Arthur and the Bretwalda?

[Malcolm Martin]

One aspect of this issue that I find interesting (to say the least) is that
the standard list of the first Anglo-Saxon Bretwalda's looks something like
this:

477 - ? (sometimes quoted as 514) Aelle King of the South Saxons.
560 - 591 Ceaulin (Caelin/Ceawlin) King of the West Saxons.
591 - 616 Ethelbert King of the Cantware.
616 - 625/7 Raedwald King of the East Angles. Buried at Sutton Hoo.
627 - 632 Edwin King of the Bernician & Deiran Northumbrians.
633 - 641 Oswald (Saint) King of the Bernician Northumbrians.
641 - 670 Oswiu King of the Bernician Northumbrians.

This might also be written as:

477 - ? Aelle King of the South Saxons.
? - 560 xxxxxxx
560 - 591 Ceaulin (Caelin/Ceawlin) King of the West Saxons.
591 - 616 Ethelbert King of the Cantware.
616 - 625/7 Raedwald King of the East Angles. Buried at Sutton Hoo.
627 - 632 Edwin King of the Bernician & Deiran Northumbrians.
633 - 641 Oswald (Saint) King of the Bernician Northumbrians.
641 - 670 Oswiu King of the Bernician Northumbrians.

Which gives rise to the question as to who was the Bretwalda from
about 500 to 560.

Since Mons Badonicus was about 500, and the A-Ss comprehensively defeated,
it seems to me that there are two possibilities:

a) the Victor of Mons Badonicus became the Overlord of both British and A-S
petty kingdoms (equivalent to, if not having the same title of, Bretwalda);


or

b) There was no Bretwalda.

On the basis that nature abhors a vacuum and that in the 'heroic' society
that we are considering, somebody would seek to take control, it seems to
me most likely that (a) would be correct, with the role of Bretwalda
effectively being fulfilled by the British until the A-Ss can get their act
together, start winning battles and Ceawlin gets the Kingdom of Wessex.

This hypothesis does leave the question as to whether that Victor of Mons
Badonicus was the Historical Arthur or not, but in an Arthurian context it
would mean that the Dux Bellorum then became Bretwalda (or gained the
imperium) by that victory of his.
Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Doc Martian]

arthurian legend indicates a time when there was no king... at least a
generation. it is not hard at all to envision anglo-saxon chieftains
struggling against one another or keeping one another in check.

p.s. heroic society. interesting how arthur as a legend comes up about the
time of william the conquerer and about the time of the war of the roses....
almost as if the legend is used to inspire boys to chivalry. now... how
heroic society was in the 6th century is debatable, but, i would be willing
to venture that it was the beginning of gentry, as the strongest chieftain
doled out fiefs to other chieftains to keep the peace.

cheers!
Doc

Post by Malcolm Martin
b) There was no Bretwalda.
On the basis that nature abhors a vacuum and that in the 'heroic' society
that we are considering, somebody would seek to take control, it seems to
me most likely that (a) would be correct, with the role of Bretwalda
effectively being fulfilled by the British until the A-Ss can get their act
together, start winning battles and Ceawlin gets the Kingdom of Wessex.
This hypothesis does leave the question as to whether that Victor of Mons
Badonicus was the Historical Arthur or not, but in an Arthurian context it
would mean that the Dux Bellorum then became Bretwalda (or gained the
imperium) by that victory of his.
Kind regards
Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Doc Martian]

instead of mons badonicus, instead consider, a decisive battle against the
saxons (where caewlin consolidated power against aethelbert, saxon king),
instead of camlann, a battle where 'arthur' was defeated.near an ancient
place of worship/healing (woddesberg near alton priors and st. mary's church
http://www.themodernantiquarian.com/site/2233 where sarsens can be found
underneath the floor boards), and i think you may have it. myths leave
fingerprints, but often place names and perhaps even battle times/locations
are changed to promote tourism.... the regional drift/lincoln slept here
factor. also.... again, arthurian revivals around the time of the norman
conquest may have been altered to make 'the invader' aspect more clear. as
the earliest tales specifically of arthur come from at least a hundred years
up the line.... i'd say it's likely that the lincoln slept here factor is at
least a little bit prevalent. as far as the earliest known reference to
'arthur' aneirin's "he was no arthur" why would that not be a contemporary
reference? how often have you heard someone announced as "no diana" or "no
reagan".

what i'm doing is taking points of reference of the arthur myth. battles,
key figures (in simplistic forms, predecessor/father, successor/heir) and
place them into context around a shadowy series of figures, ceawlin
continues to fit the bill. his battles against saxons are undoubted and in
fact a matter of record, his having two major battles in his life are again
a matter of record, his predecessor having a mastery of siegecraft, a period
of years between predecessor and successor, overlordship (the second
overlord according to both the anglo saxon chronicle AND the arthur-uther
legend) over the britons, a nearby ancient place of worship
(avalon/woddesberg), arthur/ceawlin existing at a time when he could have
been the son of a warrior king/saxon and a briton woman, deposal by a filial
relation, the scarcity of reference to romans/empire/ruling powers in all
tales of arthur indicating he probably came from post 418 ad (when the
romans left britain), the period of time between the victory over arthur and
his death (at least time enough to heal his wounds),

that's 8 points of reference.... enough for fingerprints. enough for
history? i'd say at least enough to raise more then a suspicion that arthur
and ceawlin were one and the same.

cheers!
Doc

Post by Malcolm Martin
a) the Victor of Mons Badonicus became the Overlord of both British and A-S
petty kingdoms (equivalent to, if not having the same title of, Bretwalda);

[Malcolm Martin]

Post by Doc Martian
as far as the earliest known reference to
'arthur' aneirin's "he was no arthur" why would that not be a
contemporary reference? how often have you heard someone
announced as "no diana" or "no reagan".

Doc

I think that is probably the weakest part of your (very weak) argument,
seeking to identify Ceawlin/Arthur.

There can be no doubt that Aneirin's reference in the Gododdin is in a
British context - the war-band is British, riding out of Edinburgh ["at
that time the site was in the norther part of the Brittonic tribal kingdom
of Gododin" Koch p xiv], after a time of British feasting and merriment,
only to be obliterated at Catterick. And Aneirin's series of elegies are
composed within a British bardic tradition. To compare Gorddur to a Saxon
war chief (even one born of a British mother) in that context would have
both been deeply insulting to his memory, as well as culturally
inconceivable.

Second, references such as "She was no Diana" or "He was no Reagan"
normally are only made after the death of both the person concerned, and
the comparison to which they are made. The date of the battle of Catterick
has been put between 540 [Dumville] and just before 600 [Williams and
others], with Koch, after a fairly exhaustive look at the evidence,
suggesting c570. At that date Ceawlin was still in the process of
expanding his power base from Wessex (568 v Aethelbert [ASC]), and was
still alive until expelled in 592, 'perished' in 593 [ASC]. Thus it is
extremely likely that Ceawlin was alive at the date of Aneirin's
composition, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he had the
reputation of fighting prowess that would lead him to be used as a
comparison in a British eulogy.

Koch JT "The Gododdin of Aneirin" Univ. of Wales 1997
ASC = Anglo Saxon Chronicle



Kind regards

Malcolm Martin
London, UK

[Doc Martian]

Post by Malcolm Martin

Post by Doc Martian
as far as the earliest known reference to
'arthur' aneirin's "he was no arthur" why would that not be a
contemporary reference? how often have you heard someone
announced as "no diana" or "no reagan".

Doc
I think that is probably the weakest part of your (very weak) argument,
seeking to identify Ceawlin/Arthur.
And Aneirin's series of elegies are
composed within a British bardic tradition. To compare Gorddur to a Saxon
war chief (even one born of a British mother) in that context would have
both been deeply insulting to his memory, as well as culturally
inconceivable.

not with a recently passed bretwalda who apparently was well-beloved by
many, not a conqueror, a uniter of peoples. you fail to see the bushel for
the basket.

Post by Malcolm Martin
Second, references such as "She was no Diana" or "He was no Reagan"
normally are only made after the death of both the person concerned, and
the comparison to which they are made. The date of the battle of Catterick
has been put between 540 [Dumville] and just before 600 [Williams and
others], with Koch, after a fairly exhaustive look at the evidence,
suggesting c570. At that date Ceawlin was still in the process of
expanding his power base from Wessex (568 v Aethelbert [ASC]), and was
still alive until expelled in 592, 'perished' in 593 [ASC]. Thus it is
extremely likely that Ceawlin was alive at the date of Aneirin's
composition, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he had the
reputation of fighting prowess that would lead him to be used as a
comparison in a British eulogy.

is battle prowess the only measure of a man? even in the 6th century? the
legendary arthur was more known for comradeship/wisdom then being a
rampaging conquering warrior. perhaps that is why in a time of conquest...
he was beloved by the britons.

He excelled in the forefront of the noblest host,
He gave gifts of horses from the herd in winter.
He fed black ravens on the rampart of a fortress
Though he was no Arthur.

and of course.... what is the noblest host? is it the battle-hungry? or the
charitable. is the reference of feeding black ravens only one of leaving
carcasses to eat? or one who gives gifts from the herd and also feeds the
pigeons.

you must remember.... i not only come from a tradition of history, but also
of poetry, philosophy, and have studied roman and modern elegy. you seek
clear-cut answers from a time when sixty years shift in chronology is
common. so twist... and squirm... and try to find solace... but your
reasoning is flawed... as is demonstrated by your stating that aneirin's
work was created at a date prior to 600 a.d. here.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=aneirin+600 let me help you on your
way.

Cheers!
Doc

p.s. why would a book be more able to be pinpointed then a battle? let's
just say, the monks were sticklers about cataloging, even though what they
cataloged sometimes had factual errors.

p.p.s. notice me rushing in to pinpoint the location of 'camelot'? nope.
just as it took me a few years to locate arthur... so it will take me a few
years to pinpoint his castle. you responded to me in a matter of hours.
think about it for awhile. let it settle in. also... read some joseph
campbell... he'll help you shake your pride. i will tell you this however. a
wise place to put a capital in ancient wessex would be salisbury/old
sarum... i'm suspicious that it is fool's gold however. so, i'll get back to
ya'll in a couple of years on that one.

p.p.p.s. if you spend less then a month researching this one.... then you
really aren't worth your salt... i started my search for the historical
arthur in 2002.