Battle of Badon location

Peter Graham said:

That isn't a fact at all. It is just your opinion. Who are the "usual dissenters" who would insist on arguing that any such source was an interpolation?



He made an absolutely fantastic job of it. He gave Gwynedd pre-eminence, linked its Johnny-Come-Lately dynasty to the heroes of old and set them up as the natural figurehead of the burgeoning Welsh dream that it was about time these perfidious Saxons got their come-uppance. Arthur, Urien and others feed into that narrative of what Gwynedd could achieve if it minded the lessons and the warnings of the past.

Click to expand...

Hello Peter, I would love to be proved wrong but I do have some experience with Robin Hood circles and I think it likely would be the same with Arthur, academics in particular can be quite protective of their theories. Nick Higham with all he has written, I imagine he would not particularly appreciate something contemporary appearing, it never will so he is pretty safe (love to eat my words) some of the others too whom I have read bits from would likely feel the same.

As for the Harli HB, just how much was original that the Harli scribe wrote, it looks like alot or a bulk was just a stock copy or he copied from an earlier source like the Chartres, just adding little bits. The Chartres also breaks off abruptly so we have no idea if it too mentioned Arthur but the section is now lost.


XII On three occasions, the leaders of the Romans were killed by the Britons. It happened that after the aforementioned battle that was between the Britons and the Romans, when their leaders were killed, and after the killing of the tyrant Maximus, they were in fear for forty years.

XIII Guorthigern was reigning in Britain, and while he ruled, he was oppressed by fear of the Picts and Scots, and by a Roman attack and indeed through fear of Ambrosius.

XIV Meanwhile, there came three warships, driven out in exile from Germany, in which were Hors and Hengest, who were indeed brothers, the sons of Wihtgils, son of Witta, son of Wecta, son of Woden, son of Frealaf, son of Fredulf, son of Finn, son of Folcwald, son of Geata, who was, so they say, son of god – not the God of Hosts, but one of the idols which they themselves worshipped.

XV But Guorthigern received them kindly and handed over to them the island that in their language is called Tanet21, in British speech Ruoihm. While Gratian was ruling a second time, with Equitius22, the Saxons were received by Guorthigern in the 347th year after the Passion of Christ.



29 It happened that after the aforementioned battles, that is the one that was between the Britons and the Romans, when their generals were killed, and the killing of the tyrant Maximus, and Roman rule having ended in Britain, they were in fear for forty years. Guorthigirn reigned in Britain, and while he was reigning, he was weighed down by fear of the Picts and the Scots, and likewise of Roman attack and also from fear of Ambrosius

30 Meanwhile, there came three warships, driven out from Germany in exile, in which were Hors and Hengist, who were themselves brothers, the sons of Guitglis, the son of Guitta, the son of Guectha, the son of Woden, the son of Frealaf, the son of Fredulf, the son of Fodepald, the son of Geata who was, so they say, the son of god. He is not the God of Gods, amen, the god of Hosts, but is one of their idols, which they worshipped.

31 Guorthigirn received them kindly and handed over to them the island that is called Tanet in their language, in British speech Ruoihm. With Gratian reigning a second time [with] Equantius, the Saxons were received by Guorthigirn in the three hundred and forty-seventh year after the Passion of Christ.


This section for example and not just this, near word for word including the reference to Ambrosius.


The Arthur section is relatively fleeting, bang straight in, not even a king, list of obsure battles and over and out. The scribe could have done so much more, added more detail and linked Merfyn directly to this great warrior to legitimise Merfyn's reign further, but he didn't, it looks like he was just reciting, copying that section about Arthur.

Aelfwine said:

It seems problable to me that you do not understand what the Historia Brittonum is about despite it being explained to you many times. One theme deals with the positioning of the British as God`s chosen people and the other theme, as Peter has stated, is to position Merfyn of Gwynedd as the spiritual heir of Ambrosius and the most suitable king to rule the British.

Click to expand...

I understand enough Aelfwine.

Here begin the excepts of ap Urien found in the Book of Saint Germanus, and the Origin and Genealogy of the Britons1

I The World Ages From the beginning of the world to the Flood there are 2242 years. From the Flood up to Abraham, there are 942 years. From Abraham up to Moses, there are 642 years. From Moses up to David, 500 [years]. From David up to Nebuchadnezzar, 649 [years].

II The First World Age from Adam up to Noah; the Second from Noah up to Abraham; the Third [from Noah] up to David; the Fourth from David up to Daniel; the Fifth from Daniel to John [the Baptist]; the Sixth from John [the Baptist] up to the Judgement in which Our Lord Jesus Christ will come to judge the living and the dead and the age through fire.

III Certain information about the island of Britain The island of Britain is named from a certain Brutus, a Roman consul. It rises from North Africa towards the west; it has the extent of 900 miles in length, 200 in breadth. There are 28 cities in it and innumerable promontories, together with innumerable forts that are built from stone and turf. Four people live in it: the Scots, the Picts, the Saxons (and) the Britons. It has three islands, of which one lies towards Armorica and is called the Isle Gueith; the second is situated in the channel of sea between Ireland and Britain and its name is called Eubonia, that is, Manaw; the third is situated at the far end of the world of Britain, beyond the Picts, and is called Orc. And so in the proverbs of the ancients, it is said “He ruled Britain with her three islands”. There are many rivers in her, which flow to all parts, i.e. to the east, to the west, to the north, to the south. But, however, there are two rivers more famous than the other rivers: Tamensis and Sabrina, like two arms of Britain, through which barges long ago used to sail to bring riches for trade. The Britons long ago filled Britain from sea to sea.




1 The story of the Britons and the Wonders of Britain

From the beginning of the world up to the Flood, two thousand, four hundred and two years; from the flood up to Abraham, nine hundred and forty-two years; from Abraham up to Moses, six hundred and forty years; from Moses up to David, five hundred years; from David up to Nebuchadnezzar, there are five hundred and sixty-nine years.

2 From Adam up to the migration to Babylon, there are four thousand, five hundred and three hundred1 and seventy-nine years; from the migration to Babylon up to Christ, there are five hundred and sixty-six years. And from Adam up to the Passion of Christ, there are five thousand, two hundred and twentyeight years. From the Passion of Christ, seven hundred and ninety-six years have been completed. But from his Incarnation, there are eight hundred and thirty-one. So, the first Age of the world from Adam up to Noah; the second from Noah up to Abraham; the third from Abraham up to David; the fourth Age from David up to Daniel; the fifth Age from Daniel up to John the Baptist; the sixth from John the Baptist up to the Judgement, in which or Lord Jesus Christ will come to judge the living and the dead and the world through fire.

3. The island of Britain, called after a certain Brutus, a Roman consul. This rises up from northern Africa towards the west; it has eight hundred miles in length, two hundred in width. There are twenty-eight cities in it and countless promontories with innumerable forts made from stone and brick. Four people live in it, the Scots, the Picts, the Saxons and the Britons. It has three large islands, of which one lies towards the Armoricas and is called Inis Gueith. The second is situated in the strait of the sea between Ireland and Britain and its name is called Eubonia3, that is Manau4. The other is situated in the extreme edge of the world of Britain beyond the Picts and is called Orc. Thus it is said in the old proverb, when talk was about judges or kings, ‘he judged Britain with its three islands.’ There are many rivers in it, which flow to all parts, that is to the east, to the west, to south; but there are, however, two rivers more famous than other rivers, Tamesis and Sabrina, like two arms of Britain, through which barges sailed long ago to bring riches for the purpose of trade.


Same with the beginning of both Chartres and Harli, near word for word with little bits added.

''the sixth from John the Baptist up to the Judgement, in which or Lord Jesus Christ will come to judge the living and the dead and the world through fire''.

Identical way in which things are expressed, absolutely no doubt I would say that the Chartres and Harli shared a common stock origin or Harli likely copied from Chartres.

Peter Graham said:

It's a long way from academics having a tendency of being protective of their theories to it being a "plain fact" that the "usual dissenters" would dismiss a new source as an interpolation no matter what. The former is understandable. The latter is academic dishonesty.

And we might also think about pots and kettles, at least insofar as this forum is concerned. With the notable and laudable exception of concan, one thing that is conspicuous by its absence is any willingness on the part of posters who come on here with their Arthur theories to brook ANY criticism which is at odds with their theory, no matter how well-established those criticisms might be in the academic mainstream.



You imagine? Would likely? So just you guessing, then?


Up to you, but if it is of any use, the text containing the HB is typically referred to in the shorthand as Harley, not Harli.

Click to expand...

Hello Peter, I was saying that it would be very likely, very, that theories would be protected by academics if they could, seen it in Robin Hood circles like I said, I doubt the Arthur circle would be radically different. Would love to be proved wrong on this if something early turns up, I would be on here holding my hands up and saying I was wrong, will that ever happen, extremely unlikely.

I agree about the forum, everyone has different theories and I respect all of them even though I may not agree with some of them or the evidence is somewhat weak? I am not writing a book or anything so have no bias that way, I have looked at every theory and candidate on here equally if you look at the threads. Concan, he has cited his Irish origins and candidate like nearly everyone else has on here and I respect that. I am just one who happens to address comments made, assumptions, sweeping conventions, inconsistencies if I see them where others may not. For example recently, Higham citing 480 for the De Excidio and working backwards through multiple generations in the genealogies to put Arthur ap Pedr later in the 6th century when working forwards from Vortipor only three generations down would put Arthur ap Pedr in the early 6th century c500. Whether Higham knew that and was economical in not mentioning this because it didn't support his theory and ideas, I do not know?

Harley, yes, I am aware of that but I just use Harli for a shorter abbreviation, my choice.

Aelfwine said:

I do not believe that is the case, Rob. I get the impression that possibly you have a confirmation bias regarding the topic under discussion.

Click to expand...

No Aelfwine, I am just reporting what is.

Chartres and Harli HB have near identical text so just how much of that work was the Harli scribe responsible for? He was copying the bulk of it, certainly until the Chartres recension ends abruptly.

AC, it may have been written contemporary from 796 on, that is not confirmation bias, just accepting the possibility that Arthur linked to Badon may not originate from the Harli HB.

Same with Y Gododdin, can see the arguments for and against but I would tilt towards Koch being right in his thinking. Whatever, the context of that entry is similar to that in the HB, Guardur was a great warrior in sieging the walls of the fort and killing men but couldn't compare to Arthur in the same context, sieging a fort and killing great numbers of men. It may even be that Y Gododdin scribe knew of Arthur at Badon and and that is what he was making the comparison of Arthur to.

Aelfwine said:

Wishful thinking, Rob. I inclined to believe you are a lost cause.

Click to expand...

Hello Aelfwine. afraid not

'This still does not mean that Arthur's role at Badon is an historical fact, but Welsh poetry said so before Historia Brittonum's latin translation did'.

In very good company indeed, I agree with Koch's stance here, exactly my stance.

For being a lost cause, I don't like disrespect but I could say the same thing about you, even Peter doesn't agree with your stance that Arthur originated with the Harli, Harley HB.

Aelfwine said:

Readers of this thread may find these articles by the historian Guy Halsall interesting ----and perhaps amusing.

The Forgotten King Arthur

[ I was commissioned to write an article for BBC HISTORY in connection with the new Guy Ritchie King Arthur film. This is what I gave them....

edgyhistorian.blogspot.com

Historian on the Edge

The Historical, Philosophical and Political Musings of an Autistic Historian

600transformer.blogspot.com

Click to expand...

''Furthermore, some of them, such as the tenth-century Welsh poem Armes Prydein (The Great Prophecy of Britain) are precisely the places where you might expect to find a reference to Arthur. Armes Prydein is all about the Welsh and their friends uniting to push the English back into the sea whence they came. Given how Arthur is deployed as the pan-Welsh anti-English ‘leader of battles’ in the History of the Britons, you’d think that this poem’s argument made it the ideal place for him to feature but he is entirely absent''.

Interesting article and points about Syagrius but Guy Halsall's argument with this does fall flat, however his surprise and exclamation, the Ames Prydein appears to date to the mid or second half of the 10th century so if the Harli HB does indeed date to 829, Arthur was already long known as a warrior whether the Ames Prydein writer chose to mention him or not.

From what I have been reading further, the Vatican recension of the HB bears a close relationship with the Chartres, Arthur is mentioned in the Vatican recension, was the Vatican using the Chartres for it's source, was it a copy of the Chartres?

Peter Graham said:

It's a long way from academics having a tendency of being protective of their theories to it being a "plain fact" that the "usual dissenters" would dismiss a new source as an interpolation no matter what. The former is understandable. The latter is academic dishonesty.

And we might also think about pots and kettles, at least insofar as this forum is concerned. With the notable and laudable exception of concan, one thing that is conspicuous by its absence is any willingness on the part of posters who come on here with their Arthur theories to brook ANY criticism which is at odds with their theory, no matter how well-established those criticisms might be in the academic mainstream.



You imagine? Would likely? So just you guessing, then?


Up to you, but if it is of any use, the text containing the HB is typically referred to in the shorthand as Harley, not Harli.

Click to expand...

'brook ANY criticism', I have to admit that I had never heard of brook being used in this context, a new one. I am just one who answers questions raised when they are put or put to me, it is not a matter of criticism. I respect all the theories put forward whether I agree with them or not, have looked at every one on here in the last few years equally.

''Sadly, closer inspection sometimes also reveals the proponents of these pseudo-histories not to be harmless cranks but people with unpleasant nationalist and even islamophobic agendas''.

Halsall's comment, a generalisation which even though he qualifies to a degree still puts a tarnish on the people with unlikely theories. Yes, acknowledged, some or a couple may have had not so nice views but you cannot tarnish the bulk who are just interested in this subject, certainly not 'cranks', many on here and propose ideas which should be respected. Even academics can post things that could mislead, you have done so Peter, so they are not perfect.

Just searching some Curia Regis rolls from the time of John, 1204, you can really see why copies had to be made of these old records, this one is deteriorating and hard to read now never mind if another 700 years was added on top to the 6th century. This is far from the worst as well.

Suffolk, 1228 Eyre, this one might have been really intriguing relating to RH but the writing is undecipherable. Again, this is what you are up against with the survival of these old manuscripts, I will state again and will say it to be fact, material will have been lost from the earlier periods of 6th, 7th, 8th centuries.