Hi Jamie,Thanks for the response, and I'm happy you agree that it is a possibility that Badon was won at Arthur. I would say that it is a "good possibility", but would not want to be pinned down on whether it is greater than 50% or not.Regarding your question about whether Arthur's victories were actually Ambrosius' victories originally, that is certainly a possibility. But as I've indicated before, I think this period of time has room for more than one heroic resistance leader against the Saxons. If my reading of Gildas is correct, there was 44 years of war, so I think it most likely that Ambrosius did not remain the leader (at least not in the field) for that whole time. And then there is the point that the question "who's victory was it" can have different answers. The generalissimo who may not even have been present, or the cavalry commander who led a decisive charge, for example? I agree that it is a fascinating period because of the possibilities for interpretation. On the one hand, I am firming on the timeline I suggested in http://www.ict.griffith.edu.au/wiseman/DECB/DECBbestest.html as probably being reasonably close to the truth. On the other hand, I like exploring different possibilities in which the much later legendary material is allowed to intrude, to make an fuller story.I certainly agree that unravelling all the opinions about Arthur is a massive undertaking, and I'd be happy to help if I can. A pretty comprehensive and balanced book on Arthur I'd reccomend (although at times it steps over the line towards being too "pro-Arthur") is Chris Gidlow's http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0750934190/. If you read that with the very skeptical mind you obviously have then you shouldn't go wrong. ;)Howard.