The question of King Arthurs historicity continues to be debated. However, something that is frequently seen in many modern debates is the claim that Arthur, if he existed, was definitely not a king. Rather, he would have been just a war leader. This is based on the supposed fact that the earliest sources do not describe Arthur as a king. However, is this claim really supported by the evidence?Arthur as the Leader of BattlesStatue of Geoffrey of Monmouth at Tintern Station, Wales. Source: Wikimedia CommonsTraditionally, Arthur is remembered as the king of the Britons early in the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. He was a king who fought valiantly against the invaders. At least, that is the version of the legend which is famous today. However, it is commonly argued that this is actually contradicted by the earliest description of Arthurs career, found in the Historia Brittonum. This document dates to c. 830 CE. Its description of Arthurs battles against the Saxons begins:Then Arthur fought against them in those days with the kings of the Britons, but he himself was the leader of battles.A common interpretation is that this line presents a contrast between Arthur and the kings of the Britons. Hence, this would mean that Arthur himself was not one of the kings. Allegedly, the idea that Arthur was a king first appears in the writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth, who wrote the Historia Regum Britanniae in c. 1137.Arthurs Kingship Prior to Geoffrey of MonmouthSt Cadocs Church, Llancarfan, Wales. Source: National Churches TrustIn reality, modern scholarship has revealed some serious issues with this popular view. For example, the idea that Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first to present Arthur as a king is simply not true. Consider, for example, what we find in the Vita Cadoci (Life of St Cadoc):In that same time a certain very brave leader of the British, called Ligessauc, the son of Eliman, also surnamed Llaw hir, that is, Long Hand, slew three soldiers of Arthur, most illustrious king of Britannia.Notice that this source clearly describes Arthur as the most illustrious king of Britannia. This source dates to the late 11th century, approximately 1086. In other words, it dates from about half a century before Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote the Historia Regum Britanniae. Therefore, it is definitely not the case that Geoffrey of Monmouth was the one who created the idea of King Arthur.Culhwch and Olwen at the court of Ysbaddaden, by E. Wallcousins, 1905. Source: Wikimedia CommonsWhen we look at Welsh texts, we come to the same basic conclusion. The Welsh prose tale Culhwch and Olwen is not nearly as precisely dated as the Vita Cadoci, but modern scholarship generally places it in around 1100. Hence, it probably predates Geoffreys Historia Regum Britanniae by almost four decades. In any case, it shows no influence whatsoever from Geoffrey of Monmouth, preserving the more authentic Welsh tradition. Whether it actually dates from before Monmouths book or not has very little bearing on the issue.In this text, a character named Culhwch addresses Arthur as Sovereign Ruler of this island. The word translated Sovereign Ruler is Pen Teyrned. The word pen is Welsh for head, often in the sense of chief. The word teyrned is related to teyrn, meaning king. Therefore, this Welsh tale, which preserves pre-Galfridian tradition, presents Arthur as the chief king of Britain.Arthur as an Emperor in Welsh TraditionIllustration of Geraint, son of Erbin, by Howard Pyle, 1910. Source: Wikimedia CommonsSo far, we have seen that Arthur is definitely presented as a king of the Britons prior to Geoffrey of Monmouth. In fact, at least two pre-Galfridian sources present him as the high king of Britain, one of which is a Welsh tale. When we look further into the Welsh sources, we see that there is another title often assigned to Arthur. This title is the Welsh amherawdyr. This word comes directly from the Latin imperator and means emperor.Several Welsh tales use this title to describe Arthur. At least one source appears to substantially pre-date Geoffrey. This is a text known as Gereint fil Erbin, or Geraint son of Erbin. This poem is an elegy to Geraint, apparently a historical king of Dumnonia in the 6th century. The date of the poem is uncertain, but the weight of modern scholarship appears to date it to c. 900. Hence, we can see that Arthur was referred to as a so-called emperor long before Geoffrey made him the high king of the Britons.Was Arthur a King in the Historia Brittonum?Defeat of the Saxons by Arthur, from John Cassells Illustrated History of England, 1865. Source: WikisourceHowever, what about the Historia Brittonum, which dates to even earlier than this? Simply put, the interpretation that the line quoted earlier prevents Arthur from being a king reads more into the text than it actually says. The fact that Arthur is said to have fought along with the kings of the Britons does not mean that Arthur himself was not also a king.For comparison, consider the fact that a later manuscript version of the Historia Brittonum says that Arthur fought with the kings and military force of Britain. Obviously, whether he was a king or not, Arthur composed part of the military force of Britain. Yet, in this line, he is said to have fought with the military force. Therefore, this demonstrates that just because Arthur is said to have fought with, or alongside, a certain group of people, this does not in any way mean that Arthur himself is excluded from that group. Hence, there is nothing in the Historia Brittonums description that prevents Arthur from being a king.A cairn on the summit of Carn Gaffalt, possibly the location mentioned in the Mirabilia in association with Arthur the Soldier. Source: Peter Standing, CC-BY 2.0However, as well as the Historia Brittonum itself, we also need to bear in mind the Mirabilia. This is a document which is attached to the back of the Historia Brittonum and appears to date from about the same time. In this document, a certain wonder of Britain is mentioned in association with Arthur. In this passage, Arthur is given the designation miles. This is commonly translated as soldier, which supposedly suggests that Arthur himself was not a king.In reality, the meaning of miles was not so limited. In fact, historian Henry Osborn Taylor pointed out that the warrior class began to fight primarily on horseback from the 8th century onwards. Hence, the word miles began to adopt the connotation of a horse-mounted warrior rather than a simple foot soldier.Given that the medieval Welsh regularly emphasized the military prowess of their legendary kings, a 9th-century text describing him as a miles is not inconsistent with him being a king.Arthurs Kingship Before the Historia BrittonumOpening of Preiddeu Annwn, MS Peniarth 2, folio 25v, c. 1330. Source: National Library of WalesHowever, the most up-to-date scholarship includes the research of John T Koch on Welsh poetry. While not all scholars agree, Koch is one of the leading experts in medieval Welsh linguistics. Based on an analysis of the language used, Koch has argued that the Welsh poem Preiddeu Annwn should be dated to c. 750. Previously, it was usually dated to c. 900. If Kochs earlier dating is correct, this would settle the issue of whether Arthur was depicted as a king in the earliest legends.This poem tells the story of Arthur setting off on a voyage to a distant land. The poem begins:I will praise the sovereign, supreme king of the land, who hath extended his dominion over the shore of the world.The supreme king mentioned here is Arthur. This poem unambiguously presents Arthur not only as a king, but the high king of Britain, just like we find in later Welsh tradition, such as in Culhwch and Olwen.How King Arthur Was Always a KingDepiction of King Arthur from the Flores Historiarum, 13th century. Source: Wikimedia CommonsContrary to the common claim that Arthur is not portrayed as a king until Geoffrey of Monmouths Historia Regum Britanniae, Arthur appears as a royal ruler in many pre-Galfridian texts. There is the Latin Vita Cadoci, which calls him the most illustrious king of Britannia. There is Culhwch and Olwen, which calls him Sovereign Ruler of this island. There is Gereint fil Erbin, which calls him emperor. And finally, we have seen that the earliest source of all may well be Preiddeu Annwn, a poem describing Arthurs voyage to a distant land. This source, which possibly dates to as early as c. 750, calls Arthur the supreme king.In contrast, the idea that Arthur was not a king is simply based on a dubious interpretation of the Historia Brittonum and the Mirabilia. However, the references to Arthur in both of those sources do not actually refute the notion that Arthur was a king. The weight of evidence, then, shows that King Arthur is not a late concept in the Arthurian legends.