King Arthur, General of the Britons
A discussion by David Nash Ford
Though Arthur is quite firmly established as an
historical figure, there appears to be little evidence
that he was the King of tradition. To quote Nennius,
Arthur fought...together with the Kings of the British;
but he was Dux Bellorum.
This would seem to confirm
the popular view today that Arthur was a professional
soldier: a brilliant military leader employed in an
official capacity by an alliance of British Kings to
carry out their warfare against all coming enemies.
"Dux Bellorum" translates literally as Duke
of Battles. This might be comparable to the Roman
"Dux Britannorum" in charge of the Northern
British defences. Though many think the Roman "Comes
British History Clubrum" a better fit, for he led mobile
cavalry forces across the country, as perhaps indicated
by Arthur's supposed widespread battles.
None of this,
however, precludes Arthur from also being a King. Nennius
may have intended his phrase to imply that Arthur was one
of the Kings alongside whom he fought, yet he was the
greatest warrior among them. If the more formal title of
Dux or Comes was meant, then perhaps a High-Kingship is
implied as tradition would suggest. Early sources, no
doubt, assumed that everyone already knew Arthur was a
King, as with most Royal entries in the Annales
Cambriae. There was no need to announce it.
See Also:
Arthur, King of the Britons
12 Battles of King Arthur
Arthur, the Myth
King Arthur in Popular Literature
References to an Historical King Arthur
---------------------------------------------------------
©2007 Britannia.com Design and Development by SightLines, Inc.
|