In the legends of King Arthur, the leader of the Britons is most famous for fighting against the Saxons during their conquest of Britain. Most scholars acknowledge that this may have a factual basis. However, at least as early as the 12th century, King Arthur is also presented as fighting against the Romans in continental Europe. Unlike his battles against the Saxons, this has no obvious historical basis. Was it just completely fictional? Or might this part of the legend have been based on real events?
The Legend of King Arthur Conquering Europe
This aspect of the legend appears most famously in the Historia Regum Britanniae, written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in c. 1137. In this version, King Arthur establishes peace in Britain and rules it for twelve years. Then, he decides to engage in further conquests, expanding his domain outside of Britain. He invades Scandinavia first, and then he attacks Gaul. The account presents Gaul as still being governed by the Romans. Arthur meets the Roman leader of the country and kills him. Progressively, Arthur conquers the entirety of Gaul.
A few years later, after returning to Britain, the Romans send Arthur a letter demanding that he pay them tribute. This incites Arthur to anger, and the king raises a massive army to attack Rome itself. In response, Rome raises a large army too, involving many foreign nations. The two sides meet at a valley called Siesia. It is a bloody battle and many of Arthur’s men die. However, Arthur eventually comes off victorious.
Did Geoffrey of Monmouth Invent the Legend?
The legend of King Arthur is set in the 6th century. The Historia Regum Britanniae places Arthur’s death in 542 (although occasionally dates in medieval British records were backdated by some 30 years). Although this was the “Dark Age” in some senses, we do have enough records from this period to know that there definitely was not any conquest of Gaul by the Britons in the sixth century.
An analysis of the Historia Regum Britanniae shows that it is heavily based on traditional Welsh and Breton tales. However, it is generally thought that Geoffrey liberally added things to the existing traditions he found. On this basis, many have assumed that Geoffrey simply invented the European conquest to add to the glory of King Arthur’s legendary reign. However, there is strong evidence that this is not really the case. We actually see a definite trace of Arthur’s European campaign in Welsh tradition that predates (or at least is independent of) Geoffrey of Monmouth.
The European Conquest in Welsh Tradition
A Welsh tale called Culhwch and Olwen dates to approximately 1100. The exact date is unknown, but it is universally recognized as being independent of Geoffrey of Monmouth, even if it did not actually predate him. In this tale, Arthur is said to have fought in various places. The first identifiable location is Llychlyn, which is the medieval Welsh term often used for Scandinavia. Afterward, the text mentions “Europe and Africa and the islands of Corsica.” Next, the text mentions that Arthur “conquered Greece as far as the east.” The text also mentions “Greater India and Lesser India” right at the beginning of this passage. However, in view of this placement, this is likely not a reference to the country we call India.
While not precisely the same as the legend recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth, we can see that this is a tale of Arthur fighting in what is apparently Scandinavia, and then afterward in Europe generally. This indicates that Geoffrey’s account really does stem, at least in essence if not in all the details, from authentic Welsh tradition.
A Comparison With Other Welsh Legends
Bearing in mind the foundation that this tale has in Welsh tradition, what could its origin be? We know that it cannot be based on historical events from the 6th century since nothing like that happened then.
It is interesting to think about this description of a leader from Britain engaging in war against the Romans and conquering large parts of Europe and even Africa. On the surface, this sounds very much like the sort of thing that really did happen during the Roman era. A number of usurping emperors emerged out of Britain and conquered large portions of the Western Roman Empire.
Is there evidence from Welsh records that one or more of these usurpations made a lasting impact on local legend? As a matter of fact, the usurpation of Magnus Maximus stands out as exceptionally famous among the Welsh. As well as the invasion of Gaul being described in several Welsh sources, Magnus Maximus appears in numerous medieval British genealogies.
Without doubt, Magnus Maximus’ usurpation left a very lasting impression on the Britons, becoming firmly entrenched in later Welsh memory. A number of details about this usurpation strongly indicate that this served as the basis for the legend of King Arthur conquering Europe.
For one thing, there is a triad from Welsh tradition that includes the statement that “Elen sister of Arthur… is said to have gone with Arthur when he went to fight Frollo [Roman ruler of Gaul], and she did not return.” Another triad records something almost identical about Elen, the wife of Maximus. It says that she went from Britain with Maximus on his conquests and did not return. It is notable that the Welsh had a virtually identical tradition about two women of the same name, one associated with Arthur and one associated with Maximus. Since both men, according to legend, went out on a campaign into Europe, this lends credence to the suggestion that both traditions actually stem from the same event.
The Sequence of Events
Further support for this suggestion comes from examining the sequence of events in the legend and comparing it with what really happened during Maximus’ campaign. Recall that King Arthur is said to have met the Roman leader of Gaul (named Frollo) upon his initial attack on the country. Interestingly, most of the army of this Roman leader abandons him and joins Arthur’s side. Arthur then pursues him, catches up with him, and kills him in a one-on-one fight.
In the case of Maximus, he was confronted by the army of Gratian, the Western Roman Emperor, upon his initial arrival in Gaul. Most of Gratian’s army abandoned him, joining Maximus. Gratian then fled, but he was pursued by Maximus’ cavalry commander named Andragathius. This commander then caught up to Gratian and killed him in a one-on-one setting.
The similarities between the two events are certainly notable. But if this was the end of the matter, we could probably put this down to coincidence.
However, the similarities do not end there. After conquering Gaul, several years are said to have passed before the next conflict. With this next conflict, King Arthur sets out to attack the Romans in Rome. His men clash with a senator named Petreius. After this, in the following year, Arthur’s large army engages in a bloody battle against the Roman army, which includes numerous non-Roman allies, at Siesia. Although Geoffrey of Monmouth’s version presents this as a victory for Arthur, a triad from Welsh tradition refers to Arthur’s army as being “routed” at this battle.
Regarding Magnus Maximus, his army set out to attack Italy several years after the initial conflict. Notably, a senator named Petronius Probus was then the regent of the young Valentinian II, based in Italy. Petronius is known to have been an adversary of Maximus. In the following year, 388, the army led by Andragathius met the army of the Eastern Romans at a valley named Siscia. They were supported by various non-Romans, such as the Goths and the Huns. At this battle, Andragathius’ army was routed.
Andragathius, the Arthur Figure of the Story
It is evident that the two campaigns share some fascinating similarities. It is no wonder that a number of scholars over the years (including the renowned David Dumville) have suggested that Maximus’ campaign was the basis for King Arthur’s legendary European conquest. We should note, however, that a comparison of the two sequences of events suggests that it is specifically Andragathius who can be identified as the “Arthur figure” from the account. After all, it is Andragathius who, like Arthur, pursued and personally killed the Roman leader of Gaul, not Maximus. It is Andragathius who, like Arthur, led the army which was ultimately routed at Siscia, not Maximus. Furthermore, if Maximus himself had been the protagonist behind this legend, then why was Arthur not described as becoming emperor?
Contemporary Roman histories inform us that Maximus gave “the general direction of the war” to Andragathius. Therefore, the idea that Andragathius in particular could have been remembered as the protagonist of this grand conquest is not at all surprising or unlikely.
King Arthur’s Historical Conquest of Europe
It is evident that the legend of King Arthur’s European campaign really did come from Magnus Maximus’ usurpation of the Western Roman Empire, as some prominent scholars have argued. In a sense, then, this legend about King Arthur is not fictional, it is just misplaced. It appears that the “Arthur figure” of this particular legend can be identified with Andragathius. He was a cavalry commander in Maximus’ army, and he was the one who was responsible for the general direction of the war. Some of Arthur’s actions in the legend can be associated with Andragathius directly.
The question of whether Andragathius can be identified in Welsh tradition independently of the legends of King Arthur is another matter. It is possible that he can, although this issue has generally not been given much attention, meaning that very little literature has been written about it. Further research may well shed more light on Andragathius’ presence in Welsh tradition and also on how he contributed to the legends of King Arthur.
