Position:Home>History> Was King Arthur Welsh???? ?

At the time of Arthur , Wales and the Welsh didn't exist, Neither did England, Cornwall, Scotland , Ireland and so forth!. Most of Britain was inhabited by Brythonic tribes which were later pushed to the west by the Anglo Saxons and Vikings these make up the majority of the English today!. Welsh and Cornish are both brythonic languages, Welsh is still spoken on a mass scale and widely within Wales and Argentina whereas Cornish has been revived and is only spoken by a handfull of people!. The Cornish have around 60-80% celtic dna in them the brythons!. The Welsh however have between 94% - 96% of Celtic Brythonic DNA in their blood!. Therefore it's believed that he was a Brython which later gave way to welsh in which cornish broke off from , So to answer your question no he was a brython but what we now know of today as wales then their Brythons to and considering the welsh are still largerly unchanged then yes i suppose you could say if he was living today then he would be Welsh but who knows!.

One thing's for certain he was certainly not English becuase there was no such thing as England and English then, And he fought against the Angles, Saxons and Vikings (Germanic peoples) So he was definetly Celtic, Brythonic!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

There are several sources previously regarded as evidence of Arthur from Wales!. These are:

1!. NENNIUS

Nennius was supposedly a monk from Wales who wrote a short history in the 9th century A!.D!. The work was further edited in the 10th century A!.D!. by someone called Mark the Anchorite!.

There is a short section of the history which mentions a leader called Arthur who fought twelve battles against the Saxons and won them all!. A remarkable achievement especially when you consider that Nennius claims nine hundred and forty Saxons were killed by this Arthur alone at the battle of Badon!. Why you may ask, did he need an army!?

2!. THE ANNALS OF WALES

Another example of this can be found in another source often quoted as evidence of Arthur - The Annals of Wales, where is a mention of Arthur and Medraut dying in battle!.

Always assuming that this is not a later addition to the Annals, after Arthur had become a legend, it must be remembered that these Annals were only copied from Irish Annals, perhaps four centuries after the time of Arthur!.

!. THE GODODDIN

Another source often quoted as evidence of Arthur, is a poem called The Gododdin!. A poem can not be regarded as historical evidence, because although it may describe events of a certain period of time, it could in fact have been written centuries later!. However it may be worth taking a look,to see what the poem has to say!.

This particular poem, 'The Gododdin', mentions Arthur in one line!. Immediately it is assumed that this must be the Arthur of Legend, and since the poem has been preserved in Wales and is written in Welsh, then this must mean a connection between Arthur and Wales!. Not so!.

!. GEOFFREY OF MONMOUTH AND HIS 'HISTORY'

Geoffrey of Monmouth was responsible, in the 12th century, for a ludicrous history which claimed to tell the early history of the Britons!. Geoffrey more than anyone was responsible for establishing the Legend of King Arthur!. He was the first to claim Arthur was a king, and not just a king, but the king of all Britain!.

5!. THE MABINOGION

These are Welsh folk tales, one or two of which mention an Arthur!. They can hardly be regarded as evidence, unless we consider Walt Disney films as evidence too!. Again they do not say who this Arthur is!.


Go on this site - they examine and explain each theory really well!.
http://www!.legendofkingarthur!.com/welshe!.!.!.



Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

“Welsh” is a German word referring to non-German speaking peoples!. That meant in the 5th and 6th century it referred to people who spoke Latin or British-Celtic, as indicated by those who were descended from those called called by the name Walloons or Welsh!. See for example http://www!.orbilat!.com/General_Survey/Te!.!.!. !. See Wallachia in Romania!.

Arthur is practically only portrayed as English in some early poetic romances!. He is more often said to rule Britain, or to rule in Britain, which was at that time a rather learned term for the current island of Britain, but more commonly used as the name name for for modern Brittany in the west of France!. “Brittany” was often also called “Little Britain” as opposed to the island of “Great Brtain”!. I suspect those early romances indicate linguistic carelessness rather than any tradition that Arthur was actually a King of England!. Sometimes it seems that the poet imagines Arthur as a King of Britanny!.

In the prose romances which so often Malory’s sources, Arthur is King of the land of Logres within Britain, Logres being a French form of Lloegyr, the Welsh name for England!. The word Lloegyr is of uncertain origin!. According to Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “Historia Regem Britanniae” it covered approximately the area of modern England in Roman and pre-Roman times!. Sir Thomas Malory in his history of Arthur called “Le Morte d’Arthur”, sometimes called Arthur's kingdom Englond or Ingolande, either because Malory himself doesn’t know the difference, or because he is purposely being anachronistic!. But Malory also uses Logrys, Logris, Logres, Logrus, Logurs, Logyrs, all which are usually modernized to Logres!.

Consider the Claudius books by Robert Graves in which Gaul is anachronistically called France!.

Similarly, although Malory's sources almost always uses the word “Gaul”, Malory often prefers “France”!.

Malory also very much plays down Arthur as a fighter against Saxons, even compared to his own sources!.

We don’t have sufficient early mentions of a supposed historic Arthur even to say that Arthur existed, much less to know his exact ancestry, if Arthur did exists at the end of the 5th century of the beginning of the 6th century, he would certainly have spoken in the British language, and perhaps also in Latin!. The surviving British language later became the languages known in English as Cumbric, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton!. Cumbric and Cornish are now extinct!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

According to popular legend and Geoffrey of Monmouth's "The History of Kings of Britain", King Arthur was a Briton, basically a native of Britain before the Anglo-Saxon invasion!. He was supposed to have been born at Tintagel, which is in Cornwall!.

Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---