Talk:Battle of Camlann

message: 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)
thread_title: Historicity

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of Troops 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: 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)
replies: text: What scholars have a different view? All stories about Arthur are intrinsically legendary.--Cúchullain t/c 21:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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'. In it, Arthur of Camlann, is no undisputed Welsh hero. AnonNep (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  '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)
replies: text: Enough, . This isn't productive.--Cúchullain t/c 13:34, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Legendary versions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No objection to changing to "fell".--Cúchullain t/c 18:49, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Perished' or 'fell' in Annales Cambriae