King Arthur, and William Wallace
pasj...@snet.net
" any how they mentioned how a lot of the picture came from a poem by
someone named Blind Harry. Today I did a search for Blind Harry and
got to a web site called MacBraveheart, (addy below)
http://www.macbraveheart.freeserve.co.uk/html/people/king_arthur/at_falkirk.htm
Here I read that this person named Frank Carroll believes that Arthur
did exist, and that his Camelot was near the area of Falkirk, and that
the Arthur of ledgend is based on the Arthur who ruled and lived in
Manann, since I'am NO expert here and follow this group for the love
of the Arthurian ledgends I figured I ask the group if anyone has
read his theroy, and what do you think of it?.
PJFSr.
A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion.
Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment
from a ruler whom they consider godfearing and pious.
On the other hand, they do less easily move against him,
believing that he has the gods on his side.
[Aristotle: Politics, I.
TMMatthews99
have their rightful (if not very powerful) Parliament, are they allowed to
alter and manufacture history?
Arthur 2 fought in Scotland and did rule parts of it.
The FACTS are available in Artorius Rex Discovered, the Underground Classic
written by Wilson and Blackett and still available from;
Arthurian Research Foundation of Britain,
21 Brunswick St. West,
HOVE,
Sussex BN3 lEL.
Send an SAE for a list.
Thanks,
Tim Matthews - Arthurian Research Foundation.
John Glendinning
TMMatthews99 <tmmatt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000703110110...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> If you believe this you'll believe anything. Apparently, now that the
Scots
> have their rightful (if not very powerful) Parliament, are they allowed to
> alter and manufacture history?
As though the English haven't made up, altered and pinched lots of their
history ( ask the Welsh ) as for manufacture they are next to the Americans
as world leaders in history manufacture ( ask the old Empire ). As for a not
very powerful parliment at least we have one again , where does that leave
England .
pasj...@snet.net
wrote:
>If you believe this you'll believe anything. Apparently, now that the Scots
>have their rightful (if not very powerful) Parliament, are they allowed to
>alter and manufacture history?
>
>Arthur 2 fought in Scotland and did rule parts of it.
>
>The FACTS are available in Artorius Rex Discovered, the Underground Classic
>written by Wilson and Blackett and still available from;
>
>Arthurian Research Foundation of Britain,
>21 Brunswick St. West,
>HOVE,
>Sussex BN3 lEL.
>
>Send an SAE for a list.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Tim Matthews - Arthurian Research Foundation.
I didn't say I believed this, I just asked for opinions on this from
the many experts.
As I said before I'am no expert on this just like the legends and the
historical aspects on the man, since we really don't know all the
facts on Arthur any thing may be possible, as far as I know NOT All of
the manuscripts and other references to Arthur have been read or even
discovered. So with this above question on Falkirk being a possible
Camelot, give me what IS known and why this can't be true.
Robert Elliot
pasj...@snet.net wrote:
>
> As I said before I'am no expert on this just like the legends and the
> historical aspects on the man, since we really don't know all the
> facts on Arthur any thing may be possible, as far as I know NOT All of
> the manuscripts and other references to Arthur have been read or even
> discovered. So with this above question on Falkirk being a possible
> Camelot, give me what IS known and why this can't be true.
>
I think you'll find all of the references have been read and discovered, at
least in so far as the documentary stuff goes. I'm currently reading "Arthur
and the lost Kingdoms" which is a rather second rate re-hash of the old Scottish
Arthur theme; it may be the one that claims Falkirk is Camelot. If so, I'll try
and answer your question once I've finished it!
Rob
Robert Elliot
evidently. Looks like the guy has taken one of the four Scots called Arthur from
the second half of the 6th century and done the normal trick of trying to tie
Nennius' battles plus Camlann and Camelot to local places. It's quite easy to do
this just about anywhere - people have done it with Cornwall, Wales, central Britain
and Lincolnshire. Scotland is quite a popular candidate, and the Scottish Arthur
idea has been knocking around for a while. The Camelot one is the most silly -
Camelot is a late French addition to the legends, so there's no possible connection
with a genuine place. It suffers from the usual problem that Nennius, the 8th
(actually 9th!) century manuscript this guy has "found", has been thoroughly and
comprehensively discredited as a source for the period by David Dumville. Obviously
I don't know exactly why he thinks this particular Arthur is the real, true one on
whom all the legends are based; it seems a little arbitrary as there were three
others (not counting W+B's Athrwys) knocking around at the same time. This Arthur
certainly didn't fight at Badon (he would have been about 100 when he died at
Camlann if he had!), and as that is really the turning point of the whole question
of a historical Arthur his thesis sounds unlikely. However, I am commiting the
unpardonable error of judging an unpublished book by a brief and inaccurate review,
so I'll shut up. Have a look at
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~tomgreen/arthur.htm for a comprehensive guide to
why all of these "finding the real Arthur" books have unacknowledged issues (and now
I really will shut up as I'll be upsetting people!).
Rob
Jason Godesky
of Chretien's additions may be based on much older Breton traditions. I agree it's a
stretch, but it is a possibility, so there is something slightly better than a
snowball's chance in hell Camelot has some historical validity to it. But not much more
than slight.
Jason Godesky
Peter
Maybe even "The Holy Kingdom" *G*
Only joking.
Peter
Michael Flynn
Jason Godesky <jm...@trib.infi.net> wrote in message
news:3967B3CB...@trib.infi.net...
A theory about Camelot:
If you assume that "Arthur" was a figure of national importance rather than
regional, then the location of "Camelot" becomes fairly obvious. Camulodunum
(Colchester) was and is a location with national strategic importance
against invaders from across the Channel. There is a naval base there now.
In pre-Roman times it was regarded as the capital of Britain by the Romans
and it was the first place the Romans captured in the second invasion (the
successful one).
The early British didn't really have a capital in the sense we think of, but
it was the site of an annual gathering of all the kings of Britain to get
together and decide on matters of common policy. It was also a general
purpose faire and festival, and a place of supposed religious power.
The Romans made Camulodunum their capital in the early part of their
administration. Later it continued as a cultural and spiritual capital, with
the second largest pagan temple in the Roman empire situated there. (Finance
and trade headquarters were moved to Londinium and military headquarters
went to Euboracim (York))
When the Normans came, they built what was at the time the largest castle in
Europe on the foundation of the Roman temple at Camulodonum, building it
almost entirely out of Roman bricks and stone. Portions of the Balkern gate
still stand, which was the main Roman entrance into Camulodunum, and miles
of Roman brick city wall also survive. The Balkern gate had a marble tower
with two vaulted entrances for carriages. On either side of this were brick
arches providing passage for pedestrians through the brick wall. One of
these pedestrian arches is still intact.
Archeology shows that when the suddenly re-energized Romano British pushed
back the encroaching Anglo-Saxons, that the Romano British forces had to
penetrate deep into enemy teritory to free Camulodunum and then they
stopped, indicating that it had a great importance.
I don't believe that "Arthur" used Camelot (shortened the same way London
got shortened from Londinium) as a headquarters or power base. I believe
that it was mainly a symbol from old times and needed to be captured and
held as a matter of pride.
By the way, Camulodunum means "fortress of Camulos", one of the early pagan
gods. It is reputed to be the birthplace and home of "Helen of the Cross",
mother of Constantine the Great. Her father is reputed to be King Cole, of
nursery rhyme fame.
I am assuming that we all recognize that "Arthur" was a guardian and
inheritor of two traditions: Roman culture and British culture. Some of his
followers spoke Latin and considerd themselves Roman citizens although they
were also British, and other followers may not have spoken Latin and were
more loyal to a local traditional identity. They had a common enemy in the
Anglo-Saxons. Thus he would inherit the regard that both cultures had for
Camulodunum.
The museum curators at Colchester have heard this theory before, but they
don't press it because other towns have prior claims to being Camelot. I
believe they just don't want to get involved in the political haggle, but
this is to me a glaringly obvious site.
Michael Flynn
Graham Nowland
news:mbrk5.75829$3E6.7...@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com...
> Regarding Camelot:
Michael,
I find it interesting that you and Jason Godesky are putting this
speculative spin on Colchester as I have been thinking along the same lines,
although when I first heard the idea years ago I rejected it without much
thought.
However once you get into historical evidence Colchester (Camuludonum)
becomes increasingly attractive as a speculatuive Romano-British HQ.
I am intersted in what you said about the status of Camuldodonum as a pre
Roman settlement, because Roman Britain
specialists (eg Salway,Wacher) suggests a slightly different position to the
one you took.
I am thinking of your comment,
> The early British didn't really have a capital in the sense we think of,
>but
> it was the site of an annual gathering of all the kings of Britain to get
> together and decide on matters of common policy.
From what I've read when Julius Caeser invaded it was a Trinovante centre.
After the Julius
Caesar forces left, the Catevellauni, based in what is now Hertfordshire,
picked up their previous wars with the Trinovante. The Catevellauni seem to
have won and moved their centre east to Camulodonum. One factor might have
been changed trading patterns with the Empire via the Essex coast instead of
previous Kent coast trade routes. ie a new port.
This could have been a key consequence of the Roman's first attempt to
invade.
Salway and Wacher both say Cunebelinus minted coins (photos included in
Wacher) including those from a mint at Camulodonum. The emperor Claudius
later personally led the final invasion campagn into Camulodonum.
Later Boudicca attacked Camuldodum first before going onto Verulam and
London.
So I agree with you that after the Romans left in the fifth century, it
would have been strategically and probably symbolically necessary for the
British
to continue to hold Camulodum as the capital.
I understand archaelogical evidence shows that in the Vorgitern period
business at Camulodonum and London went on as usual. Camulodonum would have
been of
primary strategic importance to him because he followed the typically late
Roman policy of shoring up defences using barbarian (in this case the
Saxons) as federati against other barbarians (Picts, Danes/Vikings?).
The British seem to have kept the Saxons of Essex and East Anglia apart
from those in Kent by controlling the wedge of land dominated by Colchester
Verulamium and London.
But the South East policy of maintaining the Camulodonum, Verulamium, London
wedge seems to have continued right through the "Arthur" period.
Again there seems to be archaleogical evidence to support this pattern.
(Morris)
The British policy of divide and rule perhaps began at Camulodonum. Whether
all this really reached the romancers for their treament is another thing,
but it seems remotely possible that Camulodoum became Camelot to them.
It seems more likely than other locations. From a British archetypal point
of view, I actually want Camelot to be in the West, so I went hopefully to
South Cadbury twice after reading Leslie's Alcocks book about the
excavation.
However I decided it could not have been of significant strategic importance
to "Arthur." While he Ambosius and Vortigern could have easily stayed
overnight to inspect it as one of a chain of forts say, it is too small and
in the wrong place for a British HQ.
There is also the problem of possible faking of place names at South Cadbury
during the Tudor period.
Alcocks' own evidence seems to bear all this out and the last I heard he had
moved over to the Camulodonum theory.
Kind regards
Graham
Michael Flynn
My sources of information are popular books and my own thinking. You
seem to have much more detailed knowledge at your disposal. I am gratified
that there are others who see the same picture.
I expect that Camulodunum was not a very glorious place in the time of
"Arthur" (I put quotes because we don't know who he was, but I'm sure there
was someone filling his shoes, more or less), but there were probably
impressive ruins and tales and traditions of former glory. The romancers may
have picked up the impression of the "golden city on the hill" from an
earlier reality. London was probably a far more impressive city at the time
of Arthur, but it is hard to spin romantic fantasies about a city that
everyone knows.
It is an interesting story how I came to this conlusion about Colchester
(camulodunum). I wanted to put myself in the place of Arthur to see what his
world looked like. I got a map of Roman Britain from the Ordinace Survey.
(Available by mail or from some museums at Roman sites). It shows every
Roman road, town and villa ( and actually any Roman finds of any kind). In
the time of Arthur some of those towns may have been abandoned or defunct,
but the roads would be intact and all the places shown would at least be
known and part of the mental landscape of the time. I couldn't believe my
eyes when one of the biggest and most strategic cities in his mental
landscape had a name that looked a lot like Camelot! Sometimes you need to
back away from the details and just look at the big picture. It was like a
light bulb going on.
An interseting factoid I got from roaming the museums of England. Britain is
the only place in the world where Roman horsehoes have been found. It had
been thought that Romans did not use horseshoes. The Roman horseshoe is
quite distinctive: it has a scalloped outer edge. This supports my theory
that Britain was the ideal place (with many fine horsemen already) to
exploit the idea of the stirrip, pommel and heavy armor which the Romans had
learned about from fighting the Persians just before the time of Arthur.
(Actually just before the time of Ambrosius Aurelianus to be more exact)
Rome faithfully copied the style of the Persian heavy armored cavalry down
to the helmet style. The Persian armored cavalry helmet with conical shape,
reinforcing bands front, back and sides, and a nose guard, was the same
helmet used all the way down until the Norman invasion. I suspect that if
Arthurian armor were discovered by archeologists, that they probably assumed
it was Norman because the style had not changed materially from the late
Roman adaptation of Persian armor. I would like to hear the reaction of some
of the experts on this board who would have a lot more detailed information
than I have.
Graham Nowland <graham....@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:VL7l5.29292$c5.8...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
Joe Jefferson
Keep in mind though that the name "Camelot" for Arthur's capital did not
appear until the late twelfth century. It could just as easily have come
from a French fairy tale as from a Roman place name.
--
Joe of Castle Jefferson
http://www.primenet.com/~jjstrshp/
Site updated October 1st, 1999.
"Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the
poor and oppressed. Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the
hand of the wicked." - Psalm 82:3-4.
Michael Flynn
Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote in message
news:399653...@primenet.com...
>
> Keep in mind though that the name "Camelot" for Arthur's capital did not
> appear until the late twelfth century. It could just as easily have come
> from a French fairy tale as from a Roman place name.
>
> --
Do you have a specific fairy tale in mind? What I am getting to is that
a source we may think of as French may actually come from late Roman
Britain. I believe that the early Arthurian stories originated in Normandy
or Brittany, which shared the same culture and background as the Romanised
British. It is also the place where the armies of both Maximus and Arthur
are said to have gone to retire, taking their stories with them (where they
got the stories mixed up an comingled). Both areas had been so closely
related in pre-Roman times that Caesar mistook the British for the people in
Brittany and mistakenly gave the name "Britain" to the British Isles. Both
areas adopted Roman culture with a passion and according to an atlas of
Roman civilzation these two areas were among the very last in the Western
world to cling to Roman civilization after Rome itself had fallen. (a
footnote relative to this: in every English museum with Roman material I
visited I was looking for the last date of Roman occupation. In most towns
this was pretty consistently put at about 520AD)
I was amazed to find that among the Normans invading England was a large
contingent who believed that they were the descendents of Arthurs' people
and that they were on a mission to retake their ancestral homeland. Some
authors say that most of the organized Romano British under Arthur actually
left England on his death and went to Normany/Brittany, adding great
strength to that area and allowing them to resist cultural and political
incursions by the Franks.
I think many people underestimate the contribution local people
(non-Italians) made to Roman civilization. The people of pre-Roman Britain
were known for their love of literature and knowledge, especially in the
SouthWest. When the Romans arrived, instead of learning Latin from soldiers
the upper class hired teachers and learned correct classical Latin, so that
people educated in Britain were consitenly better educated and more literate
in the Latin language than their peers in Europe (this is demonstrated by
works that remain of men from Britain who went to Rome or Europe and made
their careers there). It was also known that when people from Britain spoke
Latin in Rome or Europe, that their speech sounded high-class and snooty to
the Roman ear. I expect that the Romano British were very familiar with
Roman literature and history, in which there is much to respect and admire,
especially from the Republican period.
From archeology it was learned that most of the people who inhabited late
Roman sites in Britain were either Celtic or Germanic and not from Italy,
because people from Italy have characteristic round skulls and can be
distinguished from Celts and Germans who have long skulls.
Michael
Steve Beard
have doubts about, so if I may be allowed to play Devil's Advocate
(and hence keep this interesting thread going)...
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 06:46:09 GMT, "Michael Flynn" <mef...@home.com>
wrote:
> It is an interesting story how I came to this conlusion about Colchester
>(camulodunum). I wanted to put myself in the place of Arthur to see what his
>world looked like. I got a map of Roman Britain from the Ordinace Survey.
>(Available by mail or from some museums at Roman sites). It shows every
>Roman road, town and villa ( and actually any Roman finds of any kind). In
>the time of Arthur some of those towns may have been abandoned or defunct,
>but the roads would be intact and all the places shown would at least be
>known and part of the mental landscape of the time. I couldn't believe my
>eyes when one of the biggest and most strategic cities in his mental
>landscape had a name that looked a lot like Camelot! Sometimes you need to
>back away from the details and just look at the big picture. It was like a
>light bulb going on.
I think there are two problems with the strategic argument. First,
the Saxon Shore fort at Bradwell would be far better for defence
against a landing ( obviously the Romans though so anyway ). There is
also archaeological evidence that Camulodunum was subject to attacks
during the late 4C, indicating that it may have been vulnerable.
Second, any strategic importance that it may have had against sea
borne attacks surely becomes diminished one the Saxons had established
territory, e.g. in Kent and Norfolk.
<Snip interesting factoid>
>Graham Nowland <graham....@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:VL7l5.29292$c5.8...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
<Snip>
>> The British seem to have kept the Saxons of Essex and East Anglia apart
>> from those in Kent by controlling the wedge of land dominated by
>Colchester
>> Verulamium and London.
>>
>> But the South East policy of maintaining the Camulodonum, Verulamium,
>London
>> wedge seems to have continued right through the "Arthur" period.
>> Again there seems to be archaleogical evidence to support this pattern.
>> (Morris)
I have just got Ken Dark's Civitas to Kingdom. While I haven't read
it, I saw during a quick skim, an interesting distribution map. He
has the "wedge" remaining under British control, but it is completely
surrounded by Saxon controlled territory. If Arthur's Camelot was at
Camulodunum, then he seems to have been cut off from the rest of the
Romano-Britons.
< Snip lots, then back to Michael Flynn >
>> > Archeology shows that when the suddenly re-energized Romano British
>pushed
>> > back the encroaching Anglo-Saxons, that the Romano British forces had
>to
>> > penetrate deep into enemy teritory to free Camulodunum and then they
>> > stopped, indicating that it had a great importance.
Is there any evidence that the Romano-British ever lost Camulodunum?
I don't know what the earliest dateable Saxon evidence from the area
is - anyone out there know?
Chris Snyder's gazetteer of Sub-Roman sites has Camulodunum only as a
possible for occupation in the 5th and 6th Centuries. Is there any
evidence that it was still an important location? The decline during
the late 4C was steeper than most towns, according to Esmonde-Cleary.
Beardo
Michael Flynn
I don't think that Camulodunum/Camelot was an important location
physically in the 5th century. It's importance was more symbolic by that
time.
Authors can be wrong, but I read somewhere (and saw maps) that the Anglo
Saxon incusions were not always in one direction. At one point there was a
massive pullback and that they had taken all the area around Camulodunum, to
lose it again when the Romano British got their act together.
To be a strategic defense location Camulodunum does not need to be right
on a likely invasion beach.. A days' ride away is quite close enough. You
seem to have in mind tactical sites.
I think it would be a good idea when looking at the relationship of
locations to keep in mind where the Roman roads are, as they were generally
well made and probably were usable for a long time after maintenance
stopped. The existence or lack of a road can really change the apparent
distance between two places.
Michael
Steve Beard <no...@virginnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:399a8eea...@news.virginnet.co.uk...
> There are a few things about this Camulodunum = Camelot theory that I
> have doubts about, so if I may be allowed to play Devil's Advocate
> (and hence keep this interesting thread going)...
>
> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 06:46:09 GMT, "Michael Flynn" <mef...@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It is an interesting story how I came to this conlusion about
Colchester
> >(camulodunum). I wanted to put myself in the place of Arthur to see what
his
> >world looked like. I got a map of Roman Britain from the Ordinace Survey.
> >(Available by mail or from some museums at Roman sites). It shows every
> >Roman road, town and villa ( and actually any Roman finds of any kind).
In
> >the time of Arthur some of those towns may have been abandoned or
defunct,
> >but the roads would be intact and all the places shown would at least be
> >known and part of the mental landscape of the time. I couldn't believe my
> >eyes when one of the biggest and most strategic cities in his mental
> >landscape had a name that looked a lot like Camelot! Sometimes you need
to
> >back away from the details and just look at the big picture. It was like
a
> >light bulb going on.
>
> I think there are two problems with the strategic argument. First,
> the Saxon Shore fort at Bradwell would be far better for defence
> against a landing ( obviously the Romans though so anyway ). There is
> also archaeological evidence that Camulodunum was subject to attacks
> during the late 4C, indicating that it may have been vulnerable.
>
> Second, any strategic importance that it may have had against sea
> borne attacks surely becomes diminished one the Saxons had established
> territory, e.g. in Kent and Norfolk.
>
> <Snip interesting factoid>
>
> >Graham Nowland <graham....@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >news:VL7l5.29292$c5.8...@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
>
> <Snip>
>
> >> The British seem to have kept the Saxons of Essex and East Anglia apart
> >> from those in Kent by controlling the wedge of land dominated by
> >Colchester
> >> Verulamium and London.
> >>
> >> But the South East policy of maintaining the Camulodonum, Verulamium,
> >London
> >> wedge seems to have continued right through the "Arthur" period.
> >> Again there seems to be archaleogical evidence to support this pattern.
> >> (Morris)
>
> I have just got Ken Dark's Civitas to Kingdom. While I haven't read
> it, I saw during a quick skim, an interesting distribution map. He
> has the "wedge" remaining under British control, but it is completely
> surrounded by Saxon controlled territory. If Arthur's Camelot was at
> Camulodunum, then he seems to have been cut off from the rest of the
> Romano-Britons.
>
> < Snip lots, then back to Michael Flynn >
> >> > Archeology shows that when the suddenly re-energized Romano British
> >pushed
> >> > back the encroaching Anglo-Saxons, that the Romano British forces
had
> >to
> >> > penetrate deep into enemy teritory to free Camulodunum and then they
> >> > stopped, indicating that it had a great importance.
>
Steve Beard
wrote:
>Steve,
> I don't think that Camulodunum/Camelot was an important location
>physically in the 5th century. It's importance was more symbolic by that
>time.
> Authors can be wrong, but I read somewhere (and saw maps) that the Anglo
>Saxon incusions were not always in one direction. At one point there was a
>massive pullback and that they had taken all the area around Camulodunum, to
>lose it again when the Romano British got their act together.
Can you remember the book or Author?
> To be a strategic defense location Camulodunum does not need to be right
>on a likely invasion beach.. A days' ride away is quite close enough. You
>seem to have in mind tactical sites.
>
Could you outline your reasons for its strategic importance? From its
location, I can only see it as a base to prevent sea-borne attack.
Why is it better than Verulamium or London? As a defensive ( agreed
tactical ) location, why not site at the better defended Bradwell.
> I think it would be a good idea when looking at the relationship of
>locations to keep in mind where the Roman roads are, as they were generally
>well made and probably were usable for a long time after maintenance
>stopped. The existence or lack of a road can really change the apparent
>distance between two places.
A good point, I'll check that out.
Beardo
Michael Flynn
Bear in mind that the "strategic" importance of Camulodunum dates from
pre-Roman times and is not necessarily relevant to the period of Anglo Saxon
incursion. As was mentioned by someone else on this board, occupation of
Camulodunum might be useful in the latter context as a means of splitting
main bodies of Anglo Saxons and as a sort of frontier outpost in those
times. The main point I wish to make is that Camulodunum would be a magnet
for tales of old glory from the viewpoint of a storyteller, but that the
story tellers distorted where the power base really was, which I think was
in the SouthWest.
The book I mentioned is apparently not one I own. I did not find the map.
Re-examining the Ordnance Survey map of Roman Britain I see that
Camulodunum is served by a direct road to London, a road North to Venta and
a road West that branches to a network of roads crisscrossing the region.
According to the map, there were only 4 cities in Britain that had the
status of Coloniae, which was the most politically important status. London
did not make it to this status. The 4 cities are Eburacum (York), Lindum
(Lincoln), Glevum (Gloucester) and Camulodunum (Colchester)
Michael
Steve Beard <no...@virginnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:399abb01...@news.virginnet.co.uk...
Joe Jefferson
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:399653...@primenet.com...
> >
> > Keep in mind though that the name "Camelot" for Arthur's capital did not
> > appear until the late twelfth century. It could just as easily have come
> > from a French fairy tale as from a Roman place name.
> >
> > --
> Joe,
> Do you have a specific fairy tale in mind? What I am getting to is that
> a source we may think of as French may actually come from late Roman
> Britain. I believe that the early Arthurian stories originated in Normandy
> or Brittany, which shared the same culture and background as the Romanised
> British. It is also the place where the armies of both Maximus and Arthur
> are said to have gone to retire, taking their stories with them (where they
> got the stories mixed up an comingled). Both areas had been so closely
> related in pre-Roman times that Caesar mistook the British for the people in
> Brittany and mistakenly gave the name "Britain" to the British Isles. Both
> areas adopted Roman culture with a passion and according to an atlas of
> Roman civilzation these two areas were among the very last in the Western
> world to cling to Roman civilization after Rome itself had fallen. (a
> footnote relative to this: in every English museum with Roman material I
> visited I was looking for the last date of Roman occupation. In most towns
> this was pretty consistently put at about 520AD)
No, I don't have anything particular in mind. The reason I suggested it
is that the name "Camelot" first appears in _The Knight of the Cart_ by
Chretien de Troyes, which is very similar to any number of folk stories
in which a wife is abducted and taken off to Fairyland. It has
frequently been suggested that Chretien drew on folk legends in
composing his poem. But if he did, there is no guarantee that he
followed them at all closely, or for that matter that they were in any
way connected with Arthur before Chretien adapted them to his purpose.
And some of his material - perhaps including some of the names - he may
have just made up.
And even at that, Camelot is not Arthur's capitol in the sense we would
understand the term today. Like any medieval sovereign, King Arthur
travelled from city to city, holding court in many different places
throughout the year. Camelot was simply one of them. It was only much
later that it became preeminent.
> I was amazed to find that among the Normans invading England was a large
> contingent who believed that they were the descendents of Arthurs' people
> and that they were on a mission to retake their ancestral homeland.
Through the female line, interestingly enough. The Normans were of
course originally Scandanavian, but when they settled in France they
married wives from neighboring Brittany, through whom the claim to be of
Arthur's lineage was established.
> Some
> authors say that most of the organized Romano British under Arthur actually
> left England on his death and went to Normany/Brittany, adding great
> strength to that area and allowing them to resist cultural and political
> incursions by the Franks.
> I think many people underestimate the contribution local people
> (non-Italians) made to Roman civilization. The people of pre-Roman Britain
> were known for their love of literature and knowledge, especially in the
> SouthWest. When the Romans arrived, instead of learning Latin from soldiers
> the upper class hired teachers and learned correct classical Latin, so that
> people educated in Britain were consitenly better educated and more literate
> in the Latin language than their peers in Europe (this is demonstrated by
> works that remain of men from Britain who went to Rome or Europe and made
> their careers there). It was also known that when people from Britain spoke
> Latin in Rome or Europe, that their speech sounded high-class and snooty to
> the Roman ear. I expect that the Romano British were very familiar with
> Roman literature and history, in which there is much to respect and admire,
> especially from the Republican period.
The main problem with this though is that there is a gap of about 600
years between the Romano Britains of Arthur's era and the name
"Camelot".
Michael Flynn
>
> And even at that, Camelot is not Arthur's capitol in the sense we would
> understand the term today. Like any medieval sovereign, King Arthur
> travelled from city to city, holding court in many different places
> throughout the year. Camelot was simply one of them. It was only much
> later that it became preeminent.
>
Roman forms, probably acting as emperor of the provinces of Britain, which
was authorised by the letter from Honorius in 410. He may also have moved
his headquarters from time to time, just as the Roman emperors did. The idea
was that the capital is where ever the emperor happens to be. Phillips and
Keatman have made a convicing case that he rebuilt Viroconium to be his
headquarters, leveling the old city and completely rebuilding it in
classical Roman fashion in the fifth century. Phillip Barker was the chief
archeologist who studied this town in the late 1960's and found that the old
Roman town had been rebuilt at a late date.
> > I was amazed to find that among the Normans invading England was a
large
> > contingent who believed that they were the descendents of Arthurs'
people
> > and that they were on a mission to retake their ancestral homeland.
>
> Through the female line, interestingly enough. The Normans were of
> course originally Scandanavian, but when they settled in France they
> married wives from neighboring Brittany, through whom the claim to be of
> Arthur's lineage was established.
>
I found it difficult to get information on the Normans, because they seem to
be disliked. The Scandinavians who became the rulers of what became Normandy
adopted the culture and language they found there and simply energised it
with a great ambition and military spirit. The culture was basically Romano
British with very few changes. Even their building techniques and style was
very similar to late Roman usage. There were very few actual Scandinavians
among the Normans. They occupied most of the leadership positions and lit a
fire under a culture that was already highly advanced in many ways. The
Norman culture as a separate thing did not last very long at all, but it was
incredibly dynamic. As I see it, the Norman invasion simply returned the
Romano British culture that Britain had lost about 500 years earlier.
>
> The main problem with this though is that there is a gap of about 600
> years between the Romano Britains of Arthur's era and the name
> "Camelot".
>
Yes, speaking of written references to that form of the name. By that time
the Roman role of Camulodunum was probably fading from memory and there were
probably very few references to it in literature that still existed in that
day, but in popular usage in the area around Colchester I'm sure they
remembered what it was and I doubt if they used the long form of the name,
just as Londinium was shortened to London. The author could simply have had
conversations with someone from that part of Britain and picked up the name
of a place of former glory.
In another post I mentioned that when the Normans arrived in Britain they
built in Camulodunum, on the foundations of the pagan temple that had been
the second largest in the world, a castle which was in its time the largest
castle in Europe, indicating that this place was still considered strategic.
Michael
sedd...@my-deja.com
semantics, it's a pleasure to read.
I would add what small weight I can gather to the view that Camulodunum
does not present a coherent picture as far as strategy is concerned.
However, that should not detract too much from the case for it
being "Camelot", as has been stated, the place has a pre-Roman legacy
that would remain in the collective consciousness of the time.
If, as has been postulated, Camulodunum, was, at one point, captured by
the Saxons and subsequently regained by the British, this would have
been a major event at the time. However, there is no obvious sign of it
in the literary evidence. Unless it can be interpeted as the "City of
the Legion", no trace of action can be seen in Nennius' 12 battles
(implying that Arthur didn't fight there?), and also there is no
explicit mention in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles.
By no means is this a categorical view, but I hope it adds to the
discussion.
Regards
Seddy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Michael Flynn
Your points certainly suggest that Camulodum was not hotly contested
either way. It is quite possible that very few British were living there
when the Anglo Saxons took it. My impression is that much of the ORIGINAL
Anglo Saxon incursion was slow and gradual and based on unending immigration
and pushing out the British by just making them uncomfortable with being a
small minority. Finally when they did revolt in a violent way, they were
well entrenched and their numbers were overwhelming. This is also why the
British needed the force-multiplier that heavy armored cavalry gave them,
which was especially useful against a people who knew nothing about horses
and had none. (at that time) Archeology tells us that the young men of the
villas in late Roman Britain were in the habit of racing horses for sport.
The villas in Britain tended to be much more prosperous than their
counterparts on the continent and were still owned by the families that
lived on them. This gave late Roman Britain a relatively large upper class
that had something to defend and the means to defend it. Their sons recieved
the best education in the Roman world and they were expert horsemen. There
were few other places in the world (at that time) where the skill, wealth
and technology existed to create an expert corps of heavy armored cavalry.
All they needed was leadership to make it happen.
Michael
<sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nh1cc$21t$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
sedd...@my-deja.com
I like your take on the cavalry situation. If I can I would like to add
a couple of further dynamics.
Firstly what impact would the series of emigrations have had on the
ruling classes? I have thought myself that in the panic to get away
from a dire domestic situation, those who left may have done so without
their horses. (Depends on the level of panic and also how many lft at
one time) But more generally, what proportion of the ruling classes
left Britain?
Secondly, there is also the question of the fate of the Roman cavalry
contingent. Did it leave Britain with the rest of the legions in the
late 4th century?
Thirdly, if a force of cavalry was established to counter the Saxon
infantry, where was it stationed? I can't imagine it having a
permanantly roving mission, it must have had a base. My preference
would be Caerlon in South Wales, a central spot from which to counter
incursons along the Thames valley, but also with the ability to move
north and south of that line. This interpretaton would place Caerlon as
Camelot (the base from which Arthur operated).
Look forward to your impression of these alternatives.
Michael Flynn
Michael Flynn
<sedd...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8nj9r7$kfv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> Firstly what impact would the series of emigrations have had on the
> ruling classes? I have thought myself that in the panic to get away
> from a dire domestic situation, those who left may have done so without
> their horses. (Depends on the level of panic and also how many lft at
> one time) But more generally, what proportion of the ruling classes
> left Britain?
>
that I know of.. I don't think it was the ruling classes so much as it was
more of a Roman town that left in an orderly and organised fashion and
reclaimed an abandoned Roman town in Armorica on the continent.
Of course the Roman contingent was much weakened by Arthurs' time, but
that still may have represented considerable strength. Remember that the
resources of Britain had been strong enough in the past to seize the entire
Roman empire several times. (Maximus & Constantine)
>
> Secondly, there is also the question of the fate of the Roman cavalry
> contingent. Did it leave Britain with the rest of the legions in the
> late 4th century?
I assume the Sarmatian cavalry (I believe it was 4,000 horsemen) was
withdrawn with the legions to help with the defense of Rome. Rome was sacked
the same summer after the legions were withdrawn from Britain, so the
effort was in vain. The upper class men of Britain would not have enlisted
in the army so they would not have been involved in a pullout. Most of the
legions were recruited in faraway border places (Syria, Germany etc) , as
Romans generally did not like to be in the army in the late period.
However, at the time of the pullout I don't think that Rome had yet
learned the secret of effective cavalry, namely stirrips and pommels. These
things were learned from fighting the Persians and would result in a
revolutionary breakthrough in tactics and methods. Prior to stirrups you
could not effectively fight from a horse. The cavalry would ride to the
battle site and then dismount to fight or stand back and use archery. (This
is one of the problems I had with the historical veracity of the movie
"Gladiator")
Rome learned about heavy armored cavalry too late to save itself. By the
time they learned this they were already to weak and poor to be able to
spend the money for the very expensive equipment required nor did they have
the time or money to spend many years training effective knights. If you
hadn't been a horseman from boyhood it was probably too late to learn well
enough.
It is rather like Nazi Germany that developed advanced jet fighters, but
too late and too little do do them any good.
The reason I say leadership was a key element is because a military force
had to be organised from scratch. Also attitudes had to change so that upper
class men could be involved, but then they were desperate and I doubt if it
took much persuasion. Being literate, they were probably familiar with the
ideals of the early Roman Republic, which was based on the idea that every
citizen was a soldier, and that this service was an honorable thing. These
concepts had pretty much been lost in the late Roman empire. Rome had gone
from a Republic where every man was required to furnish his own weapons and
equipment to an empire where weapons were strictly controlled and accounted
for and civilians were not allowed to posess them.
>
> Thirdly, if a force of cavalry was established to counter the Saxon
> infantry, where was it stationed? I can't imagine it having a
> permanantly roving mission, it must have had a base. My preference
> would be Caerlon in South Wales, a central spot from which to counter
> incursons along the Thames valley, but also with the ability to move
> north and south of that line. This interpretaton would place Caerlon as
> Camelot (the base from which Arthur operated).
>
Your logic makes sense and it gives us something to look for, but I don't
think that Camelot was really a base that Arthur operated from. I am not
that familiar with the geography of England. I wonder if Viroconium
(Wroxeter) would meet your requirements as a location for a base of
operations? It was served by roads in all four directions including a direct
road to London.
>
I take it you must live near Caerlon. ? :)
Michael
W. Lydecker
counter- clockwise, campaign through Saxon, Angle, Pict, and Scot
territories. Then southward toward Dumnonia. If
true, this probably would be mainly cavalry. Even so, it would take
some time! Of course, this is just theory. Caerleon, is
probably as good a location as Cadbury, or Winchester, as a base.
Joe Jefferson
>
> Joe Jefferson <jjst...@primenet.com> wrote in message
> news:399B5A...@primenet.com...
> >
> > And even at that, Camelot is not Arthur's capitol in the sense we would
> > understand the term today. Like any medieval sovereign, King Arthur
> > travelled from city to city, holding court in many different places
> > throughout the year. Camelot was simply one of them. It was only much
> > later that it became preeminent.
> >
> I don't see Arthur as a medieval figure. he would have been organized using
> Roman forms, probably acting as emperor of the provinces of Britain, which
> was authorised by the letter from Honorius in 410. He may also have moved
> his headquarters from time to time, just as the Roman emperors did. The idea
> was that the capital is where ever the emperor happens to be. Phillips and
> Keatman have made a convicing case that he rebuilt Viroconium to be his
> headquarters, leveling the old city and completely rebuilding it in
> classical Roman fashion in the fifth century. Phillip Barker was the chief
> archeologist who studied this town in the late 1960's and found that the old
> Roman town had been rebuilt at a late date.
I don't disagree with any of this, so far as the sixth century is
concerned. My point however, is that the name Camelot doesn't come to us
from the sixth century; it first appears in a medieval poem, in which
Arthur is protrayed as acting exactly like a twelfth century English
king.
"Camelot" is first given as the location of one of Arthur's courts in
Chertien de Troyes' _The Knight of the Cart_. This is the only one of
Chretien's five Arthurian poems that mentions this place, and it is also
the least realistic of the five. In other works the same author has
Arthur holding court in Cardigan, Winchester, Windsor, Oxford, Caerleon,
Carlisle, Chester, Nantes, and Disnadaron. His most important residences
seem to be at Carlisle and Caerleon (most likely meaning the Caerleon on
the Usk). The strong connection between Arthur and Camelot that exists
today didn't evolve until quite a bit later.
<snip>
> > The main problem with this though is that there is a gap of about 600
> > years between the Romano Britains of Arthur's era and the name
> > "Camelot".
> >
> Yes, speaking of written references to that form of the name. By that time
> the Roman role of Camulodunum was probably fading from memory and there were
> probably very few references to it in literature that still existed in that
> day, but in popular usage in the area around Colchester I'm sure they
> remembered what it was and I doubt if they used the long form of the name,
> just as Londinium was shortened to London. The author could simply have had
> conversations with someone from that part of Britain and picked up the name
> of a place of former glory.
Maybe, but if so he seems to have used the information rather
haphazardly, since he specifies that Camelot is near Caerleon. I'd say
it's just as easy to suppose Chretien (or one of his sources) simply
made the name up.
I'm not trying to say anything BTW, either positive or negative, about
the role of Camulodunum in the sixth century. I don't know enough about
the period to have formed an opinion either way. All I'm saying is that
there is no reason to think that the name "Camelot" dates from that time
period, anymore than do the names "Lancelot" or "Tristan".
Michael Flynn
>
> Maybe, but if so he seems to have used the information rather
> haphazardly, since he specifies that Camelot is near Caerleon. I'd say
> it's just as easy to suppose Chretien (or one of his sources) simply
> made the name up.
>
just a coincidence.
Do you know if other authors who mention Camelot may have had their own
sources or did they all just copy Chretien, or is it possible to say?
Joe Jefferson
Generally they copied, although most of them were not above adding
elaborations of their own. _Knight of the Cart_ was hugely popular in
Europe (except, paradoxically, in England).
If any actual sixth century Arthurian capital was remembered in medieval
poetry it would most likely be either Carlisle or Caerleon, since those
were the most popular early on (along with Nantes, which I guess can be
ruled out pretty quickly).
sedd...@my-deja.com
"Michael Flynn" <mef...@home.com> wrote:
Snip
> Your logic makes sense and it gives us something to look for, but I
don't
> think that Camelot was really a base that Arthur operated from. I am
not
> that familiar with the geography of England. I wonder if Viroconium
> (Wroxeter) would meet your requirements as a location for a base of
> operations? It was served by roads in all four directions including a
direct
> road to London.
> >
> I take it you must live near Caerlon. ? :)
No, I actually live on the south coast. (As you may have gleaned from
other posts)
I have a preference for Caerlon for a few reasons. Firstly the quantity
of documentary evidence originating in Wales is much greater than that
elsewhere (not all of it refers to events in Wales but extends into
what is now England). Secondly, Caerlon was the base for a legion (2nd
Augusta) and hence had a military background. (Incidentally, I have
read that Chichester (Regnum Noviomagus) was a colonia for the 2nd
Augusta - completely off-topic but never mind). Thirdly, there is the
geographic location which fits in with the strategy we have been
discussing.
Wroxeter must have been an important site, especially in the latter
Roman period. Another site with ample road connection was Silchester,
sitting between London and Glevum/Aeque Sulis horizontally, and
Wroxeter and Chichester, vertically. It also (I believe) had roads to
Winchester and hence to Portchester. However, Silchester would have
been in a rather delicate position as the Saxon advance grew in pace,
sited as it is between the Thames Valley on the north, Aelle's Saxons
to the south and Cerdic's Saxons to the south west. There is evidence
that Silchester, like Wroxeter, was inhabited into the 6th century, no
doubt it would have attracted some attention. (There is also folklore
connecting Silchester with a "giant" named Onion which fits in with a
bloke called Einion who features in some of the Welsh genealogies)
Steve Beard
>"Camelot" is first given as the location of one of Arthur's courts in
>Chertien de Troyes' _The Knight of the Cart_. This is the only one of
>Chretien's five Arthurian poems that mentions this place, and it is also
>the least realistic of the five. In other works the same author has
>Arthur holding court in Cardigan, Winchester, Windsor, Oxford, Caerleon,
>Carlisle, Chester, Nantes, and Disnadaron. His most important residences
>seem to be at Carlisle and Caerleon (most likely meaning the Caerleon on
>the Usk). The strong connection between Arthur and Camelot that exists
>today didn't evolve until quite a bit later.
Interesting that that other residences in Britain are actual places
though. Where does _The Knight of the Cart_ come in the chronology of
the writing of the 5 poems? It would seem odd to use a ficticious
place having previously used real locations.
>I'm not trying to say anything BTW, either positive or negative, about
>the role of Camulodunum in the sixth century. I don't know enough about
>the period to have formed an opinion either way. All I'm saying is that
>there is no reason to think that the name "Camelot" dates from that time
>period, anymore than do the names "Lancelot" or "Tristan".
Ah, but Tristan could date from the time - there is a 6C memorial
stone to Drustanus son of Cunomorus which has been equated by some to
Tristan.
Steve
richard wardle
tactical and strategic needs of the Cymry at that time,when Cerdic first
showed his hand.Tactically we need a Fortified forward base easily
accessable to the Fortlets set up to monitor the Saxones and provide a fast
reaction force/reserve to use modern terminoligy. The strategic requirements
for the capital would be different. A place with good communication routes
to ALL Kingdoms/Civitates and far enough to remove the threat of raiding
from the Saxones without plenty of warning and yet in the heartland of
resistance.
My Personal favourite for the Tactical is South Cadbury near Queen Camel in
Somerset.
This is because it is near the Civitates town at IIchester which was largley
abondoned at this time and the fact that (Cadbury) overlooked Cerdic's route
and was in the middle of a good network of roads to the north ,east, south
east and south as well as the west.It is also very large for this period and
would need 1000 men just to man the ramparts.It was also in good farming
country capable of supporting such a host and their animals. It was also
close to Glastonbury and there are many other forts in the area that could
have been recommissioned, but none as big as South Cadbury or with such good
routes I believe.
For the Straegic it's harder. Wroxeter,Cirencester,Gloucester ,Cearleon all
come into the frame.Cearleon can/may be dropped on the grounds of to easy
access from the sea to raiding parties and to far away from the Nodal
transport system. Gloucester is in Vortigens territory and can therefore be
dismissed as being on the losing side in the power struggle. Wroxeter is
even deeper in Powys and a further three days from the tactical base so I
think that can be ruled out. That leaves Cirencester.An excellent nodal
transport connection to York,Leicester, Water Newton,
Veralium,Colchester,London,Silchester,Winchester,
Chichester,Dorchester(Dorset) and Exeter. Now I am not saying that the town
itself was the capital but it has 4 miles north of it the old native
Oppidium at bagendon which was the capital of the eastern Dobunni.
In the Immortal words of John Cleese "It's my theory so there"
Regards Richard
sedd...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8nr5ao$3ub$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
Malcolm Martin
> Steve,
> I don't think that Camulodunum/Camelot was an important location
> physically in the 5th century. It's importance was more symbolic by that
> time.
Steve, Michael, Joe et al
I had intended to contribute to this thread earlier, but loss of
telephone lines and thus internet access, followed by a surfeit of
work, stayed my hand. So my apologies for this late contribution.
Over the last couple of years, I also have been working quietly (on
and off...) on the theory that Camelot < Camulodunum. I started for
the reasons that Michael has already outlined, and I shall try not to
go back over those. Nor would I seek to argue that Camelot was a
Historic Arthur’s Capital, - rather that it was one of his prime
cities, with him going from place to place. But to add some more
aspects into the debate, and pick up on some of Joe's points.
Strategic Situation:
1) If a Historic Arthur is to keep control of the whole country he
needs to have strong bases in all parts of it, not just the West.
IIRC, of the various places which are mentioned in the Romances as
places where the Romance Arthur held his court, all (except London?)
are in the West.
2) This concept of keeping the local inhabitants under some form of
control by having a strong base or bases in their territory was
itself practised by the Romans in Britain, who used this same
technique in Wales, but even more so with a series of forts related
to major bases such as Caerleon and Carlisle.
3) I couldn't work out the strategic importance of Colchester from
the information I had, and so I drove down to see it one Saturday (An
advantage I have.....If any of you guys over there happen to be over
here one weekend.......). Colchester stands on top of a hill, and
seems to be the only hill in the area, *dominating* the landscape
around and below it. The Roman walls are *still* standing (although
the facing stones have been long since robbed.) In the English Civil
War they were part of the defences of Colchester against cannon fire.
If that is what they were like then and now, I have to ask myself
how would the city with its walls would have been in 500? And would
the military victor of Badon have left such a city in the possession
of the defeated? (With Arthur or his forces picking up the city
following the complete rout of the Anglo-Saxon forces after Badon,
hence no further battle for it.)
Symbolic Issues
3) Moving on from that, Michael has already set out the symbolic
concept of a Claudian-style entrance of a Romano-Britain 'imperator'
victor, especially in the light that it would also have been seen as
the capital of pre-Roman king. This latter aspect is perhaps worth
exploring slightly more in the context of Arthur as a pan-tribal leader:
“Suetonius described Cunobelin as ‘King of the Britains’. Clearly he
was a very powerful figure who achieved some kind of control and
supremacy over the warring tribes of south-east England - so much so
that his death was a trigger for fresh inter-tribal conflict which
was to provide as excuse and an opportunity for the Roman invasion
itself” (Philip Crummy ‘City of Victory’ Colchester Archaeological
Trust1997 ISBN1-897719-04-3).
Thus for a Romano-British war leader, after the victory of Badon,
there would be the two inter-twined symbolic strands of British
pan-tribal leader and Roman triumphal entry of an Emperor into the
‘City of Victory’
4) There would also be the symbolism of the re-occupation of the
previous capital city of Britain (dedicated to the Celtic god of war)
5).....coupled with the fact that this city had the largest known
stone building in Britain at that time, the Claudian Temple.
The Romances
Before setting out the next strand of ‘evidence’, let me state that I
do recognise the difference between a (proposed) Historic Arthur and
the Arthur of the Romances. Even the ‘Arthur of the Romances’ is a
gross oversimplification as different authors have differing views of
their Arthur, but for the purpose of this post it will suffice to
treat the Romances as having one view of the Arthurian world. This
strand of ‘evidence’ also assumes that contained in the Romances are
the remembrances of historical fact, an assumption which is by no
means proven when it comes to Camelot (or, indeed, other matters such
as Lancelot etc.) I will return to this below, when I pick up Joe’s
point that the name "Camelot could <just as easily have come from a
French fairy tale as from a Roman place name>.
In Paganism in Arthurian Romance (Boydell & Brewer 1994 ISBN
0-85991-426-7), John Darrah sets out the geographical markers
recorded about Camelot in the Romances as:
“Camelot was the richest city in Great Britain and of so great
authority that the pagan king was crowned there. It was of greater
religious significance to the Sarrisins (this is how the romances
describe the earliest inhabitants of Britain) than any other city in
the realm. It had a pagan temple in the middle, which Joseph of
Arimathea replaced by a minster dedicated to ‘St Stephen’ and ‘Our
Lady’......The only other church mentioned was dedicated to ‘St
John’.......Here the stone appeared from which Arthur drew the sword.
Here the stone floated from which Galahad drew a sword. Merlin’s
perron was a mile or two away. There was a second Camelot, clearly
distinguished in the romances, which belonged to the ‘Lady of the
Lonely Waste Forest’ and was situated at the head of the most savage
island of Wales, near the sea, towards the west............”
IIRC, there is also the story of the Lady of Escalot’s funeral barge
floating down the river, with Arthur and the court going down to the
city gate to see this site.
Now I would be the first to admit that the correspondence between
Colchester and the Romance Camelot is not 100%. But there are some
interesting parallels:
6) the crowning of the pagan king compares to Point 3 above
7) the richness of the city would, in the times of a post-Badon
Historic Arthur primarily depend upon that Arthur and his Court, and
so would be true of any Arthurian Court City. But prior to such
times, in both pre-Roman and Roman times the evidence is such that it
was a very wealthy,(if not the wealthiest?), city.
8) the pagan temple in the centre turned into a minster is a perfect
description of the Claudian Temple. During my trip to Colchester,
the guide on the tour round the Norman Castle (built on the
foundation platform of the Temple) stated - and not prompted by me!!
- that there was (one piece of?) evidence that the temple had been
reused for Christian worship (IIRC, a Chi-Rho symbol).
9) a dedication to ‘St Stephen’ the first martyr would, I suggest,
have been thought appropriate, since the temple was the site of the
massacre of the Boudiccan rebellion - not my strongest point, since
it is unlikely that those massacred were Christian, but Roman.
10) St John’s Abbey was built on the site of an earlier church
dedicated to St John. This earlier church is believed to have been
excavated in the 1970s, whilst constructing St Botolph’s roundabout -
I have not yet investigated further the dating of this earlier
church, and it may be that it does not go back far enough.
11) The river flows just outside the North Gate, where a Roman quay
was currently being uncovered.
The above does not constitute ‘proof’ in any normal sense of the word
‘proof’, only parallels which I should like, at some time to follow
up further. The strongest evidence that is against this possible
Camelot < Camulodunum is that there are no, to my knowledge, finds of
Romano-British graves thus far. Although it is also true, I believe,
that there are still areas waiting to be excavated which are believed
to be post-Roman cemeteries.
Finally Joe’s point about the lack of evidence for Camelot prior to
Chretien. The difficulty I have with this argument are the Mabinogen
tales of Yvain and Gereint. Were it not for these two stories, which
seem to have been preserved by chance, we would say the same about
Chretien’s Owain and Eric - ie that he invented them. I suggest that
the evidence of these two stories alone means that we cannot
realistically argue that any matter is Chretien’s invention unless
there are positive arguments or evidence that Chretien was the prime source.
With regard to Camelot, I would further suggest that we can go
further, as Steve already has:
<Interesting that that other residences in Britain are actual places though.>
and thus suggest that Chretien’s Camelot, and the Camelot of the
Romances is based on an actual place comparable with Winchester,
Windsor, Oxford, Caerleon, Carlisle, Chester etc
Michael Flynn
Very good post. Methodical, well thought out, well presented. A keeper.
Just about the time you posted this there were some other posts put up
discussing the strategic/tactical value of Colchester and other locations. I
suggest you look at these. It is hard for me to find posts I have just read
because my reader only highlights when there is something I haven't read.
Regards, Michael
Malcolm Martin <malcolm...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:200008230...@zetnet.co.uk...
Joe Jefferson
>
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2000 20:39:54 -0700, Joe Jefferson >
> >"Camelot" is first given as the location of one of Arthur's courts in
> >Chertien de Troyes' _The Knight of the Cart_. This is the only one of
> >Chretien's five Arthurian poems that mentions this place, and it is also
> >the least realistic of the five. In other works the same author has
> >Arthur holding court in Cardigan, Winchester, Windsor, Oxford, Caerleon,
> >Carlisle, Chester, Nantes, and Disnadaron. His most important residences
> >seem to be at Carlisle and Caerleon (most likely meaning the Caerleon on
> >the Usk). The strong connection between Arthur and Camelot that exists
> >today didn't evolve until quite a bit later.
>
> the writing of the 5 poems? It would seem odd to use a ficticious
> place having previously used real locations.
Chretien used quite a lot of locations that can't be identified as real
places though. If only one of them is named as an Arthurian capital,
that may well be because kings tend to live in places that people
recognize.
KOTC seems to have been the third of Chretien's poems, and most of the
action takes place not in Camelot but in the Kingdom of Gorre, "from
which no foreigner returns." In this kingdom there are but two passages
into the capitol city of Bade: one must cross either the Underwater
Bridge (the route taken by Gawain) or the Sword Bridge (chosen by
Lancelot). It is, IOW, a fairly thinly disguised fairyland.
Joe Jefferson
>
> The message from "Michael Flynn" contains these words:
>
> > Steve,
> > I don't think that Camulodunum/Camelot was an important location
> > physically in the 5th century. It's importance was more symbolic by that
> > time.
>
> Steve, Michael, Joe et al
>
> I had intended to contribute to this thread earlier, but loss of
> telephone lines and thus internet access, followed by a surfeit of
> work, stayed my hand. So my apologies for this late contribution.
>
> Over the last couple of years, I also have been working quietly (on
> and off...) on the theory that Camelot < Camulodunum. I started for
> the reasons that Michael has already outlined, and I shall try not to
> go back over those. Nor would I seek to argue that Camelot was a
> cities, with him going from place to place. But to add some more
> aspects into the debate, and pick up on some of Joe's points.
>
> Strategic Situation:
>
> 1) If a Historic Arthur is to keep control of the whole country he
> needs to have strong bases in all parts of it, not just the West.
> IIRC, of the various places which are mentioned in the Romances as
> places where the Romance Arthur held his court, all (except London?)
> are in the West.
Actually, one of the more important ones (Nantes) is in France. Carlisle
is in the north. Winchester is in the south, and Oxford pretty close to
the middle of southern England. Cardigan, Caerleon, Disnadaron
(specified as being "in Gales"), and Chester are all in the west.
> 2) This concept of keeping the local inhabitants under some form of
> control by having a strong base or bases in their territory was
> itself practised by the Romans in Britain, who used this same
> technique in Wales, but even more so with a series of forts related
> to major bases such as Caerleon and Carlisle.
Undoubtedly it was used by the Romans. However it was also used by the
twelfth and thirteenth century kings with which the romance authors
would have been familiar.
> <snip of some good stuff about Colchester>
>
> In Paganism in Arthurian Romance (Boydell & Brewer 1994 ISBN
> 0-85991-426-7), John Darrah sets out the geographical markers
> recorded about Camelot in the Romances as:
>
> ìCamelot was the richest city in Great Britain and of so great
> authority that the pagan king was crowned there. It was of greater
> religious significance to the Sarrisins (this is how the romances
> describe the earliest inhabitants of Britain) than any other city in
> the realm. It had a pagan temple in the middle, which Joseph of
> Arimathea replaced by a minster dedicated to ëSt Stephení and ëOur
> Ladyí......The only other church mentioned was dedicated to ëSt
> Johní.......Here the stone appeared from which Arthur drew the sword.
> Here the stone floated from which Galahad drew a sword. Merlinís
> perron was a mile or two away. There was a second Camelot, clearly
> distinguished in the romances, which belonged to the ëLady of the
> Lonely Waste Forestí and was situated at the head of the most savage
> island of Wales, near the sea, towards the west............î
Which of the romances does this come from? I just recently finished
reading both Chretien de Troyes and Wolfram von Eschenbach, and neither
one mentions anything remotely like this. Nor do I recall anything like
it from Gottfried or Beroul. The mention of Galahad makes me think this
comes from a relatively late source.
> IIRC, there is also the story of the Lady of Escalotís funeral barge
> floating down the river, with Arthur and the court going down to the
> city gate to see this site.
>
> Now I would be the first to admit that the correspondence between
> Colchester and the Romance Camelot is not 100%. But there are some
> interesting parallels:
>
> 6) the crowning of the pagan king compares to Point 3 above
>
> 7) the richness of the city would, in the times of a post-Badon
> Historic Arthur primarily depend upon that Arthur and his Court, and
> so would be true of any Arthurian Court City. But prior to such
> times, in both pre-Roman and Roman times the evidence is such that it
> was a very wealthy,(if not the wealthiest?), city.
>
> 8) the pagan temple in the centre turned into a minster is a perfect
> description of the Claudian Temple. During my trip to Colchester,
> the guide on the tour round the Norman Castle (built on the
> foundation platform of the Temple) stated - and not prompted by me!!
> - that there was (one piece of?) evidence that the temple had been
> reused for Christian worship (IIRC, a Chi-Rho symbol).
>
> 9) a dedication to ëSt Stephení the first martyr would, I suggest,
> have been thought appropriate, since the temple was the site of the
> massacre of the Boudiccan rebellion - not my strongest point, since
> it is unlikely that those massacred were Christian, but Roman.
>
> 10) St Johnís Abbey was built on the site of an earlier church
> dedicated to St John. This earlier church is believed to have been
> excavated in the 1970s, whilst constructing St Botolphís roundabout -
> I have not yet investigated further the dating of this earlier
> church, and it may be that it does not go back far enough.
>
> 11) The river flows just outside the North Gate, where a Roman quay
> was currently being uncovered.
>
> The above does not constitute ëproofí in any normal sense of the word
> ëproofí, only parallels which I should like, at some time to follow
> up further. The strongest evidence that is against this possible
> Camelot < Camulodunum is that there are no, to my knowledge, finds of
> Romano-British graves thus far. Although it is also true, I believe,
> that there are still areas waiting to be excavated which are believed
> to be post-Roman cemeteries.
Without knowing the source, I'm afraid I can't offer any substantive
comment. As I mentioned, these details about Camelot don't appear in any
of the romances that I've read.
> Finally Joeís point about the lack of evidence for Camelot prior to
> Chretien. The difficulty I have with this argument are the Mabinogen
> tales of Yvain and Gereint. Were it not for these two stories, which
> seem to have been preserved by chance, we would say the same about
> Chretienís Owain and Eric - ie that he invented them. I suggest that
> the evidence of these two stories alone means that we cannot
> realistically argue that any matter is Chretienís invention unless
> there are positive arguments or evidence that Chretien was the prime source.
Well, in the case of KOTC, Chretien states quite clearly that he didn't
create the story - it was given to him by his patroness, Marie de
Champagne. However there is a huge leap between having a pre-existing
story and suggesting that one particular detail of that story is
historically accurate, especially when a great many more important
details in the story are certainly not historical.
> With regard to Camelot, I would further suggest that we can go
> further, as Steve already has:
>
> <Interesting that that other residences in Britain are actual places though.>
>
> and thus suggest that Chretienís Camelot, and the Camelot of the
> Romances is based on an actual place comparable with Winchester,
> Windsor, Oxford, Caerleon, Carlisle, Chester etc
Obviously I can't prove otherwise. However I think it's fair to point
out that, unlike Camelot and Disnadaron, the locations of the
Winchester, Windsor, Oxford, Caerleon, Caslisle, Chester, and Nantes
(can't forget that one - it was one of Arthur's most important cities)
were never forgotten.
richard wardle
position by the end of the 5th .It is just to close to Saxon held territory.
After Boudicca many function of the city were transferred to London.The
temple was rebuilt because such a slight could not be left rebutted.But all
political and military functions were hence carried out at the former port
of london with it's legionary /auxilia fort. Its religious functions
remained both for the Romans and the British for it was a religious site
before the romans. But it never seems to have regained it's improtance as
the premier civitates and much of it's wealth was claimed back by the romans
after the rebellion.
Veralium Seems to have been the wealthiest 'city' at the end of the 5th with
life and buildings continuing well into the 6th.But again it would seem to
be to close to the Saxons to be a viable capital of the Britones.But a very
important site nevertheless.Befor the Romans Briton did not have a capitol
only tribal centers. London became the administrative center and then York
and London when split first. Then we can add two more,Lincoln and
Cirencester and eventually a fifth(probably Carlisle).These are the centers
likely to have been chosen as a capital in post roman Britain. Of these
Lincoln was behind Saxon lines,though possibly still British, York was held
by the Dux of the north. But as we are dealing with the south in all
probability with Arthur that would leave London and Cirencester as southern
capital candidates.Again London is to vulnrable to Saxon incursion and as
far as communication goes neither Colchester,London,Veralium and Lincoln
possesed secure communication routes with the rest of southern Britain or
anywhere else.Cirencester did.But I am not saying it was the capital or even
Camalot or both. As far as we know cities were being deserted in the west
for hillforts as populations shrank. What good are walls when you have not
the skill to repair or the numbers to man them? Cirencester had good
communication with the west north s/west n/west s/east and east.Even Lincoln
could be reached.Communications could be sent/recieved similtanously in all
directions given the viscitudes of war. Next we must consider the power
base's for the 'King's' if we are to look for their 'capitol'. Vortigern's
is usually given as Gloucester in Powys and he himslef built a site in North
Wales. Ambrosius is usually connected with Dumnnonia. Cirencester is within
Powys territory but close enough to Dumnonnia. So where does this leave us
Well not much advanced really. As you might gather from the above I favour
the west. But if the tactical and Stategeic theories dont convince you then
other views are equally tenable and even if they do there is no reason to
favour any of the sites I mention in the west above the other on present
evidence. It's all down to choice and ones personal view-until something new
arrives to put us back to square one
Regards Richard :>)
Joe Jefferson wrote in message <39A9DC...@primenet.com>...
Michael Flynn
You are looking for Camelot and the British capital. Don't forget that
they are not necessarily the same. The assumption that they must be the same
will lead you in impossible circles. I believe that Camelot was just one of
many important locations in the historical context. The only reason it
gained prominence in the later romances is because it was unknown to later
readers and therefore it could take on any dimension you can imagine. Being
a mystery gave it more power.
Phillips and Keatman make the case that Viroconium was some kind of 5th
century Roman headquarters because archeology says that Romans leveled it
and completely rebuilt the town in the mid 5th century, building the new
town in wood rather than stone, as was usually the case when Romans were in
a hurry. Besides the architecture and construction style and layout,
footprints of Roman style hob-nailed boots indicate that it was Romans who
did the building.
richard wardle <rich...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:66Dq5.5905$SR1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Graham Nowland
"richard wardle" <rich...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:66Dq5.5905$SR1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> position by the end of the 5th .It is just to close to Saxon held
territory.
>
Richard et al
There is also the fact that Geoffrey of Monmouth, presumably a major source
of C de T, describes and identifies Colchester as Kaelcol or something like
that.
So if Chretien was the first we know to mention Camelot he couldn't have had
Colchester in mind unless he was being wilful. Of course there is nothing to
have prevented him picking up on a tradition outside the Geoffrey stream,
which might ultimately have derived from Camulodunum. It now seems unlikely
to me though.
Kind regards
Graham
richard wardle
You noticed the whirlpool eddies in my post :>)
I dont equate Capitol/Camalot as the same. But if Camalot was so rich it
would need to be in an area that could support it and where people would
feel safe and secure to go about their business IMHO?
That was what I was trying to get accross. And while Colchester was a Holy
place for the Britons and was freed apparently by Ambrosius? I cannot think
it would have become Camalot
St Albans is a far more likely place but it's Brythonic name was apparently
Cear Mincip. If it can be shown that this could possibly be transmuted to
Camelot through linguistic growth then we could be onto a winner. If H R
Jones is looking in maybe she would be able to help or Ms Maddison. My
linguistic skills can barely cope with modern english i'm afraid
regards Richard
Michael Flynn wrote in message ...
>Richard,
> You are looking for Camelot and the British capital. Don't forget that
>they are not necessarily the same. The assumption that they must be the
same
>will lead you in impossible circles. I believe that Camelot was just one of
>many important locations in the historical context. The only reason it
>gained prominence in the later romances is because it was unknown to later
>readers and therefore it could take on any dimension you can imagine. Being
>a mystery gave it more power.
> Phillips and Keatman make the case that Viroconium was some kind of 5th
>century Roman headquarters because archeology says that Romans leveled it
>and completely rebuilt the town in the mid 5th century, building the new
>town in wood rather than stone, as was usually the case when Romans were in
>a hurry. Besides the architecture and construction style and layout,
>footprints of Roman style hob-nailed boots indicate that it was Romans who
>did the building.
>
>richard wardle <rich...@virgin.net> wrote in message
>news:66Dq5.5905$SR1.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>> The major argument against Colchester being Camalot, as I see it is it's
>> position by the end of the 5th .It is just to close to Saxon held
>territory.
<snip>
