Dan Snow's History Hit - The Truth About King Arthur

Episode Date: July 3, 2021

The legend of King Arthur has been reworked many times, but is there any historical truth behind the tales? Dr Miles Russell believes there is and in this episode, from our sibling podcast The Ancients, he highlights how elements of King Arthur’s story is derived from five key ancient figures. From British warlords that opposed the arrival of Julius Caesar to Roman emperors of Later Antiquity, Miles explores these individuals in ‘Arthur and the Kings of Britain: The Historical Truth Behind the Myths’.

This is History's Heroes. People with purpose, brave ideas, and the courage to stand alone. Including a pioneering surgeon who rebuilt the shattered faces of soldiers in the First World War. You know, he would look at these men and he would say, don't worry, Sonny, you'll have as good a face as any of us when I'm done with you. Join me, Alex von Tunzelman, for History's Heroes. Subscribe to History's Heroes wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome everyone to Down to the Nose History. It's that time of the week when I reach out to our network of podcasts.

We have several other podcasts now. All of them doing really very well. There's a whole thing happening over at the History Audio Department. And this is from the ancients, the brilliant Tristan Hughes. You heard him on this podcast recently talking about Alexander. He has his own podcast, The Ancients, and he talked to Dr. Miles Russell about the truth about King Arthur. Let's get into it. Who was King Arthur? Did he exist? Was he Scottish? Was he Welsh? Was he British? Was he Cumbrian? Was he Cornish? Was he Romano-British? Was he none of the above? Who was he? Did he exist? And was there, briefly, a Romano-British fight back

against a tide of Germanic settlers arriving on the east coast of what is now England in the 5th, 6th, 7th centuries? This podcast is going to answer all your questions. It's a great subject, one that I never get bored of talking about, or in case listening to and if you enjoy it make sure you go and get more of tristan hughes's podcasts the ancients wherever you get your pods and also make sure you head over to historyhit.tv it's nothing to do with king arthur but it is to do with a subsequent wave of seaborne invaders into the east of britain and there's the vikings on historyhit.tv, I'm quite surprised, but I'm very excited to say that Dr. Kat Jarman, my documentary about the Great Heathen Army,

has broken all of the records for the number of watches and number of hours watched on historyhit.tv since we launched. Broken the records. Amazing. So if you want to go and check out that documentary, it's all about the Great Heathen Army. We track it from the east coast of England down to Wiltshire, where the final battle against Alfred the Great may have occurred. We look at the archaeology, we look at the myth, we look at the sources. It's a pretty interesting show, and the audience seem to have gone bonkers about it. So anyway, please go and check that out on historyhit.tv. But in the meantime, here's our rerun. You can find out if Arthurthur was real the once and future king enjoy miles it's fantastic to have you on the podcast thank you good to be here now yeah this is an

absolutely incredible topic we're looking at king arthur but also his ancient links shall we say because miles the question of who was the real king Arthur, it's kind of like what happened to the Ninth Legion. It's one of those great mystery questions of history. It is. I mean, Arthur is such an incredible character. He's a world character, really. You know, he's famous everywhere. And I think his story is one that just keeps getting reinvented for every generation. that just keeps getting reinvented for every generation. You know, he's one of those characters from the past where it's now very difficult to disentangle the historical truth from the sort of mythology and the fantasy that's built on it.

But because the story's been enlarged and enlarged and enlarged over time, you know, every generation makes the Arthur that they want. So we'll see in the last few decades, there's been TV series, there's been films, there's been computer games. It's just building on that mythology. So probably of all characters in the last few decades, there's been TV series, there's been films, there's been computer games, it's just building on that mythology. So probably of all characters in the past, King Arthur is probably one of the most famous really, he's world renowned. Absolutely world renowned. And you are an archaeologist of ancient history. And although

we sometimes think of Arthur as this medieval figure, he has these incredible links, shall we say, when you look at the research to ancient britain absolutely yes yes i mean it's i guess you know king arthur is one of those characters who's always fascinated historians and archaeologists alike trying to get back to the actual physical truth of him you know did he the argument is always going there are those who believe he was a real character operating at the end of roman britain and those who believe his complete fantasy. And within that, they're trying to find some middle ground of trying to actually place him because it's such an emotive time. You know, when you talk about the end of Roman Britain, we're talking about the beginning of the kingdoms of what becomes England, what becomes the principality of Wales, the kingdom of Scotland.

It's all these formative stories, all these foundation myths all begin at that, all coalesce at that one time. So Arthur's there at the epicentre of all that. So they're trying to, you know, he's got great resonance today, trying to find out who he was, where he existed and what he actually did. Super interesting questions, Arthur, right at the epicentre. So Miles, to really start off this chat, the background, we are talking about the book at the heart of your research on this topic. It's not an ancient book, but this literary source, it's key to our discussion today. What is this book? It's a history of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth,

the Historia Regum Britanniae, I give it its Latin title, and it's written in around 1136 AD. So it's written a very long time after the events that it describes. It divides opinion, I think it's fair to say. In the past, it was viewed as one of the most important texts relating to the history of the Britons, giving them their lost voice. But in the last 200 years, people have tended to be a bit more critical of it and say, well, actually, it appears to just be either complete fantasy. It's made up or it's some kind of misguided patriotic drivel, which really made sense in the 12th century, but doesn't today. The difficulty really is we don't know anything about the man who wrote it, Geoffrey of Monmouth. I mean, we know that he existed, which is good.

We know that he was living in Oxford in the 1130s. We know that by his name, Geoffrey of Monmouth, he must have sort of grown up or spent his formative years on the Welsh-English border. But beyond that, we know very little about him or indeed why he chose to write this book. He says in his foreword that Walter, the Archdeacon at Oxford, his ultimate boss, gave him the task of translating a very ancient book in what he calls the Celtic tongue, translating it into Latin. But people have taken that to think, well, this is some kind of smokescreen, some kind of cover for something he's actually inventing, because there is no original Celtic text that people have found. But all the way through his book, we can see he's making reference to oral history. And other writers of the same time are like Henry

of Huntingdon and William of Marsby. They're talking about the stories of the Britons, which are known by heart. So there is this sort of tradition of all storytelling of passing myths down from generation to generation generation but not actually writing anything down and it is actually the beginning of the 12th century that we start seeing things like the Mabinogion in Wales a whole series of different texts we see the Welsh triads we see Geoffrey of Monmouth they're starting to write down stories which seem to have been passed around now the difficulty with an oral history is obviously tracing its origins and of course it's the possibility that every generation is slightly modifying it or changing it and therefore

the story becomes distorted names become garbled and it becomes increasingly difficult to look back and think well what is the actual kernel of truth there what is the actual origins of this but Jeffrey is writing this down and he presents a history that he describes of the Britons he's putting this as an attempt to counter the overtly English stories like Bede who writes a ecclesiastical history of the English people he's got William of Malmesbury Henry of Huntingdon and their stories are very Anglo-Saxon centric you know they're based on the first english migrants setting up kingdoms he's presenting a story that counters that and said actually before they arrived

there is this great heritage going back all the kings and queens and monarchs and he claims they are descended ultimately from trojans who were escaping the trojan wars who were sort of refugees who landed in britain and established this sort of series of kingdoms. And effectively, it's a polemic really sort of saying that all these people existed before the Saxons arrived and going through their history and identifying key heroes. But the difficulty from our perspective and from a historical point of view is because these names aren't mentioned anywhere else, have they got any kind of historical truth to them? names aren't mentioned anywhere else have they got any kind of historical truth to them is he making them up is he using some kind of oral tradition that hasn't been written down anywhere else what is the basis of this but it's important for us because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the first person to give us an entire life history of King Arthur from his conception to his mortal wounding

so all our understanding of Arthur the man all the mythology that's built around him begins with jeffrey of monmouth there's scattered references to an arthur character before that but jeffrey gives us everything it's a full download of his entire life history miles that is super interesting and just before we go on to arthur that mentioning of like this oral tradition as it were so it's a pre-saxon is it looking at the ancient celtic history as it were in this oral tradition because you see so many parallels i was immediately thinking of perhaps the homer the odyssey the iliad that oral tradition but you could also then look at the polynesians and their oral tradition before the europeans and the interactions there and it seems like it's quite

similar here how he is now writing down hundreds and hundreds of years later Jeffrey of Monmouth this tradition that may well have been passed down through many of the Celtic speaking peoples and said for generations absolutely so remembering sort of heroes from the past another good sort of example is the stories that are first being written down or recorded in 19th century Afghanistan about Iskander you know Alexander the. Here you've got a Macedonian general from the third century BC who's being remembered thousands of years later. And the stories have multiplied, but at its core, there is a historic or verifiable figure. So we can see that oral tradition has a very long history, you know, that tales do survive.

But because they're not being recorded, it is very difficult to see when they mutate and when they change. And that's the tricky thing with Geoffrey of Monmouth, is we can identify some of these characters, not all of them, but we don't know when these particular tales are mutating and evolving. Absolutely. Don't you worry, Miles, we'll be going back to Alexander the Great very soon, I'm sure. But let's focus on Arthur. So Arthur in Geoffrey's book, how significant a figure is he? In the history of the Kings of Britain, Arthur is coming towards the end. I mean, he occupies about a third of the book. So he's the most significant character. He's given the most amount of space to develop. And in a way, everything is leading up towards Arthur. I

mean, there are characters after him in the story story but they're less significant and they're given sort of less time really. But throughout the story Geoffrey presents a series of important men and women who are trying to defend their kingdom and trying to establish the laws of the land and all these sort of things. And Arthur occurs at a point when the kingdom's under its greatest threat, because Geoffrey identifies the Saxons coming in from migrating across the North Sea as the biggest threat to the kingdom of the Britons. So Arthur's there at that point defending everything that's gone before. But it's interesting because the story that he gives of Arthur is repeating lots of key tropes, lots of key aspects of other people's story. And it's presented without comment. It's some kind of divine plan. is repeating lots of key tropes, lots of key aspects of other people's story. And it's presented without comment.

It's some kind of divine plan. Everything that's happened before is coalescing under Arthur and is repeated under Arthur. And he is the ultimate warrior in the story. And his demise signifies the high point of the Britain story, but also the point which they sort of descend and the kingdom sort of crashes to a halt. The ultimate warrior portrayal. So is he very much portrayed in this book, Miles, as a warlord? He's a horrible character in Geoffrey of Monmouth because he's a psychopath. He is very quick to anger. He slaughters people for no apparent reason. He invades countries

just because he wants power. But that is in the post-Roman, indeed pre-Roman period, that is how heroes are remembered. They're not remembered for having a kingdom of peace and prosperity. They're not remembered for the laws that they pass. They are remembered for being strong individuals who don't take any prisoners. So Arthur, his story is just drenched in blood. He is not a very nice character from our point of view, but from the point of view, I guess, of a post-Roman society, he's exactly the kind of individual you want on your side. You've got these descriptions of him in a battle, almost going into berserker mode and slaughtering hundreds of individuals just with his sword. He is there, he's doing all the killing.

And I think, in a way, that is important to understand because the Arthur that Geoffrey presents us is completely unlike the medieval Arthur that we get. All the later romances built around him from the 14th, 15th, 16th centuries really make him more human. They bring in the romance cycle of arthur and lancelot and guinevere they bring in the quest for the holy grail they bring in other characters like bedivere and percival and galahad and all these other individuals so they make arthur a more human

individual they emphasize his humanity whereas jeffrey just presents us with the warlord and it's interesting to see how little of the original story that Jeffrey gives us actually appears in the later accounts he almost gets edited out completely and other elements come in and therefore there's no sword in the stone there's no lady in the lake there's no Lancelot Guinevere romance there's no Holy Grail none of those aspects are in Jeffrey's primary account it's all about conquest and killing and being the strongest man the last man standing effectively. Miles the parallels are so striking we're going back to Alexander now because of that whole

portrayal with the Alexander historians first of all like the original sources you mentioned how Arthur is portrayed as this sometimes psychopathic warlord well I think Alexander is portrayed very similarly at times this killing of hundreds of thousands of people particularly in the indus river valley but it's only later on when you get the romance added with the alexander romance stories where you see him going to mythical lands almost what they thought mythical lands like in africa or visiting jerusalem etc etc and those are added later so it's so interesting you see these striking parallels between two of the most well-known warlords of history who have become two of the most well-known warlords in history have these striking parallels and how their story in the literature develops over time to become shall we say more popular among audiences.

It is it is mean, it's still going on today. I mean, you can think when you look back to all the ancient Greek myths, really none of the characters in there are particularly nice. You think of someone like Achilles. I mean, he is a really unpleasant individual. And yet when people are trying to dramatise the Trojan Wars today, they downplay the death and killing side and they try to bring in romance and try to make this person likable because ultimately we want to see an element of our heroes that we empathize with that we like otherwise what's the point so you can see a lot of more modern interpretations of achilles and yeah he's quite a nice chap he's got compassion

it doesn't appear in the original sources you You know, basically, he is a murderous sociopath. And that is the same with Alexander. I mean, there's nothing about his story. He's not going eastwards in a missionary zeal to bring his brand of civilization and to benefit society. He's conquering and killing and destroying another civilization. But later on, the romances are added and they're trying to make him ultimately a more likeable person. And that is exactly what's happening with Arthur, because he is a deeply

unlikable person when you read his accounts in Geoffrey of Monmouth. Now, let's go back to Arthur then. Thank you for that tangent there. That was very much appreciated. So, I mean, the stories of King Arthur in Geoffrey of Monmouth, many of these stories that are given to Arthur, Miles, they happen to other individuals before him. Exactly. I mean, the interesting thing looking through Geoffrey of Monmouth, which you do read it from cover to cover, which I've done many times, it's not something I'd normally recommend to people because it's not like reading a novel and it's plagued with names and dates and events, but you see that certain themes do get repeated and this is one of the reasons i think that jeffrey's history his skill is he's weaving together a series of stories

and trying to put them in a chronology that makes sense to him so we often see stories repeated like the invasion of julius caesar in 54 bc in britain as a documented event it appears twice in jeffrey and monmouth's account from different perspectives and it's almost if he doesn't realize it's the same event and therefore he separates it out and we get three invasions of Caesar rather than the two that we know about and the 54 BC is repeated and he does this with individuals we see someone whose story is very similar to somebody else and their name form is slightly different it's Garbled it's evidently it's the same person but jeffrey's presented with two rather different accounts and rather than pushing them together he treats them as two separate individuals so when we look at arthur you can disentangle there's at least five individuals which come together really so

arthur is a composite in jeffrey of monmouth His story has already happened to other people and these are sort of people who are in some way significant. They've been remembered as heroes in the old psychopathic Ellerside, you know, they are prominent warlords of their time but their stories have undoubtedly been remembered and therefore they are coalescing around Arthur and Geoffrey brings them together to create this sort of composite Celtic superhero. Composite Celtic superhero, five key figures from ancient Britain. Miles, let's delve into these five figures now. I want you to go wild with the detail of each of these people. Let's start with the first one. This is someone who I actually think is particularly interesting, particularly because he seems to be very much an influence on Clive Owen for the King Arthur of that in the 2000s. Miles number one Ambrosius Aurelianus.

Yes I mean Ambrosius Aurelianus is one of those figures who in post-Roman Britain we do have some detail of it's not much to go on really but Ambrosius Aurelianus appears in the writings of a man called Gildas. And Gildas is writing at some point in the mid-6th century. Gildas is not the best historian to rely on, because he's not a historian. He's the man of the clergy. And his account on the ruin of Britain, it's a polemic. It's a sermon, basically, explaining why the Britons have suffered, because they're all diseased and sinful and corrupt and therefore the Saxons are like a scourge from God cleansing them so it's full of blood and fire and anger and Gildas hasn't got a good word to say about anybody everybody's

corrupt and horrible apart from one person who is Ambrosius Aurelianus. And he says that he's a man of good character. He's descended of sort of noble Roman stock. And he is responsible for this great defeat of this rascally crew, the Saxons. He defeats them at a battle or the siege of Mount Baden. And because Gildas is so complimentary about him and he mentions this battle, this battle gets referred to time and time again. It becomes a key battle of king arthur in the later sort of rewrites but gildas doesn't give us any information

about who is besieging whom at this great affair he doesn't tell us where baden is but because gildas is writing somewhere in the west country or possibly sort of southern wales we assume it's within that sort of general area but it's important to him and it's important to the people he's speaking to so Ambrosius is this major now he appears a lot in other oral histories which were later written down like the Triads of Wales like the Mabinogion briefly Nennius in Historia Brittonum the history of the Britons Ambrosius is in there and he features very heavily in Geoffrey Monmouth's work because he's treated as the immediate sort of predecessor of Arthur. But Ambrosius is somebody in Geoffrey Monmouth who, yes, he fights the Battle of Baddon, which Geoffrey places at Bath in the West Country. He is trying to establish his kingdom in the face of Saxon advances, defeats them a number of times.

And Geoffrey has him being having his coronation at stonehenge and of course this becomes the archaeologists have picked up on this recently going back to jeffrey this idea that in jeffrey's account ambrosius asks his chief advisor merlin to build a monument to commemorate all those british aristocrats who've been murdered by the saxons and merlin goes off to ire Ireland and brings back this great stone circle which they set up on Salisbury Plain and that's where Ambrosius has his coronation and of course from an archaeological perspective that seems utterly ludicrous you know because we know the history of Stonehenge and it's not post-Roman in essence although it's possible you know is to debate whether the blue

stones have come from West Wales which might be sort of remembered but the key thing in jeffrey's text is he's talking about the monument being restructured and we know that archaeologically you know i've excavated inside stonehenge entirely legally by the way it was part of a bigger project but a lot of the blue stones that we see in stonehenge today were reshaped and modified in the post-Roman period so there is some kind of structural modification going on in there at the time that Ambrosius is supposed to have existed and because you've got Amesbury the town nearby Ambrosius's burr his name is resonant in the landscape so it's possible Geoffrey is remembering or writing down an event involving the reshaping of Stonehenge and the coronation of this king whom Gildas has mentioned before but he's there and he's the only post-Roman

warlord for whom we've got anything vaguely complementary written about so in that sense he's in the right space at the right time for the Arthur character and when we look at ambrosius in jeffrey's text aspects about his childhood aspects about his kingship and of course the battle of baden get absorbed into the arthur story so they're repeated without comment later on so we can see there's about 16 of the king arthur story as it appears in jeffrey of monmouth is taken from ambrosius's life. Well, you kind of read my mind what the next question would be, which would be like, what elements of Ambrosius Aurelianus's story does Geoffrey adopt, mould into the character

of Arthur? But is it really the battle narrative? It is, yes. It's the battle narrative and it's the sort of aspects about his kingship and his position in his power. And it is actually interesting that later writers take other aspects of ambrosius because in jeffrey of monmouth although merlin is there he and arthur never meet they occupy different timelines as it were but later writers have merlin becoming arthur's advisor and his wizard so it's interesting but it's ambrosius and merlin in the original text but later when ambrosius and merlin in the original text but later when ambrosius is written out merlin sort of gets absorbed into the arthur story well there you go i never clicked that link between ambrosius aurelianus and aimsbury

and miles if we then move on it sounds like ambrosius he is a significant core of the character of arthur in jeffrey's monmouth but moving on to the next figure, he also seems very, very significant. Character number two, Magnus Maximus. Yeah, I mean, Magnus Maximus, I guess, is one of those individuals who doesn't resonate so much today. We don't hear a lot about him, but he was a significant character in later 4th century Roman Empire, because we know that there's not a lot about his life story that has been recorded, but it is known that he is of Spanish ethnicity. He's serving in Britain, possibly as a commander of the Northern armies, the Dux Britanniorum. But in 383 AD, his soldiers proclaim him as emperor. So he is illegally created as leader of the Roman world. And lots of people are doing this around

the Roman Empire you know throughout the third and fourth centuries the empire is tearing itself apart with multiple leaders and claims and civil wars so in that respect Magnus Maximus is not that different but he seems to have the support of the troops in Britain there seems to be a lot of disaffection with the government in Britain with Rome, feeling that they're not perhaps being looked after. They're a distant province. They're not that important. And Magnus Maximus, as we know from the histories,

takes troops out of Britain. He gets support in northern Gaul, northern France, Belgium, Germany. He's minting coins with his face on and with images of victory. His army besiege the forces of the legitimate emperor Gratian, who is killed in the retreat. So the emperor of the West dies. The emperor's mother and his younger brother then go over to the east. And Magnus Maximus is sitting there above the Alps about to advance down into Italy when the eastern emperor arrives with an army, cuts him off, and he is executed and killed. And the rebellion is put down.

But it's a huge political and social upheaval because it's completely destabilised the West. It's involved a loss of life. It's an own goal as far as Rome's concerned because it's destroying its own army. And you saw lots of it been fighting. But the fact that his story, you think, well, why is Magnus Maximus remembered? What possible relevance has he got to Britain? But he is remembered. If you look in a lot of the early Welsh genealogies, lots of the leaders of Powys and so on, they trace their ancestry back to Magnus Maximus, who's often cited as the king who killed the king of the Romans. You know, he is remembered. the king who killed the king of the Romans. He is remembered. And in the Mabinogion,

we get the story of the dream of Maxon, who is Magnus Maximus, who in that version of the story, he's an emperor in Rome who dreams of this distant, faraway mythical land with a castle and a beautiful princess. And he sends people out to look for her. And they eventually come back and say, we found her. She's in effectively north wales and he travels over there meets the woman literally of his dreams and they fall in love and he stays there for long enough for arrival to take power in rome and then he has to take troops out of britain to go and reclaim his kingdom so it's sort of a reverse version of the story but he's remembered in so many different accounts you think well there's something about him okay yes he was a prominent warlord that's something that you know tick you are remembered for undoubtedly there were praise poems about him

i suspect he restructured britain significantly so he devolved authority perhaps to individual tribes or leaders and that's why they later treated him as their sort of progenitor as their the founder of their dynasty but a lot of the story certainly the Mabinogion centers around Carnarvon in North Wales and that's where the later sort of Plantagenet dynasty build Carnarvon castle and it's supposed to be the sort of myth fulfillment that they are building a fortress that resembles the castle that Magnus Maximus had in this dream so sort of the later Norman monarchs are building on this mythology quite literally and representing themselves as the ultimate sort of the later norman monarchs are building on this mythology quite literally and representing themselves as the ultimate sort of fulfillment of the magnus maximus story but when

we look at jeffrey monmouth when we look at the fact that he leaves britain he invades gaul modern day france he defeats armies he kills the emperor and he's just about to go over the alps to invade italy when's suddenly turned away. All this is Magnus Maximus' story that's been repackaged for Arthur. So 39% of the King Arthur story comes from Magnus Maximus in Geoffrey of Monmouth. So he is the most significant person to contribute to the Arthur tale. person to contribute to the Arthur tale. Myles, it's so interesting how the most significant person for creating this Celtic superhero is this rather infamous Roman general.

It is, I guess to our perspective it is. But given that he's portrayed as a strong leader, someone who is successful in battle, someone who galvanises the Britons and the Gauls and the Germans against Rome. This becomes a significant factor in this story. And of course, bear in mind, he doesn't come back to Britain. One of the later aspects developed with Arthur is he's gone. He's not killed, but he might come back one day. And I guess that is something about Magnus Maximus, is that he's gone abroad. Stories of his death might be treated as a bit of an over-exaggeration, but there's that

sense that one day he will return and save us all. So you can see how that's him. But yeah, from our perspective, from most people's perspective, I guess Magnus Maximus, whose name translates as the great, the greatest. So he's quite a show off. He's not modest, yeah. He's not modest in that sense. But he doesn't feature much in our history. He's just another name in that list of rebels. But for the beginnings of the great Welsh dynasties and the princes of Wales, he's a key character from their past. And therefore he gets built into the story of Arthur.

You're listening to Dan Snow's History Hit. We're talking about King Arthur. More coming up after this. This is History's Heroes. People with purpose, brave ideas and the courage to stand alone. Including a pioneering surgeon who rebuilt the shattered faces of soldiers in the First World War. You know, he would look at these men and he would say, don't worry, Sonny, you'll have as good a face as any of us when I'm done with you.

Join me, Alex von Tunzelman, for History's Heroes. Subscribe to History's Heroes wherever you get your podcasts. well from magnus maximus let's move on to another person who is definitely not modest in the slightest figure number three constantine the great yeah i mean again constantine is another character who ultimately hasn't really got anything to do with Britain. He's from the Eastern Mediterranean, from the Balkans, but he is serving in Britain with his father in 306 AD. And his father is Constantius. His father is the emperor. And at that stage, there is a system called the Tetrarchy, which is bared by whoever's emperor chooses their successor. And it's not somebody of their bloodline. They choose the most capable leader to succeed them. And it's not somebody of their bloodline they choose the most capable leader to succeed them and it's a way of trying to get rid of all these fighting dynasties

now in 306 constantius dies in britain at york he's on campaign in britain and constantine his son effectively says well i'm the son of the emperor i'm going to be emperor and his troops proclaim him as such at york So it's this major uprising, another sort of time when a general has illegally seized power. And Constantine does what Magnus Maximus does later, is he takes troops out of Britain. He goes into Gaul and then he starts his campaign downwards into Italy, down towards Rome. And so in effect, there are elements of his story which are repeated in the Arthur story of him invading but Constantine is the first emperor who literally just before he dies he's on his

deathbed he converts to Christianity and he allows Christianity to flourish and of course for writers like Geoffrey of Monmouth who are in that Christian tradition he is the most important Roman of all and we can see aspects of his story I mean it's very very similar to what happens to Magnus Maximus and to be fair Constantine although he's treated as a great Roman when you actually look at his story he's a deeply unpleasant individual and he murders all his rivals and he suffocates people in baths and he poisons he is horrific but he fits that profile of a strong leader and And Constantine is successful. You know, unlike Magnus Maximus, who dies at the last hurdle, Constantine does become emperor of

Rome. And the fact that his rebellion starts in Britain and York features a lot in Geoffrey Monmouth's texts. So it's that side of it. I mean, Constantine is 8% of his story. So not a great deal, but he's there. And when you look at Constantine as he appears in Geoffrey and Monmouth, there are elements of his rebellion and his war in Gaul, which feature in the story of Arthur. It's such a difficult question, but I'm going to ask it quickly, because you mentioned how Constantine is such a significant figure when we imagine about the world Geoffrey's living in, the medieval period, when looking back at ancient Rome. Do you think when Geoffrey's writing this, and he knows Constantine's links to Britain and to York

and how he's such a significant figure that perhaps he thinks that when I'm creating this Celtic superhero, I must get elements of this significant figure's history in the story, in the creation of Arthur? I think you're right. He does. And also bear in mind that a lot of the characters like Constantine, although his life story is remembered elsewhere, Geoffrey and other writers give him a British mother. So we see there is this, his mother Helena, who's often actually treated as the patron saint of archaeology, because she goes off to the east and she finds evidence of the true cross and Christ's crucifixion, this stuff but in various accounts she's perhaps confused with a helena character in north wales but it's as if constantine he's got british heritage therefore he becomes a king of britain but it's vital to get him in there because he's such a significant player in the story not just of the

roman empire but critically of christianity and its acceptance so to have him as one of us and it's another string to jeffrey's bow to say the britains are far more important than the saxons you know yeah they actually got monasteries and they convert to christianity but the britains we've got constantine as one of us and therefore you know that makes our royal lineage far more significant you know you've got athelstan and alfred yeah great but we've got arthur and constantine and these people and they are far more important in You know, you've got Athelstan and Alfred, yeah, great, but we've got Arthur and Constantine and these people, and they are far more important in world history than any of your lot. Ah, there you go, always thinking about the Saxons as well in that whole narrative, very, very interesting indeed. Now, figure number four, we're going further back to late Iron Age Britain, and Miles, the figure of Cassivellaunus. Yeah,ivellaunus or Cassiebalown as he appears in

Geoffrey of Monmouth's text he's one of those individuals who we do have an independent account of because he features in Julius Caesar's account of his invasion into Britain and of course Caesar as the consummate politician he writes everything down He justifies all his actions as a series of dispatches from the front line. So in his account of the wars in Gaul, he describes in detail his invasions of Britain in 55 and 54 BC. And in 54 BC, he comes up against a preeminent leader. He's a preeminent war leader of the Britons called Cassivalonus. And of course, Cassivalonus, that name form gets garbled in Geoffrey of Monmouth and becomes Cassius Valonus it appears in other forms as well but in essence he is the man who stands up to Caesar now in Caesar's account of the war he manages to defeat Cassius Valonus of course he does you know it's Caesar writing

and he gets tribute out of him and he leaves now that particular invasion the great thing about us because we've got Caesar's account we can compare it with what Geoffrey of Monmouth writes and Geoffrey doesn't seem to have Caesar's account to hand because there's nothing in Caesar's writings that fit Geoffrey of Monmouth's so perhaps the Gallic Wars is not something he had in his library or accessed to. But we get the invasion of 54 BC mentioned twice. But it's two different accounts of that same action. In the first account that Geoffrey gives us, Cassius Valornus is victorious.

He drives Caesar into the sea. He defeats him comprehensively and sends the Roman packing. You know, that's what the Britons want to hear. That's what probably in praise poems after that event. That's what people were saying. The Romans have gone. The Gauls were defeated by them, but we kicked him back into the sea, back to where he came from. The second version that appears in Jefferies, we've got the same invasion, Cassibalaun fighting Caesar.

But there is another character in there. And that is a chap called Androgeus, who is a powerful British leader who's on Caesar's side. This is history's heroes, people with purpose, brave ideas and the courage to stand alone, including a pioneering surgeon who rebuilt the shattered faces of soldiers in the First World War. You know, he would look at these men and he would say, don't worry, Sonny, you'll have as good a face as any of us when I'm done with you. Join me, Alex von Tunzelman, for History's Heroes. Subscribe to History's Heroes wherever you get your podcasts. But helps Caesar. Caesar couldn't defeat Casabllaun without Androgeus's help so he is

presented as a great warlord who is far greater than Caesar and far greater than Cassivellaunus so there are three different versions of the same event one by Caesar or his supporters one by Cassivellaunus and his lot and one by Androgeus. Now Caesar mentions Androgeus, he calls him Mandubracius, and he's of the Trinovantes tribe of Essex. So you've got this Britain on the Roman side. Now interestingly, in Geoffrey of Monmouth, when he's describing this, Androgeus is presented as the nephew, the treacherous nephew of Cassivalonus. And when we see Caesar landing landing and the description giving of the Romans arriving is replicated much much later on when we get the Saxons invading

the same number of ships the same battle tactics and Cassive Alornus is betrayed by Androgeus when Geoffrey Monmouth describes Arthur, Arthur is betrayed by his nephew Mordred and so you get Mandubracius becomes Mordred and Cassivellaunus, that element of the story, gets morphed into Arthur's tale. So no doubt this is a prominent British Iron Age king who is mentioned by the Romans but becomes something very different in Geoffrey Mammoth's account depending on who's writing the story. So in some versions in Geoffrey Mammoth, Cassivella on who's writing the story. So in some versions, in Geoffrey and Monmouth's, Cassie Valornis is the hero. In the other versions, he is an unpleasant character who needs to be defeated. It depends who's giving you that oral tradition.

But Geoffrey looks at that completely unfiltered and doesn't realise it's from two different sources and just tries to blend it into one. So we don't understand why, in one stage, Cassie Valornis is the hero, and then 10 pages later he's the villain it's never explained but it's because it's two different accounts sort of knitted into this singular account and the intriguing thing is also when we look at Geoffrey Monmouth he keeps talking about I mean effectively there are two prominent royal houses in Britain there's the house of Cornwall and there's the House of London and it's their story that filters throughout and when we look at Cassivellaunus he is from the House of Cornwall

but when we actually sort of identify these characters and their tribal affiliations it's not Cornwall and London it's the Cassivellaunee tribe of Hertfordshire and it's the Trinovantes of Essex it's those two tribal accounts that seem to survive as oral traditions and perhaps when Geoffrey was writing the name form was garbled he didn't understand what Catevalloni was so it becomes Cairnhour or Cornubia becomes Cornwall and Trinovantes he translates as New Troy which for him means London. So his geography becomes across the whole of Britain. But the origins are just these two tribal groups fighting for survival in Hertfordshire and Essex. But Geoffrey transposes that across the whole of Britain. That is super interesting. Sight,

Andrew, does he talk about Brittany at all then in these links? Yes, yeah. Brittany features quite a lot, especially in Arthur's story. There's lots of later sort of myths that magnus maximus when he goes to gaul he sort of invigorates the sort of aristocracy of brittany he places his troops there and they sort of intermingle with the local population and certainly there's a lot of sort of breton tradition with arthur now part of that might be because we know there are channel migrations you know brittany is little britain and britain itself is Great Britain. So it might be that the stories migrate across the Channel in the 6th, 7th centuries AD, or it might be that Magnus Maximus, just as he was doing in North Wales, was doing something equivalent in Brittany.

And that's because the Breton connection becomes attached to Arthur. But some accounts also say that Cassius Valornas having driven season to the sea then led raids against him in northern gaul so you know it's all tied up there is certainly a great oral tradition of these leaders involving themselves in the most northern parts of france absolutely it's so so interesting mars right there so we're going to move on to the last and final figure a figure who i'd never even heard of before this figure number five arviragus again we face that problem that a lot of what occurs what appears in jeffrey is garbled name forms and presumably they've been mistranslated or the oral tradition has in some way garbled like alexander becomes Iscander and various other

sort of waveforms. But the story of Arviragus is important because we get Arviragus as a great British leader who is negotiating with the Emperor Claudius. He at some point refuses to pay tribute to the Emperor, which is what Arthur does later. Theans try and invade and arviragus fights them then he becomes allied to them and there's a key moment when arviragus marries this great british noble called genvissa who is described as the great beauty of her time and so and this is later almost word for word we get arthur marrying ganhumara who later you know becomes Guinevere in later romances so the whole key element of Arviragus's story with fighting Rome then allying with Rome and marrying this great beauty gets added to the key beginning of Arthur's story now it's difficult to really place

Arviragus as a historical character but the name form seems to become a degenerate of caratarchus who is properly referred to as caraticus in other sort of anglicized forms and caraticus caratarchus is one of those forgotten characters of early roman britain buddhica sort of takes up all the air of most of our sort of stories of that time because buddhica in 8060 leads the great revolt of the icani tribe of norfolk that time because Boudicca in AD 60 leads the great revolt of the Icani tribe of Norfolk against Rome and you know Colchester London St Albans were all burnt to the ground but Caratacus is there at the beginning he is opposing Rome from day one in AD 43 when they invade his capital his center at Colchester is captured by the Romans he retreats into Wales and in 47, so some years later,

he re-emerges in what is now South Wales, having galvanised the tribes there to fight the Romans. And then he transfers the centre of operations into North Wales. And then he later goes up, tries to open up another front in what is now Yorkshire with the Brigantes tribe and their Queen Cartimandua. And she eventually hands him in chains over to the Romans I don't want you go away where you go the Romans follow and so he's handed over and he's taken to Roman triumph Claudius has him in a great procession Caratarchus is supposed to give him this great speech saying why do you envy us in our mud huts when you've got all this marble I would have greeted you as a friend rather than as a rival. And he gives this great speech. And Claudius, according to the Roman writers like Tacitus, is so impressed by this speech that he

lets Caratacus go. He gives him his freedom. He's not allowed to leave Rome, but effectively he's not executed either, which is a plus, you know, and he lives out his life in Rome. So here is this great character who appears in lots of early Welsh literature because he is actually there fighting the Romans on the ground. No doubt, lots of praise poems around him. Other elements of his story appear in much later tales. So the relationship between Caratarchus and Cartimandua gets evolved into sort of Arthur and Guinevere. The betrayal of Guinevere developed from the betrayal of Cartimandua as she hands him over to the Romans. But we see Caradoc and Cradoc and Kurdic all these name variant forms of Caratarchus survive in lots of early Welsh literature so he is remembered

and these key aspects of him I mean again he's another character who leaves Britain and never returns so it's that once and future king he's not dead but he will come back and save us and that gets built into the Arthur story as well so Ar arviragus karatakis is another cat it's about 24 of his story becomes absorbed into the arthur tale as presented by jeffrey of monmouth there's one part of that last figure arviragus that i would like to specifically ask about and that's to do with an island off the north coast of britain orkney because we do hear in one source i believe with claudius accepting the surrenders of british chiefs that there is one chief who comes from orkney could this all be linked i mean what is the story here could there be connections between all of this it is very very different bear in mind

the roman sense of geography is not quite as accurate as ours. We know that in the 80s AD, so 40 years after Claudius, a Roman fleet does circumnavigate Britain. And it is actually an island. And so now that probably got to the Orkneys and so on. There is some Roman material on Orkney and people tried to make a link. I mean, it seems unlikely if the Romans having invaded Kent and Essex, a delegation would come down from Orkney to surrender that. But then it might just be that the name has become sort of mistranslated or garbled from another different tribe. But we know that in Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Ikani tribe of Norfolk or Isenia, as they're sometimes referred to, are described as Scythians. And the Scythians of course are right you know it's a name later given to the huns you know this is a tribe right the way across from

the other side of the black sea so icani becomes scythians buddhica becomes soderic king of the scythians so it may be that we are looking at this and saying orcan is whereas the romans were actually using a different tribal name and it's not actually that far north it would seem odd odd that a tribe from those far distant islands would A, have heard that the Romans had invaded and B, sent a delegation down to say we surrender. Because, you know, they're so far away, it doesn't really make any odds to them. But the conquest of the Orcanies is represented in Geoffrey Monmouth quite a lot. Arthur conquers the Orcanies with Claudius's help. Arviragus Caratacus, he invades the Orkneys. Lots of other characters. It almost becomes like a generic name for taking the whole of Britain.

You've conquered everything, including the Orkneys. But quite what the origins of that story are, sadly, we don't know. So actually, it's kind of similar to saying like a Sasanian ruler conquered as far as the Caspian Gates or the Romans conquered as far as the Pillars of Hercules. Yeah, it becomes a byword for the limits of the known world. Absolutely. Gotcha. Now, you've mentioned them in passing as we've chatted, these percentages. So I've got to go to the maths now, Miles. To sum it all up with these five figures, what's the percentages of each of them in the story, the elements of the Arthur story? If you break it down in a purely mathematical way, looking at what

Geoffrey Monmouth says, Magnus Maximus is 39%, Caratarchus is 24%, Ambrosius Aurelianus is 16%, Cassivalornus is 12%, Constantine is 8%. Hang on, there's one percentage missing. That's 99%. What is this 1%? Well done done that's good maths yeah there's one percent in there and basically that just relates there's an element of arthur's story where just before he conquers gaul and fights the roman emperor he conquers norway you know he conquers iceland and these are aspects that don't actually feature in any other character story in jeffrey and mom's account so it's an element that is not repeating something that's gone before but there have been a lot of invasions from Norway

and there are later in his text as well so it might be something just slipped in there as a sort of giving it back to the Northmen that they have invaded time and time again but we were there first the Britons conquered you before you conquered us and that might be a sly dig at the normans of course jeffrey morris is writing in the 1130s in norman england it's quite clear he's not a fan of the normans quite definitely but the normans like what he's writing because they like to link themselves to arthur you know they are doing what arthur does they are subjugating the saxons the english and so they connect with arthur and they like this idea of our grand and glorious heritage in britain which they want to connect to and it might just be jeffrey having a little slide dig that he

hero of his account went and attacked norway and attacked the land of the norsemen the normans you know before they came to normandy and in fact he was there before you came to us. But that's that 1%. 99% belongs to someone else. If you take all these other stories of other characters out of the Arthur tale that Geoffrey gives us, there's nothing left for Arthur. He becomes a non-person. So it's quite clear he cannot have existed, effectively, as far as Geoffrey is concerned. He is the composite of everyone who's gone before him, at least the five key characters who've gone before i mean if the arthur tale is made up of all of these stories from earlier in british history we've been chatting through this and you did mention her name earlier buddhica is it surprising or do you think it's not that surprising

that actually of all the figures even though budoudicca is perhaps the most well-known figure from ancient Britain today that he didn't take any of Boudicca's story for the tale of King Arthur. No Boudicca she's important to us absolutely and she has a key figure in the early history of Roman Britain and gives us a lesson about what it means to side with the Romans you know because Boudicca and her husband Prasutagus are on the Roman side to begin with, and it's only after his death is her people betrayed by Rome, and we get this huge fiery vengeance raining down upon the key cities. So it's become a major part of our mythology today, of British history.

But bearing in mind that much of what Geoffrey's writing relates to the tribes of what is now Essex and Hertfordshire and that part of the southeast, Boudicca isn't part of that story. And the one character who does appear at about the right time is this character, a Soderic, which arguably is a garbilisation of Boudicca. And Geoffrey Monmouth turns her into a man. He's King Soderic of the Scythians

rather than Queen Boudicca of the Icani. And she arrives and starts looting stuff, or he arrives and starts looting stuff in Geoffrey's account. And it's swiftly dealt with by a British leader with Roman support. So I think she is there, but her name form has been garbled. And bearing in mind that it's only really

from the time of Queen Elizabeth I does Boudicca take on more resonance in Britain because they're looking for historical precedence of strong female characters resisting an alien sort of imperialism. And at the time of Elizabeth I with the Spanish Armada, suddenly Boudicca becomes that model. And she's picked up again during the reign of Charles I when he's with Catherine of Braganza.

She's picked up again with Victoria. And, you know, we get that great big statue that we're familiar with now at the very end of Victoria's reign of Bodicea with her chariot outside the Houses of Parliament. So Boudicca arguably has become a far more important person in the last 500 years than she probably was at the time. And she doesn't really feature much in Geoffrey Monmouth's account rather than this garbled character at the very beginning. Well there you go now Miles this has been an incredible chat talking about what we know about Arthur particularly from Geoffrey Monmouth and looking back at ancient Britain I must ask before we go Tristan and Isolde are there any ancient links to this tale which could be similar to Arthur that you can think of? Well, again, I mean, Tristan and Isolde at the court of King Mark, these are very important

aspects of Cornish mythology today. And of course, it seems to be that it's their story, I was trying to argue whether or not they were real people or not, but their story is very much linked to the islands of Tintagel and North north cornwall so you've got king mark as this powerful he does appear in other sort of sources and there's the drustanus stone the sort of big memorial stone parts of the sixth century in southern cornwall which could be a precedent for tristan but the story of king mark sending tristan over to ireland to bring back his and Tristan and Isolde fall in love. And they sort of, Mark seeks vengeance and they hide in the island. All these sort of things are very much linked to Tintagel.

And I think when Geoffrey of Monmouth is writing his text, he's looking for places that he can anchor his story to. And Kelly in South Wales, which is near Monmouth, becomes the court of King Arthur. That's probably a site that Geoffrey knew quite well, the old Roman legionary fortress. But Tintagel becomes the point, bearing in mind that Arthur is supposed to be descended via his father, Uther, from the House of London, but through his mother from the House of Cornwall, he needs a place for Arthur to be conceived. And Tintagel is so resonant with mythology the story of tristan and his older mark that that is where king golwar or goloris as some people call him and igurna that's where they are

and that's where igurna and utha conceive not to put too fine a point on it arthur is conceived there but it becomes it's such a strong mythical important place in Cornish history. It's the ideal place for Geoffrey of Monmouth to place Arthur. He doesn't say he was born there, but certainly his history begins there. And it's later versions of the Tristan and Isolde myth that get reworked into the Arthur story. And Tristan becomes Lancelot and Isolde becomes Guinevere. And we get that sort of love triangle between them and mark becomes arthur so much later that story does get absorbed into it but i think it was well known at the time that's why jeffrey places tintagel as arthur's conception point that's why when you go

to tintagel today everything is arthur connected because it's that side of the story that's been placed there becomes one of those key points upon which the whole mythology of Arthur is grounded. Absolutely. And absolutely incredible sites down in the southwest. Miles, this has been an incredible chat. Your book on this topic is called? Arthur and the Kings of Britain, published by Amberley, from All Good and probably some bad bookshops. Fantastic. Miles, it's always great to see you.

So thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Thank you. Thank you for having me. I feel the hand of history upon our shoulders. All this tradition of ours, our school history, our songs, this part of the history of our country,

all were gone and finished. Thanks for listening to that episode of The Ancients on Dan Snow's history. I'm so proud of what Tristan has managed to achieve over at The Ancients. It's turning into an absolute juggernaut. Congratulations to him. The Ancients has its own feed, of course. You go wherever you get your podcasts, search The Ancients,

and you can subscribe and you can share and you can like and you can get involved in the whole vibe over there. Please do that because it makes a huge difference to us. We're really, really grateful. Thank you for listening. This is History's Heroes. People with purpose, brave ideas, and the courage to stand alone, including a pioneering surgeon who rebuilt the shattered faces of soldiers in the First World War. You know, he would look at these men and he would say, don't worry, Sonny, you'll have as good a face as any of us

when I'm done with you. Join me, Alex von Tunzelman, for History's Heroes. Subscribe to History's Heroes wherever you get your podcasts.