King Arthur did NOT EXIST and was created as a ‘Celtic superhero’ mixture of real warlords, archaeologist claims
Dr Miles Russell, an archaeologist, claims Arthur is actually based on five different real-life medieval leaders.
BRITAIN'S most legendary warrior King Arthur never existed and was only created as a "Celtic superhero", according to new evidence from an archaeologist.
Dr Miles Russell, a senior lecturer at Bournemouth University, now claims he can prove the medieval warlord is actually a composite of real-life leaders.
Traditionally, Arthur is said to have led the British when they defeated an invading Saxon army at the legendary Battle of Badon sometime between 490AD and 520AD.
But his story evolved into a magical fantasy tale through the History of the Kings of Britain by 12th century writer Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Now Dr Russell has revealed that he believes Arthur's story is derived from five different characters who actually existed.
He came to his conclusion after studying the Monmouth book and other medieval texts.
He pointed to the similarities between Arthur and Ambrosius Aurelianus, a leader of the Roman-British population in the fifth century.
In the most contemporary account of the period, when Arthur was said to exist, a British monk Gildas writing around 540AD in a scathing attack on the native Britons names Ambrosius as the leader who spearheads the fight back against the Saxons.
The battles culminate in the victory at Badon - but Gildas does not mention Arthur.
According to Dr Russell, an extra 39 per cent of the character was taken from Magnus Maximus.
Was King Arthur real?
Historians have spent years trying to find evidence that a real King Arthur existed but it has proved frustratingly elusive.
The tale of Arthur took a fantasy, magical narrative through the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth.
But many scholars believe there may just actually have been a leader called Arthur (or Artorious in Latin) who existed.
The first and most famous reference to Arthur comes in the 9th century Historia Brittonum, which has been attributed in parts to Welsh monk Nennius.
In his retelling of Celtic Briton's history, he names Arthur as a military commander NOT a king.
Arthur was actually chosen by native kings to be the leader in 12 battles against the Saxons, which are outlined by Nennius, ending in the Battle of Badon.
In the fighting at Badon, Arthur reportedly "killed 960 men" in one charge, according to the Historia Brittonum.
The 10th-century Annales Cambriae, chronicles composed at St David's Cathedral in Pembrokeshire, Wales, also names Arthur as the leader at Badon.
A stone discovered in 1998 at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, where he was conceived in medieval tradition, contained the inscription "Artognou" which some have linked to Arthur.
There are other fascinating potential references to an Arthur.
In the famous Welsh poem Y Gododdin, written sometime between the seventh and 11th century, his name pops up again.
This was a tribute poem to warriors from the Brittonic Welsh kingdom of Gododdin who died fighting the northern Angle kingdoms of Deira and Bernica in the early seventh century.
It says one of the fallen comrades was 'no Arthur'.
Another Arthur reference pops up in an elegy for Geraint, a king of the southwest Celtic kingdom Dummonia, who died in 710AD.
A war leader Riothamus, linked to Britain or Brittany, who fought the Goths around 470AD, was considered a likely contender for the real-life Arthur because he was last recorded as being near the French town of "Avallon". Arthur's final destination was Avalon.
Another contender to be Arthur, who has puzzled historians almost as much as the medieval warrior, is the mysterious Cerdic.
He founded a kingdom, which became Wessex and later England, around roughly the same 5th/6th century period.
While described as a Germanic invader, many historians suggest Cerdic, based on his name being derived from a Brittonic one 'Ceretic' and because his ancestry appears invented, was actually a native leader who staged a takeover with Saxon mercenaries.
He was a rebellious Roman general in Britain who usurped Emperor Gratian in the late fourth century.
Dr Russell claims another eight per cent was drawn from Roman Emperor Constantine the Great and 24 per cent from Arvirargus, a possibly historical British King of the 1st century.
The rest of the Arthur character - 12 per cent - is drawn from tribal chief Cassivellaunus who fought against Julius Caesar's second expedition in 54BC.
Dr Russell was due to present his findings at the BBC History Magazine Festival in Winchester today.
He told : "When you start to look at King Arthur in detail you realise that he is an amalgam of at least five separate characters — he never existed as an independent person at all."
MOST READ IN NEWS
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online news team? Email us at [email protected] or call 0207 782 4368 . We pay for videos too. Click here to upload yours.