Hello everyone! I have an upcoming article with some of my more unsubstantiated theories, outlining some of my logic that leads me to think it’s correct, but there may not be a ton of evidence to support it other than said logic. As a primer for that, I want to hear from you all. What are some ideas you think are worth looking into, things worth discussing but you don’t have much evidence for, or even just a ‘headcanon’ you’ve developed. Do you have a preferred ‘Arthur’ candidate? A historical person you think may have inspired a legendary character? An event you have a unique interpretation of? I want to hear it all!
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but here goes! One, I absolutely love reading your articles and absorbing all the delicious food for thought. The thing I would say is that sometimes it's hard to see the forest through the trees, and I would love a little bit of an overview of all the work you've done, sort of a connective thread or index providing context and relativity between the theories/figures. I'm personally a little in over my head at times when reading so many details, and there's a lot of assumed knowledge, so knowing how the theories relate to a larger picture would aid my comprehension. But perhaps I'm not necessarily your intended audience and other readers understand perfectly well!
This is actually a big part of why I'm producing my Illustrated guide. A larger broadstrokes overview of the period. I try my best to include the articles a particular piece builds on, but sometimes it leads to feeling like I'm repeating myself which I try not to do, though I will try to include more thorough footnotes from here on.
whilst many have contributed to the myth many and I believe was Arthur Mac Aedan the Dal radian Bryhonic Prince son of Aedan Mac Gabran and a Brythonic Princess of Manaw Gododdin as the dates, battles and location of Camelot match up My friend is a historian and Arthur expert who wrote The King Arthur Conspiracy how a Scottish Prince became a mythical Hero .. Arthur was never a king he was a commander in chief so to speak of Brythonic forces He has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried on Iona he has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried
I have actually read his book before, albeit long ago. I definitely think he contributed to the legends, the hurdle in my opinion lays in thr extant sources, just like with all of these figures unfortunately. I'll definitely have to check it out again.
the author who's real name is Lynn Davies has written several books around the real Arthur and Merlin and we chat often about it. I have been obsessed with Arthur for decades. As clans Campbell, MacArthur, Galibraith and Forbes claim descent of Arthur Mac Adean and those clans are in my tree and prob yours too if you have any British or Irish ancestor in your tree. Which means we are descendants of Arthur
Given the date and the popularity of the name Arthur following the ‘historical’ Arthur it is probable he is name after Arthur rather than being Arthur.
This is the 'namesake theory' that Bromwich and others like Andrew Breeze have put forward. I do agree with it, though I think with the nature of the scanty records of the period a lot of these later Arthur's ended up contributing to the later conception of Arthur. Goes a long way towards explaining the fancies of a pan-island high-king.
I’d say Gildas tells us who Arthur is and either Riothamus, who was active around the same time, is one and the same person or his legend was bolted onto Amrbrosius
Geoffrey Ashe of course makes a great case in his work that Riothamus and Arthur are the same, but I'm unconvinced that he was the guy that Nennius' Battle list is about. I think there's a strong case to be made that much of what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote was inspired by Riothamus, but I'm not convinced that Riothamus wasn't just a continental Breton leader. Gildas remarks on Ambrosius and Badon are quite vague IMO unfortunately for us, and seem to indicate some time had passed between Ambrosius' heyday and Badon.
I worked very closely with Alan Wilson on his Arthurian research throughout the early 90’s up to his death a couple of years ago.
I know he is considered a divisive character but I write this as someone who knew him as a friend first and saw the incredible research, due diligence, record checking and re-checking he did. I am yet to see any evidence that counters his research that there were multiple Arthur’s and that Arthur II, son of Meurig and grandson of Tewdrig inspired the majority of the legend that became medieval Arthur. Arthur I was important too but the clearly identifiable Arthur II and his brother Madoc left traces all over South East Wales and their graves are exactly where the records say they are.
I try to avoid discussing other authors theories as it usually leads to unproductive mud slinging that I don't feel contributes to anything. I do think that Athrwys is key in explaining the connection to South Wales, but as I maintain, by the time of Geoffrey and the Bruts based on his work Arthur is 100% a composite figure. Thank you for your comment!
Fully understand your position. I have been through it over the last three and ½ decades of dealing with his work and I know what you mean. He left me and two other close friends, a series of “time capsule” boxes filled with his most important discoveries and avenues to research further. Research that he never got to complete as he was pulled in a different direction or new discoveries took over.
Slowly, I am compiling everything and shall see what it reveals. Keep up your great work and thanks for the opportunity to speak.
I've been slowly delving into Dal Riata, I am familiar with it from some books I read earlier, including the aforementioned book. Thank you as always for your support
I've been unwell, in and out of hospitalie last 3 years. Reading your work and seeing all your illustrations and art work has kept me going.
I have been wondering about a few things, they are probably nonsense but I thought I'd offer up a few and see what you might think.
Vortigern
The pillar of Elise gives a genealogy without Vortimer or Cattigern. This coupled with the potential issues around the florit of Vortigern has made me wonder if the Pillar records ONLY the genealogy of the ruling house of early Powys?
Could Catel Durnluc have been the leader and founder og Powys, and passed the rule of Powys to his son Cattegirn, who subsequently died without children, so the rule of Powys passed to Vortigern's (Catel's brother) son Brittu. Brittu, Pascent, Manu and Annan being remembered on the Pillar.
After the battle of Guollop the reign passed to the younger brother Pascent.
Vortigern is also remembered as the governor of Dubris aka Dover. Could it be possible Vortigern never ruled Powys, but as the father of two who did, be remembered and honoured on the Pillar?
This Vortigern could possibly be married to Severa daughter of Magnus Maximus if Severa was born in late 370's to 380? With Vortigern being born around late 360's early 370. Might it be that Vortigern and Severa had another son, the eldest, possibly called Vortigern after his father? Or called Vitalinus? The Vitalinus who fought Ambrosius at Guollop? Might Vortigern the 1st have been the leader of the British Council after the Romans left, with his son Vortigern 2nd/ Vitalinus as governor of Dubris? Might Vortigern the first have retired leaving the rule of Britain (at least the southern half) under his son: Vitalinus/Vortigern ii/ the proud tyrant.
Vortigern ii/ Vitalinus is then the father of Vortimer and Cattegirn. It could be this 2nd Vortigern who married Hengist’s daughter, after the death of his first wife (the mother of Vortimer and Cattegirn).
I wonder if Vortigern the 1st and the council of Britain had invited the Gerwissa in to Britain in 425/430's. Later the unlucky Vortigern ii/ Vitalinus invites Hengest and Horsa in 446/449 ish. Vitalinus being thr governor of Dubris may then explain their settlement in Kent and Thanet Island.
I wonder if Vortigern and Severa had married about the late 490's with Vortigern about, or in his early 20's and Severa nor much older than 16ish. Vortigern's rule of Britain beginning in 425 with him about the age of 45. Vitalinus is born around 400ish and Brittu, Manu, Annan and Pascent between 400 and 420, maybe. It might be the 425 date is actually the start of the high kingship of Vitalinus and that Vortigern had been in a position of power from before or just after 410.
I guess Vortimer is born about 420ish, Catgirn and their sister Ribrawst around about 422- 426ish.
I wonder if the battel of Guollop and the tale of the red and white dragon recall the same events. If Bishop Germanus did make a second visit in 437 could this be when he prays for 3 nights and days for the destruction of Vortigern? Lighting strikes the tower, might the lightning of Germanus be Ambrosius Aurelianus? Could this also be when Ambrosius Emrys aka Ambrosius Aurelianus show Vortigern the red and white dragon, could these be Draco standards, the Red Ambrosius's and the white Vortigern 's? The red wins, the tower falls and Vortigern the 1st dies. On his way home Ambrosius meets Vitalinus and his army and the battle of Gullop takes place, Germanus stops the conflict and the south of Britain is divided between Vitalinus in the southeast and Ambrosius in the southwest. This might around for Nennius seeming to specify a 2nd Vortigern when he calls him Vortigern the thin; the two versions of Vortigerns death; the two versions of Foederati being invited into the island, and the long life of Vortigern.
Vitalinus aka Vortigern the 2nd then dies or is exiled (he is i his late 50's or early 60's)during Hengest uprising, exiled I feel is more likely. The Britons of the southeast rally under Vortimer and Catgirn. Catgirn and Horsa die early in the conflict around 455 and Vortimer later in 456 or 457 about the age of 40.
Anyway just a thought. I also wonder if Ambrosius and Amlawdd Wledig might be one and the same person. And if Erbin and Geraint rueling in Alt Clut might be the same as the Erbin and Geraint who rule in Dumnonia? Coukd here have been a stronger north south link than is thought? But that's more than enough of my silly speculation.
Thank you for all your work and art. I'm so excited for you book.
I'm very glad to hear that I have helped in some small part, that means a great deal to me.
I think you're pretty spot on with the Pillar not recording the entire pedigree, only those that eventually held power in Powys. The chronology of Vortigern is quite stressed overall, and hard to really work out with a single even extremely geriatric man. I have seen the suggestion of Vortigern and Vitalinus being a father/son or son/father combo, and I think it the most likely, with them later being conflated into a single person, even possibly among their descendants. I can't really think of a better way to solve that chronology. We could accept that Magnus could have had a daughter born in Britain all the way to his exit for the continent, ~383, and Vortigern being born around the same time, that can rectify things a little. 380-460 being possible, and it does place all of his sons somewhere in the right ballpark chronologically, though This is still strained, and the insertions of Vitalinus as either father or son does help. I'll one day reinvestigate Vortigern, though my focus is elsewhere right now.
I have had a fleeting thought that Amlawdd may be Ambrosius, but I do feel that Amlawdd, much like Brychan exists as a convenient way to make kings 'related' to the later legendary Arthur, without claiming direct descent.
I think the Erbin and Geraint in Dumnonia are actually a result of 16th century and later scholars playing willy-nilly with Dumonia/Damnonia. None of the pedigrees for Alt Clut mention them to my knowledge, though I may be missing one from Iolo (suspect anyway). I think Alt Clut is fairly well accounted for (Coroticus/Ceredig-Cinuit-Dyfnwal-Clionoch-Caw (Usurper)-Tutuagual-Rhydderch) once you accept that the line from Coroticus is not descended from Magnus Maximus, and synthesize the accepted pedigrees into a single tree, omitting that. Geraint and Erbin don't seem to fit.
Like I said, I am glad to hear that I have helped in some small way. I will be releasing some news soon on the Illustrated Guide, as well as another project that I have become engrossed with, and am very close to completing.
It's an interesting angle, most like Phillips and a few others think it was Cuneglasus' father, Owain who was 'The Bear' as Gildas calls him the "Driver of the Chariot(Receptacle) of the Bear's stronghold", with Phillips implying that it wasn't Cuneglasus himself, but instead Owain, I don't particularly agree one way or the other myself. The approach here relies quite a bit on later things like Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, which is inevitable, but we must take those sources with a grain of salt of course. The origin of the name Arthur is hotly contested, and there are a number of possibilities, like the mentioned in the article Arth-Gwyr and Artorius explanations. There is reason to believe Arthur may have originated with the original version of the name Arthwys, which my friend outlines in a great article here: https://kigalidispatch.substack.com/p/the-impossibility-of-artorius. The two Arthwys' mentioned in the article, Arthwys of the Pennines and Arthwys of Elmet are actually the same person, in reality Arthwys of Ebrauc, or Arthwys ap Mar, who was probably the high-king of the Coeling in the late 5th and early 6th centuries, who actually predates Cuneglasus by roughly a generation or so. Ken Dark's work on his proposed Brigantian High-Kingship that reinforced roman sites from York all the way to Hadrian's wall and then on to Carlisle in the 5th century lays the bedrock for this theory.
Not to just pick something apart though, the nuance here, is that Arthur, by the time we get to know him as anything other than vague battle-lists that can be made to fit wherever you want them to, and poetic mentions (which are associated with Northern Bards) is a composite figure, as early as Geoffrey of Monmouth's work in the 12th century. So while I think the Original Arthur was probably a northerner, someone like Cuneglasus could have easily contributed to the later corpus of legends, just as Athrwys ap Meurig probably gave some of the southern associations to him.
I'm not sure if this is helpful, but here goes! One, I absolutely love reading your articles and absorbing all the delicious food for thought. The thing I would say is that sometimes it's hard to see the forest through the trees, and I would love a little bit of an overview of all the work you've done, sort of a connective thread or index providing context and relativity between the theories/figures. I'm personally a little in over my head at times when reading so many details, and there's a lot of assumed knowledge, so knowing how the theories relate to a larger picture would aid my comprehension. But perhaps I'm not necessarily your intended audience and other readers understand perfectly well!
This is actually a big part of why I'm producing my Illustrated guide. A larger broadstrokes overview of the period. I try my best to include the articles a particular piece builds on, but sometimes it leads to feeling like I'm repeating myself which I try not to do, though I will try to include more thorough footnotes from here on.
I truly appreciate your measured and friendly response. So often folks immediately get defensive and angry. I look forward to seeing what you find!
whilst many have contributed to the myth many and I believe was Arthur Mac Aedan the Dal radian Bryhonic Prince son of Aedan Mac Gabran and a Brythonic Princess of Manaw Gododdin as the dates, battles and location of Camelot match up My friend is a historian and Arthur expert who wrote The King Arthur Conspiracy how a Scottish Prince became a mythical Hero .. Arthur was never a king he was a commander in chief so to speak of Brythonic forces He has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried on Iona he has sent me a photo of where Arthur is buried
I have actually read his book before, albeit long ago. I definitely think he contributed to the legends, the hurdle in my opinion lays in thr extant sources, just like with all of these figures unfortunately. I'll definitely have to check it out again.
the author who's real name is Lynn Davies has written several books around the real Arthur and Merlin and we chat often about it. I have been obsessed with Arthur for decades. As clans Campbell, MacArthur, Galibraith and Forbes claim descent of Arthur Mac Adean and those clans are in my tree and prob yours too if you have any British or Irish ancestor in your tree. Which means we are descendants of Arthur
They are, descended from Arthwys as well through the Calcfynydd line.
Given the date and the popularity of the name Arthur following the ‘historical’ Arthur it is probable he is name after Arthur rather than being Arthur.
This is the 'namesake theory' that Bromwich and others like Andrew Breeze have put forward. I do agree with it, though I think with the nature of the scanty records of the period a lot of these later Arthur's ended up contributing to the later conception of Arthur. Goes a long way towards explaining the fancies of a pan-island high-king.
Given the sudden popularity in circles with British connections amongst high status families is a little bit hard to explain.
The surge in popularity post 500 is a bit hard to explain without some heroic figure prompting it.
I’d say Gildas tells us who Arthur is and either Riothamus, who was active around the same time, is one and the same person or his legend was bolted onto Amrbrosius
Geoffrey Ashe of course makes a great case in his work that Riothamus and Arthur are the same, but I'm unconvinced that he was the guy that Nennius' Battle list is about. I think there's a strong case to be made that much of what Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote was inspired by Riothamus, but I'm not convinced that Riothamus wasn't just a continental Breton leader. Gildas remarks on Ambrosius and Badon are quite vague IMO unfortunately for us, and seem to indicate some time had passed between Ambrosius' heyday and Badon.
I worked very closely with Alan Wilson on his Arthurian research throughout the early 90’s up to his death a couple of years ago.
I know he is considered a divisive character but I write this as someone who knew him as a friend first and saw the incredible research, due diligence, record checking and re-checking he did. I am yet to see any evidence that counters his research that there were multiple Arthur’s and that Arthur II, son of Meurig and grandson of Tewdrig inspired the majority of the legend that became medieval Arthur. Arthur I was important too but the clearly identifiable Arthur II and his brother Madoc left traces all over South East Wales and their graves are exactly where the records say they are.
I try to avoid discussing other authors theories as it usually leads to unproductive mud slinging that I don't feel contributes to anything. I do think that Athrwys is key in explaining the connection to South Wales, but as I maintain, by the time of Geoffrey and the Bruts based on his work Arthur is 100% a composite figure. Thank you for your comment!
Fully understand your position. I have been through it over the last three and ½ decades of dealing with his work and I know what you mean. He left me and two other close friends, a series of “time capsule” boxes filled with his most important discoveries and avenues to research further. Research that he never got to complete as he was pulled in a different direction or new discoveries took over.
Slowly, I am compiling everything and shall see what it reveals. Keep up your great work and thanks for the opportunity to speak.
Like the other commenter, I have always been interested in the Dal Riatan connection, but honestly my main interest is in your meta-analysis.
I've been slowly delving into Dal Riata, I am familiar with it from some books I read earlier, including the aforementioned book. Thank you as always for your support
Hi,
I've been unwell, in and out of hospitalie last 3 years. Reading your work and seeing all your illustrations and art work has kept me going.
I have been wondering about a few things, they are probably nonsense but I thought I'd offer up a few and see what you might think.
Vortigern
The pillar of Elise gives a genealogy without Vortimer or Cattigern. This coupled with the potential issues around the florit of Vortigern has made me wonder if the Pillar records ONLY the genealogy of the ruling house of early Powys?
Could Catel Durnluc have been the leader and founder og Powys, and passed the rule of Powys to his son Cattegirn, who subsequently died without children, so the rule of Powys passed to Vortigern's (Catel's brother) son Brittu. Brittu, Pascent, Manu and Annan being remembered on the Pillar.
After the battle of Guollop the reign passed to the younger brother Pascent.
Vortigern is also remembered as the governor of Dubris aka Dover. Could it be possible Vortigern never ruled Powys, but as the father of two who did, be remembered and honoured on the Pillar?
This Vortigern could possibly be married to Severa daughter of Magnus Maximus if Severa was born in late 370's to 380? With Vortigern being born around late 360's early 370. Might it be that Vortigern and Severa had another son, the eldest, possibly called Vortigern after his father? Or called Vitalinus? The Vitalinus who fought Ambrosius at Guollop? Might Vortigern the 1st have been the leader of the British Council after the Romans left, with his son Vortigern 2nd/ Vitalinus as governor of Dubris? Might Vortigern the first have retired leaving the rule of Britain (at least the southern half) under his son: Vitalinus/Vortigern ii/ the proud tyrant.
Vortigern ii/ Vitalinus is then the father of Vortimer and Cattegirn. It could be this 2nd Vortigern who married Hengist’s daughter, after the death of his first wife (the mother of Vortimer and Cattegirn).
I wonder if Vortigern the 1st and the council of Britain had invited the Gerwissa in to Britain in 425/430's. Later the unlucky Vortigern ii/ Vitalinus invites Hengest and Horsa in 446/449 ish. Vitalinus being thr governor of Dubris may then explain their settlement in Kent and Thanet Island.
I wonder if Vortigern and Severa had married about the late 490's with Vortigern about, or in his early 20's and Severa nor much older than 16ish. Vortigern's rule of Britain beginning in 425 with him about the age of 45. Vitalinus is born around 400ish and Brittu, Manu, Annan and Pascent between 400 and 420, maybe. It might be the 425 date is actually the start of the high kingship of Vitalinus and that Vortigern had been in a position of power from before or just after 410.
I guess Vortimer is born about 420ish, Catgirn and their sister Ribrawst around about 422- 426ish.
I wonder if the battel of Guollop and the tale of the red and white dragon recall the same events. If Bishop Germanus did make a second visit in 437 could this be when he prays for 3 nights and days for the destruction of Vortigern? Lighting strikes the tower, might the lightning of Germanus be Ambrosius Aurelianus? Could this also be when Ambrosius Emrys aka Ambrosius Aurelianus show Vortigern the red and white dragon, could these be Draco standards, the Red Ambrosius's and the white Vortigern 's? The red wins, the tower falls and Vortigern the 1st dies. On his way home Ambrosius meets Vitalinus and his army and the battle of Gullop takes place, Germanus stops the conflict and the south of Britain is divided between Vitalinus in the southeast and Ambrosius in the southwest. This might around for Nennius seeming to specify a 2nd Vortigern when he calls him Vortigern the thin; the two versions of Vortigerns death; the two versions of Foederati being invited into the island, and the long life of Vortigern.
Vitalinus aka Vortigern the 2nd then dies or is exiled (he is i his late 50's or early 60's)during Hengest uprising, exiled I feel is more likely. The Britons of the southeast rally under Vortimer and Catgirn. Catgirn and Horsa die early in the conflict around 455 and Vortimer later in 456 or 457 about the age of 40.
Anyway just a thought. I also wonder if Ambrosius and Amlawdd Wledig might be one and the same person. And if Erbin and Geraint rueling in Alt Clut might be the same as the Erbin and Geraint who rule in Dumnonia? Coukd here have been a stronger north south link than is thought? But that's more than enough of my silly speculation.
Thank you for all your work and art. I'm so excited for you book.
I'm very glad to hear that I have helped in some small part, that means a great deal to me.
I think you're pretty spot on with the Pillar not recording the entire pedigree, only those that eventually held power in Powys. The chronology of Vortigern is quite stressed overall, and hard to really work out with a single even extremely geriatric man. I have seen the suggestion of Vortigern and Vitalinus being a father/son or son/father combo, and I think it the most likely, with them later being conflated into a single person, even possibly among their descendants. I can't really think of a better way to solve that chronology. We could accept that Magnus could have had a daughter born in Britain all the way to his exit for the continent, ~383, and Vortigern being born around the same time, that can rectify things a little. 380-460 being possible, and it does place all of his sons somewhere in the right ballpark chronologically, though This is still strained, and the insertions of Vitalinus as either father or son does help. I'll one day reinvestigate Vortigern, though my focus is elsewhere right now.
I have had a fleeting thought that Amlawdd may be Ambrosius, but I do feel that Amlawdd, much like Brychan exists as a convenient way to make kings 'related' to the later legendary Arthur, without claiming direct descent.
I think the Erbin and Geraint in Dumnonia are actually a result of 16th century and later scholars playing willy-nilly with Dumonia/Damnonia. None of the pedigrees for Alt Clut mention them to my knowledge, though I may be missing one from Iolo (suspect anyway). I think Alt Clut is fairly well accounted for (Coroticus/Ceredig-Cinuit-Dyfnwal-Clionoch-Caw (Usurper)-Tutuagual-Rhydderch) once you accept that the line from Coroticus is not descended from Magnus Maximus, and synthesize the accepted pedigrees into a single tree, omitting that. Geraint and Erbin don't seem to fit.
Like I said, I am glad to hear that I have helped in some small way. I will be releasing some news soon on the Illustrated Guide, as well as another project that I have become engrossed with, and am very close to completing.
This remains the most convincing argument I’ve read: https://www.angelfire.com/md/devere/urse.html
It's an interesting angle, most like Phillips and a few others think it was Cuneglasus' father, Owain who was 'The Bear' as Gildas calls him the "Driver of the Chariot(Receptacle) of the Bear's stronghold", with Phillips implying that it wasn't Cuneglasus himself, but instead Owain, I don't particularly agree one way or the other myself. The approach here relies quite a bit on later things like Geoffrey of Monmouth's work, which is inevitable, but we must take those sources with a grain of salt of course. The origin of the name Arthur is hotly contested, and there are a number of possibilities, like the mentioned in the article Arth-Gwyr and Artorius explanations. There is reason to believe Arthur may have originated with the original version of the name Arthwys, which my friend outlines in a great article here: https://kigalidispatch.substack.com/p/the-impossibility-of-artorius. The two Arthwys' mentioned in the article, Arthwys of the Pennines and Arthwys of Elmet are actually the same person, in reality Arthwys of Ebrauc, or Arthwys ap Mar, who was probably the high-king of the Coeling in the late 5th and early 6th centuries, who actually predates Cuneglasus by roughly a generation or so. Ken Dark's work on his proposed Brigantian High-Kingship that reinforced roman sites from York all the way to Hadrian's wall and then on to Carlisle in the 5th century lays the bedrock for this theory.
Not to just pick something apart though, the nuance here, is that Arthur, by the time we get to know him as anything other than vague battle-lists that can be made to fit wherever you want them to, and poetic mentions (which are associated with Northern Bards) is a composite figure, as early as Geoffrey of Monmouth's work in the 12th century. So while I think the Original Arthur was probably a northerner, someone like Cuneglasus could have easily contributed to the later corpus of legends, just as Athrwys ap Meurig probably gave some of the southern associations to him.