https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bkvw8v?utm_campaign=coschedule&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=EnglishHeritage
worth a look maybe....I'll reserve judgement until I've seen it
I bet it won't be as much fun as battle of Britain model squadron.
Quote
I bet it won't be as much fun as battle of Britain model squadron.
It wasn't.
It was OK, if you buy into the whole 'history is bunk and only archaeology can reveal the truth' thing; the truth in this case being that all this talk of Anglo Saxon invasions is nonsense, as there is no archaeological evidence of large scale conflict along the Anglo Saxon - Romano Briton front line. So the fact that all the area south and east of the front line is heavily settled by people living in Anglo Saxon style houses and wearing Anglo Saxon style jewellery is not evidence of invasion, but of peaceful settlement, co-existence and mingling over several generations. Plus, DNA shows there were still Britons in the south and east, therefore they weren't all exterminated en masse, therefore no invasion. QED.
I was not wholly won over by this argument.
Quote from: RichT on September 17, 2018, 09:05:19 AM
Quote
I bet it won't be as much fun as battle of Britain model squadron.
It wasn't.
It was OK, if you buy into the whole 'history is bunk and only archaeology can reveal the truth' thing; the truth in this case being that all this talk of Anglo Saxon invasions is nonsense, as there is no archaeological evidence of large scale conflict along the Anglo Saxon - Romano Briton front line. So the fact that all the area south and east of the front line is heavily settled by people living in Anglo Saxon style houses and wearing Anglo Saxon style jewellery is not evidence of invasion, but of peaceful settlement, co-existence and mingling over several generations. Plus, DNA shows there were still Britons in the south and east, therefore they weren't all exterminated en masse, therefore no invasion. QED.
I was not wholly won over by this argument.
It does strike me that the evidence is perfectly capable of supporting the idea that there was an 'invasion' in that small, elite, warrior warbands moved in and displaced the local elites. For the great mass of the people, nothing much changed, except fashion and you needed to speak a bit of one of the Germanic dialects rather than Latin 8)
Unfortunately the evidence is perfectly capable of supporting several other ideas equally well ::)
The weakness of the elite emulation theory is the lack of Welsh words in Anglo Saxon . Whilst I buy into the idea that discriminatory laws and second class citizenship can effect a conversion of nationality over time and that nationality is a choice, I cannot see that there would be sufficient critical mass of immigrants to effect a conversion unless there was population movement that involved displacement. Nor will I happily cede that the destructive arrival of the A/S described by Gildas, by Nennius, by Bede , by Continental sources is all invention. Archaeology in this period is hampered by the lack of goods and , but it is clear that the parts of the country where the A/S are settled have different goods from the Celtic parts.
There was an archaeological program recently referencing some finds in Lewes Sussex. The keleton of what looked like a battle casualty was initially dated around 1066, then later recalibrated to the Battle of Lewes. Archaeology is useful, but it is too politicised and too unsure to give the levels of certainty that people look for.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on September 17, 2018, 01:15:08 PM
The weakness of the elite emulation theory is the lack of Welsh words in Anglo Saxon . Whilst I buy into the idea that discriminatory laws and second class citizenship can effect a conversion of nationality over time and that nationality is a choice, I cannot see that there would be sufficient critical mass of immigrants to effect a conversion unless there was population movement that involved displacement. Nor will I happily cede that the destructive arrival of the A/S described by Gildas, by Nennius, by Bede , by Continental sources is all invention. Archaeology in this period is hampered by the lack of goods and , but it is clear that the parts of the country where the A/S are settled have different goods from the Celtic parts.
There was an archaeological program recently referencing some finds in Lewes Sussex. The keleton of what looked like a battle casualty was initially dated around 1066, then later recalibrated to the Battle of Lewes. Archaeology is useful, but it is too politicised and too unsure to give the levels of certainty that people look for.
Roy
There are any number of weaknesses. One problem was how much welsh was spoken in the East of England by the fourth/fifth centuries anyway?
Jim
The language issue with placenames can be correlated with highland and lowland or militiarised and non militarised, latinised and non-latinised areas. If Latin was the language of choice both spoken and written in (for want of a better expression) 'England' with several lesser dialects/languages in use beneath especially (potentially) Germanic with foederati settlements then it could be explained. 'Wales' and 'Scotland' may not have used Latin very much beyond the army with Celtic dialects more prominent.
Just one theory :-)
I had two major problems with the programme
Firstly , if t was meant to be an historical critique of the Arthur myth it should have started with Nennius and explained how Arthur was originally used as a hero figure for ninth century Britons . All the Geoffrey of Monmouth section was rubbish without an explanation if his sources, real and imagined. If they wanted to explore if there was was anything behind the myth then its history must be confronted. If there was a genuine 50 year hiatus in the A/S advance then why? Who led it? Was there a Vortigern? Or equivalent post Roman leader. Were Hengist and Horsa, sorry A/S foederati invited in? Was there a foederate rebellion? There is a case for Arthur in the Britons appealing to Rome, finding no help would come and then coping by building a milutary structure. . What about the British migration to Brittany...never mentioned. Why did they feel the need to move away? If the A/S were not in great numbers and not warlike then why are the English not speaking Welsh, or a Romance language if we follow Jim's line. Why is Tintagel important? why is elite Britishness confined to the far West? Why are the A/S not Christianised early on by the Britons whom they lived amongst. Why are towns abandoned ? Why in the East if England is there no British elite. After all they did have elites. We would expect to see them intermarrying and holding on to some sort of structured existence.
My second problem is with the genetic evidence. AFAIK the results if tests on populations show that there is a substantial amount if Germanic DNA in the East of England. This was shown as a homogenous sea of red, but then we were told that these represented mixed popukations whereas all the ither cour groupings reoresented isolated unmixed groups...Yer What?? as one might say. Why are theses eastern popukations mixed and with whom...Oh, they are mixed with Anglo Saxon incomers. Hiwever,bthe presenters slyly skated over the point, If the A/S arrived in the East and eapstablished strong settlements they could then have a westward moving frontier which gradually incorporated more and more of the British, having driven away the British elite from each area as they advance. That gives a history of brutal displacement of the better off of whom Gildas speaks and relates too, he is after a a Latin scholar, yet incorporates British DNA, however, it need never or seldom, be a case of a small A/S elite over a large British population. After all it takes Wessex 300 years to get to Cornwall. Again its not a simple East west divide as A/S groups move quite deeply into what was to become Mercia quite early on.
Their idea of a battle line across England was a thoroughly bad one, a straw man for them to knock down. We know where many of the battles are reputed to be, and even where we have a likely site finding any ohysical remains is extremely unlikely. We have a good idea where Hastings was, but virtually no archaeologically sigificant finds........there were most likely 5,000 or more bodies...we have not got one. Are there grave pits for Stamford bridge? Hence we are not going to see evidence of battles on the putative frontier...though there are those dikes.
If someone wants to look at the evidence for A/S versus British conflict there are a couple of good books on dikes in Britain in the Dark Ages, one by Jim Storr, ' King Arthur's Wars' the other by Erik Grigg, 'Warfare Raiding and Defence'. Both explain how the Dark Age inhabitants of Britain invested a lot of effort in dikes to control raiding and how the digging of dikes plotted the moving frontier as the Angles and Saxons pushed back the British and took more and more territory from the Britons.
Some interesting stuff, but once again a programme in which smug archaelogists overreached themselves with conclusions cooked up in advance .
Roy
The problem I have with any programme is that they are simply too short to explore anything in great detail or engage in debate. Also they are never entirely 'cutting edge' in detail, evidence or theory. I suspect programmes like this will be wheeled out every now and again
yes Dave it's part of the trope that if you want to sell a history book mention Caesar, Hitler, Bapoleon or King Arthur. It's all about branding.
Roy
agreed. "Magic" names to attract people's interest......
as my nan would say, 'all fur coat and no knickers'
By contrast, the bbc iplayer should still have a thing on the good old days, available.
Ian hislop (better recognized from a panel comedy show), deconstructing popular notions of "our" history.
The first one went straight for Arthur and unfavorably compared romantic notions of him with the actual king and cake burner.
Interesting stuff about the period pressures that produced a rise in interest in one and a loss of interest in the other.
Plus lots of footage of reenactors.
Anyway, headline summary, another thing to blame on the Tudors.
Agreed with most of the above, though I suspect it's not so mch smug archaeologists - the archaeologists themselves are likely to be much more well informed and sensible than the programme made them look - out of context quotes can do terrible things.
I think the problem is with the style of TV documentary making. Firstly they have to be about Nazis, Tudors, Egypt or Arthur - no other periods of history are available, Then they have to have some Great Revelation - now it can be revealed, for the first time, astonishing new story of whatever. All in a 60 minute programme of which at least 30 minutes are taken up with animations, re-enactments and long atmospheric shots of the presenter staring into the distance while the wind whips their hair (I'm talking about you, Neil Oliver). All this with actual historical content which is generally way below (waaay below) that found in a typical Ladybird book. If they didn't go for the (made up) Big Story and just quietly presented the current best state of knowledge, they would be better. No doubt they think if they did this they wouldn't attract a large audience, but I wonder if they attract a large audience anyway? I suspect it may be worst of both worlds.
Quote from: Mark G on September 18, 2018, 08:50:59 AM
The first one went straight for Arthur and unfavorably compared romantic notions of him with the actual king and cake burner.
Read
1066 and All That for the importance of distinguishing Arthur from Alfred...
I think part of the problem was the need to use the talismanic Arthur to hook viewers. The BBC do some reasonable news round ups of recent archaeological finds presented by Alice Roberts. Someone thought lets scoop up all the 5th-6th century ones and call it Arthur's Britain. Tag in a bit of DNA stuff and away we go.
I have no problem with debunking myth shows but they only work if they don't leave an alternative myth. We've read the books, looked at the archaeology and have concluded its all much more complicated than it seems.
One thing I did find interesting is even with new information, we stillhave this highland/lowland "boundary" which seems to persist from the Romans. A Highland Celtic Zone and a Lowland Roman zone? The migrants mainly settling and eventually controlling the Roman zone but meeting greater resistance pushing into the Celtic zone? A Roman zone where Low Latin was the common language - plenty of Latin loan words in Old English? Anyway, we've discussed it all in far more detail elsewhere.
I have my doubts about the heat highland/ lowland division that was shown. It ignores the story of the A/S arrival. The A/S arrive largely on the East coast and set up colonies in the fifth century. The Britons appeal to Rome and get no help. They use foederati and there is a rebellion, that might involve attacks across the country and the fleeing to the West of Britain and Gaul of the more sophisticated and Christian groups from the East of England and the collapse of May towns . I should point out to those who believe in a Latinate Lowland Britain that the emigrants to Brittany appear to have brought a Celtic British language . The Britons fight back and the country is then a patchwork of statelets, Essex as a kingdom? Two Northumbrian kingdoms? Lindsey? Elmet? These are tiny. At around this time frontiers are defined and defended by dukes, often quite imposing. Storr shows quite well how the dikes move forward as the Anglo Saxons push back the Britons in areas such as Yorkshire and Cambridge. Meanwhile the settlement pattern in what is to become Mercia is chaotic with lots of small units. One means of describing the level of A/S replacement is those areas that maintain British, ie Celtic place and river names...a bit strange if it's a Latinate population. The A/S then push across to take the Cheshire/ Cumbria area , well across the highland line. It would be fair to say that the area that the A/S do not take is less about the quality of resistance, than the quality of the land. They do not appear to have a model of taking over and running the Roman landscape, but of settling with their own farming model, creating ham ing and ton ending settlements and not ruling an running the villa economy and crucially not being Christians.
In terms of Latin words crossing into English , as I recall through the mists of time the loan words are from Christianity and represent concepts that the religion had that did not exist in the old German world, or are likely to be Latin terms absorbed before the A/S were in England. Of course it would be most interesting if borrowings from Latin from a pre conversion contact in Britain were found as that would tell us something about Rpman Britain. So one would love to see such evidence.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on September 19, 2018, 10:40:54 PMI should point out to those who believe in a Latinate Lowland Britain that the emigrants to Brittany appear to have brought a Celtic British language .
But they appear to have come mostly from the south-west, Devon and Cornwall, which isn't what I think of as the "lowland zone" anyway.
Does anyone know just how far down the British social tree Latin was the primary language?
My impression of Roman Britain, right or wrong, is that everyone who was anyone could speak Latin and hold their own in literary allusions at dinner parties, but would conduct local business in their local language. Was this actually the case?
Yorkshire is also highland zone. We also know the fenland remained British - as in Celtic speaking - very late. The latinate model doesn't solve the problems entirely, just differently. But the evidence for a network of Celtic kingdoms in the East is no better than polities descended from civitates. I don't thinkthe river names argument helps much. The Romans seem to have used versions of the Celtic names (perhaps to avoid upsetting the genii loci) and the A/S invaders carried on. They also used Latin names for places in some form or another in many places. Use of Ceaster and wic in names both seem to be latin loan words.
I must admit I don't have a strong view on all of this. But models I remember from my younger days both of huges massacres of peace-loving lowlanders or the re-establishment ofCeltic kingdoms based on the pre-Roman kingdoms which had somehow survived underground seems less likely these days.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 20, 2018, 09:18:10 AM
My impression of Roman Britain, right or wrong, is that everyone who was anyone could speak Latin and hold their own in literary allusions at dinner parties, but would conduct local business in their local language. Was this actually the case?
I don't know the answer but would counter with a question of why would we think this? Latin displaces native languages in other parts of the Western Empire, so may have done so here. We do have graffiti evidence of lower class latin use in towns I think. But I don't think we can be firm on the subject either way.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 20, 2018, 09:18:10 AM
Does anyone know just how far down the British social tree Latin was the primary language?
My impression of Roman Britain, right or wrong, is that everyone who was anyone could speak Latin and hold their own in literary allusions at dinner parties, but would conduct local business in their local language. Was this actually the case?
https://www.academia.edu/1191199/Literacy_in_Roman_Britain_the_epigraphical_evidence might interest you
I know that there's a lot of poor quality latin used in curse tablets and in graffiti on pottery and roof tiles
But I would still maintain that even if the rural poor did speak poor Latin it has not transferred into English. I would expect baby words or some agricultural terms to make the leap.. but it appears not to and those Celtic areas of upland or forest that do survive use things like Celtic counting systems.
Roy
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 20, 2018, 10:31:50 AM
https://www.academia.edu/1191199/Literacy_in_Roman_Britain_the_epigraphical_evidence might interest you
I know that there's a lot of poor quality latin used in curse tablets and in graffiti on pottery and roof tiles
Interesting; thanks, Jim. I had not realised there was so much of it about.
Quote from: aligern on September 20, 2018, 05:47:59 PM
But I would still maintain that even if the rural poor did speak poor Latin it has not transferred into English.
I do not know enough to be sure on this point, but am inclined to agree. Our live animals and food crops seem to be unabashedly un-Latin, as are our traditional measures of land, quantity etc. The occasional four-letter word with Latin roots is traceable, but the basic rural vocabulary appears to be substantially Latin-free.
one thing to remember is that the highland/celtic zones for want of a better word had closer access to the written word (ie the church) and a more intact elite which could reinforce the dominate language present. In the lowland/proto Enlgish zones, the elites have gone/been killed potentially leaving a pagan vacuum with illiterate peasantry and A-S incomers/ex foederati. Lack of writing/reading could lead to the erosion of the previously dominant language be that british or latin. Also we are assuming that the lowland peasants all spoke latin or that they ONLY spoke latin. We should not assume that people (even lower peasantry) could only speak one language. I suspect most people were at least bilingual (reference modern day NW Wales for instance) for necessity. If many foederati and regular soldiers were germanic and for several centuries then its possible the use of a generic germanic language for every day use was quite widespread
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 20, 2018, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 20, 2018, 10:31:50 AM
https://www.academia.edu/1191199/Literacy_in_Roman_Britain_the_epigraphical_evidence might interest you
I know that there's a lot of poor quality latin used in curse tablets and in graffiti on pottery and roof tiles
Interesting; thanks, Jim. I had not realised there was so much of it about.
It's quite amazing how much there is!
Jim
Quote from: Holly on September 20, 2018, 08:28:57 PM
one thing to remember is that the highland/celtic zones for want of a better word had closer access to the written word (ie the church) and a more intact elite which could reinforce the dominate language present. In the lowland/proto Enlgish zones, the elites have gone/been killed potentially leaving a pagan vacuum with illiterate peasantry and A-S incomers/ex foederati. Lack of writing/reading could lead to the erosion of the previously dominant language be that british or latin. Also we are assuming that the lowland peasants all spoke latin or that they ONLY spoke latin. We should not assume that people (even lower peasantry) could only speak one language. I suspect most people were at least bilingual (reference modern day NW Wales for instance) for necessity. If many foederati and regular soldiers were germanic and for several centuries then its possible the use of a generic germanic language for every day use was quite widespread
Have we any idea just how many Laeti had been settled in Roman Britain, probably in the lowland zone? It's perfectly possible that some areas were using german dialects 'at home' in the 4th century
absolutely Jim and I read a proposal somewhere (cant remember for the moment where ... d'oh) that at least one A-S dialect was a kind of Britain specific 'pidgeon' language adopted by many groups as a common language to use
Quote from: Holly on September 20, 2018, 08:59:46 PM
absolutely Jim and I read a proposal somewhere (cant remember for the moment where ... d'oh) that at least one A-S dialect was a kind of Britain specific 'pidgeon' language adopted by many groups as a common language to use
How celtic was the language spoken in Roman Britain anyway?
Hardly definitive but an interesting round up of ideas
http://www.proto-english.org/l4.html
thanks Jim, very interesting site and although not the one I was thinking of it does also speak of common language adoption for many dialects of an established language (in this case proto English)
just spent the last hour reading through the site :)
The topic is a mess. The last 2-3 years I've been (re)reading more and more on the topic becoming more and more interested in this specific period.
Dancing away from my main loves... Rome, Greece, Napoleonics and Late Middle Ages. I found it a fascinating period both in general and specifically for a future wargaming project.
It is however a clusterfuck. And reading can be fascinating but also aggrevatingly dry and repetitive. And that's coming from an historian by education.
The way each author tries to give his own spin on very very meagre sources and info to work with...
There is a lot of thrash out there. (ex. Look the names are similar... I found Camelot!!!)
There are a lot of unnuanced but very useful general works.
And there seem to be only a few main positions in the debate.
Arthur is a myth vs Arthur is a fact vs Arthus is a partial myth.
The written worth is all vs archaeology is all vs both are useful.
And added you have both historiographical conservatism vs progressivism.
Frankly I tend to side with the conservatism usually. Recent times have had an annoying habit of trying to turn the interpretation of history a bit too 'PC'.
A bit too 'we all got along' and 'not much sign of conflict'.
The Sub Roman / Romano British / Age of Tyrants era is just another example of it.
HOWEVER... I do agree that overall traditional historiography can be a bit too cynical. Most likely there was conflict AND peaceful migration.
But mass migration + importing of mercenaries on a grand scale will never be a clean conflictless process. Writers trying to sell that are naive in my eyes.
Heck we still can't handle mass migration without conflict now...
And the decent works have theorized Arthur being everything from an amalgation to a Roman Cavalry Commander, a magistrate, a king, a warlord, etc etc.
And I doubt we'll ever know much more.
...I wish people were more honest about that. But too many authors and shows seem to push the 'we found the truth' narrative.
On the other hand I do like an author who clearly underlines based on the info beforehand these are the scenarios I envisage as likely. (but never certain)
Unfortunately for serious Arthurian scholars, we have to acknowledge that Arthur has a popular face, fed by romantic tales, Victorian histories, modern fiction and film and even modern paganism. Attempts to cash in on this popular side are pretty inevitable (try visiting Glastonbury or Tintagel). Against that tide, historians and archaeologists have to battle. Sometimes they colude - I can't be the only one to have visited South Cadbury because of Alcock's "Camelot" connection. But often they are reduced to trying to grab viewers or readers and give them a shake up, which i suppose the makers of this programme were doing. It was far too short and narrow in focus to give nuanced view so focussed on "modern archaeology doesn't support the popular view" approach.
The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period
Quote from: Holly on September 24, 2018, 08:52:59 PM
The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period
Yes, try and work out what the world was like before seeing if there was an Arthur to fit into it 8)
Quote from: Jim Webster on September 24, 2018, 10:24:06 PM
Quote from: Holly on September 24, 2018, 08:52:59 PM
The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period
Yes, try and work out what the world was like before seeing if there was an Arthur to fit into it 8)
Exactly Jim, its just too messy otherwise. I've spent too many hours going down rabbit holes before discovering other rabbit holes to explore and ending up with a headache. If Arthur did exist (in whatever shape form or flavour) I prefer to parachute him into the timeline rather than build a world around him
Quote from: Holly on September 24, 2018, 08:52:59 PM
The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period
While I agree, this won't sell an archaeology programme to a commissioning editor, or a popular book to a publisher. Even if you take the approach, best to put Arthur on the cover :)
Quote from: Erpingham on September 25, 2018, 08:06:00 AM
Quote from: Holly on September 24, 2018, 08:52:59 PM
The more I read, the more I try to steer away from Arthurian flavoured arguments and go for the holistic approach to that time period
While I agree, this won't sell an archaeology programme to a commissioning editor, or a popular book to a publisher. Even if you take the approach, best to put Arthur on the cover :)
or gets lots of money to flow into Tintagel lol ;-)
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 24, 2018, 03:41:24 PM
It is however a clusterfuck. And reading can be fascinating but also aggrevatingly dry and repetitive. And that's coming from an historian by education.
...but
Dux Bellorum is a fun set of rules. 8)
Quote from: NickHarbud on September 25, 2018, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 24, 2018, 03:41:24 PM
It is however a clusterfuck. And reading can be fascinating but also aggrevatingly dry and repetitive. And that's coming from an historian by education.
...but Dux Bellorum is a fun set of rules. 8)
It's the one I'll be using or Kings of War Historical.
Probs Dux.
As for Arthur I'll be portraying him as a Romano Brittish Warlord with a more 'disciplined' Late Roman inspired force bulked out with some traditional Welsh looking militia. Probably.
Gave up on Gidlow's "The Reign of Arthur". Not because it was bad.
But simply because i'm tired of the same circular discussions of interpreting and reinterpreting the same archaelogical findings, sources etc.
I'm sticking with my interpretation.
And what 'my' personal Romano Brittish Warlord will be like.
Same with my Early Saxons.
On a sidenote purely for the wargaming aspect I adore "Warhammer Historical's sourcebook on the Age of Arthur".
Very yummie as inspiration for armies, paintschemes and different scenario's.
I sympathise with your research. Many years ago I acquired a copy of King Arthur In Legend and History edited by Richard White, which basically examines how Arthur is protrayed in all the various European sources from Nennius up to about 1600, including the German view of Arthur.
Can you believe it? :o
This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.
Quote from: NickHarbud on September 27, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
I sympathise with your research. Many years ago I acquired a copy of King Arthur In Legend and History edited by Richard White, which basically examines how Arthur is protrayed in all the various European sources from Nennius up to about 1600, including the German view of Arthur.
Can you believe it? :o
This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.
On the plus side gives a lot of scope for personalizing the wargame experience!
exactly!
Quote from: NickHarbud on September 27, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.
The truth is out there ... being found is of course another matter. A search by someone without an agenda might be revealing, but someone without an agenda probably would not make the search.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 27, 2018, 07:13:00 PM
Quote from: NickHarbud on September 27, 2018, 04:54:53 PM
This convinced me that there is no 'truth' to be found, only 'interpretations'.
The truth is out there ... being found is of course another matter. A search by someone without an agenda might be revealing, but someone without an agenda probably would not make the search.
Well the truth might not be out there.
It'll depend on the proof (material and written) that actually still exists.
A lot of our historical knowledge may remain highly flawed about this but also many other topics purely because... we'll never end up the wiser.
A shame so much what was written and constructed is destroyed.
There are shades of the truth.....it's just what level we are prepared to accept
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 27, 2018, 07:16:57 PM
Well the truth might not be out there.
I think a good, thorough dig in the general vicinity of Colchester castle could be quite enlightening. If possible, extensive ground radar mapping should precede any such effort.
QuoteA shame so much what was written and constructed is destroyed.
Seconded. These 'peacefully infiltrating' Anglo-Saxons have much to answer for ... ;)
Quote from: Holly on September 27, 2018, 08:15:56 PM
There are shades of the truth.....it's just what level we are prepared to accept
Auditioning for Donald Trump's press officer? :)
Short of some dramatic finds, we are unlikely to be able to prove or disprove Arthur's existence but we do keep collecting evidence about the historical period, so we may be able to get closer to the general social and political position. Or perhaps not.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 28, 2018, 08:11:51 AM
I think a good, thorough dig in the general vicinity of Colchester castle could be quite enlightening. If possible, extensive ground radar mapping should precede any such effort.
Here (https://colchesterheritage.co.uk/monument/mcc1732) is a summary of the work done on Colchester Castle already.
The logic for an Arthur is compelling, but not tge only interpretation. The English have separate settlements that form small coastal and possibly inland kingdoms, often dikes indicate the moving frontiers of these kingdoms. There is a high likelihood of the English advance being halted in the early sixth century which leads to some colonists leaving and moving across the Channel. There is then Gildas period of peace which is ended by a renewed English advance. That all the small kingdoms of the English stop advancing at tge same time is significant. The simplest , but not sole, explanation for this hiatus in the advance is that the Britons united to outnumber the English and thus dealt them a series of blows....or one large blow to a united English army, though Arthur's twelve battles legend is suggestive of repeated blows. . Again the simplest explanation is that they had a war leader who brought this about. If our reading of Gildas suggests that this is not Ambrosius then Arthur will do. That Arthur, if he existed, is not a king , or at least not a king of a Western kingdom, is highly,likely because he is not claimed by one of the later Welsh kingdoms. To me that makes it likely that an Arthur figure would emerge from the most Romanised area of Britain where it is most likely that non regal structures survived for a while, capable of throwing up a leader without a dynasty whose base and lineage would disappear after him.
Roy
Or that if he did exist he might have been a 'non-Briton'.....?
Quote from: Holly on September 28, 2018, 11:53:43 AM
Or that if he did exist he might have been a 'non-Briton'.....?
Non Briton leading the Britons or just an entirely different nation having an 'Arthur' fighting the Saxons?
That seems unlikely given that what little basis there is for Arthur is linked to the Britons fighting the Saxons.
Or do you refer to non Romanized Britons or just a non Briton taking leadership in the event?
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 28, 2018, 03:46:45 PMNon Briton leading the Britons or just an entirely different nation having an 'Arthur' fighting the Saxons?
Perhaps a reference to the idea that Arthur had Irish connections (mentioned here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2516.120)).
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 28, 2018, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 28, 2018, 03:46:45 PMNon Briton leading the Britons or just an entirely different nation having an 'Arthur' fighting the Saxons?
Perhaps a reference to the idea that Arthur had Irish connections (mentioned here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2516.120)).
beat me to it Duncan
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 28, 2018, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 28, 2018, 03:46:45 PMNon Briton leading the Britons or just an entirely different nation having an 'Arthur' fighting the Saxons?
Perhaps a reference to the idea that Arthur had Irish connections (mentioned here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2516.120)).
Interesting thread I say! :)
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 28, 2018, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 28, 2018, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 28, 2018, 03:46:45 PMNon Briton leading the Britons or just an entirely different nation having an 'Arthur' fighting the Saxons?
Perhaps a reference to the idea that Arthur had Irish connections (mentioned here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2516.120)).
Interesting thread I say! :)
lots and lots of stuff there for the rabbit hole ;-)
Quote from: Holly on September 28, 2018, 04:16:15 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 28, 2018, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on September 28, 2018, 04:02:50 PM
Quote from: Darthvegeta800 on September 28, 2018, 03:46:45 PMNon Briton leading the Britons or just an entirely different nation having an 'Arthur' fighting the Saxons?
Perhaps a reference to the idea that Arthur had Irish connections (mentioned here (http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2516.120)).
Interesting thread I say! :)
lots and lots of stuff there for the rabbit hole ;-)
Got a lot of ideas for my 15mm project next year.
That thread will add to the pile! :)
good news! I love it when a thread or article inspires a project :)
Quote from: Erpingham on September 28, 2018, 08:31:21 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on September 28, 2018, 08:11:51 AM
I think a good, thorough dig in the general vicinity of Colchester castle could be quite enlightening. If possible, extensive ground radar mapping should precede any such effort.
Here (https://colchesterheritage.co.uk/monument/mcc1732) is a summary of the work done on Colchester Castle already.
Thanks for that, Anthony. I think they do need to squeeze in some ground radar mapping in the vicinity.
I would not expect anything from the castle itself, given that it is a Norman construction reusing a lot of Roman brickwork and built on the old Temple of Claudius. But the area around the castle/Temple of Claudius would presumably have been the nerve centre of Roman and even post-Roman Colchester, so if there is any thing interesting to find from the period it should be around there.