Chapter 7

The Welsh Annals

We will now move on to the Welsh Chronicles, The Annales Cambriae, the earliest copy of which is found with a copy of the Historia Brittonum discussed previously. They are a number of Welsh-Latin chronicles thought to derive from St David’s in Dyfed, south-west Wales. The Annales would have had a number of different authors using sources from three main areas: Irish Chronicles, northern sources, and from Dyfed. The earliest text is a twelfth-century copy of a mid-tenth-century text. They include events from across the British Isles. It was likely written in 954–5,¹ around a century-and-a-quarter after the Historia Brittonum. However, others have argued the earliest date of composition of some parts could be in the late eighth century, although the Arthurian entries are likely to be mid-tenth century.² The political situation was rather different compared to the Historia Brittonum. The Annals were compiled in the middle of the Viking age, the Mercian threat is reduced and there is less antagonism towards the Saxons as a result. It is also written in Dyfed rather than Gwynedd, so the target audience is different. It contains the first attempt at dating the Battle of Badon.

The earliest source is found attached to a copy of the Historia Brittonum held in the British Library and was written around 1100. The annal starts in 445 and ends in 954. I have used the translation from Morris that we used with the evidence for Nennius. The first few entries are provided below; the relevant years and the two entries relating directly to Arthur are in bold:

Table 11

The 573 entry concerning the battle of Arfderydd may well be the battle of the Caledonian Forest listed as one of Arthur’s battles. A further entry in 613 lists the Battle of Caer Legion referencing a known battle at Chester, which also could have been misappropriated. There is also the interesting reference to Merlin, which would date him decades after Arthur. You will note there is no reference to Vortigern, Ambrosius, or the coming of the Saxons. This could be because the Author dated these events prior to 445 when the Annals begin.

There appears to be some similarity in wording concerning Badon and the battle of Guinnion fort in the Historia Brittonum. The Annals state:

The battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors.

Whereas the Historia states:

The eighth battle was in Guinnion fort, and in it Arthur carried the image of the holy Mary, the everlasting virgin, on his shoulders and the heathen were put to flight on that day, and there was a great slaughter upon them…

The twelfth battle was on Badon hill and in it 960 men fell in one day, from a single charge of Arthur’s, and no-one laid them low save him alone; and he was victorious in all his campaigns.

The Badon entry may have derived from the Historia Brittonum, but the discrepancies between the texts are significant.³ The carrying of a cross rather than the image of Mary, and the reference to the duration make it difficult to draw any conclusions. It could be poetic licence, or the three days and nights might be a biblical reference. Alternatively, there is a later entry in the Historia Brittonum relating to Urien of Rheged besieging Lindisfarne in the Saxon kingdom of Bernicia for three days and nights before being poisoned by Morcant. Urien, and his son Owain (Gwain), have often been linked to the Arthur legend in later literary works. The Christian image carried into battle is also similar to Constantine the Great ordering his army to paint the Christian chi-rho symbol on their shields before the battle of the Milvian Bridge in AD 312.

Concerning Badon, there has been debate over the source for this entry; whether it was from a distinct northern source, or from the Chronicles of Ireland.⁴ The date of the battle appears, on the face of things, at odds with the narrative of either Historia or Bede, which place the Adventus Saxonum in either 428 or 449. There is a second battle of Badon recorded in the Annals for 665 alongside the first celebration of Easter by the Saxons. If we take these to be connected, then at this time Bath would indeed have been within the land of the West Saxons and known as Badon, but that wouldn’t explain why Gildas, a sixth-century writer in Britain, would Latinise a later Saxon word for a town that was in British territory at the time of writing. Bede does mention the conversion of the South Saxons and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles dates this to AD 661. For the same year there is a record of the Mercian king, Wulfhere, campaigning ‘as far as Ashdown’ (possibly in Sussex) which would cover many of the suggestions for a southern Badon. The entry for AD 675 mentions a battle at Biedan Heafde between the Mercians and West Saxons, but neither of these references mention any British involvement. So the location of the second battle of Badon becomes as mysterious as the first.

Regarding the Camlann entry, this is the first reference to this battle and it is impossible to confirm the source or historicity of it. The entry is unverifiable and possibly ‘entirely unhistorical’.⁵ The two Arthurian entries are thus suspect and could easily be later erroneous insertions. Interestingly, Medraut is seen as a virtuous and valorous figure in his earlier appearances in Welsh legends and seems to be on the same side as Arthur. He did not begin his long slide into villainy until Geoffrey’s twelfth-century work portrayed him as Arthur’s nephew and cause of his ruin. It may be worth noting there is no mention of anyone knowingly fictitious in the Annals.⁶

The Arthur of the Annales Cambriae should be seen in a southwest-Wales context. The Arthur of the Historia was, therefore, being used to support the political agenda of King Owain (of Deheubarth) in the mid-tenth century. This Arthur is intended as a Demetian ancestor figure. There is indeed an Arthur mentioned in the genealogies: Arthur map Petr (son of Peter), thirteen generations before Owain, but he appears too late and there is no evidence connecting him to the legend. Both the Annales and Historia are non-contemporary politically biased tracts. The Annales therefore lacks credibility for anything other than the time in which it was constructed. This is not to dismiss the Annales completely. There is a possibility that it reflects a now-lost northern, or even Irish, source that contained information on both Badon and Camlann, drawn upon by the author. Similarly to the Historia Brittonum, the Annales is generally regarded with scepticism among academics; in terms of trying to construct a historical Arthur, they are viewed as valueless.⁷ However, they were written to be read and, presumably, believed.

In summary then, we have two pieces of evidence so far, neither of which are generally considered credible sources by the majority of academics. However, they suggest that a ninth- and tenth-century audience would have read and understood the entries; the implication is that they were believed to be true. This doesn’t of course make it true. People today may well believe all sorts of erroneous things about events in the 1600s, books and films may contain all sorts of factual errors and fictional characters, even when intended to be accurate. But if taken at face value, both sources point to an Arthur fighting sometime between 490 and 537. Even if we accept a historical Arthur, it is unlikely he was militarily active for fifty years, although there are generals throughout history who campaigned late in life. If his association with Badon is accurate, we also now have a range of dates for that battle. From an implied 493–500 in Bede, 490–503 in Gildas, after Hengist (488?) and St Patrick (493?) in the Historia, and now a definite date of 516 in the Annales Cambriae. On face value this latter date seems like an outlier, but there is one interpretation that could reconcile it with the others which we will cover later.