Re: Re: Badon, Ambrosius, and Arthur



It seems that there was some unintentional irony in my response to you, since I may have been reading too much into what you were saying.  Additionally, quickly writing a response after a long day was probably not the wisest of choices.  I apologize for my frazzled tone and for misreading your post.I think you make some rather interesting points, and I do agree that Gildas was generally lambasting his own people for their sins.  I think it's possible that he might have intentionally left out the achievements of one of own people out of this bias.  I'm not convinced on it, and still think there is a less than 50% chance that Badon was won by Arthur, but I agree it's a possibility.The thing that makes covering this period so difficult, but also so much fun, is that it is so murky.  It is an era that is filled with possibilities.  I wouldn't say I have an anti-Arthur bias.  I actually think there is a lot to the myths that suggest that real events might have been recorded in a round-a-bout fashion.  The prevalence of battles at crossings is one of them, since that's how a smaller cavalry unit would attack a larger infantry unit.  In fact, I think this entire disagreement has come down to the fact that I find it more plausible that the stories of Arthur were a blend of battles and victories that found their genesis with Ambrosius, and if I'm reading you right here you think it is more likely they found their start with Arthur.  Incidentally, I really do love this period because of stuff like this.  We're trying our best to tease out facts from minor syntax choices and linebreaks.  It's a fascinating period of history for that.  But no, I don't think I have an anti-arthur bias.  As I said earlier, I've been toying with doing an episode or two on him.  I still think it'll cause a firestorm of sorts, but it wouldn't be the first time I've done that and it's never stopped me before.  It'll probably happen a little later and be something of a special episode since it would be something along the lines of "How much of this legend is true and how much isn't?"  And it would be a massive undertaking.  If you'd like to weigh in, as it seems that you're something of a Arthur expert, I'd love the help.  Arthur is more than a little daunting because so many of the articles and books written on the subject tend to have a huge amount of bias one way or the other, which makes it very hard to take an objective look at the evidence.  So if helping me separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak, I would love the help.  And then you can help ensure I'm not being too anti-Arthur.  ;)