Mount Badon

[dsimiller]

Apologies if this has been asked before,but does anyone know the approximate site of Mount Badon,the supposedly site of a great battle between Arthur's Britons and the Anglo Saxons?
I believe the battle took place in about 550 AD.
Regards

[dsimiller]

Thanks for that In a Pickle,what an interesting site.A very mysterious part of our history.

[jno]

some info here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Badon

A real battle as far as anyone knows (early history can be very unreliable) and maybe the original of King Arthur was indeed involved, though he's 99% fictional.

[snow.maiden]

I always think there's some grain of truth in these mythical figures though, so personally believe that Arthur lived - although probably not as folklore dictates. His father, Uther, had the surname of Pendragon, which is still around today, so who knows?

[dsimiller]

thanks for the info everybody,It looks like the Bath area is a strong contende r for this battle.Never knew there were so many web sites on this subject.
Regards to all

[scakebread]

I think the short answer is that no body knows! (Assumung it took place at all - which I think is probable) Two likely sites, both near my home, are near BATH one of whose whose early names was 'Baddon' or similar or near UFFINGTON CASTLE in Berkshire (there is a village a few miles away called BAYDON). For a couple of good fictional reads which use these locations try the 'Warlord Chronicles' trilogy ('The Winter King' etc) by Bernard Cornwall (1995ish) (Bath) or (probably more difficult but a fantastic read if you can find it) 'Sword at Sunset' by Rosemary Sutcliff (HB1963, PB1971) (Uffington)

[dsimiller]

thanks for the new info scakebread,have not read Warlord Trilogies,but will seek them out,sounds an interesting read.
I,m still attracted to the Bath area as the site,say a 100 mile radius of the city.
Regards

[adrenochrome]

King Arthur is not fictional, he ruled in the latter 6th Century, but was known by the name Arbuthnot. After the Norman Conquest (1066) many names were 'Normanized', which is why King Henry V is referred to as 'young King Hal' - Henri being the French equivalent of Harold.
King Arbuthnot features in the 'Histories of the Kings of England' first written in the 12th century at Glastonbury Abbey. The original text of this book devotes 3 chapters to Arthur, but the problems arise later. About 40 years later a new edition of this book appears with 2 extra chapters on Arthur, and detail his search for the Holy Grail. It is generally accepted that this was an attempt by the establishment of the time (the Church) to steal Arthur for themselves and declare him as a Christian. Further 'romanticising' of his character was carried out by a French author, Cretien du Toit, which led to the confusion over whether Lancelot was French - he was Welsh.
The fact that the book was written at Glastonbury Abbey possibly also led to the idea that Arthur was from that region, although this again was probably propaganda to elevate the Abbey there to a more important status, in return for the Abbey clothing, housing and feeding the author for over 10 years whilst he compiled the history.
Unfortunately, at the time of Arthur, the Roman Empire had collapsed and many place names are a mix of the Roman and Angle versions. Also, the geography of England has changed substantially over the past 2000 years, with rivers changing, lakes appearing and drying up, and land clearance. With many names being again changed after 1066, it is almost impossible to accurately locate sites from this period.
Arthur did not however fight the Anglo-Saxons, he fought the Danes and the Saxons. The Angles were his predecessors, arriving in the UK before the Romans.

[dsimiller]

Thanks for your comments adrenochrome re Badon.I've managed to amass quite a lot of information since the summer about Mt Badon and Arthur.A fascinating study of a very grey area of our history.
Regards