The Mammoth Book of King Arthur (11 page)

In the house of Gwynedd, we find that around the time of Cadwallon and Cadwaladr, the chronology shifts out of sync, suggesting an earlier date. This may
mean that they were descended from the older sons and thus the generation span should be reduced to 20–25 years. However, by the time of Cynan this has righted itself, suggesting that some
younger sons must have inherited, perhaps through the deaths of older brothers in conflict.

We know virtually nothing about the rulers of the other three kingdoms to be able to corroborate their dates although the death dates for Idris of Meirionydd and Cadwal of Rhos, taken from the
Annals, do fit the pattern. There is a legend about the giant Idris, after whom the mountain Cader Idris is supposed to be named, that says he was killed by Arthur. The ruler Idris was called Idris
the Tall, and the date of his death would be roughly contemporary with Arthur of Gwent, or just possibly Arthur of Dyfed.

There are two other major Welsh kingdoms that we have not yet charted and, because they are related, I shall list their rulers together. These were Powys and Brycheiniog. Hemmed between the two
was the small but historically significant kingdom of Buellt and Gwrtheyrnion, whose later rulers inherited Glywysing and Brycheiniog.

The pedigrees for Powys are highly corrupted and virtually no two agree. Bartrum has, however, detected a reasonable pattern which may reflect the original. There is still much
confusion over the immediate descendants of Vortigern, and, although the general consensus is that Cyngen the Famous was the son of Cadell Gleaming-Hilt, there are sufficient other pedigrees that
show an additional generation between them. However, we know that Eiludd survived the Battle of Chester in 615 in which his brother Selyf was killed. It is also fairly certain that Elisedd, whose
memory is commemorated in Eliseg’s Pillar, erected by his great-grandson Cyngen, was active in the early 700s.

The table above includes a secondary but otherwise unknown cadet line of Powys, descended from Brittu, variously treated as a son of Vortigern, Cattegirn, or Cadell. I’ve shown him here as
Cadell’s brother because otherwise his descendants shift too far out of sync.

The pedigrees of Armorica are also vague and frequently confused with the pedigrees of Dumnonia. Part of the problem is that when the Britons migrated to Armorica in the
fifth century, they took local names with them, and two of the principalities of Armorica were called Domnonée and Cornouaille. The latter should not be confused with Cernow, which later
became Cornwall, or Cernyw which, as we shall see, was part of Glywysing. Just to add to the confusion, the Welsh name for Armorica was Llydaw, and it seems that name also had its equivalent in
southeast Wales, probably on the borders of Brycheiniog and Gwent, and perhaps bordering Ergyng. Caradog Vreichfras was associated with Llydaw, possibly suggesting that he ruled Brittany, but which
probably means he ruled territory from Brycheiniog to Ergyng, including Llydaw.

Most of these pedigrees trace their descent from Eudaf Hen. However, unlike the Welsh pedigrees, the Breton and Cornish ones have become greatly corrupted and merged with legend, to the point
that the two have become almost indistinguishable. The following presents a reasonable picture whilst recognising the non-historicity of much of it. We shall need to sift through the data very
carefully.

Not all the names in the line of Armorica are related. Cynan’s line was interrupted after Budic when the kingdom was usurped by Canao, whose
descendants ruled until Cynan’s line was restored under Alanus (
see
Chapter 14 for further discussion on the implications of this for the Tristan legend).

The above has covered the Welsh pedigrees, but we also need to consider the early Saxon royal pedigrees, as listed in Nennius and the
ASC.
The
ASC
takes its
ancestries back to the god Woden, but though we can ignore that, that is not a reason for treating the whole of the ancestries as fabrication. They are equally as reliable or suspect as the British
ones. The
ASC
pedigrees do not always agree with those in Nennius, so where they vary I have noted accordingly. Nennius provides no pedigree for the West Saxons, East Saxons, South Saxons or
Lindsey. Indeed the
ASC
is also silent on the South Saxons, yet their chieftain, Aelle, was regarded by Bede as the first Bretwalda, or overlord of the Saxons. Nennius identifies Soemil as
the first to separate Deira from Bernicia, and with his
floruit
of around 440, he must remain the earliest named Angle in Britain. Nennius also credits Wilhelm as being the first to rule
over the East Angles, showing that in those two generations the Angles had moved from being mercenaries and invaders, to settlers with established territories. Icel and Hengist both fall into that
same generation, and although logic would suggest that Hengist must have reigned earlier, if he really was the first Saxon to be invited over by Vortigern, the record suggests something different.
We will explore this in more detail later.

The purpose of exploring these pedigrees in such detail has been to try and ascertain an approximate chronology as a backcloth against which we can paint in some detail. Now we
can start our exploration for Arthur amongst the ancient chronicles.

4

THE CHRONICLERS

1. The early chronicles

Now that we have some idea of who lived when, it would be helpful to explore the few relevant chronicles that exist in relation to Britain to see what they can tell us about
what was going on. In order to fix a date for Arthur we need to chart the events leading to Badon.

A good starting place is not in Britain, but in Gaul, with the
Gallic Chronicle
, one of the few contemporary documents that give us a firm, if contestable, date. We do not know who
compiled the
Chronicle
, but it was a continuation of an earlier chronicle established by the scholar Jerome, finished in 378
AD
. In fact there are two
Gallic
Chronicles
, one of which stops at the year 452, whilst the other continues to 511. The 452
Chronicle
was once attributed to Prosper of Aquitaine, who also produced his own continuation
of Jerome’s
Chronicle
, but whoever compiled the 452
Chronicle –
and there is a surprising candidate somewhat closer to home whom we shall encounter later – held
ecclesiastical views that differed from Prosper’s. Prosper’s work shows him as a supporter of the views of Augustine of Hippo, whilst the Gallic chronicler was sympathetic towards the
Pelagians. His
Chronicle
is important because it was a contemporary record by someone who knew Britain.

The dates within the
Gallic Chronicle
are not without their problems as the compiler used more than one system. However, the supporters of the
Chronicle
have, to a large degree,
reconciled
the dates, especially in the later years, and the two that interest us are accurate to within a year or two.

The
Chronicle
has two entries relating to Britain in the post-Roman period.

The 511
Chronicle
records the last event in similar words, though with one interesting addition: “Britannia, lost to the Romans, yields to the power of the
Saxons.”

These two entries are of great significance. The first makes clear that the Saxon incursions into Britain were of some strength, sufficient to “devastate” the provinces, though
whether it means some or all four (five?) provinces, is not clear. Some authorities have preferred to treat this entry as relating to the year 408, suggesting a build-up of Saxons within Britain
and that the lack of help by Rome against the Saxons is what caused the British to eject the Roman administration. It also adds reason to why, around this time, the British were so keen to appoint
their own emperor. As the record shows, though, “the tyrant Constantine” (Constantine III) moved away from Britain to occupy Gaul, leaving Britain further bereft of forces.

The second entry is the more remarkable. The wording “yields to the power” implies that by 441, Britain was under the control of the Saxons, an event usually placed in the second
half of the century. Likewise, the 511
Chronicle
’s phrase “lost to the Romans” implies that it was not until the year 441 that Britain formally passed from Roman control to
Saxon. Even though
Honorius had apparently told the British to look to their own defences in 410, he had probably not meant to sever Britain from the Empire. For thirty years
it remained in limbo.

Another entry of interest appears in the chronicles maintained by Prosper of Aquitaine, which ran parallel to the
Gallic Chronicles.
Prosper lived throughout this period, about
390–465, and had a keen awareness of events, especially during his role as notary to Pope Leo the Great. He records the following event for the year 429: