There will be a lot of people out there asking “What on Earth is a Wledig!” The answer is … no one really knows. Here’s some background.
There appear to be many figures in Arthurian and Welsh literature who are given the title Wledig (various spellings: Gwledig/Guletic/Guledic), by either being referred to as one or having it attached to their name.
Here are some, in no particular order:
Mascen Wledig (Magnus Maximus)
Emrys Wledig (Ambrosius Aurelianus)
Gwallawg Wledig
Urien Wledig (Urien of Rheged)
Ywain Wledig (could be Owain, Urien’s son)
Ceritic Wledig (thought to be St Patrick’s Coroticus)
Casnar Wledig
Cynfelyn Wledig
Amlawdd Wledig (supposedly Arthur maternal grandfather)
Dewrarth Wledig
Gwerthmwl Wledig
Celydon Wledig
Gerthmwl Wledig
Fflewdur Flam Wledig
Deorthach Wledig
Aflaw Wledig
Cylidd Wledig
Einudd Wledig
… but Arthur is only called Wledig in one poem (possibly two – see below), but the title didn’t stick. The poem, ‘The Throne of the Sovereign’, is attributed to the 6th century bard Taliesin, but it’s thought to be by some later bard.
There they are sought, the bold,
The lost men of battle.
I compare the fierce ranks
Of the late Penduic,
Of the death-dealing ranks,
Of the breastplated legion,
The Wledig raised
On the old-renowned border,
To a broken grass-stalk
Fragile likewise.
Arthur’s supposed maternal grandfather, Amlawdd Wledig, bore the title but not him. He is called a pen teyrned, ‘leader/chief of kings/princes/rulers, which is impressive, but he wasn’t made to keep up with the Joneses … in this case, Ambrosius Aurelianus (Emrys Wledig) and Magnus Maximus (Macsen Wledig).
Whilst in Modern Welsh the meaning of gwledig is ‘rural, countrified, country, agrarian‘, there are differing explanations as to what exactly an Early Medieval Wledig was. These ranges from ‘land holder’, to ‘(hereditary) sovereign lord’ and ‘lord over other’s country through victory’. The Indo-European data base gives:
Proto-Celtic: *wlati- ‘sovereignty’ [Noun]
Old Irish: flaith [i f, later m] ‘sovereignty, ruler’
Middle Welsh: gulat [f] (OW), MW gwlad ‘country’
Middle Breton: guletic (OBret.)
Cornish: gulat gl. patria
The GPC defines Gwledig as:
“lord, king, prince, ruler, term applied to a number of early British rulers and princes who were prominent in the defense of Britain about the time of the Roman withdrawal; (possibly) commander of the native militia (in a Romano-British province).
Their definition of teyrn is:
“monarch, sovereign, king, prince, lord, ruler, leader, dictator, tyrant; (figuratively) sovereign (adj.), royal.
Patrick Sims-Williams notes in “The Early Welsh Arthurian Poems” from The Arthur of the Welsh (p. 52) that Arthur might be the otherwise unnamed Prydein Wledig - ‘Lord of Britain’ – referred to in the poem Kat Godeu (which refers to Arthur later on).
‘Lord over other’s country through victory’, put forward by Fabio P. Barbieri in an article at the Faces of Arthur section at Robert Vermaat’s Vortigern Studies website ( http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/ ), does seem to have some logic to it. Here is part of it:
“Now, Taliesin seems to me to draw a marked distinction between two words for “king”, Teyrn and Gwledig. (He never uses Brenhin, which is significant, but if I make out the original Welsh right, he does sometimes use the very archaic Rieu for “kings in the mass, the whole class of kings, both gwledig and teyrn”.) When Urien’s bard praises his lord in the most emphatic and ringing terms, he calls him gwledig. Urien is the gwledig of cattle-lifters at his great battle at Gwenystrad, in the sense that nobody in the world is better at taking wealth away from enemies. Gwenystrad must have been a tremendous triumph for Urien: speaking of it, Taliesin describes this single northern lord as the scourge of the men of all the island, gathered in battle-lines (gwyr Prydein adwythein yn lluyd). Clearly a large coalition had been gathered to teach the impudent cateran a lesson – and had ended up learning one instead. It is by virtue of this great victory over men from many parts of the island that Taliesin awards his lord the title of gwledig, qualifying it, even then, as gwledig only in that he takes cattle away from so many enemies. He still is not said to rule over them, even though he defeated them. It seems clear that the sovereignty of Rheged, alone, does not make a gwledig. Gwledig is a term of praise, specifically for victory, and in particular for the kind of victory that proves supremacy over a large number of competitors.” ( http://www.facesofarthur.org.uk/fabio/book1.7.htm)
There is only one Guletic mentioned in the 7th to 9th century collection of poems Y Gododdin, that being a character called Ywain/Ewein/Owein (who could be Owain Rheged) and John Koch interprets the meaning differently to that above:
“Ewein [Owein] is twice referred to as of particularly high status, called *couri(g)entin penn – ‘rightful privileged chief’ and guletic ‘(hereditary) sovereign lord’. The latter title is not lightly accorded in Early Welsh sources.” (‘The Gododdin of Aneirin’, Koch, p. 225
Whether Arthur was historical or not, and whether an historical Arthur was a Wledig or not, it is odd that he wasn’t later given this prestigious title for literary effect. Why wasn’t it used in his stories to bolster his standing, or was pen teyrned enough? Did someone come up with pen teyrned purely because of how they interpreted the battle list in the Historia Britonnum and because Arthur had no Wledig title? There is only one other person I know of given the title pen teyrned and that is Gwenddoleu, who in the Myrddin poem Oianau is called “pen teyrnedd Gogledd” (“Pen teernet goglet“); translated as, “chief of lords of the Old North”.
Arthur does jump to being an imperator and, unless someone was particularly well read in the ways of the Roman Republic, they meant emperor and not military commander! This could have been a translation of Wledig to imperator, seeing as Macsen went from imperator to Wledig. It’s unlikely that Macsen, who was the emperor Magnus Maximus, was actually a Wledig, but he was given the title anyway, probably to Brittonicize this Spaniard.
Ambrosius (Emrys) received it for his greatness and even Cunedda, the supposed ridder of the Irish from what are now north and southwestern Wales has it, but not Arthur, the supposed ridder of the Saxons.
Of course it wasn’t just Arthur who wasn’t a Wledig. Vortigern isn’t called a one either and even the powerful Maelgwn (Gildas’s Maglocunus) doesn’t seem to be, and, according to Gildas, a taker of other people’s country was exactly what he was, IF that’s its meaning. Maybe Vortigern wasn’t known as a taker of other’s county, more of a loser of his own through the bad press he received. As for Maelgwn, it may simply be because we don’t have any surviving bardic poetry, unlike Urien, calling him such … and he may not have been liked much either!
But there’s a fly in the ointment to all this.
MS. HENGWRT 536.
TEIOED ARTHUE AE WYE
Teir Lleithicltiyth Ynys Prydein. Arthur yii pen teyrned
ym Mynytf a Dewi yn pen ysgyb a MaelgCn Gtfyned yn pen
hyneif. Arthur yn pen teyrned yg Kelliwic yg Kernetf a
Betwini esgob yn pen esgyb a Charadatfc ureichuras yn pen
hyneif. Arthur yn pen teyrned ym Pen Eionyd yny gogled
a Chyndeyrn Garthwys yn peri esgyb a Gtfrthmwl Wledic yn
pen hyneif.
TRANSLATION
TRIADS OF ARTHUR AND HIS WARRIORS.
Three tribe thrones of the Island of Prydain. Arthur the chief lord at Menevia, and David the chief bishop, and Maelgwyn Gwyned the chief elder. Arthur the chief lord at Kelliwic in Cornwall, and Bishop Betwini the chief bishop, and Caradawc Vreichvras the chief elder. Arthur the chief lord at Penrionyd in the north, and Cyndeyrn Garthwys the chief bishop, and Gurthmwl Guledic the chief elder.
So here we have a pen teyrned and Wledig mentioned together.
The translation makes teyrned a ‘lord’ and not king. I believe it should be plural in both cases, but I could be mistaken. The same goes for Arthur’s mention in ‘Culhwch and Olwen, where I’ve seen pen teyned translated as ‘sovereign lord’. No wonder everyone’s confused and say Arthur wasn’t originally called a king. However, if teyrn is only a ‘lord’ and a brehin only a king, then it seems to me we have an awful lot more lords and Wledigs compared to kings in the Early Medieval period … but I may just may not be aware of them!
So what’s the difference between a pen teyrned and a Wledig? Once again I’d like to quote Fabio P. Barbieri (Chapter 1.7: Resurgent Celticism: Function and power of Gildas’ kings):
“Teyrned, therefore, are those of the lord class who either cannot fight or are defeated in battle, an inferior kind of lordship. Gwledig are the kings who assert their right to rule by victory, who take cattle and do not have cattle taken away from them (surely a poetic version of the claiming and refusal of tribute). But this is not merely a contingent fact depending on the changing fortunes of arms: these ranks are at least to some extent permanent.”
Not sure about this. That would make a pen teyrned the ruler of teyrns, which seems to make the title almost the same as Wledig! However, Christopher Snyder in a post at Arthurnet said:
“Tigernos” is a common Celtic term (variants include teryn, theryn, tiern, and thigern) for a ruler, usually a local ruler)”
So calling Arthur a pen teyrned could mean several things. A pen teyrned who is just the ‘chief/leader of local rulers’ is very different from one who is a ‘leader of kings’ (‘sovereign lord’?). If it is the former, it could have given rise to the ‘not a king but a leader of kings in battle’, whilst the latter translation could have led Geoffrey of Monmouth (and others) to interpreted him as being a ‘king of kings’ or even ‘emperor’? Maybe this is what confused the hell out of the Historia Britonnum and Annales Cambriae compilers.
Thanks for reading,
Mak
esmeraldamac
April 26, 2011 at 11:39 am
Blimey, that’s just as complicated as I suspected it was! Gwenddoleu is a bit of a fly in the ointment here, because I don’t think he was especially important amongst northern rulers, and was roundly defeated at Arthuret. On this basis, he’s not a good candidate for the highest of high, especially in context of the rulers of Rheged next door (or at least I reckon Rheged was next door. I know that’s contentious!).
Still, thanks to you we now all have a lot of detail
badonicus
April 26, 2011 at 12:43 pm
I suppose it depends on who was giving them the title. It may have been Gwenddoleu’s bard saying his patron was a Wledig, whether he was in other’s eyes or not, or even some later bard. This is the problem with this title: who was bestowing it?
Dane Pestano
April 26, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Perhaps the answer to this conundrum is that the title of Guletic was only given to ‘Logrian’ lords, ie those who paid for their protection, such as those that paid the Romans and Saxons. Hence Maximus and Ambrosius could be given the title as they were Roman in Roman controlled `logrian’ territory.
As Arthur was not given this title this might suggest he was not from amongst those tribes who paid. This means he must have been from the far north, Wales or the far south west. Strange that it is in exactly these places that his legend survives. This might also explain why he could fight alongside or with the ‘Kings of the (Logrian?) Britons’. I presume that Urien was given this title anachronistically as his lands were eventually subsumed by the Saxons.
Pen Tyrned – head lord, does seem to equate to the earlier Vor-Tigernus – Over lord. A tigernus later Tiern was a local lord so the head or over lord must have been one up from this in an area. This must be tempered by the fact that medieval scribes relegated petty kings to lower status such as ‘Dux’ (duke) and ‘Comes (count)’ when rewriting MS, which might have influenced later Welsh scribes.
badonicus
May 8, 2011 at 7:08 pm
Thanks for those very interesting thoughts Dane.
For some reason I wasn’t automatically emailed your comment and have just noticed it.
Fabio P.Barbieri
May 24, 2011 at 6:03 am
I am honoured by the way you quote me extensively on this issue, but if you do, I think you should take into account the rest of my theory. What you quote is not, as you call it, an article, but a chapter in a nine-book treatise. If you found it useful, you ought to find the rest interesting as well. Of course, 500,000 words may be a bit daunting, but as scholars we all have to go through many such trials!
Now, there are two parts of my theory which are directly relevant to what you say. First, in the Celtic mentality – as reflected in their mythology – defeat in a clash of power is not a contingent fact but the manifestation of a permanent situation of inferiority and superiority, written in cosmic fact. As Dumville has pointed out, Celtic patron Saints tend to prove their superiority over the kings of their countries by humiliating them. Likewise, a king – certainly a legendary king in a legendary context – proves that he is born to rule by achieving victory over his inferiors, and the same victory proves that his inferiors are born to be ruled over. This is the logic, for instance, of Gildas’ legend of Rome: the Romans are by nature higher than the Britons – but it must be realized that Gildas means by this Roman and British lords, not commons – and prove it by defeating them in battle.
My second point is that Arthur’s position is ambiguous because his rank is ambiguous. The flawless Arthur and his retinue of noble knights are a product of Breton, not British, legend; in the earliest traditions of Wales and the lost traditions of Brythonic Scotland (where Arthur was actually supposed to come from), Arthur was, by turns, a rex rebellis, vindictive and cruel, and the object of some ringing rebukes. I have a lot more to say about that, but you will have to read my work – this is taking up too much space as it is.
badonicus
May 24, 2011 at 8:06 am
Hi Fabio. So glad that you found this blog and have taken the time to do an detailed and very interesting response … and take up as much space as you like.
Apologies if I called it an article instead of a book, but I have, indeed, read it all and it is, indeed, extremely interesting.
You might be interested in reading, and I would certainly be honoured if you did, my ‘In Search Of The Original King Arthur’ blog.
Mitchell Stokely
June 26, 2011 at 6:50 am
Hi Malcom, fascinating website and discussion. I am the neophyte here, so will not add much to what everyone has discussed. But from my own reading of some of the Welsh texts there is a very “strange” disconnection between titles and lineages of many of the Welsh princes and rulers going back through the fifth century and the battle leader we know as Arthur. He just does not fit the part. Not only is there no notable and consistent title afforded him other than mab arthur uther, there is no mention of paternity or solid geographical origin or anything up until G. of Monmouths story. If we are to believe Amlawdd Wledig is a grandfather, why isnt he afforded some status there? He appears as a bastard child or a fatherless child and almost alien to the not only the typical Welsh bardic literature but the bigger historical drama. Yet we have an Mythological Arthur dont we, existing without a true Welsh kinship or a formal title or a solid historical reference? For example, why can we go back to Cunedda but not Arthur in history? I am not as well read on the subject but I do think there is something there to question.
Despite what we know of Gildas, there is likely something that ties Ambrosius Aurelianus as an important leader in the fight against the Saxon invasion, with the identity of Arthur. The fact that he is the only leader of importance mentioned by Gildas of the fight against the Saxons of that period, and likely leader of the Brits at the Battle of Badon, to me suggest we might have our Arthur origins in him. It also might explain the confusion over his title (sovereign lord,local leader, Dux Bellorum, etc) AND identity (son of Uthyr and Eigr, etc), as this post Roman leader was said to have lost his family, and was likely both deprived of title, land, family, and origin. Such a leader would be a Dux Bellorum and a leader of Wledigs. He was a relic of a lost age, and a disenfranchised individual, much like Arthur appears to be. I think its also interesting to see such things like “mab arthur uthur” and “aruthyr” and these things in the manuscripts, and makes me think we are seeing the evolution of an alias for someone else….much like “Billy the Kid” of Western lore, here in the United States. Is “Arthur” derived from “Uthur”? Uthur Pendarron and Uthyr Ben Dragwn…Terrible Battle Leader, as we know. Could Ambrosius Aurelianus have been our Uthyr who evolved to Aruthyr to Arthur? If so we are talking about the evolution of a historical figure to a mythological one, and an explanation for the evolution of Arthur that lead up to the Historia Regum Britanniae.
badonicus
June 26, 2011 at 10:05 am
Ah, the old Ambrosius=Arthur question. Is it possible? Of course. Do I agree with it or think it likely? No. From everything we know, and the evidence from etymologist and philologists, Arthur is a name and not a title or epithet. This is besides the argument that Ambrosius could not have fought at Badon either because he was too old or, indeed, dead. Some use the “there were two Ambrosii” argument, but there’s no evidence for that either.
Uthyr ben dragon, is a different matter. This is either an extremely odd name or it is purely a title and August Hunt has indeed argued that he and Ambrosius are one and the same, but he does not think they are the same as Arthur however, or that Arthur could have been Ambrosius’s son, because of the dates. Arturius Aurelianus does have a lovely ring to it.
You say, “He [Ambrosius] was a relic of a lost age, and a disenfranchised individual, much like Arthur appears to be.” That is speculation not fact. We have no idea if Ambrosius or Arthur were. Arthur of legend, maybe. We also have no idea if Ambrosius was a “relic of a lost age”, that’s just Gildas guessing.
There is another argument against it , and this one’s my own: all those subsequent Hiberno-Britons that were given the names were given Arthur. This was at a time when they were giving Latin names of great men, such as Constantine. It must have been known even then if Ambrosius was Arthur, so why not call their sons Ambrosius?
It has to be noted that ‘mab arthur uther’ is not seen as a title by any scholar I know, but simply meaning ‘terrible (or marvellous) son’. This is purely in one version of the HB and it is not consistant by any means. If Arthur was in a position, such as a Magister Militum or a provincial dux, no one in subsequent generations would know what to make of this and would give him whatever title suited their poetry or story. Also remember that Arthur is not called a ‘dux bellorum’ but a ‘dux erat bellorum’. This may not be a title, but simply a description (see ‘dux erat bellorum’ blog).
Thanks,
Mak
Mitchell
June 26, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Thanks Mak. I am really enjoying your website, and you have a great perspective on this. And I agree with your points. On the Hiberno-Britons, you are correct, that is another very important angle in understanding the evolution of the history and mythology of Arthur. I think its also possibly the missing link in that evolution from historical to mythical Arthur. The key to this whole understanding of transference of a local war hero to this monumental figure seen around Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Time is seeing how and why late 6th century Northern and Irish names incorporated the name Arthur in their lineages. We cant understand how we got the 21st century Arthur until we figure out that early connection. You seem to be one of the first to understand that.
I would add one item to the Ambrocius connection to Arthur I mentioned. Gildas is one the only writers we know of that was a near-contemporary to actual events that occurred in late 5th, early 6th century Briton. If he tells us Ambrocius was the main battle leader of the Britons in the war against the Saxons, then I am likely to believe him. He also says, writing in about 560 AD, referring to Ambrocius, “His descendants in our day have become greatly inferior to their grandfather’s(ancestors) excellence”. He says Ambrosius’ parents “had been slain in these same broils”, likely placing the death of his parents sometime around 450 AD. Clearly we have reference to a great leader, known for many years after his death, and born in the mid-5th century turmoil of the early Saxon wars. He wasnt of age till the period 470-520. We know Mt Badon occurred circa 490-516, that places him within the window of the Badon siege. The Saxons describe him (or Uthyr) as the “half-dead” king, and that too fits with his personage in the last years up until Badon. So, I think the dates and the period matches our Arthur and should be considered. Most important of all, Gildas, in describing the siege, tells us quite clearly he is the the paramount leader of the Britons against the Saxons prior to the famous battle. As some scholars have suggested, he was the leader at the siege of Badon, as well, based on a different reading of Gildas’ work. Gildas has no mention of Arthur in that battle, yet most of what we read about Arthur later places him in those battles, and at that siege. It is the common thread behind the mythology, historical or not. If that is so, we have only one “possible” historical candidate for the leader in what was clearly the decisive battle of that age, and attributed to Arthur. How Arthur’s name and reputation got transferred from Ambrocius, is another more complex debate. Knowing that later mentions of Arthur have placed him at Badon, why should we not connect those dots and consider our Arthur as this transitional Roman-British war leader? Gildas later scolded the five existing post-Badon leaders that ruled the region, which again, helps us to separate Arthur’s age to the pre-Badon years, and make any historical leader of that pre-Badon age a likely contender for our Arthur. Gildas has laid out the facts before us. At this point, regardless of Gildas politics and ulterior motives, Im more likely to trust his history than any of the Welsh material to date. Without Gildas, we are “shooting in the dark” as far as history is concerned. I think it is just very difficult to translate what we know from bardic verse and Northern Welsh lineages of the time, and place that in the same context of any known historical or pseudo-historical facts written down by Gildas, even if that historian is suspect and incomplete at best. But having read so many perspectives, I think sometimes the obvious is passed by. Im still inclined to believe Aurelius Ambrosius Aurelianus = Arthur.
(btw…Michael Veprauskas has a great perspective on Ambrosius you should check out).
I know this is not the right place for this debate. I just wanted to get an idea out there which I know is already hotly debated, if not completely discredited by many scholars already. But thanks for allowing me to vent! Great discussion Mak. I’ll be listening in, going forward!
Mitchell
badonicus
June 27, 2011 at 9:22 am
Thanks again Mitchell. Some interesting points.
The problem is with using Gildas for dating is that scholars can’t agree on his date of writing or Ambrosius’s floruit. There are those dates you’ve mentioned but there are others who would go for a much earlier date of composition; probably around 535, placing Badon around 491. Ambrosius was supposed to have fought at Wallop in anywhere between 430 and 450, so he would have to probably have been in his mid 20s at the youngest, making him in his mid 60s (going for the later date) around Badon. This is why we have some coming up with two Ambrosii, even though there’s no evidence for it. Or they use Geoffrey of Monmouth because he called him Aurelius Ambrosius. Now we’re trusting a12th century pseudo-history. (Wallop is not in the DEB, but the HB, so who knows for certain).
The other thing to keep in mind is that the Ambrosius chapter (25) is separate from the Badon chapter (26) in the DEB. Chapter 25 ends with “… and by the goodness of our Lord obtain the victory”. The next chapter begins: ” After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field …” That sounds, to me, like two different times. Gildas keeps periods or events in chapters. If Ambrosius was the one who won these particular victories and Badon, why not contain them in the same chapter? Of course, I’m no scholar, so I could be completely wrong.
There is another reason given as to why Gildas might mention Ambrosius and not Arthur (and not the one because Arthur supposedly killed Gildas’s brother) but because it was more suiting to his cause to use someone with a proper Roman name. It took a ‘Roman’ to save Britannia, just as it took the Romans to save the Britons from themselves. Using someone named Arthur would hardly have suited his purpose, unless Arturius had had a cognomen part to his name.
To add to this, just as many scholars believe Ambrosius wasn’t the leader at Badon as those who think he was, but that he was the one who started the fight back. Gildas hardly mention anyone by name so him not naming the actual victor at Badon is not out of place.
Yes, I’ve read Michael’s take on ‘Ambrosius the Elder’, which I alluded to in my previous post.
Vent away. That’s what these blogs are about.
Mitchell
June 29, 2011 at 6:26 pm
Hi Mak,
Leaving a few more comments for debate, if you do not mind.
On the Wledgid discussion, my point if Arthur was of Roman-Briton lineage, the Welsh title or lack or variance thereof likely has very little meaning. My point too has been that Arthur’s absences along this and many other lines is partly explained by the fact he was like (if not) Ambrosius.
There is an interesting side argument to that Wallop concept. Im not inclined to believe Ambrosius or the one mentioned by Gildas, was the one involved in that civil war. Even though I agree with the dates you mentioned (435), Gildas and Nennius appear to be in direct conflict on that. Gildas describes an Ambrosius involved in the fight against Saxon invaders, not Vortigern. Nennius as I remember does place the two as does Geoffrey in that struggle. There is a very subtle but important distinction, and one reason why some argue for a father-son Ambrosius which as we know the confusion surrounding nomans, is very possible. Further proof of a confusion is the fact Geoffrey reverses his name….intentionally, it has been shown. Thats just one concept Im pondering.
If you also look at the archaeology for the period, there appears to be a relative decline but maintenance of many of the structure prior to 445-450 when there is dramatic evidence of the Saxon invasion, where in addition you have Saxon traces both in and outside villas and settlements. Prior, in Vertigerns ruling period more evidence of side-by-side Saxon settlements….ie mercenaries. This to me means, that if Ambrosius’s father and family perished, its implied by Gildas and in the archaeology that that likely occurred around 450. Ambrosius mentioned by Gildas was found as a boy in southern Wales about that time (or Brittany) and by the 460′s to 510 we have our probable Badon. Again, Im not saying he was there but its a possibility.
At this point, knowing the huge void in history we have from 450-516, I propose the following possibilities:
1. 435 Vortigern (or his sons) and his struggles with the ruler(s) of Maxima Caesariensis and what we know as Kent today and his attempt to bring Saxons over is one of several factors that starts the struggles that lead to Wallop, more importantly plant the seeds of the original historical Arthur. Shortly thereafter we have the death of Ambrosius’s family as a result of the civil wars and that battle. Arthur/Ambrosius had to have been connected to Maxima Caesariensis and the Kent area, which explains him later being a fatherless child (as is Arthur described) and one without a dominion. It was partly destroyed and given to the Saxons until 450 when it was overtaken. Gildas mentioned in his Ruin, that a early 6th century Maximus of the old Maxima Caesariensis lost a father and brother in prior history and Im wondering if that connects to these events?
2. We also have the possibility of our Ythr/Uther being the terrible leader of Maxima Caesariensis killed here by poison following Wallop, making him father to Arthur or Ambrocius? Another possibility?
3. 445 Vortigern and other agents elect to bring over the Saxons in force and we have the beginnings of the invasion. There begins a mass migration to Brittany and points west in the archeaology. We have our Ambrosius as a young boy appearing in south Wales after this, and the death of his family. By 460′s we have a young man disinfranchised from Maxima Caesariensis/Kent and his family, but known as the son of a “Roman Consul” (or the Terrible Leader”) and retaining a Roman name…all very important facets of this and another factor to consider in how things unfoldeded later.
4. From 460-490 we have the rise of Ambrosius as the leader of the Britons against the Saxons. We also have the twelve battles leading up to Badon, 491-516…..If tehre was one leader at Badon, Ambrosius could now be our Arthur. There is a fit there. He would be 41 at the earliest date, or 66 at the latest. Following Badon, we of course have 1-3 generations distant from the leader, but his memory strong enough for him to be named and remembered using his noman by Gildas, but among the Welsh as Artr/Ythr/Aruthur/Arthur etc. in later generations.
5. Late 6th century we see his name appearing among bardic literature and among Irish and Welsh names. Ambrocius, his Roman name reserved and documented by Gildas and the scribes and clerics that followed, but Arthur seems to be retained in the Welsh lore, which is critical in understanding he was famous among the people and in the literature in parallel.
6. The mythology, the Welsh material, and the Church texts build parallel legends and material about the same leader, until Geoffrey of Monmouth consolidates it in the best form possible, further confusing the original history.
Something to consider I think….
M
badonicus
August 14, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Sorry, been very busy!
I don’t have a problem at all with your timeline and possible events. As for Arthur=Ambrosius, well, there’s no way either of us can _prove_ our opposing (for want of a better word) views on this. Even if Ambrosius was the leader at Badon does not mean Arthur couldn’t have been there too. Even if Arthur never fought at Badon but was attached to it, doesn’t mean he didn’t live at the same time. (This all is if Arthur existed of course). Of course, if Arthur was a noman for Ambrosius, then he did existed.
R. Taylor
July 7, 2011 at 10:16 am
For comparable etymology to wledig try origin of English word ‘wealth’.
badonicus
August 14, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Sorry not to have replied sooner. Thanks for pointing to the origins of ‘wealth’. Very interesting.
Foundations
September 6, 2011 at 2:31 am
could (g)wledig possibly be related to yugoslav vladika?
could pen_teyrned be connected with pendragon? (note the tiger of hoxne or sutton hoo?)
badonicus
September 6, 2011 at 5:43 am
I don’t tink they are related, but I could be wrong. ‘Pen dragon’ is more likely to be ‘head/chief/leader of warriors’, whereas ‘pen teryned’ is ‘head/chief/leader of rulers/princes/kings’.
Thanks,
Mak
badonicus
September 6, 2011 at 5:45 am
I have heard the theory of it being possibly related to ‘vladika’ however.
Fabio Paolo Barbieri
September 6, 2011 at 8:13 am
Whether or not it is related, that adds little to what we know of wledig. Linguistically, both wledig and tey r(tigernos) are quite clear: wledig is derived from Welsh gwlad, country, whereas tigernos comes from the root of Welsh ty, Old Celtic Tegos, “house”, plus the suffix -nos. (Interestingly, it is exactly parallel in formation and in meaning to Latin Dominus.) That is, the Gwledig is the man of the country, the man to whom the whole country pertains or relates, whereas the Tigernos/Teyrn is the master of the house, or, as I argued in my book, the man in the Big House, whose level of mastership or kingship is defined byu a visible house, like an English squire in later days. The superiority of the one over the other is fairly obvious.