Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Imperial Dave]

indeed Jim. I am reluctant to put too much (emphatic) faith in writings that have been copied and recopied over centuries by people unknown to us in a time of uncertainty and not only hundreds of years from the events but also a millennia from our own time

Holistic approaches for me I'm afraid. Start from the bottom up and avoid deductive 'leaps'

Occam's razor

[Erpingham]

Given the nature of the record (a short, pretty uninformative annal entry) and the fact that it includes Welsh words, the possibility it comes from an earlier Welsh-language annal is pretty good.  Doesn't mean its accurate of course.

[Patrick Waterson]

Given the nature of the record (a short, pretty uninformative annal entry) and the fact that it includes Welsh words, the possibility it comes from an earlier Welsh-language annal is pretty good.  Doesn't mean its accurate of course.

Or that it is necessarily total imagination.  Essentially it is there, and we can grow it until it touches other mentions or trim it to stubble as we think best.

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."

I suspect the fact that both are mentioned and nobody else is ipso facto puts them on opposite sides; it depends upon period convention: did chroniclers customarily mention the leader of each army or only those on one side?  Even the Egyptians, who customarily denied opponents a mention by name, made reference to an opponent's existence (usually as 'the vile fallen one of [insert territory]").

If Medraut derives from Moderatus, such nomenclature at least suggests a Romanised continuity in leadership since Aurelius Ambrosius, which would at least drop several aspiring Welsh pennaths and associated legends out of the Arthurian window.  Such linguistically-based defenestration may not of itself be conclusive, but it may be usefully indicative.

[aligern]

I think it nonsense that Arthur would have had a centre of power in Essex. The most sensible interpretation is that the Badon battle occurs far to the West, the Britons being under severe threat from  combined Saxon force. The  Saxons besiege a key linking hillfort , Baydon being a good possibility because of its control of routes, the Britons relieve the hill fort and destroy the combined Saxon army.
The Saxon firce has to be bigger than that of one statelet because the battle changes the strategic galance to the point where they are quiet for 50 years...sorry, but some little local victory will not do.

The Britons had suppisedly been driven back before 'Baydon'. If one imagines Arthur winning a series of victories beforehand that pen the Saxons back, then it is likely that they are restricted to the periphery and that any actions would be local, against Kent , Sussex, Anglia, Essex, not a combined force and a big victory against one little kingdom would not pin back the others. To be combined and to be putting out a force whose defeat would end aggression for a generation or more, the Saxons have to be further West.
When the advance renews it is to the West , taking in a drive on Hampshire and culminating in a devisive battle at Dyrrham in 577. It is logical to assume that the strategic drivers are the same.
The big threat before 'Baydon' is Aelle in Sussex, after the battle Sussex is a backwater. After a the battle many Saxons withdraw and settle in Gaul, likely in Normandy. That does not argue for action  in Essex , but down the Roman road from the Severn via Baydon to Sussex and Kent.
That some 700 years later a novelist  decides to give Arthur a 'capital'  based on one of the chief towns of a much earlier Roman Britain is no argument at all for earlier events, only for how mediaeval authors trawled the past to find suitable names and locations for romances...a bit of period flavour..no more!
Roy

[Imperial Dave]

Given the nature of the record (a short, pretty uninformative annal entry) and the fact that it includes Welsh words, the possibility it comes from an earlier Welsh-language annal is pretty good.  Doesn't mean its accurate of course.

Or that it is necessarily total imagination.  Essentially it is there, and we can grow it until it touches other mentions or trim it to stubble as we think best.

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."

I suspect the fact that both are mentioned and nobody else is ipso facto puts them on opposite sides; it depends upon period convention: did chroniclers customarily mention the leader of each army or only those on one side?  Even the Egyptians, who customarily denied opponents a mention by name, made reference to an opponent's existence (usually as 'the vile fallen one of [insert territory]").

If Medraut derives from Moderatus, such nomenclature at least suggests a Romanised continuity in leadership since Aurelius Ambrosius, which would at least drop several aspiring Welsh pennaths and associated legends out of the Arthurian window.  Such linguistically-based defenestration may not of itself be conclusive, but it may be usefully indicative.

I think contemporary convention is that if the names are mentioned using "with" it means together and if names are mentioned using "and" it means against 

[Erpingham]

I think this is one where there is no good reason to doubt the basic tradition that they were on opposite sides (if only because there is no counter tradition of them being on the same side).  Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us much more.  We can disregard the various parentage traditions, as they are late and contradictory.  But Medraut could be a rebel, a rival, a warlord, a ruler etc., etc.

Incidentally, be interested in Patrick's view on the date, as it doesn't seem to fit with his 5th century Arthur.

[Imperial Dave]

dates are a minefield as all we really have to go on is written 'evidence' and as anyone who has tried to calibrate the various texts and decipher these into years or even decades hits plenty of obstacles. Some of the dates are so wildly at odds with each other that in fact they could with a squinty eye support the 2 - Arthurs argument. ie one in the 5th and one in the 6th. I am not sold on 'Arthur' per se but 2 main  leaders in the 5th and 6th has a lot going for it

[aligern]

Presumably you are going to fit Vortigern et fils and Ambrosius Aurelianus into the sequence too?
It will get quite crowded.
Roy

[Erpingham]

Given what we know of Arthur, assuming he existed, he could be a contemporary of these better recorded figures.  He could even be one of them, under a different name.  Because of the "Arthur" industry, we tend to think of a great political leader, maybe with a Roman title.  Yet maybe he was a more junior figure originally, the commander of someone's comitatus or teulu perhaps, with a reputation as a battle winner.  But you pay your money and you take your choice - the decisive evidence eludes us.

[Jim Webster]

I think this is one where there is no good reason to doubt the basic tradition that they were on opposite sides (if only because there is no counter tradition of them being on the same side).  Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us much more.  We can disregard the various parentage traditions, as they are late and contradictory.  But Medraut could be a rebel, a rival, a warlord, a ruler etc., etc.

Or Arthur's horse ?   

[Imperial Dave]

We almost have to 'ignore' what written stuff there is for the period or use it as supporting evidence and not primary evidence for what we think happened. Archaeology/topography is the main tool to use supplemented with philology, as mentioned written sources (vague and infrequent that they are), and bookended with firm dated/attested events

Whats left is theory and postulation based upon a fractured jigsaw with some of the pieces missing

I still maintain that Occam's razor still applies here no matter how romantic the notions we hold dear on this subject

[Patrick Waterson]

Incidentally, be interested in Patrick's view on the date, as it doesn't seem to fit with his 5th century Arthur.

Not sure yours truly necessarily had a 5th century Arthur, and I have been concentrating on the geography rather than the history.  The latter is a somewhat more involved topic.

I think it nonsense that Arthur would have had a centre of power in Essex.

Not necessarily nonsense: one's centre of power need not coincide with one's focus of campaigning unless both were exceedingly small - or rather incorrigibly local.

[Erpingham]

Not sure yours truly necessarily had a 5th century Arthur, and I have been concentrating on the geography rather than the history.  The latter is a somewhat more involved topic.

I apologise - I had read an earlier post as implying Arthur came in the period after the British appeal to Rome as meaning soon after as opposed to many years after. 

However, speculating around geography based on place names recorded much later is risky.  Why do we not focus on the Welsh tradition that Arthur's court was at Celliwig in Cornwall, for example.  Or the tradition recorded by Gerald of Wales and Geoffrey of Monmouth that his capital was Caerleon?  Yes, we can decide he had lots of bases all over Britain but to so do presumes a level of coherence of Britain in the post-Roman period.  Does this fit our other sources and the archaeology?

[Imperial Dave]

Not sure yours truly necessarily had a 5th century Arthur, and I have been concentrating on the geography rather than the history.  The latter is a somewhat more involved topic.

I apologise - I had read an earlier post as implying Arthur came in the period after the British appeal to Rome as meaning soon after as opposed to many years after. 

However, speculating around geography based on place names recorded much later is risky.  Why do we not focus on the Welsh tradition that Arthur's court was at Celliwig in Cornwall, for example.  Or the tradition recorded by Gerald of Wales and Geoffrey of Monmouth that his capital was Caerleon?  Yes, we can decide he had lots of bases all over Britain but to so do presumes a level of coherence of Britain in the post-Roman period.  Does this fit our other sources and the archaeology?

This is the nub of one of the main problems with 'research' and the rabbit hole to which I have fallen in many a time in the past eg Celliwig or Gelliwig or Celliwic or Gelliwic etc etc can mean any number of places in Britain and not necessarily where the traditional spots lie. Assuming we take the placename to denote a grove of some description that could be anywhere and if it is in an area where transmogrification of the placename has occurred though Anglicization we are groping ever more in the dark.... as an aside there are plenty of placenames of this ilk in the area I live (along with similar ones for Kernew etc) but doesnt necessarily mean I accept them as 'the one' truth

[Patrick Waterson]

Not sure yours truly necessarily had a 5th century Arthur, and I have been concentrating on the geography rather than the history.  The latter is a somewhat more involved topic.

I apologise - I had read an earlier post as implying Arthur came in the period after the British appeal to Rome as meaning soon after as opposed to many years after. 

No need for an apology - on rereading, it did look as if that is what I was implying.  Out of interest, the Wikipedia article on Mons Badonicus has attempted to close in on a date for Arthur, and bringing together all the source information and archaeology it can muster, puts the battle in a bracket c.AD 491-500, so this would give us an Arthur on the cusp of the 5th and 6th centuries AD, backed by the apparent accord of a fair portion of our scanty source material.

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.