The Mammoth Book of King Arthur (14 page)

If we look closer, the entries relating to Cerdic raise further questions. The entry for 495 seems to duplicate that of 514, except that Cerdic and Cynric have become Stuf and Wihtgar. 501 also
appears to be a repetition of the same event, whilst 501 and 508 also have some elements in common – the “very noble young Briton” of 501 might be the same as the Natanleod of
508.

It’s as if there were a standard story, known to all West Saxons: that the founder of their kingdom had arrived with his son and fought against the British, and that places involved with
that arrival and battle are named after them.

If we look elsewhere in the
ASC
we find two further pieces of
information that help us unravel this. Not surprisingly for a Chronicle brought together at the time of
Alfred the Great, the
ASC
includes a genealogy of Alfred. Manuscript A incorporated this in a “Preface”, which begins by saying:

The other surviving manuscripts for the
ASC
place this note under the year 855, and insert the name Creoda between Cerdic and Cynric.

This Preface tells us that Cerdic arrived “after 494 winters” [the year 495], took six years to attain the kingdom and then ruled for 16 years, which brings his death to the year 517
– just before (maybe even
at
) the Battle of Badon. But let’s not jump to conclusions. In the Introduction I discuss the problems faced by annalists copying from old records in
which entries may be grouped by the Easter cycle, which repeats itself every nineteen years.

If we look again at the near-duplicate entries for 495 and 514, we find that these are nineteen years apart. The “Preface” to the
ASC
notes that Cerdic “obtained the
kingdom after six years”. 519 is the sixth year after 514 (if you count the years as inclusive), and the adjacent entries between 495 and 501 and 508 and 514 are also six years apart. There
is a pattern here, suggesting that the annalists knew certain time spans and perhaps an end date, but did not quite know how to get there. Entries thus became duplicated.

The problem we have is determining which dates are correct. We cannot know, because the only way we can verify it is to rely further on the dates within the
ASC.
If, for the moment, we
accept that the dates closer in time to the final compilation of the
ASC
are more likely to be accurate, particularly in relation to the
length of reigns of the later
rulers, then we can work backwards. The “Preface” lists the rulers and years down to King Aethelwulf. His father Egbert died in 839, a date well attested by other documents. If we add
up the total lengths of the reigns of all the West Saxon kings from the start of Cerdic’s to the end of Egbert’s, we get 310 years. Deducting this from 839 gives 529 as the start of
Cerdic’s reign. This clearly contradicts the entry for 534 which records Cerdic’s death after, we are told, a reign of 16 years.

This total of 310 years does not include Creoda, who is not otherwise mentioned. However, the
ASC
also gives two different reign lengths – 17 years or 30 – for Cerdic’s
grandson Ceawlin. The missing 13 years could belong to Creoda without disrupting the grand total.

At present, therefore, we have three possible dates for Cerdic’s reign. The Preface states 501–517, the individual entries support 519–534, whilst the total reign lengths give
529–545. Table 3.11, based on the pedigrees, supports a later date, suggesting a death around 550.

It is important to confirm Cerdic’s reign because of its implications for Arthurian history, but how do we resolve this problem? Various people have tackled the matter. In
The Historic
King Arthur
Frank D. Reno undertook an exercise similar to mine, but added Creoda’s reign, allocating him 17 years (on the basis that Creoda’s reign is wrongly assigned to Ceawlin)
and resolving some other anomalies. He determined that the Preface dates of 500–516 were accurate. In “
The West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List
” (1985), the most detailed
study of this issue, David Dumville analysed all the surviving documents of the
ASC
and other supporting data and concluded that the West Saxon regnal list had been corrupted with the
purpose of pushing back the founding of the West Saxon line as far as possible. He believes that the annalists compiling the
ASC
in Alfred’s time recognised this but could do little
about it, so fudged the issue, which is why so many contradictions arise. He produced his version of the regnal list which has Cerdic’s reign starting in 538, a date that I also used when I
compiled my
Mammoth Book of British Kings & Queens
though, curiously, I arrived at it by a different method based on the Easter cycle (two cycles of 19 years from 500). This
agrees with Table 3.11. It also means that if the
Welsh Annals
’ date for Camlann is correct then Cerdic may have benefited from the death of Arthur. This date would
support a period of peace during Arthur’s reign – a
Pax Arthuriana –
and may therefore suggest an end-date of 538/9. We need other evidence to confirm this, but it’s
something to orientate upon.

So, setting dates aside for the present, let us reflect on what the
ASC
tells us. We learn that the Britons first appealed to Rome for help against the Picts, and, when that was not
forthcoming, turned to the Angles for help. There seems to be a distinction between this first appeal and that of Vortigern six years later, though this frequent leaping of six years is further
evidence of uncertainty. Following Vortigern’s invitation, the Angles arrived, led by Hengist and Horsa, and in payment for fighting the Picts Vortigern gave them land in the
“south-east”. This is usually interpreted as being in Kent, more specifically the Isle of Thanet, but this is not necessarily accurate. I explore this in more detail in Chapter 6.

Hengist and Horsa were successful and brought more mercenaries over, comprising Saxons, Angles and Jutes. Trouble brewed, Hengist and Horsa fought against Vortigern, and the British were
defeated, fleeing to
Lundenbyrg
(usually interpreted as London but more on that later). A series of conflicts now occurred, spread over several years, whilst further waves of Saxons arrived,
including those led by Aelle and Cerdic. The Saxon victories were not decisive and, as mentioned above, apart from the Cerdic anomaly, the Saxons made no further significant advances until after
547, but from then on the writing was on the wall, especially following the victories of 571, 577 and 584. It is evident from this that Arthur’s victorious days must have been before 547, to
allow for his 21 years (or more) of peace. Even though these dates remain suspect, they do not contradict the
Welsh Annals
’ dates of 518 for Badon and 539 for Camlann. In fact they fit
into the sequence rather neatly, especially if we have resolved the Cerdic question.

One other date from this period is worthy of further thought. The entry for 540 refers to the sun growing dark, as does the entry for 538. These could simply refer to solar eclipses. Chroniclers
frequently record eclipses and they are very useful for
confirming dates, as eclipses can be precisely calculated. However, research has shown that these records refer to
something far more significant. David Keys, in
Catastrophe
, has demonstrated that the decade starting in 535 saw the consequences of a worldwide catastrophe, with cold summers, freezing
winters, crop failures and plague. It is recorded in virtually every ancient civilization. He believes the cause was a volcanic eruption in 535, pointing the finger at Krakatoa. Mike Baillie,
however, in
Exodus to Arthur
, is more convinced that the disaster arose following a near collision with a comet, resulting in cometary debris in the atmosphere.

Whatever the cause, it remains clear that there was a major catastrophe, maybe two, that led to a decade or more of suffering, a scenario which sounds remarkably like the Waste Land of Arthurian
legend. Moreover, Keys notes that “great natural catastrophes often induce political instability, administrative dislocation and the consequential collapse of regular record keeping in
affected societies.” Be it a comet or volcano, it could well have been a disaster such as this that tipped the balance in Britain after 540, with the battle-hardened Saxons taking the upper
hand, being better able to endure the plague and pestilence than the now weakened Romano-British.

A period for Arthur’s “reign” between 516 and 539 seems to be appearing, but we have a long way to go, and the comparative simplicity of the above is about to become very
complicated.

5

GILDAS – THE MAN WHO KNEW ARTHUR

1. Gildas

We have already encountered Gildas via the
Welsh Annals.
The year 565 lists his voyage to Ireland and his death is recorded under the year 572. Whether these dates are
correct is something we’ll need to consider. Gildas’s writings are perhaps the most important in relation to the authenticity of Arthur, and yet they are annoyingly vague and
obtuse.

We know few genuine facts about Gildas. His life became the subject of two books, one by a monk of Rhuys in Brittany, where Gildas is believed to have died, and another by Caradog of Llancarfan.
The first was written at least five hundred years after Gildas’s death and the second another sixty years or so after that. What’s more, Caradog was a close friend of Geoffrey of
Monmouth, so the fact that Arthur features prominently in Caradog’s
Life of Gildas
and not once in the earlier biography, speaks for itself.

The two biographies have only a few events in common. According to these sources, Gildas was born in Alclud (Dumbarton), one of the many children of Caw or Caius, who was probably a
Romano-British official. When he was born is crucial, in fact the most important date in all Arthurian studies as we shall see. In his youth in south Wales, Gildas studied under Illtud, whom legend
makes a cousin of King Arthur. Gildas also studied in Ireland. According to Caradog, while Gildas was in Ireland several of his brothers rebelled against Arthur. During the confrontation,
Arthur killed one of the brothers, Huail, leading to a rift between Arthur and Gildas, although they later made peace. Later, Gildas apparently travelled to Rome, and lived in Brittany
for several years where he probably died.

The many tales about Gildas have led some to believe that there were at least two people of this name, Gildas son of Caw, and the Gildas who wrote
De Excidio Britanniae
(
The Ruin of
Britain)
, but this only confuses the issue. It may, though, explain why the
Welsh Annals
chose to describe him as Gildas the Wise, as if to distinguish him from another, but we may
simply accept that as an endearment written by one who knew him.

What makes Gildas important is that his writings, principally
De Excidio
, are the only works that survive from the sixth century, providing a first-hand witness to the events of the
preceding fifty years, the period, if the
Welsh Annals
are correct, when Arthur was alive. In other words, here is a book by someone who would certainly have known Arthur, or known of him.
However, Gildas chose not to write about Arthur. And although his work does include a history of Britain, it was not Gildas’s intention to write a history.
De Excidio
takes the form of
a very long letter, most of which is filled with complaints about the church and about the wicked rulers of Britain. Gildas believed that the fate of Britain at the hands of the Saxons was directly
due to the corruptness of the British, their laziness and inability to fight for themselves. It was a sentiment picked up by the
ASC
, which refers to the “worthlessness of the
Britons” (year 449). Gildas was thus something of a Jeremiah, bewailing the fate of the British, and quoting events and scriptures as appropriate to make his case. He worries little about
dates or historical characters, which is what makes his
De Excidio
so infuriating. Here was the one man who could have told us exactly what happened, but instead he chose to moan –
probably from the safety of Brittany – about the corruptness of the British.

2. De Excidio

Despite his moaning, as the lone voice from that time we must pay attention to what he says. I won’t quote
De Excidio
in full, but will refer to the relevant
sections set after the fall of Roman
authority in Britain and will also quote his complaints against the British kings who were his contemporaries. Hidden in the following
should be further clues about Arthur, provided we can find them.

In Sections (§) 18 and 19 Gildas provides a graphic picture of the horrors of Britain after the Romans left. He gives the impression that before the Romans departed they did what they could
to improve the island’s defences and train the people. He seems to believe that the Wall (presumably Hadrian’s) was built at this time, rather than nearly 300 years earlier, which shows
how poor the surviving records in Britain were. He may be recounting a memory of the strengthening of the Wall during the fourth-century struggle with the Picts. He also refers to the Saxon shore
defensive forts, and he may be remembering other defences built at this time, such as the Wansdyke in Somerset and Wiltshire, which dates from the mid fifth century.

He tells us that the British forces were “too lazy to fight and too unwieldy to flee.” The men were apparently “foolish and frightened,” and they “sat about day and
night rotting away in their folly.” Leaving aside Gildas’s hyperbole, his comments could support the problem Germanus had faced of a wealthy country where the people were unprepared for
the horrors to come. And come they did. He talks of the “foul hordes” of Scots and Picts who massacred the British. Death was apparently preferable to the “miserable fate”
(possibly slavery) of those that were snatched away. A few years later (probably in the 440s, though some say the 470s), St Patrick wrote to Ceretic (usually treated as the ruler of Alclud),
complaining about the slave trade between Ireland and Britain, which had clearly been prevalent for many years.