There were also unofficial sources of power. The powerful landowners fell into two groups. One were the Romanised villa-dwellers, involved in the political and economic lives of their towns. They were sponsors, and presumably adherents, of Roman pagan cults. As the empire became less stable, with barbarians and local peasants a source of threat, they supported private armies of bucellarii, heavies who protected their social position and capital.
On the western fringes, particularly in the province of Britannia Prima, urban and villa life did not really take hold. Here, as Roman rule collapsed, the local magnates who took power dwelt in refortified hillforts, patronised missionary and monastic Christians and favoured a culture more similar to that of their pre-Roman ancestors or their un-Romanised Irish neighbours. Their troops were far more likely to be semi-noble warbands than the mercenaries or tenants who formed the bucellarii.
The Romans based their civitates on the pre-existing tribes of Britain. In the west, it is conceivable that the Celtic warlords who re-established control after the end of Roman rule were actually the descendants of the former tribal kings four centuries earlier. Tribal kingship and identity proved very resilient in Ireland, by way of analogy. These Celtic kings look familiar to us. They are the archaeological manifestations of the rulers denounced by Gildas and the ancestors, real or imagined, of the kings of Dark Age Wales.
According to Gildas, the Roman civil and military structures disappeared when Magnus Maximus used them to usurp the Roman Empire. In this, he was wrong in detail – Roman military commands survived at least until soldiers from them backed Constantine III’s invasion of Gaul. At this point, according to Zosimus, the Britons drove out Constantine’s placemen in the civilian government and ruled themselves. It may or may not be significant that when the Emperor Honorius wrote to the Britons in 410 formalising this arrangement, he wrote specifically to the civitates, the lowest tier of government, as if the higher levels no longer existed.
It used to be the fashion to see characters such as Ambrosius as hanging on to old Roman posts. This does not seem to be borne out by the evidence. Gildas, for instance, is convinced that Roman rule is a thing of the distant past. On the other hand, it is possible that the new British rulers resurrected Roman structures for their own benefit.
Kingdoms of the West
The kingdoms of the Dark Age Britons derived, Dark argues, from the civitates. There is an indication of this in Gildas, explicitly in the case of Vortiporius, Tyrant of the Demetae – the civitas which would become the kingdom of Dyfed. It is also probably implicit in his description of Constantine. The civitas of the Dumnonii will become the Kingdom of Dyfneint.
Dark argues that in the east the civitates evolved into ‘kingdoms’ ruled by the Romanised magnates. In the west, the successors were the hillfort-dwelling ‘Celtic’ chieftains, whom he sees as the ‘kings’ proper. The civitas model allows us to refine the tentative geography we have used so far for the reign of Arthur. The locations and extents of the Roman civitates are much easier to determine than the early Dark Age kingdoms. We can therefore be much more precise about the ‘north-eastern’, ‘Kentish’ and ‘South Welsh’ Arthurian locations we have demonstrated earlier, as well as having a clearer idea of Gildas’s geography.
First, the most reasonable location for Gildas is the civitas of the Durotriges, extending from immediately south of Bath (the Wansdyke seems to be its frontier defence), down to the south coast. The ‘kingdom’ is bounded by Dumnonia to the west and Penselwood and the Saxons in Hampshire to the east. This fits the evidence from Gildas’s text exactly. It is also the conclusion reached by Higham from studying the geographic references in de Excidio Britanniae.
As Gildas starts his denunciations with the tyrant of the neighbouring Dumnonia, rather than his own land, we can suppose that he considered the ruler of the Durotriges as one of the handful of admirable rulers. It might be in deference to this local leader that Gildas calls Maglocunus greater than ‘almost all the leaders of Britain’.
The major centre of the kingdom would be South Cadbury Hillfort, replacing the Roman town of Ilchester. As the largest of the refortified hillforts, and because of later legends, South Cadbury has frequently been identified as the ‘Camelot’ of King Arthur. The Linnuis region where Arthur fought four of his battles could even be a mistake for Lindinis – Ilchester. Hitherto, we have given the consensus view that Linnuis is Lindsey. However, Lindsey does not feature as an area of conflict between Britons and Saxons in Dark’s analysis. It had been intensively settled since the early fifth century and has no obvious sub-Roman neighbours. Ilchester, on the other hand, was clearly in a war zone.
The Durotriges and the next polity north, the Dobunni (incorporating the lower Severn Valley, Bath, Gloucester and Cirencester) are where we would expect to find the battle of Mount Badon. Overall, the civitas of the Durotriges looks a promising candidate for Arthurian activity.
Dark acknowledges the existence and role of sub-kings within each kingdom, answerable to over-kings of the civitas. It is therefore possible that Aurelius Caninus and Cuneglassus, not linked explicitly to any civitates, are sub-kings noted for their wickedness rather than their power. However, like practically all other writers, Dark assumes that, since Constantine and Vortiporius are specifically linked to civitates/kingdoms, they are the over-kings of them, and the other tyrants hold similar positions. This means that, in the absence of any contradictory data, the three unlocated tyrants can be assigned to civitates/kingdoms around those fixed points of Dumnonia and Demetae.
On this assumption, Aurelius Caninus would be king of one of the three civitates between Dumnonia and Dyfed: Durotriges, Dobunnii or Silures/ Gwent. If Gildas is in Durotriges, this is an unlikely base for Aurelius, about whom he gives no up-to-date information.
Dobunni looks a rather better candidate for Aurelius’s kingdom. The Wansdyke, protecting Durotriges from the Dobunni, is indicative of civil wars between them, with the Dobunni as the aggressors. If the civil wars for which Aurelius is denounced focused on Gildas’s home civitas, this may have contributed to his animosity. It is the first of the civitates in what I have loosely referred to as ‘South Wales’ when discussing Arthurian sources. As a frontline area between the Saxons and the Britons, it would be an ideal setting for the careers of Ambrosius and Arthur. The broad geographical area where Mount Badon is likely to be located encompasses this civitas. We know it has previously been a target for the Saxons, as Gloucester is one of the Coloniae laid low by their battering rams.
The next civitas is that of the Silures. Dark suggests this would split into two polities in the sixth century. In the east would be Gwent, derived from the urban elite of Caerwent (Venta Silurum, from which it took its name), and Glywysing in the west, ruled by the hillfort-dwelling chieftains. A third kingdom, Brecheiniog, was formed within the civitas at this time.
The civitas of the Silures is a prime location for preserving traditions of Arthur. Some writers (e.g. Gilbert, Blackett and Wilson) have argued that Arthur was a native of Gwent, usually identified with Atrwys ap Meurig, from the Genealogies. Historia Brittonum specifically made Ambrosius a native of Glywysing. If that is true, then Aurelius Caninus, as his descendant, could plausibly be based here.
The region of Ercing, where the grave of Arthur’s son Anir was a wonder in the ninth century, is in this civitas. Davies speculates that Ercing was a distinct sub-kingdom of Gwent, derived from the Roman town of Ariconium. Although most of Davies’s sources, such as the twelfth-century Book of Llandaff, are not ones I would consider for evidence, it is interesting to note that the area is defined by a cluster of churches dedicated to St Dyfrig (Dubricius). Similar clusters for different saints mark out the extents of Glywysing and Brecheiniog. The later existence of a tribal area of the Magonsaete in the area may also be significant. The Durotriges were to be divided between the Dorsaete and the Sumorsaete (whence the modern counties of Dorset and Somerset derive) and the other sixth-century British frontier
areas were also to be characterised by tribal areas with the -saete suffix (Snyder 1998, Davies 1978).
If Arthur was the sub-king of Ercing, it would go some way to explaining the evidence which gives him either royal or less than royal status. Arthur would be positioned between the over-kings of Gwent, Powys and Dobunni. Self-preservation if nothing else would give him a reason for investing in alliances with them. It is easy to imagine him leading these ‘kings of the Britons’ against the invading Saxons.
Britons vs Saxons.
That the kingdoms of the South Welsh did co-operate in such a way is an inference we can draw from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry on the Battle of Dyrham. This saw the destruction of the civitas of the Dobunni and the conquest of its major cities, Bath, Gloucester and Cirencester. Three British kings died at the battle. Most historians have made the equation three cities = three kings, meaning that each city has its own king. This is not what the Chronicle says. Not only is it unlikely per se – what kind of tiny kingdom would include just one of these neighbouring cities? – it is not borne out by Dark’s analysis of the evolution of political control in the area. The kingdom of the Dobunni derives from the Roman civitas, centred on Cirencester, rather than the individual cities with their individual characteristics. Bath was a cultic spa centre and Gloucester a veterans’ settlement. If the three kings are not minuscule princelings, the only remaining hypothesis is that they are allies, quite possibly the rulers of Gwent, Powys and Dobunni.
If Arthur’s battle at the City of the Legion is really at Caerleon this would be within the Gwent kingdom. If Gloucester was attacked by Saxons in the previous generation, a battle at Caerleon is a possibility. Vortiporius is clearly located in Dyfed, leaving Powys and Gwynedd as possible locations for the other two tyrants, as well as areas for consideration as bases for King Arthur.
Paradoxically, the Kingdom of Gwynedd is the most difficult to trace back to a Roman civitas. It seems to bear a Celtic tribal name, but not that of the tribe who lived in the area during the Roman period, the Ordovices. We do not know whether the Ordovices were even organised as a civitas. As Gwynedd evolved in the Dark Ages, the non-Ordovican areas of Clwyd (the Decangli) and Ceredigion, became disputed border areas.
If we set aside the traditional attribution of Maglocunus to Gwynedd, we can see that on the evidence of both Gildas and Dark he might equally well be the King of Powys. Dark sees Powys evolving from the urban elite of the Cornovii. His choice of tyrant, chariot-riding Cuneglassus of the bear’s stronghold, seems an unlikely candidate for king of such a political unit. Dark is forced into some strained speculation to fit him into this pattern. It is rather more likely that Cuneglassus is a sub-king either of Ercing or of a North Welsh location. Dark sees the area of the Decangli as a debated zone between Gwynedd and Powys. It also boasts one of the likely Din Eirth locations. The Harleian Genealogies, used to support the identification of Maglocunus with the ruler of Gwynedd, link Cuneglassus to the same North Welsh Dynasty. If this is reliable in any sense, then Maglocunus and Cuneglassus could both be North Welsh, leaving Powys as one of the few kingdoms whose ruler is not a tyrant.
Powys is an area likely to have contributed to Nennius’s Arthur material. Carn Cabal, now Carn Gafallt, is in Powys, as was Chester, the more plausible of the two Cities of the Legion. Chester shows signs of sub-Roman use or occupation. The Book of the Blessed Germanus clearly has a Powysian slant to it, as does Nennius’s local knowledge of Fernmail, whose lands, Builth and Gwerthrynion, are sub-kingdoms of Powys. According to the Historia, Fernmail’s named ancestors were rulers of Builth after Ambrosius. If these are real characters, then we have proof that Gildas’s tyrants are not the only rulers between Dumnonia and Gwynedd.
Powys would constitute an obvious area for conflict between the Britons and the English. We could either see Arthur as a King of Powys, or the King of Powys as one of his major partners among the ‘Kings of the Britons’. If Arthur was actually King of Powys, it would be odd that Nennius does not mention the fact. He could have linked him to Catel, the dynastic founder in the Germanus material, or placed him in the genealogy of the contemporary rulers. The Powys dynasty of the later Dark Ages left genealogical material extending back to the sixth century and beyond, but did not choose Arthur as one of its members. The odds are that, although the King of Powys must have been a participant in the wars before Gildas’s birth, he too ‘was not Arthur’.
All these civitates fell within the province of Britannia Prima. Later we will look at the possibility of any higher authority binding them together. For the moment, we can say that the ‘South Welsh’ Arthurian material is not only fully in accord but also makes much better sense when understood in the context of the civitates of Britannia Prima. To examine the ‘Kentish’ material, we will have to look elsewhere.
Dark identifies the civitates of the Trinovantes and the Catuvellauni north of the lower Thames as a surviving sub-Roman unit. Later, the area would be ascribed to the Cilternsaete. Within this area, the cities of Verulamium, Colchester and London continued to be inhabited. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle saw London as a place of refuge for Britons fleeing the men of Kent. Additionally, there was an isolated sub-Roman pocket around Silchester.
Wars between the Saxons and these eastern enclaves could easily have been the source of the Kentish Arthur material. Their disappearance before the end of the sixth century could provide a convincing reason for the lack of details of Arthur or his family. Place-names associated with his rule or his victories would have been replaced soon afterwards by English ones. Later legends did show Arthur ruling in lowland England, but unfortunately these are just as likely to be anachronisms based on the medieval political geography of Britain as preserved tradition.
If Arthur came from the civitas of the Trinovantes, then self-preservation might have prompted him to give help to the western kings simply to ensure their support for the enclave. Alternatively, the Britons of the west may have felt loyalty to their beleaguered compatriots. Perhaps even a residual diocesan government in London might have encouraged joint action.
On a map, the Chilterns kingdom seems completely isolated, and it is difficult to imagine how Arthur could actually have fought campaigns here and in the west. In fact, the Saxon settlements could hardly have constituted an impervious ring of steel around the Chilterns. For instance, it would still have been accessible by sea via the Thames estuary. As Snyder points out, there is the distinct possibility that some of Arthur’s battles are intended to be naval. The battle by the mouth of the River Glein and some of the others on rivers could have been fought by boat. This should hardly be surprising since the Saxons had at first been exclusively sea raiders. Alfred’s campaigns against the Vikings required both land and sea forces and this could have been the case in the earlier period. Gildas bears witness to Britons travelling overseas, where some went into exile. Archaeologically, Mediterranean luxury goods show that the Britons had contacts with seafarers who presumably could have transported men and military materials as required.
Alternatively, it would have been possible to move from the South Welsh kingdoms to the Chilterns by the Ridgeway. Blocking or opening such a vital communication route would have been an obvious source of continuous conflict. John Morris, among many others, saw the Ridgeway as a location for the Arthurian wars. One of the strategic points along it, such as Liddington Castle (Badbury), would be an ideal setting for the siege of Mount Badon. Either side could be conceived of as besieging the other if their opponents occupied a defensive position astride the way. A siege from which the Britons emerged victorious could sound a devastating blow to the Saxons by ensuring the continuance of a British kingdom deep in their heartland.
Once again, the civitas model provides a convincing explanation for the later Arthurian evidence. It provides a framework whereby Arthur can lead united British kings with South Welsh connections against the kings of the men of Kent, exactly as Historia Brittonum would have it. Can the same analysis be appli
ed to the northern material?
The Carvetii, the civitas around Carlisle, which was still functioning in the fifth/sixth centuries, became a sub-Roman kingdom. The north-west, however, is not an area where any of our sources would have placed Arthur. It is the north-east which gave rise to the earliest reference to him.
Although not a civitas, the tribal Votadini and their Dark Age descendants, the Gododdin, formed a Dark Age kingdom. An obvious possibility is that, like Guaurthur, Arthur was from the kingdom of the Gododdin. Aside from some North Welsh heroes, added later in the poem’s development, there is no reason to suppose that anyone else mentioned in the poem has a different homeland. The Votadini/Gododdin were only occasionally part of the Roman Empire. However, there are signs in the poem of some Roman influence on them. The poem itself bears witness to the warriors’ fellow-feeling to other Britons and their antipathy to the Saxons. It is therefore conceivable that the attack on Catraeth is part of an ongoing history of campaigning in sub-Roman Britain.
Having said this, it would be difficult to account for Arthur of the Gododdin fighting in South Wales, other than for sheer love of adventure. Nennius, who describes the exploits of Cuneda of the Gododdin in Wales, does not record any tradition that Arthur, too, was from that area.
South of the Wall, North Britain had been dominated by the large civitas of the Brigantes, identified as one of the Dark Age kingdoms. Some scholars have argued that the Welsh word Brenhin (king) derived from the name of this powerful realm. The Brigantes would have been the largest civitas/kingdom, allowing us to deduce that Maglocunus, ‘greater than almost all the leaders of Britain’, was not its king. At some time before the Gododdin expedition, Angles had overrun the southern part, known by the British name ‘Deira’. Subsequently the northern part, Bernicia, was also conquered. By the end of the sixth century, only the sub-kingdom later attributed to the Pecsaete, known as ‘Elmet’ or ‘Loidis Regio’ (Leeds area) retained a British identity.
The Reign of Arthur Page 15
