Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Tim]

Very sadly to me the Arthur stories Geoffrey's and De Troyes seem to have more in common with Livy and Juvenal than with history.  They look back to a supposed golden age and compare it unfavourably with contemporary behaviour and events.  De Troyes especially seems to use the cover of writing about another country (England) that most of his educated audience would be familiar with, to criticise behaviour that was common by contracsting it with a noble past (and to reflect on the rpg tint here, the Chivalry & Sorcery game was set in that period because of how turbulant the times were in France and England).  The story has a lot in of themes that must have seemed common to someone living through the 12th century in France.  Being openly critical might have been fatal, so writing about the times while pretending it is about past events is a much safer option.

In think the stories tell us far more about how people in the Frankish influenced world saw themselves than it does about England in the Post Roman period.

[Imperial Dave]

Tim, seriously, if you havent already done so, read the Mabinogion

[Tim]

Holly

I have a copy sitting on that pile of things I ought to read rather than I want to read but I will get to it one day, I am sure.

Regards
Tim

[Imperial Dave]

Its a bit like reading the Silmarillion, tough in places but light bulb moments all over the place when you have things click in your head. Of course alot of it is pure story telling (at its best) but be warned there are potential historical nuggets in there and countless rabbit holes

enjoy

[Imperial Dave]

have started Jim Storr's 'King Arthur's Wars' and so far is much in line with my way of thinking. He starts off with looking at the whole amount of information around for the period and then 'cross examines' some of the long held beliefs about the period and persons involved. The chapters I am getting into now is where he looks at the topography and geography of the dark age landscape and tries to use the ground view to assess certain aspects of the period (most notably, and obviously, the battle side of things)

[Patrick Waterson]

Good hunting, and may your quest be more successful than King Pellinore's.

[Imperial Dave]

its a bit rambling in places but does make certain sense (so far) although still has an (unconscious) local slant on his thinking even though he admonishes others for doing so!

[eques]

Halsall's book was fascinating and thought provoking, but his theory falls down badly when it comes to Gildas (contemporary source) explicitly referencing a war between Saxons and Britons in which the Britons were pressed hard but eventually victorious.  And then the Britons gradually subsiding into decay from this high watermark.  To get round this Halsall comes up with all sorts of tortuous, tenuous and convoluted explanations, of exactly the sort he criticises amongst historians that do believe in Arthur.

For me "Arthur's" story comes through pretty clearly from the sources we have: Civil authority collapsed, incoming invaders took bloody advantage for a while, "Arthur" scored a few unlikely victories over the invaders (perhaps as a guerrilla leader to start with) and the prestige thereby gained enabled him to dominate the Island's politics for a while on some sort of semi-formal basis (Dux Bellorum).  He would not have completely expelled the incomers but subdued them, in the style of Alfred and the Danes.  Then, the temporary coalition he had managed to hold together for the duration of the crisis slowly collapsed once the crisis had passed.  The Britons started fighting with each other (probably making dirty deals with the Saxons as necessary) and in the process "Arthur" was defeated/assassinated/exiled (to Avalon?)

I am guessing he was probably quite a calculating and ruthless individual (like Octavian or Henry VII) rather than the noble paragon of legend.

Totally agree with Patrick on the identity of Camelot.  So obvious I'm always puzzled at how so much time and energy is spent discussing alternatives!  Never thought to conflate Camlann with it too, though, although I suppose that would make sense in the context of the "strife" of Camlann (was he killed in an urban riot like Tiberius Gracchus or Pyrrhus?)

[Imperial Dave]

assuming there was an Arthur 

interesting book by Jim Storre proposes that the british and germanics fought a series of battles and campaigns around many linear boundaries and dykes with the odd ford thrown in for good measure.

I do personally believe that some theories can be too one dimensional or seen through modern eyes. I think the period 5th-7th C is extremely chaotic on so many levels - boundaries, groupings, alliances, migrations, political/socio economics etc etc

[Patrick Waterson]

Totally agree with Patrick on the identity of Camelot.  So obvious I'm always puzzled at how so much time and energy is spent discussing alternatives!  Never thought to conflate Camlann with it too, though, although I suppose that would make sense in the context of the "strife" of Camlann (was he killed in an urban riot like Tiberius Gracchus or Pyrrhus?)

I see Camlann as being Chelmsford, the point at which the river Chelmer ceases to be navigable and thus a natural rendezvous point for a British usurper of the Mordred persuasion and his unscrupulous Saxon allies arriving by ship from Europe.  It also covers the route from Londinium to Camulodunum, so is a useful blocking position to stop the rightful king marching on the capital - and hence a logical site for a battle.

assuming there was an Arthur 

If there was not, someone had a lot of fun dreaming him up and selling the idea to future generations.

[Imperial Dave]

indeed Patrick.

assuming there was a Mordred and a Camlann too

[Jim Webster]

indeed Patrick.

assuming there was a Mordred and a Camlann too

If I'm right the only mention we have of Mordred is the one line which says something like "Battle of Camlann, Arthur and Mordred Killed."

No hint that they were on opposite sides

[Erpingham]

indeed Patrick.

assuming there was a Mordred and a Camlann too

If I'm right the only mention we have of Mordred is the one line which says something like "Battle of Camlann, Arthur and Mordred Killed."

No hint that they were on opposite sides

    Gueith Camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruerunt.
    "The strife of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell."

Medraut/Mordred apparently derives from the latin moderatus and may be a by-name, so perhaps we don't have his actual name at all.

[Imperial Dave]

indeed Patrick.

assuming there was a Mordred and a Camlann too

If I'm right the only mention we have of Mordred is the one line which says something like "Battle of Camlann, Arthur and Mordred Killed."

No hint that they were on opposite sides

    Gueith Camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruerunt.
    "The strife of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell."

Medraut/Mordred apparently derives from the latin moderatus and may be a by-name, so perhaps we don't have his actual name at all.

also source is Annales Cambriae written form approx 400 years after the events so not exactly contemporary

[Jim Webster]

interestingly a similar distance that separates Plutarch, Quintus Curtius Rufus, and Arrian from Alexander.
Of course we postulate lost sources available to them but lost to us