Saladin (born Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub) can be credited with almost single-handedly changing both the Muslim and Western worlds during the Crusades in the 12th century. By bringing together various Islamic sects and through his principled leadership, he was able to defeat the Crusaders at Jerusalem in 1187. He also created a vast new Ayyubid Empire by defeating the Zengid Dynasty. Moreover, his willingness to extend tolerance to non-Muslim religious groups and his ability to be merciful and compassionate toward his enemies earned him great respect among his contemporaries and near-reverence in modern depictions.Who Was Saladin?Saladin, by Cristofano dellAltissimo, 16th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsSaladin is perhaps best known for having put an end to Crusader control of Jerusalem through his victory at the Battle of Hattin in 1187. This was a battle that decisively ended Christian dominance over the city and ushered in a new era for the world of the Crusades. However, it should be noted that Saladin also managed to supplant the Fatimid Empire of North Africa and absorb the Zengid Empire of modern-day Iraq and Syria under his leadership. These were territories consisting of distinctly different religious communities (the Zengids were Sunni Muslims and the Fatimids were Shia Muslims), and by uniting them under the Ayyubid Empire, he in large part united the Muslim world of this time.Many have likely learned of Saladin from films, which have constituted a wide range of portrayals, many of which are idealized versions of his exploits. The one that stands out the most is his depiction in the 2005 historical film Kingdom of Heaven, where he is portrayed as strong-willed, chivalrous, and tolerant. This depiction may seem at odds with how many people think of the Crusades, but while the film is largely fictionalized, this portrayal is probably somewhat close to the truth.Battle of Hattin, 13th century. Source: Stanford LibrariesAt one point in the filmfollowing the siege of JerusalemSaladin picks up a fallen Crusader cross from the ground and respectfully places it back where it had been standing. It is a powerful image of tolerance, and one that was arguably devised by director Ridley Scott to urge such respect in a post-9/11 world where Muslims were often depicted purely as villains in the media. This depiction demonstrates many qualities that are arguably true of the historical figure himself, such as tactfulness and the discerning treatment of his enemies. However, it also reflects a romanticized version of the real-life figure and of the Crusades in general.This interpretation also speaks to the enduring image of the Crusades in the modern world, and the tendency for Saladin to be used as a modern characterization of current global issues. Perhaps more than any other figure from the erawith the possible exception of Richard the LionheartSaladin seems to invite mythologizing, where he is often used to understand modern qualms and modern identity for both the Muslim world and the West.It is as important to understand the forces behind such characterizations as much as it is to understand the actual context in which Saladin lived, to get a real understanding of this oft-sensationalized figure.The World of the CrusadesKing (Saladin From Egypt), by William and Henry Rock, 19th century. Source: Metropolitan Museum of ArtThe orientalist scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries are perhaps some of the primary examples of the tendency to mischaracterize (or at least place biases) on figures such as Saladin. Many adopted the colonial perspective of their period and approached Islam and the Middle East of the past as something exotic that could only be understood as existing in opposition to the West. Therefore, figures such as Saladin would frequently be understood as uniquely just or chivalrous within such a context. After all, an Islamic ruler who showed tolerance or a sense of fairness was often romanticized or seen as an outlier.The Middle East during this period wasin realitya complex region, something Saladin would have understood and appreciated, especially considering his upbringing. Trade in the area during this period was extensive, and contrary to the assertions of orientalist scholars, local communities were not isolated and were structured differently than communities under the feudal system in Europe.This also meant that Islamwhile certainly a force that frequently connected communitieswas not the sole force that motivated expansion.Alloy Coin, Saladin, 12th Century. Source: British MuseumAt the same time as these developments in the Middle East, the Christian crusader had emerged from European political developments prior to the 11th century, including the restructuring of the church and a new social hierarchy that existed due to feudalism.Specifically, the emergence of a proto-class system in Western Europe encouraged the militancy of the Church where this had not existed previously. Previously, the church maintained less of a connection with the warrior class, a shift witnessed during the centuries leading up to the Crusades. Similarly, the Church seemed all too aware that the spread of Islam coincided with their difficulties in proselytizing/converting in recent centuries.As historian Khurram Qadir writes: In initiating the crusades, Urban II may have hoped to enlist a body of knights in the service of the cross or guardians of its church, what he got was a mass movement which for the next two hundred years would become a major focus of the history of Europe and western Asia. However, it would be wrong to assume that only political motives and negative impulses such as anti-Muslim emotions powered the crusades.The Crusaders Reach Jerusalem, by Domenico Paradisi, 17th & 18th centuries. Source: Metropolitan Museum of ArtPrevious Arab conquests in the region also meant that Arab rulers oversaw a vast amount of territory that had strategic value. It meant that combined with the fracturing of Christianity, there was considerable fear in the Western world that their faithwhich was already facing internal disputeswas now facing the large-scale spread of Islam.This was the world into which Saladin was born, and likely by a combination of skill and status, he was able to become a strategic leader who changed the face of the Middle East.Saladin as Heir to an EmpireSection of a Quran, 13th century. Source: Metropolitan Museum of ArtWhile Saladin did not strictly inherit his eventual status as a leader of a Sultanate, he nevertheless was the result of these global shifts during this period and of his upbringing.Born in what is now modern-day Iraq and raised in Syria, Saladins leadership abilities were passed down to him in part by his birth into the bureaucracy of the time. Such a bureaucracy was based on status and roles within society. As historian Robert C.L. Holmes writes, during this period, Islamic armies organized their units according to the ethnic backgrounds of the soldiers. Islam can be thought of as being a unifying force that brought these disparate groups together, yet this statement is also evidence of a stratified system of social leadership, one in which Saladins father was arguably privileged.His fathera man of Kurdish descentworked under the leadership of the Governor of Aleppo, a man known as Imad ad-Din Zengi. Eventually, this led to Saladin receiving military training and serving under Zengis son, Nur-ad Din. As William E. Welsh writes: Saladin was always at Nur ad-Dins side, never leaving the Sultan whether on the march or at court.Saladin was therefore exposed from a very early age to both political and military machinations. Saladins upbringing demonstrates that this was a society that was built on defined leadership roles and family status. He would have also understood the necessity of Islam in maintaining social order not as a controlling force but as a societal glue that transcended race and origin.Bowl, Ayubbid Dynasty, 12-13th century, Syrian. Source: The British MuseumHolmes describes the Ayyubid Dynasty under Saladin as ultimately a confederation of territories overseen by members of the ruling Ayyubid dynasty on Saladins behalf. Family members were appointed as governors of the various territories and there was a reliance on familial bonds.Therefore, Saladins brilliance was a result of his upbringing, his position in life, but also his understanding of how these factors empowered him and maintained his society. As Holmes writes, his true genius was as war leader or administrator. And while his reliance on familial bonds may appear like nepotism to some, it was likely a necessity for maintaining order in a world with no overarching institution of religion or power that functioned as the Church did in Europe at this time.Such a Sultanate would be dependent on familial connection and strategic cunning for order and the maintenance of power. In this way, Saladin had both the means and the knowledge to be a powerful leader.Later Life and LegacySaladin the Turk, by Gustave Dore, 19th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsSaladin rose to a powerful position through talent as well as the circumstances of his social status at birth. He was not a usurper or born purely of inheritance. This may be the reason he is still so admired today; this was a man whowhile not entirely self-madewas nevertheless a leader who possessed skill and discernment and was able to surpass and acquire surrounding territories.His ability to exhibit tolerance towards his enemies was born in part by his willingness to compromise. However, he also arguably recognized the strategic necessity of sparing the lives of his enemies. Many historians consider Saladin to have used the psychological impact of his reinforcements at the Battle of the Horns of Hama, for instance, to force his enemy to surrender, even though his army was outnumbered.Similarly, following the decisive Battle of Hattin, which ended the Crusaders control over Jerusalem, Saladin spared the lives of many (though certainly not all) of the captured Crusaders. Saladin was willing to resort to punishing his enemies, yet he was calculating in such pursuits. All these factors likely won Saladin respect as much as they made him a fearful adversary.While Saladin remains admired and is frequently depicted, his legacy as a leader for a while faded into history. However, his accomplishments are long-lasting, and the impact of his decisive use of strategy and reasoning shaped the world for centuries to come.

Ancient and medieval writers were thoroughly interested in stories of the origins of nations. Countless surviving legends deal with how nations came to be, often connecting them to gods or famous characters from mythology. In the case of Britain, there was more than just one legend about its origin. In fact, there were at least three legendary migrations to the island of Britain. By far, the most famous one is the legend of Brutus of Troy. However, in this article we will examine not only that legend, but two others which are also worth some attention.1. Brutus of Troys Legendary Migration to BritainCapitoline Brutus, a bust traditionally identified Lucius Junius Brutus, a legendary founder of the Roman Republic, c. 275 BCE. Source: Capitoline Museum, RomeThe most famous story of how Britain came to be inhabited is the legend of Brutus of Troy. He was the grandson or great-grandson of Aeneas of Troy, the prince who fled to Italy after the Trojan War, according to Greek and Roman mythology. Brutus is said to have been exiled from Italy after accidentally causing the deaths of his parents. According to the most famous version of the story, he spent some time among fellow Trojan descendants in a community of prisoners in Greece. Eventually, he became their leader and led them to freedom.With Brutus as their leader, these Trojan descendants migrated through the Mediterranean and eventually reached Gaul. After establishing themselves there for a while, they moved on to Britain, finally settling there for good. According to this version of the legend, Brutus and his sons were descended from the pre-Roman kings, specifically Numa Pompilius. Even before Brutus arrival, however, the island was said to have been inhabited by giants.Historia Brittonum showing a version of the Frankish Table of Nations, in Harleian MS 3859 folio 177r, c. 9th century. Source: British LibraryThe most famous version of this story comes from Geoffrey of Monmouths Historia Regum Britanniae, written in c. 1137. A relatively common belief is that Geoffrey invented it. In reality, this legend is found at least as early as the Historia Brittonum, written in c. 830. In fact, the Frankish Table of Nations of the 6th century associates the Britons with the Franks and the Romans.Based on the Frankish beliefs of the time, this heavily implies that the Britons were considered to have been descendants of the Trojans. Therefore, the legend of Brutusat least at its corelikely goes back to at least the 6th century, if not earlier.This legend was popular among the Welsh. Unlike certain other things that Geoffrey wrote, the claim that Brutus led a migration of Trojans to Britain is something that is definitely seen in Welsh tradition. There are references to it in medieval Welsh poetry and elsewhere.2. The Migration of PrydainHistoria Brittonum, showing the earliest reference to Prydains migration, in MS Cotton Vespasian D xxi, folio 1, c. 12th century. Source: British LibraryHowever, Welsh tradition also speaks of another migration to Britain. This is the migration of a figure named Prydain. This is simply the Welsh name for Britain itself. Therefore, this would make Prydain the eponymous founder of the island. This is somewhat strange since Brutus also appears to have been the eponymous founder of Britain. For this reason, they seem to be opposing traditions. One view is that the tradition about Prydain was the authentic Welsh belief, while the tradition about Brutus was invented by Latin scribes. However, there is evidence that this view is not correct. In fact, both legends appear in the Historia Brittonum.A Welsh tract known as Enweu Ynys Brydein mentions briefly that the island of Britain got its name after being conquered by Prydein vap Aed Mawr. This figure is better known in modern sources as Prydain ap Aedd Mawr.Tuan watches Nemed, by Stephen Reid, 1911. Source: Internet ArchiveThis same figure is mentioned in a record called Hanes Gruffudd ap Cynan. Here, Prydain appears as one of the ancestors of Beli Mawr, a prominent pre-Roman king of Britain in Welsh tradition. Yet, Prydain does not take the place of Brutus. Rather, he is made a descendant of Brutus. This is unusual, but it does indicate that the tradition of Prydain was not viewed as competing and incompatible with that of Brutus.In medieval Irish records, Prydain appears as Britain Mael, or Prince Britain. He is the grandson of Nemed, who led a migration party to Ireland, which met disaster after besieging a tower. One small group of survivors was led by Britain Mael to the island of Britain, where they became the ancestors of the Britons.This same story appears in the Historia Brittonum, where Nemed appears as Nimech. His grandson Britain Mael, or Prydain, does not explicitly appear by name, but the same story is there. This is set after the time of Brutus, which fits the fact that Prydain is made a descendant of Brutus in the Hanes Gruffudd ap Cynan.3. The Migration of AlbionPainting of Annius Viterbo, c. 18th century. Source: Museo Civico ViterboA very different kind of migration story is seen most famously in Holinsheds Chronicles, written by Raphael Holinshed in the 16th century. However, the legend actually originates several decades earlier, in the writings of Annius Viterbo. He published the work now known as Pseudo-Berossus in 1498. According to this legend, the original founding figure of Britain was called Samothes, supposedly the Meshech of Genesis, who appears as the son of Japheth. The island of Britain itself was said to have been known as Samothea. However, there does not appear to be any trace of this first migration anywhere prior to Annius Viterbo, so we will not consider it in any greater depth here.The migration that does deserve some further consideration is a legend that also explicitly appears for the first time in the Pseudo-Berossus of Annius Viterbo. However, in this instance, there is reason to believe that it may date back much further.The title page of the first edition of Holinsheds Chronicles, 1577. Source: Folger Shakespeare LibraryThe legend in question is the migration of Albion. It is quite well known that this name, Albion, was one of the ancient names for Britain. In Annius Viterbos account, as explained in Holinsheds Chronicles, Albion was the son of Neptune, who was given the island of Britain to rule, just as his brothers were given other lands.During the reign of Albion the giant, rationalized as simply being tall, Hercules is said to have warred against Geryon in Spain. Then, as he was traveling across Gaul towards Italy to attack Laestrygon, the latters brothers, Albion and Bergion (Dercynus), joined forces and traveled to Gaul to intercept Hercules. In the ensuing battle, these two sons of Neptune were killed. With this, Albions reign over Britain ended, but his people, also so-called giants, continued living there for a long time thereafter. These, supposedly, were the giants encountered by Brutus when he arrived there. Furthermore, the island continued to have the name Albion until Brutus changed it.Is the Legend of Albions Migration Really Ancient?Mosaic of Neptune and the Four Seasons, c. 3rd century CE. Source: Bardo National Museum, TunisThis legend connecting the ancient name Albion with a giant from Greek and Roman mythology first appears in the 15th century. What, then, is the basis for thinking that it may be ancient? The simple answer is that Albion and Bergion, along with the general story about their war against Hercules, do appear in ancient records. It is referred to by writers such as Apollodorus and Strabo.The one major difference between those ancient records and the legend as presented by Annius is that the former do not explicitly mention Britain. Nevertheless, they do present the war between Albion and Hercules as occurring during the overland journey from Spain to Italy. This would take Hercules through Gaul. In that region, the only notable location known as Albion to the Greeks and Romans was Britain.Not only is it plausible, but it does genuinely seem likely that the figure of Albion was, in the minds of the ancient Greeks and Romans, meant to be associated with Britain. This is not to say that Annius Viterbo had an actual source for this direct claim, but he may simply have reinvented the obvious connection.Legends of the Three Migrations to BritainBook of Leinster, folio 53, containing one of the legendary migrations to ancient Britain, c. 12th century. Source: Trinity College, DublinIn conclusion, British tradition knows of at least three major migrations to Britain. The most famous, undoubtedly, is the legend of Brutus of Troy. A descendant of Aeneas of Troy from the Trojan War, Brutus traveled from Italy to Britain. He led a group of Trojan descendants and established dynasties on the island. The legend of Prydain, which at first appears to compete with the legend of Brutus, in fact, appears to be about one of his most prominent and important successors. He can be identified as Britain Mael of Irish tradition, and the story of his migration is found in the Historia Brittonum.Finally, there is the legend that Neptune, or Poseidon, sent his son Albion to rule over Britain. This migration, if we can call it that, appears explicitly for the first time in 1498. However, there is good reason for believing that the Greeks and Romans had already made the obvious connection between Albion the giant and Albion the island, also known as Britain.

Medieval battles were brutal, blood-soaked grind. Clever tactics and strong leadership often mattered, yet true upsets happened only when the weaker side found an edge. Whether better weapons, better tactics, knowledge of the terrain, or an unbreakable esprit de corps. The battles below illustrate moments when determined underdogs defied the odds and claimed stunning victories.The Battle of Montgisard: An Inspired Victory in the Holy LandThe Battle of Montgisard, Charles Philippe Larivire, 18421844. Source: WikimediaThe Holy Land in the mid-12th century existed as a patchwork of Crusader and Muslim states. The initial shock of the Crusader attacks had waned. Muslim armies started chipping away at the Christian kingdoms. Their armies usually outnumbered or equaled Christian armies in numbers. The 1177 Battle of Montgisard began with Islams great leader, Saladin. He sought to retake Jerusalem while the Crusaders seemed distracted by troubles north in Syria. His 20,000-plus army invaded the Kingdom of Jerusalem from Egypt, confident in an easy victory.Map of ancient Jerusalem, 1871. Source: Library of CongressKing Baldwin IV, the Leper King, through scouts and garrisons, heard of the Muslim advance while at a fortress south of Jerusalem. Despite being ill from his disease, he rallied the local forces of about 4,000 soldiers, including some formidable Knights Templar, to intercept.The Crusader army, bearing a piece of the True Cross, caught Saladins army dispersed at Montgisard closer to Jerusalem. The Crusaders charged Saladins center, burst through, and crushed their enemy. Thousands died, were captured, or fled, including Saladin. The Crusaders victory resulted from Baldwin IVs determination, quick response, and tactics. In a rare tactical miss, Saladin underestimated his enemy.A Medieval Bridge Too Far: The Battle of Stirling BridgeThe Battle of Stirling Bridge, 19th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsThe Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297 was the medieval edition of World War IIs A Bridge Too Far. In the 1976 movie, British paratroopers failed to seize a Dutch bridge, losing thousands. In this 1297 version, an English army met a similar fate.The mid-1290s saw the outbreak of the First War of Scottish Independence. An English army of 9,000 came north to the burgh (fortress town) of Stirling. Its namesake bridge over the River Forth controlled entry to the Highlands. This narrow, diagonally pointed wooden bridge stood only wide enough for two horsemen abreast. And here the English began to cross.In a masterful use of terrain, tactics, and patience, the Scottish army waited on higher ground. The Scots waited until half the English came across and then struck. Pinned against and then cut off from the narrow bridge, this part became a choke point.Using schiltron formations (a sort of phalanx), the Scots rushed in, trapping the English on their side, blocking the bridge. The English destroyed the bridge and retreated. In this battle, the Scots used the high ground, patience, and exploited the Englishs slow buildup to beat their opponent.Strategy and the Longbow in the Battle of AgincourtMiniature of the battle of Agincourt, from the St Albans Chronicle, 1422. Source: Wikimedia CommonsNo medieval underdog battle stories can be told without mentioning the 1415 Battle of Agincourt. Here, tactics, terrain, and the famous English longbow made the underdogs the victors. The battle began as the French sought to intercept Henry Vs English army heading for Calais. With his invasion of France to claim the French throne wrecked, his army lay weakened from disease or losses.With around 6,000 men or a bit more, Henry knew the French army sat astride his route. A fight was inevitable. Outnumbered by at least 2 to 1, the English king chose the battlefield wisely near Agincourt in a narrow, muddy, marshy field with forest on either side.Henrys use of this field created a choke point, narrowing his exposure to only his front. To either side went the archers with the deadly longbow. Not by coincidence, as the bulk of his soldiers were bowmen. The men-at-arms occupied the center.Battle of Agincourt Positions Source: University of TorontoAround 11 am on October 25, the French knights charged. Slowed by the mud and hemmed in by the forest, the English archers blasted withering volleys into their packed ranks. The knights, though protected by their armor, got hit with so many arrows that meant gaps, such as visors, would be found or punctured. Quickly exhausted and unable to retreat from those advancing from behind, the French knights died. English soldiers swarmed over the hapless knights in melee, slaying more. The last French wave refused to charge, seeing the slaughter.Henrys deadly use of position, tactics, and especially the powerful longbow won the English their underdog victory. Here, the longbow again was a game changer. Yet like the other underdog victors, Henrys army had that something which proved greater than their opponents could muster.

The search for the real King Arthur has occupied historians for centuries. Often, arguments center on the idea that a real historical person was the inspiration for the legendary king. Once candidate proposed by scholars is Athrwys of Gwent, the son of King Meurig. Since the late 18th century, he has been a popular candidate for the famous ruler of the Britons, but this theory fell out of favor in the early 20th century. What is the evidence that Athrwys could have been the real historical figure who inspired King Arthur, why did the theory fall out of favor, and does new archaeological evidence bring him back into the running?Who Was Athrwys of Gwent? Member of a Powerful DynastyStatue of King Tewdrig, a powerful 5th or 6th century king of Wales, recorded as expelling King Maxentius from his throne in Brittany, Mathern, Wales. Source: Short Walks Long Paths.Athrwys of Gwent was the son of a king named Meurig. This dynasty ruled over much of southeast Wales. Although the borders were not always consistent, their kingdom generally included the historic regions of Glamorgan and Gwent.Athrwys also inherited the kingdom of Ergyng, since he was the eldest son of Onbrawst, the daughter of that kingdoms ruler, Gwrgan the Great. The kingdom of Ergyng encompassed a large portion of what is now Herefordshire and Gloucestershire along the Welsh border. Thus, Athrwys was the heir to a large kingdom covering the entire southeast corner of Wales and some of what is now England.Athrwys father, Meurig, was the son of Tewdrig, a famous, powerful kin and religious figure. He is remembered in Catholic tradition as a saint. The members of this dynasty feature prominently in an important document called the Book of Llandaff. This is a record of various grants of land from the kings of southeast Wales to the church.Who Suggested That Athrwys Was the Real King Arthur?A map of Tewdrigs center of activity, displaying the late date for his death. Source: Wikimedia CommonsFor a long time, Athrwys was an extremely popular candidate for the real King Arthur among scholars who studied southeast Wales. The proposal first appeared in 1747, in Thomas Cartes A General History of England.Carte and other scholars argued that Athrwys was a good geographical fit, as the region he ruled aligns well with the geographical settings for Arthur. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth, in his Historia Regum Britanniae, placed Arthurs court at Caerleon-upon-Usk, in Gwent.While modern scholarship generally places Athrwys in the 7th century, a century after the traditional Arthurian period, some 18th-century historians argued for a 6th-century date for Athrwys. They used evidence like the Life of St. Cadoc, which connects Athrwyss grandfather, Tewdrig, to St. Cadoc, generally accepted as an early 6th-century figure. If Athrwys could be placed in the 6th century, it would make him a contemporary of the legendary Arthur.The name Athrwys was seen by some as a plausible corruption or variant of Arthur or Arthurus, the Latin form. Others argued for parallels between Athrwyss family and the legendary Arthurian family. Connections have been drawn between Athrwyss father, Meurig, and the legendary father of Arthur, Uther Pendragon.Why Was the Identification of Athrwys as Arthur Rejected?Annales Cambriae in Harleian MS 3859, folio 190r, c. 12th century. Source: British LibraryIn the early 20th century, scholars in general turned away from this theory. There are two main reasons why this identification was rejected as untenable. Firstly, while the name Athrwys is obviously quite dissimilar to the name Arthur, scholars have argued that it actually comes from the name Antres, and should not be considered a substitute for Arthur.A more significant objection to this theory about the real King Arthur is to do with chronology. Although various earlier historians placed Athrwys in the 6th century, it came to be more widely accepted that he lived in the 7th century, specifically 605-655 CE, based on firmer dates for his known descendants. Specifically, the evidence comes from the Annales Cambriae, a chronicle from the 10th century that records the death of Ffernfael, son of Ithel in 775. His father Ithel is widely assumed to be the same as Ithel, the grandson of Athrwys, who did have a son named Ffernfael. With Ithels son Ffernfael dying in 775, Ithels grandfather Athrwys cannot have lived any earlier than the 7th century. This would place him about a century after Arthurs time.Other arguments against also include a lack of evidence of Athrwys being associated with great deeds, at least sufficiently great to inspire the legendary King Arthur. While he seems to have been a figure of regional importance, there are no historical records that attribute to him significant military victories against the Saxon invaders or leadership beyond the borders of his kingdom. In fact, some scholarly interpretations of the sources suggest that Athryws predeceased his father and never actually served as king.Does Recent Archaeological Evidence Change This Assessment?Defensive walls of Dinas Powys, once thought to be Norman, now dated to the 6th-7th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsRecent archaeological discoveries may provide a new perspective. The hill fort of Dinas Powys is right in the heart of southeast Wales. In recent years, archaeologists have discovered that it was a political and tribute center of immense status. The grand stone walls which look like something out of the Norman era (and were formerly interpreted as such) are now known to have been constructed in the 6th or 7th century. Given that there was only room for a single household to live here, these massive defensive works point to very high-status kings.Regarding the material culture found at this site dating to this era, Andrew Seaman has written that the quality and quantity of the early medieval material from Dinas Powys is thus far unparalleled in Wales. The presence of high-status material culture, as well as the massive display of power in the form of defensive works, is very conspicuous. Given Arthurs legendary high status in Britain in this very era, we are justified in looking for him again in this part of Britain.Revised Chronologies of Athrwys DynastyTewdrigs genealogy in the Harleian MS 3859, folio 195r, 12th century. Source: British LibraryThese archaeological finds warrant another look at the dynasty that ruled this region in the search for Arthur. The names of many members of the dynasty are preserved in genealogical records, and the only one whose name bears any similarity at all to Arthur is Athrwys.Moreover, independent of the issue of Athrwys potentially being connected to the Arthurian legends, some scholars have recently supported a return to the earlier chronology for his dynasty. Welsh historian Brian Davies, in New Welsh Review, supported reducing the dates of this dynasty by about a century. More recently, scholar David Farmer, editor of The Oxford Dictionary of Saints (Fifth Edition), presented a similar chronology, placing Athrwys in the 6th century. Historian Timothy Venning also writes favorably of this chronology, although without any definitive statements one way or the other.Even Patrick Sims-Williams, who favors the later chronology, explained in 2019 that the key foundation for the late dates for this dynasty is far from definitive. The argument assumes that there were no repeated pairs of names. Yet, we know that both Ithel and Ffernfael were popular names in this dynasty. In fact, Harleian MS 3859 (the earliest genealogical record for the kings of medieval Wales) records another Ithel of the same line who lived a few generations later. There is no reason why the Ffernfael mentioned in the Annales Cambriae cannot have been the son of this later Ithel.St Cadocs Church, Llancarfan, Wales. Source: National Churches TrustOther evidence supports an earlier fate for Athrwys. The Book of Llandaff, a 12th-century compilation of documents, suggests that Athrwys was a contemporary of bishop Oudoceus early in his tenure. Oudoceus was the son of King Budic of Brittany, dated by scholar Peter Bartrum and others to about 500. Therefore, Oudoceus is unlikely to have been born any later than 540. If Athrwys was his contemporary early in his tenure as bishop, that places Athrwys in the 6th century.Even more explicit evidence is the fact that the Book of Llandaff presents Athrwys as a king giving grants of land in the presence of clergy who were disciples of bishop Dubricius. Since Dubricius was born in about 465, this would likewise place Athrwys in the 6th century.The Life of St Cadoc, dating to a few decades before the Book of Llandaff, identifies Athrwys grandfather Tewdrig with Cadocs great-great-grandfather Tewdrig. Since Cadoc was definitely born in the early 6th century (as all scholars acknowledge), this would definitely place Athrwys in the 6th century.These pieces of evidence, and more, have traditionally been dismissed as mistakes in the records. However, this interpretation of the evidence has been determined by the accepted chronology. This opens the possibility that Athrwys lived when it was believed that King Arthur was active.Could the Name Athrwys Be Related to the Name Arthur?Book of Llandaff, 12th century, Llandaff, Wales, Source: National Library of WalesWhat about the criticism that the name Athrwys is related to the name Antres and not Arthur? The idea that his name was originally Antres comes from a comparison between a land grant in the Book of Llandaff and a parallel version in the Llancarfan charters. In the latter, the name Andres appears in a list of witnesses immediately after Meurig and his sons. It is assumed that this is Athrwys, who appears in the parallel list in the Book of Llandaff. However, we cannot interpret Andres as being the name of one of Meurigs aforementioned sons, because the name after Andres is made the son of a different person. It would not make sense for the list to mention Meurigs sons, plural, and then name only one of them. More logically, the sons are simply left unnamed, and Andres is someone else entirely. Notably, the narrative leading up to this list of witnesses explicitly refers to a certain Andrus, son of Morgan. This is undoubtedly the Andres who then appears in the witness list.The Modena Archivolt, on which Arthurs name is written as Artus, possibly a Breton form of the name, Modena Cathedral, Italy, c. 12th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsIf we reject this supposed origin for Athrwys name, what can we conclude? Well, this is not a name that appears in many other records from other dynasties, so there is no evidence that this was a legitimate name in its own right. It might be a corruption in every instance. As it happens, there are some other medieval documents that refer to individuals named Arthwys, with the r before the th. Other individuals appear as Arthrwys. In fact, there is at least one individual who appeared first as Arthwys but then as Athrwys in a later document.With this in mind, it is quite possible that all of these similar names, some of which are directly seen to have been exchanged for each other, were all variations of the same name. Although there is no direct confirmation of it, perhaps they are all evolutions of Arthurus or Arturus, which were common Latin forms of the name Arthur. Alternatively, they could come from the form Artus which is seen on the Modena Archivolt (an early depiction of the Arthurian tales) and which seems to be a Breton form of the name Arthur.Was Athrwys of Gwent the Real King Arthur?Stained glass depiction of King Arthur, Llandaff Cathedral, Wales. Source: Wikimedia CommonsTaken in total, the evidence suggests that Athrwys is a possible candidate for the real King Arthur, though he is not the only candidate currently under scholarly consideration. He was a Welsh king with a very similar name, who probably lived in what was considered the Arthurian age, and whose kingdom covered the area where legend suggests that King Arthurs court was located. New archaeological finds at Dinas Powys indicate that a very powerful ruling family occupied the area during the suggested time of Athrwys rule.The main drawback of this argument is that we do not have any records of Athrwys winning great victories against the Saxons, and this is what King Arthur is principally known for. Therefore, the search for the real King Arthur continues.

The 9 best creator-approved gadgets on sale during Prime Day These gadgets are influencer- and Mashable-approved — and cheaper than ever.  By ...

Best Prime Day power station deal: Save $700 on BLUETTI Elite 100 V2 A deal this good can only mean one thing: Prime Day is still going strong.  By ...

Prime Day, Day 4: The top 21 deals to shop today Don't get deal FOMO.  By  Tabitha Britt...

Best Prime Day drone deals: Holy Stone HS440 under $100 We're tracking price cuts on DJI, Holy Stone, and more.  By ...

Every single iPad is on sale for Prime Day 2025: Save on multiple models and storage sizes There's a discounted model on sale for everyone.  By ...

Best Prime Day AirPods deals: Record-low prices on AirPods 4 and AirPods Pro 2 Get the lowest-ever prices on AirPods 4 and AirPods Pro 2  By ...