"After Arthur: A synopctic study of the Fate of the Britons." Topic

"The Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain started around the middle of the 5th cent AD. After the first Saxon victories, the Britons were reorganized and had gone on the offensive against the invaders led by a succession of efficient Supreme rulers (Dukes) of the 5th-6th centuries: Voteporix, Ambrosius Aurelianus and the enigmatic Arthur, who repelled effectively the invaders.

‘King' Arthur may have been a historical personality, possibly a descendant of Artorius Castus (a Roman commander in Britain) and prince of the Dumnonii (in South-western Britain). Arthur or (more correctly) the historical person that he represents, was not the ‘King of the island' but rather the Supreme commander/ruler of the Britons. But he probably was the king of his own people/former civitas (probably Dumnonia). It is believed that his royal residence was in South-western Britain, probably in the royal fortress excavated at Cadbury. From there he was undertaking military and political action in all the Briton territories as far as the Antonine Wall in the North. The philological and archaeological data indicate that he managed to repel the Anglo-Saxon advance. According to the chroniclers, he defeated the Saxons in twelve major battles, killing many of them. Arthur managed to repel the Pictish and Irish raiders as well. He achieved his greatest victory in the Badonicus hill fort (Mount Badon, around 516 AD) on the Anglo-Saxons. After this victory, Arthur's ruling influence was extended to some of the Anglo-Saxon rulers, as well as to the Bretons of Armorica (in modern North-western France).

Archaeology confirms the Briton victories on the Anglo-Saxons around 500 AD. In the first half of the 6th century, the Saxon advance stopped, the burials of the barbarian warriors raised sharply, while large groups of Anglo-Saxons returned to Germany, apparently frustrated by the Celtic victories. The superiority of the Briton army against the invaders probably relied to its armored cavalry, a legacy of the Late Roman army in Britannia. On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxons were almost entirely infantrymen…"

link

Full article here.
link

Hope you enjoy!.

Amicalement
Armand

Oh dear, this doesn't look good.

Wow! Have some new primary sources been unearthed?

As for the 'archaeological confirmation'; there is no necessary connection between a halt in the 'Saxon advance' and 'british victories' brought about by whomever.

As for Arthur's cavalry/knights. If one reads the so-called primary sources with a modicum of attention (and Geoffrey of Monmouth isn't one of them), one will notice that cavalry is not mentioned in the context of Arthur. So how do we know he and his army were mounted?

I could go on.

Sounds like someone used Bernard Cornwell as their primary source :)

Back in the early seventies I became an affirmed Arthurian after reading a number of books that presented archaeological evidence. In the years since, as I studied History and it's often underpinning evidence presented by archaeology I became somewhat skeptical. While there is a fair amount of circumstantial evidence there is an amazing lack of direct evidence. You think that for a hero of that magnitude someone would have written something down, contemporaneous with his life. Now I have to say I don't know if he lived or if he was a "Dux Bellorum" or a King or a Warlord. I also don't know if he didn't.

I do find it interesting that the first announcements of the finds at South Cadbury Castle were released around the time that the movie "Camelot" came out. Undoubtedly many people visit sites such as Tintagel simply because of their link to the King Arthur story. And while I enjoy the stories, whether it's "L Mort D'Arthur" or "Once and Future King" or "Prince Valiant" or whatever speculation is a far way from proof. And as far as Arthur goes there is plenty of speculation but not much proof. Hopefully someday someone will find that proof.

Archaeology confirms the Briton victories on the Anglo-Saxons around 500 AD.

I don't know what archaeology he is referring to, but as far as I am aware, NONE of the battle sites from that period have been positively identified.

Motto: Don't believe everything you read on the Internet …

"one will notice that cavalry is not mentioned in the context of Arthur."

Yes there is one possible exception though. The 'Arthur' verse of the Gododdin can be be read without much of a stretch to imply that Arthur bred horses and made gifts of them. The Gododdin warriors were cavalry and so by implication of the poems comparison were Arthur's men. Its slender but its there.

The article in the link is nonsense.

The nature of the advance of the Saxon settlement can to some extent be determined by pottery finds. And, yes, this 'advance' seems to slow down round about 500 AD. But the pottery itself has no link to 'british victories'.

Anyone seriously interested should have a look at JNL Myres' book 'The English Settlements'.

Oh : Yes. And that verse in Y Gododdin, according to Koch, belongs to the earliest version of the poem.

In the poem the Gododdin warriors are mounted, but there's no other evidence for that beyond the poem; so it depends on by how much you want to accept literary evidence as historical fact.

In fact, if there ever was an historical Arthur, the 'primary' literary/historical evidence, circumstantial though it is, might suggest he was of the Gwyr Y Gogledd -the men of the north. …None of this 'Cadbury by Camelot' nonsense.

Heather has an interesting take on how things went its contained in much more wide ranging books on migrations and so tends to get overlooked.

Yeah there is probably something to that. The dynasty of Gwynedd were careful to claim descent from the Men of the North unlike their compatriots who were Macsen Weldig men to a man.

Mind you the Bretons were clearly notable horsemen and they originated in the south west of Britain.

I tend to think there is nothing unlikely about a British cavalry tradition it continues in the sources from pre conquest to post Roman withdrawal. Also Roman cavalry in Britain are very well attested.

The Vindolanda tablets attest to mounted Britunculii; and there is evidence of Roman cavalry in Britain. But, again, there is no necessary connection with Arthur, or sub-Roman British.

However, for wargaming purposes, the core of my Romano-British armies are always mounted. Not least because a lot of wargame rules allow me to do this with hardly a shred of evidence.

I suppose the trick would be to locate the point where cavalry went out of fashion and I cannot see when that was from what sources survive.

The little Britons you mention are horsemen and so are the Gododdin and many Picts too. Now these boys are outside of the Province but within it we are told by scholars that soldiers were recruited locally so once again some Britons on Cuddies.

Its not great evidence but combined with the Breton military machine being cavalry dependent I think it will do. Not that we can be sure.

Gildas also mentions Roman patterns for the British military and this is in the heyday of Roman cavalry.

'Cuddies'; Now that's a term to conjure with between the Tweed and the Tees.

Yeah its a great word.

Bit more on Celts on Cuddies. I'm just reading Koch's latest and there is a clear reference to cavalry operating around Chester le Street and points north and west in the early poem Marwnad Cunedda. Also the gift of horses thing comes up again. The cavalry are 'swarming' in the poem.

Great book too.