 Myth, legend or historical figure? What is the truth about King Arthur? And did he really lead the Celtic Britons in wars against the Anglo-Saxons in post-Roman Britain? The earliest references to Arthur are contained in early Welsh sources. Perhaps the earliest reference to him appears in a Welsh medieval poem called the Agadothan, written anywhere between the 7th and 11th centuries AD. It was written by the Brythonic Bard, a Narren, and refers to the men who had been organised by the Agadothan to fight the Anglo-Tribes occupying Dara in the South, part of Northumbria today in Northern England. Agadothan itself refers to a Brythonic people that occupied the region in southern Scotland and in the northeast of England, modern England, and this broader region was known as the Henoglave or the Old North. The first rays by the Agadothan included numerous fighters from across Britain, including from Pickland and fighters from the land we call the North of Wales today. The ensuing battle was fought around 600 AD and it is known as the Battle of Cotrith. The Angles won a resounding victory, however, over the Celtic Britons, slaughtering them, nearly wiping out the entire force that had been raised by the Agadothan. The poem reads, the only one man in a hundred returned home. In referencing a brave warrior at the battle called Gwardar, the poem references Arthur himself. As the poem reads, he fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress, though he was no Arthur. Among the powerful ones in battle, in the front rank, Gwardar was a palisade. This is a really interesting passage in general, as the author clearly holds Arthur in very high esteem. Could there have been a brave warrior king called Arthur who lived around this time, or was Arthur himself a legendary figure even at this point? Please let me know in the comments below. This is not the only reference to Arthur, however, he appears in two early medieval sources. The Anales Cambriae thought to have been written around the 10th century, and the Historia Bretonum thought to have been written in the 9th century. But as these dates show, they were written hundreds of years after King Arthur supposedly lived. More detail on Arthur is provided in these sources, however. In Historia Bretonum, for instance, which was written by an ancient Welsh monk, Ninius, Arthur is referenced as fighting 12 battles against the Anglo-Saxons. These battles culminate in the Battle of Badden, fought in the 5th or 6th century AD. A battle between the Anglo-Saxons and the Celtic Britons led, in part at least, by King Arthur. In the battle, King Arthur is described as single-handedly killing 960 men. The battle is said to have been a great victory for the Celtic Britons and for King Arthur, helping to stave off the advance of the Anglo-Saxons, although there is debate about whether this battle took place in the precise historical details, given the lack of sources. So at this point, King Arthur is described in limited sources in a not overly fanciful way. Outside of the not uncommon exaggerations of heroes on the battlefield, I'm sure if King Arthur did live, he did not kill 960 men single-handedly. From the 12th century onwards, however, the legend of King Arthur grows arms and legs, with numerous other elements, mythical elements, inserted into the legend. Joffrey of Mommouth, for instance, wrote a pseudo-historical account known as the History of the Kings of Britain. Many elements that are now part of the wider King Arthur legend were inserted into the story at this point, including Arthur's father. Euther Pendragon, the magician Merlin, Arthur's wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur, and various other details. Another 12th century source, in the Waste of Jersey's Roman Dubrut, the room table was first mentioned, with Arthur said to be the sovereign of the Knightly Fellowship of the room table. The table is said to have been shaped in such a way, so that Arthur's barons couldn't claim superiority over any others who were sat around the table, given the fact that it was a room table, as opposed to a long high table. Then the 12th century writer, Cretien du Toit, inserts Lancelot into the story, a Knight of the room table who, according to one tradition, was born or raised to a fairy mother. Cretien also introduced the Holy Grail into the expanded legend of King Arthur. A cup believed to have been used by Christ at the Last Supper that can grant eternal life. Then in the French poem Merlin, written by Robert de Boron, in the 12th or 13th century, the idea of the sword and the stone motif is introduced. As the story goes, Arthur obtained the British throne by pulling a sword from an anvil sitting atop a stone that appeared in a churchyard on Christmas Eve. In this account, as foretold by Merlin, that could not be performed except by the true king, meaning the divinely appointed king or true heir of Uther Pendragon. As we've seen from the 12th century onwards, the legend of King Arthur grows arms and legs. Magic, miracles and Merlin are woven into the narrative and many of these elements still survive to today. Ancestry, romance and mysticism are inserted into the legend of King Arthur and give it real depth, although these seem more works of creative writing as opposed to history itself. It still begs the question however, did King Arthur actually exist? Well my personal opinion is a lot of legends and grand tales contain seeds of truth, even the smallest seed of truth. And this is probably the case with King Arthur, the legend of King Arthur, although some historians don't believe he existed. I certainly think it could have been the case that there was a brave and probably very vicious warrior called Arthur that certainly could have existed, that certainly a possibility and led Celtic Britons in certain battles. And these tales were passed down through the generations and over the centuries clearly a lot of mysticism and creative writing and novelist plot points have been added in to the legend as a whole and it obviously has become more on the mythical side of things but I still would say that there's a seed of truth there, there probably was a man called Arthur who achieved achieved great things on the battlefield. In the end, King Arthur is said to have been mortally wounded on the battlefield although some stories flirt with the idea of his resurrection, a fitting detail and a legend of this sort. But what are your thoughts about King Arthur? What is the truth about King Arthur? Did he really exist? And what was his potential life course in reality? Please let me know in the comments below. Speaking of the battlefield, what is the truth about Celtic warfare as a whole? To find out, please click here. Thanks for watching, if you would like to support the work, all the ways will be in the description below including on Patreon where you can get ad-free content and there's also my merch link down there where you can get t-shirts and other mugs etc and various other ways to support through buymeacoffee.com for instance. But thanks again for watching, please subscribe and hit the bell and tell your friends and family about this channel. I'll see you next time.