Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Erpingham]

Regarding Welsh place-names, my caveat would be that these are probably at one remove (at least) from the originals and perhaps bardically transmogrified over a century or two since the event.  In short, and for once agreeing with Dave , I would avoid them.  Names derived from Latin originals may be much more helpful.

Personally, I'd treat all the medieval ones as unreliable.  Assuming greater authenticity for French sources because their authors have produced made up names that sound a bit like Latin towns from centuries earlier seems a bit risky to me.

[Imperial Dave]

In short, and for once agreeing with Dave , I would avoid them. 

[Imperial Dave]

Regarding Welsh place-names, my caveat would be that these are probably at one remove (at least) from the originals and perhaps bardically transmogrified over a century or two since the event.  In short, and for once agreeing with Dave , I would avoid them.  Names derived from Latin originals may be much more helpful.

Personally, I'd treat all the medieval ones as unreliable.  Assuming greater authenticity for French sources because their authors have produced made up names that sound a bit like Latin towns from centuries earlier seems a bit risky to me.

me too Anthony. Just too many variables that could have influenced them.

as per Patrick's point, we have some references in Latin (some of which are reasonably contemporary) which possibly lie 'closest' to an original version (possibly mind). The Welsh or Brythonic forms are probably slightly more removed and may indeed take reference from the Latin ones (though not necessarily all). The medieval ones (later Latin/French etc) especially those written from outside of Britain are almost certainly just too far removed and muddied to give us a reliable set of names/places etc

Going back to the point of Badon (PS great shout by Duncan on using Baydon btw as a possible site for the battle - its gaining popularity through where it sits - Wiltshire & Thames basin with close proximity to Roman roads and dark age earthworks etc), I am in the camp of late 5th C for this. It would tie in with what Gildas reports and also would tie in with alot (but there are anomalies) of the burial patterns and placename work that has gone on recently ie mid 5th crisis leading to a generation or 2 of warfare culminating in Badon at the end of the 5th. A generation or 2 of relative peace and then warfare and expansion of English controlled areas in the mid 6th onwards

[Patrick Waterson]

as per Patrick's point, we have some references in Latin (some of which are reasonably contemporary) which possibly lie 'closest' to an original version (possibly mind). The Welsh or Brythonic forms are probably slightly more removed and may indeed take reference from the Latin ones (though not necessarily all). The medieval ones (later Latin/French etc) especially those written from outside of Britain are almost certainly just too far removed and muddied to give us a reliable set of names/places etc

This at least gives us an aiming-point for Occam's Razor.  If we look for Latin or Latin-ish names prior to mediaeval interpolations we cannot be going too far wrong, subject of course to the reliability and completeness of our period sources.  Cutting off from consideration off anything later or linguistically non-Latinish except as a possible indicator of something to check for in period sources would certainly simplify our task.

Going back to the point of Badon (PS great shout by Duncan on using Baydon btw as a possible site for the battle - its gaining popularity through where it sits - Wiltshire & Thames basin with close proximity to Roman roads and dark age earthworks etc),

But with a couple of minor drawbacks: despite plenty of hills, there is the noticeable lack of a nearby and convenient Mons and it has a name which is first mentioned in AD 1196 (and not, for example, in AD 1086, in the Domesday Book), which seems a bit late for Bede, Nennius et. al.

I am in the camp of late 5th C for this. It would tie in with what Gildas reports and also would tie in with a lot (but there are anomalies) of the burial patterns and placename work that has gone on recently ie mid 5th crisis leading to a generation or 2 of warfare culminating in Badon at the end of the 5th. A generation or 2 of relative peace and then warfare and expansion of English controlled areas in the mid 6th onwards

This looks to me like a convincing outline.

[aligern]

Thought I was a he first one to mention Baydon? in Wilts. Its the vanity of small differences:-))
Of course it would s just one of the candidates writers have put forward.
Roy


I would like to be able to get a plot of sight lines from the Baydon hillfort.....is this sort of thing available on the web?
Having visited it a few times , it does command the roads that the Saxons of Essex and Middlesex and Kent and Sussex would likely have used to  assemble before marching together on Cirencester, Bath and Gloucester. This is projected on the basis that the Severn valley is the heartland of those we might call Romano-Britons, the Ambrosius/ Arthur faction, based on the above towns and on Viroconium. This area was not the only one held by the Britons, but it is probably the largest and most productive of the islands of territory that are no longer penetrated. For Baydon to have strategic impirtance it must be protecting something and that would not be the area of the fort itself. Baydon is meaningful if it can communicate with the towns that lie further up the road in order to summon an army that can rescue it and defeat an invasion.
Roy

[aligern]

I'm not sure that the non appearance of Baydon in the Domesday book is much of a problem to a potential identification. However, a bigger problem is the lack of suitable archaeology in the fort, Liddington camp. near Liddington is another and rather more formidable fort, Barbury casle, which would also fit the bill. Significantly the British are defeated bear there at Beranbrygg in, I think, 556. which would fit very well into a chronology with a fifty year pause in attacks. which then restart in the mid fifth century.

Baydon Might be a British name , or a Saxon one. I think the easy certainly bties of pkace name studies , ham, ing and ton etc. have long since gone.  It is possible to have Swindon as like London or as Sweyn's dun.
Roy

[Erpingham]

If we look for Latin or Latin-ish names prior to mediaeval interpolations we cannot be going too far wrong, subject of course to the reliability and completeness of our period sources.  Cutting off from consideration off anything later or linguistically non-Latinish except as a possible indicator of something to check for in period sources would certainly simplify our task.

Well, at least that drops us having to consider Geoffrey of Monmouth or Chretien of Troyes.  No more Camelot

[rodge]

Thought I was a he first one to mention Baydon? in Wilts. Its the vanity of small differences:-))

Well you were the first to mention it to me, 15 years ago IIRC.

[Imperial Dave]

as per Patrick's point, we have some references in Latin (some of which are reasonably contemporary) which possibly lie 'closest' to an original version (possibly mind). The Welsh or Brythonic forms are probably slightly more removed and may indeed take reference from the Latin ones (though not necessarily all). The medieval ones (later Latin/French etc) especially those written from outside of Britain are almost certainly just too far removed and muddied to give us a reliable set of names/places etc

This at least gives us an aiming-point for Occam's Razor.  If we look for Latin or Latin-ish names prior to mediaeval interpolations we cannot be going too far wrong, subject of course to the reliability and completeness of our period sources.  Cutting off from consideration off anything later or linguistically non-Latinish except as a possible indicator of something to check for in period sources would certainly simplify our task.

Going back to the point of Badon (PS great shout by Duncan on using Baydon btw as a possible site for the battle - its gaining popularity through where it sits - Wiltshire & Thames basin with close proximity to Roman roads and dark age earthworks etc),

But with a couple of minor drawbacks: despite plenty of hills, there is the noticeable lack of a nearby and convenient Mons and it has a name which is first mentioned in AD 1196 (and not, for example, in AD 1086, in the Domesday Book), which seems a bit late for Bede, Nennius et. al.

I am in the camp of late 5th C for this. It would tie in with what Gildas reports and also would tie in with a lot (but there are anomalies) of the burial patterns and placename work that has gone on recently ie mid 5th crisis leading to a generation or 2 of warfare culminating in Badon at the end of the 5th. A generation or 2 of relative peace and then warfare and expansion of English controlled areas in the mid 6th onwards

This looks to me like a convincing outline.

If we want to start with  a relatively simple observation of the written sources by using contemporary or near contemporary Latin ones it does indeed allow a certain amount of 'clearing the decks' and to focus on less avenues of enquiry. However, even then we do have to factor in the author(s); their whereabouts, their political/social persuasion, 'eyewitness' or not, contemporary with the events or not and their reasons for penning what they did and the almost certain aspect of having to separate wheat from chaff. Plus then we still have to factor in copyist errors etc. Thats not to say we cant have a decent stab at it but just highlighting some of the pitfalls of using written sources (from that period in time)

re Baydon...its obviously another rabbit hole and although we cannot pour over maps forever in the vain hope of picking 'the one' by approaching the challenge with a holistic view we can perhaps use mapping along with the other evidence. eg if we propose that Badon was late 5th and we analyse patterns of burials/inhabitation and we look at roman roads plus hills/hillforts/topography and then we apply any written detail then we can make a reasonable suggestion.   

[Imperial Dave]

Thought I was a he first one to mention Baydon? in Wilts. Its the vanity of small differences:-))
Of course it would s just one of the candidates writers have put forward.
Roy


I would like to be able to get a plot of sight lines from the Baydon hillfort.....is this sort of thing available on the web?
Having visited it a few times , it does command the roads that the Saxons of Essex and Middlesex and Kent and Sussex would likely have used to  assemble before marching together on Cirencester, Bath and Gloucester. This is projected on the basis that the Severn valley is the heartland of those we might call Romano-Britons, the Ambrosius/ Arthur faction, based on the above towns and on Viroconium. This area was not the only one held by the Britons, but it is probably the largest and most productive of the islands of territory that are no longer penetrated. For Baydon to have strategic impirtance it must be protecting something and that would not be the area of the fort itself. Baydon is meaningful if it can communicate with the towns that lie further up the road in order to summon an army that can rescue it and defeat an invasion.
Roy

apologies Roy, the good shout on Baydon is yours then

re the sightlines, not sure but fieldwalking and eyeballing the ground does help. The fact that Ermine Street is there is a big plus

[Erpingham]

re Baydon...its obviously another rabbit hole and although we cannot pour over maps forever in the vain hope of picking 'the one' by approaching the challenge with a holistic view we can perhaps use mapping along with the other evidence. eg if we propose that Badon was late 5th and we analyse patterns of burials/inhabitation and we look at roman roads plus hills/hillforts/topography and then we apply any written detail then we can make a reasonable suggestion. 

It would be useful if Baydon had evidence of refortification in the appropriate period.  Any work been done on that that we know of?

I still suspect, alas, that all we can do using dave's methodology is identify the more plausible candidates or areas to search.  After that, we can generate a rough political/military framework of what late 5th century/early 6th century Britain and attempt to fit our preferred Arthur model into it.

[Patrick Waterson]

Well, at least that drops us having to consider Geoffrey of Monmouth or Chretien of Troyes.  No more Camelot

Geoffrey's source, however, should be considered, as some useful information appears to shine through Geoffrey's enthusiastic but possibly muddled account.

In particular, we can also look at Geoffrey of Monmouth's Arthurian campaigns, because these provide enough features to create a 'track' and give us a 'plot' for various sites.  Arthur is 'invested with the royal insignia' in IX.1.  In IX.2-3 he marches on York and besieges a Saxon leader named Colgrim there, learns of the arrival (by sea) of a fresh Saxon force, is reinforced by 15,000 troops from Brittany and inflicts a severe defeat on the Saxons near 'Caerludoit', which leads the latter to take refuge in 'Caledon Wood'.  The latter distinctly suggests Caledonia as the venue, so we are in Bonnie Scotland, and specifically the central part.  The Saxons who came form Germany yield up their plunder and promise to leave for home and send tribute in future.

As IX.3 moves to IX.4, the freed Saxons repent of the bargain they made and Geoffrey has them change course in mid-voyage (across the North Sea) and put in to, of all places, Totnes (not the obvious destination for a fleet off the eastern coast of England).  This puts them conveniently near Bath for the Battle of Mons Badonicus in which Arthur, Excalibur and Ron inflict a smashing defeat on the Saxons, whereupon in IX.5-6 Arthur takes up campaigning in Albany (Scotland), freeing Alclud (Strathclyde) and moving on to Moray in the north, where he besieges 'Picts and Scots' at Loch Lomond.  While he has the latter by the Trossachs, an Irish army under 'Gilmaurius' arrives by sea and is duly trounced by Arthur (and presumably Excalibur and Ron).  Arthur then takes the surrender of the 'Scots and Picts', mops up in Scotland and returns to York for Christmas.

We can readily spot the anomaly: the entire campaign, bar the intermission supposedly around Bath, takes place in Scotland.  Arthur's track goes York-'Caerludoit'-Caledon Wood-Mons Badonicus-Alclud-Moray-Loch Lomond.  Apart from a single backtrack to relieve Alclud (Strathclyde), the campaign has a natural progression if Mons Badonicus is actually in Scotland.  Superimposing this on a map of Scotland gives us the interesting feature that the mountainous area of Badenoch is very close to Moray and Loch Lomond.  That kind of coincidence deserves a second look.

Geoffrey has Cador, Dux of Cornwall, conduct his post-Mons Badonicus pursuit across the length and breadth of England, ending up at Thanet.  The Saxons he hunts (after cutting off their retreat by seizing their boats) are described as fleeing to 'secret hiding-places in the woods', 'mountains' and 'caves in the hills', which are partly but not wholly consistent with the topography of southern England whereas they accord perfectly with that of Scotland.

This approach may give us a further line of enquiry when attempting to pin down Arthurian geography.  Camelot, for example, can be retrieved from the bards like a badly-gnawed bone and seen to be Camulodunum by a similar examination of Arthur's last campaign (which Geoffrey also arbitrarily diverts to the West Country, but there are sufficient traces in his account to reconstruct its true course).

[Jim Webster]

remember that there is Arthur's seat outside Edinburgh

but there's a nice list of places with Arthurian connections here. It is probably not definitive, there are doubtless more

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

[Erpingham]

Well, I think we should be clear about what is in and out of scope.  A couple of posts ago we were up for excluding all but "period" sources - which I presuming are those pre 10th century, as everyone seems to accept Nennius.  Geoffrey of Monmouth is 12th century and therefore logically out.  If we start saying that Geoffrey of Monmouth had real traditional Welsh sources, then why do we exclude other parts of Welsh tradition, like the Red Book of Hergest or the Triads?  Geoffrey is no less strewn with fantastical elements.

It is possible that there are multiple Arthurs in the mix, not necessarily contemporary with one another.  A Northern Arthur from the British kingdoms in what is now Southern Scotland and Northern England.  A Western Arthur who hails from Cornwall, has bases in Cornwall and South Wales and fights his battles in what is now South West England.  Geoffrey has mixed these, so he has Arthur back and forth.  None of this is new really.  Short of writing another "the real Arthur revealed" alternative history, we are very short of reality to pin this to.  Roy and Dave i think have the better approach.  Construct plausible military/political/social contexts and place a great hero leader in one of them.  A hero so renowned other men may have been named for him and their deeds later confused with his.

[Imperial Dave]

re Baydon...its obviously another rabbit hole and although we cannot pour over maps forever in the vain hope of picking 'the one' by approaching the challenge with a holistic view we can perhaps use mapping along with the other evidence. eg if we propose that Badon was late 5th and we analyse patterns of burials/inhabitation and we look at roman roads plus hills/hillforts/topography and then we apply any written detail then we can make a reasonable suggestion. 

It would be useful if Baydon had evidence of refortification in the appropriate period.  Any work been done on that that we know of?

I still suspect, alas, that all we can do using dave's methodology is identify the more plausible candidates or areas to search.  After that, we can generate a rough political/military framework of what late 5th century/early 6th century Britain and attempt to fit our preferred Arthur model into it.

Not sure re the first point Anthony, I might try and do some (ahem) digging to see whats been done in the area recently-ish

re the second point....yes. Work from the bottom up. Start with what we know is concrete...try a postulation. Add succeeding layers of less concrete stuff/more suppositional reasoning and see if the theory still holds water. This will still generate a myriad of ideas and theories but it grounds you in what you know.

Thats one of the reasons why I ascribe to the '2 arthurs/leaders' theory and the '2-time' framework of SR/AS warfare. Its also relatively easy to see how a rolled up singular leader might then subsequently be attributed to part or all of the battles/areas etc that may be linked with 2 time frames.