Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Imperial Dave]

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

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. 

Everybody follows the same rabbit hole for this one. Its not as clear cut as everyone imagines (possibly). I am for a moment pausing on one aspect of place name chasing which I gave up some time ago as a singular means of pinpointing a battlesite although can support a holistically reasoned choice using multi supporting evidence.

Cat Coit Caledon/Celidon

Cat = normally 'battle'
Coit = normally 'wood'

so no gremlins there potentially

Caledon/Celidon......could be related to Caledonia ie very Northern Britain

but if we dissect the name into potential components (assuming it doesnt relate to Caledonia) we could end up with:

Cal(d) a prefix for cold from old English or Cal a prefix for hot from Latin!
i/e = y in Brythonic = the/of the
don = hill or valley or even fort

so we could have cold fort, cold valley, cold hill (or hot!). Interestingly we have many Caldecotts/Caldicots/Caldecots and are normally associated with Roman roads and possibly refer to Roman shelters/way stations (one interpretation) so the root word isnt terribly far away (if we are playing the game )

admitedly its a mish mash of different root words but the (Historia Brittonum) reference is from the 9th century and plenty of time for this to happen (as has happened elsewhere!)

another possibility is

Cil rather than Cel/Cal

In this instance the cil is a 'corner' or refuge so becomes possibly

valley/hill/fort refuge/retreat

taking it even further (I did say this was a rabbit hole on what appears to be the simplest of the battles - if we accept them at face value mind!)

if we take Cil and then actually use don to refer to the old Welsh/Brithonic goddess (and consort of Bile and incidently also in Irish Dana) we could end up with

refuge or shelter of (the Goddess) Don which with a squinty eye you could rearrange to say the (fortified) shelter of (the goddess) Don which could be construed as Doncaster (Don Caestra)

layer upon layer

[Jim Webster]

I think Holly's last post shows one problem with trying to use place names as a guide to the period. Frankly they're that flexible, offer so many options, that you might be better off just working backwards from Geoffrey of Monmouth

I hate to say it, because I'd love to see a decent history of 'Arthur' and 'sub-Roman Britain' but frankly the currently accepted method of writing this history seems to follow the following process.

1) Decide on what the history of the period is.
2) Write it, using as sources everything that supports you, up to and including 17th and 18th century antiquarians.
3) Reinterpret as many sources as possible to they support you.
4)Trash those that don't.

[Imperial Dave]

I think Holly's last post shows one problem with trying to use place names as a guide to the period. Frankly they're that flexible, offer so many options, that you might be better off just working backwards from Geoffrey of Monmouth

I hate to say it, because I'd love to see a decent history of 'Arthur' and 'sub-Roman Britain' but frankly the currently accepted method of writing this history seems to follow the following process.

1) Decide on what the history of the period is.
2) Write it, using as sources everything that supports you, up to and including 17th and 18th century antiquarians.
3) Reinterpret as many sources as possible to they support you.
4)Trash those that don't.

not far off Jim

like I said the best way way is ground up......ie what can we reasonably prove happened from available evidence and then interpret from there and add in other more conjectural stuff

it does tend to hamstring the 'Ive found a place name but not done much background work' peeps but that's not to say they arent right (well obviously not ALL of them ) its just the methodology is a bit wonky

years ago I was as guilty of this as the next man. My 'ooh ooh' Arthurian placename moment came after pouring over maps and found that Bassaleg (just up the road from Caerleon and next to a crossing point of a tributary river) had a Maes Arthur and A Graig y Saeson next to it. It could be the Battle of (the river) Bassas as mentioned in Nennius but doesnt necessarily fit together with a coherent story based upon known and reliable facts. Interestingly (giving the rabbit hole a good prodding for one moment) Bassaleg is possibly a derivative of Basilica (and either Alectus or legionnis suffixing onto it). If the battle of Bassas river is real and that the placename given to it is reasonably accurate it could mean battle of the river by the dirty great (Roman) church or meeting place!

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

I am quite happy to forget his Welsh 'sources', but his campaign narratives seem to follow solid geography and to be based on something more contemporary to actual events.  These are what interest me, and I consider them 'period sources' because that is where they seem to originate before passing through Geoffrey's hot little hands.  Remember that much of his material does not originate with him: he is just the means of its preservation (and in some cases distortion).

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.

I do not think so: if that were the case, sooner or later his multiple Arthurs would be turning up in two and threes to the same event, perhaps even to fight each other.   Rather, Geoffrey seems to be following Jim's model, deciding what his history is and adapting his sources to suit.  I think we can disentangle one or two of the adaptations, however.

I think Holly's last post shows one problem with trying to use place names as a guide to the period. Frankly they're that flexible, offer so many options, that you might be better off just working backwards from Geoffrey of Monmouth

Agreed: forget trying to etymologise place names in isolation.  Do so only if they crop up as part of a coherent campaign in a source narrative, because then we have an independent geographical reason for zeroing in on them and if there is a match then it is actually supportive of something potentially useful rather than just another hole in the warren.

[Imperial Dave]

Agreed: forget trying to etymologise place names in isolation.  Do so only if they crop up as part of a coherent campaign in a source narrative, because then we have an independent geographical reason for zeroing in on them and if there is a match then it is actually supportive of something potentially useful rather than just another hole in the warren.

correct....the deepest rabbit hole of all Patrick. Interestingly its why there is so much time and effort trying to place Badon. Its a battle (the only one mentioned specifically by name) spoken about by Gildas so is roughly contemporary (ie known by people in his lifetime even if he wasnt around himself at the time). If we can pinpoint that one we have a loose narrative and timeframe to wrap around it and thus with archaeological evidence could start to piece a few things together. It's a calibration point in an otherwise flexible data line

[Erpingham]

I do not think so: if that were the case, sooner or later his multiple Arthurs would be turning up in two and threes to the same event, perhaps even to fight each other.

Not sure I follow the reasoning here.  You're actual problem is one Arthur is everywhere, either because one of the prototypes was or to give a bit of class to a battle in which didn't have a bankable star.  A knock on effect is all battles involving him must fit in a period of maybe 50 years, when in reality they could cover hundreds.  Now, I don't think I would take this argument fully to its conclusions (otherwise I'd be writing yet another "the real Arthur" book) but it is something to recall, especially when dealing with Geoffrey of Monmouth, who reshapes a ragbag of old stories into a pseudo-historical narrative.

[Imperial Dave]

I do not think so: if that were the case, sooner or later his multiple Arthurs would be turning up in two and threes to the same event, perhaps even to fight each other.

Not sure I follow the reasoning here.  You're actual problem is one Arthur is everywhere, either because one of the prototypes was or to give a bit of class to a battle in which didn't have a bankable star.  A knock on effect is all battles involving him must fit in a period of maybe 50 years, when in reality they could cover hundreds.  Now, I don't think I would take this argument fully to its conclusions (otherwise I'd be writing yet another "the real Arthur" book) but it is something to recall, especially when dealing with Geoffrey of Monmouth, who reshapes a ragbag of old stories into a pseudo-historical narrative.

Good point.

When evaluating one, 2 or 3 Arthur type leaders and also looking at the potential geographical battle sites (rabbit holes aside for one moment), we must remember that it is entirely possible that the timespan is, as you say, much longer than soem would credit or at least think through. If for instance we say that a singular Arthur type person fought 12 battles in one year and there were all over the British Isles then its difficult to rationalise. However, some people have taken this to an extreme and used it to 'reject' hypotheses about potential battlesites - battle 2 cant be here and battle 3 here etc etc because he wouldnt have time to blah blah...etc

If we look at it in terms of generations of warfare - even accepting one Arthur type person over his floruit of say 20 years that is more than enough to fight 12 battles all over Britain (if that is indeed the case). Add on top of that the potential for multi-Arthur type leaders and we suddenly are looking at potentially 50 + years (or indeed several centuries possibly).

We have to look at the evidence with a holistic view but also through the eye of a person from that time period and be prepared to think on a wider horizon of events. It may bring you back to a hypothesis of a single chap with only a few years of campaigning but we need to assess the bigger picture before zeroing in to (try to) achieve granularity

[Patrick Waterson]

We have to look at the evidence with a holistic view but also through the eye of a person from that time period and be prepared to think on a wider horizon of events. It may bring you back to a hypothesis of a single chap with only a few years of campaigning but we need to assess the bigger picture before zeroing in to (try to) achieve granularity

Assuming 'granularity' means focus, yes, by all means.

I do not think so: if that were the case, sooner or later his multiple Arthurs would be turning up in two and threes to the same event, perhaps even to fight each other.

Not sure I follow the reasoning here.  You're actual problem is one Arthur is everywhere, either because one of the prototypes was or to give a bit of class to a battle in which didn't have a bankable star.

I think we need to separate assumed fact from assumed fiction here.  If we had the one-true-Arthur who became the prototype for a host of imitations, then there was still only the one-true-Arthur.  If there were a number of chaps named Arthur around at the same time, some or all of them would have met  ("I'm Arthur." "No, I'm Arthur." etc. like the scene from Spartacus, perhaps with: "You show me your Excalibur and I'll show you mine.").  If there was a sequence of Arthurs, one would expect an occasional hint about some not being in the same class as their namesake.

I also think we need to avoid assuming that every fresh generation of Celtic legend is a new or different Arthur rather than another reworking of the original.  Arthur seems to have been a sort of talisman to later Celtic minds, but in making him relevant to an audience of the day, the bards seem to have played fast and loose with geography even more than history.  The result is numerous false echoes on the radar screen because of this 'backscatter'.

As Dave points out, Arthur's list of battles is not unreasonable for one man: they did vary in size and scope, and the Mons Badonicus campaign (York to Loch Lomond) disposes of three in a single year, which leaves nine for the rest of his reign.  Geoffrey's diversion to the West Country, which does stretch marching capability and credulity, would, as I have mentioned, appear to be unfounded.

We seem to be in general agreement that Geoffrey of Monmouth is perhaps not the best judge of history.  My interest lies in his sources, especially those used for 'Arthur's' campaigns.  Dave's emphasis on archaeology is very useful - essential really - for mapping out a context of the historical ebb and flow of Saxon influence and incursions and hence putting approximate borders on our Arthur's floruit period and perhaps geography.

In all of this, we should be aware that 'Arthur' might not have been known as 'Arthur' to contemporaries, at least not officially.  The name would of course have to have become affixed or associated in some way during his lifetime.  The Latin 'Artorius' apparently means 'ploughman', so I suspect a cognomen hinting either at humble origins or at the restoration of tillage to the land.  The Celtic 'Artos' indicates one as strong as a bear, and would suggest a man formidable in war and battle, but may equally be a cognomen rather than the actual name of the individual.

For comparison, 'Uther' means 'terrible' in Celtic.  This I feel has to be a cognomen (or an indication of very cruel parents ...).  It looks as if following Ambrosius Aurelianus the overall ruler of the day went down through history known only by his cognomen, which may be why we find no mention of their names in Nennius, Bede or Gildas.

[eques]

, which may be why we find no mention of their names in Nennius, Bede or Gildas.

Also, as has been said by many, Gildas was writing a tract, not a school textbook, and would have assumed that his readers were familiar with recent history.  In the same way as if I was to say on a forum somewhere "Soviet prestige declined after the Cuban missile crisis" I probably wouldn't bother to add "under the leadership of Kruschev"

[eques]

[Narrative of Arthur controlling wide-flung territories]

  Does this fit our other sources and the archaeology?

Well it certainly fits "Arthur fought against them, with all the Kings of the Britons, though he himself was Dux Bellorum".  Gildas also speaks as if of a fairly unified British culture and institutions.

If we see Arthur as someone defending the dregs of the Roman order against barbarians then he would obviously have seen the unified Roman province as a model.

That said, in my view Arthur probably wasn't in practice the ruler of a unitary state, more like an extremely powerful magnate who controlled a lot of territory across the Island, and wielded a lot of informal influence by virtue of his ability to beat the Saxons.  We might look for parallels in the Angevins, who held a lot of piecemeal territories all over Europe, the Anglo Saxon "Bretwaldaship" or the modern day Americans with their unofficial influence and scattered army bases.

[Imperial Dave]

, which may be why we find no mention of their names in Nennius, Bede or Gildas.

Also, as has been said by many, Gildas was writing a tract, not history, and would have assumed that his readers were familiar with recent history.  In the same way as if I was to say "Soviet prestige declined after the Cuban missile crisis" I probably wouldn't bother to add "under the leadership of Kruschev"

true although he does go to great lengths to denigrate others in his diatribe of contemporary leaders so why not specifically mention the commander(s) for the generation warfare previously (or perhaps he does). It could be that the leader of Badon (and the other battles he mentions in generality) is several different people or that he does not know and is sermonising generally. Another possibility is that he has taken the history of the recent (ie 44 years ago) and jumbled it up with the history of 100+ years ago. After all he states that the Antonine Wall and Hadrians Wall were built 150-200 years before his time and not the 400ish years they actually were. Its possibly a bit unrealistic to think this however. OR, maybe, he actually mentions Ambrosius Aurelianus in one passage as taking up arms against the Saxons and then in the next passage just goes on to mention the two and fro of the warfare. By inference, the leader of Badon could be AA 

[eques]

I think he would have named names where he felt it added to his point, but would not necessarily feel the need to rigourously document everyone.

And yes he is frustratingly ambiguous as to Ambrosius' involvment in Badon.

If I remember correctly there are some phrases in Gildas that can be taken (with a bit of creative interpreting) as references to an Arthur "spawn of the bear" or something along those lines.

[Imperial Dave]

I think he would have named names where he felt it added to his point, but would not necessarily feel the need to rigourously document everyone.

And yes he is frustratingly ambiguous as to Ambrosius' involvment in Badon.

If I remember correctly there are some phrases in Gildas that can be taken (with a bit of creative interpreting) as references to an Arthur "spawn of the bear" or something along those lines.

Gildas has a rant at 2 kings that could be referenced to a potential Arthur. First there is Cuneglasse (Cuneglas):

"And thou too, Cuneglasse, why art thou fallen into the filth of thy former naughtiness, yea,
since the very first spring of thy tender youth, thou bear, thou rider and ruler of many, and guider of the
chariot which is the receptacle of the bear, thou contemner of God, and vilifier of his order, thou tawny
butcher, as in the Latin tongue thy name signifies."

the other is Maglocune (Maelgwyn):

"And likewise, O thou dragon of the island, who hast deprived many tyrants, as well of their
kingdoms as of their lives,.......Maglocune........Why dost thou show
thyself unto the King of kings (who hath made thee as well in kingdom as in stature of body higher
than almost all the other chiefs of Britain)...... Didst not thou, in the
very beginning of thy youth, terribly oppress with sword, spear, and fire, the king thine uncle, together
with his courageous bands of soldiers"

[Jim Webster]

I think from the point of view of being Arthur, both Cuneglas and Maelgwyn are based too far to the west

[Imperial Dave]

I think from the point of view of being Arthur, both Cuneglas and Maelgwyn are based too far to the west

all depends on which Arthur we are talking about - 1,2 or 3

when Gildas is writing, its around 540AD - ish so potentially too late for either of the 2 kings to be a Badon personality since Gildas infers its 44 years since that event. From a timing perspective, therefore, they are too late for an Arthur 1 (450AD ish - Adventus Saxunum) or Arthur 2 (500AD ish - Badon) but could be a candidate for Arthur 3 (Gildas's ruin). Gildas annoyingly doesnt mention some of the British leaders from further afield (eg Elmet) which could mean any number of things - they werent important enough, they werent 'naughty' enough (to get a mention) or they had 'switched sides' and were allied with the Saxons (not as far fetched as you may think). He does seem to infer that Maelgwyn is an overlord of some description and so he may be a King in North Wales but also control further afield via Sub-Reguli