My book is out!

At last, after years of writing, my book has now been released! It presents what I believe to be the most convincing argument ever presented for Arthur's true identity, as well as the first ever convincing explanation of his legendary European conquest and war against Rome. I'm really interested to hear what people think about it, and see how many people are convinced by it.

Here are some links for you to buy it:

Amberley (my publisher): https://www.amberley-books.com/current-month/king-arthur.html

Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/King-Arthur-Man-Conquered-Europe/dp/1445690837

Waterstones: https://www.waterstones.com/book/king-arthur/caleb-howells/9781445690834

WHSmith: https://www.whsmith.co.uk/products/king-arthur-the-man-who-conquered-europe/9781445690834

Blackwell's: https://blackwells.co.uk/bookshop/product/9781445690834

Telegraph Bookshop: https://books.telegraph.co.uk/Product/Caleb-Howells/King-Arthur--The-Man-Who-Conquered-Europe/23341250

Guardian Bookshop: https://guardianbookshop.com/king-arthur-9781445690834.html

So, of course, please feel free to buy my book and spread the word!

Official page for my book

My book now has an official page on my publisher's website, which you can see here: https://www.amberley-books.com/coming-soon/king-arthur.html

If you are interested in learning about my detailed explanation of Arthur's legendary European conquest, then please pre-order the book on that page. Or, if you would prefer, you can also find it on Amazon, Waterstones, WHSmith, and Blackwell.

Also, you may have noticed that the title has been changed from King Arthur: The Emperor's Son to King Arthur: The Man Who Conquered Europe. And here you can see the cover:

Arthur's Cave Burial

One of the most famous elements of the tales of Arthur is the tradition that he did not really die but is merely sleeping in a cave, surrounded by his knights and waiting to return to save Britain when it needs him the most (not all versions of the tradition contain that final part). It is also one of the most fanciful elements. But, much like the arrangement of the Knights of the Round Table, this seemingly fanciful tradition may actually have a firm basis in reality (see this post for the historical evidence for the Knights of the Round Table).

This theory did not originate with me (I found it from Arthurian researchers Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett) but the intricacies of the theory and the reasoning behind it that I will present here are my own.

The theory is that this tradition about Arthur sleeping in a cave originated with the fact that Arthur was actually secretly buried in a cave. The evidence that this secret burial occurred is found in the ninth century Historia Brittonum and the 12th century Life of Saint Illtyd. For a brief overview of the theory, see my Facebook post here. For a more detailed analysis, read on.

According to the accounts in the above mentioned two sources, Illtud was living as a hermit in a cave for a number of years. One day, two men came in a boat and brought him the body of a 'most holy man' whose identity was to be kept secret from others. They then buried the man. Later, a church was built over the body (it was evidently removed from the cave and reburied). So, what are the reasons for believing that the corpse in this story was actually that of Arthur's?

Firstly, consider the fact that the most common tellings of Arthur's demise (including the earliest, in Historia Regum Britanniae) recount how he was taken away in a boat to the mysterious 'Avalon' after being mortally wounded. Whatever Avalon was or whatever happened there, it would tie in well if this record about Illtyd was essentially the other end of the journey.

Secondly, the description of the body as being that of a 'most holy man' is a good match for Arthur. The earliest records concerning him reveal that, as well as being a king, he also served a religious function among his people. He is portrayed as upholding the religion of his kingdom in Historia Brittonum, where he carries 'the image of Saint Mary on his shoulders' during one of the battles - and in the Welsh Annals, he is said to have carried 'the Cross of Jesus Christ on his shoulders' during another one of the battles. In fact, there is even a case to be made that Arthur was viewed as the 'Pontifex Maximus' just like the earlier Roman Emperors. In any case, the two Arthurian records show that was did have an important religious role in his kingdom and would thus most definitely have been considered a 'most holy man'.

Thirdly, the timing is important. This account is placed very near the end of Illtyd's Life, and the evidence indicates that he died somewhere around the year 580. In close correspondence with this, the majority of the evidence concerning Arthur shows that he did not die until the 570s (see this post and this one). Thus, the event concerning Illtyd and the cave is a perfect chronological match for Arthur's death.

Finally, in some other legends of Arthur, he is said to have been buried underneath a 'newly-built chapel'. This is a nice match with the detail in the account about Illtyd that a church was later built over the body of the holy man.

So if this account about Illtyd and the secret burial really is actually about Arthur, then it would explain many things. It would offer an explanation for where Arthur's body ended up after being taken away in a boat to 'the Isle of Avalon'. It would explain the stories of Arthur in a cave and why there is a fanciful, mysterious element to such stories (for the cave burial was kept secret, remember). And it would explain how, at the same time, there are tales of Arthur being buried under a newly built chapel.

My new Instagram and Facebook pages

In conjunction with this blog, I have also created an Instagram page called History Mysteries, or 'caleb_history_mysteries'. It will deal with a much greater range of subjects than this blog, such as Atlantis, Robin Hood, Egyptian myths, while also including, of course, King Arthur. I just started it yesterday, so there's only one post so far. I'd love it if you guys could have a look and see what you think. You can find it here.

I've also created a new Facebook page. This will bring everything together, being a page on which I share the Instagram posts, these blog posts, my YouTube uploads, and also a few unique posts. You can find it here.

Geoffrey's source for the Roman era

As discussed in the previous post, it is a very common belief that Geoffrey of Monmouth derived most of his information about the Roman period of Britain from Nennius's Historia Brittonum, a British work from the ninth century. In that post, I argued that all the evidence indicates that Geoffrey absolutely did not use the information found in Historia Brittonum regarding Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain to create his own account in Historia Regum Britanniae. There is evidence of some slight textual relationship, but the two accounts are clearly very far removed from each other in whatever 'textual family tree' that might exist. Also notable is the fact that, when stripped down to the same level of detail as Nennius's account, Geoffrey's is by far the more accurate. This is illogical if Geoffrey took the information from HB and expanded on it, as is commonly argued. This evidence actually supports the idea that Geoffrey did have a genuine, otherwise-unknown, source that either predated or was simply more accurate than HB.

Now, we will look at the rest of the Roman period from Historia Brittonum, to see whether it is likely that it formed the origin of Geoffrey's account.

After describing Julius Caesar's invasion, here is what Nennius says about the Emperor:

"in honor of him [Julius] the Romans decreed the fifth month to be called after his name. He was assassinated in the Curia, in the ides of March."

This is nowhere to be found in Geoffrey's account. There is extra detail given after the end of the British invasion of 54 B.C.E., but this is not it. Instead, Geoffrey makes reference to Caesar's war against Pompey the Great.

After this, Nennius describes the successful Claudian invasion of 43 C.E., saying:

"He carried with him war and devastation; and, though not without loss of men, he at length conquered Britain. He next sailed to the Orkneys, which he likewise conquered, and afterwards rendered tributary."

Almost all of this is very general, and there is nothing here which is unique to Nennius and Geoffrey, so nothing notable to speak of. Nennius's next line is much more interesting:

"No tribute was in his time received from the Britons; but it was paid to British emperors."

This is not in Geoffrey's account. There are no 'British emperors' at all. If Geoffrey was taking information from Historia Brittonum and expanding it, one would absolutely expect there to be something about British emperors at this point. But there is nothing to that effect in HRB.

The next line in Nennius's account is as follows:

"He [Claudius] reigned thirteen years and eight months. His monument is to be seen at Moguntia (among the Lombards), where he died in his way to Rome." 

None of this is present in Geoffrey's account.

Next we find a reference to an event which is not known from contemporary sources, but which is nevertheless not unique to Nennius and Geoffrey - it was known from at least as early as the sixth century. In Nennius's account, it begins as follows:

"After the birth of Christ, one hundred and sixty-seven years, king Lucius..."

Let's take a look at the year first. In HRB, the date of Lucius' death is given as 156 years 'after the Lord's incarnation', whereas Nennius has his baptism as being in 167. For what reason would Geoffrey have intentionally changed this information? Clearly he did not derive his information about dates from Nennius.

"...with all the chiefs of the British people, received baptism, in consequence of a legation sent by the Roman emperors..."

The Roman emperors have nothing to do with it in Geoffrey's version.

"...and pope Evaristus."

In Geoffrey's account, the pope is Eleutherius, not Evaristus.

How can it possibly be believed that Geoffrey created his account of this event as found in HRB from the information about it in HB? Such a conclusion is absurd.

After this comes a description of Septimius Severus's campaign in the north of Britain:

"Severus was the third emperor who passed the sea to Britain..."

Geoffrey calls Severus a senator, not an emperor.

"...where, to protect the provinces recovered from barbaric incursions, he ordered a wall and a rampart to be made..."

There is no rampart in Geoffrey's account, only a wall.

"...between the Britons, the Scots, and the Picts, extending across the island from sea to sea..."

The Scots are not mentioned in Geoffrey's version of this account.

"...in length one hundred and thirty-three miles: and it is called in the British language, Gwal."

None of this information is included in Geoffrey's HRB.

"More over, he ordered it to be made between the Britons, and the Picts and Scots; for the Scots from the west, and the Picts form the north, unanimously made war against the Britons; but were at peace among themselves. Not long after Severus dies in Britain."

The Scots are mentioned not just once but three times in Nennius's version of this event. Yet, once again, Geoffrey makes no mention of them at all.

After this, Nennius describes the usurpation of Carausius:

"The fourth was the emperor and tyrant, Carausius, who, incensed at the murder of Severus, passed into Britain, and attended by the leaders of the Roman people, severely avenged upon the chiefs and rulers of the Britons, the cause of Severus."

This implies that Carausius was already an emperor before he 'passed into Britain'. In reality (and this is accurately conveyed by Geoffrey of Monmouth), he was a Roman soldier who, after being summoned to the capital due to alleged misconduct, retreated into Britain and declared himself emperor there. Additionally, his rulership had nothing whatsoever to do with avenging Severus, and this inaccuracy is not present in Geoffrey's account. So really, Nennius's Carausius is about as different from Geoffrey's as can be (and let it be noted that Geoffrey's version is much more accurate).

After this description of Carausius, HB has this to say about Constantius:

"The fifth was Constantius the father of Constantine the Great. He died in Britain; his sepulchre, as it appears by the inscription on his tomb, is still seen near the city named Cair segont (near Carnarvon). Upon the pavement of the above-mentioned city he sowed three seeds of gold, silver, and brass, that no poor person might ever be found in it. It is also called Minmanton."

After the line 'he died in Britain', none of the information presented here features in Geoffrey's account.

Nennius's account continues:

"Maximianus was the sixth emperor that ruled in Britain. It was in his time that consuls began, and that the appellation of Caesar was discontinued: at this period also, St. Martin became celebrated for his virtues and miracles, and held a conversation with him."

Absolutely none of this is in Geoffrey's HRB. This entire episode in the Roman era of Britain is excluded from Geoffrey's account. It is also significant that Maximianus was not real, once again showing how Geoffrey's account is more accurate than Nennius's, despite, so we are supposed to believe, being little more than an expansion of it.

After this, Nennius includes an abundance of accurate information about the usurper, Magnus Maximus. This is interesting, because it is generally held that Nennius's 'Maximianus' is a duplicate of 'Maximus'. But Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'Magnus Maximus' is actually called 'Maximianus'. So, did Geoffrey pick the name from one emperor in Nennius's account but apply to it the information about the following emperor? No, the far more logical conclusion is that Magnus Maximus was, in some records, mistakenly called 'Maximianus'. Thus, Nennius must have found information about a Maximianus who came after Constantius, but also information about Magnus Maximus. So he wrote about both, not realising they were the same person. In contrast, Geoffrey's source simply used one of those sources that referred to Maximus by the inaccurate 'Maximianus'. He clearly did not get his information from HB.

And then, in HB, we get the inexplicable Severus Aequantius, who doesn't feature at all in Geoffrey's account (nor in any other account, for that matter). Then we have Constantius, who reigned for 16 years, while Geoffrey writes about a Constantine (why would he have changed the name?) who ruled for 10 years.

As with the account of Julius Caesar's invasion of Britain, the only reason Geoffrey's account is generally similar to Nennius's is because they are both talking about real history. But significantly, HB includes a huge amount of material which is not present in HRB - much of which is actually inaccurate - or material which HRB contradicts. The conclusion that Geoffrey used Historia Brittonum as a basis for his account of the Roman era of Britain completely flies in the face of all the facts.

Geoffrey, Nennius and the Invasion of Britain

Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae is a cause of significant debate amongst Arthurian theorists. The author claimed to have been translating one particular 'ancient book written in the British tongue'. However, this claim has been seriously contested, and it is now felt by the majority of scholars that Geoffrey simply created his own account from the various different sources he had at his disposal, such as the works of Gildas, Bede, the Welsh Annals, the Historia Brittonum, and the genealogies such as those found in the Harleian MS 3859. On the other hand, there are those who insist that Geoffrey was telling the truth and that there did exist one particular source, now lost to us, which Geoffrey translated.

The first school of thought generally encapsulates the idea that Geoffrey did not possess any sources that we do not now have, which would mean that his Historia Regum Britanniae can offer no unique historical insights. In contrast, the second school of thought absolutely allows for the possibility that HRB contains some valid historical traditions not found anywhere else.

I am not going to settle this whole debate in one blog post, but what I will do here is address one particular claim regarding Geoffrey's sources. It is claimed that he clearly got his account of Julius Caesar's invasions of Britain in 55 B.C.E. and 54 B.C.E. from the account found in Historia Brittonum, commonly attributed to Nennius (such attribution is no longer widely accepted, but it will be used here, as it is throughout my blog, for the sake of simplicity). Is this a sensible conclusion? Is this a conclusion that really follows what the evidence shows, or it is a conclusion that has been reached simply because there is no other way of explaining Geoffrey's account without accepting that he had access to sources no longer available to us?

The account found in Historia Brittonum is very brief, so it will be quoted in full here:

Then Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames, where they suffered shipwreck whilst he fought against Dolobellus, (the proconsul of the British king, who was called Belinus, and who was the son of Minocannus who governed all the islands of the Tyrrhene Sea), and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered. 

But after three years he again appeared with a large army, and three hundred ships, at the mouth of the Thames, where he renewed hostilities. In this attempt many of his soldiers and horses were killed; for the same consul had placed iron pikes in the shallow part of the river, and this having been effected with so much skill and secrecy as to escape the notice of the Roman soldiers, did them considerable injury; thus Caesar was once more compelled to return without peace or victory. The Romans were, therefore, a third time sent against the Britons; and under the command of Julius, defeated them near a place called Trinovantum [London], forty- seven years before the birth of Christ, and five thousand two hundred and twelve years from the creation.

It is easy enough to compare this account with the account provided by Geoffrey of Monmouth in Historia Regum Britanniae. The reader can then see for himself whether or not it is logical to conclude that this was the origin of Geoffrey's version of events.

First, let us consider the invasion of 55 B.C.E.:

"Julius Caesar, the first who had acquired absolute power at Rome, highly incensed against the Britons, sailed with sixty vessels to the mouth of the Thames,"

Geoffrey includes plenty of numerical information in his book, but he does not include this.

"where they suffered shipwreck"

Geoffrey makes no mention of this.

"whilst he fought against Dolobellus,"

There is no Dolobellus in Geoffrey's account. The closest thing is Dorobellum, where Cassivellaunus holds council before attacking Caesar's army.

"(the proconsul of the British king, who was called Belinus,"

Belinus does appear, but he is only the general of the army, while the king is Cassivellaunus.

"and who was the son of Minocannus who governed all the islands of the Tyrrhene Sea),"

This certainly doesn't appear!

"and thus Julius Caesar returned home without victory, having had his soldiers slain, and his ships shattered."

Again, there no mention of any damage being received by his ships in Geoffrey's account.

Thus, in almost every single statement made by HB, it differs from HRB. Yes, they have general similarities, but that is simply because they are talking about the same historical event. Of course they have similarities. But in virtually all the details, the two accounts are completely dissimilar.

Now, let us look at the second invasion:

"But after three years he again appeared with a large army,"

According to Geoffrey of Monmouth, it was two years, not three.

"and three hundred ships,"

Again, Geoffrey does not include this numerical information, despite clearly being perfectly willing to put numerical information in his book.

"at the mouth of the Thames, where he renewed hostilities. In this attempt many of his soldiers and horses were killed; for the same consul had placed iron pikes in the shallow part of the river,"

'the same consul' is Dolobellus, yet he is not mentioned here in HRB, just as he was not mentioned earlier. The HRB attributes the stakes to Cassivellaunus.

"and this having been effected with so much skill and secrecy as to escape the notice of the Roman soldiers, did them considerable injury; thus Caesar was once more compelled to return without peace or victory. The Romans were, therefore, a third time sent against the Britons;"

This is the only example of an inaccuracy in the HB which is also present in the HRB, and is thus the only possible reason for concluding that they are in any way textually related. But this could very easily be attributed to a common source.

"and under the command of Julius, defeated them near a place called Trinovantum,"

Trinovantum is featured numerous times in HRB, but it is not mentioned here. Instead, Geoffrey gives Dorobernia (Canterbury) as the location of Cassivellaunus's defeat.

Once again, the reason they are similar is because they are describing the same event. The only detail that could possibly lead anyone to conclude that one was dependent on the other is the information about the 'third' invasion, as I mentioned earlier. But that is easily explained as deriving from a common source. The idea that HB was the actual source used by the writer of HRB for this event completely flies in the face of the facts concerning what HB says and what HRB says.

Of course, this conclusion presents a problem for those who subscribe to the idea that Geoffrey did not possess any historical sources that we don't now have. If Geoffrey did not use HB, then where did he get this information from? HRB is evidently textually related to HB to some degree (as is apparent by the claim of three invasions instead of two, and the inclusion of the apparently fictional 'Trinovantum'), but as has been clearly shown here, the account cannot have been taken directly from HB. So this would result in the conclusion that there was indeed a separate British account of this invasion which Geoffrey had access to.

Interestingly, as a final comment, it should be noted that when Geoffrey's account is stripped down to the same level of brevity as Nennius's, it is by far the more accurate version. Yet Geoffrey's account is supposed to be a later development from Nennius's. So, if we go along with the current consensus, we arrive at the incredible and frankly ridiculous conclusion that Geoffrey of Monmouth took Nennius's account, embellished it, and accidentally made it more accurate.

The Historical Origin of Lancelot

Lancelot is one of the most famous figures of the Arthurian legend, yet he is also one of the most commonly used examples of an element from the Romances that is 'definitely fictional'. This is based on the fact that he is first mentioned in the late 12th century. He appears in no prior sources - at least, not by that name. It seems incredible that a real figure (evidently a very significant one) would, if real, have gone completely unmentioned until the late 12th century. However, could it be that he did appear prior to that, but was simply not referred to as 'Lancelot'? It would only be possible to assess the plausibility of such a suggestion by simply looking to see if there is any character who, though obviously not possessing the same name, fits smoothly into the profile of the character in sufficiently numerous respects. 

This article will present the case that the historical origin behind Lancelot was, in fact, one of the few figures from Dark Age Britain about whom there is definite, contemporary evidence. The historical figure in question is the powerful king of Gwynedd, Maelgwn. 

The reasons for drawing such a conclusion start with the simple fact that, as discussed in this article, all the knights of the Round Table that can be identified as real or at least semi-legendary individuals from earlier records can be identified as kings or at least princes (as per Historia Brittonum; Arthur led 'the kings of Britain' against the Saxons). So it stands to reason that if Lancelot was real, he would have been a king or a prince. Furthermore, Lancelot was supposed to have been extremely powerful, being one of the greatest knights of the Round Table. So, if he was based on a real king in Arthur's time, said king must have been very powerful. Maelgwn was, indeed, extremely powerful. Gildas explicitly describes him as one of the most powerful leaders in his day, and the Historia Brittonum refers to him as 'the great king'. Similarly, Geoffrey of Monmouth describes him with the following:

"After him succeeded Malgo, one of the handsomest of men in Britain, a great scourge of tyrants, and a man of great strength, extraordinary munificence, and matchless valour."

So in this sense, Maelgwn certainly fits the shoes of Lancelot. 

In conjunction with this, the available sources tell us that Maelgwn was allied to Arthur. In the Welsh Triad concerning Arthur's courts, it says that Maelgwn was the 'chief elder' at one of them. So, he was in Arthur's service. Supporting this is the Dream of Rhonabwy, which makes one of Maelgwn's sons a companion of Arthur. 

So thus far, Maelgwn fits the very basic profile of Lancelot. He was a very powerful king, and he was one of Arthur's allies. Furthermore, he was serving Arthur away from his own land. Maelgwn was not from Arthur's own kingdom in the south of Wales (as I place Arthur). This matches Lancelot inasmuch as he, too, was supposed to have come to Arthur's court from outside, as opposed to being from a family already in that area.

So, definitely in broad terms, it is clear that Maelgwn matches Lancelot very well. But now for some more specific details:

As mentioned earlier, one of Maelgwn's sons is said to have been one of Arthur's knights in the Dream of Rhonabwy. This son is named Rhun, and he is mentioned in a Triad as 'one of the three fair princes of the Island of Britain'. Though not very detailed, this brief description surely corresponds to Lancelot's son Galahad, supposedly the 'perfect knight'. And like Galahad, Rhun was illegitimate. His mother, Maelgwn's mistress, was Gwallwen daughter of Afallach. Given the tendency for initial 'g's to be dropped from names in Welsh (as in 'Withur' and 'Gwythyr'), I think it's not too improbable that 'Gwallwen' would have been recorded as 'Wallwen' and then this was substituted with 'Ellen', or 'Elaine' - a name much more familiar to the Romance writers. Elaine was the name of Galahad's mother, Lancelot's mistress, in the Romances. Also, she was the daughter of Pellinore, and I would argue that he and Afallach are one and the same. That is a case to be left for another time, but if valid, it would significantly strengthen the case for Maelgwn and Lancelot being the same person - it would mean that they both had illegitimate relations with similarly named daughters of the same man. 

To get back to Maelgwn himself, he was said to have spent some time in a monastery and he supposedly ended up dying in a church. Given that he was said to have become high king after Arthur's death, the fact that he ended up in a church and died there ties in with the concept that Lancelot was the mighty warrior who helped to restore order to Britain after Arthur's death, before becoming a monk and living out the rest of his life like that. 

Furthermore, Maelgwn is explicitly described as attacking south east Wales on more than one occasion. Given that this is where I believe the majority of the evidence points to being Arthur's homeland, it seems reasonable to suppose that at least one of the records concerning Maelgwn waging war on south east Wales could relate to the stories of the war between Lancelot and Arthur. In fact, in one of these records, Maelgwn is specifically said to have taken a daughter of Cadoc's (unnamed) officer. This immediately brings to mind the story of the war between Lancelot and Arthur, which war involved Lancelot's affair with Arthur's wife. There is also a late version of Taliesin's condemnatory poem against Maelgwn that refers to how he 'betrayed the race of Arthur', which, again, sounds suspiciously like Lancelot. 

And then finally, there is name of his kingdom to consider. Lancelot's father was supposed to have been the king of a place called 'Benwick', as it is called in some records. Others spell it 'Genewis' or 'Gomeret'. There are a number of sources which suggest that this may be a reference to either Gwynedd or Vannes (spelt Gwened in Breton). The names are identical (especially as 'Gwynedd' was spelt 'Gwened' in Old Welsh), so even if Vannes was actually the intended location, this still fits the theory, for it makes perfect sense that a French writer could have seen a reference to 'Gwened' (i.e. Gwynedd, Maelgwn's kingdom) and logically but incorrectly assumed that it was talking about Vannes. Hence, 'Lancelot' (Maelgwn) was transported over to France. 

So, to summarise, the sources tell us that Maelgwn was a very powerful king who was allied to Arthur and serving him away from his own land. This fits the basic profile of Lancelot, who was a very powerful 'knight' in Arthur's service, serving him away from his own land. The name of Lancelot's kingdom could quite possibly have come from the name of Maelgwn's kingdom. Maelgwn and Lancelot both had an illegitimate son with a woman whose names could plausibly share an origin (and whose fathers, I would argue, are identical). These illegitimate sons were both known, at least in some records, for being extraordinarily virtuous in some way, and they both served as knights of Arthur. Lancelot is recorded as fighting a war against Arthur over a woman, Guinevere, while Maelgwn is recorded as waging war against what I believe to be Arthur's kingdom, taking a daughter of one of the officers there. Finally, Maelgwn and Lancelot both spent time in a religious setting towards the end of their lives and then died in a church.