St Gildas & The Battle of Badon
Next I'll consider De Excidio
Brittaniae by Saint Gildas.
Researchers are often puzzled by the lack of references to
Arthur. It appears that they want to believe that Arthur fought
at the Battle of Badon. A different way of thinking is
required. Why should it be considered a negative if Arthur was
not at the Battle of Badon? This does not necessarily mean that
Arthur did not exist and did not fight other battles elsewhere.
How could Gildas mention Arthur if he wasn't living at that time?
If we accept that Arthur did not live in Glidas's time, life is a lot
easier. Victory at the battle of Badon can be awarded to
Ambrosius Aurelianus without trying to spot hidden meanings in the
text.
Saint
Gildas describes Maelgwyn as the
living "Island Dragon" at the time of writing. This may well
have inspired the legendary title "Pendragon" and the red dragon story
in Nennius's Historia
Brittonum.
Gildas, at the time of writing De Excidio
Brittaniae, described the Battle of Badon as a siege that
occurred 44
years earlier, in the same year as his birth. He makes no mention
of comets or plagues, so we can date the time of writing to AD 535 at
the latest, a time when Maelgwyn was at his prime (We have already
dated Maelgwyn's death to AD 550). Therefore the latest
possible
date for the battle of Badon is AD 491.
There is an interesting entry in Anglo-Saxon Chronicles for AD 490:
A.D. 490. This year Ella and Cissa besieged the city of Andred, and slew all that were therein; nor was one Briten left there afterwards.
The most interesting word in this statement is "besieged". Could it be that Andred and Badon are one and the same place? The Saxons claimed a victory, but Ella and Cissa are not mentioned in chronicles afterwards. Nor are their ancestors, which seems at odds with the successes listed elsewhere in the chronicles. Andred was formerly the Roman shore fort of Anderita, later becoming Pevensey. It was here that William the Conqueror landed on 28th September 1066.
There is an interesting entry in Anglo-Saxon Chronicles for AD 490:
A.D. 490. This year Ella and Cissa besieged the city of Andred, and slew all that were therein; nor was one Briten left there afterwards.
The most interesting word in this statement is "besieged". Could it be that Andred and Badon are one and the same place? The Saxons claimed a victory, but Ella and Cissa are not mentioned in chronicles afterwards. Nor are their ancestors, which seems at odds with the successes listed elsewhere in the chronicles. Andred was formerly the Roman shore fort of Anderita, later becoming Pevensey. It was here that William the Conqueror landed on 28th September 1066.
