Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Imperial Dave]

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.

agreed and a very good point Rich.

as to your point about Badon, if we use the Baedd root word,  it opens up a whole load of possibilities and an obvious connection to the Mabinogion stories and specifically the Twrch Trwyth

Another phonetic goody bag is if we look at Camlann (if we assume it was a real battle). Everyone plumps for Cam meaning crooked but not many go for the mispelled Cam as in the Cam in Annales Cambriae. This is a latinisation/corruption of Cymru/Cymbrogi/Kymri etc etc which could thus translate as enclosure or church of the 'Welsh' (assuming the Cambriae get shortened to Cam of course )

Another one is that Camlann is a shortened version of Cae(r) mawr llan or large fortified (enclosed) field by/of the church

There is even a suggestion that Camlann and Camelot are actually one and the same (pronounce the l singularly in Camlann to see what i mean)

layer upon layer 

[Patrick Waterson]

(cf. Graupius and Grampian)

Doesn't Grampian come from Mons Graupius, rather than the other way round?

Doubtless so.  It is the relationship that is intriguing, especially in view of Richard's point about the origin of 'Badenoch'.  I would assume a similar process at work there, although I think Richard has matters the wrong way round: the later Scots pronunciation would vary from the original rather than the original copying the later Scots pronunciation.  It is still close enough to be noticeable.

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.

It does look that way, and not just in my little grey cells.   We see Britain turning out its own emperors from AD 406, and it is never reconquered by the declining Western Empire.  The (British) emperor Constantine III - who seems to be the pattern for Arthur's supposed continental ventures, perhaps part of the accumulation of legend process Dave was referring to - then drains the remaining Roman regulars out of Britannia in AD 410 in order to seize the parts of Gaul the barbarians have not reached, so that when he dies he leaves both a tradition of home-grown united imperium and a land deficient in troops.  We rather lose sight of Britannia thereafter until Ambrosius Aurelianus appears through a glass darkly in what appears to be the 5th century AD.  Then there are discontinuous flashes of Uther Pendragon and Arthur himself, but we would seem to be justified in drawing the conclusion that Britannia was habitually subject to one-man rule (as opposed to consisting of four shared provinces) during the 5th and 6th centuries AD - at least for those parts not being trampled by Saxon invaders.  The traditional tribal kings would of course retain or regain their traditional tribal status, but we seem to have continuity for a sort of overall Roman (or sub-Roman) military command.

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.

We could indeed, although if they were in Arthur's way and fought against him, I suppose it does not particularly matter whether they were  intruding Saxons or just 'Sax-conscious' fifth-generation settlers.  Assuming the victories existed, Arthur won just the same.

[Imperial Dave]

ok this will bake your noodle

what if the 4 provinces of 4th/5th C Britain go their separate ways as the 5th Century progresses and we have competing warlords surfacing based upon the old province 'headquarters' or capitals. They use existing troops stationed in the provinces (whats left) and possibly supplement with warbands from the continent. Occasionally one leader.Dux/'King' is overlord to the others by treaty/warfare such as is suggested in the warlord Vortigern in the 5th Century. If we accept this then it starts to make more sense with regards to how/where battles occur and why we might have Brythonic sounding leaders leading 'Saxon' armies. For example Ceredig that most famous 'Saxon' coud actually be Caradog (and there is one handily floating around at the time of Cerdig's supposed floruit)

[Nick Harbud]

Of course, around here Camelot refers to a location for parking one's traditional means of transport.... 

[Imperial Dave]

boom tish....you're there all week....

[valentinianvictor]

I thought it was the campaign of Riothamus that was the inspiration for the continental adventures of Arthur? That and recent research that indicates Riothamus may have been borne mortally wounded to the what was the Isle of Avallon in Burgandy?

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

[Imperial Dave]

it is a tempting proposition especially if we look closely at the timing and thus the potential command 'structures' of Roman Britain at the time. Could Riothamus be a Dux or Comes Britannianum? Very possibly given the solidity of the Apollinaris letter (but assuming the inference of the contents) and the near contemporary Jordanes work

Is he 'Arthur' though?

possibly one of the pieces of jigsaw that make up the legend of several people (IMHO) attributed to the Arthur figurehead

[valentinianvictor]

An old friend, sadly now no longer with us, knew a local historian in Kent very well and that historian was convinced the Battle of Badon was actually in the Dover area. Hengist and Horsa have a connection to Kent as we know and one of those brothers was long rumoured to be buried in a long boat burial at Capel-le-Ferne nr Folkestone. The historian had a theory that perhaps the old Roman fort on top of the hill where Dover Castle now stands could well have been the site of the original Camelot.

[Patrick Waterson]

what if the 4 provinces of 4th/5th C Britain go their separate ways as the 5th Century progresses and we have competing warlords surfacing based upon the old province 'headquarters' or capitals. They use existing troops stationed in the provinces (whats left) and possibly supplement with warbands from the continent. Occasionally one leader.Dux/'King' is overlord to the others by treaty/warfare such as is suggested in the warlord Vortigern in the 5th Century. If we accept this then it starts to make more sense with regards to how/where battles occur and why we might have Brythonic sounding leaders leading 'Saxon' armies. For example Ceredig that most famous 'Saxon' coud actually be Caradog (and there is one handily floating around at the time of Cerdig's supposed floruit)

This sounds feasible; a mix of traditional Celtic disunity with an overlay or afterglow of unified Roman authority recast as a form of High Kingship.

I thought it was the campaign of Riothamus that was the inspiration for the continental adventures of Arthur?

Riothamus seems to have come from Brittany as opposed to Britain; there is of course nothing to prevent a Breton bard adding his deeds to a developing Arthurian legend.

[valentinianvictor]

what if the 4 provinces of 4th/5th C Britain go their separate ways as the 5th Century progresses and we have competing warlords surfacing based upon the old province 'headquarters' or capitals. They use existing troops stationed in the provinces (whats left) and possibly supplement with warbands from the continent. Occasionally one leader.Dux/'King' is overlord to the others by treaty/warfare such as is suggested in the warlord Vortigern in the 5th Century. If we accept this then it starts to make more sense with regards to how/where battles occur and why we might have Brythonic sounding leaders leading 'Saxon' armies. For example Ceredig that most famous 'Saxon' coud actually be Caradog (and there is one handily floating around at the time of Cerdig's supposed floruit)

This sounds feasible; a mix of traditional Celtic disunity with an overlay or afterglow of unified Roman authority recast as a form of High Kingship.

I thought it was the campaign of Riothamus that was the inspiration for the continental adventures of Arthur?

Riothamus seems to have come from Brittany as opposed to Britain; there is of course nothing to prevent a Breton bard adding his deeds to a developing Arthurian legend.

Brittany and Briton itself could have been considered almost one and the same at that time period as Brittany was so-named after the Britons settled there. It's tempting to link Riothamus with his army of 12,000 to the death of Arthur.

[aligern]

 As I understood it the provincial ortanisation  of Roman Britain had no life beyond the imperial organisation.  Governance defaulted down to the civitates, which had been based on the original tribal territories. The provinces had no forces and no piwer base, tax collection, in so far as it continued stopped at the civitats level , so they could afford to suppirt some troops, the local aristocrats who sat in the civitas and Saxon or Irish federates, who could be paid and given land. Above the civitates there existed originally an overall leadership, Vortigern, who may well have been chosen by the civitates, perhaps as a war leader, but his power was consesual and he led only one successor state.
I have my doubts to what extent the civitates states actually represented a resurgence of tribalism as opposed to them just being based upon tribal teritories. Tge Roman Empire relied upon taxes to pay the army which then spent my st of the money locally on consumables. Once the imperial power went tax collection on a kevel above the civitas would cease and army units would disband because they were not local units and were probably above the level of force the locality near them could support. Hence the fleet would disappear, the garrison on the wall would disband, the Saxon shore organisation would cease, unless lije Pevensey, the  fortification suited the local civitas to support.
Post Roman organisation in Gaul and Spain followed this pattern. When imperial control was lost the next level of organisation that functioned was the civitas, a city with a dependent, once tribal, territory, was the default. Even though the lost provinces were large and still rich they had no higher organisation that could stand up to even 5000 barbarian warriors.... local govt. alone was not enough.

[Sharur]

I agree with Mick (Hession) on this. If you've read and digested Guy Halsall's "Worlds of Arthur", there's nothing much worth saying beyond it on any potential "historical" Arthur. And as Dave (Hollin) noted, you can waste huge amounts of time and effort finding that out for yourself the hard way.

If you feel inclined though, I'd certainly recommend a decent trawl through some of the medieval sources of legend, as they have their own charms and points of interest, so long as you're happy to go down a more fantasy gaming kind of avenue if you want to convert those ideas to the tabletop. Judging by many of the comments here, that does indeed seem a popular option for Arthur, if probably one to be cloaked in a hint of respectability as "speculative history" instead!

And if you want to avoid some of the donkey-work in such conversions, I'd recommend a look at the "King Arthur Pendragon" role-playing game (my personal preference has long been for the 4th edition, when it was still a Chaosium product, but given that was published in 1993, I rather doubt you'll still find copies easily; it always seemed to provide a better-rounded game, with a lot more for your cash, than any of its predecessors or the more recent versions, to me). It is though very much a fantasy game at its heart.

While just to add a little more oyster-grit, the first episode of the recent BBC TV archaeology series "Digging for Britain" (still available via the i-Player currently), featured a dig at Tintagel in which one of the archaeologists even referred to Geoffrey of Monmouth as if his remarks about the place after all had some relevance to the supposed major settlement they'd found there...

[Jim Webster]

Just to second Alistair's recommendation of the King Arthur Pendragon rpg.
We played the classic campaign, from the days of Uther through to Camlann. It took our characters four generations and us as players two years.
Since then we have always regarded Tristan as an all round decent bloke, the Orkney clan were good to work with, Mordred was OK but badly advised, and Morganna a perfect lady and I wouldn't have a word said against her, especially if she might come to hear of it.

But frankly Guinevere was a right pain, and as for Lancelot he never does anything, winning glory off stage and never about when there's wars to be fought. One of our survivors ended up killing him in a duel because he just irritated us so much.
(When you've lived the story for as long as we did, somehow Lancelot seems like a late addition just added to appeal to a French audience.  )

[Imperial Dave]

Along the lines of Alastair's note, I do quite like reading the more 'legendary' accounts and if you really want an interesting immersion story then look up the Mabinogion. It does have some very interesting stories that do appear to have some historical threads running through them....if you look with a careful eye

[Patrick Waterson]

Brittany and Briton itself could have been considered almost one and the same at that time period as Brittany was so-named after the Britons settled there. It's tempting to link Riothamus with his army of 12,000 to the death of Arthur.

Apart from it taking place in the wrong context and the wrong country.

As I understood it the provincial organisation  of Roman Britain had no life beyond the imperial organisation.  Governance defaulted down to the civitates, which had been based on the original tribal territories.

The provinces do seem to be a red herring or otherwise in the nature of fish beyond their use-by date.

Above the civitates there existed originally an overall leadership, Vortigern, who may well have been chosen by the civitates, perhaps as a war leader, but his power was consensual and he led only one successor state.

There would still have been the title of Dux Britanniorum floating around for anyone who had a sufficiently effective army and could use it.

I have my doubts to what extent the civitates states actually represented a resurgence of tribalism as opposed to them just being based upon tribal territories. The Roman Empire relied upon taxes to pay the army which then spent my st of the money locally on consumables. Once the imperial power went tax collection on a level above the civitas would cease and army units would disband because they were not local units and were probably above the level of force the locality near them could support.

The tribal kingships and traditions seem to have run in parallel with the Roman administration, so yes, rather than a 'resurgence' of tribalism I think it would be more a matter of the local kings carrying on with their tribal hat rather than the imperial administrative hat.  Cities of course had their own curiae still in charge from the days when their taxes went to the Emperor rather than being locally recycled.

Post Roman organisation in Gaul and Spain followed this pattern. When imperial control was lost the next level of organisation that functioned was the civitas, a city with a dependent, once tribal, territory, was the default. Even though the lost provinces were large and still rich they had no higher organisation that could stand up to even 5000 barbarian warriors.... local govt. alone was not enough.

Well observed.  It took someone who could unite the tribes and cities (easier if they were one and the same) to create and sustain the kind of army needed to reverse the trend of invaders helping themselves.

I'd recommend a look at the "King Arthur Pendragon" role-playing game (my personal preference has long been for the 4th edition, when it was still a Chaosium product, but given that was published in 1993, I rather doubt you'll still find copies easily; it always seemed to provide a better-rounded game, with a lot more for your cash, than any of its predecessors or the more recent versions, to me). It is though very much a fantasy game at its heart.

Given Greg Stafford (the designer)'s birthplace, definitely a case of a Connecticut Yankee at King Arthur's court.

One of the charms of the game is the way it begins in the Dark Ages and every decade or so shifts its armour and weapon styles a century or two along the Middle Ages, so that one can begin the 'Boy King' campaign c.AD 495 with cast-off Roman armour and by AD 540 everyone who is anyone is jousting in Gothic plate.  The problem it has as an RPG is that there is almost no scope for character improvement.  The character generation and combat systems could however with minimal effort be adapted to Homeric warfare ('Men of Bronze') and WW1 aerial combat ('Knights of the Air), for those interested in so doing: both are 'live fast, die young' environments to which the game system seems suited.