Vote on the COMPOSITION of the TwitchPaints Painting!

Heya, I finally got around to do these sketches, so you have a better idea of what to vote. :-)

Please keep in mind, that this is about the COMPOSITION. Facial expressions, attire, hairstyles and angles of the sword can all be changed!

Also, these are rough sketches, the painting will be much finer with accurate anatomy and stuff.

Was Arthur based on a Welsh Lord?

The story of Arthur and Merlin and the Knights of the Round Table is a story that almost everyone is familiar with. It’s a story that has been passed down throughout the years with each generation adding their own take on the tale. It’s kind of nice in that way. It inspires creativity with each successive generation. The question however remains, was there a basis for a historical Arthur? Some say he was a Roman soldier..or a Briton fighting against the Romans..or the Anglo-Saxons..or he was Irish..or he never existed at all. The most likely answer is he never existed; not in the way we now know him at least. The most compelling argument, in my opinion, for who is the historical Arthur is a Welsh warlord in the 5^th century. I recommend reading The Lost Tomb of King Arthur by Graham Phillips (I will be using him as my primary source for this post) and forming your own opinion. I welcome others to share their opinions as well on Arthur and where he comes from..if he comes from anywhere at all.

1.      There is no Camelot in any record but it can safely be said that the name, along with many of the knights of the round table, the ill-fated romance of Lancelot and Guinevere, and Excalibur were added by French writers much later than the historical Arthur would have lived. Viroconium was a strategic location at the end of the 5^th century that has a strong possibility for the possible location of “Camelot.” It is also possibly the site of Vortigern and his castle (more on him later) and was very prosperous and well defended.

2.      In the original iterations of the story, Morgan or Morgana le fay (the fairy) was not Arthur’s sister or step sister who plotted against Arthur (as she is almost always portrayed as in recent times). She was the head priestess on the Isle of Avalon (not it’s original name) where the dead or dying Arthur was sent to be buried or in an attempt to heal him. It’s possible that Morgan is a Welsh derivation of the Irish mythic heroine Morrigan and that Morgan le Fay was simply a pseudonym for the head priestess who was a druidic follower of Morrigan. Temples such as this with druid oracles or priestesses at this time in history were not uncommon.

3.      The character of Vortigern is backed up by several historical sources that seem to prove the validity of the man (he is mentioned both in Welsh and Anglo-Saxon chronicles and is listed on a pillar as ruler of the kingdom of Powys). The myth is that he met a young boy named Ambrosius Aurelius who told him not to build his castle where he was attempting to build it because of a vision he had. Aurelius is also most likely a historical figure (an offshoot of the emperors Marcus and Commodus Aurelius of the movie Gladiator fame) who later went on to be a ruler for some time after Vortigern died (around the year 465) and helped beat back the Anglo-Saxons. He is also considered by some to be the historical model for Merlin. In the earliest Welsh tales, Ambrosius and Merlin are used interchangeably as being one in the same. Merlin is referred to as Myrddin (which can mean the eagle) at first and Ambrosius is shortened to Ambrose and rendered in Welsh to Emrys. Perhaps Ambrosius wanted a British sounding name (much like English royal family did during the first World War so that it would sound less German) and changed it to Myrddin which later became Merlin.

4.      So what of the accounts of an old man with the name of Merlin withering away his last days in grief at the loss of the great King Arthur? The Ambrosius Aurelius character could not have lived that long if he ruled around the year 465 and “Arthur” ruled towards the end of the century. The easy answer and perhaps the most likely is that there was someone else named Myrddin who may have known “Arthur” and the two Myrddins got confused by history as the same person. It’s also possible that Ambrosius did know Arthur as a very old man however and may have had some impact on his life.

5.      In this time when Kings or warlords were deposed or retired, they often became druidic priests or bards (if they weren’t killed). It is possible (although it’s stretching the imagination a bit) to imagine Ambrosius giving up his “crown” and becoming a bard and later an advisor to young Arthur. Arthur’s rule towards the end of the 5^th century would make Ambrosius a man anywhere from his fifties to his seventies. It’s not out of the realm of possibility. It would certainly add credence to the image of the very old man later known as Merlin advising the young King Arthur.

6.      There is a possible match for Arthur’s father in the character of Uther Pendragon (which can be taken to mean the terrible head dragon in Welsh). The Gwynedd kings had the title of dragons for sure by the sixth century and may have earlier so it’s possible that the Uther came from this line. A likely candidate would be one Enniaun Girt who would have been of the right age. If this is the Uther Pendragon of fame however he could not be the father of the possible Arthur candidate discussed in point 8.

7.      The Anglo-Saxon chronicle which is quite detailed and up to date (and loved bragging about it’s victories) records no significant victories from the periods of 495-508. A very likely scenario for this is that there were no significant victories during this time. Perhaps a welsh lord we know as Arthur is the reason for this?

8.       The most likely source for a Welsh historical Arthur is a man by the name of Owain Ddantgwyn. He was alive at the right time in the right place and from a powerful family. Why the name Arthur though? It can be made to mean (with some maneuvering) the bear. Genghis Khan is a title that we know the man by, why not the bear or Arthur for Owain? In fact, there are references to the sons of the bear and their leadership roles in later texts. Could they be the sons of Owain/Arthur? It’s also interesting to note that there is no record of the name Arthur before the events of whatever happened during the end of the 5^th century.

9.      The best knowledge to how Owain died was that he was killed in battle by his nephew Maglocunnus. This is almost identical to the death of Arthur in battle by his nephew (or son depending on the iteration) Mordred.

10.   There was a lord or several lords at the end of the 5^th century giving hell to the Anglo-Saxons in all likelihood. There was a man named Owain from a powerful family during that time. There was possibly still a man named Ambrosius, who could have changed his name, who may have still been alive and advised Owain. There is precedent for temples of priestesses where the dead and dying were sent. Round tables were something that were used in many Celtic communities as a way of showing equality. Swords in stones were not uncommon at certain temples in Welsh culture. In fact, when a warrior was dying or dead their armor and sword were thrown into the water as a sort of prayer. Perhaps as Owain was dying or dead his sword was thrown into a lake? There is enough there to posit that, even loosely, that Owain is the basis for Arthur and possibly Ambrosius as Merlin. Even if things didn’t line up this neatly it’s certainly possible and perhaps even more likely that contemporary historians took things from Owain’s life and older myths and maybe even heard about this guy Ambrosius and put him in the story (when maybe he was not there). Or someone with a cool name like Uther Pendragon could have been put into the story as the father of Arthur. Perhaps the ruling family of the time of the first recordings of Arthur were against the family of Owain and had to create a name such as Arthur to disguise their subject. And maybe they cobbled together the story together that way. As we have continued to do that ever since.

It can be argued that anything associated with the Arthurian legend is generally avoided by historians. It is not considered a subject that any respectable historian would even consider. Even someone like Vortigern (who is verified in several sources as a historical figure) is almost never talked about just because of his loose association with Arthur. Let me know what you all think.  

** A funny postscript about the supposed tomb of Arthur and Guinevere. Back during the time of King Richard the Lionheart, the monks at Glastonbury claimed to discover the tomb of England’s most famous King and Queen. Back during these days, having holy relics was the all the rage. It brought pilgrimages and thus money from the pilgrims. What is kind of humorous is that this wasn’t the first time the one-trick-pony-monks of Glastonbury has “discovered” a holy relic. They first (miraculously) discovered the remains of St. Patrick which offended the church in Ireland who has dibs on St. Patrick and the monks at Glastonbury withdrew their claim. Not to be deterred, a few months later, to the shock of all, they found the remains of St. Dunstan! How very fortunate right? Well except that the Archbishop of Canterbury (who also upheld the church of Ireland’s claims to St. Patrick) has already claimed to have the remains of St. Dunstan and he was not going to give up that claim for anyone. Well, shoot, what does a monk need to do to find some holy relics? Does anyone have a claim on Arthur and Guinevere? No? Ok we can claim those bones we just miraculously found (again) are them. And thus the tomb of Arthur and Guinevere was discovered by the faithful monks of Glastonbury.  

Do you want to participate in our CreateAlong?

Please leave a comment on this post that says "yes" or "no". And, if you wish, the manner of creation (painting/drawing/story/song/...). <3