I have read the same story. The central person here was however a certain
Riothamus, who according to Wikipedia was a ..
Romano-British military leader, who was active circa AD 470. He fought against the Goths in alliance with the declining Roman Empire. He is called "King of the Britons" by the 6th-century historian Jordanes, but the extent of his realm is unclear. The weak point in his
identification is that "Britons" here could allude to the Brits who had settled in Brittany (Bretagne aka 'Armorica') rather than those who stayed in Great Britain. He was asked by the Roman emperor to help him the Visigoths, but when he arrived at Bourges the Romans were not there, and his army was routed by the Goths. He escaped and went back to where he came from .. and the few indications we have about his life there mostly point towards Armorica (including a letter concerning a slave owner, whose slaves had been abducted or fled). I personally don't think his candidature as the real king Arthur is very well founded.
The source Davebee quotes (the summary of a book by Rupert Matthews) states that ...
Rupert suggests that Romanised governmental structures managed to survive the economic collapse of the 5th century and the population collapse of the early sixth century to emerge in new and barbarianised form in the later sixth century. The key figure in this story was Ceawlin, King of Wessex in the 570s. It was he who finally smashed the old order with his ambitious grab for power and who thus opened the way to the creation of the England that we know today with its English culture, English language and English character. Well, maybe. I have already quoted Pryor for the claim that Roman structures (and society at large) survived better in Great Britain than previously assumed. But Ceawlin, king of Wessex, rules later than the 'real' king Arthur we are looking for. Wessex is however relevant for another reason: one of Ceawlin's successors was Alfred the Great, but
his plea for stardom is founded on his fight against the vikings in the 9. century, not the Anglosaxons. Actually he was an Anglosaxon himself and he fought the Welsh - but there is a problem with the chronology: The Anglosaxon chronicle gives earlier years than the 'revised' chronology:
A.D. 495. This year came two leaders into Britain, Cerdic and
Cynric his son, with five ships, at a place that is called
Cerdic's-ore. And they fought with the Welsh the same day. Then
he died, and his son Cynric succeeded to the government, and held
it six and twenty winters. Then he died; and Ceawlin, his son,
succeeded, who reigned seventeen years.
(from the Anglosaxon
Chronicle in ugly anachronistic English)
PS: if I write more about this theme it will have to be in Latin, since I can't do it in Anglosaxon and most certainly not in archaic Cymric.
----------------------
EDIT: ha ha but I can
quote in Anglosaxon! I found the Anglosaxon chronicle in the good old tongue
here, and let's start with the first time Hengest and Horsa are named (entry for the year 450):
(4v33)Añ cccc.l. 7 On hiera dagum Hengest & Horsa from Wyrtgeorne geleaþade
(4v34)Añ cccc.li. Bretta kyninge gesohton Bretene on þam staþe þe is genemned
(4v35)Añ cccc.lii. Ypwinesfleot, ærest Brettum to fultume, ac hie eft on hie fuhton.
(4v36)Añ cccc.liii. Se cing het hi feohtan agien Pihtas, 7 hi swa dydan 7 sige hæfdan swa hwar
(4v37)Añ cccc.liiii. swa hi comon. Hi ða sende to Angle & heton heom sendan mare fultum 7 heom seggan Brytwalana nahtnesse & ðæs landes cysta. Hy ða sendan heom mare fultum. Þa comon þa menn of þrim mægþum Germanie, of Ealdseaxum, of Anglum, of Iotum. Of Iotum comon Cantware & Wihtware, þæt ys seo mæið ðe nu eardað on Wiht, & ðæt cynn on Westsexum þe man gyt hæt Iutna cyn. Of Ealdseaxon comon Eastsexa & Suðsexa & WestSexan. Of Angle comon, se a siððan stod westi betwyx Iutum & Seaxum, Eastengla, Midelangla, Mearca & ealle Norðhymbra.So no Frisians, but 'Oldsaxons', Angles and Jutes ... as also claimed by good old Bede. So if the Anglosaxon language is so closely allied with the so far almost unattested Old Frisian, where did they diverge? Something crucial in the language history is missing here..
The tale about Hengest and Horsa continues in 455 and the next few years :
(5r1)Añ cccc.lv. Her Hengest & Horsa fuhton wiþ Wyrtgeorne þam cyninge, in
(5r2)Añ cccc.lvi. þære stowe þe is gecueden Agęlesþrep, & his broþur Horsan man ofslog; & æfter þam Hengest feng to rice & Æsc his sunu.
(5r4)Añ cccc.lvii. Her Hengest 7 Æsc fuhton wiþ Brettas in þære stowe þe is
(5r5)Añ cccc.lviii. gecueden Crecganford & þær ofslogon .iiiim. wera,
(5r6)Añ cccc.lviiii. 7 þa Brettas þa forleton Centlond 7 mid micle ege flugon to
(5r7)Añ cccc.lx. Lundenbyrg.*
*: London
So far I haven't found the battle at Badon hill (or some equivalent reference to this supposedly decisive battle), but the search continues. I did at least find the likely source for the translated section above, but with some differences (maybe it was translated from another manuscript source) - the year given as 490 AD, and the length of :
(5r35)Añ cccc.xc. (...) Her cuomon twegen aldormen on Bretene, Cerdic & Cynric his sunu, mid .v. scipum in þone stede þe is gecueden Cerdicesora & þy ilcan dæge gefuhtun wiþ Walum. (...) Her Cerdic forþferde, & Cynric his sunu ricsode forþ .xxvi. wintra;.. and slightly later:
Her Cynric & Ceawlin fuhton wiþ Brettas æt Beranbyrg.
Her Ceawlin feng to rice on Wesseaxum, & Ęlle feng to NorþanhymSo not Ceawlin, but Cynric should according to this have ruled just after the year 500, which actually is the relevant period. The only trouble is that he was an Anglosaxon - so he was actually the opponent of whoever that spurious and slippery character known as king Arthur may have been. And he didn't rule all of Britain - not even all of the part ruled by the Saxons and their allies.
AnglosaxonchronicleManuB.jpg
facsimile of manuscript B, copied in the 10.century, also known as the ‘Abingdon Chronicle I’
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.