Introduction
a warrior who ought against the 5th and 6th century o Cùchulainn and other myths are not current any Saxon invasions; but unortunately, there are no details more. Arthur is portrayed as a hero, a king, a human and no established links with recorded 5th century and not as a demigod in the stories. battles such as Mount Badon.
Ambrosius Aurelianus Tis character is oen reerred to as the victor o the battle o Mount Badon. He was the son o a consul or maybe the son o the Comes Britanniarum who was managing Roman interests in Britain aer the year AD 410. His ather was a noble and was certainly a good candidate to become the leader o the imperialists, who were nostalgic or the days o the Roman occupation. But he seems too old and probably belongs to the generation o Arthur’s ather, the amous Uther, rather than Arthur himsel. He is not the main hero; however he will play a central role in Keltia .
Arthwy, Artur, Arthur and other candidates Artur mac Aedain, a prince o Dal Riada (and thereore o Irish origin), ought the Picts. However, he retired to a monastery and never reigned. Artur, son o Bicoir Britone, is another 6th century amous Irishman. Tere are o lot o reerences to Arthurs or Artúrs who were sons o chies among Northern Britain nobility during the 6th, 7th and 8th centuries. Te reason could have been that a stout-hearted warrior related to the Northern tribes, with this name or assumed name (‘Bear’), was a symbol o resistance against Germanic and Pict invaders and had become legendary during the previous century.
Arthur in Keltia We could have described yet another embodiment o this warlord as an anachronistic knight, born rom legends with political or evangelical goals, donning 13th century or Renaissance plate mail. Tis great hero blessed by the gods, surrounded by the best warriors, helped by a great wizard and a legendary sword, would still dismally ail because his sterile queen cheated on him with his best riend. Tis great king would then be murdered by his bastard son, conceived with his own sister. Beside the act that these stories strongly eel like a Christian anathema (in that period, any non-Christian king would be at best accused o incest by imaginative monks), it is obvious that this picture would clearly be easier to use or us. Everyone remembers John Boorman’s Excalibur , which, while a beautiul movie, is not what we wanted to emulate with Keltia. Tis Arthur was invented by Christian monks set on teaching moral lessons and we are not interested by this washed-out, and somehow naïve, picture o a great warlord. Tis is not how we see Arthur, the warrior and last bearer o the Briton’s hopes. It is clear to us and to a majority o historians that the legends originated in Wales. It also seems likely that the historical Arthur was linked to Yr Hen Ogledd, the Old North, since the bard Aneirin (a Gododdin, the Votadini o old) remembers him as an exemplary warrior, a ew decades only aer his death. Would he have praised Arthur had he belonged to a oreign, antagonistic clan?
A Pure Legend Some think, considering the lack o evidence or his existence, that the king was purely a mythological figure. He may have been some kind o demigod giving shape to the Welsh people’s hopes against invasions and the collapse that ollowed the departure o the Romans. Tis is not an unreasonable assumption; however, the high number o testimonies (even though contradictory) about his existence and the details we have about him, lead us to think that a real man did orm the basis. Besides, this is not the ‘time o legends’
And yet there is an actual relationship, although oen orgotten, between Wales and the Gododdin.
Cunedda Wledig At the beginning o the 5th century, Cunedda ap Edern, son o Edern ap Padarn (king o the Gododdin) took ownership o a small part o Wales that had, until then, been occupied by the Uí Liatháin (Irish Déisi); Gwynedd to be. It is unknown whether he did this
9
