![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I understand that the question of historicity is always a hot topic with Arthur. That said, you might want to find better citations against Camlann than Higham’s work. He is an inventive, brilliant English archaeologist who successfully passed into English history but both of his works into Arthuriana have been terribly flawed, as I demonstrated in my own review. Try Dumville or Padel, both of whom are more respected, and actually cited, by British scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallhwch ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Erm. 10,000 on one side and 100,000 on the other? Where's that from? If Arthur had been able to round up 10,000 warriors, he would definitely have left more historical mark! If Mordred had managed 100,000, who, don't forget, he would have needed to be able to feed!, he would have been able to conquer Western Europe, let alone Britain. In these times, a few hundred men was considered an enormous force! Whole kingdoms couldn't muster more than a couple of hundred fighters, largely because most people were farmers and couldn't just nip off for a bit of armed conflict in distant parts of Britain when they felt like it. You cannot seriously suggest that there was a battle in Somerset involving more armed men than existed in the whole of Britain at that time, who would have all had to travel to that spot, and no one paid enough attention to the passage of the army to have noted it, named anything after it or to have remembered its passage in any way at all. And no one on the continent heard anything about it! The largest battle of its age and no one bothered to comment? The problem with Arthurian studies is, and always will be, that there are not enough sources and what there is is half-legend. A battle of this magnitude would have left a mark, but a small clash, like many, many others in its day, would have only left ripples in the oral tradition that was the history of the day.
This article is written as though the Malory tradition of Arthur is actually historical. It's not by any means. There are Welsh traditions of Camlann that really are much more likely. A local quarrel between war-bands, leading to a vicious clash with a fair bit of slaughter. Each leader brought his retinue and slugged it out, probably fairly close to home for both of them. That's what we know happened in the dark ages, not huge dynastic disputes over who ruled "Britain". People wielded personal power, supported by friends. There were no nationalists as such. The few sources that we do have, in particular Gildas, lament their lack. Grace Note 01:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Arthur had banded together many clans and forts so would have many men, but not at all of that magnitude. There was no king arthur, but in fact Arthur the Dragon Cheif who was a 5th or 6th century chieftan.
__________________________________________ I used to have a machine for detecting opinion or theory presented s fact, I found it very useful with anything even vaguely related to Arthur. I say used to, because when I ran it over the previous unsigned comment, it exploded.
Obviously 10,000 vs 100,000 isn't accurate but I think armies in the thousands is more than feasible. Caesar bought 50,000 foot soldiers and cavalry to Britain hundreds of years before the battle of Camlann and the force under Cassuvius was said to be even larger. If we don't even accept the Roman records then we might as well just make it up as we go along. Restepc
You cannot compare the well run efficient war machine that was the roman empire 2000 years ago to the chaotic system of local personal power that was the pre-feudal europe. In the aftermath of the fall of the roman empire one would be considered powerfull in a local area if one could gather 20 armed men to defend (and opress) the local vilage / neighbourhoods. It was these local powers that slowly started uniting and centuries later formed the base for the nobles that eventually formed kingdomes. But between the roman empire and the late medieval age there were no nations of the kind we are used to in europe.
Actually, this wasn't all that long after Roman rule, and certainly not long after people like Magnus Maximus ruled Rome, and if the Arthurian souces are to be believed, there was some centralized power. While the numbers are probably exaggerated, they're not too far out there.-- -G.T.N. ( talk) 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the more well-accepted date for Camlann is 537, I've also heard 516/517. Then you have to figure in the changing of the calendar going on around that time, mostly to due with the argument over Easter. Could we put in some alternate dates? Does anyone know of well-supported ones? I'm not sure I can find my sources...-- -G.T.N. ( talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes are towards a point of view that suggests that most accounts of Camlann are "legend" or "myth," however some scholars have a very different if not opposite view. Could we find a better way to phrase the changes?-- -G.T.N. ( talk) 21:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Added some 'citations needed' on 'Legendary' as Geoffrey of Monmouth is (a) unsourced & (b) he is the overall source for the common 'King Arthur' story. AnonNep ( talk) 15:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing relevant about any "implied ridicule of Arthur". SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 15:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
And it's not relevant whatsoever. What is relevant is only just the mention of the battle being provoked by the messenger. Speaking of which, http://www.craftyscreenwriting.com/camlann.html is a fine dream-related Camlann story about a deliberate provocation mixing it with the snake-accident motif. Have fun reading it. Otherwise I just don't understand what you talk about, at all. If you find something relevant but missing in https://www.google.pl/search?q=Rhonabwy+camlann&num=50&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X or anywhere else, come back then. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 15:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
So find that allegedly relevant missing context of yours in any of the books I showed you or anywhere else and come back then. I hope you enjoyed the story. Oh and Historia and Morte Arthure aren't being used "interchangeably", I very clearly noted that in Historia Arthur maybe/probably lives while in Morte Arthure he absolutely dies (and that Clarent appears in Morte Arthure). SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 15:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no "someone else (who could start now" because almost nobody edits Wikipedia anymore for a very long time. Before I came hew just last year it's been in about this state for many years, see 2017 (when I started) and 2012 and 2008. Same for most of the other related articles, including literally no edits for over a decade (like in the case of several articles I merged into Knights of the Round Table. It would be actually cool if people edited these articles, you know? And welcome to Wikipedia. Oh, and actually you motivated me to edit more here specifically, so thanks I guess. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"the development of a legendary Arthur" is the subject of the article King Arthur. As opposed to Historicity of King Arthur, which is about the maybe-not-legendary Arthur. Btw, there's exactly zero proof the battle even happened in reality (including any mention of it whatsoever during about half millenium after its supposed date) and is anything but "an Arthurian 'fairy story'". SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 16:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The article has an unsourced 'Annales Cambriae' translation:
Gueith camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruerunt.
The strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut [Mordred] perished
There was a Note from a 2005 Andrew Breeze publication giving 'perished' as 'fell'. During my reading on more recent edits I added another 2008 publication by P.J.C. Field which agrees with Breeze. The Mordred article also goes with 'fell' citing Lupack, Alan (translator). "Arthurian References in the 'Annales Cambriae'. Camelot Project at the University of Rochester. Retrieved December 1, 2006. Any objections to changing it to 'fell' & citing the three? (If a 'perished' ref is found it could be added as a Note). AnonNep ( talk) 12:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
There exists sources that discussed the date of Cammlan 537, Arthur, in the context of the volcanic winter of 535-536?
/info/en/?search=Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
I read somewhere that Andrew Breeze commented in the coincidence of dates in his 2020 book(already mentioned) . That the volcanic winter caused a famine that would have caused Camlann(Breeze argued that it was a cattle raid).The Welsh annal of 537 mentioned "great famine in Britania and Hibernia(Ireland)" like it happened in reality because of the volcanic winter.
Research in Norway concluded that the climate event was also catastrophic there, the famine(and perhaps the Justinian plague of 542 ) halved the population and make a great loss of technology for centuries:
In Britain I only found the next research about the matter: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0078172X.2016.1195600?journalCode=ynhi20 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328448644_Camlann_and_537
Perhaps there is necessary some background in the historicity section, to put the legendary battle in the correct context? 1.-So,in 535-536 happened the volcanic winter a global event, with subsequent famine.
2.-In 541 happened the Justinian Plague in Europe: /info/en/?search=Plague_of_Justinian
3.- And next, two others volcanic winters happened in 539/540 and 547: /info/en/?search=Late_Antique_Little_Ice_Age
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I understand that the question of historicity is always a hot topic with Arthur. That said, you might want to find better citations against Camlann than Higham’s work. He is an inventive, brilliant English archaeologist who successfully passed into English history but both of his works into Arthuriana have been terribly flawed, as I demonstrated in my own review. Try Dumville or Padel, both of whom are more respected, and actually cited, by British scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallhwch ( talk • contribs) 01:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Erm. 10,000 on one side and 100,000 on the other? Where's that from? If Arthur had been able to round up 10,000 warriors, he would definitely have left more historical mark! If Mordred had managed 100,000, who, don't forget, he would have needed to be able to feed!, he would have been able to conquer Western Europe, let alone Britain. In these times, a few hundred men was considered an enormous force! Whole kingdoms couldn't muster more than a couple of hundred fighters, largely because most people were farmers and couldn't just nip off for a bit of armed conflict in distant parts of Britain when they felt like it. You cannot seriously suggest that there was a battle in Somerset involving more armed men than existed in the whole of Britain at that time, who would have all had to travel to that spot, and no one paid enough attention to the passage of the army to have noted it, named anything after it or to have remembered its passage in any way at all. And no one on the continent heard anything about it! The largest battle of its age and no one bothered to comment? The problem with Arthurian studies is, and always will be, that there are not enough sources and what there is is half-legend. A battle of this magnitude would have left a mark, but a small clash, like many, many others in its day, would have only left ripples in the oral tradition that was the history of the day.
This article is written as though the Malory tradition of Arthur is actually historical. It's not by any means. There are Welsh traditions of Camlann that really are much more likely. A local quarrel between war-bands, leading to a vicious clash with a fair bit of slaughter. Each leader brought his retinue and slugged it out, probably fairly close to home for both of them. That's what we know happened in the dark ages, not huge dynastic disputes over who ruled "Britain". People wielded personal power, supported by friends. There were no nationalists as such. The few sources that we do have, in particular Gildas, lament their lack. Grace Note 01:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Arthur had banded together many clans and forts so would have many men, but not at all of that magnitude. There was no king arthur, but in fact Arthur the Dragon Cheif who was a 5th or 6th century chieftan.
__________________________________________ I used to have a machine for detecting opinion or theory presented s fact, I found it very useful with anything even vaguely related to Arthur. I say used to, because when I ran it over the previous unsigned comment, it exploded.
Obviously 10,000 vs 100,000 isn't accurate but I think armies in the thousands is more than feasible. Caesar bought 50,000 foot soldiers and cavalry to Britain hundreds of years before the battle of Camlann and the force under Cassuvius was said to be even larger. If we don't even accept the Roman records then we might as well just make it up as we go along. Restepc
You cannot compare the well run efficient war machine that was the roman empire 2000 years ago to the chaotic system of local personal power that was the pre-feudal europe. In the aftermath of the fall of the roman empire one would be considered powerfull in a local area if one could gather 20 armed men to defend (and opress) the local vilage / neighbourhoods. It was these local powers that slowly started uniting and centuries later formed the base for the nobles that eventually formed kingdomes. But between the roman empire and the late medieval age there were no nations of the kind we are used to in europe.
Actually, this wasn't all that long after Roman rule, and certainly not long after people like Magnus Maximus ruled Rome, and if the Arthurian souces are to be believed, there was some centralized power. While the numbers are probably exaggerated, they're not too far out there.-- -G.T.N. ( talk) 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Although the more well-accepted date for Camlann is 537, I've also heard 516/517. Then you have to figure in the changing of the calendar going on around that time, mostly to due with the argument over Easter. Could we put in some alternate dates? Does anyone know of well-supported ones? I'm not sure I can find my sources...-- -G.T.N. ( talk) 17:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent changes are towards a point of view that suggests that most accounts of Camlann are "legend" or "myth," however some scholars have a very different if not opposite view. Could we find a better way to phrase the changes?-- -G.T.N. ( talk) 21:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Added some 'citations needed' on 'Legendary' as Geoffrey of Monmouth is (a) unsourced & (b) he is the overall source for the common 'King Arthur' story. AnonNep ( talk) 15:19, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
There's nothing relevant about any "implied ridicule of Arthur". SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 15:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
And it's not relevant whatsoever. What is relevant is only just the mention of the battle being provoked by the messenger. Speaking of which, http://www.craftyscreenwriting.com/camlann.html is a fine dream-related Camlann story about a deliberate provocation mixing it with the snake-accident motif. Have fun reading it. Otherwise I just don't understand what you talk about, at all. If you find something relevant but missing in https://www.google.pl/search?q=Rhonabwy+camlann&num=50&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X or anywhere else, come back then. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 15:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
So find that allegedly relevant missing context of yours in any of the books I showed you or anywhere else and come back then. I hope you enjoyed the story. Oh and Historia and Morte Arthure aren't being used "interchangeably", I very clearly noted that in Historia Arthur maybe/probably lives while in Morte Arthure he absolutely dies (and that Clarent appears in Morte Arthure). SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 15:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
There's no "someone else (who could start now" because almost nobody edits Wikipedia anymore for a very long time. Before I came hew just last year it's been in about this state for many years, see 2017 (when I started) and 2012 and 2008. Same for most of the other related articles, including literally no edits for over a decade (like in the case of several articles I merged into Knights of the Round Table. It would be actually cool if people edited these articles, you know? And welcome to Wikipedia. Oh, and actually you motivated me to edit more here specifically, so thanks I guess. SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 16:09, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"the development of a legendary Arthur" is the subject of the article King Arthur. As opposed to Historicity of King Arthur, which is about the maybe-not-legendary Arthur. Btw, there's exactly zero proof the battle even happened in reality (including any mention of it whatsoever during about half millenium after its supposed date) and is anything but "an Arthurian 'fairy story'". SNAAAAKE!! ( talk) 16:34, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
The article has an unsourced 'Annales Cambriae' translation:
Gueith camlann in qua Arthur et Medraut corruerunt.
The strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut [Mordred] perished
There was a Note from a 2005 Andrew Breeze publication giving 'perished' as 'fell'. During my reading on more recent edits I added another 2008 publication by P.J.C. Field which agrees with Breeze. The Mordred article also goes with 'fell' citing Lupack, Alan (translator). "Arthurian References in the 'Annales Cambriae'. Camelot Project at the University of Rochester. Retrieved December 1, 2006. Any objections to changing it to 'fell' & citing the three? (If a 'perished' ref is found it could be added as a Note). AnonNep ( talk) 12:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
There exists sources that discussed the date of Cammlan 537, Arthur, in the context of the volcanic winter of 535-536?
/info/en/?search=Extreme_weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536
I read somewhere that Andrew Breeze commented in the coincidence of dates in his 2020 book(already mentioned) . That the volcanic winter caused a famine that would have caused Camlann(Breeze argued that it was a cattle raid).The Welsh annal of 537 mentioned "great famine in Britania and Hibernia(Ireland)" like it happened in reality because of the volcanic winter.
Research in Norway concluded that the climate event was also catastrophic there, the famine(and perhaps the Justinian plague of 542 ) halved the population and make a great loss of technology for centuries:
In Britain I only found the next research about the matter: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0078172X.2016.1195600?journalCode=ynhi20 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328448644_Camlann_and_537
Perhaps there is necessary some background in the historicity section, to put the legendary battle in the correct context? 1.-So,in 535-536 happened the volcanic winter a global event, with subsequent famine.
2.-In 541 happened the Justinian Plague in Europe: /info/en/?search=Plague_of_Justinian
3.- And next, two others volcanic winters happened in 539/540 and 547: /info/en/?search=Late_Antique_Little_Ice_Age