KeyWords: Ambrosius Aurelianus Gildas De Excidio Britanniae Annales Cambriae Aetius Sub-Roman Britain Caradoc of Llancarfan Battle of Mount Badon KeySources: Gildas Click Here to Read Ch. 1-2 Click Here to Read Ch. 3-26 Click Here to Read Ch. 27-65 Click Here to Read Ch. 66-110 Click Here to Download PDF

Introduction
The demands placed on any early British or English historical document go far beyond those of almost any other time because of the need for these materials to be useful as tools in the effort to demonstrate Arthur's historical presence in the early sources. Unfortunately, there is only one document that remains from Sub-Roman Britain** (defined as that period time immediately after the departure of the Romans in the early 5th century AD until Pope Gregory I sent Augustine on a mission to convert the English in 597), and so the burden on that document is magnified far beyond what is considered normal.

ed. note: The 5th century writings of St. Patrick are personal testimonies and not considered to be histories of the period.

Written by a northern Briton named Gildas (who was later made a saint and was given the moniker, Sapiens [the Wise] because of his great learning), "De Excidio Britanniae" (On the Ruin of Britain = DE) is part history, part sermon and part flaming denunciation of his countrymen and what they had allowed the country to become. As it is the only contemporaneous source that we have for this period that some have called the "Age of Arthur," it should be carefully considered and evaluated.

As an historical source, the DE leaves us wanting for more details, names and dates. In a few relatively short sections (chapters), the history of Britain from the coming of the Romans up to Gildas' time is covered and much is, necessarily, left out. Whether or not Gildas knew his history in more detail but didn't think it necessary to include it in this kind of document, or whether he was ignorant of it, we just don't know. But, about him, Giraldus Cambrensis (Gerald of Wales) wrote,

"His history may not be all that polished, but at least it is true."

But he does give just enough information for us to be able to develop a hazy picture of what went on in those days.

As an Arthurian source, and he must be considered such since he describes the very time and socio-politico-military situation out of which Arthur's legend grew, Gildas is problematic since he never mentions Arthur's name. This fact is troubling to many and a variety of explanations and excuses have been put forward to deal with its implications. We will look at this in more detail, below.

Life of Gildas
Gildas, son of the nobleman, Caw, was born in the north of Britain, in the area of Clyde, between 490-500 AD. Internal evidence seems to suggest that he probably wrote the DE in the 540's although some have dated the writing as early as 530 and as late as 560. The highly selective and laconic "Annales Cambriae" (Annals of Wales), in its entry for the year 570, reports his death, giving some indication of the esteem in which Gildas was then held. Two lives of Gildas have been written, one by a Breton monk from the monastery at Rhuys (said to have been founded by Gildas, himself) and one by the famous Welsh hagiographer, Caradoc of Llancarfan. The Breton 'life,' which makes no mention of Arthur, is dated c. 880 and the precise date of Caradoc's life, which does mention Arthur, is uncertain (Tatlock has argued for a date earlier than Geoffrey's "Historia," i.e. before 1136), and suggests that it was composed while Caradoc was in residence at Glastonbury). Since it is the more available of the two, it is Caradoc's life that we'll pay most attention to, here.

Caradoc tells us that Gildas had 23 brothers, all of whom were wild and violent. His family was driven from their home in the north by a Pictish raid, whereupon they migrated to north Wales to the kingdom of Gwynedd. King Cadwallon and his son, Maelgwn, gave them lands and treated them well. Gildas married but after his wife died, he became a monk and studied under St. Iltyd at Llantwit Major.

Caradoc goes on to say that Hueil (also Huail), one of Gildas' brothers, yielding to his wild and violent streak, had become a pirate and came to the attention of Arthur, who tracked him down and executed him by beheading. Gildas, acting for the family, demanded a "blood-fine" from Arthur who gave them an estate, apparently settling the issue once and for all (we'll hear of this again, soon). And, as all the great Celtic saints are said to have done, Gildas spent time at Glastonbury and may have spent the remainder of his days, there. Caradoc relates an incident in which Gildas, while in residence there, mediated a dispute between Arthur and the local kinglet, Melwas, who had abducted Arthur's wife, Guinevere, and held her prisoner atop Glastonbury Tor. With this tale, Caradoc became the first writer to connect Arthur with Glastonbury. He would, by no means, be the last.

Britain in Gildas' Time
The Britons' difficulties with the Saxons had begun roughly a century before Gildas wrote the DE, depending upon which chronology of the 5th century you choose to believe, and had followed an up-and-down course ever since. In the 540's, Britain was in a period of relative peace, but Gildas didn't see that as an entirely good thing. He decried the moral torpor into which his people had fallen (or willingly entered into) as a result of the decrease in Saxon pressure and a lack of moral examples at the top levels of society. He styled the British people as a new Israel (whether as a statement of "replacement theology" or as a simple metaphor, we don't know) and viewed the coming of the Saxons as God's judgment on their sins, much as the Babylonian captivity had served the same purpose for the children of Israel. Gildas presented these judgments as richly deserved and fully just, but held out the spectre of worse things to come in the future or, worst of all, ultimate loss of their salvation, if changes weren't made and things put right, again.

The writing of the DE must have served as a personal catharsis for Gildas and as an eye-opener for the British people. That it had an effect has been duly noted by historians of the period, but perhaps not the one Gildas intended. Society did not reform as a result of his diatribe; kings did not become less cruel and avaricious, churchmen did not become less acquisitive or self-aggrandizing and judges did not become less unfair and corrupt. What did happen, though, was a broad-scale move toward monasticism which, until the mid-6th century had not been generally popular. With no real prospects for a good life elsewhere, people turned toward establishing contemplative communities, mini-societies that were structured to shield them from the uncertainties and ills of society-at-large.

De Excidio Britanniae
Gildas' DE begins with a preface in which he states his intentions and denigrates his own poor skills and abilities, a common technique showing proper humility. He sprinkles biblical allusions all around and seems to see himself in a role similar to the prophet, Jeremiah, known as the "weeping prophet." After that, he describes Britain as and island that "lies virtually at the end of the word" and launches into a condensed history of Britain. He denounces the sins of the pre-Christian Britons and tells of the domination of the world by the Romans. He makes an interesting statement about the genesis of Christianity in Britain when he says,

"This happened first, as we know, in the last years of the emperor Tiberius, at a time when Christ's religion was being propagated without hindrance."

Tiberius ruled from 14-37 AD and if Gildas has it right, his date for the coming of Christianity to Britain would predate by 26 years the earliest, most blue-skyed, optimistic estimate anyone has ever put forth for that event. In any case, Gildas is no friend of the ancient Roman emperors and traces their history of persecution of British Christians up until the time of Magnus Maximus in 388. Maximus, you will recall, was a Spaniard who came to Britain along with Theodosius' army in 368. In 383, Maximus was proclaimed emperor by the Roman soldiers in the island's garrison and took most of Britain's armed troops with him to the continent to attempt to claim the emperor's throne in Rome. Maximus was defeated by this same Theodosius, but more germane to our story, most of his British troops never returned home, settling instead in Armorica (northwestern Gaul, now Brittany), leaving Britain weak and open for invasion, without the manpower or other means to defend herself.

Gildas details two appeals to Rome for help against the hated Picts and Scots whom he called,

"foul hordes . . . like dark throngs of worms who wriggle out of narrow fissures in the rock when the sun is high and the weather grows warm."

The Romans honored the first request with a Legion of soldiers but demurred at the second, telling the Britons that they should "stand alone". This calibrates in time with the Honorian Rescript of 410, wherein the emperorer effectively gave the Britons their independence from Rome by giving them the right to bear arms and telling them to see to their own defense. Gildas describes a quickly worsening situation wherein the British were either too weak or too lazy to fight while the Picts were ravaging the country. He tells of a third appeal to Rome for help,

"Aetius, thrice consul; the groans of the British . . . The barbarians push us back to the sea, the sea pushes us back to the barabarians; between these two kinds of death, we are either drowned or slaughtered."

This calibrates with the year 446, if by "thrice consul" Gildas is referring to the year of Aetius' third consulship, or if by it he means that his third consulship had already been completed, it may calibrate with the year 448. Whichever the case, this time, no help of any kind was forthcoming. Gildas reports famine in the land. But then, he says, there were some who were not disheartened by all this and who fought back and "inflicted a massacre on them," to the point that their enemies' audacity ceased. But, he says that the wickedness of the British didn't cease and they continued in their sin, and he tells of a new, more insidious danger,

"abundance of goods that no previous age had known the like of it. Alongside there grew luxury . . . and reports of such fornication as is not known even among the Gentiles (to Gildas, remember, Britain = Israel)"

The British had reached the final stage in their long decline, characterized by the hatred of truth and those who speak it combined with the love of falsehood. This, according to Gildas, set the stage for God's ultimate judgment on the Britons.

The Coming of the Saxons
First, troubling news of a re-emerging threat from the north began to spread, followed by more invasions, followed by a deadly plague, which killed many. Moral licentiousness abounded and the British wallowed in their despair and depravity. In their complete vexation, Gildas tells us they did what any good government would do: they formed a committee:

"they convened a council to decide the best and soundest way to counter the brutal and repeated invasions and plunderings"

Then, the council members, along with their leader, the previously unmentioned "proud tyrant" (Latin: superbus tyrannus, known to us as Vortigern) were "struck blind." The "solution" they chose was to open the door to further disaster. Gildas says it best,

". . . that the ferocious Saxons (name not to be spoken), hated by man and God, should be let into the island like wolves into the fold, to beat back the peoples of the north. Nothing more destructive, nothing more bitter has ever befallen the land. How utter the blindness of their minds. How desperate and crass their stupidity. Of their own free will they invited under the same roof a people whom they feared worse than death . . ."

Gildas tells us of their coming in three keels (keels = Saxon for warships) according to a Saxon prophecy that said they would live in the land for three hundred years and for half that time lay it waste. Lay it waste, they did, spreading across the whole land,

". . . from sea to sea, fed by the hands of our foes in the east, and did not cease, until, destroying the neighbouring towns and lands, it reached the other side of the island, and dipped its red and savage tongue in the western ocean . . . so that all the columns were levelled with the ground by the frequent strokes of the battering-ram, all the husbandmen routed, together with their bishops, priests, and people, whilst the sword gleamed, and the flames crackled around them on every side. Lamentable to behold, in the midst of the streets lay the tops of lofty towers, tumbled to the ground, stones of high walls, holy altars, fragments of human bodies, covered with livid clots of coagulated blood, looking as if they had been squeezed together in a press; and with no chance of being buried, save in the ruins of the houses, or in the ravening bellies of wild beasts and birds; with reverence be it spoken for their blessed souls, if, indeed, there were many found who were carried, at that time, into the high heaven by the holy angels. So entirely had the vintage, once so fine, degenerated and become bitter"

He goes on to detail further wrack and ruin and then something strange and miraculous happened. Gildas tells us that,

"these most cruel robbers were returned home"

By whom or for what reason, he doesn't say (he may not know). There is also some debate about where "home" was; some say they went back to their ancestral lands in northern Germany, but it is more probable that they returned to their enclaves in Kent and the Isle of Thanet (some commentators believe that East Anglia was the primary Saxon home area), granted to them by Vortigern as one of the terms of their engagement to fight the Picts and Scots.

The Rise of Ambrosius and the Siege of Mt. Badon
In any case, they retreated and during this respite, God raised up the figure of Ambrosius Aurelianus (the only 5th century British name mentioned by Gildas in the DE) who was, according to Gildas,

". . . a modest man, who of all the Roman nation was then alone in the confusion of this troubled period by chance left alive. His parents, who for their merit were adorned with the purple, had been slain in these same broils, and now his progeny in these our days, although shamefully degenerated from the worthiness of their ancestors, provoke to battle their cruel conquerors, and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory. ."

And now, we approach the climax of Gildas' historical section,

"After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Bath-hill (ed. note: Mound Badon), when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity. And yet neither to this day are the cities of our country inhabited as before, but being forsaken and overthrown, still lie desolate; our foreign wars having ceased, but our civil troubles still remaining. For as well the remembrance of such a terrible desolation of the island, as also of the unexpected recovery of the same, remained in the minds of those who were eyewitnesses of the wonderful events of both, and in regard thereof, kings, public magistrates, and private persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live orderly according to their several vocations. But when these had departed out of this world, and a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this troublesome time, and had only experience of the present prosperity, all the laws of truth and justice were so shaken and subverted, that not so much as a vestige or remembrance of these virtues remained among the above-named orders of men."

Two logical questions must be asked at this point:

1) When was the siege of Bath-hill (Mt. Badon)?
2) Who was the victor of the siege of Bath-hill (Mt. Badon), this greatest of early British military victories?

First, Gildas' difficult language poses a problem for us in answering the question because it relates the thing we want to know to two things we don't know, for sure. So, we have to figure it out. He does tell us that the siege of Mt. Badon occurred exactly 44 years and one month after the coming of the Saxons, an event known to history as "Adventus Saxonum" (a thorough discussion of this event can be found HERE). He knows this because it happens to coincide with his own birthday.

Some commentators, hoping to harmonize Nennius with the actual history of the period, believe that the Saxons first came in 428. Gildas speaks of an altogether different coming of the Saxons which, although undated, comes sometime after the appeal to Aetius for help in 446-8. Bede supplies the answer by telling us that the English came in the first year of Marcian and Valentinian which, he said, was 449. That was an error and we know the date to be 450. So, if we add Gildas' forty-four years, we get sometime around 494 for the date of the siege of Mount Badon. Given the possible errors in dating the coming of the Saxons, let's be generous and say that Badon happened in the first half of the 490's, between 491-5.***

On the second question, legend tells us that Arthur was the victor, but does Gildas' account permit that identification? The two passages above are continuous, with nothing separating them. If we ignore the artificial chapter numbers and just read the words as they are written, the mention of Ambrosius, his various battles and the great victory at Bath-hill (Mt. Badon) form a continuous account, suggesting that Ambrosius was the commander. But, since Arthurian scholars must allow for Arthur (and Ambrosius being the victor of Mt. Badon would be a major legend-killer), other interpretations and ways of understanding this fairly simple passage have to be found; about which, more later.

The remaining 84 chapters of the DE are complaints against five specific sixth century kings, whom he names; Constantine, the tyrannical whelp of the unclean lioness of Damnonia, Aurelius Conanus, Vortipor, tyrant of the Demetae, Cuneglasus, Maglocunus, and against a host of corrupt priests and judges whom he doesn't name.

So, Where's Arthur?
Having got this far, one might well ask, if the DE is the only quasi-contemporaneous source for fifth century British history and since Gildas does talk about military affairs at some length, where is Arthur in all this? If he were to be mentioned at all, one would rightly think it would be in a context such as this. Similarly, one might be inclined to think that Arthur's absence from the account could be taken as evidence of his non-existence or, if he did exist, his relative unimportance.

One possible answer is that Arthur may actually be mentioned, or at least a real person is mentioned around whose deeds the 'Arthurian' legend may have formed over the centuries -- a real hero, the leader of the British resurgence, the victor of Mt.Badon -- Ambrosius Aurelianus****.

Those who are reflexively pro-Arthur reject that possibility out of hand and work hard to find creative ways of explaining away Gildas' silence. They say:

1) Gildas' silence is really a non-issue;
2) Gildas doesn't mention 5th century personal names;
3) Gildas doesn't mention British 5th century personal names;
4) Gildas is only looking for things in society to condemn, not praise;
5) Gildas isn't writing history, he is only preaching a sermon;

These are the most common explanations, but are easily brushed aside:

1) Gildas' silence really IS an issue;
2) he did mention a 5th century proper name, Aetius, and he could as easily have mentioned Arthur;
3) he did mention a British 5th century proper name, Ambrosius, and he could as easily have mentioned Arthur;
4) he did find something praiseworthy in society, Ambrosius, again, and he could as easily have mentioned Arthur;
5) the 5th century incidents and people he describes are toward the end of a section which is clearly intended to be a brief history of Britain, given for the purpose of establishing a context for his "sermon," and a mention of a historical Arthur would have been appropriate in this historical section.

And, there are other explanations. Some will suggest that Arthur is really Cuneglassus, one of the five British kings that Gildas castigates,

"And thou too, Cuneglasse, why art thou fallen into the filth of thy former naughtiness, yea, since the very first spring of thy tender youth, thou bear, thou rider and ruler of many, and guider of the chariot which is the receptacle of the bear, thou condemner of God, and vilifier of his order, thou tawny butcher, as in the Latin tongue thy name signifies. "

At first, this has some surface appeal because the Welsh word for bear is "arth" and so we might be tempted to accept the equation of this bear reference as really being a coded reference to Arthur. But, this is fool's gold because the word 'bear' is clearly used as a metaphor, emphasizing a particular characteristic of Cuneglassus and clearly not used as a codename for Arthur. There would be no need to use a codename, here, since he has already named Cuneglassus. Also, it would stretch credulity to the breaking point to ask us to believe that this loathsome and detestable character was the original figure upon which the noble Arthurian legend was based. It just won't do.

And finally, this explanation from Gerald of Wales is sometimes offered:

"The Britons (ed. note: probably Caradoc of Llancarfan) maintain that, when Gildas criticized his own people so bitterly, he wrote as he did because he was so infuriated by the fact that King Arthur had killed his own brother, who was a Scottish chieftain. When he heard of his brother's death, or so the Britons say, he threw into the sea a number of outstanding books which he had written in their praise and about Arthur's achievements. As a result you will find no book which gives an authentic account of that great prince."

Let's review for a moment -- we are asked to believe that Gildas writes the DE, not out of righteous moral outrage at his countrymen's rampant sin and licentious behavior, gut-wrenching disgust at a declining society too weak or cowardly to defend itself and the understandable anguish of his beloved country being delivered into the hands of bloodthirsty, pagan barbarians. No, he writes this blistering diatribe out of anger at Arthur for bringing to justice one of his 23 brothers who was a pirate (and probably a bloodthirsty, pagan barbarian, himself), and the only revenge he decides to take on Arthur is to not mention him and to throw away all the books he had written about him?

This explanation doesn't wash, today, and it is hard to believe that Gerald of Wales believed it, either. But, the fact that he brings the issue up and the fact that the Britons had an excuse prepared indicates that both he and the Britons were aware that Gildas' silence WAS a problem that had to be overcome for their Arthurian fantasy to hold together. In order to accept Gerald's explanation of Gildas' silence, we must believe that Caradoc of Llancarfan's "Life of Gildas" is true, because that is where the story of Gildas, Hueil and Arthur comes from. And, in doing that, we inadvertently give undeserved credit to medieval hagiographers, those fabricators of fabulous fables, whose purpose has always been to sacrifice truth in order to achieve the supposedly higher purpose of inflating the reputation of a particular saint.

No, these explanations of Gildas's silence about Arthur don't satisfy, but they're the best that have been offered so far, and so, we must be open to other possibilities.

The DE's Historical Value
Our estimation of the DE's value as a historical source depends, to a large extent, on whether we have realistic expectations of it. If our goal is to be able to share Gildas' outrage at the deterioration of his country and to know why, in Gildas' view, it happened, then we must value it highly, since it succeeds in its stated goal and matches our expectations of it. But, if, however, we expect to be able to write a comprehensive and detailed chronology of the 5th century from the information contained in the DE, and if we must be able to establish the historicity of King Arthur from it, then it fails, miserably, and Gildas must be enshrined in the "Historians Rogues Gallery", forthwith and forever.

But, that is expecting too much of it. The DE is a background source, hinting at shapes and outlines of history, but not filling in the details and, really, never intending to be more than that. In our view, few documents of history do a better job of giving an impression of conditions and issues across a whole century and, whether or not we can see Arthur between the lines, it remains a rich and valuable source for the period.

For Analysis of Other Arthurian Sources:
Geoffrey of Monmouth' "Historia Regum Britanniae"
Nennius' "De Excidio Britanniae"
The Welsh Annals "Annales Cambriae"

--------------------------------------------
* The most commonly used title of the work, "De Excidio Britanniae" (On the Ruin of Britain), is sometimes given as "De Excidio et Conquestu British History Clube" (On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain). Either is accepted..

** Much of this period falls outside the envelope of time that David Dumville calls the "historical horizon of record," the point in time beyond which reliable history fails and legend and oral tradition are the only available sources..

***If Gildas wrote the DE before 547 (see Annales Cambriae article), then he was between 52 and 56 years old when he wrote it, and, if he died in 570 as reported in the AC, then he died between 75-9 years of age..

*** *This view will be developed in an upcoming essay..

--------------------------------------------

Bibliography:
Chambers, E. K., "Arthur of Britain", Speculum Historiale, Cambridge, 1964 (original published in 1927

Dumville, David N., "Histories and Pseudo-histories of the Insular Middle Ages", Variorum, Aldershot, England, 1990

Fletcher, Robert Huntington, "The Arthurian Material in the Chronicles", Burt Franklin, New York, 1966 (2nd edition, original published in 1905)

Lacy, Norris J., "The Arthurian Encyclopedia", Peter Bedrick, New York, 1986

Marsh, Henry, "Dark Age Britain: Sources of History", Dorset, New York, 1987

Morrris, John, ed., "Gildas: Arthurian Period Sources", History from the Sources, Volume 7, Phillimore, Chichester, 1978

Reno, Frank D., "Historic Figures of the Arthurian Era", McFarland, Jefferson, NC, 2000

Tatlock, J. S. P., "Caradoc of Llancarfan", Speculum, Vol. XIII, No. 2, April, 1938

Thorpe, Lewis, tr., "Gerald of Wales: 'The Journey Through Wales' and 'The Description of Wales' ", Penguin, London, 1978