6th century britain

I was thinking about the legend of King Arthur, and I want information on 6th century Britain. How would Camelot look like if it existed? What what would be the fashion of the people during those time? Armour and warfare? I know there isn't much information on this period compared to latter eras, but as many people appropriate Arthur to the 11/12/13/14th centuries, I was just curious about 6th century welsh-culture and aesthetics.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caerleon
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

In the 6th century they would've more or less looked and been organised exactly the same as Late Romans would've been, I think.

Welsh culture? If you mean a Celtic culture, they were already dicked and inseminated by the Romans for 400 years. Britain would meld with urbanized, Legion-culture until Constantine III withdrew military presence in 407.

Yeah but the late Roman is also broad, I mean 5th century Rome is different from 2nd century Rome. I always wondered how that time looked like as well. I am also specifically curios on welsh culture, as Arthur was Welsh.

I just call them Welsh to make things simpler.

But what I'm saying is, if you mean Welsh = Celtic culture, then that would not be present just after a very Roman Britain.

>Britain would meld with urbanized, Legion-culture until Constantine III withdrew military presence in 407.
I understand this, but I am talking about the years 500-600, how was life and culture like then?

When in doubt, Angus McBride it out

Tintagel, is a central fortress around the King Arthur myth, though not directly of the time.

From what I've read, the general consensus on King Arthur is that the stories are based off of a Romano-British rump state during a period of Anglo-Saxon invasion. As such, you can reasonably expect the "real" King Arthur's realm to be a mix of late-Roman and native culture. Warfare was probably smaller scale than on the continent, given how successful the Saxon invaders were despite their disorganized manner and the small number of men they could bring on a raid at any one time.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be many good sources out there on the period, although Peter Heather's Empires and Barbarians has a section that does a reasonably good job covering this era as it pertains to the Anglo Saxons.

Camelot was probably Colchester, the Roman Camuludunum. Not only are the names alike, Camuludunum is also perfectly positioned to wage war on the early English, who lived north and south of Colchester on the East coast. Modern ideas of Arthur as Welsh or Cornish come from much later periods after the English conquests, the "real" Arthur would have been active when most of Lloegyr was still British.

As for what he was like, he would have spoken Latin with a distinct British accent, would have been a Christian, and would have seen himself first and foremost as a Roman. The modern Welsh term for themselves, "Cymraeg", derives from the term Arthur would have used, "Cumbrogi", which in turn derives from Latin "Civitates", and means "compatriots".

great posts

Gododdin, gomynaf oth blegyt
yg gwyd cant en aryal en emwyt: …
Er pan want maws mur trin,
er pan aeth daear ar Aneirin,
nu neut ysgaras nat a Gododin.

Britain at the time was divided into two broad zones, a Romanized and Latin-speaking core occupying most of what is now England, and a semi-Romanized Celtic-speaking fringe. We think of the Britons as Celtic speakers because only the fringe survived the English invasions, but in fact Britain was also as "Romance'd" as France at the end of the Roman period.

Ah thanks, sorry for my ignorance

Gododdin has nothing to do with Arthur beyond that single mention.

Arthur was Riothamus of Brittany though and so unlikely to have visited let alone ruled Camulodunum.

This doesn't mean Camelot wasn't Camulodunum. The legend of King Arthur seems to be a mishmash of Romano-Brythonic memories of the "beforetimes". Similar to how Troy was a real place embellished after the bronze age collapse.

When the Saxons were converted to christianity they came into more contact with Welsh clergy and the tales passed to them, finally being put to paper after a gap of centuries between Gildas and Bede.

I think Caerleon would be the right place to look for Camelot.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caerleon

Camelot is supposed by some to be Camulodunum as user mentioned, or possibly Caerleon as mentioned, then known as Caer Legionis (fort/city of the legions), which would later become the site of Chester.

Arthur is supposed to be Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romano-Briton "dux bellorum" after the fall who rallied the Britons to fight off Saxon invaders, and who is credited with winning the battle of Badon Hill, or Mons Badonicus as it was, against the Saxons. By the few accounts he was a good warleader and one of the men worthy of the title, "Last of the Romans."

Camelot if it existed would probably be a roman town before the romans left and arthur if he existed would be a roman briton so he probably would be able to speak latin and the local celtic language as well.
They would probably fight as the late roman army too so spears and shieldwalls with large shields.
For fashion I guess the men would wear tunics and pants while the women would have dresses.

>Arthur was Riothamus of Brittany
>Arthur was Ambrosius Aurelianus
>Arthur was Magnus Maximus

What's with the debate as to who was the historical king Arthur? Since the literature associated with the matter of Britain is so extensive, I thought the case was pretty much closed. Why is it so hard to deduce who was the legendary king when we have so many sources?

There is a reason the time was called the dark age.
When rome left it left a power vacuum and all the infrastructure collapsed due to a lack of specialists, collapse of trade routes etc.

It would be like highways not existing anymore and trucks stopped delivering things to stores.

People abandoned big cities and went back to country living and self-sustaining villages with a little local trade, and local strong men (rich business guys, old order governors, and of course military guys with loyal swords) would take charge of their areas to prevent anarchy.

In a time like this the Saxons (a bunch of mercs with experience fighting for the Romans, these are not nice ordinary saxon folk) were poised to start their own petty kingdoms. Everyone else here is doing it, why don't we have a slice of our own?

Nah dude, learning is tight

What book / encyclopedia are all these images from? I'd love to own one.

>Arthur was Riothamus of Brittany
Absolute nonsense. Arthur is a title, not a name, it means "the bearlike one". He was most likely one of the followers of Ambrosius Aurelius who continued the struggle after Aurelius' death and who scored a series of victories over the Saxons that halted their expansion for 50 years.
>The legend of King Arthur seems to be a mishmash of Romano-Brythonic memories of the "beforetimes"
This much is certainly true, but the core of the myths is a real warlord who lived in Britain.
>When the Saxons were converted to christianity they came into more contact with Welsh clergy and the tales passed to them, finally being put to paper after a gap of centuries between Gildas and Bede.
The Saxons didn't really contribute to teh Arthur myths, that was the Welsh and later the Normans, not the early English.

There is no possibility of this, Caerleon was irrelevant during the Saxon invasions, the only reason to consider it would be if you thought Arthur was Welsh, which he certainly wasn't.

>possibly Caerleon as mentioned, then known as Caer Legionis (fort/city of the legions), which would later become the site of Chester.
Caerleon is in Wales, Chester was known as Deva.

>the local celtic language
No such thing during Arthur's time, Latin was the "native language" of most Britons, Celtic was spoken only by backwards hillbillies living on the fringes of Roman Britain. If Arthur knew any Celtic at all, I'd be surprised.

>when we have so many sources?
Such as? We have exactly ZERO contemporary sources, everything we have is from centuries later, the handful of sources that do date from Arthur's time don't mention him, the closest we have is a 10th century copy of a 6th chronicle that lists the year 537 as "The strife of Camlann in which Arthur and Medraut perished". That's it, there's your "historical sources", everything else comes from the later legends and inference based on the situation in Britain at the start of the 6th century.

How comet of 536(or 562 as some other claims) fit into this?
With comet come crop failure, cold temperature, civil unrest etc.
Also there are vitrified hill forts that come from similar time.

>With comet come crop failure, cold temperature, civil unrest etc.
Eh, no. Comets aren't magic. I'm sure it spooked a lot of people at the time, but it had no real consequences.
>Also there are vitrified hill forts that come from similar time.
Indeed there are, but these are exclusively Pictish and aren't found outside Scotland.

>Eh, no. Comets aren't magic. I'm sure it spooked a lot of people at the time, but it had no real consequences.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_weather_events_of_535–536
>Indeed there are, but these are exclusively Pictish and aren't found outside Scotland.
Exactly the place where comet fly by.

>Exactly the place where comet fly by.
Scotland? How does a comet fly by Scotland, and ONLY Scotland?

Then it exploded or get repulsed .
Similar things that happened in Tunguska or recently in Chelyabinsk(but it was much smaller body).

It would fit well with the motif in Arthurian Legends with King=lands an decline of land with king decline. Maybe even Mordred rebellion was caused by this as crop failure=sick land=unfit king.

Aye, but Gododdin and Yr hen ogledd were British long after Arthurs domain fell to y saesneg

>The Saxons didn't really contribute to teh Arthur myths, that was the Welsh and later the Normans, not the early English.
In later centuries they did, they were the ones who tied a nice bow over it.

Yes but so what? They lived hundreds of miles away, hundred of YEARS away, and they were Celtic-speaking barbarians, not civilized Romano-Britons like Arthur.

>In later centuries they did, they were the ones who tied a nice bow over it.
Yeah, no. Please name the Saxon sources who contributed to the myths, it was the Welsh, then the Bretons, then the Normans, then the "British" (modern English).