Widdekind

According to the History Channel documentary The Universe -- When Space Changed History, the historically attested climate catastrophe, from early 536AD, lasting 18 months, when the sun shone through ashy skies for only 4 hours per day, could have been caused by a comet impact near Australia.

In any event -- whether from terrestrial volcanism, or extra-terrestrial impacts -- perhaps the sudden & ominous climate change, touted as the most severe cooling shock of the last 2000 years, set the stage for political unrest in post-Roman Britain, from which arose the rebellion of the historical Medraud (Mordred), against the historical Arthur ?

Nego

There's a historical Arthur? I thought that was still uncertain.

Apachewarlord

An interesting idea, though a little far fetched

Kirialax

The problem with this cooling event is that it does not show up in the scientific data to any great extent. Literary sources mention it from Frankia to China, but it seems to be a problem that was short lived. Harvests failed for a year and wine was sour. Maybe it played a role in the plague and maybe not - the sources for the odd weather prior to 1347/8 is much better and the link there is poorly understood. As for what caused the cooling, we don't know. The volcano idea is definitely out given the lack of acid in ice core samples from those dates, but a large meteor disintegration over water has been posited as a possibility. I wouldn't link it to Arthur - we barely know what it was or what effect it had.

I specifically recommend A. Arjava, 'The Mystery Cloud of 536 CE in Mediterranean Sources', Dumbarton Oaks Papers 59 (2005).

caldrail

Gildas tells us something different. Climate difficulties or not, he refers to the period after the Battle of Mons Badonicus as a peaceful one, with a hint that Arthur as an old man was living on past glory.

To suggest that a brief climate spike was the only influence in sub-Roman Britain is ridiculous - rising sea levels from the last ice age were far more influential as it motivated Saxon tribes to seek drier homes in fertile Britain. In any case, the minor kingdoms of Sub-Roman Britain were also very much influencing each others actions as politics always does.

There are nine identified Arthur's in the Dark Age, all of which may have contributed to the legend to some degree.

AlpinLuke

I had occasion to hear the hypothesis that it was a giant eruption in South East Asia in those years to generate a global mass of volcanic ash covering the sky in a certain measure at planetary level. It was the explosion of Volcano Krakatoa.

bartieboy

of course it is, it's the history channel.

Nego

There's the 'may have contributed'......in other words there is still no identified historical Arthur then?

Also who are these nine? Everyone's seen the recent films but outside of that.

caldrail

It depends what you mean. The various Arthurs have left traces in the historical record and although I can't confirm it, the account in Nennius is - at least as far as I can see - an amalgam of what these men did. However, by tradition Arthur's greatest battle is Mons Badonicus which Gildas refers as having been born in the year it took place. Gildas does not credit anyone with the victory directly (some assume it was Ambrosius Aurelianus, a revered character in the 5th century who would have been a very old man if he was responsible). However, in describing the 'tyrants' of his day, Gildas does tell us that Cunoglasus was "the Bear's charioteer" as a younger man, and Arth is a known root word for 'Bear'. That's our Arthur, or at least, as much of him as we can see historically with any certainty. Not a king, but a respected war leader, and in that at least we can see agreement with the account of Nennius written two or three hundred years later.

You might like to read this....

A Significant Victory - Ancient Roman Empire Forums

Hresvelgr

Did Mordred even exist (in legend at least) outside the late medieval romances like Le Morte d'Arthur?

Well there's your problem.