HI Jamie, 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.Sorry if I've done that. It is certainly not intentional. Confusion can arise between "I don't believe X" and "I believe X is false" but I've tried to be precise in what I've said about what you said. I've looked through my comments and I don't think I said that Badon and Ambrosius didn't occur. No you didn't, but you said I don't think anyone could prove it one way or the other ... Do you believe that Ambrosius and Badon Hill are unimpeachable fact?. As I said, I don't know any historian who does not believe that Badon was a real event and Ambrosius a real person. That is good enough for me. There is such a thing as being too skeptical. it seems like you might feel more certain about things from this era than I am, given that you have quite a number of dates put in there. Yes I am more certain about some things than you are (the existence of Badon and Ambrosius). But regarding the dates, I stress on that page that this is just my best estimate. I am certainly not claiming that these are the right dates. See http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/DECBmin.html to see just how uncertain I am! I'm curious how you came to 44 years as your range from the rise of Ambrosius to Badon Hill. This figure comes straight from what Gildas says, as I quote on my website. (I'm using what seems to me the best available translations, as I reference.)Even if you're correct in your assessment, 44 years doesn't rule out Ambrosius as the commander of Badon Hill. No, it is not impossible, just very unlkely as I said. So, yes, I suppose Ambrosius is an alternative candidate to Arthur. But that's pure hypothesis, not following Gildas.As far as I see it, the presence of Ambrosius runs in the face of your theory of Arthur. That's not how I see it, for the two reasons I explained in the previous post. I do not find that it "strains the mind" at all that Gildas didn't mention Arthur. 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." I am not drawing the line from what Gildas said about his contemporary kings. The entire message of his epistle is that the Britons are a sinful people, and the only battles won are by the grace of God or by the Romans. There are other battles the Britons won --- against the Picts and Scots, which sent them packing --- for which he names no leader. He simply doesn't name Britons in his history, and he specifically tells us he is not going to discuss brave warriors. There is nothing to explain about his "silence" on the victor at Badon. 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. No I'm not asking you to "hang your hat" on any theory. As I think I've made clear, I'm not saying there was an historical Arthur. I'm just asking you i) not to claim that Gildas says Badon was won by Ambrosius ii) to apply the same standards to Arthur as you do to Hengist and Horsa etc. You can say you don't believe in Arthur either, but at least say what it is you don't believe in (i.e. that the earliest legends credit Badon to Arthur).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. Of course, but you told us what the ASC said about Hengist. Why not tell us what "Nennius" said about Arthur? 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.It is certainly a messy period of history, but I think you are misrepresenting what I've written. I'm not certain of anything either (except that Gildas did not credit Badon to Ambrosius!) I'm just trying to redress what seems to me to be an anti-Arthur bias. I don't blame you for this. As I said, the academic pendulum has swung very far in the anti-Arthur direction because of some overly-certain books in the 1970s. But I think that is just starting to change now.Howard.