Jump to content

Talk:Battle of Camlann

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Historicity

[edit]

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)[reply]

Number of Troops

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

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)[reply]

POV

[edit]

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)[reply]

What scholars have a different view? All stories about Arthur are intrinsically legendary.--Cúchullain t/c 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary versions

[edit]

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)[reply]

How can Breudwyt Ronabwy possibly be considered "the earliest Welsh source"?? It was likely composed around the turn of the 14th century! The earliest Welsh source on Camlann (meager as it is), is Annales Cambriae, followed by some poetry and the Triads (and, of course, the Welsh translations of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae). The Dream of Rhonabwy is a late entry. Cagwinn (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering when you'd re-appear. The 13th century 'Dream of Rhonabwy' doesn't appear in the all manuscripts of the 'Mabinogion'. It appears to be the earliest source for that particular account of a legendary Arthur. As Jay Ruud, in the 'Encyclopedia Of Medieval Literature' sets out, it is 'satirical'[2]. In it, Arthur of Camlann, is no undisputed Welsh hero. AnonNep (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "Mabinogion" is a modern name (first applied by Lady Charlotte Guest) to a whole series of medieval tales drawn from numerous different manuscripts of various dates. It is also a misnomer, as the only true Mabinogi (its proper Welsh form) are the "Four Branches of the Mabinogi" (Pedeir Keinc y Mabinogi), i.e. the tales of Pwyll Pendeuig Dyuet, Branwen uerch Lyr, Manawydan uab Llyr, and Math uab Mathonwy. None of the Arthurian tales belong to the Mabinogi and Arthur is not mentioned in the Mabinogi. For a recent discussion of the dating of the Dream of Rhonabwy (which only survives in a single, late 14th century, manuscript, the Red Book of Hergest) and an argument that it was composed circa 1300 AD, see: Stephenson, David, Medieval Powys: Kingdom, Principality and Lordships, 1132-1293, Boydell & Brewer, 2016, pp. 306-310. The tale is indeed satirical - you got that much right. The story really isn't about Arthur, though - the author simply used Arthurian characters as stand-ins for more contemporary historical figures (a technique even used by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his Historia; so much of which is based on contemporary events and people of the 11th-12th century world of the Normans). Cagwinn (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought my 'doesn't appear in the all manuscripts of the 'Mabinogion' would have made clear that I was aware of its modern name & provenance. As to the second, your "The story really isn't about Arthur, though - the author simply used Arthurian characters as stand-ins for more contemporary historical figures" - that is a matter of debate & requires Reliable Sources to support in Wikipedia - first in articles of origin & then here. I look forward to your learned contributions on both. AnonNep (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it made it clear that you don't know what you're talking about at all, because saying "The 13th century 'Dream of Rhonabwy' doesn't appear in the all manuscripts of the 'Mabinogion'" literally makes no sense. There is no old connection whatsoever between the Pedeir Keinc Mabinogi and the Breudwyt Ronabwy. Lady Guest simply decided to include several other old tales (such as the Dream of Rhonabwy) in her edition of the Four Branches of the Mabinogi (improperly called by her the Mabinogion). The Dream of Rhonabwy appears in the same manuscript as one version of the Four Branches, The Red Book of Hergest, but that doesn't make the Red Book specifically a "manuscript of the Mabinogion", as it contains a whole host of other material beyond the Four Branches. Cagwinn (talk) 19:12, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As we're at a point where you're implying I'm not even familiar with basics from the various Wiki articles, let alone anything else, I'll leave it here. AnonNep (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have yet to prove to me that you are familiar with the history of medieval Welsh literature. Saying things like Breudwyt Ronabwy is the "earliest Welsh source" on Camlann and that the tale "doesn't appear in the all [sic] manuscripts of the 'Mabinogion'" (a nonsensical statement; why would it be in "manuscripts of the Mabinogion"? the Mabinogion is simply the name of Lady Charlotte Guests edition of the Four Branches, plus various other old stories, including Rhonabyw's Dream, that decided to edit) doesn't exactly scream out "I am an expert!" Cagwinn (talk) 04:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'familar' becomes 'expert' in a few lines? I've been through this with you before, elsewhere, Cagwinn. I know your style of 'debate'. While, I admit, it does amuse me, it does nothing for the project to continue this. Have the last word, as you always must, but I'm stepping away. AnonNep (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Enough, Cagwinn. This isn't productive.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing relevant about any "implied ridicule of Arthur". SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • From The Dream of Rhonabwy (& footnoted) there: "However, Arthur's time is portrayed as illogical and silly, leading to suggestions that this is a satire on both contemporary times and the myth of a heroic age." Other Reliable Sources state the same - Arthur wasn't a hero at this point, it came later. That is important when considering the legend & the growth (& promotion) of the myth. AnonNep (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is about being collaborative (one of the reasons you've been constantly reminded about edit summaries). I can't be bothered edit warring. But I'll try to helpfully warn you about the edits that will be made, by myself, or someone else (who could start now, given they're not sitting back & letting you finish, as I am). All of those people on your Talk page, like me, here, don't want you to stop editing, not this article or any other, but to recognise that Wikipedia, as a whole, is looking for the best standards possible. You can take that advice, & advice given before, or not. Articles you've worked on will be revised, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, regardless. It would just be more helpful if you listened a little. On your Talk page, or here, no-one's out to get you. We just want the best for the project as a whole. AnonNep (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • You won't listen to advice & you reject the idea of a collaborative project. If what you just expressed reflects your approach to Wikipedia then there isn't much more worth saying. What will happen, once you're done, is that all unsourced statements will be removed & instead of an Arthurian 'fairy story', existing edits with sources will be organised chronologically to show the development of a legendary Arthur (complete with RS, including relevant points for & against). You could do that as you go, but, based on your attitude, I somewhat doubt it. AnonNep (talk) 16:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"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)[reply]

  • The development of the legend of Arthur encompasses the development of the legend of the battle of Camlann. As Arthur's legend grew so did the legend of his last battle. That's why a chronology of that development needs to be prioritised, not just snippets of 'fairy story', & reliable sources are needed to back up the text. AnonNep (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what all this back and forth is about, but I don't think a totally chronological approach is going to work. There are too many strands and they're interconnected. In Rhonabwy, for example, while the work comes from the 13th century (or thereabouts), it is part of the Welsh tradition, rather than the chronicle tradition that predates the text, or the continental traditions being written at the same time. However, it may have been influenced by those other traditions based on the significant roles given to Owain and Medrawt. I would separate into Welsh tradition, the chronicle tradition (including derivative works like the Alliterative Morte Arthure), and the prose cycle traditions, but cover the texts chronologically within them, and explain cases where they may have been influenced by something else.--Cúchullain t/c 20:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I also agree that the info on the potential satirical bent of Rhonabwy is necessarily relevant to its depiction of Camlan.--Cúchullain t/c 20:37, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - I have set up sections for the Chronicle Tradition, Arthurian Romance, and Medieval Welsh tradition (to which I added some more sources); now the Chronicle and Romance sections need to be properly divided up, as I only did a rough separation of Geoffrey and Wace from the other sources mentioned. Cagwinn (talk) 21:21, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 'totally chronological', won't work. But it does need some structure to indicate how the legendary tradition developed. AnonNep (talk) 04:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can take a crack at the Welsh section sometime when I get access to my books. That may be next week, however.--Cúchullain t/c 21:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the newly imposed structure will be fruitful. Welsh needs to go first since that's where the Camlann tradition originated, then chronicle, then the Continental material.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Perished' or 'fell' in Annales Cambriae

[edit]

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)[reply]

You're arguing pure semantics; yes, the verb literally means "fall, fall together, tumble down, sink down", but it was used figuratively to indicate that people were killed in battle. Fell, perished, killed - no difference. The same verb is used in the Historia Brittonum's Arthurian battle list in the description of Badon: Duodecimum fuit bellum in monte Badonis, in quo corruerunt in uno die nongenti sexaginta uiri de uno impetu Arthur, et nemo prostrauit eos nisi ipse solus. ("The twelfth battle was on mons Badonis, where in one day nine hundred and sixty men were killed by one attack of Arthur, and no one laid them low save he himself." [trans. David Dumville).]). The same verb is used elsewhere in the HB, for example: Osfird et Eadfird duo filii Edguin erant, et cum ipso corruerunt in bello Meicen. ("Osfirđ and Eadfirđ were the two sons of Edwin, and they fell with him in the battle of Meicen." [trans. David Dumville]) Cagwinn (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to changing to "fell".--Cúchullain t/c 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Camlann, 537 and the global volcanic winter in 535/536

[edit]

There exists sources that discussed the date of Cammlan 537, Arthur, in the context of the volcanic winter of 535-536?

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/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:

https://sciencenorway.no/archaeology-climate-cultural-history/the-long-harsh-fimbul-winter-is-not-a-myth/1613223

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: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Plague_of_Justinian

3.- And next, two others volcanic winters happened in 539/540 and 547: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Late_Antique_Little_Ice_Age

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Camlann&oldid=1219487892"