Oh no, not another Camelot!

[aligern]

OK,  a major weakness of Colchester as a seat for Arthur is the very poor archaelogy of the place in the late fift and early sixth century. Viroconium, however has large scale upmarket building.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

As to Badon, I would vote for  Baydon in Wiltshire. It commands two Roman roads and the Ridgeway and is on the same expansion route that is resumed when the Saxons push on to Dyrrham later and cut Devon off from Wales.

But it is not Mons Badonus but Mons Badonicus.

Further hint: Mons Graupius.  No, that was not the location of the battle, but consider how Latin authors flagged that particular battle as a mountain in the Grampians without finessing any closer than that.  Any area in Scotland spring to mind?

The major advantage we have with Charlemagne is we know he was real and we can see where the echos of reality occur.  To suggest we know where Arthur was campaigning at a particular time (e.g. in Scotland) when we don't know whether he existed and, if he did, when is a little futile.

Not at all: Geoffrey of Monmouth has a temporal and geographical sequence for Arthur's campaign.  If we pretend it never happened, fine, end of story, no point reading the books or discussing the subject.  If on the other hand we are interested to find out where our putative Arthur would have fought such a battle at such a time, we follow Geoffrey's campaign account.  It contains one massive anomaly: part-way through the campaign in Scotland Arthur breaks off and dashes for the West Country to fight at 'Mons Badonicus'.  Then, that battle over, he resumes exactly where he left off in Scotland.

My thinking: assume this odd geographical leap is a bardic error because someone insists on having Mons Badonicus (and various opther Arthuriana) in the West Country.  Ditto when the Camlann campaign swerves from an advance from Kent to London to north of the Thames to another sudden leap down to Cornwall.  Assume instead the campaign continued in the same theatre and what do we get?  We get Camelot/Camulodunum/Colchester and Camlann/Chelmsford in the relationship we would expect, the latter just happening to be an ideal rendezvous for Mordred and his Saxons as well as an excellent blocking position to cover Colchester.

Getting back to Mons Badonicus, campaign continuity leads us to look in Scotland, a little north of centre.  And there is one region of Scotland whose name just leaps out at us.  Granted it was first recorded in the 13th century AD, but it did not spring into being at that time.

OK,  a major weakness of Colchester as a seat for Arthur is the very poor archaelogy of the place in the late fift and early sixth century. Viroconium, however has large scale upmarket building.

From the Camulos site:

"This was the age of Arthur, King of the Britons, hero of folklore, whose stronghold was CAMELOT, a variation on CAMULODUNUM. The COLONIA built by the Romans was a natural safe base, with its impressive defensive wall, 6 metres high with ditches to increase their effectiveness. Arthur's base would have been the temple and its perimeter walls, later to be enhanced by the Normans."

From the Time Travel Britain site:

"At this point, the fortunes of Viroconium changed again. The basilica and bath house had been used as a grain store, but in the early 5th Century the basilica was tidied up, and a substantial new hall together with a number of barns and other buildings constructed within the old Roman city. It is not known who instigated this work, nor why, but given the time period and the close proximity of the site to Wales, it has been suggested -- with some supporting evidence -- that this site might have formed King Arthur's main base during his campaigns."

Inference: as Arthur is recorded as governing much of the country, he probably had several 'bases' of which Viroconium/Uricon/Wroxeter was one, but only the one capital - Camulodunum.

[Imperial Dave]

Camelot as an entity is first mentioned by Chretien de Troyes not Gildas, not Nennius (or the posse of monks) not Bede etc. There is no factual basis for there being a 'Camelot'

Again looking at it holistically I prefer to review potential bases for any war leader who held sway over large tracts of territory. For reasons mentioned, hanging onto specific words or place names can drive you down the rabbits hole

[Duncan Head]

Camelot as an entity is first mentioned by Chretien de Troyes not Gildas, not Nennius (or the posse of monks) not Bede etc. There is no factual basis for there being a 'Camelot'

And when first mentioned, by Chrétien, "Camaalot" is not Arthur's capital - his main court is at Caerleon. The importance of Camelot is later embroidery by Geoffrey.

[RichT]

Getting back to Mons Badonicus, campaign continuity leads us to look in Scotland, a little north of centre.  And there is one region of Scotland whose name just leaps out at us.

Why so coy? Usual suspects for a Scottish Badon appear to be Badandun Hill in Angus or Bowden Hill near Linlithgow. But I'm guessing Badenoch as in Badenoch and Strathspey? The capital of which is Kingussie - which is clearly Scottish for 'our King', i.e. Arthur. QED!

[Imperial Dave]

Even the name Arthur is a compass for distraction.

Still I rather think we have many discussion point in this thread for exploration

[Erpingham]

Not at all: Geoffrey of Monmouth has a temporal and geographical sequence for Arthur's campaign.

I assume you believe that Geoffrey's "old book" was a work contemporary with Gildas or Bede, which gave these campaign details which Geoffrey then reset for a modern audience?  Rather than trying to put the scraps of information he had collected into a form that would do due honour to a legendary hero?

While happy to accept there was a historical prototype for Arthur, who became a legendary hero to later British peoples, I think back projecting "facts" held in medieval stories about him is historically dubious.

Likewise, while I appreciate Roy and Dave descriptions of possible contexts in which Arthur could have operated, we can't make certain claims about "Arthur was based here" about anywhere.  We can't be sure that the real Arthur belonged to a political entity that covered the whole of historic Britannia - in fact as Britannia was split even in Roman times, it seems more plausible he belonged to a smaller political entity somewhere within the old Britannia, or even beyond in Strathclyde or the Scottish lowlands.

[Imperial Dave]

Not at all: Geoffrey of Monmouth has a temporal and geographical sequence for Arthur's campaign.

I assume you believe that Geoffrey's "old book" was a work contemporary with Gildas or Bede, which gave these campaign details which Geoffrey then reset for a modern audience?  Rather than trying to put the scraps of information he had collected into a form that would do due honour to a legendary hero?

While happy to accept there was a historical prototype for Arthur, who became a legendary hero to later British peoples, I think back projecting "facts" held in medieval stories about him is historically dubious.

Likewise, while I appreciate Roy and Dave descriptions of possible contexts in which Arthur could have operated, we can't make certain claims about "Arthur was based here" about anywhere.  We can't be sure that the real Arthur belonged to a political entity that covered the whole of historic Britannia - in fact as Britannia was split even in Roman times, it seems more plausible he belonged to a smaller political entity somewhere within the old Britannia, or even beyond in Strathclyde or the Scottish lowlands.

assuming there was an Arthur.

Still most likely is that there were several people at several different points in several locations that all got swept up into a single entity whose title/name may have been Arthur



enfuriating isnt it? 

[aligern]

From Patrick:

'Inference: as Arthur is recorded as governing much of the country, he probably had several 'bases' of which..... '
But is there a record of Arthur governing much of the country? One interpretation of his legend is that he is not the ruler of any state, but a war leader who perhaps deploys the forces of several British states and thus has the numbers to defeat the Saxons. Such an Arthur might have a base, but no capital and given the civitas nature of the British at the time it is quite possible that only a leader who was not a prince of one state could overcome their jealousies and create an unified force.  It is  rather like  Vortigern who had a position above state leadership, as well as leading a particular entity.

The weakness of the case for Camulodunum is that there is not much archaeology of the period there. That a place has walls and a ruined temple is not enough if it is not occupied or if the archaeology of the period is Saxon.
The most suppirtable 'fact' about Arthur is that a victory penned the Saxons back for 50 years. That is extremely unlijely to be in modern Scotland, because the effects would be local only. The most likely site of a Badonicus victory is the line of advance that the Saxons took up when the 50 year hiatus was over and that favours a Baydon site .  There the Saxons would have been attempting to folliw the path they later followed to Dyrrham and it would have been a good line for those of Sussex, Kent and Anglia to coalesce on as they advanced. Take the hillfort and the Severn valley is open to you.  Stop the Saxons there and they fall vack disunited.
Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Getting back to Mons Badonicus, campaign continuity leads us to look in Scotland, a little north of centre.  And there is one region of Scotland whose name just leaps out at us.

Why so coy? Usual suspects for a Scottish Badon appear to be Badandun Hill in Angus or Bowden Hill near Linlithgow. But I'm guessing Badenoch as in Badenoch and Strathspey?

Precisely, and well spotted.  It is in the right place for Geoffrey of Monmouth's interrupted campaign, and Badonicus and Badenoch are so phonetically similar (cf. Graupius and Grampian) that 'Mons Badonicus' fits with almost suspicious ease.

Again looking at it holistically I prefer to review potential bases for any war leader who held sway over large tracts of territory. For reasons mentioned, hanging onto specific words or place names can drive you down the rabbits hole

Or, as we call it nowadays, archaeology ...

Tangentially, and along these lines, I am surprised that so much stock is placed on 'there was no Camelot until it turns up in Geoffrey of Monmouth'. 

I assume you believe that Geoffrey's "old book" was a work contemporary with Gildas or Bede, which gave these campaign details which Geoffrey then reset for a modern audience?  Rather than trying to put the scraps of information he had collected into a form that would do due honour to a legendary hero?

I believe nothing, but note that the details Geoffrey gives do seem to hang together in a recognisable and sensible pattern except where he suddenly shifts the action in a campaign from its existing location to somewhere in the West Country.  This I see as Geoffrey's own editing in order to coincide with what he believed about matters Arthurian.  Whatever 'old book' he had seems to have been much more informative than the localised bardic tales floating around at eisteddfods and the like, and it is a pity he did not simply reproduce it.

While happy to accept there was a historical prototype for Arthur, who became a legendary hero to later British peoples, I think back projecting "facts" held in medieval stories about him is historically dubious.

It may well be, but if the material is cogent I am happy to go with it as far as it will go.

Likewise, while I appreciate Roy and Dave descriptions of possible contexts in which Arthur could have operated, we can't make certain claims about "Arthur was based here" about anywhere.  We can't be sure that the real Arthur belonged to a political entity that covered the whole of historic Britannia - in fact as Britannia was split even in Roman times, it seems more plausible he belonged to a smaller political entity somewhere within the old Britannia, or even beyond in Strathclyde or the Scottish lowlands.

The division under the Romans into Britannia Prima, Britannia Secunda, Flavia Caesariensis and Maxima Caesariensis occurred during the time of Diocletian, hence being (in Romano-British terms) a fairly late development, and was quite probably the first thing to be adjusted when Britain began creating its own emperors c.AD 408; we do know that while the other three provinces were each overseen by a praeses, from late in the 4th century AD the governor of Maxima Caesariensis was of consular rank, so a clear superiority of precedence had been established there and would logically be claimed by subsequent rulers of domestic origin.

Still most likely is that there were several people at several different points in several locations that all got swept up into a single entity whose title/name may have been Arthur

There is doubtless an element of addition and recombination, just as the Greeks did with the deeds of Heracles.  But this emphatically does not mean there was never an original Heracles. Or Arthur.  Outside Marvel Comics and the like I have yet to see a hero invented by committee.

But is there a record of Arthur governing much of the country?

That depends upon whom you read.

The most supportable 'fact' about Arthur is that a victory penned the Saxons back for 50 years.

Only one?  Arthur's career was a whole succession of victories, of which Mons Badonicus was perhaps the most famous and most consequential on account of bringing down so many different foes in a single action.  Let us not lose sight of the fact that in Geoffrey's account of the campaign Arthur was on the offensive, probing deep into Scotland, and then engaged and defeated a mixed bag of opponents including a significant Saxon army.

One victory (or, from the Saxon point of view, serious defeat) on its own would be unlikely to suspend Saxon progress for 50 years.  A succession of defeats which cowed a generation would have that effect.

[Erpingham]

(cf. Graupius and Grampian)

Doesn't Grampian come from Mons Graupius, rather than the other way round?  So wikipedia believes anyway :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grampian_Mountains

[Erpingham]

The division under the Romans into Britannia Prima, Britannia Secunda, Flavia Caesariensis and Maxima Caesariensis occurred during the time of Diocletian, hence being (in Romano-British terms) a fairly late development, and was quite probably the first thing to be adjusted when Britain began creating its own emperors c.AD 408; we do know that while the other three provinces were each overseen by a praeses, from late in the 4th century AD the governor of Maxima Caesariensis was of consular rank, so a clear superiority of precedence had been established there and would logically be claimed by subsequent rulers of domestic origin.

I'm not fully sure I follow.  Are you saying that one of the impacts of the breakdown of an external imperium was to lead to a re-unification of Britannia and this continued until the period of Arthur (and beyond, as he was successful)?   And when is your Arthur active?  This seems to imply a 5th century Arthur.  Not implausible but would like to be clear.

[Jim Webster]

Only one?  Arthur's career was a whole succession of victories, of which Mons Badonicus was perhaps the most famous and most consequential on account of bringing down so many different foes in a single action. 

the problem is that (assuming the victories existed) we don't know who some of them were against.
There's also the problem with 'saxons' in that we may be talking about forces of warriors who 'self identified' as Saxon, especially as the first Foederate could have been settled a 150 years before that battle.

Fascinating period

[RichT]

Indeed. It's generally accepted that the Grampians are named after Tacitus' Graupius, not the other way round, so phonetic similarity (barring the typo) is not surprising.

If Badenoch is derived from the Scottish Gaelic Bàideanach meaning drowned land (as Wikipedia says) then it's not that phoentically similar to Latin Badonicus anyway ('by-ten-ach' I think, though I may be wildly wrong - plus there was apparently a separate Badenoch Gaelic dialect).

Or there are the theories of various online Arthur, er, historians, such as that "'Badon' here actually derives from the Welsh (i.e. British) word baedd, meaning a 'boar'" (Simon Stirling, The King Arthur Conspiracy - there's a title that ticks several of the right boxes).

In short, I don't think this sort of phonetic bingo has much value.

[Imperial Dave]

Only one?  Arthur's career was a whole succession of victories, of which Mons Badonicus was perhaps the most famous and most consequential on account of bringing down so many different foes in a single action. 

the problem is that (assuming the victories existed) we don't know who some of them were against.
There's also the problem with 'saxons' in that we may be talking about forces of warriors who 'self identified' as Saxon, especially as the first Foederate could have been settled a 150 years before that battle.

Fascinating period

spot on