The Knights of the Round Table question [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : The Knights of the Round Table question

Zain

12-20-2006, 03:31

Patriarch of Constantinople

12-20-2006, 03:49

Wrong area. This is the chapter house, for interactives. A mod should move this to the monastery.

Samurai Waki

12-20-2006, 06:09

We're Knights of the Round Table.
We dance whene'er we're able.
We do routines and chorus scenes
With footwork impeccable.
We dine well here in Camelot.
We eat ham and jam and spam a lot.

We're Knights of the Round Table.
Our shows are formidable,
But many times we're given rhymes
That are quite unsingable.
We're opera mad in Camelot.
We sing from the diaphragm a lot.

In war we're tough and able,
Quite indefatigable.
Between our quests we sequin vests and impersonate Clark Gable.
It's a busy life in Camelot.

I have to push the pram a lot.

Csargo

12-20-2006, 06:41

Hey guys, just looking for some insight on the Knights of the Round Table and King Arthur.

Two questions...

How many were there?

Were they traditionally infantry, calvary, or calvary that dismounted in battle?

If they are calvary that dismounted, do dismounted units in MTW get their mounts back after a won or lost battle?

Thanks guys!
Zain

Ah the legendary King Arthur.

My guess would be they were cavalry.

And that question is one that should be asked in the Main Hall. My guess would be they would.

IrishArmenian

12-20-2006, 07:02

Really, it is hard to answer this question as you are asking about fiction. However, it is semi-historical fiction and if King Arthur did live, he was probably in the dark ages, so I assume they could have either dismounted for combat (more Norse influence) or fight on horseback. I assume they would have fought with lances and axes.

Justiciar

12-20-2006, 07:13

Julian the apostate

12-20-2006, 08:47

technically i guess it depends on when you put king arthur
do you put him as welshman trying to hold off the saxons in a battle like badon hill? which is what 873?ishish (i don't know)
this would mean shield wall on shield wall with little cavalry, outside of a few knights who would prolly get knocked out fast by a good spear wall

if you put them earlier like right after The romans randomly leave, you've got a romano-british settlement where there would be the remainer of the sarmatians, a few older legionaires capable of training and some of those good old fashion welsh for archers a pretty formidible force

you pick a time period for british history and you can predict what arthurs going to have but the problem is that he spans a history of 350AD ish to 1088 AD, which is one hell of a large time period. i guess we could say he was a minor king or a rebel under the normans but we'll ignore that possiblity and stick with him being a good welsh or possibly saxon lad

Watchman

12-20-2006, 11:21

If we go with the Romano-British warlord theory cavalry would make the most sense. Late Roman armies in general relied fairly heavily on their mounted arm, and everything up to cataphractii was apparently found even in the local limitanensis garrison forces. There was famously a large Sarmatian military colony in northern Roman Britain, which would further have contributed to the local equestrian warfare (for comparision Alan influences may have lingered among Breton cavalry until Early Middle Ages, so...).

Zain

12-20-2006, 14:07

Heh, you're right, this was the wrong place to post this. Only one of my 3 questions were answered in 6 outside posts. I'll post this, thanks for hardly anything guys!
(Take that as sarcasm guys, nothing personal intended)

-Zain

The Wizard

12-20-2006, 17:02

Agreeing with the posters above, and knowing that I'm taking this off-topic as far as the Monastery is concerned: Round Table knights are a unit in MTW2 (or BI)? :no:

Antagonist

12-20-2006, 17:35

Round Table knights are a unit in MTW2 (or BI)?

Kind of. The BI Romano-British have a unit called "Graal Knights" which are clearly based on the legend.

There is considerable controversy over the extent to which Arthurian legend represents history. Even the legend itself has been changed over time, from the possible early myths redolent of Irish heroic tales through the (pseudo)historical account of a post-Roman 5th century British warlord to the medeival romances of a Arthur as king of England (ironically) in an age of high chivalry and knights in shining armour.

Various suggestions have been made as to who the "real Arthur" was, and there is also the argument that Arthur is a composite of several Romano-Celtic figures or archetypes. The date tends to be earlier rather then later though, Badon Hill (the battle most closely associated with the Arthur figure) is said to have been fought around 500 AD.

Assuming a post-Roman early Dark Age timeframe, Late Roman style medium/heavy cavalry would be the most likely equipage for a British leader.

Hopefully Agraes, leader of Arthurian Total War will chime in on this, he's probably the community's resident Arthurian scholar. :book:

Antagonist

Julian the apostate

12-20-2006, 17:50

Antagonist

12-20-2006, 18:55

in all reality i'd put my vote on being a later hero as that it seems that by badon hills most of the saxon shore and coast had been taken including london making arthur welsh. logically this would mean it'd be largely spear walls and a few random archers. i guess if you take lancelot as being french then i guess you could suggest frankish knights comming up from there.

I'm not really sure if I follow you there. If it was about 500 then the Germanic peoples would control south-eastern Britain and somewhat further up the east coast. There wouldn't really have been such a thing as "welsh" at this point, as all "welsh" (Romanised Brythonic) people and language would have been predominant throughout all of the rest of Britain, except for the Scottish Highlands (the Pictish culture) and parts of the western seaboard held by Irish.

Antagonist

Agraes

12-20-2006, 19:48

I wrote two articles a while back that should interest you:

Did Merlin exist? (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=54908)

The Historic Arthur. (http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59256)

Lancelot isn't a historical character at all. He might be inspired from the early arthurian character of Llenweag, but Llenweag is a Gael not a Frank.

It is however likely that Arthur's warriors were horsmen. Early welsh (or should we say 'Brythonic' as by this time both Breton, Cornwall, Welsh and Cumbrian were just one language) poetry makes the elegy of warriors such as the 300 Britons fall at the battle of Catraeth, circa 600 AD. They were horsmen, probably near of late roman cavalry, fighting with sword and javelins, and occasionally with the long sarmatian lance, the contus.

And "knights of the round table" never existed, they are a XIIth century development of the Arthurian legend. However, lot of Arthurian characters find their origins in the Dark Ages, but they are unlikely to have fight together under the rule of Arthur, some beeing of the late Vth century, some of the VIIth. Among the most prestigious ones, there is Urien Rheged and his son Owain (Yvain), Peredur, last king of Ebrauc (the Brythonic kingdom of Yorkshire that fall to the Angles circa 580 AD), aka Perceval, Lot and his son Gwalchmei/Gawain, or Gereint (Erec) king of Dumnonia.

If you are interested in this subject and really want to see how looked Dark Ages battle (far more more complicated than "shieldwalls with some archers" :P), I can only suggest you to give a try to our mod, Arthurian: Total War. The only problem is that you will have to own RTW and BI :2thumbsup:

Fisherking

12-24-2006, 11:26

First let us go with the name Arthur.

Irish for bear... Every thing prior Geoffrey of Monmouth points north to Dalriada.

The name is often reckoned to derive from the Latin Artorius, but this is quite incorrect. Artur as an Irish name goes back to 5th century BC.

Our man however is mentioned in the life of St. Columba. Abbot Adamnan of Iona (627-704) related how the Saint had prophesied that Arthur would die before he could succeed his father,(King Aeda'n of Dalriada~not Uther) he at the time being deemed the most powerful king of the island (pendragon if you will).

In 858 Nennius listed various battles at which Arthur was victorious. The locations included the Caledonian Wood north of Carlisle (Cat Coit Celidon) and Mount Agned- the fort of Bremenium in the Cheviots, from which the Anglo-Saxons were repelled. There is more but I am under pressure with Christmas...
Any way Geoffrey moved Dux of Caruele (warlord of Carlisle) to the south in the West Country to become Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall because his Norman patron was Robert, Earl of Gloucester. There is a date of around 559 for his birth as Aeda´n's son.

One must try to understand that pendragon and merlin were titles and not one individual. Tintagel "GoM" birth place of Arthur was bult in the early 1100s by the first Earl of Cornwall...on the site of a ruined Celtic church monastery.

Cutting to the chase....I suppose you need Scot/Irish mounted nobles of this era. Arthur was not a hero to his people as they were Celtic church come pagans in the north but Arther had some how acquired Catholisem.... but it worked for old Jeff... Sorry I found nothing of a round table.

If I have a chance I will come back and flesh this out in an edit but for now I have to run

Motep

12-24-2006, 18:50

Celt Centurion

12-24-2006, 21:53

The Knights were quite clearly cavalry, and the romantic figures of Arthurian myth, including most of the Knights, are more often than not historic kings. Who Arthur was can't really be answered, though. I'm fairly confident that he was the High King during the late 5th/early 6th centuries. But then you've got other claims, such as the reeaaally old Goidelic story. It acctually seems more likely that he was just a successful general that fought the early English and became the personification of Brythonic nationalism and a Christian outlet earlier pagan hero-cults. :dizzy2:

For an excellent series of books on this subject, I recommend "The Camulod Chronicles" series by Jack Whyte. The first volume is "The Skystone" in which the lead characters are Caius Britanicus (a Roman Legate who will go on to become grandfather of Merlyn), and Publius Varrus (Primus Pilus in Britanicus legion, who will go on to be Arthur's Great Grandfather). I finished "The Singing Sword" last night, and will order "The Eagles Brood" next week.

Strength and Honor

Celt Centurion

Agraes

12-25-2006, 22:26

Irish for bear... Every thing prior Geoffrey of Monmouth points north to Dalriada.

The name is often reckoned to derive from the Latin Artorius, but this is quite incorrect. Artur as an Irish name goes back to 5th century BC.

Artur mac Aedan can't be "THE" Arthur. The earliest historical mention of Arthur as the leader of the Britons is the Historia Brittonum, in which Arthur is said to have won 12 great battles, the biggest is the victory of Badon Hill. And we have a nearly contempory record of Badon, in St. Gildas "De Excidio Britanniae". But Gildas don't give the name of the commanders at Badon, he only names Ambrosius Aurelianus who was the leader of the Britons in the past decades before Badon. The date of 516 AD is given for Badon Hill in the Annales Cambriae, but it have been demonstrated that this is impossible, as Gildas was writing 44 years after it, when Maelgwn Gwynedd was still alive thus prior to 548 AD. Badon was fought in the last 10 years of the Vth century.

And in this period, the Anglo-Saxons were representing a true danger only south of the Humber, the Jutish kingdom of Kent, the young kingdom of Sussex, and the Angles in East Englia and Lincoln. North of the Humber were probably already present english, but still acting as foederati under British rule. No real harm was done to the Brythonic kingdoms of North Britain untill the second part of the VIth century and the fall of Ebrauc (circa 580 AD).

And Artur mac Aedan isn't the only Arthur mentionned. There are at least 4 "Arthur" from Gaelic descent, one beeing a prince of Dyfed, but both Dal Riada and Dyfed were under brythonic influence - Dyfed even more. And there is also some Brythonic kings bearing the name Arthuis or Arthwys.

Arthur isn't a gaelic name. Corresponding name in gaelic is Artair or Arghair. Gaelic word for bear is "Art". Brythonic meaning of Arthur have been interpreted as "Art-Gwr", bear-man. But a latin origin such as Artorius isn't that unlikely.

Pendragon have been interpreted as cavalry leader, Pen beeing "chief" and dragon refering to the military enseign used by Dark Ages Brythonic warriors, the draco.

I never heard of Merlin beeing a title myself ;)

Well, not all points to the North before Monmouth. There are theories about the Northern Arthur, and some others about the Southern Arthur. Arthur is however present in both traditions, from modernday Scotland to Brittany.

And the main strenght of the Gaels wasn't cavalry, their power was mainly based on infantry.

I hope you will however have some time to go on this discussion, and merry christmas :2thumbsup:

Fisherking

12-29-2006, 19:13

Thank you Agraes! I have read your articles and enjoyed them.

I have seen most of the source material for all of this but what I present is simply the theory I find to have the fewest holes in its fabric as compared to the legends. It comes in most part from Laurence Gardner but I have run across other sources which closely mirror it in part.

There is nothing new in the idea of Merlin or Merridán being a title vs. name. It crops up from distant past to about the 8th century throughout most of the Britonic areas. If it is but one man it surly would make him a great and powerful wizard, but Arthur is concerned primarily with Merlin Emrys.

While we think of Gaels as being infantry fighters please remember that Ireland was highly noted for its horses and that they were a large export in the very earliest of times. Their horses and hounds were sought after on the continent and so far as horses go many of the breeds of today have strong blood lines back into various Irish breeds (now unfortunately extinct). The Galloglass we think of as infantry could go into battle mounted and each member retained one or two horse boys, depending on the source you find.

That said, now back to Arthur.

In 858 Nennius listed various battles at which Arthur was victorious. The locations included the Caledonian Wood north of Carlisle (Cat Coit Celidon) and Mount Agned- the fort of Bremenium in the Cheviots, from which Anglo-Saxons were repelled. Also featured was Arthur's battle by the River Glein (Glen) in Northumbria, where the fortified enclosure was the centre of operations from the middle 500s. Other named Arthurian battle grounds were the City of the Legion (Carlisle) and the district of Linnuis – the old region of the Novantae tribe, north of Dumbarton, where Ben Arthur stands above Arrochar at the head of Loch Long.

To relate the Grail legends into all of this we have to except some somewhat strange genealogies. Someone or perhaps many at the time accepted them so here goes:

Arthur's father, King Aedàn mac Gabràn of Scots, became Pendragon by virtue of the fact that he was Prince Brycan's grandson. In this line, Aedàn's mother, Lluan of Brecknock, was descended from Joseph of Arimathea. (while we may be unconvinced, remember that this sort of thing was still being used to political advantage well into the 18th century)

While we have several Arthurs this is the only one borne to a Pendragon.

On his sixteenth birthday in 575, Arthur became sovereign Guletic (commander) of the British forces and the Celtic Church accepted his mother Ygerna del Acqs, as the High Queen of the Celtic kingdoms. Her own mother (in the hereditary lineage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene) was Viviane I, dynastic Queen of Burgundian Avallon. The priests, therefore, anointed Arthur as High King of the Britons following his father's ordination as King of Scots. At the time of her conception of Arthur by Aedàn, Ygerna (Igraine) was, however, married to Gwyr-Llew, Dux of Carlisle. The Scots Chronicale records the event as follows:

Because at ye heire of Brytan was maryit wy tane Scottis man quen ye Kinrik wakit, and Arthure was XV yere ald, ye Brytannis maid him king be ye devilrie of Merlynge, and yis Arthure was gottyn onn ane oyir mannis wife, ye Dux of Caruele.

This is the point at which Geoffrey of Monmouth (c1147) takes Gwy-Llew, the Dux of Caruele (Warlord of Carlisle), and made him Gorlois, Duke of Cornwall. The Norman aim being expressly to cement King Arthur into the English tradition, even though he did not feature in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. William of Malmesbury called it "dubious stuff" and William of Newburgh went even further, stating, "Everything that the man took pains to write concerning Arthur and his predecessors was invented".
Many were particularly baffled by Geoffrey's Duke Gorlois of Cornwall because there were no dukes in 6th century England. The early title of Dux was quite different from that of the later ducal nobility; it was a strictly military distinction and held no feudal tenure of land ownership. Another anomaly was the assertion by Geoffry that the 6th century Arthur had been born at Tintagel Castle, but there was no castle at Tinntagel until the first Earl of Cornwall built one in the early 12th century. Previously there had been only a ruined Celtic monastery on the site.

That other Arthur: There actually was an Arthur in 6th century Wales; he was the only other royal Arthur of the era, but he was not the son of a Pendragon and he was not the Arthur of Grail lore. This other Arthur was installed as Prince of Dyfed by St. Dubricius in 506, even though he and his forebears were enemies of the native Welsh. He was descended from disinherited Déisi royalty, expelled from Ireland in the late 4th century. When the Roman troops left South Wales in AD 383, the Déisi leaders came from Leinster to settle in Dyfed (Demetia). Arthur, Prince of Dyfed, features as a notorious tyrant in The Lives of the Saints (in the tails of Carannog and others) and he is generally portrayed as a troublesome regional interloper.
In Arthurian romance, the confusion between the Scots and Welsh Arthurs arose mainly because of the Merlin connection. As we have seen, Merlin Emrys was the son of Aurelius. But Aurelius' wife was Arthur of Dyfed's sister, Niniane. Aurelius had married her in an effort to curtail the Déisi invasion of Powys, but his strategy was short-lived. This, of course, meant that Merlin Emrys was Arthur of Dyfed's nephew while, at the same time, he was a cousin to the Pendragon Aedàn mac Gabràn and was the appointed guardian of Aedàn's son, Arthur of Dalriada.

To be continued:

Agraes

12-29-2006, 22:22

I was eagerly awaiting your post :2thumbsup:

While we think of Gaels as being infantry fighters please remember that Ireland was highly noted for its horses and that they were a large export in the very earliest of times. Their horses and hounds were sought after on the continent and so far as horses go many of the breeds of today have strong blood lines back into various Irish breeds (now unfortunately extinct). The Galloglass we think of as infantry could go into battle mounted and each member retained one or two horse boys, depending on the source you find.

Gaels breed essentially ponies better suited to Ireland for a long time, and their aristocracy often fight on foot. Galloglass are not a reference for Dark Ages at all, they are XVIth century irish soldiers.
Well, beeing the leader of Arthurian: TW for more than one year I acquired a good knowledge of irish warfare :)
Ill ask Anthony to come here and post a bit more about Gaelic cavalry. He is our adviser about Gaels.

In 858 Nennius listed various battles at which Arthur was victorious. The locations included the Caledonian Wood north of Carlisle (Cat Coit Celidon) and Mount Agned- the fort of Bremenium in the Cheviots, from which Anglo-Saxons were repelled. Also featured was Arthur's battle by the River Glein (Glen) in Northumbria, where the fortified enclosure was the centre of operations from the middle 500s. Other named Arthurian battle grounds were the City of the Legion (Carlisle) and the district of Linnuis – the old region of the Novantae tribe, north of Dumbarton, where Ben Arthur stands above Arrochar at the head of Loch Long.

As you certainly know, those are only possible identifications of the Arthurian battles. The Arthuriana section of the Historia Brittonum have been dedicated tons and tons of work, from the sceptical such as Dumville to the optimists such as John Morris who saw various campaigns inside it. There is lot of possible "Caer Legion" in Britain: Carlisle, but also Chester, Caerleon, and York. River names such as Dubglas or Glein were probably very common in the V/VIth century. Linnuis have also been identified as the area of Lincoln where there was a high density of Angles in the late Vth century. Only one battle got an undebatted identification, Celidon, the great forest of Northern Britain, but it remains not very precise.

And there is Badon. Badon, one of the major battles of the era that would have halted Anglo-Saxon expansion for nearly 50 years. Where was it? There is little doubt that it was in the south, the area that the strongest established english kingdom of the late Vth century - the Jutish kingdom of Kent - would have aimed at. The two earliest references of Arthur (except in Welsh poetry such as in Y Gododdin or Cynddylan's elegy that can't be dated precisely), the Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae, both link him with Badon. Thanks to Gildas, we know more or less when Badon took place, and its importance in the relative period of peace Gildas was living in - the first part of the Vth century. THE Arthur, if he did ever existed, was the British commander at Badon - there is however no doubt about Arthur mac Aedan or Arthur of Dyfed existences, and they may have both add to the legend.

On his sixteenth birthday in 575, Arthur became sovereign Guletic (commander) of the British forces and the Celtic Church accepted his mother Ygerna del Acqs, as the High Queen of the Celtic kingdoms. Her own mother (in the hereditary lineage of Jesus and Mary Magdalene) was Viviane I, dynastic Queen of Burgundian Avallon. The priests, therefore, anointed Arthur as High King of the Britons following his father's ordination as King of Scots. At the time of her conception of Arthur by Aedàn, Ygerna (Igraine) was, however, married to Gwyr-Llew, Dux of Carlisle. The Scots Chronicale records the event as follows:

Because at ye heire of Brytan was maryit wy tane Scottis man quen ye Kinrik wakit, and Arthure was XV yere ald, ye Brytannis maid him king be ye devilrie of Merlynge, and yis Arthure was gottyn onn ane oyir mannis wife, ye Dux of Caruele.

Yes, that's an interesting theory. Yet I would like to read about the identifications of Viviane, Ygerna and the others; what are the sources, and also from when dates this Scots Chronicle :P

Another anomaly was the assertion by Geoffry that the 6th century Arthur had been born at Tintagel Castle, but there was no castle at Tinntagel until the first Earl of Cornwall built one in the early 12th century. Previously there had been only a ruined Celtic monastery on the site.

More recents excavations have shown this site was of major importance. There is the monastery of course, but it was a major trade center. Not to speak of the famous Artognou stone, which by itself isn't a proof of Arthur's link with Tintagel. The name itself refers to a fortress, Din Tagell, "the fort of the constriction". And I don't think it was the Norman earl that gave a Brythonic name to a fortress in a place that would have never been fortified before.

[QUOTE]That other Arthur: There actually was an Arthur in 6th century Wales; he was the only other royal Arthur of the era, but he was not the son of a Pendragon and he was not the Arthur of Grail lor

Agraes

12-29-2006, 22:54

Hem, second part of the post.. it seems two long for just one!

That other Arthur: There actually was an Arthur in 6th century Wales; he was the only other royal Arthur of the era, but he was not the son of a Pendragon and he was not the Arthur of Grail lore. This other Arthur was installed as Prince of Dyfed by St. Dubricius in 506, even though he and his forebears were enemies of the native Welsh. He was descended from disinherited Déisi royalty, expelled from Ireland in the late 4th century. When the Roman troops left South Wales in AD 383, the Déisi leaders came from Leinster to settle in Dyfed (Demetia). Arthur, Prince of Dyfed, features as a notorious tyrant in The Lives of the Saints (in the tails of Carannog and others) and he is generally portrayed as a troublesome regional interloper.

Dyfed was theorically a vassal of Mumain (Munster). From the once gaelic lineage rose the dynasty of Aircol Lawhir, and his son Vorteporix/Vortipor/Gwrtipawr, Protector of Dyfed in the early VIth century. Its him who is despised by Gildas, and his gravestone can be steen today, with an inscription in latin and ogham.

http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/vortipor%20stone1.gif
Well I guess you already know it :)

In Arthurian romance, the confusion between the Scots and Welsh Arthurs arose mainly because of the Merlin connection. As we have seen, Merlin Emrys was the son of Aurelius. But Aurelius' wife was Arthur of Dyfed's sister, Niniane. Aurelius had married her in an effort to curtail the Déisi invasion of Powys, but his strategy was short-lived. This, of course, meant that Merlin Emrys was Arthur of Dyfed's nephew while, at the same time, he was a cousin to the Pendragon Aedàn mac Gabràn and was the appointed guardian of Aedàn's son, Arthur of Dalriada.

I would still like to see from what all this come. For me, Merlin is Myrddin, its true name beeing Lailoken, his legend had no link with Arthur's one before Monmouth. Its association with Dyfed came from Caer Myrddin, Carmarthen, the latin name is Moridonum, simply "sea's fortress", nothing to do with Merlin. There is also some characters called Merfryn, but there is no link with Merlin for me :yes:

Im sorry if I sound a bit offensive, I really don't want it, and Im pleased to see someone else sharing my interests on this subject! :2thumbsup:

Fisherking

12-29-2006, 23:31

I will post more on Arthur a bit later but for now Galloglass and horses!

Gallowglass referred first to Scottish mercenaries from the isles and first dated to the mid 12th century. Later some clans established themselves in Ireland proper but they were still recruited from the Scottish isles up until the flight of the Earls in the 1600s. While not Dark Age they do show a tradition of fighting mounted as well as on foot. Irish nobles did tend to fight mounted as would the early Scots/Irish. In historic time Irish horse men are said to have used a spear or javelins held overhand and or cast at an enemy. Their way of fighting was much the same as the Iberian Jennetts, and with whom they claim common ancestry. They were still a feared component of Irish guerrilla warfare in the 17th century. We have several misconceptions of how they fought, but how and why is just too long for a short post.

Ireland had horses, would you send to the edge of the world for a boat load of ponies when you had them available down the road a bit? Have you ever seen the Irish Tinker Pony (it is a draft horse) Also why did the English go to the trouble of instituting a law which said that the native Irish couldn't own a horse worth more than 10 Pounds. At the time it was a good sum but the way of testing was that you offer the money for the horse and he had to take it or face the authorities.

The Wizard

12-30-2006, 03:05

in all reality i'd put my vote on being a later hero as that it seems that by badon hills most of the saxon shore and coast had been taken including london making arthur welsh. logically this would mean it'd be largely spear walls and a few random archers. i guess if you take lancelot as being french then i guess you could suggest frankish knights comming up from there.

Not necessarily. You see, the Germanic noble rode to battle, only to dismount, and skirmished on horseback.

Certainly, however, the shield wall would have taken a bigger role in the poetry and prose than the horse would've -- but the fact that this is not the case may well have been a corruption through hindsight and ignorance by the writers who recorded Arthurian legend for us.

naut

12-30-2006, 10:38

Modern Historians, and most significantly Bede skewed Britain's history to justify their needs and claims. To put it bluntly they all had an axe to grind or a point to create justification for.

Agraes

12-30-2006, 11:18

In historic time Irish horse men are said to have used a spear or javelins held overhand and or cast at an enemy. Their way of fighting was much the same as the Iberian Jennetts, and with whom they claim common ancestry. They were still a feared component of Irish guerrilla warfare in the 17th century. We have several misconceptions of how they fought, but how and why is just too long for a short post.

I agree with this, but it was the same for most cavalry of the era. Including late romans, except of course cataphracts. Its like this the Bretons of Erispoé defeated the heavy frankish infantry at Jengland circa 850 AD for exemple, hit and run tactiques.

Just to add some stuff on gaelic cavalry, I add here the descriptions on our cavalry units from ATW:

Ceirrana
(Weak militia horsemen a cudgel in melee, small round shield, short javelins or darts, thigh length shirt, trews (worn at the knee like shorts), barefoot or shoes)
Description - Gaelic horsemen usually have to pass a number of tests before actually being allowed to fight as a horseman. However, these don't apply to the warbands and militias. If one has their own horse and can ride it, they can fight as impromptu cavalry. Local militias can use such men to scout, as well as run down fleeing enemies. However, as they are untrained, they are quite easily run off or killed, and cannot be relied on to be effective cavalry for a long period.

Guirran
(Horsemen with javelins (skirmish), and an spear in melee, large round shield, leather helmet, padded coat (Irish), leather coat (Dal Riada)) -
Description - Gaelic light cavalry sticks to the common methods of Gaelic combat. They are skirmishers by default, meant to ride toward an opponent, throw javelins, and retreat, ad infinitum. Training and experience has made them fairly good at this, and the Guirran (horsemen), later called hobblers or hobilars, became a staple of English and French armies as well. When depleted of javelins, or if the enemy routs, they can also be used to rundown infantry, or to flank an enemy position.

Tuaguirran
(Horsemen with javelins (skirmish), and a long-handled axe in melee, oval shield, bronze helmet, padded coat (Irish), leather coat (Dal Riada); essentially Guirran that do better in prolonged melee)
Description - Sometimes, the necessity of battle requires using cavalry to ride down the enemy or to shock an enemy position. The Gaels adapt to this by elongating their axe handles, and use them to devestating effect in quick, sudden strikes. However, before this, they skirmish as is typical of Gaelic cavalry, but their superior melee skills allow them to stay in a melee longer from horseback.

Guirranmor
(Gaelic heavy cavalry with swords, and Gaelic lance (an overhand lance), large-ring chain or scale armor, or a padded coat with bronze chest plate, Gaelic cavalry shield (oval shield flattened at both ends), iron helmet, should be a bit late period) -
Description - Champions in Gaelic culture are afforded some of the best weapons and equipment. The Guirranmor are the Gaelic equivalent of 'knights'; they have a patron who provides them with equipment, training, and gifts for performing well. On horseback, they form the Guirranmor (great horsemen); Gaels don't tend to use much heavy cavalry, but when they do, they form a powerful reserve on the field for mowing down enemy infantry. Their equipment is somewhat heavy compared to most infantry equipment, with longered handled or longer bladed weapons, reinforced armor, and larger shields.

Carpata
Dal Riada & Ui Neill only.
Gaelic chariot; chariot models don't count (they are counted with siege engines), but it'd probably need a new model for the driver. Would probably look similar to a British Wetwang chariot in shape, but less decoration than you see on reconstructions; riders would be Sleanaghta or similar infantry, maybe even just use them, in which case no new model would be needed at all; would raise allied morale
Description - The Gaels still used chariots in this period. They were in rapid decline in use, and had rarely been much of a weapon for war outside of a few regions, where the ground was smooth and flat enough to make good use of them, but they were still a popularized possession, and it was rare for aristocrats to not own at least one chariot for formal events. In war, they were used to drop nobles off into the middle of the fight (which can't be replicated in game), and as a missile platform from which the riders would hurl javelins, and also to crush light infantry by riding over them with the chariot's substantial weight.

Fennaguirran
(Horsemen with javelins (do not skirmish, throw before charging), long-handled axe, oval shield with flattened ends, padded coat, no helmet, lower enemy morale, in Connacht provinces only)
Description - Horses in Connaght are scant. Making due with what they have available, the Connaghta make use of their terrifying whoops and yells by coupling it with great speed. The confusion brought about by the sudden appearance of an ambushing force of Connaghta axemen on horseback is unsettling. Even seeing them approach can be horrifying. Rather than skirmish, some Connaghta horsmen serve as shock cavalry, and are great to augment cavalry of a Gaelic army, which is usually fairly light of horsemen. In particular among horsemen from Connacht were the Fene, or Fenna drognan, or clan. These were the legendary originators of the Gaelic race, and were mostly at home in Connacht at this time.

Rarigaguirran
(In Leinster only, Laigini 'sergeants' with Roman-style 'spatha' longswords on horseback, a padded coat with a bronze chest disc, bronze 'Roman' helmet, oval shield with flattened ends, short capes, javelins thrown before charge, do not skirmish)
Description - The 'sergeants' of the Laigini are not nobles or aristocracy, or champions, but they are afforded some superior equipment, including a Roman-style sword, copied after years of trade with Britain while it was a Roman territory, as well as helmets made of bronze, copied from the Imperial Gallic helmets the Romans wore. These sergeants are a reserve on the field, and useful for running down routers. Like all Gaelic soldiers, they carry javelins to augment their charge, but their swords make them superior shock cavalry to most opposition in Ireland, and allow them to at least compare to the medium cavalry of Britain.

Gaelic horses usually were little more than ponies; this was fine though. The terrain of both Ireland and northern Scotland could be unforgiving to larger horses, and in their native terrain, Gaelic ponies had a marked advantage. Horsemen often used the 'Gaelic lance', a long spear, still used overhand, and were more intended to kill infantry than other cavalry. They also carried a bundle of javelins pretty often, and were often used to skirmish before the battle, and chase down routers at the end of it. Heavier cavalrymen usually carried the 'lance' and a sword or axe (either a longsword or axe with elongated handle), and were used as shock cavalry but were fairly rare. Chariots still saw some irregular use; they were on their way out, but chariots remained a part of a Gaelic arras's retinue until the 1000s, at least (and some later kings still owned chariots as a symbol of prestige).

Fisherking

01-03-2007, 21:32

According to the 10th-century Annales Cambriag (Annals of Wales), Arthur perished at the Battle of Camlann- but to which Arthur do the annals refer? Certainly not to Arthur of Dalriada for he was recorded in Scotland after that event. The 15th-century Red book of Hergest (a collection of Welsh folk-tales) states that the Battle of Camlann was fought in 537, and the probable location was Maes Camlan, south of Dinas Mawddwy. If so, then it is quite possible that Arthur of Dyfed fought there. He was renowned for leading incursions into both Gwynedd and Powys. What is certain, however, is that Arthur of Dalriada fought a later battle at Camelon, west of Falkirk. The Chronicles of the Picts and Scots refer to this northern conflict as the Battle of Camelyn. He also fought subsequently at Camlanna (or Camboglanna) by Hadrian's Wall- the battle which led to his demise.
As for Geoffrey of Monmouth, he decided to ignore all the geographical locations, siting his fanciful battle by the River Camel in Cornwall. Geoffrey also associated the Irish battle of Badon Hill (Dun Baedàn) with a battle at Bath, because the latter place had been once known as Badanceaster.
In the Life of Saint Columba, Abbot Adamnan related that, in the late 500s, King Aedàn of Scots had consulted St. Columba about his due successor in Dalriada, asking, 'Which of [my] three sons is to reign: Arthur, or Eochaid Find, or Domingart? Columba replied,

None of these three will be ruler, for they will fall in battle, slain by enemies; but now if thou hast any other younger sons, let them come to me.

A fourth son, Eochaid Buide, was summoned and the saint blessed him, saying to Aedàn, 'This is thy survivor'. Adamnan's account continues:

And thus it was that afterwards, in their season, all things were completely fulfilled; for Arthur and Eochaid Find were slain after no long interval of time in the Battle of the Miathi. Domingart was killed in Saxonia; and Eochaid Buide succeeded to the kingdom after his father.

The Miathi (as mentioned by Adamnan) were a tribe of Britons who settled in two separate groups, north of the Antonine and Hadrian Walls respectively. The Antonine Wall extended between the Firth of Forth and the Clyde estuary. Hadrian's Wall traversed the lower land between the Solway Firth and Tynemouth. In 559, the Angles had occupied Deira (Zorkshire) and had driven the Miathi northwards. By 574, the Angles had also pushed up into Northumbrian Bernicia. Some of the Miathi decided to stay by the lower Wall and make the best of it, while others moved further north to settle beyond the upper Wall.
The main stronghold of the northern Miathi was at Dunmyat, on the border of modern Clackmannanshire, in the district of Manau on the Forth. Here, they had cast their lot with the Irish settlers, which made them none too popular with the Scots and Welsh. Despite King Cairill's 516 Badon Hill defeat in Antrim, the Irish remained boisterously obstructive in Manau. Consequently, the Guletic forces made another incursion into Ulster in 575.
This second assault at Dun Baedàn is the one mentioned by Nennius, who rightly described Arthur's presence, whereas the Gildas account relates to the earlier 516 battle and correctly gives Ambrosius Aurelius as the commander. Nennius gives Arthur rather more credit than his due, however, for on this second occasion the Scots were defeated and ArthurÄs father, King Aedàn, was obliged to submit to Prince Baedàn mac Cairill at Ros-na-Rig on Belfast Lough.
Following King Baedàn mac Cairill's death in 581, Aedàn of Scots finally managed to expel the Irish from Manau and the Forth. Later, in 596, Arthur's cavalry drove the Irish out of Scots Brecknock. King Aedàn was present at the battles, but Arthur's younger brothers Brán and Domingart were killed at Brechin on the Plain of Circinn.
In confronting the Irish at Manau, the Guletic troops also had to face the Miathi Britons. They were successful in driving many of them back to their southern territory, but those who remained when the Guletic troops departed had to contend with the Picts, who promptly moved into their domain. By the end of the century, the Picts and the Miathi were united against the Scots, whom they met at the Battle Camelyn, north of the Antonine Wall. Once again the Scots were victorious and the Picts were driven northwards. Afterwards, a nearby ironworks foundry construction was dubbed Furnus Arthuri (Arthur's Fire) to mark the event. It was a long-standing attraction and was not demolished until the 18th-century Industrial Revolution.
Three years after Camelyn, the Scots faced the southern Miathi and the Northumbrian Angles. This confrontation was a protracted affair fought on two battlegrounds – the second conflict resulting from a short-term Scots retreat from the first. The forces initially met at previous encounter, however, the Battle of Camlanna was a complete fiasco for the Scots. Falling for a diversionary tactic by the Miathi, the Scots allowed the Angles to move behind them in a concerted northwesterly push towards Galloway and Strathclyde. The unlucky definition of a Cath Camlanna has been applied to many a lost battle thereafter.
Only a few months earlier, the angle king, Aethelfrith of Bernicia, had defeated King Rhydderch at Carlisle, thereby acquiring new territory along the reaches of the Solway. The Dalriadan forces under Aedàn and Arthur were therefore under some pressure to intercept and halt the Angles' northward advance. They were said to have assembled immense forces, drawn from the ranks of the Welsh princes and they even gained support from Maeluma mac Baedàn of Antrim, the son of their erstwhile enemy. By that time, the Irish were themselves daunted by the prospect of an Anglo-Saxon invasion.

To be continued: Modred and Morgaine

Agraes

01-05-2007, 14:49

According to the 10th-century Annales Cambriag (Annals of Wales), Arthur perished at the Battle of Camlann- but to which Arthur do the annals refer? Certainly not to Arthur of Dalriada for he was recorded in Scotland after that event. The 15th-century Red book of Hergest (a collection of Welsh folk-tales) states that the Battle of Camlann was fought in 537, and the probable location was Maes Camlan, south of Dinas Mawddwy. If so, then it is quite possible that Arthur of Dyfed fought there. He was renowned for leading incursions into both Gwynedd and Powys. What is certain, however, is that Arthur of Dalriada fought a later battle at Camelon, west of Falkirk. The Chronicles of the Picts and Scots refer to this northern conflict as the Battle of Camelyn. He also fought subsequently at Camlanna (or Camboglanna) by Hadrian's Wall- the battle which led to his demise.

The Camlann entry of the AC corresponds with the year 537 AD of the easter tables. It mentions Arthur's AND Medraut's deaths, and a plague in Britain and Ireland. Here the exact entry:
The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell: and there was plague in Britain and Ireland.

Camlann was likely the name of lot of places, for it means "crooked banks". So it is not really possible to state where it was exactly, there are tons of candidates. However for me, Camboglanna is likely to be "THE" Gueith Camlann of the Annals.

The Miathi (as mentioned by Adamnan) were a tribe of Britons who settled in two separate groups, north of the Antonine and Hadrian Walls respectively. The Antonine Wall extended between the Firth of Forth and the Clyde estuary. Hadrian's Wall traversed the lower land between the Solway Firth and Tynemouth. In 559, the Angles had occupied Deira (Zorkshire) and had driven the Miathi northwards. By 574, the Angles had also pushed up into Northumbrian Bernicia. Some of the Miathi decided to stay by the lower Wall and make the best of it, while others moved further north to settle beyond the upper Wall.

I don't know a lot about the Miathi, for me they were a Brytho-Pictish tribe. But Angles of Deira only overthrow Caer Ebrauc, and its king Peredur (the Perceval of the legend), circa 580 AD. More exactly, Peredur was killed by Bernicians Angles in the battle of Caer Glein, and seeing the power vacuum in York, Deirans - once foederati of Ebrauc - sized the town and established their own germanic dynasty. Bernicia was also once a foederati settlement, where the local Angles chase the Brythonic dynasty, leading to the campaigns of Urien Rheged against them. Urien had Irish allies (including Mael Fiachna of Ulaidh and Aedan of Dal Riada), he was the leader of the coalition and won several victories, besieging the Angles in Ynis Metcaut (Lindisfarne), when he was assassined on the command of his rival Morcant Bulc of Bryneich - the theorical ruler the territory the Angles had overthrown. This led to the collapse of the alliance, and wars between the Brythonic kingdoms of Northern Britain, in which will fall Owein, son of Urien, who will become the Yvain of the Arthurian myth. This happened in the 590's. Bernicia and Deira were probably allied against the Britons, but won't unite 'till circa 620-630 AD under Edwin of Deira, and durably under Oswiu of Bernicia.

Despite King Cairill's 516 Badon Hill defeat in Antrim, the Irish remained boisterously obstructive in Manau. Consequently, the Guletic forces made another incursion into Ulster in 575.
This second assault at Dun Baedàn is the one mentioned by Nennius, who rightly described Arthur's presence, whereas the Gildas account relates to the earlier 516 battle and correctly gives Ambrosius Aurelius as the commander. Nennius gives Arthur rather more credit than his due, however, for on this second occasion the Scots were defeated and ArthurÄs father, King Aedàn, was obliged to submit to Prince Baedàn mac Cairill at Ros-na-Rig on Belfast Lough.

Nennius isn't likely to be the author of the "Arthuriana" section of the HB. It seems more likely to be a corruption of an older, eventually contemporaly, battle-listing poem of Arthur. Badon is the last battle, the culmination of Arthur's glory, his major victory over the Saxons.
AC's Badon entry seems to have been derivated from around 20 years.

After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might in this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Mons Badonicus, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity.
This is Gildas's account. He wrote exactly 44 years after Badon. What we don't know is the exact date where he is writing, but he is refering to Maelgwn Gwynedd as still living, so it can't be after 548 AD where this one died of the plague. It must be therefore circa 500 AD.
Here an article about the AC's Badon entry derivation:
http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guesthoward.htm

And Gildas actually never refered to Ambrosius as the commander at Badon. He names him in the paragraph before, that doesn't imply he was still leading at the time of Badon.

Just something else, I guess for more clarity you use the term Irish as gaelic inhabitants of Ireland and Scots as gaelic inhabitants of Pictland. Dal Riadans never called themselves Scots untill much later. It was once a negative term used by Romans and Britons to describe all Gaels, Scotti, meaning pirats.