Chapter One is an eight-page introduction which explains the confusion between the “historic King Arthur (that is, Ambrosius Aurelianus) of the fifth century and the legends which sprang up about him in the late twelfth century. Since then, a proliferation of stories has enticed readers into the 21st century, and there’s no end in sight. The lure of Arthurian tales seems to be boundless, and one of the intriguiging aspects about this famous king is that a substantial case can be built which supports that these literary portrayals can be traced to two historical individuals. Though the early sources are scanty, a clear composite panorama of historical happenings and the people who shaped those events emerge, so that as an end result, the mists of time enveloping Lucius Artorius Castus and Ambrosius Aurelanius are slowly disolving to reveal that these individuals were more than just fictional heroes.
Chapter Two discusses four major ancient Engish manuscripts used to unveil the historic era of “King Arthur.” Although the De Excidio doesn’t even use the term ‘Arthur,’ it provides a crucial clue to the chronology of Ambrosius Aurelanius. The Annales Cambriae offers chronological clues about two of his historic battles, but it is basically The Historia Brittonium which gives a clearer picture of Ambrosius’s role in history. The Anglo Saxon Chronical and its genealogical preface provide information about Arthur’s enemies.
Chapter Three introduces systems of chronological calibrations and then meticulously established Cardinal and Ordinal years for Ambrosius’s chronology. Establishing a chronology is a difficult hurdle to overcome because in ancient history there was no singular method used to calibrate time.
Chapter Four gives an overview of hillforts and Roman roads in Britain, including some istory of the Roman occupation of the island and how the vestigial remnants of that civilization impacted the so-called Arthurian age in the fifth century.
Chapters Five through Eight deal with geographic locations embedded in “King Arthur’s History” and legend, particularly his battle at Mount Badon in which he defeats his Anglian enemies, and the several locales in Britain which claim to be Camelot, the most common one being South Cadbury. His birthplace, too, remains a mystery, but Tintagel in Cornwall normally claims that honor. And the mysterious Isle of Avalon is his resting place.
It isn’t until Chapter Nine that the quest centers upon the figure of Ambrosius Aurelianus. The name Arthur--not necessarily King Arthur--is no doubt linked to Lucius Artorius Castus of the second century, but the proposition in this book views the terms “Arthur,” or “King Arthur,” or “Arthur of Britain,” as epithets for Ambrosius Aurelianus, the only figure of prominence in insular history of that era.
Chapter Ten explores Ambrosius’s sojourn on the contient under the title of Riothamus, the Great King from across Ocean. Very little is known about Riothamus except he came from Britain to allay himself with the Romans against the Saxons, and lost a major battle against Euric the Visigoth.
Because legends and literary material contain nuggets of history, Chapters Eleven and Twelve explore some offerings of Welsh tales and Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain to round out the image of “King Arthur,” a hero who has reached the heights of a mythic god.
An incidental value of The Historic King Arthur is its unraveling of a great deal chronological complication of Arthuriana from a hodge-podge of sources which heretofore had not been done. Additionally, one of the innovative end-products is a one-hundred year history of the so-called Dark Ages, accurate even with the exclusion of Arthurian detail. The major contributions of this book in these respects are:
I. Emendations in the Annles Cambriae--not only of the Arthurian
19-year lunar adaptations for entries 516 and 537 to 497 and 518,
but a later insertion for Saint David’s birth-year which was
erroneously transposed from 543 to 453, meaning his lifespan is
a more realistic fifty years instead of 140 years;
II. Emendations of misleading headings in the Historia Brittonum,
including
A. the KENTISH CHRONICLE, PART 1, which mistakenly lists
Hengist and Horsa as Saxon leaders for Saxon Adventus
and incorrectly infers that they are actually Kentish Saxons;
B. the KENTISH CHRONICLE, PART 2, and its confusion of
geographic locales, namely
1. Tanet is misconstrued as Thanet, and its locale is set at
the mouth of the Thames River rather than in the north-
eastern part of Wales;
2. “insula Oghgul” is incorrectly translated as “Angeln,”
leading readers to believe that Hengist consults his
council of elders from Anglia rather than Vortigern’s
council of elders (the expelled Dessi tribe) from Ireland;
3. (Guoyrancgono) Gwyrangon is listed as the displaced
Kentish king, but his name is obviously Welsh;
4. Octha is sent to the north, near the wall called Guaul,
wrongly assumed to be near Hadrian’s Wall instead of
Wall-by-Lichfield (Caer Luit Coyt);
5. Hengist’s tribe migrates to the “regionem Cantorum,” a
reference to the region of Cantlop or the River Caint in
Wales, three miles south of River Tanat, not the Kingdom
of Kent;
C. the KENTISH CHRONICLE, PART 3, and its erroneous
connection with the southeast through references to
1. One of Vortimer’s battles against the Saxones at Darenth
instead of Darwent or Darwen in northern Wales;
2. Another by the Inscribed Stone (Oghams which are Irish
and nowhere near Kent) near the Gallic Sea (Gallici maris)
rather than near the Gaelic Sea;
D. The introduction to the CAMPAIGNS OF ARTHUR, which
should read that Octha came down from the north after
Horsa’s death, not after Hengist’s death.
III. Emendations in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the entries of
A. 465, 473, 477, 485, 495 and 508, in which distinctions should
be made between the Welsh and the Britons and between
Cerdicesora and Ceredicesford;
B. Hengist’s death and Octha’s sole succession in 473;
C. Octha’s 24-year reign beginning in 473 instead of 488;
D. Octha’s death in 497;
IV. And, most important, a reconcillation of dates between The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and its Genealogical Preface, a
discrepancy first noted by Plummer in 1898 and deemed
“impossible to harmonize.”
