Everything Everywhere Daily: History, Science, Geography & More - Was King Arthur Real?

Starting point is 00:00:00 King Arthur is one of the most popular and widely known characters in literary history around the world. Tales have been told about him for almost a thousand years. However, many people have wondered if King Arthur was a real person, or if he was at least based on a real person, or a composite of people. Learn more about the historicity of King Arthur, and if he really existed, on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. What if your perceptions about the past were wrong? throughline is a podcast that takes you back in time to uncover the parts of the story that may have gone unnoticed. It effectively turned day into night. And how it shaped the world now.

Starting point is 00:00:52 Time travel with us every week on the Thurline podcast from NPR. Before we dive into different theories about the historicity of King Arthur, we should probably cover what it is we know for certain. There are several histories of Britain which mention an Arthur. However, the character of King Arthur that we know today really began with Jeffrey of Monmouth's book published in 1136 titled Historia Regum Britannier, or the History of the Historia Regum Britannier was neither a work of fiction nor a work of history. It attempted to document the kings on the island of Britain for 2,000 years. The more recent kings are well documented, but the very early kings have very little evidence

Starting point is 00:01:34 to support their existence. For example, he claims that exiles from the Greek city of Troy, in particular, particular Aeneas settled in Italy, and his grandson Brutus was then exiled and settled in Britain. This is pretty much complete nonsense, and it really just rips off some of the mythology of early Roman history and tries to establish a link between Britain and Rome. Moreover, we know from Roman sources that much of the story is just flat out wrong. He also had a short work, which is sometimes included, and it was initially published separately, known as the Prophete Merlini, or the prophecies of Merlin. Merlin was supposedly a wizard or an enchanter with

Starting point is 00:02:10 supernatural powers. The name probably comes from a poet by the name of Mirden Vailt, or Merlin the Wild, who lived in what is today North England and Southern Scotland. Jeffrey's description of Arthur has him defeating an army of Saxon invaders, which is important for placing a time frame on the story. Other elements of the Arthurian myth, which Jeffrey provides, includes his father being Uther Pendragon, his wife, Queen Guinevere, his son Mordred, and his burial in a place called Avalon. And if you're familiar with the story of King Arthur, you'll notice that there is still a whole lot of the legend which is missing at this point. Here I need to point out that if there's any tint of truth to the Arthurian legend, it would have to be a king who ruled

Starting point is 00:02:51 sometime in the first or second century after the collapse of Roman rule. There's very little documented historical evidence from this period. If there were a mystery king, the fact that he could come from this period would make sense. Also, despite the adoption of King Arthur by the English, He was most emphatically himself not English. This is simply due to the fact that England and the English didn't exist at this point. England was named after the Angles, a dramatic people who, like the Saxons, invaded the island several centuries later. If there was an Arthur, he would probably have been a Britain, which is not to be confused with the British. These are people who lived in what is today Western England and Wales and were considered Romano-British people.

Starting point is 00:03:32 After several centuries of occupation by the Romans, Britain had become very Romanized. Even after the Roman collapse, the people there were still culturally very Roman. The story of King Arthur eventually spread across the English Channel to France. In the 12th century, the story of Arthur was picked up by the French writer, Trachienne de Trois. De Trois had elements to the Arthurian story. He added Lancelot, Percival, Camelot, and the affair between Lancelot and Guinevere, as well as the quest for the Holy Grail. Not only is there clearly no historical basis for these parts of the story, but De Trois was also very clearly telling a story.

Starting point is 00:04:09 He was a poet and a troubadour. He wrote several stories using this period of time as a backdrop, including Yavin, the Knight of the Lion, which is considered by some to be the world's first novel. In 1155, the Norman poet Robert Wace was the first to mention the Knights of the Roundtable. For several centuries, the story of Arthur traveled around continental Europe. the knights of the roundtable allowed for the stories of the knights surrounding Arthur to be expanded and embellished. The number of knights was anywhere between a dozen and 1600, with the number of seats at the table actually ranging from 1 to 300. And I should note, the name of Arthur's sword was actually given by Geoffrey of Monmouth as Calabernus, which is just a bastardization of the Latin word for steel. The name of the sword changed over time until Des Mois, writing an old French, called it Escalibor, which eventually became Excalibur.

Starting point is 00:04:58 The French poet Robert De Boran was the first to mention the sword and the stone, and how Arthur's claim to kingship was based on his removing the sword from the stone. The book that really put everything together and created the modern day story of King Arthur that we all know was Le Mort de Artur, or The Death of Arthur, written by Sir Thomas Mallory in 1485. Mallory took the best bits from all the stories and combined them into one comprehensive Arthurian tale. Mallory's story was a hit in state and publication for close to 150 years until 16. After the English Civil War, Arthur fell out of popularity until the 19th century and the rise of romanticism. Pretty much every subsequent Arthurian story is based on the work of Thomas Mallory.

Starting point is 00:05:41 So, with all of this, can we separate what is patently fiction from what could possibly be fact? Clearly, there were no women in lakes lobbing cimitars, nor were there any magical wizards. Likewise, the mythology surrounding Camelot, the Knights of the Roundtable, the Quest for the Holy Grail, is also a later embellishment created once the story escaped to Europe, created by storytellers. With all of that stuff aside, is there any evidence that Arthur, or someone named Arthur, or someone resembling Arthur, actually existed? One bit of evidence is the name Arthur is probably a Welsh name derived from the Roman family name Artorius. This would at least pin down the word to have come from the Romano British. But did anyone actually use that name?

Starting point is 00:06:25 One person who sort of had the name was a second and third century Roman military commander in Britain by the name of Lucius Artorius, Castas. Castas did have a command in what is today the city of York, but also in Gaul, Armenia, and eventually died in what is today Croatia. Other than having the name Arturius, there really isn't a whole lot about him that fits to profile. He didn't live after the collapse of the Western Empire,

Starting point is 00:06:50 and he most certainly was not a king. In the 20th century, this theory actually picked up a popular following. The problem is, outside the fact that the name is similar and that Lucius Artorius Castus was a real person, there is almost nothing else that fits the story. Many of the connections people tried to make were all elements of the story which were created once the legend reached continental Europe. If there isn't anyone with the name that fits, how about someone that fits the deeds? Jeffrey of Monmouth spoke of Arthur leading a great army to victory over the Saxons. Did such a battle actually take place?

Starting point is 00:07:24 And the answer to that is, yes, the Battle of Baden Hill occurred sometime in the late 5th or early 6th century, when the Britons defeated the Saxons. This battle was mentioned in text long before Jeffrey of Monmouth was even alive. Who could be associated with this battle? One candidate is a king by the name of Rheothamus. Rheothamus is listed by other sources as a king. Moreover, Jeffrey of Monmouth also claims that Arthur went to Gaul twice, wants to help an emperor, and wants to quell a civil war. Rio Famous went to Gaul twice. However, Riofamous was probably not present at the Battle of Baden Hill.

Starting point is 00:08:01 Another candidate is Ambrosius Aurelianus. On the plus side, he was most probably the leader of the Britons at the Battle of Baden Hill. Against him is the fact that he was never listed as a king until much, much later. One final candidate is a guy by the name of Artur Mac Aden, or Arthur's son of Aden. Aidan was the king of a land known as Dahl Riyata, which existed in both parts of Skye. Scotland and Western Ireland in the late 6th century. In this case, the name and time sort of fit, but nothing else about the story does. In the early 20th century, most historians assume that King Arthur was based on an actual person.

Starting point is 00:08:37 After a century of trying to find actual evidence, today most historians think that King Arthur was most probably a work of fiction. At best, Arthur could be considered an amalgamation of several different rulers. But again, that's being pretty generous, as there isn't actually any evidence for that. So the odds are that there was never a king Arthur, and we know that there hasn't been one since the invasion of the Anglo-Saxons. I do want to end on one final note. Arthur is often referred to as the once and future king, implying that he could one day return. But today, there has never been a king by the name of Arthur. However, British monarchs can take whatever name they wish when they ascend to the throne,

Starting point is 00:09:17 and it's not at all uncommon to use one of their middle names as their regal name. For example, Queen Elizabeth's father was Prince Albert before he became King George the 6th. Well, Prince Charles' full name is Charles Philip Arthur George, and Prince William's full name is William Arthur Philip Lewis. So, it is at least possible, in theory, that we could have a King Arthur sooner rather than later. But I highly doubt it. The legend of King Arthur is one of the central stories in Western literature. While the legend the king, his queen, and his knights make for a good story. It appears to have no real basis, in fact.

Starting point is 00:10:01 Everything Everywhere Daily is an Airwave Media podcast. The executive producer is Darcy Adams. The associate producers are Thornton and Peter Bennett. I just wanted to extend a big thank you to everyone who is supporting the show over at patreon.com. I have show merchandise available there, including hoodies, t-shirts, and stickers. Plus, it really just helps me get this show out every single day, including, of course, weekends and holidays. Remember, if you leave a review or send me a boostagram, you two can have it read on the show. How'd you do?

Starting point is 00:10:31 How'd you do, good lady? I'm Arthur, king of the Britons. Whose castle is that? King of the who? The Britons. Who are the Britons? Well, we all are. We are all Britons.

Starting point is 00:10:41 And I am your king. I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective. You're a fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes... Oh, there you go. Bringing class into the...

Starting point is 00:10:54 That's what it's all about. If only people would...

Everything Everywhere Daily: History, Science, Geography & More - Was King Arthur Real?

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.