Editing King Arthur (section)

== Historicity ==
{{Main|Historicity of King Arthur}}
[[File:Arthur Leading the Charge at Mount Badon.png|thumb|upright|"Arthur Leading the Charge at [[Battle of Badon|Mount Badon]]" 1898]]
King Arthur was traditionally accepted as a historic person. He was originally thought to have been an ancient British war commander and, at least from the early 12th century, a king. There was, however, much discussion regarding his various deeds, and contemporary scholars and clerics generally refuted the popular medieval belief in his extreme longevity and future return. From the eighteenth century onwards, there has been academic debate about the historicity of Arthur.<ref>{{Harvnb|Higham|2002|pp= 241–264}}</ref> Details of Arthur's story are mainly composed of [[Welsh mythology]], [[English folklore]] and literary invention, and most modern historians writing about the period do not think that he was a [[Historicity of King Arthur|historical figure]].<ref name="shippey"/><ref>{{Harvnb|Higham|2002|pp= 11–37}}, has a summary of the debate on this point.</ref>{{sfn|Davies|1993|p=133}}

One school of thought, citing entries in the ''[[Historia Brittonum]]'' (''History of the Britons'') and ''[[Annales Cambriae]]'' (''Welsh Annals''), saw Arthur as a genuine historical [[Romano-British]] leader who fought against the invading [[Anglo-Saxons]] sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century.

The ''Historia Brittonum'', a 9th-century Latin historical compilation attributed in some late manuscripts to a Welsh cleric called [[Nennius]], contains the first datable mention of King Arthur, listing twelve battles that Arthur fought. These culminate in the [[Battle of Badon]], where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. Recent studies question the reliability of the ''Historia Brittonum''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Dumville|1986}}; {{Harvnb|Higham|2002|pp= 116–169}}; {{Harvnb|Green|2007b|pp= 15–26, 30–38}}.</ref>

Archaeological evidence in the [[Low Countries]] and what was to become England shows that early Anglo-Saxon migration to Great Britain reversed between 500 and 550, concurring with Frankish chronicles. John Davies notes this as consistent with the [[Britons (historical)|British]] victory at Badon Hill, attributed to Arthur by Nennius.{{sfn|Davies|1993|p=56}} The monks of Glastonbury are also said to have discovered the grave of Arthur in 1180.{{sfn|Davies|1993|p=133}}<ref>{{Cite web |title=Arthur's Tomb |url=https://research.reading.ac.uk/glastonburyabbeyarchaeology/digital/arthurs-tomb-c-1331/arthurs-tomb |access-date=2022-08-08 |website=Glastonbury Abbey Archaeology |language=en-GB}}</ref>

The other text that seems to support the case for Arthur's historical existence is the 10th-century ''Annales Cambriae'', which also links Arthur with the Battle of Badon. The ''Annales'' date this battle to 516–518 and also mention the [[Battle of Camlann]], in which Arthur and [[Mordred|Medraut]] (Mordred) were both killed, dated to 537–539. These details have often been used to bolster confidence in the ''Historia''{{'}}s account and confirm that Arthur fought at Badon.
[[File:Llandaf, yr eglwys gadeiriol Llandaf Cathedral De Cymru South Wales 163.JPG|thumb|upright|King Arthur returning from the Battle of Mons Badonis (or Mount Badon). First reference to Arthur, found in early Welsh literature. Stained glass in [[Llandaff Cathedral]], Cardiff.]]
Problems have been identified, however, with using this source to support the ''Historia Brittonum''{{'}}s account. The latest research shows that the ''Annales Cambriae'' was based on a chronicle begun in the late 8th century in Wales. Additionally, the complex textual history of the ''Annales Cambriae'' precludes any certainty that the Arthurian annals were added to it even that early. They were more likely added at some point in the 10th century and may never have existed in any earlier set of annals. The Badon entry probably derived from the ''Historia Brittonum''.<ref>{{Harvnb|Green|2007b|pp=26–30}}; {{Harvnb|Koch|1996|pp=251–253}}.</ref>

This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of [[sub-Roman Britain]]. In the view of the historian [[Thomas Charles-Edwards]], "At this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but ...] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".<ref>{{Harvnb|Charles-Edwards|1991|p=29}}</ref> These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical. The historian [[John Morris (historian)|John Morris]] made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, ''The Age of Arthur'' (1973). Even so, he found little to say about a historical Arthur.<ref>{{Harvnb|Morris|1973}}</ref>

Partly in reaction to such theories, another school of thought emerged, arguing that Arthur had no historical existence. Morris's ''Age of Arthur'' prompted the archaeologist [[Nowell Myres]] to observe that "no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time".<ref>{{Harvnb|Myres|1986|p= 16}}</ref> [[Gildas]]'s 6th-century polemic ''[[De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae]]'' (''On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain''), written within living memory of Badon, mentions the battle but does not mention Arthur.<ref>, ''[[s:The Ruin of Britain|De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae]]'', chapter 26.</ref> Arthur is not mentioned in the ''[[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]]'' or named in any surviving manuscript written between 400 and 820.<ref>{{Harvnb|Pryor|2004|pp= 22–27}}</ref> He is absent from [[Bede]]'s early-8th-century ''[[Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum|Ecclesiastical History of the English People]]'', another major early source for post-Roman history that mentions Badon; instead, Bede refers to Ambrosius Aurelianus as the leader of the Britons at that battle, whose parents had perished 'in the storm' and who was 'of the royal race'.<ref>Bede, ''[[Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum]]'', [[s:Ecclesiastical History of the English People/Book 1#16|Book 1.16]].</ref> The historian [[David Dumville]] wrote: "I think we can dispose of him [Arthur] quite briefly. He owes his place in our history books to a 'no smoke without fire' school of thought&nbsp;... The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."<ref>{{Harvnb|Dumville|1977|pp= 187–188}}</ref>

Some scholars argue that Arthur was originally a fictional hero of folklore—or even a half-forgotten [[Celtic deity]]—who became credited with real deeds in the distant past. They cite parallels with figures such as the [[Kingdom of Kent|Kentish]] [[Hengist and Horsa]], who may be totemic horse-gods that later became historicised. Bede ascribed to these legendary figures a historical role in the 5th-century [[Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain|Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain]].<ref>{{Harvnb|Green|2009}}; {{Harvnb|Padel|1994}}; {{Harvnb|Green|2007b}}, chapters five and seven.</ref> It is not even certain that Arthur was considered a king in the early texts. Neither the ''Historia'' nor the ''Annales'' calls him "''rex''": the former calls him instead  "''[[dux]] bellorum''" (leader of wars) and "''miles''" (soldier).<ref>''Historia Brittonum'' [[s:History of the Britons#Arthuriana|56]], [[s:History of the Britons#Wonders of Britain|73]]; ''[[Annales Cambriae]]'' [[s:Welsh Annals|516, 537]].</ref>
[[File:Former Gravesite King Arthur (GlastonburyAbbey).jpg|thumb|upright|Supposed former gravesite of Arthur at [[Glastonbury Abbey]] in [[Somerset]]]]

[[Andrew Breeze]] argues that Arthur was a historical character who fought other Britons in the area of the future border between England and Scotland and claims to have identified the locations of his battles as well as the place and date of his death (in the context of the [[extreme weather events of 535–536]]),<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Breeze |first=Andrew |date=2015 |title=The Historical Arthur and Sixth-Century Scotland |journal=Northern History |volume=52 |issue=2 |pages=158–181|doi=10.1179/0078172X15Z.00000000085 |s2cid=161217897 }}; {{Cite book |last=Breeze |first=Andrew |title=British Battles 493-937: Mount Badon to Brunanburh |publisher=Anthem Press |year=2020 |isbn=9781785272233 |location=London |pages=13–24 |doi=10.2307/j.ctvv4187r |jstor=j.ctvv4187r |s2cid=243164764}}<!--|access-date=4 May 2020 --></ref> but his conclusions are disputed.<ref>{{Cite web |date=3 September 2015 |title=King Arthur 'was real, wasn't a king... and lived in Strathclyde' |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-arthur-legendary-figure-was-real-and-lived-most-of-his-life-in-strathclyde-academic-claims-10483364.html |access-date=30 December 2015 |website=The Independent |language=en-GB}}; {{cite book|last=Higham |first=Nicholas J. |title=King Arthur: The Making of the Legend|pages=262–63 |publisher=Yale University Press |location =New Haven, Connecticut |year=2018|isbn=978-0-300-21092-7}}; {{Cite web|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328448644| title=537 and Camlann (Flint Johnson, University of Wisconsin - River Falls)|website=researchgate.net|access-date=19 April 2021}}</ref> Other scholars have questioned his findings, which they consider are based on coincidental resemblances between place-names.<ref>{{Cite web|title = Academia up in arms over King Arthur's Glasgow roots|url = http://www.thenational.scot/news/academia-up-in-arms-over-king-arthurs-glasgow-roots.826|website = www.thenational.scot| date=6 March 2015 |access-date = 2015-12-30}}</ref> [[N. J. Higham|Nicholas Higham]] comments that it is difficult to justify identifying Arthur as the leader in northern battles listed in the ''Historia Brittonum'' while rejecting the implication in the same work that they were fought against Anglo-Saxons and that there is no textual justification for separating Badon from the other battles.<ref>{{cite book|last=Higham |first=Nicholas J. |title=King Arthur: The Making of the Legend|pages=262–63 |publisher=Yale University Press |location =New Haven, Connecticut |year=2018|isbn=978-0-300-21092-7}}</ref>

Several historical figures have been proposed as the basis for Arthur, ranging from [[Lucius Artorius Castus]], a Roman officer who served in Britain in the 2nd or 3rd century,<ref>{{Harvnb|Littleton|Malcor|1994}}</ref> to sub-Roman British rulers such as [[Riothamus|Riotamus]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Ashe|1985}}</ref> [[Ambrosius Aurelianus]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Reno|1996}}</ref> and the Welsh kings [[Owain Ddantgwyn]],<ref>{{Harvnb|Phillips|Keatman|1992}}</ref> Enniaun Girt,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Phillips |first=Graham |title=The Lost Tomb of King Arthur: The Search for Camelot and the Isle of Avalon |date=2016 |publisher=Bear & Company |author-link=Graham Phillips (writer)}}</ref> and [[Athrwys ap Meurig]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bartrum |first=Peter Clement |url=https://www.library.wales/fileadmin/fileadmin/docs_gwefan/casgliadau/Drych_Digidol/Deunydd_print/Welsh_Classical_Dictionary/02_A-B.pdf <!-- alternatve url = https://www.llgc.org.uk/fileadmin/fileadmin/docs_gwefan/casgliadau/Drych_Digidol/Deunydd_print/Welsh_Classical_Dictionary/02_A-B.pdf --> |title=A Welsh Classical Dictionary, people in History and Legend up to about A.D. 1000 |publisher=National Library of Wales |year=1993 |page=35 |quote=William Owen Pughe in his ''Cambrian Biography'', 1803, ... put forward the suggestion that Arthur was the same person as Athrwys ap Meurig. It was discussed and rejected by Sharon Turner (''History of the Anglo-Saxons'', Bk.3, Ch.3, 1805) and Rice Rees (''Welsh Saints'', 1836, pp.185-6), but accepted by Robert Owen (''The Kymry'', 1891, p.77)}}</ref> However, no convincing evidence for these identifications has emerged.<ref name="shippey"/><ref name="david">David, Brian, Review of Nicholas J. Higham, ''King Arthur: The Making of the Legend'' in ''Comitatus: A Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies'' '''50''':221-222 (2019) {{doi|10.1353/cjm.2019.0021}} {{Project MUSE|734087}}</ref>