Britain's most legendary warrior King Arthur never existed and was only created as a "Celtic superhero", according to new evidence from an archaeologist.
Dr Miles Russell, a senior lecturer at Bournemouth University, now claims he can prove the medieval warlord is actually a composite of real-life leaders...
LEGEND OF THE SWORD King Arthur did NOT EXIST and was created as a ‘Celtic superhero’ mixture of real warlords, archaeologist claims
Dr Miles Russell, an archaeologist, claims that the leader is actually based on five different real-life medieval leaders.
By Paul Harper
The Sun on Sunday
8th October 2017
BRITAIN'S most legendary warrior King Arthur never existed and was only created as a "Celtic superhero", according to new evidence from an archaeologist.
Dr Miles Russell, a senior lecturer at Bournemouth University, now claims he can prove the medieval warlord is actually a composite of real-life leaders.
Many books and films have featured the famous King Arthur including this 2004 version starring Clive Owen
Traditionally, Arthur is said to have led the British when they defeated an invading Saxon army at the legendary Battle of Badon sometime between 490AD and 520AD.
But his story evolved into a magical fantasy tale through the History of the Kings of Britain by 12th century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Now Dr Russell has revealed that he believes Arthur's story is derived from five different characters who actually existed.
He came to his conclusion after studying the Monmouth book and other medieval texts.
Now an archaeologist, Miles Russell, is claiming that King Arthur is based on five characters and never existed
A large part of the Arthur tale is based on Constantine the Great, who was acclaimed Roman Emperor in York in 306AD, according to Dr Russell
A coin featuring the Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus who usurped the throne in 383AD. He could be another source of inspiration for Arthur
He pointed to the similarities between Arthur and Ambrosius Aurelianus, a leader of the Roman-British population in the Fifth Century.
In the most contemporary account of the period, when Arthur was said to exist, a British monk Gildas writing around 540AD in a scathing attack on the native Britons names Ambrosius as the leader who leads the fight back against the Saxons.
The battle culminate in the victory at Badon - but Gildas does not mention Arthur.
According to Dr Russell, an extra 39 per cent of the character was taken from Magnus Maximus.
Charlie Hunnam stars in the 2017 film 'King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword'
A painting of King Arthur in Winchester, Hampshire, where some believe his stronghold was located
The story of Arthur has spawned many famous aspects including his Knights of the Round Table
King Arthur receiving his magic sword Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake
He was a rebellious Roman general in Britain who usurped Emperor Gratian in the late Fourth Century, before being killed in battle five years later.
Dr Russell claims another eight per cent was drawn from Constantine the Great - who was acclaimed Roman Emperor in York in 306AD - and 24 per cent from Arvirargus, a possibly historical British King of the 1st Century.
The rest of the Arthur character - 12 per cent - is drawn from tribal chief Cassivellaunus who fought against Julius Caesar's second expedition to Britannia in 54BC.
Dr Russell was due to present his findings at the BBC History Magazine Festival in Winchester today.
He told The Times: "When you start to look at King Arthur in detail you realise that he is an amalgam of at least five separate characters — he never existed as an independent person at all."
Was King Arthur real?
Historians have spent years trying to find evidence that a real King Arthur existed but it has proved frustratingly elusive.
The tale of Arthur took a fantasy, magical narrative through the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
But many scholars believe there may just actually have been a leader called Arthur (or Artorious in Latin) who existed.
The first and most famous reference to Arthur comes in the 9th century Historia Brittonum, which has been attributed in parts to Welsh monk Nennius.
In his retelling of Celtic Briton's history, he names Arthur as a military commander NOT a king.
Arthur was actually chosen by native kings to be the leader in 12 battles against the Saxons, which are outlined by Nennius, ending in the Battle of Badon.
In the fighting at Badon, Arthur reportedly "killed 960 men" in one charge, according to the Historia Brittonum.
The 10th-century Annales Cambriae, chronicles composed at St David's Cathedral in Pembrokeshire, Wales, also names Arthur as the leader at Badon.
A stone discovered in 1998 at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, where he was conceived in medieval tradition, contained the inscription "Artognou" which some have linked to Arthur.
There are other fascinating potential references to an Arthur.
In the famous Welsh poem Y Gododdin, written sometime between the seventh and 11th century, his name pops up again.
This was a tribute poem to warriors from the Brittonic Welsh kingdom of Gododdin who died fighting the northern Angle kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia in the early seventh century.
It says one of the fallen comrades was 'no Arthur'.
Another Arthur reference pops up in an elegy for Geraint, a king of the southwest Celtic kingdom Dumnonia, who died in 710AD.
A Romano-British war leader Riothamus, who fought the Goths around 470AD, was considered a likely contender for the real-life Arthur because he was last recorded as being near the French town of "Avallon". Arthur's final destination was Avalon.
Another contender to be Arthur, who has puzzled historians almost as much as the medieval warrior, is the mysterious Cerdic.
He founded a kingdom, which became Wessex and later England, around roughly the same 5th/6th century period.
While described as a Germanic invader, many historians suggest Cerdic, based on his name being derived from a Brittonic one 'Ceretic' and because his ancestry appears invented, was actually a native leader who staged a takeover with Saxon mercenaries.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4635192/king-arthur-legend-celtic-superhero-badon/
Dr Miles Russell, a senior lecturer at Bournemouth University, now claims he can prove the medieval warlord is actually a composite of real-life leaders...
LEGEND OF THE SWORD King Arthur did NOT EXIST and was created as a ‘Celtic superhero’ mixture of real warlords, archaeologist claims
Dr Miles Russell, an archaeologist, claims that the leader is actually based on five different real-life medieval leaders.
By Paul Harper
The Sun on Sunday
8th October 2017
BRITAIN'S most legendary warrior King Arthur never existed and was only created as a "Celtic superhero", according to new evidence from an archaeologist.
Dr Miles Russell, a senior lecturer at Bournemouth University, now claims he can prove the medieval warlord is actually a composite of real-life leaders.
Many books and films have featured the famous King Arthur including this 2004 version starring Clive OwenTraditionally, Arthur is said to have led the British when they defeated an invading Saxon army at the legendary Battle of Badon sometime between 490AD and 520AD.
But his story evolved into a magical fantasy tale through the History of the Kings of Britain by 12th century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Now Dr Russell has revealed that he believes Arthur's story is derived from five different characters who actually existed.
He came to his conclusion after studying the Monmouth book and other medieval texts.
Now an archaeologist, Miles Russell, is claiming that King Arthur is based on five characters and never existed
A large part of the Arthur tale is based on Constantine the Great, who was acclaimed Roman Emperor in York in 306AD, according to Dr Russell
A coin featuring the Roman Emperor Magnus Maximus who usurped the throne in 383AD. He could be another source of inspiration for ArthurHe pointed to the similarities between Arthur and Ambrosius Aurelianus, a leader of the Roman-British population in the Fifth Century.
In the most contemporary account of the period, when Arthur was said to exist, a British monk Gildas writing around 540AD in a scathing attack on the native Britons names Ambrosius as the leader who leads the fight back against the Saxons.
The battle culminate in the victory at Badon - but Gildas does not mention Arthur.
According to Dr Russell, an extra 39 per cent of the character was taken from Magnus Maximus.
Charlie Hunnam stars in the 2017 film 'King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword'
A painting of King Arthur in Winchester, Hampshire, where some believe his stronghold was located
The story of Arthur has spawned many famous aspects including his Knights of the Round Table
King Arthur receiving his magic sword Excalibur from the Lady of the Lake
He was a rebellious Roman general in Britain who usurped Emperor Gratian in the late Fourth Century, before being killed in battle five years later.
Dr Russell claims another eight per cent was drawn from Constantine the Great - who was acclaimed Roman Emperor in York in 306AD - and 24 per cent from Arvirargus, a possibly historical British King of the 1st Century.
The rest of the Arthur character - 12 per cent - is drawn from tribal chief Cassivellaunus who fought against Julius Caesar's second expedition to Britannia in 54BC.
Dr Russell was due to present his findings at the BBC History Magazine Festival in Winchester today.
He told The Times: "When you start to look at King Arthur in detail you realise that he is an amalgam of at least five separate characters — he never existed as an independent person at all."
Was King Arthur real?
Historians have spent years trying to find evidence that a real King Arthur existed but it has proved frustratingly elusive.
The tale of Arthur took a fantasy, magical narrative through the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
But many scholars believe there may just actually have been a leader called Arthur (or Artorious in Latin) who existed.
The first and most famous reference to Arthur comes in the 9th century Historia Brittonum, which has been attributed in parts to Welsh monk Nennius.
In his retelling of Celtic Briton's history, he names Arthur as a military commander NOT a king.
Arthur was actually chosen by native kings to be the leader in 12 battles against the Saxons, which are outlined by Nennius, ending in the Battle of Badon.
In the fighting at Badon, Arthur reportedly "killed 960 men" in one charge, according to the Historia Brittonum.
The 10th-century Annales Cambriae, chronicles composed at St David's Cathedral in Pembrokeshire, Wales, also names Arthur as the leader at Badon.
A stone discovered in 1998 at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, where he was conceived in medieval tradition, contained the inscription "Artognou" which some have linked to Arthur.
There are other fascinating potential references to an Arthur.
In the famous Welsh poem Y Gododdin, written sometime between the seventh and 11th century, his name pops up again.
This was a tribute poem to warriors from the Brittonic Welsh kingdom of Gododdin who died fighting the northern Angle kingdoms of Deira and Bernicia in the early seventh century.
It says one of the fallen comrades was 'no Arthur'.
Another Arthur reference pops up in an elegy for Geraint, a king of the southwest Celtic kingdom Dumnonia, who died in 710AD.
A Romano-British war leader Riothamus, who fought the Goths around 470AD, was considered a likely contender for the real-life Arthur because he was last recorded as being near the French town of "Avallon". Arthur's final destination was Avalon.
Another contender to be Arthur, who has puzzled historians almost as much as the medieval warrior, is the mysterious Cerdic.
He founded a kingdom, which became Wessex and later England, around roughly the same 5th/6th century period.
While described as a Germanic invader, many historians suggest Cerdic, based on his name being derived from a Brittonic one 'Ceretic' and because his ancestry appears invented, was actually a native leader who staged a takeover with Saxon mercenaries.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4635192/king-arthur-legend-celtic-superhero-badon/
Last edited:
