where Roman civilization had sunk the deepest roots, had been lost or turned into an embattled frontier zone. In the west and north, where the tribal system had never disappeared; and particularly in the north, which had always been heavily militarized, new tribal confederations had established a patchwork of petty-kingdoms.

In the southwest, as already mentioned, the Durotriges and the Damnonii (and perhaps the Cornovii of Cornwall) formed the kingdom of Damnonia.  In Wales, Votadini immigrants from beyond the Wall founded the Kingdom of Gwynedd; a strong buffer against Irish raid and settlement in north Wales. To the south and east of Gwynedd, the Ordovices in the west and the Cornovii in the east joined to form Powys (one of whose founders may have been Vortigern, High King of Britain from the mid-420s till the 450s). The original boundaries of Powys extended from the Cambrian Mountains in the west to the modern West Midlands region of England in the east. The fertile river valleys of the Severn and Tern are found here, and this region is referred to in later Welsh literature as “the Paradise of Powys”. South Wales was home to the truly petty-kingdoms of Dyfed, Gwent (tribally the Silures), and Glywysing.

In the mid-lands, two kingdoms emerged, on either side of the Pennines. To the east, around the old Roman fortress city of Eburacum (York), was the kingdom of Elmet. On the western side of the Pennines, Rheged. North of the these lay the kingdoms of Hen Ogledd (the “Old North”): Gododdin in the east, comprised primarily of the warlike Votadini tribe; and Strathclyde in the west. These were amalgamations of tribal groups (such as the Votadini and Brigantes) with military garrisons and districts around the Wall. Legend has that the sons of  Coel Hen (“Old King Coel”), perhaps the last Dux Britanniarum commanding the Roman garrisons in the north, founded these kingdoms.

All of these petty-kingdoms had some military capability of their own; usually centered around the court of the king and comprised of his Teulu. These household troops were synonymous with the comitatus of Germanic warlords and the Bucellarii of late Roman/early Byzantine generals. Their numbers must have varied wildly; but a top number of 300, the standard unit in late Roman usage, seems likely. This military structure continued in Medieval Wales. In the 11^th century, the normal size of a prince’s Teulu was 120 men; Llywelyn ap Gryffydd had a Teulu of 160 in 1282.

In war, these small bodies of professional fighting men (usually cavalry) could be augmented with civic militias from the local towns; garrisons from the decaying Wall forts (now no more than tiny militia forces themselves); or (in the far north or the mountains of Wales) tribal warriors. Rome had long disarmed the peasantry, Diocletian’s reforms making the bearing of arms or military service illegal to all but the families of soldiers already in the army. Thus it is unlikely that the bulk of British farmers in the more civilized (Romanized) areas had any involvement in war, other than as victims. But in the “uncivilized” regions of Wales and the north, the warrior ethos lived on, particularly among the Votadini and those descendents of the Sarmatian settlers.

Ambrosius’ role as Supreme King was to aid these petty-kingdoms when they were threatened beyond their ability to defend; or to lead them in coalition against Island-wide, existential threats to all. These petty-kings were suspicious of any interference in the internal affairs of their kingdoms;  and jealous of any other’s fame or increased power. When not faced with foreign enemies, they were as likely to fight each other! To be first-among-equals of this temperamental lot was the best that Ambrosius or any other warlord could hope for.

As the fame and success of Ælle united the Saxons under his leadership at the end of the 5^th century, the Saxon threat caused these petty-kings to cede more than normal amounts of authority to Ambrosius; and later his chosen successor, Arthur. But not altogether willingly, and never without reservation and resentment.The struggle for supremacy between Arthur and the petty kings of Celtic Britain; ending  ultimately in civil war and betrayal are all themes that run throughout the Arthurian legends. These reflect perhaps the real historical tensions that developed as Arthur strove to  take both his place as Ambrosius’ successor, and to unite his (unwilling) fellow Celtic leaders against the common enemy.

While the revered Ambrosius (called by the later Welsh chroniclers, Emrys Wledig, or Ambrosius Imperator) still ruled, Arthur could not succeed to his uncle’s title. For the young warrior who was in fact if not name the leader of the coalition forces, a new title was found: Dux Bellorum.

Nennius gives Arthur this title, meaning “Leader of Battles”, or “warlord”.  The petty-kings are loath to achnowlege him more. He is the warlord of Britain, not yet High King.

War is coming, and Arthur, Dux Bellorum, stands on the verge of legend!

Next: Arthur’s Twleve Battles and Triumph at Badon Hill

THE AGE OF ARTHUR: PART 8

This is the Eighth-part of our discussion of Britain in the so-called Age of Arthur: the 5th though the mid-6th Century A.D. It is a fascinating period, with the Classical civilization of Greece and Rome giving way to the Germanic “Dark Ages”. It was the sunset of Celtic-Roman culture in Britain; it was the Age of Arthur!

But who was Arthur?

Before we answer that question, it is necessary we understand the world in which he lived.

(Read Part Seven here)

THE EMERGENCE OF ARTHUR

The last quarter of the 5^th century was a grim time for those who looked to Rome and the classical civilization it represented.

In 476, Romulus Augustulus, the teenage Western Roman Emperor, was forced to abdicate his throne by Odoacer; leader of Feoderatii mercenaries in Italy. The Western Emperor had long been a figurehead, with true power residing with the Magister Militum (“Master of Soldiers”); a position held in the 5th century by one Romanized-Barbarian officer after another.

Romulus had himself been placed on the throne by his father, Orestes, one of these Romanized German commanders. Odoacer killed Orestes, and siezed the Emperor in Ravenna.

The boy-Emperor’s life was mercifully spared; Odoacer granted him estates in Campania to retire to and a life-time pension. But Romulus was the last to hold the title of “Western Roman Emperor”. Odoacer went on to rule Italy thereafter as “King”; and as an autonomous vassal of the Eastern Empire.

Few in the West likely noticed, much less cared. By this time, the provinces that once comprised the western half of the Roman Empire had for some time been under the control of various “barbarian” powers. Gaul was divided between Franks in the north, the Burgundians in the east, and the Visigoths in the south; with an ever-shrinking Roman successor state (ruled by Syagrius, a noble Romano-Gaul) in the center of the province, and the British territory of Armorica/Brittany. Spain divided between this same Visigoth kingdom (centered still in Aquitaine), and the German Suevi. North Africa, once the breadbasket of the Western Empire, was now a militant and piratical Vandal kingdom; centered on the former provincial capital of Carthage.

Of the former provinces, only Britain fought on, resisting Germanic occupation.

There are cogent reasons why of all the Western Imperial provinces Britain alone maintained its independence and identity.

The first is geography: as an island, Britain was not susceptible to the wholesale invasion and migration of Germanic nations seen in the rest of the Western Empire. Only the Picts in the north were in a position to overrun the island and submerge Roman civilization. That this did not occur is testament to the second factor: leadership.

From the first decade of the 5^th century, when Rome abandoned the Britons to their own devices, strong leaders had emerged to maintain a loose unity among the Celtic Romano-Britons; and to beat back raider and invader. First Coel Hen (“Old King Cole”), perhaps the last official Dux Britanniarum (commander of the Roman forces stationed in the north of Britain); and then Vortigern, prince of Powys and “High King” of Britain, managed to rally the island’s forces and coordinate a common defense in the first three decades after the Roman withdrawal. Vortigern’s long hold on power saw the British position in the east of the island erode, as the barbaric “Saxons” settled first as mercenary feoderatii and later as enemy invaders. But Vortigern was followed by Ambrosius Aurelianus, who may have bore the title of “Riothamus”, or “Supreme King” among the Celtic petty-kings of Britain. Ambrosius struggled with mixed success to contain the Saxons in the eastern portion of the island.

A third and perhaps the most critical factor in the success of Britain’s defense against the tide of Germanic barbarism was cavalry.

Most Germanic tribes had their own cavalry traditions. While most warriors tended to fight on foot, Germanic nobles and their retainers tended to serve as horsemen. Some nations, such as the Ostrogoths and Vandals, became primarily cavalry warriors as soon as circumstances and a ready supply of horses allowed.

Not so the Anglo-Saxons.

These northern German/Scandinavian people were seafarers, pirates, who preferred to fight on foot. In battle they formed up in a tight, compact mass of infantry; as either a “shieldwall” or, when on the attack, the “Boar’s Head” (wedge) formation. Even though nobles might ride horses to battle, they dismounted to fight.

Against cavalry, the Saxons were at a disadvantage. With no traditions of cavalry warfare of their own, they had no tactics to deal with horsemen when confronting them. It has been suggested by many historians that the Saxons were fearful of cavalry. While this may have been true to some extent (especially after stinging defeats at the hands of the British warlords), it is not likely from a cultural standpoint. Scandinavian chieftains and their household warriors rode horses to battle, as stated. But the horses of Scandinavia and the north German plains are small, sturdy animals; unsuitable for cavalry warfare. It was primarily for this reason rather than some kind of unreasoning terror of horsemen that the Saxons had no cavalry tradition of their own; and were vulnerable to cavalry.

Conversely, since the 3^rd century, the importance of cavalry within the Roman army had steadily increased. The Emperor Gallienus, in the 260s, created a  mobile  cavalry corps stationed at Milan, in northern Italy; as a rapid-reaction force capable of responding to barbarian invasions anywhere along the broad frontiers of the Rhine or Danube. This was the archetype for the future “mobile field armies” (the comitatensis) of the later Empire. In Britain, the Count of Britain (Comes Britanniae) commanded such a mobile field army, composed of 6 units of cavalry and three of infantry.

While this force was withdrawn to support the imperial pretensions of Constantine III in 407, other cavalry units were left at the disposal of Britain’s leaders for the island’s defense; and Britain may have owed its salvation to them.

In the 1^st century AD, the nomadic Sarmatian people established dominance in the Ukrainian steppe. By the 2^nd century, these excellent horsemen had migrated into the mid-Danube region, coming into conflict with the Roman Empire. After defeating them in war, the Emperor Hadrian settled 5,000 of Sarmatians in Britain; as a reserve, backing-up the garrisons along Hadrian’s Wall. It is not known if they brought their families with them (a likely circumstance); or married local women. In either case, they continued to exist as part of the British population for the next two centuries. Sarmatian units are named as part of the Wall garrison till the very end of the Roman period in Britain. Further, the northern British tribes of Strathclyde in the west and Gododdin in the east both maintained a  tradition of cavalry warfare and a semi-nomadic lifestyle that speaks directly to their intermingling with and influence by these Sarmatian settlers.

Another factor preventing the Picts from overrunning the whole of Britain during the turbulent days following the Roman withdrawal; or later, when the Saxons were ravaging the southern portion of the island during the 450s, was that between their highland kingdom, Alba, and Roman Britain stood these formidable pseudo-Sarmatian mounted warriors of Strathclyde and  Gododdin.

Sometime in the late 4^th century or the first half of the 5^th century, a large band of warriors from the Gododdin Votadini tribe, and their families, were settled in northern Wales. Led by the famous Cunedda, these founded the Kingdom of Gwynedd. It is likely that at least the nobles of Gwynedd maintained the cavalry traditions of their homeland in the north; providing the British leaders with still another source for cavalry.

The northern British horsemen were not the only source of good quality cavalry available to the defenders of Britain. Across the Channel from Britain, in Armorica, the Alans had been settled by Flavius Aetius, Magister Militum of the West during the reign of Valentinian III. Like the Sarmatians, these were a nomadic people of the Eurasian steppe. Though originally a branch of the Central Asian Massagetae, they are often described as a Sarmatian people; and the distinctions between them might well have been slight. As discussed previously, it is likely the Alans merged with the British settlers who migrated to Armorica in mass in the mid-5^th century.

Armorica was very likely under the authority of the British “Supreme King”, Ambrosius Aurelianus. Geoffrey of Monmouth links Armorica with Ambrosius, as the place of his exile when hiding from Vortigern in the 440s. As discussed earlier, Alan horsemen may well have served in his Comitatus/Bucellarii (bodyguard regiment); and the Armorican Alani would have been available to the British military leadership.

MASTER OF HORSE

Ambrosius Aurelianus took over the leadership of the Britons in the late 450s. For the next several decades, he carried on a long struggle against Saxon, Pict and Scotti (Irish). While the bulk of British military garrisons and levied contingents would have been infantry; the military elite were cavalry. Only horsemen had the strategic mobility to rapidly respond to the midnight beacon on the hilltop; signaling “raiders from the sea”, or Saxon incursion across the “debatable lands”!

Did Ambrosius personally respond to every alarm? As Riothamus of Britain, only he had the authority to command the contingents of the various petty-kings of Celtic Britain. But the duties of “Supreme King” included more than leading armies; and not every incursion required the full response of Britain’s military resources.

Using the model left them by the Romans, the Britons would have layered their defenses. Fortress garrisons along the Saxon or Pictish frontier would deal with small-scale raids; and give advance warning of larger threats as they materialized. Local “petty kings” would then respond to such threats to their territory; leading their household warriors, augmented when necessary by town militias and tribal levies.

When a threat too dangerous for the local ruler to safely deal with materialized; but not so large as to require a general mobilization of British forces, then Ambrosius’ mobile cavalry force could be dispatched. Galloping up one of the numerous Roman roads or connecting byways to the endangered area, Ambrosius’ horsemen could be at any threatened part of the island in a week’s time.  Like Gallienus’ 3^rd century mobile cavalry force, the arrival of a strong cavalry reinforcement under able leadership could shift the balance of any engagement in the British favor.

But galloping across the British landscape was young man’s work, the work of a young but capable subordinate.

Ambrosius Aurelianus’ birth date is unknown. But if, as previously theorized, he was a youth fleeing Vortigern’s persecution in the 430s; he must have been in his middle years when he came to power in the late 450s. After his defeat in Gaul, “Riothamus” was wounded; and though he survived, such battle wounds took long to heal and were often permanently debilitating. While it is certainly possible for a vigorous middle-aged man to lead his warriors on hard campaigns; it is unlikely that Ambrosius was in any condition to gallop off at the head of his  cavalry in response to every midnight alarm!

So who took over this role? Here, again, the late Roman practice shines light on the question.

In the late Roman Army, the supreme commander of Roman forces bore the title of Magister Militum (“Master of Soldiers”). He was assisted by a second-in-command, titled Magister Equitum: “Master of Horse”.

Ambrosius, “Last of the Romans”, must surely have been assisted by a trusted lieutenant; his “Master of Horse”. To this individual would be entrusted the command of the mobile cavalry force that kept the barbarians at bay.

Could this man, Ambrosius’ strong right-hand, have been Arthur?

What we know of Arthur is that he led the Britons in the generation after Ambrosius. Ambrosius was alive until sometime between 500 and 515; though by this date certainly an aged, revered ruler. He must have groomed someone to take his place much earlier, perhaps as his Master of Horse.

Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “History of the Kings of Britain” has Arthur as Ambrosius’ nephew. Such a familial connection would certainly make a great deal of sense. Perhaps Ambrosius’ young nephew began his career within Ambrosius’ comitatus. Revealingly, the later British term for such bodyguard units of great leaders was Teulu: “Family”.

Next: The Origins of Arthur

If World War II Were a Bar Fight

Still sore from the night before, Germany has had one too many pints. It is sucking up to Russia, deciding it doesn’t want to pay for the drinks that France insists it owes. They then drunkenly shout out that Austria is its brother, man, and Italy is their long time best friend.

Sauced now and belligerent, Germany is glaring angrily about the bar. Italy is already marching around, challenging everyone to step outside. America had left the bar some time ago and no one was sure where it’d gone.

With nothing better to do, Germany challenges Soviet Russia to an arm wrestling match at the Spanish table, while Japan was in the back room whacking China with a pool cue.

Armwrestling over, Germany goes to the bar again and orders another pint and one for Austria. Glancing over to Czechoslovakia, Germany says, “Hey, nice shirt. I want it”.

Before Czechoslovakia can jump from the bar stool and take a swing, Britain walks over and stands between the two, saying, “Can’t we just get along? Come on, now, Czechoslovakia, just the shirt, that’s all.”

Humiliated, Czechoslovakia hands over the shirt and Britain walks back to the corner table with France saying, “See? Peace in our time.”

At the other end of the pub, Italy has finally found someone to fight: it kicks Ethiopia in the goolies as they walk in. Germany, raises their pint glass in salute to Italy.

Then they look at Russia who’s wandered back in after checking on Japan in the back room and both look over at Poland who’s been sitting by themselves at a small table….. right next to Germany. England and France stare at Germany and England wags their finger at Germany. Germany gives them an “aw shucks” grin and then turns and knocks Poland’s beer off the table.

Poland stands up to confront Germany beckoning for England and France to come over and help. Russia then taps Poland on the shoulder and when they turn around Germany grabs the chair and smashes it over Poland’s head. Russia then rushes in and begins kicking Poland repeatedly as they lay writhing on the floor.

Germany turns to England and France and makes a “come on then” gesture, but England and France slink back to their table and continue to utter threats in low voices. Denmark, Norway, Holland, and Belgium who popped in for a quick one after work all look worried and finish their drinks in a hurry and yell for the bill.

Finland who’s been sitting in a corner quietly notices Russia is distracted going through the unconscious Poland’s pockets, and quickly sneaks up behind them and smashes a vodka bottle over their head.

Russia gets up, shakes their head, grabs Finland by one arm and tosses them against the wall, knocking them completely out. Russia then goes back to their table in the far corner and sits down to sulk. Japan notices this and slinks out back to see if China has woken up yet.

England grabs the phone and calls Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India and tells them to get down here right quick and oh could one of them pop around to the United States and tell them to grab their baseball bat and come over. Then England walks over and stands by France confronting Germany, Italy and their mates now standing in the middle of the room.

Everyone else quickly pays their bill and heads for the door.

Germany crosses the room, rolls up its sleeves and with four punches knocks Denmark, Norway, Holland and Belgium out cold. Germany then grabs all their wallets and tosses them on a table to sort through later.

France is upset that its little cousin Belgium has been taken out and rushes to get at Germany. Italy has finally finished going through Ethiopia’s pockets sees France on the move, sticks out its leg and trips them. When France gets up Germany picks up an entire table and smashes it over their head. France is knocked out for several hours and when they finally wake up they’re slightly schizophrenic and crawl off into a corner to argue with themselves.

Outnumbered and alone England barricades itself behind the bar and begins tossing empty pint glasses at Germany, hoping the kids show up soon.

Germany and Italy begin sorting out the other tables and strut around the bar. In a corner booth Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania seeing what just happened, stand up and declare that Germany and Italy are their new best mates and buy them a round.

Across the street the United States is getting concerned about all the noise and broken windows and wants to go over and take a look, but the missus tells them to sit down and finish their dinner.

Shortly after dinner, United States hears a noise in the backyard and investigates just in time to see Japan smashing its tiki themed patio set in retaliation for suggesting they had too much to drink. United States is very upset at this and heads down to bar. Japan also eggs The Netherlands’ house and moons Australia as it heads back to pick on China some more.

Italy, while the Germans have their backs turned, decides to pick a fight with the Balkans Football Club which has been sitting in the corner. The BFC is a lot tougher then they look and offers Italy a few good smacks to the face. Italy quickly runs behind Germany and peeks out from behind their legs. Germany turns around with a “WTF!”

After sorting out the BFC with some help from its new bestest bud Romania and Hungary, Germany looks around the shambles of the room. England is yelling threats at them from behind the bar and Canada is behind them passing a fresh supply of empty bottles to toss.

Then another cry for help from Italy – they’ve decided to rifle the pockets of Egypt who passed out earlier in the children’s sandbox in the corner, but England sicked Australia, New Zealand and South Africa on them and they’re all smacking Italy about the kneecaps. Germany sighs and wonders where it can get some better allies.

As Germany makes its way to the sandbox, it makes eye contact with a stretching, knuckle cracking Japan, who gives a knowing nod. Japan puffs its chest and makes its way through the ocean of spilled beer to the United States, who’s standing there flat-footed, laughing hysterically, one hand slapping its knee. But USA looks up just in time to see Japan midswing with a big section of broken table. USA reels backwards into Germany, which is not amused and promises to get USA once it’s taken care of the sandbox. Japan, in the meantime, turns around and wails on poor Netherlands, cowering on the floor.

The Philippines meanwhile walks out the door, vowing to return. At the end of the bar, India, trying hard to mind its own business gets splashed with beer and starts to get up.

After dealing with the sandbox, Germany walks over to Russia hand outstretched in greeting. Russia takes it and get rewarded with Germany’s boot to the nads, and Finland, Hungary, Italy and Romania all pile on. Bloodied and dazed Russia backs off into the storeroom.

To distract Germany, England whispers something to Canada, who sneaks across the room and tries to smash a beer bottle on Germany’s head. The bottle fails to break and Germany turns around, grins and punches Canada in the nose. Holding their bloody nose Canada retreats, but keeps a supply of empty pint glasses flowing to Britain. Australia and New Zealand get an urgent call from their wives to come home because Japan is lurking in the garden, and they dash out. South Africa still pissed at England for making them take on both Italy and Germany and continues to sulk in the kid’s sandbox.

Germany goes looking for Russia in the storeroom to punch it some more, and notices the attractive walk-in freezer with hanging loops of sausage and schnitzel, not realizing Russia is hiding inside waiting with a frozen haunch of ham….. Germany otherwise occupied, Britain kicks sand in Italy’s face. With things getting a bit too quiet in the main bar, Britain and Canada start throwing pickled eggs at Germany’s back.

Germany and Russia, encouraged by their new buddies Romania, Croatia, Slovenia, Hungary, Finland and Ukraine, have started a serious game of Russian Roulette in the freezer, so Germany fails to hear Italy’s pitiful screams for help.

Italy, having decided that beating up on Ethiopia was training enough to punch at their own weight level, decided to take on Britain, but runs away after getting sodomized by their giant British boot.

Meanwhile, our friendly bartender Switzerland is still sitting there, watching this all unfold, dishtowel in one hand, drink in the other, ducking the occasional flying bottle/chairleg/billiard ball. Our other friendly bartender Sweden is still sitting there, watching, order pad in one hand, weapons licenses for sale in the other and selling brass knuckles to both sides.

USA, Canada and England now working together, piledrive Italy and knock them unconscious. Then, South Africa, New Zealand and Poland (who left to get a new set of trousers and just got back) all join together and rain blows and kicks and elbows on Germany until it can’t help but beg for mercy. Even Brazil from down the street jumps in as does France who appears to be fine again. Italy and Germany decide that enough’s enough and cry for surrender, with the bar now completely and utterly ruined.

Japan is still poking USA in the back. With a little help from some engineers patronizing the bar, USA heaves the piano over the second floor railing and it lands with deafening noise squarely on Japans head. From underneath a tiny white flag rises from rubble.

If WW I were a bar fight here

If World War I Were a Bar Fight

Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of a pub when Serbia bumps into Austria and spills Austria’s pint.

Austria demands Serbia buy it a whole new suit because of the new beer stains on its trouser leg.

Germany expresses its support for Austria’s point of view.

Britain recommends that everyone calm down a bit.

Serbia points out that it can’t afford a whole suit, but offers to pay for the cleaning of Austria’s trousers.

Russia and Serbia look at Austria.

Austria asks Serbia whose it looking at.

Russia suggests that Austria should leave its little brother alone.

Austria inquires Russia and what army will stop it.

Germany appeals to Britain that France has been looking at it, and that its sufficiently out-of-order that Britain not intervene.

Britain replies that France can look at whoever it wants to, that Britain is looking at Germany too, and what is Germany going to do about it?

Germany tells Russia to stop looking at Austria, or Germany will render Russia incapable of looking at anyone.

Britain and France ask Germany whether it’s looking at Belgium.

Turkey and Germany go off into a corner and whisper. When they come back, Turkey makes a show of not looking at anyone.

Germany rolls up its sleeves, looks at France, and punches Belgium.

France and Britain punch Germany. Austria punches Russia. Germany punches Britain and France with one hand and Russia with the other.

Russia throws a punch at Germany, but misses and nearly falls over. Japan calls over from the other side of the room that it’s on Britain’s side, but stays there. Italy surprises everyone by punching Austria.

Australia punches Turkey, and gets punched back. There are no hard feelings because Britain made Australia do it.

France gets thrown through a plate-glass window, but gets back up and carries on fighting. Russia gets thrown through another one, gets knocked out, suffers brain damage, and wakes up with a complete personality change.

Italy throws a punch at Austria and misses, but Austria falls over anyway. Italy raises both fists in the air and runs round the room chanting.

America waits till Germany is about to fall over from sustained punching from Britain and France, then walks over and smashes it with a barstool, then pretends it won the fight all by itself.

By now all the chairs are broken and the big mirror over the bar is shattered. Britain, France and America agree that Germany threw the first punch, so the whole thing is Germany’s fault . While Germany is still unconscious, Japan runs over to join the them as they go through Germany’s pockets, steal its wallet, and buy drinks for all their friends. Japan keeps Germany’s gold cuff-links, claims the other’s couldn’t have done it without it.

See the sequel, WWII as a bar fight here

THE AGE OF ARTHUR: PART 7

This is the Seventh-part of our discussion of Britain in the so-called Age of Arthur: the 5th though the mid-6th Century A.D. It is a fascinating period, with the Classical civlization of Greece and Rome giving way to the Germanic “Dark Ages”. It was the sunset of Celtic-Roman culture in Britain; it was the Age of Arthur!

But who was Arthur?

Before we answer that question, it is necessary we understand the world in which he lived.

(Read Part Six here)

SHADOW IN THE EAST

In 465, Hengist and his Saxons burst out of their confinement on the Island of Thanet. Quickly, they overran much of Kent. The British population had largely fled or died during the years of Saxon terror and occupation, and Saxon crofters had been quietly infiltrating back into it for years. Now, Hengist formally retook possession of the lands once granted him by the late, unlamented Vortigern. 

We don’t know how Ambrosius Aurelianus, leader of the Britons, responded. Kent was only one trouble spot. The  Saxons were expanding all along the eastern coast of Britain. From Kent to the mouth of the Humber, Saxon incursions were a constant threat.

 To check these, Ambrosius established garrisons in strategic towns and forts all along the new frontier with the Saxons.  These “burhs” ran roughly across the center of the island along a north-south access:  The  eastern portion of the island was largely written off as ”the Lost Lands of Logres”. 

These strategic garrisons  were composed of professional soldiers, called by the local folk “Ambrosiaci”. It has been argued (Morris) that the locations of Ambrosius’ fortified settlements can be traced by the place-names beginning with the “Amb” prefix. Examples are Amberly, in Sussex, placed to overlook both Saxon Kent and the new Saxon colony of Sussex (see below);  and Ambrosden, in Oxfordshire,  perfectly located overlooking Akeman Street, the strategic east-west Roman road north of the Thames.

It is during this period that many of the old Iron Age hill-forts of the pre-Roman age came back into usage. Towns previously located in low-lying ground moved now to more defensible hill-tops. These served both as refuge for the country folk in times of raid and invasion, and as residence for warlords and their retinues.

As “Riothamus” and  de facto Count of Britain (Comes Britanniae), Ambrosius  himself likely traveled frequently between the tribal capitals of the various, emerging Celtic-Briton petty-kingdoms; and to the various military posts and garrisons.  That is when he was not “in the field”, repelling raids by Pict, Scotti, and Saxon. When he was at rest, it was likely in the south, at Amesbury, as previously discussed. Vespasian’s Camp, across the Avon, was a very strong hill-fort, capable of housing a 1,000 man garrison. This would have been the natural stronghold for Ambrosius and his comitatus.

This was a time of raid and counter raid; in which Ambrosius acted to repel Saxon incursion and to stabilize a deteriorating situation. It was not wholesale invasions that had to be turned back. It was small raids along the borders; that made life impossible for peaceful farming. It was the inexorable creeping forward of small Saxon settlements; of Saxon families occupying the increasingly deserted “debatable lands” between the two peoples, Saxon and Briton.  The Britons responded by raiding and, when possible, burning-out these Saxon encroachments. But it is apparent from Saxon burial sites and coin hoards that the whole of eastern Britain was being slowly lost to Saxon colonization. 

Of this period Gildas says:

From then on the victory went now to our countrymen, now to their enemies… This lasted right up to the year of the siege of Badon Hill, pretty well the last defeat of the villains, and certainly not the least.

Clearly, the tide shifted back and forth; but in the balance, the Saxons continuously gained ground over the next 35 years.

Of the great Roman cities of Britain, most were still inhabited, though declining. We don’t know how long Londinium, the former Roman provincial capital, remained in British hands. But certainly with Saxon settlements encroaching all around, its demise was imminent. Durovernum  Cantiacorum (Canterbury), civitas capital of Roman Kent, was likely deserted by its inhabitants;  fled west or overseas.

The Saxons did not occupy it, nor the other Roman cities that came into their possession in the years ahead. These early Saxons avoided the Roman urban centers, considering them haunted. As with Londinium, they preferred to build their own timber-and-wattle villages adjacent or nearby; leaving the Roman cities to decay and crumble.

RIOTHAMUS IN GAUL

There is a tradition (first recorded by Geoffrey  of Monmouth in his Historia Regum Britanniae) that King Arthur crossed the English Channel from Britain and made war against the (ficticious) Emperor Lucius Tiberius. This part of the Arthur mythos may have its roots in events that developed in Gaul, involving Ambrosius Aurelianus in his role as Riothamus of the Britons; in 470 AD.

In the year 470, the Visigoths, under the aggressive King Euric, were expanding from their holdings in southern Gaul; into the remnants of Roman territory in the center of the province. The Visigoth kingdom was the strongest entity in Gaul; contending for dominance with the Franks in the northeast, and the Empire’s remaining holdings north of the Loire. The Western Emperor Anthemius, eager to check Visigoth expansion, now sent a request to “Riothamus”, Ambrosius Aurelianus, asking for assistance.

In his The Origin and Deeds of the Goths, the historian Jordanes states:

“Now Euric, king of the Visigoths, perceived the frequent change of Roman Emperors and strove to hold Gaul by his own right. The Emperor Anthemius heard of it and asked the Brittones for aid. Their King Riotimus came with twelve thousand men into the state …  

As can be read, Jordanes states that Riothamus crossed into Gaul with 12,000 British soldiers. However, it seems apparent from deeper reading into the sources that Riothamus was already in Gaul; rooting out a colony of Saxon pirates infesting the Loire Valley. Such a Saxon presence threatened both Brittany/Armorica, a Briton colony on the continent; and trade between southern Britain and the still-Roman Mediterranean. 

Destroying the Saxon bases, and driving the survivors out of Gaul; Riothamus marched south to effect a link-up with a Roman force coming to join him. Together, the joint army would be more than sufficient to destroy the Visigoth threat, perhaps recovering the lost Roman territories in the Southern Gaul and Spain.

As was so often the case in the later Roman Empire, political intrigue undermined attempts to restore the Empire.

 The Emperor Anthemius had been a successful Eastern Roman general. He had been placed upon the Western throne by the Eastern Emperor, Leo I. Now resentment among Western officers at this intrusion by the Eastern Empire surfaced in the form of betrayal.

Arvandus, the Emperor’s Praetorian Prefect (senior officer) in Gaul, holding the same position as had Ambrosius’ own ancestor and namesake in the 4^th century; betrayed his master’s plan to the enemy. The Prefect sent a letter to King Euric of the Visigoths, warning him of the coming attack, and advising him to attack Riothamus/Ambrosius’ army before the Roman forces could join him.

Euric marched to meet Riothamus and the Briton army. The clash came near Avaricum (modern Bourges).

Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them with an innumerable army, and after a long fight he routed Riotimus, King of the Britons, before the Romans could join him. So when he had lost a great part of his army, he fled with all the men he could gather together, and came to the Burgundians, a neighboring tribe then allied to the Romans…

As Jordanes states, Riothamus’ outnumbered army was defeated after a terrific struggle. The casualties were likely high on both sides, the Britons inflicting terrible casualties on the numerically superior Goths. The severity of the damage done to the Gothic forces may be gleaned from the fact that after resting at nearby Arvernum, Euric retreated into his territories; never again attempting to annex Gaul to the Visigoth kingdom.

 Defeated, Riothamus/Ambrosius extracted the survivors of his force and retreated eastward, into the neighboring territory of the Burgundians (a Germanic tribe that had settled in east-central Gaul, and allies of the Romans).

In Jordanes narrative, Riothamus is last seen retreating towards a Burgundian town, with the intriguing name of Avallon!

Here we have several elements of the Arthurian legend coming together in documented, near-contemporary   history: A British ruler crossing into Gaul. There, he is betrayed by an ally, Arvandus (in this case perhaps an archetype for the legendary betrayer of Arthur, Mordred). Defeated, Riothamus retreats to heal his wounds and those of his men at a place called Avallon. Of course, the legendary Arthur is taken to the Isle of Avalon to heal his wounds after the disastrous final battle of Camlann against his nephew, Mordred.

Could echoes of Riothamus’ battle in Gaul, and the subsequent retreat to Avallon, have influenced future Dark Ages chroniclers, such as Geoffrey of Monmouth; confusing Riothamus’ deeds with those of Arthur?

Aella and the coming of the South Saxons

Riothamus/Ambrosius returned to Britain after his defeat in Gaul. This venture was not without a cost.

 The ASC states that in 473 (within 2 years of Ambrosius’ return):

 Hengest & Æsc fought against the Welsh and took countless war-loot, and the Welsh fled from the English like fire.

This battle is otherwise unchronicled. We don’t know if it involved Ambrosius personally or not. It is not unreasonable to assume that the losses in Gaul weakened Ambrosius’ British forces; particularly his own elite cavalry comitatus.

Certainly, this defeat reflects further loss of ground by the Britons. It is the last entry to mention Hengist by name.

The old Jute died soon after. For two decades, since the great Saxon Mutiny, he had advanced his people’s fortunes in Britain. He left his son, Æsc, who had long been his colleague in command, a secure kingdom in Kent. (Æsc is also rendered as Oisc; whence the name of the ruling dynasty of Kent, the Oiscingas.)

For Ambrosius and the Britons, the Kentish Saxons soon became a secondary threat. A more deadly menace, closer to Ambrosius’ own lands, would occupy the final decades of his life.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that in 477 a new Saxon warlord, named Ælle, landed in southeastern Britain:

 Ælle and his 3 sons, Cymen and Wlencing and Cissa, came to the land of Britain with 3 ships at the place which is named Cymen’s shore, and there killed many Welsh and drove some to flight into the wood called Andred’sley.”

The location of “Cymen’s Shore” is the south Kentish coast near modern Pevensey, and the “Andredsley” wood is the nearly impenetrable Anderida Forest (or Weald). In Roman and Sub-Roman Britain, this was a very dense forest, that cut the coastal plain off from the rest of southern Britain. It was warded along the coast by the Saxon Shore fortress of Anderitum/Anderida (Pevensey).

Now, in 477 this new wave of Saxons arrived to drive the Britons of the Anderita Weald region deeper into the wood; and to seize from them control of the coastal strip. For the next 14 years, Ælle and his “South Saxons” made war upon the Britons; expanding his holding in the south.

From whence came Ælle and his band is not known. Perhaps these were remnants of the Saxon pirates displaced by the campaign of Riothamus along the Loire River in 470. Certainly, the original three crews were steadily reinforced over the following years by new waves of adventurers, seeking plunder and employment in the warband of a successful leader. As the Franks consolidated control of northern Gaul across the channel, that land became less inviting a target for Saxon raiders than Britain; and so  Ælle’s forces swelled.

In 485 Ælle fought the Britons (likely commanded by Ambrosius) at the Battle of Mercredesburne. Both the site and outcome are unknown. The villages of Ashburnham and Penhurst, in East Sussex, maintain a tradition that a pre-Saxon earthwork known as Town Creep, situated in the adjoining Creep Wood, was the site of Mercredsburn. If so, it is not far from the site of the later Battle of Hastings.

This puts the battle square within the dense Anderita Weald. Perhaps the battle was one in which the Britons defended an earthwork thrown up across a forest path. Or perhaps they defended their fortified base of operations within the wood; from which they had carried on a guerrilla war against the newcomers, from within the forest’s fastness.

 It was likely a victory for the Saxons, and helped drive the Britons out of the forest region around Anderita fortress. Now the way was clear to attack the last British fortress in the southeast, Anderitum.

This coastal fortress was located in a very strong place, built on what was then a peninsula of land rising above the coastal marshes. In the final days of Roman occupation it been home to all or part of the VI Legion, and attendant auxilia units. For 20 years it had held off the Saxons of Kent, under Hengist and his son and successor, Æsc.

In 491, Ælle and the South Saxons besieged and eventually stormed the Roman fortress. The place was packed with soldiers and their families, descendants of the last Roman garrison; and refugees from the surrounding territory. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states the Saxons “killed all who lived in there; there was not even one Briton left there.”

The massacre at Anderitum left Ælle the supreme Saxon leader in southeastern Briton. From this area he carved out his new kingdom, Sussex (South Saxe). Soon he would eclipse all other Saxon leaders in Britain, including Æsc/Oisc Hengistson, and be proclaimed as the paramount Saxon king in Britain: the “Bretwalda”! He was, in fact, the first Saxon king to be so acclaimed. No other would earn that title till the 7^th century.

However much the Saxon star seemed to be in the ascendance, the tide was soon to turn. Even as Ælle was christening the South Saxon kingdom in a Eucharist of slaughter, a child was growing to manhood who would be Briton’s long sought-after savior, and the Saxon’s deadliest foe!

Next: The Emergence of Arthur