This page will take about 45 seconds to fully open with a 56k modem

ARTHUR AT VIRICONIUM

Blue links opens an off-site page  Maroon links take you to another article

Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman in their book 'King Arthur - the True Story' have linked the legendary King Arthur to Viriconium. It's not impossible, if Arthur was who they say he was, that this could have been the case. At the period at which he is said to have lived - the early 6th. Century. - Viriconium was very much a thriving city and was the capitol of Powys and Gwynedd (then: Central and North Wales and the West Midlands of England) and probably the most important city in Britannia.

It's so complicated!

Most of the early (and conflicting) accounts about Arthur were given by Nennius (9th. C) and Geoffrey of Monmouth (12th. C). Monmouth recorded that Arthur lived in Northwest. Wales (Gwynedd) in the 500's and was titled "Prince of Gwynedd. Nennius in his Historia Brittonum  ("History of Britons") in 830 A.D. recorded that the kings of Gwynedd were descended from Cunedda, a warrior from the Votadini tribe - known as the Gododdin to the Welsh - in what is now Southeast Scotland/North east England - around Edinburgh. (Although, as you'll read later, this is disputed by some). The Votadini took control of Gwynedd and the Cunedda family became the kings. 'The Gododdin' - a poem said to be written by written by the Votadini in the early 600's, now in the Public Library in Cardiff - praises the courage of one of their heroes, saying, "although he fought bravely, he was no Arthur". (This is, in fact, the very first mention of Arthur ). The war poem seems to suggest Arthur was a member of their tribe.
        The 6th. Century Celtic Christian monk, Gildas, tells us that a Cuneglasus was king of Powys at his time (c. 545). Cuneglasus was descended from Cunedda (great-grandson?). A stone dated c. 480 found in 1967 at Viriconium commemorates a king Cunorix* indicating, according to Phillips and Keatman,  that the Votadini were ruling then. Gildas, who is the only writer of Arthur who actually lived at the same time as the fabled king, never mentions him!
        The legendary Arthur was said to be the son of Uther Pendragon - the name means "Terrible Head Dragon". The symbol of Gwynedd was the dragon and Phillips and Keatman, through their dating, concluded that Cunedda's son might have been Enniaun Girt, a leader of Gwynedd and the "Head Dragon".

 

(* It's interesting to note that the Wroxeter site brochure says that Cunorix was an Irishman and a "military commander" and Phillips & Keatman say he's a  king from the Votadini tribe).

 

Why no mention of Arthur?

Why no mention of an "Arthur" by Gildas? Phillips and Keatman tell us that there was a king of  Rhôs in North Wales called Owain Ddantgwyn (pronounced something like "Owen Thantgooun"), also known as Owain Dantwyn. A king, the authors suggest, who was the son of a certain Enniaun Girt, the 'Head Dragon' of Gwynedd, which in Brythonic (the Briton language) would translate as pen dragon. Owain was known as 'The Bear' or 'Artus' in Brythonic. (In Welsh, the modern form of this language,  "arth gwyr" - "arth goour" - means "bear man"). In Latin this translates as Artorius. (Latin would have still been used in the upper echelons of Briton society).

        Their evidence goes on to tell us that a king called Cuneglasus was the predecessor of a ruler called 'Bear' - so he came before Owain.  Gildas calls Cuneglasus the charioteer of the Bear's stronghold (Din Arth). Cynddylan was said to be the "heir of the Great Arthur" - and he came after Owain. The legendary King Arthur was killed by his nephew Mordred at the Battle of Camlann in Cornwall. Owain died in a battle at Camlan - not in Cornwall, but at Camlan (map) (Cwm-Llinau - pronounced something like 'Cwoom-Klinny) on the ancient Powys/Gwynedd border. The dates of Owain's life tie in with the supposed dates of the life of Arthur. Their conclusion is that Owain/Artus/Artorius is our real King Arthur. He would have been called 'Artus map Pen Dragon' - 'Arthur, son of Head Dragon'.

        The other evidence they put forward is that Arthur at many times was said not to be a Briton, or at least not from Powys or Gwynedd. If he were from the Votadini tribe (Gododdin) of Scotland, as they suggest he is, then he wouldn't have been. So our famous English king in shining armour, they say, would have been a Romano-Scot living in Wales fighting against the Anglo-Saxons (the English)!

        If Wroxeter was as powerful as they say at this time and Arthur was this Powys ruler around the mid 6th. Century, then the chances are he would have been there! It may not have looked quite the same by this period in history, with some of its building disused and others taken down and replaced by wooden structures, but it was still there never-the-less! These are the gentlemen who also linked another of our reconstructed sites, ‘The Berth’, to Arthur, this time his death. If you want to read that article click HERE.

 

But...

 

This is not the view of Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd. In their books The Keys To Avalon and Pendragon - The Definitive Account of the Origins of Arthur, they come up with an alternative Arthur. Steve knows his Welsh history, and with access to the ancient Welsh manuscripts and experts to translate them, the authors went back to the original text to find their 'truth'. Their argument is that the Arthur of the various Welsh writings and poems is Arthur! This Arthur fights other Britons, rarely the Saxons - which makes historical sense as testified by Gildas - and they've come up with some very interesting conclusions that have caused quite a stir. (A stir, Steve tells me, that's happened more amongst the laymen community - like us - than the historians). They believe you don't have to go looking for anyone else to fill Arthur's ancient British shoes. To understand why, we must understand why Arthur wasn't mentioned by Gildas, his contemporary; the result of which has caused everyone to look elsewhere for this illusive figure.

        Gildas wrote his De Excidio Britanniae ("On the Ruin of Britain") around about A.D. 530. Blake and Lloyd say that we must  remembered that when Gildas says 'Britanniae' he isn't referring to what we think of today as 'Britain', but of an area that encompasses modern Wales and portions of the boarder counties of England. His work is literally a criticism of the 5 kings of the Briton's  and how their tyranny and in-fighting had more to do with the downfall of the Britons than anything the Anglo-Saxons were doing. But nowhere is an "Arthur" mentioned. An Arthur who was said, in other writings, to have lived and died at the same time as Gildas. It's this lack of identification by a contemporary that has lead many, including Phillips and Keatman, to say Arthur didn't exist or he must be someone else. There are two counter arguments to this: one, Giraldus Cambrensis, a 12th. Century monk, tells us that Arthur's missing because Gildas hated him for killing his brother and for what he and his kind had done to the Britons. This caused him to throw away that which he'd written about him. The second, more likely, answer is that Gildas only mentions the kings of Briton and nowhere in the original texts does it mention Arthur being a king. He was said to be a "dux belorum": "leader of battle", or a "penteulu" in Welsh warrior tradition. The man responsible for the king's protection (bodyguard), organising the raids and the person who would take the king's place at court when he was absent. Gildas mentions no "leaders of battle" , so why should he mention Arthur. There are many other mentions of Arthur, some fleeting, in the various Welsh texts and poems and not one of them calls him a king.

 

Where does this leave us?

 

So where does this leave Viriconium and Arthur? Probably in the same situation. It was still a part of his world and, according to Blake and Lloyd, he went there to repel a Saxon incursion as they identify one of the battles of Arthur - Caer Efrog - as Viriconium.  (Although this finding is disputed by some). It seems that, no matter who Arthur was, he would have spent some time at this ex-Roman city. A city that now looked a little different to how it might have been with the public buildings now divided up into 'apartments' and much of it falling in to disrepair.  But it was still there and would be for a while longer until, at the request of the Angles in the name of peace, the bishop left and Viriconium was left to its own fate.

 

(If you want to take a detailed look at this period in Shropshire's history go to 'Shropshire's Secrets')
 
VIRICONIUM IMAGE GALLERY

If you want to see the full Gallery of Wroxeter (Viriconium) Images, click on HERE  (Requires membership).

(Visitors are welcome to download and use the Virtually Historical's images for personal and education use free of charge. Anyone wishing to use images for commercial use should contact us).