The Twelve Battles of King Arthur Part 3: Camlann

The origins of Mordred, The sites and who may have fought at them, and what's next.

In the conclusion to this series on Arthur’s battles we will finally visit Camlann, a battle not included in Nennius, but still rather famous. The entry for Camlann in the Welsh Annals features not only an early reference to Arthur, but also to Medraut (Mordred) and while detail there is sparse it is nonetheless a major thread in our tapestry of the historical Arthur.

The Sources

537 The Strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred) fell and there was death in Britain and in Ireland.

Very simple and straightforward. It was in 537, we know that Arthur and Medraut died, and we know that it took place at Camlann. Problems loom.

No one knows for sure where Camlann was. On top of this, we have discussed that the Annals date for Badon is possibly wrong, so this battle may be off by the same amount, Camlann may have happened in the 510s! There is some evidence to oppose this, which we will visit later.

Camlann does not appear in the battle list from Nennius. If Nennius did in fact draw his battle list from a lost battle poem or song as John Koch surmises, it is likely that a victory song that ends in Badon would not want to sully the victory with the defeat of Camlann. Gildas also makes no mention of Camlann, but this can easily be accounted for, as Andrew Breeze does, with Gildas writing in 536, and if the annals original date is correct then he was writing just before Camlann happened.

The battle is mentioned a few other times as well. The Welsh Triads, collections of verses that contain information on different important things grouped in threes, reference Camlann multiple times.

30. Three Faithless / Disloyal War-Bands of the Island of Britain

The War-Band of Goronwy the Radiant of (Penllyn), who refused to receive the poisoned spear from Lleu Skilful-Hand on behalf of their lord, at the Stone of Goronwy at the head of the (river) Cynfal; 

and the War-Band of Gwrgi and Peredur, who abandoned their lord at Caer Greu, when they had an appointment to fight the next day with Eda Great-Knee; and there they were both slain; 

and the War-Band of Alan Fyrgan, who turned away from him by night, and let him go with his servants (subordinates) to Camlan. And there he was slain.

51. Three Men of Shame were in the Island of Britain:

One of them: Afarwy son of Lludd son of Beli. He first summoned Julius Caesar and the men of Rome to this Island, and he caused the payment of three thousand pounds in money as tribute from this Island every year, because of a quarrel with Caswallawn his uncle.

And the second is Gwrtheyrn the Meagre, who first gave land to the Saxons in this Island, and was the first to enter into an alliance with them. He caused the death of Custennin the Younger, son of Custennin the Blessed, by his treachery, and exiled the two brothers Emrys Wledig and Uthur Penndragon from this Island to Brittany, and deceitfully took the crown and the kingdom into his own possession. And in the end Uthur and Emrys burned Gwrtheyrn in Castell Gwerthrynion beside the Wye, in a single conflagration to avenge their brother.

The third and worst was Medrawd, when Arthur left with him the government of the Island of Britain, at the time when he himself went across the sea to oppose Lles, emperor of Rome, who had dispatched messengers to Arthur in Caerleon to demand tribute to him and to the men of Rome, from this Island, in the measure that it had been paid (from the time of) Caswallawn son of Beli until the time of Custennin the Blessed, Arthur’s grandfather. This is the answer that Arthur gave to the emperor’s messengers: that the men of Rome had no greater claim to tribute from the men of this Island, than the men of the Island of Britain had from them. For Brân son of Dyfnwal and Custennin son of Elen had been emperors in Rome, and they were two men of this Island. And then Arthur mustered the most select warriors of his kingdom (and led them) across the sea against the emperor. And they met beyond the mountain of Mynneu (= the Alps), and an untold number was slain on each side that day. And in the end Arthur encountered the emperor, and Arthur slew him. And Arthur’s best men were slain there. When Medrawd heard that Arthur’s host was dispersed, he turned against Arthur, and the Saxons and the Picts and the Scots united with him to hold this Island against Arthur. And when Arthur heard that, he turned back with all that had survived of his army, and succeeded in landing on this Island in opposition to Medrawd. And then there took place the Battle of Camlan between Arthur and Medrawd, and Arthur slew Medrawd, and was himself mortally wounded. And from that (wound) he died, and was buried in a hall on the Island of Afallach.

53. Three Sinister (Ill-omened) Hard Slaps of the Island of Britain: 

One of them Matholwch the Irishman struck upon Branwen daughter of Llŷr; 

The second Gwenhwyfach struck upon Gwenhwyfar: and because of that there took place afterwards the conflict of the Battle of Camlan; 

And the third Golydan the Poet struck upon Cadwaladr the Blessed.

59. Three Unfortunate Counsels of the Island of Britain: 

To give place for their horses’ fore-feet on the land to Julius Caesar and the men of Rome, in requital for Meinlas (‘Slender Grey’); 

and the second: to allow Horsa and Hengist and Rhonwen into this Island; 

and the third: the threefold division by Arthur of his men with Medrawd at Camlan.

84. Three Futile Battles of the Island of Britain: 

 One of them was the Battle of Goddau: it was brought about because of the bitch, the roebuck and the plover; 

The second was the Contest of Ar(f )derydd, which was brought about because of the lark’s nest; 

And the third was the worst: that was Camlan, which was brought about because of Gwenhwyfar’s contention with Gwenhwy(f)ach. 

This is why those were called Futile: because they were brought about by such barren causes as that.

The Stanzas of the Graves mention it as well

The grave of Osfran's son is at Camlan After many a slaughter

Another mention in Welsh Law

when the queen shall will a song in the chamber, let the bard sing a song respecting Camlan, and that not loud, lest the hall be disturbed.

Geoffrey of Monmouth mentions the battle as well, but it is hard to find the truth in Geoffrey's writings when it comes to Camlann, and it seems that maybe some of the Triads are derived directly from Geoffrey as well.

So where does that leave us with dating the battle. If we take the Annales Cambriae’s date at face value we get 537. Others have placed this at 539 stating that the accepted chronology is set earlier than it should be, as the Annals do not start with our standard dating system, and instead start from 1, and then gives a string of years from there. We must instead look to things that we have corroboration for a more accurate date. The second entry is something we can nail down within a few years,

Easter altered on the Lord's Day by Pope Leo, Bishop of Rome.

This can be given a range between 452 to 455. There are other ways to date the Annals but in general this gives us a pretty decent baseline and gets us within a few years. As I have mentioned when discussing Badon, many of these dates were originally recorded on an Easter Cycle, roughly 19 years. There is reason to believe Badon is off by an Easter cycle, using reckoning from Gildas, giving Badon a date in the 490s. So is Camlann off similarly? I doubt it, as the entry in the Annals mentions “there was death in Britain and in Ireland.” Andrew Breeze has taken this as a reference to the extreme weather events of 536 causing famine and unrest. I think this makes the most sense as well. This also gives us a date in which many possible figures for both Arthur, and Medraut can fit.

Mordred

With that in mind we turn to Medraut, better known as Mordred. Much general knowledge of Mordred is mostly from the post-Galfridean tradition. That is not to say that it isn't possible that there is some truth there, but it is much harder to find at the end of the day. Mordred exists as the penultimate foe for Arthur in later works. Sometimes nephew, sometimes bastard son by his sister Morgause, usurps his throne, seduces his wife, and eventually strikes the mortal blow that ends Arthur. Seems almost like a literary villain more than a man.

As we can see from the earliest sources though, we don't even know what the nature of Arthur and Mordred's relationship is, all we know is that they both died at the same battle. In fact, some pre-Galfridian poets and even some a post-Galfridian seem to view Mordred in a positive light. A 15th century text (as reckoned by Rachel Bromwich) refers to him as one of Arthur's "Royal Knights"

neither king nor emperor in the world who could refuse them, on account of their beauty and wisdom in peace; while in war no warrior or champion could withstand them, despite the excellence of his arms. And therefore they were called Royal Knights.

This text is full of anachronisms, but holds some small bits of truth. Maybe its treatment of Mordred is a kernel of the original tradition holding him as a virtuous man? Gwalchmai ap Meilyr in a work praising Madog ap Maredudd, king of Powys in the 12th century states that he has "Arthur's strength, the good nature of Medrawd". Gwalchmai’s father, Meilyr Brydydd, in his lament for Gruffudd ap Cynan, describes him as having "Mordred's Nature" So even at the time of Geoffrey writing Medraut into the villainous Mordred there are others writing in praise of Medraut. There are some differing conclusions that one can draw here.

1. Geoffrey is retelling an original tradition, and has confused or laid an originally virtuous Mordred on top of said tradition.

2. Geoffrey made it up, and the triads that seem closely related (mostly The Men of Shame Triad) are directly lifted from Geoffrey.

3. Geoffrey is telling the truth and a localized tradition of Medraut as a hero became popular after a number of years of the original events, contrary to how Geoffrey characterizes him.

4. They are wholly different figures (Mordred and Medraut)

I think the truth is somewhere in between of course. The triad's mentions of him give a mixed picture. In triad 59 Arthur seemingly splits his forces at Camlann WITH Medraut, insinuating that they were on the same side. Three triads however are in agreement that they were on opposing sides. 51, 53, and 84 all suggest that they began the battle on opposing sides. 51 we can probably dismiss here because it is lifted from a Brut that is itself lifted from Geoffrey. 53 and 84 almost certainly stem from the same tradition of Arthur and Medraut's wives quarreling. Before I conclude here there is another Triad that mentions Medraut in a negative light I’d like to include.

54. Three Violent Ravagings of the Island of Britain: 

One of them when Medrawd came to Arthur’s Court at Celliwig in Cornwall; he left neither food nor drink in the court that he did not consume. And he also dragged Gwenhwyfar from her royal chair, and then he struck a blow upon her; 

The second Violent Ravaging (was) when Arthur came to Medrawd’s court. He left neither food nor drink in the court nor in the cantref; 

And the third Violent Ravaging when Aeddan the Treacherous came to the court of Rhydderch Hael at Alclud; he left neither food nor drink nor beast alive.)

It would seem that we have at least three traditions at work here. I believe that the Annals and Triad 59, and some poetry, give us the most likely oldest tradition, with a virtuous Medrawd. Even the most likely etymology of Medrawd’s name seems to give a fair opinion, coming from the latin Moderatus, meaning "within bounds, observing moderation, moderate". Medrawd is well regarded within northern traditions well after the establishment of post-Galfridian tradition. The most likely next tradition is the one preserved in Triad 54, setting the stage for the later tradition found in Geoffrey, possible absorbing some of Melwas’ attributes and taking his place in the abduction narrative that usually surrounds Gwenhwyfar. Geoffrey’s account is likely a continuation of this tradition, this then is picked up and used in Triad 51. I think this is a logical progression of the narrative here, with Melwas, whose story was well known prior to being featured in the 12th century Life of Gildas, and Medraut slowly becoming the same figure, giving us the story seen in Geoffrey. The last tradition which shifts blame from Arthur and Medraut onto their wives, is alluded to in Triads 53 and 84. This seems to have been an attempt to reconcile the idea of a virtuous Medraut, not wanting blame to solely rest on either him nor Arthur. I believe this tradition is later than the one that Geoffrey was drawing upon, as it seems that the memory of Medraut beating Gwenhwyfar is shifted to the “slap” by her sister, Medraut’s wife. There is another tradition behind the reasoning for Camlann that is harder to place, but maybe fits somewhere in between the first tradition and second, that is the reason behind Camlann given in The Dream of Rhonabwy. This holds that Iddog, Agitator of Britain, a young and impetuous man, eager for battle, was tasked by Arthur to send words of praise and kindness to Medraut, instead spouting words to poison both men’s minds. From there the battle was waged.

There is much more that can be written on this, but the later nature of the triads here makes me tend to think that the entry in the Annales Cambriae and triad 59 as an echoing this original kernel of truth, an older tradition that holds Medraut as a hero, possibly even friend/kinsman of Arthur. Even if they were on opposing sides one must remember that the Britons of this time are quite flexible with the figures they heap praise upon, with Y Gododdin having a good example, mentioning Coelings as “Savage Folk” in one elegy, and then in another spouting praise upon Gwenddoleu, a Coeling, “Ceidio’s only son” Many of these kingdoms fought alongside one another with one king in power, and against one another with another king. This seems to have been the prevailing nature of these early Brythonic Kingdoms, constantly warring for supremacy, seen heavily in later Arthurian traditions of civil strife and darkness.

The Sites

Here we will visit the various possibilities for Camlann along with possible identities of the Arthur and Mordred that may have fought at said site. I’m going to address four probable sites. These are not the only sites, but these are once again ones that I find the most compelling. It would take a significant amount of time to address every possible site sadly, but after sifting through numerous sites and suggestions, these are the ones I am choosing to highlight as seen on the map below.

First we'll look at the etymology of Camlann, likely meaning Crooked Bank (Cam Glan) or Crooked Enclosure (Cam Llan) Enclosure here almost always being related to sanctified land. So either we're looking for a river, or maybe land that is associated with a saint, as Llan often is.

We'll start with one of the earliest reckonings for where Camlann took place, and it happens to be where of all people, Geoffrey of Monmouth places it. Geoffrey places it at Camelford, based on the proximity of the name it would seem, with the River Camel, at one point being called the Cambla. A Dumnonian Arthur of course would be the most likely candidate for a battle at a river in Cornwall, which would work with our southern campaign, possibly with this being a battle of Geraint ap Erbin's? Geraint is however said to have fell in the battle of Llongborth in 514. While Geraint is an interesting possibility overall regardless of his death at Llongborth, it is placing Mordred here that is more difficult. A southern contemporary of Geraint that may fit as Medraut, is the young Prince of Gwent Medrod ap Cawrdaf, the grandson of the famed Caradoc Vreichvras, or possibly Caradoc's son Meurig may fit as well. Medrod ap Cawrdaf appears in Bonedd y Saint and is listed as the father of Saint Dyfnog. So Medrod and Geraint may have fought together against a deep Saxon incursion into Dumnonian territory, or even an invasion of Dumnonia by Medrod himself. These two also work for another site, the River Cam in Somerset, which happens to run near Cadbury Castle, an oft cited site for Camelot (there is much reason to doubt this, and Leslie Alcock an early supporter of Cadbury Castle as Camelot, after some time disavowed the idea). Maybe Arthur/Geraint was fighting at a river crossing near his own Fortress? Medrod is intriguing but may have been too young. There is reason to doubt the earlier floruit for Medrod ap Cawrdaf, and it has been suggested that he be placed as late as the early 7th century. This makes him contemporary with Athrwys of Gwent, which if Athrwys was present at the second Battle of Badon might give reason to believe Athrwys and Medrod fought at a later Camlann, maybe even Cwm Llan in Gwynedd, which gets absorbed into the earlier Arthur of Badon’s story. Once again much to think about.

There is a cluster of sites in Gwynedd that map well with the end of the western campaign we discussed earlier. The most notable is Cwm Llan, in Y Brython it is remembered as the site of Arthur's death, with the nearby "Pass of the Arrow" where Arthur was killed in an ambush. If an Arthur indeed died here one wouldn't expect it to be any of the Arthur candidates from the proper time period except maybe Cadell of Powys, who himself was famous enough in his own right that it is hard to see him conflated with Arthur in this case. Instead, it may commemorate the death of a later Arthur, Athrwys ap Meurig, or Artuir of Dyfed? This shifts the chronology out significantly, but it’s not out of the realm of possibility. Athrwys ap Meurig also works for the southern campaign. An example of later conflation?

Camboglanna is a very tempting possibility as well. Geoffrey Ashe has noted that it is likely not the Camlann in the annals as it would have probably contracted first to Camglann for a number of years, and would likely appear in the annals in that way. It is nonetheless interesting. Camboglanna was the twelfth fort on Hadrian's Wall counting from the east, seven miles west of the famous fort at Birdoswald, covering the Cambeck valley. For years Birdoswald was thought to be Camboglanna because of what is now considered an error in the Notitia Dignitatum. The river Irthing snakes its way past the site easily accounting for a "crooked bank". It is the only wall fort that is not on the wall itself, instead situated in the Vellum, a little under four acres, and happens to be eighteen miles or so west of Aballava, which may have been known as Avalana in Arthur's day. One is tempted to make a connection here... Camboglanna would've been on the border between Northern Rheged and Strathclyde, likely controlled by Northern Rheged's king at the time Meirchion Gul and his son Cynfarch Oer, the father of the famous Urien. Meirchion is a cousin of a candidate for Arthur, Arthwys ap Mar. Arthwys would have been the ruler of Ebrauc around this time. There is reason to believe this may have been a battle against the sons of Dyfnwal Hen of Strathclyde and the men of Gododdin. Y Gododdin references an old feud between Coel (Godebog) and the Gododdin

In hosts, in hordes, they fought for the land,

With Godebawg's sons, savage folk.

In the elegy for Cydywal it is said that he

killed Athrwys and Affrai with his own sword.

Athrwys and Arthwys seem to be the same name, and it seems Athrwys was in use by the 7th century when Y Gododdin was composed. Some folks who are detractors of a northern Arthur are quite certain that Arthwys is a misspelling of Athrwys, but they have little evidence to prove this. This reference is too early for Athrwys ap Meurig, but possible for Arthwys ap Mar. Arthwys as King of Ebrauc would have been a man of renown, and it would be a great honor to be remembered as the man that ended him. Could Cydywal have been part of the army from the north attacking Arthwys' cousins at Rheged, with Arthwys coming to his cousins aid, and ultimately leading to his death? If Arthwys was the inspiration for Arthur it would be easy to place him at Camboglanna around 537. Do we have a northern analogue to Medraut though? The most obvious is the one that shows up plainly as Medraut or Medrod in the Genealogies. There is a Medrawd in the previously mentioned 15th cen. "Twenty-Four Knights of Arthur’s Court" He is shown here as Son of Llew son of Cynfarch, Cynfarch here being Cynfarch Oer the young prince of Rheged at this time. If this entry is a preservation of history then we have a brother of Gwrfan (possibly Gawain) son of Llew (possible Lot or Loth, although these are both contestable in my opinion, but still interesting) present in the North at Rheged, but roughly two generations too late. It’s not impossible for Medraut ap Llew to be of age to participate in battle at Camboglanna, but there are a lot of “ifs” involved. Cynfarch by most reckoning would have been between 20 and 40 around 537. With some stretching, you would have Meirchion father Cynfarch at a very early age, giving Cynfarch a birth year of the later 480s, then as such give Llew a similarly early birth year of 500, and once again Medraut and Gwrfan an early birth year of 515 or so, giving leeway for a Medraut ap Llew to be present at Camboglanna. This significantly shifts things out as far as the generally accepted chronology for figures who have a more certain place in history, such as Urien ap Cynfarch, and his son Owain ap Urien, both who lived in the later half of the 6th century. As I said… a lot of “ifs”

Some have proposed that this addition of Medraut to a Coeling line is incorrect, and that Llew ap Cynfarch is actually Letan Luyddoc of the Gododdin. Letan is a semi-legendary king of the Gododdin contemporary with Arthur himself. Letan may in fact be the origin for the idea of a “Kingdom of Lothian” and be the historical inspiration for Lot, he is also the father of another Medraut. This Medraut also has an older brother who is often considered to be a historical analogue to Gawain, Gerguan, or Gwalchmai ap Letan. To further strengthen this potential connection, Medraut ap Letan was said to have married Cywllog, a daughter of the northern king Caw, who usurped the throne of Alt Clud for a short time, who is also the father of Gildas, and an enemy of Arthur. This Medraut ap Letan would have been a rising warlord attempting to establish himself as a younger son. Perhaps this Prince Medraut, at the behest of his wife, was one of the commanders heading south to carve out a name, or even a kingdom for himself, and met his doom in battle at Camboglanna against the combined might of Rheged and Ebrauc?

There is another option. In some traditions Arthwys ap Mar has a brother named Morydd. We must be carefully with making assumptions based on proximity of names, but it would be easy for a game of telephone to render Morydd to Medrod or especially the later Mordred after years of copying. If the battle was at Camboglanna maybe Arthwys and Morydd went west to help their cousin Merchion and his son Cynfarch. This could corroborate Triad 59.

Three Unfortunate Counsels of the Island of Britain: 

To give place for their horses’ fore-feet on the land to Julius Caesar and the men of Rome, in requital for Meinlas (‘Slender Grey’); 

and the second: to allow Horsa and Hengist and Rhonwen into this Island; 

and the third: the threefold division by Arthur of his men with Medrawd at Camlan.

Possibly a memory of Arthwys dividing his forces between himself, his brother Morydd, and his cousin Meirchion. This triad may be a memory of a tactical mistake made by Arthwys when fighting the men of Alt Clud and Gododdin at Camboglanna, leading to his and Morydd’s death, and being immortalized in the Annals.

A Tough Pill to Swallow

This is by no means a definitive list of the possible sites, but instead the ones I find the most intriguing. It is very possible that Camlann was a later battle tacked on to Arthur's career, but I find this unlikely with its appearance next to Badon in the Annals. The most likely site in my opinion, after analyzing the rest of Arthur’s supposed campaign, and even some Arthurian candidates seems to me to be Camboglanna. I have written an extended speculative narrative for how this campaign and Arthwys ap Mar’s military career may have played out based on Nennius and a few others sources. You can find that narrative which I honestly consider some of my best work so far below. It is a fairly brief read, but I think it makes the case quite well, especially combined with the rest of this series on Arthur’s battles.

A Fleshed out Campaign Narrative for Arthwys ap Mar

This conclusion overall feels a little stale to me, but that is the nature of this game. There is so much that can be said, but little that can be said certainly. The next few articles will be a return to focusing on individuals, with the next entry tackling the generation immediately prior to Arthur, with a rough extended floruit from 460-490, this may stretch into a few articles, focusing on men like Mar ap Ceneu, Pabo Post Prydain, Gwrwst Ledlum, Fergus Mor, Erbin, Dyfnwal Hen, Vortimer, and Cadeyrn. These are the men who were fighting as young men in Ambrosius late wars against the Germanic invaders, the generation that set the stage for the rise of Arthur.