King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table E-Book

Martin J Dougherty

• Herausgeber: Amber Books Ltd
• Kategorie: Fantasy und Science-Fiction
• Serie: Histories
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 326

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2017

Beschreibung

Here lies entombed the renowned King Arthur in the island of Avalon.
– Inscription found at Glastonbury in the late 12th century
King Arthur most probably never existed and if he did we know precious little about him, and yet he is one of the most famous Britons, while Excalibur and Camelot are perhaps the world’s best known sword and castle, and Hollywood doesn’t tire of returning to the world of Arthurian romance – another major movie is to be released in 2016. So, what’s the truth behind King Arthur? How did the legends take hold? And why have they endured for so long?
Long before the Marvel Universe there was the universe of Arthurian romance and King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table examines the fact and the fiction behind Arthur, Lancelot, Merlin, Guinevere, Galahad, among others, as well as the quest for the Holy Grail. Beginning in the 12th century, the book explores what factual basis there is for the tales and how the characters, stories and motifs developed through histories, epic poems and prose tellings. The book also charts the revived interest in Arthurian romance in the 19th century and considers how the tales still hold the popular imagination today.
Illustrated with more than 180 colour and black-and-white artworks and photographs and maps, King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table is an expertly written account of where literature, mythology and history meet.

Leseprobe

KING ARTHUR

AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE

STORIES OF CAMELOT AND THE QUEST FOR THE HOLY GRAIL

MARTIN J. DOUGHERTY

This digital edition first published in 2016

Published by Amber Books Ltd United House North RoadLondon N7 9DP United Kingdom

Website: www.amberbooks.co.uk Instagram: amberbooksltd Facebook: amberbooks Twitter: @amberbooks

Copyright © 2016 Amber Books Ltd

ISBN: 978-1-78274-405-4

All rights reserved. With the exception of quoting brief passages for the purpose of review no part of this publication may be reproduced without prior written permission from the publisher.The information in this book is true and complete to the best of our knowledge. All recommendations are made without any guarantee on the part of the author or publisher, who also disclaim any liability incurred in connection with the use of this data or specific details.

www.amberbooks.co.uk

CONTENTS

Myth and Legend

Chapter One

The Real King Arthur

Chapter Two

The Early Legends

Chapter Three

The Romances

Chapter Four

The Grail Quest

Chapter Five

Le Morte d’Arthur

Chapter Six

Arthurian Romance Today

Index

Sir Galahad, the quintessential knight-errant, personified the ideal of the ‘gentle Christian knight’. Yet this element was a late addition to the Arthurian mythos; early versions of the tale are quite different.

MYTH AND LEGEND

King Arthur is one of the most well-known characters in the Western world. Few people have not heard of his Knights of the Round Table. Their tragic tale has been retold and reimagined countless times – so many times that two people may know versions of the story that contradict each other in several places.

Few of us know where these tales came from, and nobody knows the truth behind them for certain – if indeed there is one single truth underlying this fascinating romance.

Most of us have only a vague idea about the lives and deeds of Arthur and his knights, but can name various key elements. We know that Arthur was a great King of Britain who defended his realm against invaders and foes. We know that his wife Guinevere had a romance with Sir Lancelot, greatest of all Arthur’s knights. There was a wizard named Merlin and a sorceress named Morgana Le Fay, and a mortal enemy named Mordred. We know that Arthur was fatally wounded in tragic fashion defeating his great enemy, but did not die. Instead, he was taken away to sleep until he is needed again, leaving the world behind him somehow diminished.

This is perhaps the classic version of the romance of King Arthur, and not all elements of this version appear in other tellings. The origins of this story are complex – a mix of history, myth and the imagination of talented people. Perhaps it is this that makes King Arthur such a compelling figure – he speaks to our sense of the mythic, yet his tale rings with the truth of history.

The classic tales of Arthur and his knights have contributed to the general impression of ‘knights in shining armour’ that many people have. Movie retellings of the story have helped perpetuate the visual image of the heavily armoured warrior clad in steel plate, wearing heraldic symbols and following a code of chivalry. Yet the reality – if there was one – might be quite different.

Fact and Fiction

Movie versions of the tales of King Arthur are typically set in what might be described as a Hollywood version of the Late Medieval era, but the classic literary versions vary in their setting. The armour and equipment of the ‘knights’ (if the concept existed at the time) serving King Arthur would have been very different in the early Dark Ages when some of the tales are set. Arthur’s shining knights might have resembled a Norse or Saxon warband, or even something else entirely.

In some versions of the tale, the wizard Merlin was thought to be at the birth of the infant Arthur.

Heroes who seem oddly similar to Arthur appear in other historical sources and in the mythology of people far from Britain. It could be that Arthur’s legend is one of what have been described as the ‘universal myths’ – similar stories that appear in different places without any cultural connection. The reason for this is typically that stories are based upon experience and enhanced by imagination. Most cultures have a story about a great flood, which is not surprising since the majority of humans live close to water.

Sir Lancelot was the greatest of Arthur’s knights, but a hero with serious flaws. His sinful nature prevented him from witnessing a miracle at the Chapel Perilous, home of the Holy Grail. It fell to other, more pious, knights to complete the Grail Quest.

Similarly, the tale of a heroic leader who held back foreign invaders and had to contend with intrigue and turbulence among his followers may be a universal one. History is replete with great kings, few of whom had a trouble-free reign. Perhaps an ‘Arthur story’ can be found in almost any culture.

However, it is more likely that today’s legends of King Arthur came about as a result of stories being swapped when cultures met and melded. If so, the tale of a great king somewhere in the Middle East might be conflated with one about a lord of the Ancient Britons, eventually creating an altered myth incorporating parts of both stories. Given the attraction of a good tale, chances are these would be the best parts, and any inconvenient historical truths would be discarded.

Spinning a Good Yarn

Stories often evolve as they are told and retold, and any given writer will inevitably put his own slant on the narrative. A staunch Christian might emphasize Arthur’s piety and respect for the Church, while another writer might be more interested in the supernatural elements. Eventually, different versions of the tale will evolve, and this is without considering a deliberate reimagining.

The compelling characters and rich background of the Arthurian legend provide a setting ideal for the creation of new versions of the tale, and any new version might add completely new elements. Mark Twain’s 1889 novel A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court introduced a time-traveller whose knowledge of modern technology gave him advantages over the superstitious people of the Middle Ages. Nearly a century later a movie with a similar premise featured a time-travelling astronaut and his robotic companion against the backdrop of Arthur’s court.

An illustration from ‘Idylls of the King’, a poetic reimagining of the Arthur story by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. This work was part of the modern resurgence of interest in the Arthurian mythos.

Stories of this nature are in no way a retelling of the Arthurian legends, they merely make use of the familiar setting as a vehicle for a new story. However, the backdrop and characters are derived from the original tales – albeit rather vaguely – and tend to follow the popular conception of the Arthurian setting rather than making any effort at realism or faithfulness to the original tales.

In recent years, the Arthurian legends have received several different treatments. Some versions have made an attempt to tell the ‘real story’ of Arthur and his companions, and are based on one of the characters who might possibly be the original Arthur. Such versions have tended to make a credible attempt to portray the look and feel of the era realistically. Thus we see Arthur as something more akin to a barbarian prince than a perfect Christian knight from a strangely clean Camelot.

Other versions stay closer to the popular conception, using a pseudo-Medieval setting complete with heraldry, tournaments and all the usual elements of such depictions. These versions often use the ‘default’ Arthurian setting because it is familiar to the audience and will therefore need little explaining. If the viewer can make assumptions about the setting, then more screen time is available for drama and character development.

This approach bends the Arthurian setting to the needs of the storyteller, who uses it to tell what is in effect a new tale or at least a new take on the traditional storyline. The TV series Merlin is set in Arthur’s youth, using familiar characters in new ways to tell a story centred on the relationship between a young Arthur and Merlin.

Any TV show that runs for more than a few episodes will inevitably deviate from, or add to, the stories it is based upon, and in truth, this is nothing new. The story of Arthur has grown and changed since the earliest known versions, and before those there were tales that were adopted into the Arthurian mythos.

Thus the modern legends of King Arthur might be rather different to the tales told about the same characters 10 centuries ago, and the versions told in the future might be quite different to ours. There are historical truths to be found within the various versions, and there are also some epic tales that probably come straight from the author’s imagination.

The gift of Excalibur to Arthur from the Lady of the Lake is one of the best-known moments from Arthur’s story. It is not in the original tale, however. Arthur’s sword there is called Caliburn.

Arthur has often been called the ‘Once and Future King’, and it is fair to say that his is the once and future legend. The Arthurian romance will be told and retold for generations to come, and it will evolve until it is hardly recognizable. Given how different some of the versions are from one another, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this has already happened at least once.

The multiple crowns in this Medieval depiction of King Arthur indicate that he was High King over other kings in Britain rather than the ruler of a unified nation in the modern sense.

1

THE REAL KING ARTHUR

Historians have identified a number of figures who might have been a ‘historical Arthur’ – someone who defended at least a part of Britain in troubled times and built a realm that was renowned far and wide.

These figures include early British war-leaders, possibly of Celtic origin, a Romano-British cavalry commander doing his best to protect his people after the soldiers of Rome evacuated the islands, and later kings who might more resemble the classic version of Arthur.

There are also traditional Celtic tales that revolve around a figure who looks suspiciously like a proto-Arthur. The mystical elements of these stories are probably the origin of the supernatural parts of some Arthurian legends. Since this traditional Celtic folklore has been a part of Western culture for many centuries, it feels familiar and tends to ring true when incorporated into the tale of King Arthur.

Thus the Arthurian legend seems to be a combination of real events and mystical folktales, with a fair amount of Christian influence as well. This did not happen overnight; today’s many versions of the Arthurian legends developed through numerous retellings and the occasional gritty reboot. Much of the general storyline is derived from a collection of Medieval literature dealing with legendary and semi-historical events in Europe, collectively known as the ‘matters’ of Britain, France and Rome.

There are similarities between these three literary cycles. Much of the ‘Matter of France’ deals largely with the exploits of the paladins – a term now generally taken to mean heroic knights – serving Charlemagne in his battles against the Moorish invaders. Most famous of these tales is the Song of Roland, a tragedy based on historical events occurring around 778 AD. Roland and the paladins were killed defending Roncevaux Pass to allow the rest of their army to escape.

Like the tales of Arthur, the Song of Roland is a mix of fact and fiction. The battle did likely take place, and heroic deeds were done. Later versions of events introduced the heroic paladins – in some variants of the tale one of them is a sorcerer – until the story entered the realms of myth rather than history. Indeed, the word ‘paladin’ has come to mean a warrior who is a paragon of virtue, usually a gentle Christian knight or possibly a holy opponent of evil. Yet the original reference was nothing to do with virtue.

The tale of Roland (illustrated) and the paladins has much in common with that of King Arthur. It forms a major part of the body of Medieval literature known as the ‘Matter of France’.

The 12 paladins who served Charlemagne were high-ranking nobles whose title probably derived from the Latin ‘palatinus’, with connotations of rulership. In Britain, some regions were established as semi-autonomous areas whose lord ruled them as he saw fit so long as he met an obligation imposed by the crown. County Durham was a county palatine founded in the early days of the Norman Conquest to defend the rest of Britain from the Scots. Lancashire was set up as a county palatine in 1351.

Thus these paladins were most probably high-ranking nobles with responsibility for regional governorship – which says nothing at all about their piety or character. According to the Song of Roland they fought to the last to defend the retreating army, saving many lives by their sacrifice and earning eternal glory. It is perhaps through this combination of self-sacrifice and feats of arms that the term ‘paladin’ has gained its new meaning. The word, with connotations of heroism and virtue, has been applied to Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table, even though few if any of them would have been rulers of a palatinate.

Roland’s battle against the giant Moorish knight Farragut is memorialized on the Palace of the Kings of Navarre. Farragut had only one weak spot: his navel. After a lengthy fight, Roland impaled him there with a spear.

Although the Song of Roland and the associated tales are less well known today than the Arthurian legends, the Matter of France has at times been widely known and extremely popular – perhaps as much so as Arthur’s legend. There are some parallels between the deeds of the paladins and those of the Knights of the Round Table, and also between the stories themselves. The matters of France and of Britain are tales of national heroism (albeit from a time when there were no countries in the modern sense) and form part of the culture of those nations.

The ‘Matter of Rome’ is somewhat different. It is a rather anachronistic retelling of the myths of ancient Greece and Rome in which various Medieval concepts are substituted for historical accuracy. Warriors are recast as knights, with tournaments and other purely Medieval concepts added into the mix. The subject matter is largely drawn from the work of the ancient poet Homer, and it is not at all clear how closely his poems reflected historical reality. He was writing centuries after the events he described, and essentially creating a narrative from old tales he had collected. In modern parlance, the ‘Matter of Rome’ is a reboot of the classical myths set in a pseudo-Medieval era.

THE ‘MATTER OF ROME’ IS A REBOOT OF THE CLASSICAL MYTHS SET IN A PSEUDO-MEDIEVAL ERA.

Similarly, the ‘Matter of Britain’ draws on historical sources as well as traditional tales and a great deal of Celtic mythology. One underlying theme is the arrival in ancient times of heroes from the Trojan War, which features in some Celtic mythology as well as pseudo-historical material dealing with the descent of Welsh nobility from these heroes. In many cases these writings are an interesting mix of known fact and what is presumably invention, with the royal bloodlines running back from people who definitely lived to ancestors who are almost certainly mythical. The exact point at which history fades into myth is unclear.

The Roman invasion of Britain initially met with vigorous resistance from local tribes, but the Britons lacked the unity necessary to prevent a Roman takeover. Many tribes were won over by political or economic means rather than being subjugated by military force.

The ‘Matter of Britain’ is not exclusively the tale of King Arthur and his knights, although Arthur is of particular importance. In this body of Medieval literature, Arthur is a king of the Ancient Britons who defends his realm from Saxon invaders. The era is the fifth or sixth century AD, some time after the end of Roman rule in Britain, so within the period sometimes referred to as the ‘Dark Ages’ rather than the High Medieval era depicted in most movies about Arthur.

Roman Influences

It is not certain when Roman influence in Britain began. The expeditions of Julius Caesar in 55–54 BC were of no great consequence, but contact with the continent had been commonplace long before this. The people of Britain were closely related to their continental cousins, and had contact with Rome through them before the Roman conquest of Britain began.

Over the next decades, the Roman Empire planned invasions and made agreements with various tribes that brought them into client status with the empire, and finally invaded as a result of a chaotic political situation in Britain. Disputes between tribes created an opportunity to annex the British Isles, and in 43 AD a Roman force landed in Britain. Despite initial resistance, Rome conquered southern Britain and gradually pushed its frontiers north and west.

There was no concept of Britain as a nation at this time, or for several centuries afterwards. Britain was a place in which numerous tribes had their territory; it was tribal loyalties that predominated rather than any concept of realms or regions. This tribalism persisted under Roman rule, but was eroded to some extent as the Britons became Romanized.

THERE WAS NO CONCEPT OF A BRITISH NATION IN THIS ERA; TRIBAL LOYALTIES PREDOMINATED.

Roman-controlled Britain was a province of the empire until around 410 AD, when Roman troops were withdrawn to defend territories closer to home. Parts of the British Isles lay outside Roman control of course; the tribes of Caledonia (Scotland) successfully resisted Roman incursions for the most part, and Hibernia (Ireland) was completely beyond the control of Rome.

At the time of the Roman invasion, the role of cavalry was fulfilled among the Britons by chariots. This practice was outdated elsewhere, but had been retained in the British Isles and was used with some success. With Romanization came the use of cavalry; in 175 a force of Sarmatian horsemen was deployed in Britain. Sarmatia lay north of the Black Sea, roughly where the modern nation of Ukraine is found today.

Although the chariot was obsolete in Continental Europe, the Ancient Britons made effective use of its mobility. Chariot forces essentially combined the mobility of cavalry with the ability to jump down and fight on foot, then return to the chariot and escape from a bad situation.

Sarmatians at War

This force of cavalry was sent to Britain as a result of a peace treaty after a war between the Roman Empire and the Sarmatians. Part of the settlement was an agreement to provide troops, the majority of whom were sent to Britain. The initial deployment was 5500 men, which was a very significant force in that era. It is known that much, but not all, of the force was withdrawn in later years.

The Sarmatian cavalry force was given a settlement at what is today Ribchester, in Lancashire, where veterans settled down. As well as their military contribution, these mounted warriors brought with them traditions and myths. Among them were tales of a king whose band of mounted warriors possessed a magical cup that only the best of them were permitted to drink from. This device, the Nartyamonga, bears a distinct resemblance to the Holy Grail of the Arthurian legends.

The Romans were great organizers. Their fort at Ribchester followed a standard pattern, combining good defences with efficient logistics. Like many similar forts, it became the focus for a community of retired soldiers who settled in the surrounding area.

There are other similarities between the Arthur of Britain and the hero Batraz in the Sarmatians’ mythology. Arthur’s dying wish that his sword be cast into the lake closely parallels a Sarmatian tradition, and in some Medieval depictions Arthur fights under a banner that resembles a traditional Sarmatian war banner. Interestingly, a similar set of tales existed in what is now France, probably as a result of Alan tribesmen settling there around 375 AD. However, Lancelot supplants Arthur in the lead role in many of these tales.

After his service in Britain, Lucius Artorius Castus was granted high office in Liburnia, in modern-day Croatia, where he died. Local monuments commemorate the King Arthur connection, which has the support of a number of historians.

One possible ‘proto-Arthur’ is a Roman soldier named Lucius Artorius Castus. Late in his career, around 181 AD, Artorius was placed in command of Sarmatian cavalry who were serving as auxiliaries to the Roman occupation forces. This force served against invading Caledonian tribesmen, and acted as a ‘fire brigade’ rapid response force to deal with other troubles. It was also deployed to Armorica in northern Gaul to deal with an insurrection there. It is possible that these fast-moving armoured cavalrymen made such an impression that distorted tales of their exploits were remembered centuries afterwards.

Among the connections made from this version of events is the idea of a dragon banner being the symbol of these warriors. This would explain the name ‘Pendragon’ associated with Arthur, but there is no real evidence either way. Indeed, there is little historical evidence to indicate that Artorius was anything like as important as this legend suggests. The man himself did live and was for a time governor of a Roman province – albeit one far from Britain – but he is not recorded as having carried out heroic exploits at the head of his cavalry.

Whether or not Artorius was a proto-Arthur, the legends of the Sarmatian cavalrymen he was associated with have several similarities with the Arthur story. Their heroes mostly fought earthly foes but were also opposed by supernatural creatures. Batraz, a hero of the Sarmatian legends, gained his magic sword by pulling it from the roots of a tree, and upon his death asked a friend to hurl it into the sea. Just as in the Arthurian cycle, his friend did not wish to do so but eventually complied.

Sarmatian cavalrymen, as depicted on Trajan’s Column (second century AD), shows them in their characteristic scale armour. It was composed of small, overlapping metal scales fixed to a thick backing and offered good protection against most weapons.

ARMOURED WARRIORS

The Sarmatian cavalry may have included lightly armoured horse archers and light cavalry equipped with lances, but the main striking force was heavy cavalry, or ‘cataphracts’. These were protected by scale armour, formed from many small metal plates (scales) attached to a backing material such as leather and possibly overlapped to prevent gaps. Horses were similarly armoured. Scale armour offered excellent protection but was heavy and less flexible than chain mail. However, this did not prevent cataphracts from using their weapons effectively.

The Sarmatian cataphracts in Roman service were armed with a lance as their primary weapon on horseback, backed up by a sword and a dagger. A composite bow was also carried, enabling the cavalry to soften up their opponents with archery before charging home with the lance and sword. These very potent and versatile mounted warriors were no doubt a fearsome force on the battlefield, and as the original Sarmatian members of the force retired or went home, locals would be recruited to replace them.

It is possible that this ‘Sarmatian’ force was still in existence when Roman troops were withdrawn from Britain. If so, their traditions would have been maintained along with their arms, equipment and fighting style. Sarmatian myths such as that of Batraz and his sword would have been passed on and absorbed into local culture, adding to Celtic and Roman mythology. Another possibility for the ‘real Arthur’ is a leader of whatever remained of these post-Sarmatian cataphracts after the Roman withdrawal.

The Coming of the Saxons

By the time Roman forces left Britain, around 410 AD, pressure was already mounting from Saxon raiding parties. These were initially prevented from settling by Roman and Romano-British forces, but by 450 AD or so it was no longer possible to prevent Saxons from gaining control of parts of Southeast England. This date is known as the Adventus Saxonum, or the ‘Coming of the English’ – Saxon in this case usually translates as ‘English’.

Once established, the new territories expanded due to the arrival of more Anglo-Saxons and the conquest of new territories accompanied by the absorption of the populations dwelling there. Historians are divided as to whether there was a large-scale migration of Anglo-Saxons into Britain or a more gradual drift of smaller numbers, but certainly the area controlled by the Saxons and the number of warriors they could field increased over time.

The misconception that this was a ‘Dark Age’ in which civilization collapsed and everyone lived in violent misery is less prevalent than it used to be. Indeed, it is arguable that one reason why Britain was poorly equipped to resist these Saxon incursions is that it had become relatively peaceful and civilized during its time as a Roman province. St Gildas, writing in the sixth century AD, blamed the Saxon conquest of Britain largely on the ‘luxuria’ and self-indulgence of the upper echelons of British society.

The ‘Saxons’ who invaded Britain were actually several Germanic peoples, including Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Their customs and dress were sufficiently similar that they were generally perceived as a single group by the Britons.

According to St Gildas and other sources, the Saxons agreed to act as foederati – a Roman concept, which essentially meant barbarian people from outside the empire defending its frontiers in return for payment – protecting the Britons from Caledonian incursions. This arrangement collapsed and resulted in a Saxon rampage across Britain, followed by new treaties. Saxon influence continued to grow, however, and further conflict was perhaps inevitable.

The people referred to as Saxons or Anglo-Saxons were, in fact, of varied origin. Most were originally Germanic, but the term ‘Saxon’ later came to refer to anyone from the Saxon-controlled regions of Britain and probably included large numbers of native Britons. By the end of the fifth century AD, these Saxons were well rooted in Britain and could be considered native, although they were joined by others coming from overseas.

THE SAXONS REPLACED THE CALEDONIANS AS THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE ANCIENT BRITONS.

It is notable that Roman military equipment was still in use in Britain at this time, and was issued to Saxon warriors serving as foederati. However, over time the influence of Rome gradually faded and was replaced by an emerging British culture combining Romano-British influences with older Celtic concepts and ideas brought by Saxon invaders from the continent.

The invaders also brought with them their language. Latin scholarship had not died out in Britain when the legions went home, but the dominant language was Brythonic. This was of Celtic origin and was spoken throughout most of Britain; in what is now Scotland the (probably related) Pictish language was more common. Brythonic was gradually replaced by the language of the Anglo-Saxons, becoming what is now known as Old English. The Brythonic languages survived in regions such as Brittany, Wales and Cornwall.

An Early Arthur?

Some early tales of King Arthur have him defending Britain against Saxon invaders in the late fifth or early sixth century. There was no armour of steel plate at this time; Arthur’s warriors would have looked nothing like the mounted knights of most movie depictions. It is quite likely that equipment left over from the Romano-British era was long gone and that this Arthur and his men fought on foot even if they had horses for mobility.

If this was the case, they would have been armed with well-made swords, spears and axes that might have been a long-handled, two-handed version. Armour would be chain mail or small metal plates fixed to a padded or leather backing. Some men might even have had old Roman equipment – armour and weapons lasted a long time if well cared for.

Nor would these warriors have followed any sort of ‘code of chivalry’. That would not be created for several centuries, along with jousting and knightly tournaments. They would have been close companions of their lord, likely friends and family as well as followers, and would constitute an élite fighting force, not least because they were used to working as a team.

The warriors of post-Roman Britain would not have resembled Medieval knights in any way. They were Celtic tribesmen who wore colourful clothing and fought with well-made iron weapons in the manner of the Gauls who opposed Julius Caesar centuries earlier.

These early Brythonic warriors could perhaps be mistaken for a bunch of scruffy barbarians by someone expecting knightly manners and heraldry, but they were the defenders of an advanced and complex culture. They might not have been literate, but scholarship had not died out when the so-called ‘Dark Ages’ began. Perhaps more mundane than mythical, these men would nonetheless have been heroes and staunch defenders of their people.

Warfare in this era was on a smaller scale than had been the case during the Roman age. Most conflicts involved what were essentially quite small skirmishes between warbands rather than armies. Individual prowess and inspiring leadership could be a decisive factor, as could the teamwork of a band used to working together.

It has been suggested that for some reason the warriors of this ‘Dark Age’ were ignorant buffoons who hacked mindlessly at one another until someone was injured more or less at random. Similarly, there exists a common misconception that weapons were large and clumsy, contributing to the general ineptitude of warriors. In truth, some elements of the military art did fall into disuse and were possibly forgotten about, but skill at arms remained highly important.

Typical weapons of the Brythonic tribesman were a spear and a shield with a metal boss. A wealthy man might be able to afford a sword, which would be well made and skilfully handled.

The weaponry wielded by these Brythonic warriors would be at least competently made, and might be excellent in the case of a rich warrior who could afford the finest of swords. It was also wielded with skill, at least in the case of experienced warriors or those whose business was war. Gone were the days of complex military training such as that received by Roman legionnaires, but skill at arms was still passed on.

The average farmer who turned out to fight with his spear might not have much idea of how to use it – beyond the obvious – and would have been easy prey for a skilled and trained warrior. Those warriors did exist, making up the core of a fighting force based around the chief’s warband, and they would have been as effective as any other warriors from any period of history, at least on a small-force basis. A properly handled professional army might defeat such a force without undue difficulty, but man for man the warriors of the fifth and sixth century were a match for anyone.

IN SINGLE COMBAT, THE WARRIORS OF SIXTH CENTURY BRITAIN WERE A MATCH FOR ANYONE.

They were, apparently, a match for the Saxons. The Britons were gradually pushed back, not so much because they were outfought by the invaders, but because they were defeated piecemeal. Had the Britons united to resist the invaders, the situation might have been quite different. However, they did not and Saxon control increased. By 500 AD, the situation for the Britons was desperate and they were forced to present a unified front. According to legend, their resurgence was led by King Arthur.

The Battle of Badon Hill

There is no historical evidence for Arthur leading the united Britons, although there are records of an individual named Ambrosius Aurelianus. Aurelianus seems to have been a Romano-Briton of noble family, who was probably a Christian. Under his leadership – or possibly that of his successors – the Britons managed to defeat the invaders in a series of major battles. The greatest of these was the Battle of Badon Hill.

The location and exact date of this battle are not known. Among the possible locations are Somerset, Wiltshire, southern Scotland and various points in Southeast England. The legendary version of the battle has Arthur slaying 940 Saxons by his own hand, although God Almighty is also given a share of the credit for this achievement. This defeat was so overwhelming that Saxon incursions were halted for almost 50 years.

The Battle of Badon Hill has been depicted in various different ways. Very little is known about what actually happened, and what records exist are not reliable. It seems rather unlikely that one man slew nearly a thousand Saxons all by himself.

Despite the efforts of these Brythonic warriors, Saxon expansion continued and eventually Britain was overrun. In 577 AD the Saxon King of Wessex defeated Brythonic forces and gained control over modern-day Gloucestershire, Somerset and Oxfordshire. Another decisive defeat in 615 AD drove the remaining Britons to the continent – mainly Brittany – and to Scotland, Wales and Cornwall. Most of Britain was now dominated by Anglo-Saxon culture.

BY THE EARLY 600S, MOST OF MAINLAND BRITAIN WAS UNDER SAXON CONTROL.

It is worth noting that the Arthur depicted in this version of events spoke a language that was displaced by what became Old English and belonged to a culture that was supplanted in most of Britain. The rise of Saxon dominance did not, however, unify the British Isles nor create a single nation out of their people. In that, nothing had changed – there was still no nation of Britain or England, so while someone might be called ‘King of the Britons’, there was no such thing as a King of Britain. Instead, several small kingdoms arose and at times warred with one another.

Early Kingdoms of England

The Saxon kingdoms of England gradually changed in character into something recognizably early English. The Germanic paganism of the invaders was supplanted by Christianity, but this did not happen overnight.

By the late 700s, Norse traders had begun to arrive in England. Soon afterwards the notorious Viking raids began. These increased in scale over the next two centuries, from single ships to huge fleets carrying thousands of warriors.

Christianity had probably arrived in Britain in the first century AD by way of the Roman occupation. Initially, few Britons became Christians, but over time the new religion gained adherents. It is likely that most of Britain was at least notionally Christian by the time Rome withdrew. However, Christianity was largely replaced by the Germanic religion of the Saxon invaders until rekindled from 600 AD onwards. Thereafter Christianity once more became the dominant religion in Britain, with great cathedrals such as those at Canterbury and York built in the 700s.

These early English kingdoms were challenged by raids from the Norsemen – so-called Vikings – from 793 AD onwards and resisted with varying degrees of success. Raids were followed by small-scale settlement and then by an attempt at conquest. By 875 AD the only Saxon kingdom remaining in England was Wessex. Despite setbacks Alfred, King of Wessex (r. 871–899), was able to mount an effective resistance and prevent a Norse takeover of Britain. However, the Norsemen were now part of the British political landscape and had their own kingdoms in the British Isles.

King Alfred gained the epithet ‘The Great’ for his defence of his homeland against the invaders, but does not seem to have ever been considered as a candidate for a proto-Arthur. His tale does parallel some of the key elements of the Arthurian legends, however, and may have influenced later storytellers to incorporate some aspects of his story into that of Arthur. He did not defeat the Norse invaders in his own lifetime, but his grandson Eadred (920–955 ad) ruled a united England.

Although Alfred the Great led a successful defence of Britain from the invading Norsemen, he does not seem to be a candidate for a ‘real King Arthur’. However, he did lay the groundwork for a unified kingdom of England.

This unity was at times very shaky, and was challenged by further Norse incursions. The Norsemen, like the Britons and Saxons, mostly fought on foot although they were happy enough to use horses for mobility. However, Norse society was also evolving and ultimately created the next set of invaders: the Normans. The Normans were, in fact, Norsemen who had been given land on the northern coast of what is now France in return for defending it. In this, the Frankish king essentially made the Norsemen into a new form of foederati, and over time the Frankish and Norman cultures blended. Many ‘Normans’ were not of Norse descent, they were Franks who now lived under the rule of the new Norman society and were adopted into it.

Norman Knights Conquer England

In 1066 the King of England died, leaving three claimants to the throne. One was Harold Godwinson, who defeated the Norseman Harald Hardrada in the north of England to secure his throne but was then forced to march rapidly south to meet the third contender for the crown – Duke William of Normandy.

The army under Harold was typically English in character, created by influences going back 1000 years and more to Celtic warfare before the Roman invasion. It was also influenced by the Norse style of combat, and was characterized by a defensive shieldwall tactic. Some men carried bows, but most were armed with spears. Elite housecarls – personal retainers of the nobility and professional fighting men – were armed with long-handled axes and swords.

Opposing them, the Normans had adopted cavalry as their main striking arm. By the time of the Norman invasion, the elite of the army was mounted, armed with lance and sword and armoured in chain mail. These men are normally called knights nowadays, but the word ‘knight’ actually originates from the Saxon ‘cniht’, a word meaning the personal retainer of a noblemen. Since these were fighting men in service to a lord, the term is entirely applicable to the Norman heavy cavalry, but they would not have considered themselves knights as such – and nor would they know anything about a code of chivalry.

Harold’s infantry-based English army was defeated at Hastings by a combination of Norman archery, infantry and cavalry attacks. The Norman Conquest ushered in a new era in Britain, in which the armoured horseman was the primary force on the battlefield.

The Norman conquest of Britain brought with it linguistic changes that created Middle English and a new social order in which the Norman military class were rulers. It also marked the return of armoured cavalry as the pre-eminent military arm in Britain, and thus the beginnings of the ‘era of the knight’ that is generally depicted in Arthurian fiction.

Early Norman fortifications were simple constructions of wood and earth, but soon stone castles began to be built and were extended over time. Thus impressive castles such as Alnwick in Northumberland represent the final form of the structure rather than how it would have looked in 1100 AD.

Armoured horsemen were not the only type of soldier fielded, of course, but they were the main striking arm and the force capable of the fastest engagement. A handful of heavy cavalrymen, or even a lone armoured horseman, was still a formidable concentration of military power, and, of course, the members of this elite were also the ruling class.

Norman Fortifications