Thank you Richard. The ‘Matter of Britain’ has stayed close to me all of 70 plus years and I still am absorbed and fascinated with it. Gildas, Nennius and Taliesin are close companions and Graves’ ‘The White Goddess’ is never far away. My original country is the region of the summer stars….Somerset!
There’s also a junction of Roman roads by Badbury Rings. No evidence of any post-Roman battle, though which may be due to superficiality of archaeological fieldwork outside the immediate vicinity or (more likely) that it’s the wrong place. Thank you for your presentation.
The most convincing candidate for the location of the Battle of Badon can be found in the pages of "The Lost Legend Of Arthur" by Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd. In this book they delve into the Welsh poem "The Dream of Rhonabwy", which details a journey made by Rhonabwy to the battle of Badon, where he meets King Arthur - all within the context of a dream. There are clues to real locations in this text, which can be found in modern geography. Having followed all the clues, the authors correctly locate the battle (in my view) at BREIDDON HILL in Powys Wales. Steve and Scott take great pains within the book to point out that 'King Arthur' DID exist, but in the original WELSH literature written by the Goginferdd (early Welsh poets of the 12th-13th centuries). At that time, to those poets, 'Britain' referred NOT to the island of Britain, but loosely to what we now refer to as Wales. And Arthur was NEVER written about as being in conflict with the 'Anglo Saxons', but with other Welsh Kings. Before reading this, sadly neglected book, I too took the view that Ambrosius Aurelianus was like the 'Clark Kent' to Arthur's 'Superman', being two names for the same mythological person who's exploits were inflated over time. Now I have read the book I now believe that the earliest core of what we now understand to be the mythology of 'King Arthur' was in fact a version of the exploits of AMBROSIUS AURELIANUS. Because Gildas tells us he resisted the Anglo Saxons. But that later only the NAME of 'Arthur' was overlaid onto that of the myth of Ambrosius Aurelianus. That explanation gives us the reason why Gildas never mentions 'Arthur'. For me personally, that's the answer to the whole question. The bigger question now, for me is WHO WAS VORTIGERN???? He was a central figure in the mythology, but his identity is completely unknown. Solving THIS mystery would prove even more enlightening than going endlessly round in circles trying to figure out who Arthur was, only using the LATER non-Welsh sources which are corrupted by the 'artistic licence' of Geoffrey of Monmouth!
There is indeed such a place, and I agree, the name matches, and there are various features in the surrounds (ditches, mounds which could be burial mounds) which indicate a battle. However, it's much further west than known Anglo Saxon incursion at that time. I'm not saying that it wasn't the location of the Siege of Badon, but why so far into Britain? That part doesn't make sense to me. Are there other factors that I might not be aware of?
The Welsh claim everything from that period and if anything it makes it even more confusing. There were up to 2 million people living in what is now England after the fall of Rome but if you listen to the Welsh you wouldn't know it. I think there were a number of battles across England at this time and we only have fragments of what really happened because so few of the people involved could write. The Saxons referred to anybody speaking a different language as Welsh which is everybody they came across. There are probably unwritten languages we don't know about long since dead and gone and undocumented.
@jasonallen6081 There is no proof for that i.e that the British population spoke any languages other than dialects of Brythonic (of which only Welsh remains as a living language). It is little wonder the Welsh lay claim to this. It is only in their literature, mythology and pseudo-history that any trace of the early Arthur is to be found.
@Knappa22 If the Arthur legend was only in Welsh mythology, they would have set it in Wales . There is no proof of any Welsh links, just an attempt to reset it anywhere but England . Common Brittonic was not a dialect of Welsh . Cymraeg could be a dialect of Cumbric.
@@jasonallen6081 Oh dear. Are you talking about the Arthurian ‘legend’ hijacked by the Anglo Normans? The earliest and nost realistic appearance of Arthur in legend literature (i.e as a fierce pre-chivalric chieftain) is in the legend of Culhwch and Olwen from the Mabinogion and in poems like Pa ŵr yw’r Pothor.
Gildas mentions Ambrosius but not in the context of the Battle of Baden and the passage mentioning the battle can be read in three different ways as to his date of birth. The scholar who first published the text saw fit to edit the Latin to suit his interpretation of the date. He does mention five "tyrants" by name who may have lived in the sixth century, but the late Latin is "bejeweled" and very difficult to translate.
Gildas certainly never said that "Anglo Saxons" were defeated at Badon because the term "Anglo Saxon" did not exist. I think that is an important point because there is no evidence that Angles and Saxons had a similar origin, a similar language or even liked each other. The significance of 'three boats of Saxons' is equally murky because boats were the primary choice of transport even for short journeys - the roads were few, slower, arduous and often unsafe. Also the social anarchy Gildas is complaining about sound remarkably similar to that described earlier by Ammianus but Ammianus is more informative: he tells us the troubles are caused by political conflict inside Britain - echoing that on the continent - with a corrupt and treasonous administration that cannot or will not pay its troops or debts, leading to mass desertions of both native and Roman troops who turn to banditry. Therefore, local political instability is the problem - not foreign invasion and certainly not mercenaries (since nobody is getting paid!). Lastly it has to be remembered that we do not have any original writing from Gildas - only copies rendered into English by Alfred the Great of Wessex - whose annexation of Northumbria and Anglia gave him plenty of reason to distort them. So in brief, Gildas must always be consumed with a very generous pinch of salt. Though I'm sure he is relating real events I think our interpretation of them is completely wrong.
Perhaps "Saxons" is also not right for the crew of the three ships. Hengist was a Dane, and his force was mostly comprised of Jutes and Frisians. "Saxon" had apparently become the catch all term for the sea rovers who terrorised the north sea coast back then, much in the same way that "Anglo Saxon" has in the modern day.
Thank you Richard. The ‘Matter of Britain’ has stayed close to me all of 70 plus years and I still am absorbed and fascinated with it. Gildas, Nennius and Taliesin are close companions and Graves’ ‘The White Goddess’ is never far away. My original country is the region of the summer stars….Somerset!
There’s also a junction of Roman roads by Badbury Rings. No evidence of any post-Roman battle, though which may be due to superficiality of archaeological fieldwork outside the immediate vicinity or (more likely) that it’s the wrong place. Thank you for your presentation.
The most convincing candidate for the location of the Battle of Badon can be found in the pages of "The Lost Legend Of Arthur" by Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd. In this book they delve into the Welsh poem "The Dream of Rhonabwy", which details a journey made by Rhonabwy to the battle of Badon, where he meets King Arthur - all within the context of a dream. There are clues to real locations in this text, which can be found in modern geography. Having followed all the clues, the authors correctly locate the battle (in my view) at BREIDDON HILL in Powys Wales.
Steve and Scott take great pains within the book to point out that 'King Arthur' DID exist, but in the original WELSH literature written by the Goginferdd (early Welsh poets of the 12th-13th centuries). At that time, to those poets, 'Britain' referred NOT to the island of Britain, but loosely to what we now refer to as Wales. And Arthur was NEVER written about as being in conflict with the 'Anglo Saxons', but with other Welsh Kings.
Before reading this, sadly neglected book, I too took the view that Ambrosius Aurelianus was like the 'Clark Kent' to Arthur's 'Superman', being two names for the same mythological person who's exploits were inflated over time. Now I have read the book I now believe that the earliest core of what we now understand to be the mythology of 'King Arthur' was in fact a version of the exploits of AMBROSIUS AURELIANUS. Because Gildas tells us he resisted the Anglo Saxons. But that later only the NAME of 'Arthur' was overlaid onto that of the myth of Ambrosius Aurelianus. That explanation gives us the reason why Gildas never mentions 'Arthur'. For me personally, that's the answer to the whole question.
The bigger question now, for me is WHO WAS VORTIGERN???? He was a central figure in the mythology, but his identity is completely unknown. Solving THIS mystery would prove even more enlightening than going endlessly round in circles trying to figure out who Arthur was, only using the LATER non-Welsh sources which are corrupted by the 'artistic licence' of Geoffrey of Monmouth!
Mount Badon has long since been identified, Mynydd Badon is in Wales as per pre 1984 OS maps.
There is indeed such a place, and I agree, the name matches, and there are various features in the surrounds (ditches, mounds which could be burial mounds) which indicate a battle. However, it's much further west than known Anglo Saxon incursion at that time. I'm not saying that it wasn't the location of the Siege of Badon, but why so far into Britain? That part doesn't make sense to me. Are there other factors that I might not be aware of?
The Welsh claim everything from that period and if anything it makes it even more confusing.
There were up to 2 million people living in what is now England after the fall of Rome but if you listen to the Welsh you wouldn't know it.
I think there were a number of battles across England at this time and we only have fragments of what really happened because so few of the people involved could write. The Saxons referred to anybody speaking a different language as Welsh which is everybody they came across. There are probably unwritten languages we don't know about long since dead and gone and undocumented.
@jasonallen6081
There is no proof for that i.e that the British population spoke any languages other than dialects of Brythonic (of which only Welsh remains as a living language).
It is little wonder the Welsh lay claim to this. It is only in their literature, mythology and pseudo-history that any trace of the early Arthur is to be found.
@Knappa22 If the Arthur legend was only in Welsh mythology, they would have set it in Wales . There is no proof of any Welsh links, just an attempt to reset it anywhere but England . Common Brittonic was not a dialect of Welsh . Cymraeg could be a dialect of Cumbric.
@@jasonallen6081 Oh dear. Are you talking about the Arthurian ‘legend’ hijacked by the Anglo Normans? The earliest and nost realistic appearance of Arthur in legend literature (i.e as a fierce pre-chivalric chieftain) is in the legend of Culhwch and Olwen from the Mabinogion and in poems like Pa ŵr yw’r Pothor.
Gildas mentions Ambrosius but not in the context of the Battle of Baden and the passage mentioning the battle can be read in three different ways as to his date of birth. The scholar who first published the text saw fit to edit the Latin to suit his interpretation of the date. He does mention five "tyrants" by name who may have lived in the sixth century, but the late Latin is "bejeweled" and very difficult to translate.
Gildas certainly never said that "Anglo Saxons" were defeated at Badon because the term "Anglo Saxon" did not exist. I think that is an important point because there is no evidence that Angles and Saxons had a similar origin, a similar language or even liked each other. The significance of 'three boats of Saxons' is equally murky because boats were the primary choice of transport even for short journeys - the roads were few, slower, arduous and often unsafe. Also the social anarchy Gildas is complaining about sound remarkably similar to that described earlier by Ammianus but Ammianus is more informative: he tells us the troubles are caused by political conflict inside Britain - echoing that on the continent - with a corrupt and treasonous administration that cannot or will not pay its troops or debts, leading to mass desertions of both native and Roman troops who turn to banditry. Therefore, local political instability is the problem - not foreign invasion and certainly not mercenaries (since nobody is getting paid!). Lastly it has to be remembered that we do not have any original writing from Gildas - only copies rendered into English by Alfred the Great of Wessex - whose annexation of Northumbria and Anglia gave him plenty of reason to distort them. So in brief, Gildas must always be consumed with a very generous pinch of salt. Though I'm sure he is relating real events I think our interpretation of them is completely wrong.
Perhaps "Saxons" is also not right for the crew of the three ships. Hengist was a Dane, and his force was mostly comprised of Jutes and Frisians. "Saxon" had apparently become the catch all term for the sea rovers who terrorised the north sea coast back then, much in the same way that "Anglo Saxon" has in the modern day.
A time in history I know little about sadly. Thanks and esp history of the Saxons and the Anglos.
Angles.