I have been following your narratives for only a couple of weeks but your work really intrigues me. I like the 'Northern Arthur' possibilities although I am not certain that Badon is part of it or indeed the 12 battles as a whole. I cant explain it. It just feels different to the other battles. Part of me thinks that Gildas describes Badon as it is within his view of the world ie the South and West whereas Nennius is dealing with the North and that the battles listed by both are separate.
Regardless, you make a persuasive argument for the old north to be the basis for the Nennian battles and for the origin of the Arthur legend. It would make sense as Gildas never mentions him and hence why I think Badon should be kept separate from the other battles.
Keep up the good work and I will look forward to what you have to say in 2025
Thank you Dave. Badon has always seemed like an outlier. I wholeheartedly agree. That may in fact be why it cemented Arthur in the cultural consciousness of the time! Andrew Breeze actually handwaves Badon as being something tacked on later, while he accepts Camlann as genuine, his reasoning is mostly based on assumptions on Chronology which I do not share (mainly an assumption that someone in his 60s would not be fighting battles, which as we know from the later medieval period is absurd, William Marshall being the biggest, but not the only evidence to suggest otherwise).
Gildas himself and his uncertain origins are a conundrum. Depending on your views on that this can of course be flexed either way. If he was genuinely a son of the Northern Caw then it makes sense that he would be opposed to including Arthur, while still recording the great victory. A southern Badon is still possible of course, and with the evidence of the Artognou stone (Artognou being cognate with Arthwys) there's a small but tenuous possibility he was operating in the south for a short time (possibly a culmination of the initial 11 battles campaign).
Thank you so much for the feedback! The scope of my work originally started just around Arthur, but seeing the lack of good work done unravelling the Hen Ogledd (no matter how scant the sources are) seemed like a fun and interesting challenge. It keeps me endlessly fascinated as well!
Thanks for the detailed reply. Your enthusiasm for the subject is obvious. I am but a poor hack poring over stuff that others have written and trying to make sense of it.
I live in South Wales and have always had a fascination for the subject of Arthur even though it is tinged with some pragmatism and realism for what can and cannot be 'proved'. I used to do the whole endless looking at maps as a kid before the Internet made it easier!
Going back to the subject at hand, I am not personally convinced by the 'silence of Gildas' theory re naming Arthur. He makes no bones of attacking other rulers of his time. From that perspective alone, Occam's Razor surely rears it's head...? That of course does leave a thorny problem of why he doesn't mention Arthur. Possibilities are that the timeframes are too far apart ie Gildas too early and Arthur too late or vice versa. Also the sphere of influence as mentioned in my previous comments...Arthur is a Northern King, Gildas is concerned with the South and West. It just makes the whole Gildas rant and the Battle of Badon feel disconnected to Arthur of the North. It would also possibly explain the Nennian version of events whereby a 'Northern Memorandum' was possibly tagged or stitched onto the Gildas narrative.
Anyway, I will keep reading and your posts have fired my enthusiasm to look closer at the events in the North in the Heroic Age. Brilliant work and superb illustrations.
Yeah I definitely don't disagree, overall, Ken Dark does point out one small bit in Gildas that is interesting that I cover in my article looking at his work on a High-Kingship around the Wall. Thank you again for your support!
I have been following your narratives for only a couple of weeks but your work really intrigues me. I like the 'Northern Arthur' possibilities although I am not certain that Badon is part of it or indeed the 12 battles as a whole. I cant explain it. It just feels different to the other battles. Part of me thinks that Gildas describes Badon as it is within his view of the world ie the South and West whereas Nennius is dealing with the North and that the battles listed by both are separate.
Regardless, you make a persuasive argument for the old north to be the basis for the Nennian battles and for the origin of the Arthur legend. It would make sense as Gildas never mentions him and hence why I think Badon should be kept separate from the other battles.
Keep up the good work and I will look forward to what you have to say in 2025
Thank you Dave. Badon has always seemed like an outlier. I wholeheartedly agree. That may in fact be why it cemented Arthur in the cultural consciousness of the time! Andrew Breeze actually handwaves Badon as being something tacked on later, while he accepts Camlann as genuine, his reasoning is mostly based on assumptions on Chronology which I do not share (mainly an assumption that someone in his 60s would not be fighting battles, which as we know from the later medieval period is absurd, William Marshall being the biggest, but not the only evidence to suggest otherwise).
Gildas himself and his uncertain origins are a conundrum. Depending on your views on that this can of course be flexed either way. If he was genuinely a son of the Northern Caw then it makes sense that he would be opposed to including Arthur, while still recording the great victory. A southern Badon is still possible of course, and with the evidence of the Artognou stone (Artognou being cognate with Arthwys) there's a small but tenuous possibility he was operating in the south for a short time (possibly a culmination of the initial 11 battles campaign).
Thank you so much for the feedback! The scope of my work originally started just around Arthur, but seeing the lack of good work done unravelling the Hen Ogledd (no matter how scant the sources are) seemed like a fun and interesting challenge. It keeps me endlessly fascinated as well!
Thanks for the detailed reply. Your enthusiasm for the subject is obvious. I am but a poor hack poring over stuff that others have written and trying to make sense of it.
I live in South Wales and have always had a fascination for the subject of Arthur even though it is tinged with some pragmatism and realism for what can and cannot be 'proved'. I used to do the whole endless looking at maps as a kid before the Internet made it easier!
Going back to the subject at hand, I am not personally convinced by the 'silence of Gildas' theory re naming Arthur. He makes no bones of attacking other rulers of his time. From that perspective alone, Occam's Razor surely rears it's head...? That of course does leave a thorny problem of why he doesn't mention Arthur. Possibilities are that the timeframes are too far apart ie Gildas too early and Arthur too late or vice versa. Also the sphere of influence as mentioned in my previous comments...Arthur is a Northern King, Gildas is concerned with the South and West. It just makes the whole Gildas rant and the Battle of Badon feel disconnected to Arthur of the North. It would also possibly explain the Nennian version of events whereby a 'Northern Memorandum' was possibly tagged or stitched onto the Gildas narrative.
Anyway, I will keep reading and your posts have fired my enthusiasm to look closer at the events in the North in the Heroic Age. Brilliant work and superb illustrations.
Dave
Yeah I definitely don't disagree, overall, Ken Dark does point out one small bit in Gildas that is interesting that I cover in my article looking at his work on a High-Kingship around the Wall. Thank you again for your support!