Buzz
The fabled King Arthur, renowned as Britain's heroic monarch who battled dragons and fairy queens with the wizard Merlin by his side, is so deeply enveloped in tales of fantasy and legend that separating historical reality from fiction becomes a daunting task.
However, a kernel of truth lies buried within these myths. Historians suggest that a real individual existed, whose life served as the foundation for the Arthurian legend. Before the layers of magic and folklore were added, there was an actual figure whose deeds inspired the tales we know today.
This man lived in Britain during the period following Rome's decline—and his true story bears little resemblance to the legendary accounts you’ve encountered.
10. Arthur Was Not A King (According To Gildas)
The historical Arthur was not Britain's monarch. He lacked a Round Table, jousting knights, or a chivalric code to govern by. These elements were woven into the narrative over centuries, transforming the tale of a humble soldier into a legendary saga.
The first recorded mention of Arthur dates back to AD 540, penned by the historian Gildas, who lived during Arthur's time. Interestingly, Gildas does not refer to Arthur as a king. In fact, he doesn’t even use the name Arthur—a detail we’ll explore further later.
The actual figure behind the Arthurian legend led the British forces against invading Anglo-Saxon armies, but he was neither a crowned ruler nor a nobleman. Gildas notes that this individual fought “alongside the kings of Britain” yet was not of royal blood, emphasizing that Arthur was selected to lead the army despite “many being of higher nobility than himself.”
For 500 years, the tale of Arthur was recounted repeatedly before he was elevated to the status of nobility. Yet, even then, he wasn’t portrayed as a king. The earliest narrative that depicted Arthur as a ruler referred to him as an emperor.
9. He Was A Soldier Who Halted An Anglo-Saxon Invasion
Arthur was a hero, even if he didn’t wear a crown. He lived during the early Dark Ages, a time when Anglo-Saxon invaders were ravaging Britain. These invaders spread chaos across the land, enslaving Britons and slaughtering those who dared to resist.
The authentic legend of Arthur, as it was known during his lifetime, centered on a military leader who repelled an invading force. Arthur assumed command of the British army, securing their first triumph against the Anglo-Saxons. Under his leadership, they began to win battles and ultimately drove the Anglo-Saxons away in a decisive confrontation known as the Battle of Mount Badon.
The earliest accounts leave it ambiguous whether Arthur truly participated in that battle. However, within a short span, the story evolved dramatically. By then, Arthur wasn’t merely present at the conflict—he was credited with slaying 940 enemies single-handedly and expelling the Anglo-Saxons from the land.
8. He Was Likely Of Roman Origin
As mentioned earlier, Arthur’s original name wasn’t Arthur. He was known as Ambrosius Aurelianus, and he wasn’t British by birth—he was Roman.
Gildas, who asserts he was born in the year of the Battle of Mount Badon, refers to the British hero as Aurelianus and describes him as the last Roman in Britain. The Roman forces stationed there had been annihilated by the Anglo-Saxons, including Aurelianus’s own parents.
There’s ongoing debate about whether Aurelianus and Arthur were the same individual or if Aurelianus was simply a relative or commander. However, just 60 years after Gildas documented the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the tale was being retold with nearly identical details, except the hero’s name had changed to Arthur.
The next comprehensive version of the story emerged roughly 200 years after Gildas’s death. While slightly more embellished, it remains almost verbatim to Gildas’s account, with the sole alteration being the protagonist’s name.
7. He Was Descended From Roman Emperors
Arthur—or Aurelianus—may not have held noble status in Britain, but his lineage was illustrious. His parents were said to have “worn the purple,” signifying that they were emperors and consuls who once governed the Roman Empire.
Various theories exist about the true identity of Arthur’s parents. One suggests they bore the name “Artorius,” a prominent founding family of Rome, which could explain the eventual adoption of the name “Arthur.”
Another, more extraordinary theory proposes that Arthur might have been an Aurelii. If accurate, this would mean he was a direct descendant of Byzantine Emperor Arcadius and potentially even Roman Emperors Commodus and Marcus Aurelius.
6. Camelot Was A Roman Legionary Base
Just as Arthur wasn’t a British monarch, Camelot wasn’t a grand medieval castle housing a Round Table. Instead, it was a modest Roman fort located in what is now Colchester, England—though it was known as Camulodunum at the time.
Camulodunum, established in AD 40 by Roman Emperor Claudius, was the first Roman settlement in Britain. This strategic stronghold was intended to maintain Roman control over the region, though it’s unlikely Arthur ever entered its walls.
Camelot wasn’t incorporated into Arthur’s legend until 600 years after his death, when French author Chretien de Troyes introduced it. By then, Camulodunum was viewed as a lost, almost mythical city, representing Roman civilization amidst barbarism.
It’s theorized that Chretien de Troyes added it to the myth under a slightly altered name. However, by the time Arthur was battling the Anglo-Saxons, the real Camelot had likely already fallen into ruin.
5. Even Arthur’s Dog Was Legendary
It’s fascinating how certain fragments of Arthur’s true story have endured. Among them is the peculiar detail that he owned a pet dog. Arthur’s significance to the Britons was so immense that even his canine companion became the subject of legend.
Arthur’s dog, named Cabal, met its end during a boar hunt. While this seems like an ordinary fate for a dog, the tale soon grew embellished with elements of magic and mysticism. Within centuries, stories emerged that the boar responsible for Cabal’s death was no ordinary beast but a monstrous creature named Troynt, which had also decimated a significant portion of Arthur’s army.
Legend has it that Arthur’s dog left its paw print on a stone, which Arthur then placed atop a small stone monument. It was said that even if someone moved the stone, it would mysteriously return to Cabal’s grave by morning.
4. Arthur Killed His Own Son
Little is known about the children of the historical Arthur. While their existence is acknowledged, they were not well-regarded. Gildas lamented that Arthur’s descendants were “far less remarkable than their grandfather’s greatness.” Additionally, it’s recorded that Arthur killed one of his sons, though the reasons remain unclear.
Arthur had a son named Amr, whom he ultimately killed. The circumstances surrounding this act are shrouded in mystery. As the account states, “He was the son of Arthur the soldier, and Arthur himself killed and buried him,” with no further explanation provided.
The narrative primarily centers on Amr’s tomb, which is said to change size each time it is observed. The author, Nennius, asserts that Amr’s tomb possesses magical properties, claiming, “I myself have put this to the test.”
Despite the fascination with the tomb’s mysterious nature, Nennius offers no details about Amr himself. The only facts we have are that Arthur had a son, killed him, and that his death seemed to be met with indifference, if not approval, by the people of Britain.
3. Arthur Was Dead Before Merlin Was Born
A historical Merlin also existed, but he and Arthur never crossed paths, primarily because Arthur was already deceased.
Merlin was added to Arthur’s tale by Geoffrey of Monmouth 600 years after their deaths, but he wasn’t entirely fictional. He is thought to have been inspired by a Welsh folk hero named Myrddin, who, like Arthur, may have been a real person. However, Myrddin bore little resemblance to the iconic wizard with a pointed hat.
Myrddin was a bard who participated in the Battle of Arthuret in AD 573, a real and historically significant Welsh conflict. However, this battle occurred roughly 35 years after Arthur’s death. The horrors of the battle reportedly drove Myrddin to madness.
It’s likely that parts of Myrddin’s story are rooted in truth. Over time, however, his tale grew more elaborate. People began to claim he fled to the forest and gained prophetic abilities. Eventually, he was portrayed as the mentor of a man who had died long before Merlin’s time. This transformation turned the story of Aurelianus into the legend of King Arthur.
2. The Anglo-Saxons Seized Control After His Death
Arthur had been the sole figure capable of fighting back the Anglo-Saxons. Once he passed away, chaos ensued.
During the final years of Arthur’s life, the Justinian Plague began to ravage Britain. This plague, one of history’s deadliest, closely resembled the Black Death. It is estimated to have wiped out around 13 percent of the global population.
Shortly after Arthur’s death, Britain’s kings began to perish rapidly, falling like flies. The death toll was so staggering that in some areas, 70,000 plague victims were buried in a single mass grave, yet space still ran out. In the aftermath, the Anglo-Saxons launched another invasion, easily overpowering the weakened Britons.
This likely explains why Arthur became such a legendary figure among the Britons. While their history boasts many great warriors, Arthur stood as the final beacon of hope before a deeply dark period in British history—prompting his legacy to be elevated far beyond his actual deeds.
1. He Likely Died Fighting Alongside Mordred
In the legends, Arthur’s life ends when his nephew Mordred betrays him, launching a treacherous war against his uncle and king. The two engage in a fatal duel, culminating in Arthur’s death at the hands of his own kin.
This differs significantly from the historical account. The real Arthur is believed to have died in AD 537 during the Battle of Camlann, thought to have taken place at a fort along Hadrian’s Wall. Records mention he perished alongside someone named Medraut. However, there’s no evidence suggesting they were related or adversaries. In fact, they appear to have fought on the same side.
When Geoffrey of Monmouth penned the first legend of Arthur, transforming him into a king and pairing him with Merlin, Medraut was reimagined as the treacherous Mordred. However, the historical truth is nearly the reverse. Rather than being enemies, the real Mordred and Arthur likely perished together, fighting as allies.
