Who led the Battle of Badon?

Is the Battle of Badon and the victory of the Britons there better attributed to Ambrosius Aurelianus (Gildas/Bede) or Arthur (Nennius/Welsh Annals?). Or both?


Edited by Sidney - 17-Jan-2015 at 11:31

This is a huge topic, these are just a few ideas (i have some more i haven't included).

Gildas/Bede is thought to possibly imply that Ambrosius fought Badon, or possibly a gap/someone after Ambrosius.
"Nennius" says "Arthur" (who ever he was/they were).
(Gildas' duce and Nennius' dux may be related?)
"Arthur" seems to come somewhere between Ambrosius (inclusive/exclusive) & Maelgwn (inclusive) in Gildas & Nennius.

There does seem to maybe be two or more battles/sieges confounded with/as "Badon" including the Halleluyah victory (of Germanus), Guinnion [Dover] (of "Arthur" in "Nennius"), Badon [Adurni/Portsdown Hill].
(The 2 battle of Badon (AC) & Guinnion (HB) have been compared. At Dover [Guinnion] is a Braddon.) [Centrix's Alban connects with Guinnion/Dover/Albion.]
Leon Mintz's paper gave tentative evidence of connection between Ares/Mars & St Martin & Arthur/Merlin. At Dover [Guinnion] is St Martin le Grand.
calends of Martii 538 in ASC/Ethelwerd?
"Great victory of Arthur against Saxons on St David's day/birthday [540 &/or 640]".

9th battle site Badon of "Nennius" matches 9th battle "Mon" in Pa Gur (while 5th Guinnion of "Nennius" matches 6th 'Eidyn 2' in Pa Gur). [Is the "Porter" connected with Arthur/count of Saxon shore?]

The "siege" of "Badon" may connect with siege perilous of round table (though Gildas' word is obsessio "siege")?


I may not be able to post again for a while as i have other things i need/want to do (already messed up today by posting today (took hours)).

then it's as been suspected by many renowned or other. revision viz varying sources and interpolations...of the event/s and participants... tho in general... the older ie. closer to the event source... still gets the nod from the methodologists...all else being equal.

i'll give another example of something similar from later history...The Famed 'Geronimo' was never known by that name by his people..who maintain they never used it directly or indirectly.

It was given him by Mexicans he had been in conflict with and later adopted by WASP 19th c. America. His actual name was 'Goyathlay' or 'Goyahkla..(depends on native source)...a Bedonkohe-Chiricahua name.

Consequently revisionism and legendary figures or events remains a constant.

Originally posted by Sidney According to Gildas, Ambrosius Aurelianus was possibly the only true Roman who survived the initial Saxon incursions of the 5th Century. He tells us that "his parents, who had worn the purple, were slain" during the conflicts. 'Worn the purple' could mean they were martyrs, but since Gildas was very pro-Roman and specifically calls attention to Ambrosius being Roman, it seems more likely that he was boosting Ambrosius' lineage by claiming senatorial or imperial lineage. So is Ambrosius linked (hypothetically) to any Roman nobility? is

all of that is quite accurate...whether u believe he was of nobility or not.....predicates:

a. his actual existence.

b. the source that claims it...credibility.

c. other sources that would be considered conclusive and substaniate or refute the primary.

d. the objectivity of all sources. @ any other sources from antiquity to identify a 'lineage' at large. eg. what information specifically about his parents can be verified.

amen.

I don't remember where but I was once told it was a masculine cognomen derived from the ancient Roman family name Aurelius.

With that in mind, assuming I am accurate, it might then be in association with that of the former emperor. Or it might have been in collusion with the identification of various Christian saints. Killed during or after his reign.

Tho the most famous of those died much later than the initial source identification of the War Chief.

Whether or not his reference to the 'purple' can be associated with any of the family of the Emperor; that lived/was living/ during or before the era of his subject, or that there is a lineage at all; is speculative.

Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 06-May-2015 at 12:15

Thanks Centrix Vigilis.

Geoffrey's narrative links Ambrosius with a Breton family of British origins - but a British family related to Constantine the Great and Magnus Maximus.

Geoffrey's account of Ambrosius' background is very different from Gildas, or Bede (following Gildas), so I hesitate to accept his information, especially as it is much later.

Edited by Sidney - 07-May-2015 at 19:05