I'm starting to get the impression you're reading too much into what I'm saying or are unintentionally putting words in my mouth. I've looked through my comments and I don't think I said that Badon and Ambrosius didn't occur. And actually, I don't think anyone could prove it one way or the other. I think I said that I don't consider them to be facts, which was a reaction to something you had said earlier where you seemed to be think I was treating anything from the dark ages as fact. And in general, I don't see much from this period as fact. It's messy, it's dark, and it's filled with doubt. Do you believe that Ambrosius and Badon Hill are unimpeachable fact? I don't think you can say that. This is a period that's filled with uncertainty.44 years doesn't rule out Ambrosius as the commander of Badon Hill, btw. It might have been the final battle of the old bear and a fitting end to his war. But like I said in earlier episodes, you can't take what is written as fact. Gildas wasn't a historian and all of these writers were dealing with literary matters in addition to their own biases. Yet he seems to be given more weight by some than is given to Panegyrists, and we know how unreliable they were.As far as I see it, the presence of Ambrosius runs in the face of your theory of Arthur. On your theory, Gildas took the time to mention the name and lineage of Ambrosius. And Ambrosius had a victory but it didn't succeed in changing much. So on the whole, he wasn't too impressive. And then along comes another guy, though you'll note that Gildas doesn't suggest it was a different person, and he was so amazingly successful that the invaders bugger off. And Gildas doesn't even bother giving this guy a name. And this battle by the nameless general was in the line immediately following the discussion of Ambrosius and his lineage. But we're not supposed to connect the two. Doesn't this strain the mind a little? Gildas certainly wasn't fond of his contemporary Brits, but I don't think you can draw a line from "Gildas hated some of the British Kings" to to "Gildas was so racist against his own people that he refused to even name the general of the greatest military victory of his time and just intentionally left the name blank and put the battle next to the Roman without any explanation for space saving reasons."As for parts 4 and 5. I'm sorry, I can't agree with you on that. Think about it this way, there are people who have all sorts of strange beliefs about things that happened only a few years ago. And you're asking me to hang my hat on a story that emerged after 300 years had passed and which goes unnamed by the only resource who would have been alive close to the time these events supposedly happened. I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just telling a story here and I do find the Arthur myths interesting. And in fact, I had been toying with talking about Arthur, but I'm starting to rethink that since I think it'll just start a firestorm since I am not willing to say that he definitely existed and so many people are rather invested in the Once and Future King. But like I said, I don't think I'm being unfair... I'm also not willing to say that Hengist was the descendant of Woden. It's a messy period of history and you're welcome to your theories, and I don't begrudge you for having them, but I'm afraid I lack your certainty.