4 Villains From the Arthurian Legends Who Really Existed

Although the Arthurian legends are full of references to magic, dragons, and other fanciful elements, they have a definite historical setting. They are based in 5th and 6th century Britain. This was early Dark Age Britain, the era of the Anglo-Saxon conquests. Many of the characters who appear as Arthur’s companions or allied kings can be identified as historical figures of that era. However, the villains of the Arthurian legends have often been ignored in discussions of this subject. Can any of those characters be identified as historical figures?

One fairly well-known example is that of King Mark of Cornwall. He appears prominently in the Arthurian legends about Tristan and Isolde. He is described as Tristan’s uncle by marriage. It is very likely that the legendary King Mark can be identified as the historical Conomor, a ruler of part of Brittany in the mid-6th century.

The earliest piece of evidence for this claim is the 9th-century document known as the Life of St Paul Aurelian. In this document, we find a fascinating statement. The writer informs us that the king known as “Quonomorus” was also named “Mark.” The only “Quonomorus” in this era was Conomor of Brittany. Just like King Mark of the Arthurian legends, Conomor of Brittany was infamous for his villainy involving marriages and obsession.

An inscribed stone from Cornwall that dates to about the 6th century includes the name, Conomor. It also, according to the most recent scholarship, includes the name of Tristan, confirming the close connection between the two.

2. Rhita the Giant

A somewhat more obscure villain from the Arthurian legends is Rhita Gawr, whose epithet means “Giant.” He appears in European and English tales as Rions or Rience. Geoffrey of Monmouth referred to him as Ritho, a form much closer to the Welsh spelling that is likely close to the original. According to most versions of the Arthurian legends, Rhita Gawr was a giant who lived in North Wales. He was an evil king who had killed various other monarchs and wore their beards on a garment. He challenged Arthur to a duel, but the young and newly-appointed king killed the giant.

Needless to say, this legend is full of fanciful elements, including the very nature of Rhita as a giant. Nevertheless, we are able to make a plausible identification of this character with a historical figure from the period. Bede, the 8th-century English historian, referred to an Irish figure named “Reuda.” He founded the kingdom of Dal Riata, which was named after him.

Notice the similarity between “Reuda” or “Riata” and the name of the legendary giant, “Rhita.” However, we need more than just a similar name to be able to make a convincing case. Although Bede himself does not give a date for Reuda’s reign, later records place the founding of Dal Riata at the very end of the 5th century. This would logically place Reuda in the early Arthurian period. If we could identify Reuda himself more precisely, we could make an even more convincing case.

As it happens, later Irish records say that Dal Riata was founded by three brothers. The son and successor of the most prominent of these three, Fergus Mor, was named Domangart Reti. Given the apparent conflict between Bede’s account of the founding of this kingdom and the later Irish versions, it seems very likely that Bede’s “Reuda” was this Domangart Reti. Thus, the “founder” referred to by Bede was actually the son of one of the three brothers who allegedly conquered the territory originally.

Presumably, Domangart consolidated his family’s rule of the area, thus coming to be known as its founder in some traditions. Domangart Reti is recorded as dying in the early 6th century and this matches with the placement of Rhita’s death in the Arthurian legends. With this evidence in view, it is very likely that the Rhita Gawr of Welsh tradition is identical to the historical Domangart Reti, Bede’s legendary Reuda.

Although it is true that there is no tradition of the kings of Dal Riata dominating North Wales, we would do well to consider what the earliest version of the legend actually says. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account is the earliest surviving source. He does not specifically say that Rhita (or “Ritho,” as he calls him) ruled over North Wales. He simply says that North Wales is where the battle between him and Arthur took place. Since most Welsh traditions place Arthur in South Wales, meeting a king from Dal Riata halfway between their respective territories, which would be North Wales, is a reasonable scenario.

As well as describing battles in Britain, the Arthurian legends also describe Arthur fighting battles on the continent against the Romans. As scholar David Dumville argued, this part of the legend almost certainly came from Magnus Maximus’ usurpation of the Western Roman Empire, when he invaded from Britain. However, beyond this basic connection, relatively little research has been done on the intricate connections between the legend and its historical basis.

The figure who serves as Arthur’s primary antagonist in the legend is a certain Lucius Tiberius. Although some online sources describe him as an emperor, the earliest version of the legend only ever calls him a military leader.

The two Roman leaders of the army of Emperor Theodosius at the climax of Maximus’ usurpation were Flavius Promotus and Flavius Timasius. Of the two of them, the latter is clearly the better option for the legendary Tiberius. When we consider the customs of medieval scribes, this identification is all but certain.

Firstly, it should be noted that the letter “r” and the letter “s” in some medieval Welsh manuscripts are almost identical. In the name “Atroys,” for incidence, found in the Harleian MS 3859, we see both letters in the same name. It is only by a minuscule difference that the letters are distinguishable from each other. For this reason, these two letters were often swapped by mistake, and this tendency also applied to medieval manuscripts from many other locations.

The other main difference between “Timasius” and “Tiberius” is the ‘b’ instead of the “m.” In fact, both letters were sometimes used to represent the same sound. An example of this is seen in the work of Gregory of Tours, who referred to Conomor of Brittany with a “b” in the place of the “m.” Sometimes, the letter “f” or “v” was used in place of both, masking whether “b” or “m” had been there originally.

Therefore, we can see that the evolution from “Timasius” to “Tiberius” (a much more familiar name to the medieval scribes) would have been exceedingly easy. Therefore, Timasius can very likely be identified as the Roman military leader Tiberius from this Arthurian legend.

Osla Big-Knife is a very obscure villain from the Arthurian legends. His epithet appears as “Gyllellfawr” in the Welsh texts in which he appears. He appears in the late Mabinogi tale known as The Dream of Rhonabwy. This work presents the story of the prelude to Arthur’s famous Battle of Badon. In this tale, the leader of the Saxons is named Osla. Interestingly, a separate Welsh tradition records the name of the leader of the Saxon army as Cheldric. These two bits of information can help us to identify Osla.

The Cheldric who appears as Arthur’s enemy in the Arthurian legends is almost certainly Cerdic of Wessex. He was a historical Saxon leader who fought against the Britons in the south in exactly the era in which Arthur was alive, according to legend, fighting against the Saxons. Notably, Anglo-Saxon genealogies make him the grandson of an otherwise unknown figure called Esla. Very likely, this Esla is the figure recorded as Osla in Welsh tradition. It may be that Cerdic was a young commander in charge of the armies of his grandfather, accounting for the two seemingly contradictory traditions about the leader of the Saxons at Badon.

Historical Villains of the Arthurian Legends

In conclusion, we can see that there are a number of villains from the Arthurian legends who can be identified as historical figures. King Mark, famous from the story of Tristan and Isolde, can almost certainly be identified as Conomor of Brittany. The giant named Rhita whom Arthur killed early in his reign can likely be identified as Domangart Reti and Bede’s “Reuda,” a king of Dal Riata.

In the legend of Arthur conquering parts of Europe, the main antagonist is the Roman military commander Lucius Tiberius. In view of this legend being based on Magnus Maximus’ historical usurpation, it is very likely that Tiberius can be identified as Timasius. He was one of the two primarily military commanders who fought against Maximus.

Finally, we have seen that Osla, the leader of the Saxons at Badon in Welsh tradition, can likely be identified as the obscure figure named Esla from Anglo-Saxon genealogies.