Two Battle Site Changes: What has Gone Into the Last Version of My Book THE BATTLE-LEADER OF RIBCHESTER

Arthurian Battles and Related Sites

Over the past month or so, I have critically reevaluated my own identifications for the Arthurian battle sites found listed in the HISTORIA BRITTONUM and the ANNALES CAMBRIAE.  After intensive - and even severe - scrutiny, I can announce here that most of the places withstood the test.  However, a couple did not.  I did not undergo this trial by ordeal by myself, but as usual employed any and all experts to help me arrive at reasonable and satisfactory conclusions.

The two sites that failed the analysis were Bassas and Agned. I did vacillate somewhat on Guinnion, but eventually did settle on Anscombe's reading of Guinuion for Vinovia/Binchester.  There was simply no other good alternative for Binchester, and when Guinnion was considered in the context of all the other confirmed battles fought up and down or near to the Roman Dere Street, other candidates for the site proved more and more unviable.

As for Bassas, Dunipace turned out to be unworkable. The most probable etymology for this place-name did not make sense for a river-name (https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/03/why-i-am-forsaking-dunipace-for.html) - and it is Gaelic, in any case.  Nor did it really work in terms of linguistic derivation, as it did not account for the terminal of Bassas.  Dr. Graham Isaac's treatment of the name, as originating with the OE personal name Bassa, made good sense and led to a new identification with Bessingby Beck near Bridlington.

Agned has always been a problem, and many Arthurian scholars have chosen to simply dismiss it.  But as Guinnion works quite well as Guinuion, Agned (see https://mistshadows.blogspot.com/2023/04/a-new-identification-for-arthurs-mount.html) as agued gave us a real word that exists in the GODODDIN as a term for what the host faces at Catterick.  All the scholars I've consulted agree that this is a good solution to the problem, although we must accept that 1) agued misconstrued as Agned has been wrongly taken as a real place-name, when it reality it refers to an army in dire straits or in distress at a battle-site.  That battle-site could be Catterick, or it could be Breguoin/Brewyn/Bremenium/High Rochester.  We know the Brewyn battle belongs to Urien, a generation after Arthur, and the famous Catterick battle also happened well after Arthur's time.  Arthur is mentioned in the GODODDIN (the earliest occurence of his name in any Welsh source) in a comparative sense only.  So whether Arthur fought at either High Rochester or Catterick is debatable.  There is nothing wrong with the idea that he may have fought at one or both sites prior to the later battles at those places.  Or, both battles may be "importations" into the battle list, and he may have fought at only one of them or at neither of them.  To many this may seem a disappointment, but history is replete with important battles being fought in succession at the same strategic locations. 

All in all, I am not disappointed at having been proven wrong when it comes to a couple of the Arthurian battle-sites.  Truth be told, when I look at the map that plots the revised geographical spread of the battles, I am actually pleased with the arrangement.  If anything, the new identifications serve very nicely to bolster the idea that Arthur originated from the Ribchester area, and that he was fighting Saxons along a well-defined boundary area.