In the sun-scorched landscape of ancient Sicily, where Greek city-states flourished along the coastlines, one ruler's name echoed through time with a mix of awe and horror: Phalaris of Acragas (c. 570–554 BCE). Remembered by posterity as a brutal tyrant and the alleged sponsor of the inventor of one of antiquity's most diabolical execution devices, the Brazen Bull, Phalaris remains a figure of historical fascination and moral caution.However, beyond the terrifying legends lies a ruler whose story is more nuanced than mere cruelty. A statesman, city-builder, and patron of the arts, Phalaris embodied the complex duality of many early tyrants: ruthless in power, yet vital to the progress of the cities they ruled.Terry Bailey explains. Phalaris condemning the sculptor Perillus to the Bronze Bull. By Pierre Woeiriot. Rise to powerPhalaris rose to prominence in Acragas (modern-day Agrigento), one of the most powerful and prosperous cities in ancient Sicily. Originally from Astypalaia, an island in the Aegean Sea, Phalaris settled in Acragas and quickly ascended the ranks of civic life. According to later tradition, he was entrusted with building a temple to Zeus Atabyrios, but instead used the opportunity to take control of the city's military and seize power for himself.In doing so, he became part of a broader Sicilian phenomenon, the rise of Greek tyrants. Unlike the modern sense of the word, a tyrannos in archaic Greece was often a populist strongman who seized power outside traditional aristocratic channels. Some, like Phalaris, were known for oppressive rule, while others gained support by curbing elite privilege. Architect of a New AcragasDespite his fearsome reputation, Phalaris was also a capable administrator. He fortified the city's defenses, improved its infrastructure, and helped elevate Acragas into a regional power. According to later writers, he was especially focused on agricultural reform and encouraged the cultivation of the rich Sicilian soil. His rule brought both political stability and economic growth.Some ancient sources even suggest he was a patron of the arts and letters. A curious collection of epistolary forgeries, letters once attributed to Phalaris presents him as a philosophical and moral thinker. Though these letters are almost certainly fabricated, later (notably debunked by Richard Bentley in the 17th century), they testify to Phalaris's long-lasting reputation and the effort by some to recast him in a more flattering light. The Brazen BullWhat truly cemented Phalaris in historical infamy, however, was the terrifying story of the Brazen Bull, a hollow bronze sculpture in the shape of a bull, into which victims were locked and roasted alive over a fire. Ingeniously cruel, the bull's design reportedly converted the screams of the victim into the sound of a bellowing beast through an intricate system of pipes.According to legend, the device was invented by a sculptor named Perillos of Athens, who offered it to Phalaris as a tool of punishment. In a gruesome twist of poetic justice, Phalaris allegedly ordered Perillos to be the bull's first occupant, testing the invention on its designer.Was the Brazen Bull real? While vivid in the writings of ancient historians like Diodorus Siculus and Pindar, many modern scholars believe the tale is likely exaggerated, or even fabricated entirely, to demonize Phalaris. Stories of tyrants from antiquity were often shaped by moral agendas and political biases, with later democratic writers eager to portray tyranny in the blackest terms. Downfall and deathPhalaris's reign came to a violent end after about sixteen years. Around 554 BCE, he was overthrown in a popular uprising, led by the people of Acragas and supported by Telemachus, a descendant of the city's founder. In a final twist of irony befitting his legend, Phalaris himself is said to have perished inside the Brazen Bull, consumed by the very instrument of terror he wielded against others. This story, too, may be apocryphal, but it perfectly encapsulates the moral, tale and nature of his myth: live by cruelty, die by cruelty.Phalaris occupies an ambiguous space in history. To ancient moralists, he was the quintessential tyrant, proof of what happens when absolute power corrupts absolutely. To others, he was a cunning statesman who laid the foundations for Acragas's later prosperity. Interestingly, in the second century CE, the satirist Lucian of Samosata revisited the story of Phalaris and the Brazen Bull in his dialogue Phalaris, inviting readers to question the veracity of the gruesome tales and explore the complexities of tyranny and justice.Phalaris's life may remain obscured by legend, but his name endures, a potent reminder of how power, when unchecked by ethics, can lead to both monumental achievement and monstrous cruelty.Was Phalaris a brutal tyrant or a misunderstood ruler tarnished by propaganda? Perhaps he was both. In the end, his story serves not only as a reflection on the ancient world's fascination with cruelty and spectacle but also as a timeless meditation on leadership, justice, and the shadow side of human ambition. Whatever the truth behind the Brazen Bull, Phalaris of Acragas has secured his place in the eternal forge of history, where myth, morality, and memory melt together into legend.In conclusion, Phalaris of Acragas stands at the crossroads of myth and history, his legacy forged as much by the imaginations of ancient writers as by the realities of his rule. Whether he truly commissioned the gruesome Brazen Bull or not, his name became synonymous with tyranny and cruelty, yet this image, sharpened by centuries of moral storytelling, obscures a more intricate portrait. Here was a man who, despite, or perhaps because of his ruthless ascent, ushered in a period of growth and stability for Acragas, leaving behind not only chilling legends but also civic advancements that would shape the city's future.In many ways, Phalaris embodies the paradox of power in the ancient world: a figure both feared and respected, condemned and celebrated. His life invites a questioning of where the line lies between historical truth and narrative convenience, between leadership and despotism. That his story continues to provoke reflection nearly two and a half millennia later speaks to its enduring relevance.Phalaris's legacy, then, is not merely a tale of horror, but a mirror held up to humanity's eternal struggle with authority, ambition, and the morality of rule. In the flickering heat of Sicily's past, his legend still burns, a bronze echo of the enduring tension between greatness and cruelty. The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.  NotesBrazen Bull, real or falseArguments for the Brazen Bull being real:Multiple ancient sources:Ancient writers Diodorus Siculus, Lucian, and Pindar mention the Brazen Bull. While the stories differ in details, the consistent appearance of this legend across sources suggests a kernel of truth or a long-standing oral tradition.Consistency in ancient descriptions: The way the device is described, complete with acoustic pipes and a smoke vent through the nostrils, suggests a relatively advanced understanding of sound manipulation and metallurgy. That kind of detail implies some grounding in real craftsmanship.Historical context of cruelty: The ancient world was no stranger to brutality, crucifixion, impalement, and flaying are well-documented. Phalaris was historically portrayed as a cruel despot, and tyrants often used symbolic executions to instill fear. A bronze bull may have served as both torture and terrifying propaganda.Execution as spectacle: Public executions often had performative elements. A metal bull that turned screams into animalistic bellows could have been designed for theatrical effect to intimidate enemies and subdue dissent. Arguments for the Brazen Bull being false or exaggeratedLack of archaeological evidenceNo physical remains of a Brazen Bull have ever been found at Akragas or elsewhere. If such an elaborate device were real and widely used, one might expect some physical trace or copy, especially in regions known for elaborate executions.Mythical tone and moral storytelling: The story of Perillos being tricked into entering the device he invented is suspiciously allegorical, it fits the mold of poetic justice tales in Greek literature. The narrative may have been invented to criticize hubris or tyranny rather than to recount an actual historical event.Propaganda against Phalaris: Much of what we know about Phalaris comes from his enemies and later authors. Tyrants were often vilified after their deaths with exaggerated tales. The Brazen Bull may be part of a literary character assassination campaign to make Phalaris appear monstrously inhuman.Unrealistic engineering: While possible in theory, creating a device that transforms screams into convincing bull-like sounds is not trivial. The idea that acoustics could be fine-tuned to this degree with ancient metallurgy might be more fantasy than fact.Roman and later embellishments: Writers like Lucian and later Christian authors retold and amplified the Brazen Bull story to emphasize the cruelty of pagans. Some tales link it to Christian martyrdom, further suggesting that the story evolved with dramatic additions over time. Verdict: A real device or a literary monster?There's no definitive answer. The Brazen Bull could have existed, as a one-off device, a terrifying symbol of Phalaris's rule. However, it's also quite likely that the story was exaggerated or fabricated by moralists, poets, or political enemies to make a tyrant's cruelty seem grotesque.If real, it shows the dark ingenuity of ancient execution methods.If false, it demonstrates how myth and propaganda shaped reputations across history.Needless to say, without physical evidence, the answer will probably never be known, what is more likely, is that the truth falls somewhere between the two diametrically opposed points of view. TyrantThe word "tyrant, (týrannos, (ancient Greek, τύραννος)), was originally defined as an absolute ruler, not necessarily a cruel one. Only later did the word take on the negative meaning of a harsh or oppressive ruler.

King Edward II’s reputation precedes him: an “effete” ruler, more interested in his controversial male favourites than the weighty matters of state. But was this the full picture? Join acclaimed Medieval Historian Dr Helen Carr as she delves deep into Edward II’s extraordinary and chaotic reign in History Hit’s documentary, Edward II: Worst King of England? Helen starts by revealing myth-busting depictions of Edward II which portray a king serious about his role, even leading armies into battle – far from the effeminate figure later popularised by Victorian artists. So, where did it all go wrong, and why has Edward II’s image been so skewed over time? Born in 1284 and heir to the formidable Edward I, Edward II inherited a vast kingdom. After his father’s death, 23 year old Edward looked for help from his closest friends, including Piers Gaveston, a man with whom Edward shared an intense close connection with, possibly sexual. Helen explores this bond, and how Edward’s giving of titles, attention and money to Gaveston after recalling him from exile in France alienated many of his traditional supporters amongst the nobility who saw this behaviour as inappropriate. “All of these things were things that the old noble families of England were expecting to come to them… If the job of king of England in the 14th century is in part a management position, Edward is an absolutely terrible manager.” says historian Dr Kit Heyam. Edward’s actions had ignited aristocratic fury, setting him on a collision course with England’s powerful aristocracy almost from the very moment of his ascension in 1307. Dr Helen Carr with Dr Paul Dryburgh, principal record specialist at The National Archives, during filming. They are looking at a Charter drawn up by Edward II (less than a month after he became king), bestowing on Piers Gaveston the Earldom of Cornwall.Image Credit: History Hit Through rare illuminated charters, historical records, and expert analysis, Helen also delves into the dramatic power struggles that defined Edward’s reign: the imposing of the ‘Ordinances’ to curb his power, the ruthless machinations of figures like Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, and the infamous Battle of Bannockburn against Robert the Bruce, a devastating defeat that shattered English authority in Scotland. Dr Helen Carr also uncovers the complexities of Edward’s other relationships, including that of his sometimes successful, sometimes deadly, marriage in 1308 to the 12-year-old Isabella of France and the birth of the future Edward III. Sign up to watch As Edward’s reign progressed and with Gavetson gone, a new set of favourites emerged – the Despensers. Helen speaks to writer and historian Kathryn Warner who explains how subsequently “We see this real break in Edward’s character. Earlier on with Gaveston he had been a much nicer and perhaps kinder and gentler individual… but then later he falls for Hugh Despenser in whatever way, who was a coercive manipulative type and Edward’s personality just changes completely.” The Despensers’ influence, particularly that of Hugh Despenser the Younger, pushed Edward towards tyranny and ultimately, alienation from all who cared for him, including his formidable queen, Isabella. Helen goes on to chart Isabella’s transformation from loyal wife to “She-Wolf of France,” as she, allied with the exiled Roger Mortimer, orchestrated a dramatic coup against the Despensers that would lead to Edward’s downfall. Dr Helen Carr at Edward II’s tomb at Gloucester CathedralImage Credit: History Hit And then, the mystery of Edward II’s death – was it the infamous, horrific fate of the red-hot poker, or something far more ambiguous? Helen dissects the origins of this enduring gruesome myth of Edward’s probable murder, revealing how later chronicles and plays sensationalised his demise. Edward II: Worst King of England? is an exploration of power, loyalty, betrayal, and reputation. Was Edward truly England’s worst king, or simply a complex monarch caught between tradition and his own progressive (and often disastrous) instincts? Watch and decide for yourself. Sign up to watch

  In the legends of King Arthur, the leader of the Britons is most famous for fighting against the Saxons during their conquest of Britain. Most scholars acknowledge that this may have a factual basis. However, at least as early as the 12th century, King Arthur is also presented as fighting against the Romans in continental Europe. Unlike his battles against the Saxons, this has no obvious historical basis. Was it just completely fictional? Or might this part of the legend have been based on real events?   The Legend of King Arthur Conquering Europe King Arthur in Battle, 12th-century illumination. Source: Pocketmag   This aspect of the legend appears most famously in the Historia Regum Britanniae, written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in c. 1137. In this version, King Arthur establishes peace in Britain and rules it for twelve years. Then, he decides to engage in further conquests, expanding his domain outside of Britain. He invades Scandinavia first, and then he attacks Gaul. The account presents Gaul as still being governed by the Romans. Arthur meets the Roman leader of the country and kills him. Progressively, Arthur conquers the entirety of Gaul.   A few years later, after returning to Britain, the Romans send Arthur a letter demanding that he pay them tribute. This incites Arthur to anger, and the king raises a massive army to attack Rome itself. In response, Rome raises a large army too, involving many foreign nations. The two sides meet at a valley called Siesia. It is a bloody battle and many of Arthur’s men die. However, Arthur eventually comes off victorious.   Did Geoffrey of Monmouth Invent the Legend? Statue of Geoffrey of Monmouth at Tintern Station, Wales. Source: Visit Monmouthshire   The legend of King Arthur is set in the 6th century. The Historia Regum Britanniae places Arthur’s death in 542 (although occasionally dates in medieval British records were backdated by some 30 years). Although this was the “Dark Age” in some senses, we do have enough records from this period to know that there definitely was not any conquest of Gaul by the Britons in the sixth century.   An analysis of the Historia Regum Britanniae shows that it is heavily based on traditional Welsh and Breton tales. However, it is generally thought that Geoffrey liberally added things to the existing traditions he found. On this basis, many have assumed that Geoffrey simply invented the European conquest to add to the glory of King Arthur’s legendary reign. However, there is strong evidence that this is not really the case. We actually see a definite trace of Arthur’s European campaign in Welsh tradition that predates (or at least is independent of) Geoffrey of Monmouth.   The European Conquest in Welsh Tradition Start of Culhwch and Olwen, folio 200v of the Red Book of Hergest, c. 1400. Source: Bodleian Library, Oxford   A Welsh tale called Culhwch and Olwen dates to approximately 1100. The exact date is unknown, but it is universally recognized as being independent of Geoffrey of Monmouth, even if it did not actually predate him. In this tale, Arthur is said to have fought in various places. The first identifiable location is Llychlyn, which is the medieval Welsh term often used for Scandinavia. Afterward, the text mentions “Europe and Africa and the islands of Corsica.” Next, the text mentions that Arthur “conquered Greece as far as the east.” The text also mentions “Greater India and Lesser India” right at the beginning of this passage. However, in view of this placement, this is likely not a reference to the country we call India.   While not precisely the same as the legend recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth, we can see that this is a tale of Arthur fighting in what is apparently Scandinavia, and then afterward in Europe generally. This indicates that Geoffrey’s account really does stem, at least in essence if not in all the details, from authentic Welsh tradition.   A Comparison With Other Welsh Legends Illustration from the Llanbeblig Book of Hours, possibly depicting Magnus Maximus, 14th century. Source: National Library of Wales   Bearing in mind the foundation that this tale has in Welsh tradition, what could its origin be? We know that it cannot be based on historical events from the 6th century since nothing like that happened then.   It is interesting to think about this description of a leader from Britain engaging in war against the Romans and conquering large parts of Europe and even Africa. On the surface, this sounds very much like the sort of thing that really did happen during the Roman era. A number of usurping emperors emerged out of Britain and conquered large portions of the Western Roman Empire.   Is there evidence from Welsh records that one or more of these usurpations made a lasting impact on local legend? As a matter of fact, the usurpation of Magnus Maximus stands out as exceptionally famous among the Welsh. As well as the invasion of Gaul being described in several Welsh sources, Magnus Maximus appears in numerous medieval British genealogies.   One of the dynasties allegedly descended from Maximus in the Harleian MS 3859, folio 195r, 12th century. Source: The British Library   Without doubt, Magnus Maximus’ usurpation left a very lasting impression on the Britons, becoming firmly entrenched in later Welsh memory. A number of details about this usurpation strongly indicate that this served as the basis for the legend of King Arthur conquering Europe.   For one thing, there is a triad from Welsh tradition that includes the statement that “Elen sister of Arthur… is said to have gone with Arthur when he went to fight Frollo [Roman ruler of Gaul], and she did not return.” Another triad records something almost identical about Elen, the wife of Maximus. It says that she went from Britain with Maximus on his conquests and did not return. It is notable that the Welsh had a virtually identical tradition about two women of the same name, one associated with Arthur and one associated with Maximus. Since both men, according to legend, went out on a campaign into Europe, this lends credence to the suggestion that both traditions actually stem from the same event.   The Sequence of Events Bust of Roman Emperor Gratian, photo by Jose Luiz. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Further support for this suggestion comes from examining the sequence of events in the legend and comparing it with what really happened during Maximus’ campaign. Recall that King Arthur is said to have met the Roman leader of Gaul (named Frollo) upon his initial attack on the country. Interestingly, most of the army of this Roman leader abandons him and joins Arthur’s side. Arthur then pursues him, catches up with him, and kills him in a one-on-one fight.   In the case of Maximus, he was confronted by the army of Gratian, the Western Roman Emperor, upon his initial arrival in Gaul. Most of Gratian’s army abandoned him, joining Maximus. Gratian then fled, but he was pursued by Maximus’ cavalry commander named Andragathius. This commander then caught up to Gratian and killed him in a one-on-one setting.   The similarities between the two events are certainly notable. But if this was the end of the matter, we could probably put this down to coincidence.   Coin of Magnus Maximus, 4th century. Source: Gwalter.com   However, the similarities do not end there. After conquering Gaul, several years are said to have passed before the next conflict. With this next conflict, King Arthur sets out to attack the Romans in Rome. His men clash with a senator named Petreius. After this, in the following year, Arthur’s large army engages in a bloody battle against the Roman army, which includes numerous non-Roman allies, at Siesia. Although Geoffrey of Monmouth’s version presents this as a victory for Arthur, a triad from Welsh tradition refers to Arthur’s army as being “routed” at this battle.   Regarding Magnus Maximus, his army set out to attack Italy several years after the initial conflict. Notably, a senator named Petronius Probus was then the regent of the young Valentinian II, based in Italy. Petronius is known to have been an adversary of Maximus. In the following year, 388, the army led by Andragathius met the army of the Eastern Romans at a valley named Siscia. They were supported by various non-Romans, such as the Goths and the Huns. At this battle, Andragathius’ army was routed.   Andragathius, the Arthur Figure of the Story Illustration of King Arthur fighting the Saxons from the Rochefoucauld Grail Manuscript, 14th century. Source: The Independent   It is evident that the two campaigns share some fascinating similarities. It is no wonder that a number of scholars over the years (including the renowned David Dumville) have suggested that Maximus’ campaign was the basis for King Arthur’s legendary European conquest. We should note, however, that a comparison of the two sequences of events suggests that it is specifically Andragathius who can be identified as the “Arthur figure” from the account. After all, it is Andragathius who, like Arthur, pursued and personally killed the Roman leader of Gaul, not Maximus. It is Andragathius who, like Arthur, led the army which was ultimately routed at Siscia, not Maximus. Furthermore, if Maximus himself had been the protagonist behind this legend, then why was Arthur not described as becoming emperor?   Contemporary Roman histories inform us that Maximus gave “the general direction of the war” to Andragathius. Therefore, the idea that Andragathius in particular could have been remembered as the protagonist of this grand conquest is not at all surprising or unlikely.   King Arthur’s Historical Conquest of Europe Opening lines of the Welsh legend The Dream of Macsen Wledig, Peniarth MS 14. Source: Arthurian Web   It is evident that the legend of King Arthur’s European campaign really did come from Magnus Maximus’ usurpation of the Western Roman Empire, as some prominent scholars have argued. In a sense, then, this legend about King Arthur is not fictional, it is just misplaced. It appears that the “Arthur figure” of this particular legend can be identified with Andragathius. He was a cavalry commander in Maximus’ army, and he was the one who was responsible for the general direction of the war. Some of Arthur’s actions in the legend can be associated with Andragathius directly.   The question of whether Andragathius can be identified in Welsh tradition independently of the legends of King Arthur is another matter. It is possible that he can, although this issue has generally not been given much attention, meaning that very little literature has been written about it. Further research may well shed more light on Andragathius’ presence in Welsh tradition and also on how he contributed to the legends of King Arthur.

  In the legends of King Arthur, the leader of the Britons is most famous for fighting against the Saxons during their conquest of Britain. Most scholars acknowledge that this may have a factual basis. However, at least as early as the 12th century, King Arthur is also presented as fighting against the Romans in continental Europe. Unlike his battles against the Saxons, this has no obvious historical basis. Was it just completely fictional? Or might this part of the legend have been based on real events?   The Legend of King Arthur Conquering Europe King Arthur in Battle, 12th-century illumination. Source: Pocketmag   This aspect of the legend appears most famously in the Historia Regum Britanniae, written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in c. 1137. In this version, King Arthur establishes peace in Britain and rules it for twelve years. Then, he decides to engage in further conquests, expanding his domain outside of Britain. He invades Scandinavia first, and then he attacks Gaul. The account presents Gaul as still being governed by the Romans. Arthur meets the Roman leader of the country and kills him. Progressively, Arthur conquers the entirety of Gaul.   A few years later, after returning to Britain, the Romans send Arthur a letter demanding that he pay them tribute. This incites Arthur to anger, and the king raises a massive army to attack Rome itself. In response, Rome raises a large army too, involving many foreign nations. The two sides meet at a valley called Siesia. It is a bloody battle and many of Arthur’s men die. However, Arthur eventually comes off victorious.   Did Geoffrey of Monmouth Invent the Legend? Statue of Geoffrey of Monmouth at Tintern Station, Wales. Source: Visit Monmouthshire   The legend of King Arthur is set in the 6th century. The Historia Regum Britanniae places Arthur’s death in 542 (although occasionally dates in medieval British records were backdated by some 30 years). Although this was the “Dark Age” in some senses, we do have enough records from this period to know that there definitely was not any conquest of Gaul by the Britons in the sixth century.   An analysis of the Historia Regum Britanniae shows that it is heavily based on traditional Welsh and Breton tales. However, it is generally thought that Geoffrey liberally added things to the existing traditions he found. On this basis, many have assumed that Geoffrey simply invented the European conquest to add to the glory of King Arthur’s legendary reign. However, there is strong evidence that this is not really the case. We actually see a definite trace of Arthur’s European campaign in Welsh tradition that predates (or at least is independent of) Geoffrey of Monmouth.   The European Conquest in Welsh Tradition Start of Culhwch and Olwen, folio 200v of the Red Book of Hergest, c. 1400. Source: Bodleian Library, Oxford   A Welsh tale called Culhwch and Olwen dates to approximately 1100. The exact date is unknown, but it is universally recognized as being independent of Geoffrey of Monmouth, even if it did not actually predate him. In this tale, Arthur is said to have fought in various places. The first identifiable location is Llychlyn, which is the medieval Welsh term often used for Scandinavia. Afterward, the text mentions “Europe and Africa and the islands of Corsica.” Next, the text mentions that Arthur “conquered Greece as far as the east.” The text also mentions “Greater India and Lesser India” right at the beginning of this passage. However, in view of this placement, this is likely not a reference to the country we call India.   While not precisely the same as the legend recorded by Geoffrey of Monmouth, we can see that this is a tale of Arthur fighting in what is apparently Scandinavia, and then afterward in Europe generally. This indicates that Geoffrey’s account really does stem, at least in essence if not in all the details, from authentic Welsh tradition.   A Comparison With Other Welsh Legends Illustration from the Llanbeblig Book of Hours, possibly depicting Magnus Maximus, 14th century. Source: National Library of Wales   Bearing in mind the foundation that this tale has in Welsh tradition, what could its origin be? We know that it cannot be based on historical events from the 6th century since nothing like that happened then.   It is interesting to think about this description of a leader from Britain engaging in war against the Romans and conquering large parts of Europe and even Africa. On the surface, this sounds very much like the sort of thing that really did happen during the Roman era. A number of usurping emperors emerged out of Britain and conquered large portions of the Western Roman Empire.   Is there evidence from Welsh records that one or more of these usurpations made a lasting impact on local legend? As a matter of fact, the usurpation of Magnus Maximus stands out as exceptionally famous among the Welsh. As well as the invasion of Gaul being described in several Welsh sources, Magnus Maximus appears in numerous medieval British genealogies.   One of the dynasties allegedly descended from Maximus in the Harleian MS 3859, folio 195r, 12th century. Source: The British Library   Without doubt, Magnus Maximus’ usurpation left a very lasting impression on the Britons, becoming firmly entrenched in later Welsh memory. A number of details about this usurpation strongly indicate that this served as the basis for the legend of King Arthur conquering Europe.   For one thing, there is a triad from Welsh tradition that includes the statement that “Elen sister of Arthur… is said to have gone with Arthur when he went to fight Frollo [Roman ruler of Gaul], and she did not return.” Another triad records something almost identical about Elen, the wife of Maximus. It says that she went from Britain with Maximus on his conquests and did not return. It is notable that the Welsh had a virtually identical tradition about two women of the same name, one associated with Arthur and one associated with Maximus. Since both men, according to legend, went out on a campaign into Europe, this lends credence to the suggestion that both traditions actually stem from the same event.   The Sequence of Events Bust of Roman Emperor Gratian, photo by Jose Luiz. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Further support for this suggestion comes from examining the sequence of events in the legend and comparing it with what really happened during Maximus’ campaign. Recall that King Arthur is said to have met the Roman leader of Gaul (named Frollo) upon his initial attack on the country. Interestingly, most of the army of this Roman leader abandons him and joins Arthur’s side. Arthur then pursues him, catches up with him, and kills him in a one-on-one fight.   In the case of Maximus, he was confronted by the army of Gratian, the Western Roman Emperor, upon his initial arrival in Gaul. Most of Gratian’s army abandoned him, joining Maximus. Gratian then fled, but he was pursued by Maximus’ cavalry commander named Andragathius. This commander then caught up to Gratian and killed him in a one-on-one setting.   The similarities between the two events are certainly notable. But if this was the end of the matter, we could probably put this down to coincidence.   Coin of Magnus Maximus, 4th century. Source: Gwalter.com   However, the similarities do not end there. After conquering Gaul, several years are said to have passed before the next conflict. With this next conflict, King Arthur sets out to attack the Romans in Rome. His men clash with a senator named Petreius. After this, in the following year, Arthur’s large army engages in a bloody battle against the Roman army, which includes numerous non-Roman allies, at Siesia. Although Geoffrey of Monmouth’s version presents this as a victory for Arthur, a triad from Welsh tradition refers to Arthur’s army as being “routed” at this battle.   Regarding Magnus Maximus, his army set out to attack Italy several years after the initial conflict. Notably, a senator named Petronius Probus was then the regent of the young Valentinian II, based in Italy. Petronius is known to have been an adversary of Maximus. In the following year, 388, the army led by Andragathius met the army of the Eastern Romans at a valley named Siscia. They were supported by various non-Romans, such as the Goths and the Huns. At this battle, Andragathius’ army was routed.   Andragathius, the Arthur Figure of the Story Illustration of King Arthur fighting the Saxons from the Rochefoucauld Grail Manuscript, 14th century. Source: The Independent   It is evident that the two campaigns share some fascinating similarities. It is no wonder that a number of scholars over the years (including the renowned David Dumville) have suggested that Maximus’ campaign was the basis for King Arthur’s legendary European conquest. We should note, however, that a comparison of the two sequences of events suggests that it is specifically Andragathius who can be identified as the “Arthur figure” from the account. After all, it is Andragathius who, like Arthur, pursued and personally killed the Roman leader of Gaul, not Maximus. It is Andragathius who, like Arthur, led the army which was ultimately routed at Siscia, not Maximus. Furthermore, if Maximus himself had been the protagonist behind this legend, then why was Arthur not described as becoming emperor?   Contemporary Roman histories inform us that Maximus gave “the general direction of the war” to Andragathius. Therefore, the idea that Andragathius in particular could have been remembered as the protagonist of this grand conquest is not at all surprising or unlikely.   King Arthur’s Historical Conquest of Europe Opening lines of the Welsh legend The Dream of Macsen Wledig, Peniarth MS 14. Source: Arthurian Web   It is evident that the legend of King Arthur’s European campaign really did come from Magnus Maximus’ usurpation of the Western Roman Empire, as some prominent scholars have argued. In a sense, then, this legend about King Arthur is not fictional, it is just misplaced. It appears that the “Arthur figure” of this particular legend can be identified with Andragathius. He was a cavalry commander in Maximus’ army, and he was the one who was responsible for the general direction of the war. Some of Arthur’s actions in the legend can be associated with Andragathius directly.   The question of whether Andragathius can be identified in Welsh tradition independently of the legends of King Arthur is another matter. It is possible that he can, although this issue has generally not been given much attention, meaning that very little literature has been written about it. Further research may well shed more light on Andragathius’ presence in Welsh tradition and also on how he contributed to the legends of King Arthur.