The Age of Arthur?
Most scholars who have investigated the possibility of a "historical King Arthur" believe that if he existed, he probably lived in the late fifth and early sixth century. According to the Historia Brittonum ("History of the Britons") by the Welsh chronicler Nennius, Arthur fought -- and won -- twelve battles in the late fifth century, culminating in the Battle of Badon Hill. The Annales Cambriae also credits Arthur with the victory at Badon, and adds that he died at the Battle of Camlann 21 years later.If these sources are accurate, then Arthur was at least partly responsible for the peace that Gildas enjoyed. The timing fits for him to have been the son of Ambrosius Aurelianus -- or, if the dates of Aurelianus' activity are later than most scholars believe, Arthur and Aurelianus could be one and the same. Who's to say he didn't have an advisor named Merlin, or something like it, and a beautiful queen with a name that might sound something like Guinevere?
Unfortunately for hopeful Arthurian scholars, there are notable problems with the sources.
- Nennius wrote, at the earliest, in the late eighth century. This is three hundred years after the events he covered. A great deal of misinformation, folklore, and legend can build up over the course of three centuries -- think of some of the urban legends from the last decade alone that, though false, just won't go away.
- The battles named by Nennius have no dates, and scholars have been unable to identify any of the locations with any certainty. The skeptic may wonder if these 12 battles were at all factual, or whether they represent an apocryphal number, either fabricated by Nennius or risen through the evolving legend of the intervening centuries.
- The Historia Brittonum has so many versions and later interpolations that scholars cannot determine if the segment on Arthur was actually written by Nennius or inserted by a later author.
- The Annales Cambriae, an intriguing Welsh timeline, was written at least half a century after the Historia Brittonum and was compiled from other sources, the identity of which are not indicated in the work itself. Most scholars of the subject believe that the Historia Brittonum was one of those sources; if so, then the Annales Cambriae is only as credible as the earlier work on which it was based.
- Arthur is not the only individual that the Annales Cambriae mentions whose historicity is suspect (St. Brigid is considered by some scholars to be a historicization of an ancient Celtic goddess). While the scholar should not dismiss all its contents, neither should he take it for incontrovertible proof.
If Arthur or Ambrosius Aurelianus did not win the Battle of Mount Badon and stop the advance of the Saxons, then who did? We are left with an enticing mystery, and a historical chasm that the creative author can fill with any fiction he desires, but that the conscientious historian can only explain in dry, colorless expressions of uncertainty.
The Anglo-Saxon Conquest
In a sense, the "Anglo-Saxon Conquest" began almost as soon as the Romans withdrew and was a long, slow, fitful process that lasted into the early 7th century. There was no single leader or group of leaders spearheading the invasion, and no organization among the various tribes and settlements. It consisted not of one massive invasion force, but of dozens of small war-bands and numerous smaller family groups, who migrated to the island in search of farmland and hunting grounds and were willing to fight for it if necessary. The "Conquest" may not even have truly been interrupted by peace in the 6th century; migrations appear to have continued, although they may not have been as frequent or as large in the number of settlers.
The peace that Britain enjoyed came to an end sometime around 550, when Germanic warriors renewed their attacks on the British and pushed them westward again. What exactly prompted this fresh activity is anyone's guess. By the end of the sixth century, England had come almost completely under the control of these Germanic people, and those Britons who did not choose to emigrate to Brittany in France or to take refuge in the mountains of Wales and Cornwall settled into their lives under Germanic rulers.
The Invaders
For the sake of convenience, historians often refer to the invaders from the continent as Saxons. In reality, members of several different Germanic tribes made the journey to Britain: Jutes from Denmark, Franks from Gaul, Frisians from the Netherlands and northwestern Germany, and Angles from Norway, among others. The Angles gave their name to England (Angle-Land) and English and, together with the most active contingent of newcomers, are remembered in the label for the era that followed Post-Roman Britain: Anglo-Saxon England.
Think you know your early British history? Test yourself in the Post-Roman Britain Quiz.
Sources and Suggested Reading
An Age of Tyrants: Britain and the Britons A.D. 400-600by Christopher A. Snyder
A thorough and thoughtful examination of documentary and archaeological evidence is followed by a well-reasoned theory of life in post-Roman Britain.
Roman Britain and Early England
by Peter Hunter Blair
Solid investigation of the time period includes a look at some of the historiographical problems of studying the topic.
The Making of
England
by C. Warren Hollister
Straightforward general overview of England from the first Roman incursions to
1399.
Web Resources
Independent Britain
A lucid introduction to the centuries following Rome's withdrawal of troops includes a look at the sources and what they tell us, by Steve Muhlberger at the Online Resource Book for Medieval Studies (ORB).
Sub-Roman Britain: An Introduction
Very helpful explanation of the written and archaeological sources for the fifth and sixth centuries, by Christopher Snyder at the ORB.
