Chapter 14

The Brittany Connection

We have seen how important this region is to the development of the story. Not forgetting of course that a large part of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s story concerned Arthur’s battles on the Continent. We do of course have a reasonably detailed historical record concerning the decades before and after the Continental Western Empire and we can be quite sure there was no Arthur or British army rampaging across Gaul. But there maybe other less dramatic explanations for Geoffrey’s embellishments and exaggerations. We have some evidence of British presence in the middle of the fifth century, although that doesn’t mean there was not earlier movement. Certainly Emperor Maximus moved through Brittany to secure Gaul in 388, as did Constantine III twenty years later. Western Brittany saw a mass movement in the fifth century.

There are two main points that come out of Geoffrey’s narrative concerning Gaul. The first is simply that Arthur fought there; we will leave aside which part of modern France, or against whom for a moment. The second point, often overlooked even more than the Gaulish connection itself, is the arrival of the Roman messengers that start this war. Linked to that, this is placed at the end of his reign. He is forced to return from these wars to fight at Camlann. It would be useful to pinpoint not just periods of possible warfare, but incidents that might have precipitated a delegation from the Continent.

The first strong evidence for British presence is the Council of Tours in 461 and the presence of Bishop Mansuetus of the Britons. The next indication of strong British influence was the invitation of British army led by King Riothamus. This was part of Emperor Anthemius’s (467–72) coalition against the Visigoths. In 469 there is a letter by Sidonius Apollinaris on behalf of Prefect Arvandus from Lyon to Euric, king of the Goths urging him to reject alliance with Anthemius and attack the Britons situated ‘on the far side of the Loire’, which appears to mean Armorica. Gregory of Tours does not name Riothamus but talks of the Britons being defeated at Bourg de Deols in 469. Jordane’s History of the Goths names Riothamus as being defeated after coming ‘by way of the sea’. Whether this means via the Channel from Britain, the Loire, or east coast from Brittany has been questioned. A further letter from Sidonius to Riothamus appears to suggest he has some judicial power and thus is based in the area. This suggests it’s probable that Riothamus was based north of the Loire rather than Britain.¹ By this time there must have been substantial Saxon settlement in the Loire Valley, as Gregory of Tours also reports around this time a great war between Romans and Saxons.

This resulted in the Saxons being defeated and the Franks subsequently capturing their islands and many being killed. It doesn’t state where the Saxons fled to. Aegidius had been the magister militum of Gaul serving under Aetius. He rebelled against General Ricimer when the Emperor Majorian was deposed in 461. Initially on good terms with Childeric, king of the Franks, he formed the kingdom of Soissons in northern France. His son Syagrius succeeded him in 465. Clovis succeeded his father as king of the Salian Franks in 481 and proceeded to dominate the other Frankish tribes before defeating the last Roman state in northern Gaul in 486. The Bretons bordered the west of Soissons and now the border became a Frankish-Breton one.

This Frankish expansion and disintegration of Roman Gaul in the second-half of the fifth century ties in with the information in Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles concerning the arrival of Hengist, Aelle and later, Cerdic. There’s no hard evidence there’s any connection, or that these people even existed, but it doesn’t contradict the known record. The narratives are not incompatible; we can put it no stronger than that. So, we have Britons or Bretons involved in wars in the Loire region in the 460s; we then have the last Roman kingdom at war with the Franks in the 480s. Either of these could have caused requests for help or involvement from Britain. Though speculative, this could explain Geoffrey of Monmouth’s inclusion of Roman emissaries attending Arthur’s court and demanding tribute. Another curious incident occurred during the siege of Rome in 538. The Ostrogothic army led by Vitiges was besieging an Eastern Empire force led by Balisarius. During negotiations the Goths were made the following offer recorded by Procopius:

And we on our side permit the Goths to have the whole of Britain, which is much larger than Sicily and was subject to the Romans in early times.

This didn’t materialise, but one wonders how the Romans could have offered a province that had been lost to them for over 100 years. The suspicion is that it was simply a ruse. However, it is interesting to speculate what response a visiting Byzantine ambassador might have got from a British ruler if he turned up suggesting the Romans were now taking back control and had promised 150,000 Goths they could pitch up in Britain. So we have a number of events that could have caused an embassy to arrive either from Rome, Constantinople or the Franks. Starting with the request to Riothamus around 470, if he was based in Britain. Then we have the war between Clovis and Syagrius in 487, and the suspected treaty between Franks and Bretons in 497. Then in 508 the eastern emperor offered Clovis the consulship, which may have prompted some sort of overture to the British. Then we have the Goths being offered Britain in 538 and finally, a war between the Breton king, Conomor, and the Franks around 560.

There’s no evidence for any friction or any other relationship involving Britain or Brittany. The relationship in the sixth century between Britons and Franks was one of peace and there are clues that there was even a treaty around 497.² Procopius describes the Armoricans fighting off the Franks so that they were forced to make them ‘their companions and relations by marriage’.³ Clovis expanded his dominion not over the Bretons, but the Burgundians and Visigoths defeating the latter at the Battle of Vouille in 507. It was after this battle he was granted Consul by the eastern emperor Anastasius and he died in 511. Gregory of Tours states that from the time of Clovis the Breton rulers ceased to be called kings, but were merely counts and subjects of the Franks. If this is true it would call into question any Arthurian connection in the sixth century. Two bits of evidence suggest Frankish influence even spread across the Channel. First, one part of the Frankish law code referred to retrieving slaves from across the sea. Second, Procopius states a Frankish emissary visiting the Eastern Empire in 553 were accompanied by Angles.

History of the Wars 8.20.6-10:

Three very populous nations inhabit the Island of Brittia, and one king is set over each of them. And the names of these nations are Angles, Frisians, and Britons who have the same name as the island. So great apparently is the multitude of these peoples that every year in large groups they migrate from there with their women and children and go to the Franks. And they [the Franks] are settling them in what seems to be the more desolate part of their land, and as a result of this they say they are gaining possession of the island. So that not long ago the king of the Franks actually sent some of his friends to the Emperor Justinian in Byzantium, and despatched with them the men of the Angles, claiming that this island [Britain], too, is ruled by him. Such then are the matters concerning the island called Brittia.

Certainly by the end of the sixth century it is a Frankish Christian Princess that marries Aethelbert, King of Kent, who eventually welcomes St Augustine from Pope Gregory in AD 597. However, Gregory of Tours later relates the Frankish-Breton war against Waroch in 578 and he quotes Regalis, the Bishop of Vannes, near the border, as saying, ‘we have to do as the Bretons tell us’. Both these points seem to contradict his earlier statement or suggest there was a resurgence of Breton independence after Clovis.

Clovis certainly expanded the Frankish kingdom considerably. He defeated the Thuringians in 491, the Goths in 507 and Alemanni in 508. After his death in 511 the kingdom was split into four smaller kingdoms, each ruled by one of his four sons. There then followed further expansion against the Thuringians in 531, Burgundians in 534, Provence region in 537, the Visigoths in northern Spain in 542 and a Saxon war in 555–6. There was also a fair amount of internal rivalry, civil wars and assassinations. The kingdom was finally unified once more under Clothar in 558. On his death in 561, four of his sons inherited the four separate kingdoms again. Just before he died, one of his rebellious sons, Charm, joined forces with Conomer a leader of the Bretons. A subsequent war ended in the death of both Conomer and Charm around 561. Further wars erupted involving Waroch II and the Frankish kings Chilperic in 578, and Guntram in 589.

So we have a record of Breton military activity from 460–470s. Then there is an expansion of Frankish power, first by Clovis then Clothar. The next mention of military action involving Bretons is 560. When considering at what point could a British Arthur have been fighting in Gaul, there is no clue from the sources. We can certainly dismiss Geoffrey’s tale of Arthur fighting the Romans and penetrating as far as Burgundian territory. This is simply fantasy. But an Arthur fighting border wars in the fifth or sixth century is possible. Geoffrey’s tale of a Roman embassy demanding tribute could equally be made up. But the war between Clovis and Syagrius might have resulted in a request for help from either side. Likewise, Clovis receiving the consulship from the eastern emperor in 508 and the later allegations of Frankish overlordship of the Angles may have created a political backdrop to some sort of demand of rulers in Britain.

Brittany was maybe the main, if not only, route by which the legend entered the Continent.⁴ The Historia Brittonum, Geoffrey’s History and The Dream of Mascen Wledig, based on Magnus Maximus in the Mabinogion, all describe a foundation story for Brittany. Despite these legends there is little evidence to precisely date the British migrations. What we do know is a substantial part of William the Conqueror’s army in 1066 was Breton. Up to that point all the earlier Welsh legends, even if they can be dated to the eleventh century or earlier, portray a mythical and magical Arthur. He is often a petty king or tyrant. Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote History of the Kings of Britain in 1136 and all the French romances from Wace and Chretien de Troyes came after.

So we can see two Arthurs. An original war leader with mythical and magical aspects of Welsh legend, followed by the chivalric knight of Norman and French romance we now know. Arthur is only an occasional figure in literary sources between 850 and 1000 and is omitted from the bulk of the saga poetry that survives. The only figure we come across in that early period belongs in the world of myth and magic.⁵ The question remains: in what way did Breton traditions influence the legend? There was certainly a common belief in Brittany, Cornwall and Wales for Arthur’s existence.⁶

In his commentary on Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Prophecies of Merlin, Alain de Lille (1128–1202) states:

What place is there within the bounds of the empire of Christendom to which the winged praise of Arthur the Briton has not extended? Who is there, I ask, who does not speak of Arthur the Briton, since he is but little less known to the peoples of Asia than to the Bretons as we are informed by our palmers who return from the countries to the East?

In 1139 Henry of Huntingdon in a letter states that Arthur:

received so many wounds that he fell; although his kinsmen the Britons deny he was mortally wounded and seriously expect he will come again.

Adam of Tewksbury writing in 1170 states:

His departure will be obscured by doubt, which is indeed true, for there are today varying opinions as to his life and death. If you do not believe me, go to the Kingdom of Armorica, that is, lesser Britain, and preach in the villages and market-places that Arthur the Briton died as other men die; and then if you escape unharmed, for you will either be cursed or stoned by your hearers, you will indeed discover that Merlin the prophet spoke truly when he said that Arthur’s departure would be obscured by doubt.

Below is a timeline of events for Britain and Gaul that may indicate when an embassy and subsequent conflict could have occurred:

Table 25: Britain and Gaul

Thus a belief in Arthur’s continued life was sufficiently powerful in 1113 to almost cause a riot in Cornwall when it was contradicted by sceptical French canons: ‘many men rushed into the church with arms’, and if local passions had not been calmed, ‘it would certainly have come to the spilling of blood’.

On the other hand, outside Geoffrey of Monmouth and the disputed life of St Goeznovius, there is no reference anywhere in any of the legends of Arthur fighting in Gaul, Brittany or anywhere outside of Britain. Given Geoffrey’s flight’s of fancy, known embellishments and downright lies concerning the characters in the same book, it’s about time we put this to rest. But we have a body of literature and a belief in the Middle Ages that this is historical. Not to mention the explosion of interest after the Norman conquest.

In summary, we have very scant evidence concerning Brittany in the fifth and sixth centuries and none concerning any Arthur figure. However, several hundred years later there was a belief and body of legends that existed and influenced the evolution of the legend after the Norman conquest in 1066. It would be possible to dismiss the whole Brittany and Gaul connection as fantasy. It would certainly make things simpler and it may be the most likely explanation. If it is to be considered, however, it is interesting that the most likely period for military activity by a British leader is exactly in the same period we focus on for an Arthur in Britain. The possible timeframes for an embassy from the Continent and subsequent warfare are as follows:

1.460–70 Romano-Saxon war and appeal to Riothamus for help.

2.480s Frankish–Roman war results in defeat of last Roman enclave.

3.497 Treaty between Franks and Bretons.

4.508 Clovis offered consulship by eastern emperor.

5.538 Romans offer Britain to the Goths.

The war involving Conomor and the Franks around 560 seems too late. Aside from the dubious account in the Life of St Gildas, he has been linked to the Tristan and Iseult story. Yet his identification as Marcus Quonomorius, or King Mark, in the ninth century Life of St Paul Aurelian is dubious. Likewise, a sixth-century inscribed stone in Cornwall is often translated as ‘Drustanus hic jacit cunomori filius’ (here lies Tristan, son of Conomor). In fact the earliest transcriptions translate as dedicated to Clusius. A life of another sixth-century saint, Tudwal, describes Conomor as a ‘prefect’ of the king of the Franks. Thus suggesting political and military dominance of the Franks by the mid-sixth century.