by Mike Ashley
What it most interesting about Mount Caburn is the Glynde Reach. This small stream was originally the Glynde Bourne, thus bearing a striking similarity to the first battle of Nennius’s list at the River Glein. If it is the same battle, then it may have been the first Arthurian victory. We do not know how accurate the date is, but 485 fits perfectly with the likely date for the start of the Arthurian campaign, culminating in Badon in 493 or so. It appears that Aelle was contained by the defeat at Mearcrædes until he defeated the British at Anderida. After that he was able to move further west. It is perhaps telling that the hill that faces Mount Caburn, just to the north, is now called Saxon Down, possibly a memory of where the Saxons gathered in readiness for their battle against the British.
Aelle is something of a mystery amongst the early Saxon settlers. The earlier Hengist and his successor Octha have been remembered in the story of Vortigern and Ambrosius, whilst the later Cerdic became the founder of a dynasty. Aelle exists between these two almost as an aside, as if he were battling away in Sussex whilst the main action was happening elsewhere. He doesn’t appear in any of the Arthurian foundation stories, and after his passing we know nothing more about Sussex for over 150 years. Yet Bede cites Aelle as the first of the Saxons “to rule over all the Southern kingdoms”. He was the first to be regarded as the Bretwalda, a form of High King, to whom all the other chieftains offered their loyalty. We have no reason to doubt Bede. He tells us that he gathered his information about Sussex from Bishop Daniel of Wessex who knew the people of Sussex intimately. Somehow Aelle, although seeming to have been confined to the shores of Sussex, became paramount chief of the Saxons.
This suggests that whilst his people may have remained closeted in Sussex, Aelle was in contact with the British leaders, almost certainly with Ambrosius and probably with Arthur. The evidence has shown that the Saxons had been held in check by the resistance under Ambrosius and that for nearly a generation the Saxons and Angles remained in their coastal settlements. This peace had become strained by the late 480s, and then broke, perhaps when Ambrosius was too old to govern, and Aelle led a Saxon revival. The assault on Anderida may have been the start of this revival, which culminated at Badon.
Thus it would seem that Aelle was the Saxon leader at Badon, even though tradition names Octha (or Osa/Eossa). Octha may have been the commander under Aelle. The British victory at Badon would seem to be a suitable retaliation for the slaughter at Anderida, wiping out the Saxon army. In all likelihood Aelle and his sons were killed in the battle, which is why we hear no more of him, and why he left no dynasty to rule Sussex. Thereafter Sussex survived as a small insignificant enclave, hemmed in by the British in the Weald. If this is true – and Aelle’s high rank would strongly suggest it – then it would argue that Badon, and probably most of Arthur’s battle campaign, was in the South.
Octha may also have been killed at Badon or, if he survived, it was now that he was assigned a small territory in Thanet in the far east of Kent, keeping the Saxons at arm’s length from the British heartland. Octha is usually equated with Aesc, but we cannot be sure they are the same individuals. Aesc is supposed to have ruled the Cantwara for 34 years, from 488 to 522, which almost parallels the Arthurian period, but we cannot accept those dates without question. I am not convinced that the Octha who fought at Badon, according to the story in The Dream of Rhonabwy, is the same as Aesc (or Oisc) from whom the rulers of Kent were descended.
The remaining battles listed at this time all relate to Cerdic and his nephews, Stuf and Wihtgar. We have already discussed the uncertainty of Cerdic’s reign (see Chapter 4) and that his arrival in Britain could have been any one of a series of dates – 495, 514, 523 or 532. Remember that the ASC states that Cerdic “succeeded to the kingdom” six years after his arrival, so that he could have assumed the kingship in 501, 520, 529 or 538. Intriguingly, two of those dates show that he could have arrived either at the time of Badon (493x497) or at the time of Camlann (circa 520).
It is hard to imagine that Cerdic’s rise to power is not in some way connected to either Arthur’s triumph or his downfall. Badon was supposed to have instigated a period of peace, a Pax Arthuriana, in which all conflicts with the Saxons ceased. Indeed, Gildas still recalled this remarkable calm while writing De Excidio in the 530s. If Cerdic arrived in 495, then his sequence of battles would have disrupted that calm unless they were confined to an area not under Gildas’s consideration. Alternatively, if Cerdic did not arrive until 532 and his battles fell into the period 532–538, Gildas may not have considered them worth commenting on, especially as Cerdic was British. Cerdic’s rise to power must have come as a consequence of Arthur’s fall, unless he was in league with Arthur. But because Cerdic was British, Gildas might have regarded his battles as yet another of the civil wars that continued in Britain through this period of peace. However, if Cerdic was alive and ruling when Gildas was writing, he would have seen him as the greatest traitor of them all, and would undoubtedly have mentioned him. This means Cerdic was either already dead or not yet in power. Thus we have two scenarios:
(1) Cerdic was a young Briton, born around the time of the major Saxon revolt in the 440s. He may well have had a Saxon mother and thus knew the language and became an interpreter. He sought personal gain during the subsequent British retaliation, but failed and retreated to Gaul, possibly Armorica, returning in 495 to curry favour with Arthur and, as a consequence, was granted command of the Gewisse. Wanting more power he fought against the British and took control of land in Hampshire and Wiltshire, setting himself up as king in 501 and ruling to 517. His death is close to the probable date for Camlann and we might conjecture that Cerdic was involved in the wars with Arthur and was a supporter of Medraut/Mordred. Cerdic’s usurpation would thus fit into the category of Gildas’s civil wars but because Cerdic was dead by the 530s, Gildas did not single him out for comment.
(2) Cerdic fits into the later wave of chieftains who established control in the 540s. Cerdic’s campaign ran from 532 to 538 when he assumed control of the West Saxons. This makes a stronger case for Cerdic being the military commander of a group of confederate Saxons and Britons. The West Saxons were not yet a unified whole, and during the mid sixth century were a number of separate units carving out territory across the south and the Thames Valley. After a few battles Cerdic managed to unify an area of Saxons and Britons. Gildas would doubtless dismiss Cerdic’s initial forays as part of the continuing civil unrest and not see it as a re-emergence of the Saxon onslaught which gathered pace in the 540s. What’s more, if Camlann did occur just before Gildas wrote De Excidio (as suggested by his comments about Constantine), then Cerdic may have benefited from Arthur’s death, taking territory in the inevitable chaotic aftermath. If he did not already have control of the Gewisse, he certainly took command now.
Of these two options (2) best fits the overall time frame for the chronology of the rulers of the Wessex. (1) has a romantic appeal that makes Cerdic an ally and then an enemy of Arthur, and has some substance in some of the later tales that claims Cerdic was a friend of Arthur’s until they argued. However, as we have seen, there were so many people called Ceredig/Ceretic/Cerdic that the tradition probably relates to someone else – most likely Caradog Vreichfras – and was later identified with Cerdic. This solution concurs with our earlier analysis based on the ASC, and convinces me that Cerdic was not contemporary with Arthur but rose to power in the vacuum left by Arthur’s death.
If we look at Cerdic’s battles as listed in the ASC, regardless of other chieftains such as Port or Stuf, we find only four sites mentioned – Cerdices ora, Cerdices ford, Cerdices leag and Wihtgaræsbyrg. No firm location is known for any of these. It has been suggested that Cerdices ora may be the same as Calshot, a spit of land that juts out at the end of Southampton Water, though other sources suggest this was named after the chalky deposits in the area – celces ora. O.G.S. Crawford puts forward a theory that the Saxons landed at Totton, at the head of Southampton Water, based pur
ely on a logical route rather than any philological data. However, Crawford believed that the Saxons followed an ancient trackway known as the Cloven Way, which passes through two other possible sites. The ASC tells us that Cerdices ford was on the far side of Netley Marsh, and if we assume this reference to be correct, it would place it somewhere just north of the New Forest. The chronicler Athelweard identified it as being on the River Avon, but since afon is the Celtic for any river this does not necessarily help. The Hampshire Avon flows through Charford, just north of Fordingbridge, and Crawford suggested that this was Cerdices ford. However, most etymologists believe the name Charford (and there are several villages with that name) is derived from either Ceorl’s-ford, named after another individual, or cyric forda meaning “ford by the church”. Interestingly, just to the east of Charford is the source of the River Blackwater, which flows into the Test near Netley Marsh (see Map 5). These four battles (Cerdicesora, Cerdicesford, Cerdicesleag and Wihtgaræsbyrg) could be the four fought on the Dubglas if the British were fighting Saxons arriving via Southampton Water.
5. Possible sites for Cerdic’s battles.
Continuing along the Cloven Way, Crawford identifies a site to the west of Charford, near the ancient earthworks known as Grim’s Ditch, listed in a charter as fyrdinges lea. Fyrding refers to an army on full war footing, and he suggests this could have been the site of Cerdices leag. There is a logic to this route. It may also be significant that at Downton, the village that adjoins Charford to the north, is a feature called The Moot, or Moot Hill, believed to have been a meeting place for Saxon councils. It would seem only natural that, if the Saxons under Cerdic first established themselves in this area, they would have a meeting place for their witan which, as the first in that area, would have become held in high esteem. Perhaps even more intriguingly, the part of the Moot that abuts the River Avon has been called for centuries Natanbury, and is believed to have been the burial mound of Natanleod.
It is worth noting that if Cerdic’s confederates did establish themselves in the basin of Southampton Water around Charford, they were within striking distance of both Badbury Rings and Liddington, which would have made Cerdic a contender for fighting at Badon if his arrival could be satisfactorily dated to 495. The chronology, however, best suits a later arrival. If it were possible to prove that one of Cerdic’s battles equated to Camlann, it would bring the Arthurian world into much sharper focus. Unfortunately, no amount of research can detect any trace of an early Celtic name like Camlann for any of the locations along the Avon valley in which Cerdic’s early battles may have taken place. One can look longingly at the twists and turns in the river and think that maybe somewhere here was called the ‘crooked enclosure’ or something similar at one time, but that could apply to almost any river.
Intriguingly, the Mort Artu, part of the early Vulgate Cycle of Arthurian legends on which Malory based his famous work (see Chapter 9), has Camlann take place on Salisbury Plain. There is no evidence for this at all. Possibly this reflects some distant folk memory, but that could be a dim recollection of any major battle near Salisbury, such as that in 715 between Ceolred of Mercia and Ine of Wessex.
Despite these suggestions, no firm location can be made for any of Cerdic’s battles. That also applies to Wihtgaræsbyrg, presumed to be a hill fort on the Isle of Wight. The only such fort is at Carisbrooke, but neither archaeological nor linguistic evidence can show any relationship between this and Wihtgaræsbyrg. The obvious place, based on the other Cerdic locales, is Whitsbury, less than 10 km (6 m) west of Charford, and set amongst a maze of valleys and ancient earthworks. However, most etymologies note that Whitsbury evolved from Wiccheberia, from wice for “wych elm”, thus meaning the “fort where wych elms grow.”
Trying to identify any other possible places associated with Cerdic is complicated by the abundance of the name Cerdic/Ceretic, and also, being a Celtic name, it was doubtless superseded by a Saxon name in due course. In this sense Cerdic is unusual amongst the early Saxon leaders in that he did not have places named after him. Creoda of Mercia, for example, is remembered in Credenhill in Herefordshire, and Icel, his forebear, in Ickleton near Cambridge. For some reason Cerdic did not leave his mark on the landscape as much as he did on history.
6. Suggested sites for Arthur’s battles in Armorica.
4. The Breton angle
Ronald Millar, in Will the Real King Arthur Please Stand Up? (1978), has enterprisingly managed to find sites for all of Arthur’s battles in Brittany (see Map 6, and below). Some people have dismissed this book as a spoof, or simply as a humorous read, but it raises some interesting points.
Millar reminds us that the Arthurian story also thrived in Brittany, and indeed much of the Arthurian story as we now know it developed there. In later centuries Arthur’s name had mutated to Arzor, perhaps remembered in the name of the town Arzal, in the south near the mouth of the river Vilaine. Further along the coast is Arzon, which looks over the Golfe du Morbihan to the cliffs at Baden.
Below is a list of the possibilities identified by Millar:
1.
At the mouth of the river Glein
River Vilaine (formerly Gwilen), at Arzal
2–5.
On the river Dubglas in the region of Linnuis
River Daoulas, near Brest, in Leon (called Linnuis or Lyonesse)
6.
On the river Bassas
The Ile de Batz off North Finisterre
7.
In the Caledonian Forest, that is Cat Coit Celidon
The Forest of Quenecan (formerly Guerledon or Gerlidon)
8.
In Fort Guinnion
Castel Guennon at Tregon, near Dinard
9.
The City of the Legion
Vannes, the legionary capital in Armorica
10.
On the bank of the river Tribruit
The River Trieaux (formerly Trifrouit) at Lanleff
11.
On the Mount of Agned, at Breguoin
Ste-Anne (formerly Ste-Agned) near the village of Brech
12.
Badon Hill
Baden, near Vannes, on the Golfe du Morbihan
and
Camlann
Camerunn, near St-Nazaire
Millar is able to get a compellingly close similarity with most of the battles, except Bassas, Badon and Camlann. Perhaps this should not be too surprising. It is known that when the British migrated to Armorica and established new settlements, they brought their old names with them, naming territories Cornouaille and Leon, for example. What this demonstrates is that place names in Brittany have remained relatively unchanged. Millar’s research is an interesting snapshot of how names might have been identifiable in Britain had not so many changed under successive settlers.
Having identified a name is one thing, but are they necessarily appropriate settings? Millar himself admits that Baden, atop the cliffs overlooking the massive estuary of the river Vilaine, does not really fit the description of a Mons Badonicus. The monastery of St Gildas is only the other side of this bay, near Arzon, so one would expect Gildas’s description of it to be more accurate. Likewise, Millar’s suggestion of Camerunn in the marshland near St-Nazaire is really a throwaway at the end of his book, and not a serious proposal.
The Breton dimension, however, raises the question of whether Arthur’s battles started in Armorica and he then came to help the British at Badon. The Breton historian Leon Fleuriot suggested that one reason why the British were able to maintain a resistance against the Saxons around the turn of the fifth/sixth centuries was partly due to “the support of continental Bretons” and that the collapse of the British defence in the late sixth century was because the Bretons were involved in their own war against the Franks. If the British saviour was Arthur then possibly he either came from Armorica or he was able to command Breton mercenaries, a concept that Geoffrey of Monmouth utilizes in his own story of Arthur, which I explore in Chapter 9. It is also the basis
of Geoffrey Ashe’s case for proposing Riothamus as Arthur though, as we have seen, the dates undermine this.
A variant on this idea comes from Chris Barber and David Pykitt in Journey to Avalon where they suggest that Arthur survived Camlann and retired to Brittany as a religious hermit, adopting the name Arthmael or Armel. Barber and Pykitt believe that he was Athrwys of Gwent, whom they date from 482–562. Little is known about Arthmael. He is believed to have been born in Gwent, near Llantwit Major but not one knows when. He was a contemporary of and probably related to St Samson and St Cadfan. He appears in Armorica around the year 538, the same year as Camlann according to the Welsh Annals. He died sometime between 552 and 570. The church of Saint-Armel-des-Boscheaux is on the Golfe du Morbihan, close to the monastery of St Gildas.
Barber and Pykitt’s dates coincide with those in the Welsh Annals for Badon and Camlann, but are too early for Athrwys of Gwent whom I believe lived from around 600–660. The name change from Athryws to Arthmael also seems strange. Arthur of Badon is hardly likely to have kept his identity hidden after Camlann, not with Gildas living nearby.