Talk:Battle of Badon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject King Arthur (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject King Arthur, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject England (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

old talk[edit]

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (Revision as of 17:47, 8 Apr 2004) -- somehow my nomination was never added to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index (possibly because it gathered little interest at the time):

I am nominating this as an act of unabashed vanity -- & I'm amazed, not having read it for several months, that it still fairly close to what I strive for. I admit it needs some pictures. (I have the photos somewhere, & will scan them when I find them.) -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for now. The content seems good, but the article needs to be broken up into 3 or 4 sections. Gentgeen 17:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle[edit]

This occupies a chunk of space in this article, but this passage already appears in an annotated translation at Ceawlin of Wessex. Should this be snipped out with a note to the user to refer to that article? -- llywrch 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, it seems to be more relavant there.--Cúchullain t/c 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Needs references"[edit]

Please state which bits of information needs references. Anthony Appleyard 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  1. I think the article has taken on the appearance of an outline with too many sections. Sections should try to be lengthy narratives, not one sentence long. Section headers should not be replacements for prose.
  2. Not sure why "Events in the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain" is in this article. Theoretically that section could be in every article that is mentioned. Perhaps the thing to do is make a 'list of' article, call it List of events in the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain then link to it from all the other articles as a central place.

--Stbalbach 12:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The translations from the ASC have become irrelevant to the point of distracting. I've chopped all of this section out, per my comments above. -- llywrch 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the 'quotation' from Annales Cambriae. It has 'Bellum Badonis' for both battles, not Mount/mons or badonicus. The 'date' it gives has quite a wide range for an AD equivalent. I think the second battle of Badon is Bedanheafod of the ASC, which Plummer thought was a Great Bedwyn (covered more in my 'The Reign of Arthur', Sutton 2004, between Wulfhere of Mercia and the West Saxons. Geoffrey of Monmouth does not specify Little Solsbury Hill, just Bath. Chris Gidlow

Additional Link?[edit]

I was thinking about adding a link to http://www.dagorhir.com/badon/ in the section for popular media links. Since this is a combat recreation event named after the battle, I think it would fit in just as well as video games using the battle in them.

serious error[edit]

Only one comment that needs serious consideration: this article has a blatant error in the beginning, where the writer states that the Venerable Bede claimed in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People that Ambrosius Aurelianus as the victor at Badon Hill. This is not so. Bede makes no such claims, and he names no leader for that battle, as neither did Gildas. Bede was copying, almost word for word, Gildas's sixth century text; The Destruction and Conquest of Britain. If the Venerable Bede HAD made such a claim that Ambrosius had won Badon Hill, then there would be no great discussion as to who had won that battle today. The article writer has got their facts wrong on this account and it needs to be removed in order for it to be historically correct. The Venerable Bede did NOT claim this battle for Ambrosius Aurelianus. Wikipedia articles must be objective, with content based on evidence and fact if they are to have any value to researchers; or if Wikipedia itself is to have any value. The 'fact' of Ambrosius in this article is wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TwoRiders (talkcontribs).

This is a bit odd. I'd hardly say such a claim would constitute a 'serious error'. Neither Bede nor Gildas say that Ambrosius Aurelianus led the British at Badon Hill, but they both name him as being the leader of the British resistance, a resistance that culminated in the victory at Badon. Ecclesiastical History, ch. 64: 'Their leader at this time was Ambrosius Aurelianus... Under his leadership the British took up arms, challenged their conquerors to battle, and with God's help inflicted a defeat on them. Thenceforward victory swung first to one side and then the other, until the battle of Badon Hill, when the Britons made a considerable slaughter of their invaders.' Therefore it seems a reasonable assumption that Bede and Gildas meant to imply that he was there. At the moment, all the article says is 'More recently, scholars guessed that the Romano-British leader could have been Ambrosius Aurelianus'; it's hardly a recent assumption. I think Ambrosius needs to move up the page! 131.111.195.8 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Python reference?[edit]

Is this the "Battle of Badon Hill" at which Brave Sir Robin personally wet himself? Applejuicefool (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. I guess it helps to read the article before I ask stupid questions. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article name[edit]

I'm all for the Gaelic, except that it is not best known by that name and this is not the Gaelic wiki, its the english, this article name should be Battle of Badon Hill, which is how it is referred to in most media. Google backs up this assertion as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 15:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It's also given the English name, and that is used as the most common one. The Welsh is simply given as another name for it, as has been done on many other pages. There's no reason it should be removed. ---G.T.N. (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"Mons Badonicus" is actually Latin, not Welsh... If "Badon Hill" were a modern name of a hill which was definitely known to be the place of the battle, then the article would be renamed as you suggest, but in reality no one knows where "Badon Hill" was. AnonMoos (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I apologize, I was confused. I thought the reference to the english and welsh versions of the name. I wasn't paying very good attention. Yeah, the actuall title should be changed, as most people don't speak Latin! :)---G.T.N. (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would agree with GTN if I were sure "Badon Hill" was in fact the common name. But "Mount Badon" is common as well (perhaps even more so), and so is just Badon, and it is not as if Mons Badonicus is uncommon. I'm almost inclined to suggest we go with Battle of Mount Badon. We should also note that Gildas actually uses the Latin phrase "obsessio Badonici montis", or "seige of Mount Badon".--Cúchullain t/c 22:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Another popular reference[edit]

I just wanted to add that the search for the location of Badon Hill was one of the plots in Anthony Price's ingenious espionage novel "Our Man in Camelot". ISBN and other details here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Our-Man-Camelot-Anthony-Price/dp/0708821898/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217911949&sr=8-1

Regards

Jim Wickham jim.wickham@pgs.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.127.193.41 (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"altered days of death"[edit]

"altered days of death". This should read "altered years of death". The year is often flexible or forgettable, but the day of a martyrdom or other event was commemorated annually and less likely to be shiftable.--Wetman (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Anachronistic Illustration[edit]

The Sutton Hoo helmet is at least 100 years later than the battle of Badon and was made in Scandinavia. It is not a relevant illustration for this article. I suggest we remove it. Comments? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"Portrayal in popular media" section[edit]

The C.S. Lewis quote could be kept (it's somewhat detailed, and the Battle of Badon actually resonates with some of the themes of the book), but the others seem to be mere passing mentions, and so probably aren't as significant.. AnonMoos (talk)

Celtic?[edit]

The article makes several references to "Celtic names" and Arthur as a "Celtic Leader" this is anachronistic in the extreme as the term Celt did not enter the lexicon until the 19th Century. Surely the correct term is Briton or Brython.Scrooge (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Celtic is a broad general term whose basic meaning is widely understood, so its use is somewhat convenient. "Brythonic" would be understood by fewer people, while "British" would be misunderstood by many. Anyway, the Byzantines didn't call themselves "Byzantine" etc., but such terminological discrepancies don't usually bother historians on grounds of being anachronistic (as opposed to interfering with accuracy of understanding). -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
One wouldn't necessarily wish to expunge all references to the Celts before the 19th century, but to me the name of the Britons is straightforward, and so far as there ever might have been a leader called Arthur or something like it he can be identified with them and not with any wider concept of Celticism. We need to keep 'Celtic' when it's referring to Celtic languages, because whether one likes it or not that is their collective name. Other than that, I don't see any problem with 'British' – like most such words it has a variety of meanings, but we have to live with them all. Moonraker2 (talk) 05:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Spot on. The forms "Briton"/"Brythonic"/"British" are preferable in most cases here; "Celtic" is absolutely fine in relation to the language group, but we should not be referring to Arthur as a "Celtic leader".--Cúchullain t/c 14:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
When the term is ambiguous, and especially when WP uses it in a secondary sense (indeed, tertiary, according to my dictionary!), we have an obligation to avoid it if we can: Just as "Celtic" is too broad to be appropriate here, so it "British".
It appears that "Romano-British" is not only the most accurate but also the most easily understood by the average reader. "Brythonic" will have a less obvious meaning to the average reader but may be equally accurate. "British" is merely sloppy. Jmacwiki (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
When Badon took place, the British were no longer Romans, so "Romano-British" is not that accurate. "British" or "Britons" are perfectly suitable terms for these people, "Brittonic" for their language and culture. Cagwinn (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
As I said, "British" is ambiguous to the average reader. More precisely, its primary meaning is different from our use here. If "Brittonic" is a better term than "Brythonic", let's use it. It is certainly less misleading than "British" here, because of the ambiguity.
As for "R-B": We already use this term in several places in this article, to refer to the time period or persons involved (e.g., "Arthur")! Badon indeed took place after the Romans had left, but we have the statement from the Romano-British page that R-B culture "survived the 5th century Roman departure from Britain." It appears to be not only the most precise term we have, but one we already use freely in the article.
However, if you feel we are misusing R-B in the article, then we should fix that. Jmacwiki (talk) 20:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find it very odd to suggest that we should change the terminology because the "average reader" might get confused! Wikipedia is already dumbed down enough, let's not make it any worse. Britons or British are the universally accepted English terms for the native, pre-English people of Britain, and this is what we should continue to call them here. Cagwinn (talk) 23:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I take your point, Cagwinn. But WP has become one of the major information resources in the world, and that mostly means "average readers". Let's not lower the overall level of understanding in the world by needlessly confusing people. The keyword is needless: We have alternatives that are both correct (as yours are, to be sure) and unambiguous. Jmacwiki (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What are the alternatives? The scholars use "Britons" and "British" to describe these people, so we follow what they use. "Romano-British" may serve to disambiguate, but to no real gain, because it's not entirely accurate.--Cúchullain t/c 15:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suggested a couple of alternatives. But if R-B is not entirely accurate, why not? I'm not being challenging, just curious: My understanding is that R-B refers precisely to these people, in this place, at this time. No?
As I say, if R-B isn't appropriate in this sentence, then we may need to clean up the article more generally, because "R-B" is used in several other places in it.
BTW, it occurs to me that we might have boxed ourselves in. Perhaps a simple recasting of the sentence would allow us to avoid the ambiguous words altogether? (I'm not up the job at this hour. But maybe that would just slice the Gordion knot, tiny as it is?) Jmacwiki (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I still agree with Cúchullain, who in my view speaks for the consensus here. I should just like to add that one of the beauties of Wikipedia is that by blue-linking a word to a suitable article we can overcome the quite minor problem of ambiguity which all old names have in them – thus, Roman, Roman, Roman, Roman, Roman, Roman... in this case, the context more or less does the trick, but if we are worried that a seven-year old who speaks English as a third language might be misled, then by linking "British" to Britons (historical) and not to Kingdom of Great Britain or United Kingdom, we are home and dry. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Make it so :-). quota (talk) 08:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
"Romano-Briton" is cultural, rather than taxonomical. It simply means a "Romanized Briton". Considering that Badon most likely occurred decades after any real Roman governance had ended in Britian, it's arguable that its victors should be referred to as "Romano-Britons". But they were certainly "Britons". That is the universally accepted term for the Celtic-speaking natives of Britain in this period. I'll clean up the article a little and see if it helps; it will need much more than I'm able to do today, but that's another matter.--Cúchullain t/c 13:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Cuchullain has it right - can folks please stop trying to reinvent the wheel? Cagwinn (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
OK. But if anyone seriously believes that only 7-year-old, non-native speakers of English would be confused, s/he should get out of the office more often. Try talking to people who work almost anywhere outside English or History departments of higher education, for a change. Try it on a carpenter, or a software engineer, or even a PhD biochemist. They all regard "Anglo-Saxon" as virtually a synonym for "British".
And after you've done that, think about the fact that the 2nd group is far more representative of WP readers than the academics of those 2 departments are! Jmacwiki (talk) 06:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you are so adamant about forcing anachronistic terminology into the article. The Britons of c. 500 AD, were no longer Romans (and hadn't been so for several generations), therefore, they can not be properly styled Romano-British. By your logic, my great-great-grandfather, who was born in NYC in 1848, should be called a British-American, even though he was born 65 years after our revolution ended and (according to family tradition) was very proud to be an American (of the non-hyphenated variety). Cagwinn (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, if "R-B" is indeed inappropriate, I'm glad to see that, for consistency, Cuchullain has removed all the other R-B references that were sprinkled throughout the article.
Your unconditional assertion that "R-B" is not an appropriate label, however, is not universally shared. The Romano-British article itself says, "[Some] scholars ... believe that ... approximately from 410 AD when Roman legions withdrew, to 597 AD ... southern Britain preserved a sub-Roman society that was able to survive the attacks from the Anglo-Saxons and even use a vernacular Latin for an active culture." This completely covers the epoch of this article, with several decades in addition.
And it makes me wonder why your flat assertion of inappropriateness does not carry any scholarly hedges. Jmacwiki (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's true that the Sub-Roman label is often applied by scholars to this period and people born in the early 5th century surely continued to identify themselves as Roman after the withdrawal, but I believe the extent of Romanization - especially among the general population, who were the majority - is still a matter of debate. St. Patrick, for instance, though he and his parents had Latin names, complained in his writings of struggling with the Latin language, so it clearly wasn't his native tongue. The Britons who settled in Armorica spoke a dialect of Neo-Brittonic (soon to become Old Breton) - not Latin - as their first language. Cagwinn (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, again, "Romano-Briton" is a cultural label, not an ethonym. It simply means a Briton who is culturally Romanized. As it's unclear how "Romanized" the Britons were by 500 AD, the label is problematic. On the other hand, "Briton" is 100% accurate. We shouldn't be including potentially misleading terminology when we have and accepted alternative available.--Cúchullain t/c 13:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Obviously the term "Briton" is ambiguous, but there's no alternative in wide use. We've pointed out that "Romano-Briton" is problematic at best and inaccurate at worst. So long as we're consistent and explain who we're talking about up front, the risk of confusion decreases.--Cúchullain t/c 18:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
And most names which have been around for a few thousand years are just as ambiguous, but that does not force them out of use.
Anyone who regards 'Anglo-Saxon' as virtually a synonym for 'British' would benefit from learning the difference between the two, but no one will learn such differences from Wikipedia if we change the correct names of things in the hope of suiting the world's dunces. Moonraker2 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Let's not get too careless with words like correct. There is an obvious reason that most of the world regards those two words as virtually synonymous, whether or not it's a reason you care for -- and even if, for some obscure reason, you regard people who are not well informed about this ancient period as dunces. Perhaps because you do not have any scholarly topics in which you are poorly informed, and wish to learn more, as our reader do? Jmacwiki (talk) 06:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I stand by "correct". There must be hundreds of thousands of scholarly topics on which every one of us is poorly informed, but it would be a bad idea to ask anyone writing about them to reinvent the names of things, supposedly for the benefit of 'beginners' in the topics. Beginners need to learn and understand the use of language, not to have it changed. Moonraker2 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Jmacwiki, we've already explained why "Romano-Briton" is not adequate here. There really isn't a better term for the people discussed. Since we appropriately explain which "Britons" we're talking about, and link to the article Britons (historical), which discusses them in detail, the risk of confusing readers is minimized. Some readers may get confused regardless, but lacking a better term, there's nothing else we as Wikipedia editors can do.--Cúchullain t/c 14:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to weigh back in on this after so long, but I still don't see what is wrong with Brython. It as correct a term as any, distinguishes from the modern usage of Briton and avoids the argument about precisely what portion of the population spoke Latin or how many had ever been to a caldarium. Scrooge (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Brython(ic) is dated and (being derived from the Welsh) a bit Cambo-centric - it is not often used by modern Celticists (for whom Briton/Brittonic is the preferred term). Cagwinn (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

About the ancient ethnic groups in Britain[edit]

To discuss this subject more define and precisely: • Are the “British’ ”, the actual people who lives in the south of Great Britain Island? • Does it consist of German-Anglo-Saxon, Frisian and Jute people, mixed with Native and Roman-Britons? • Are the Native Britons, the ancient Celts in Britain, first the Anglo-Saxon invasion? • Did they were call Welsh, by the invaders? • Does Welsh means foreign? • Do they live in Wales actually? • Are the Roman-Britons, a mix of roman empire people and native Briton Celts? Most of Italian students and I, have no form an exact idea about this subject, because many English and Italian history teachers, don’t work properly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.129.18 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a very simple summary. Historically speaking, the British (Brittones in Latin) were the native population of Britain; by the first millennium BC (if not earlier) they spoke a Celtic language closely related to Gaulish. During the period of Roman rule, the southern British became heavily Romanized and borrowed many Latin words, but still maintained their native language and many native traditions, though by the 4th century AD, they abandoned their native religion for Christianity along with the rest of the Roman empire. Although the Roman governors, military officers, and civilians doing official business with the army in Britain came from all over the empire, many of the lower ranking Roman soldiers stationed in Britain during the empire were ethnic Gauls and Germans - there were even some Sarmatians introduced in the 2nd century AD. Some of these soldiers remained in Britain and intermarried with the locals. Others went home when their service ended, or they were transferred to other regions. Towards the end of Roman rule, most soldiers serving in Britain were local men and could be either purely British, or the descendants of foreign soldiers and local women. Still, this foreign element made up only a tiny percentage of the over all population in Britain; the vast majority remained ethnic Britons (with influxes of Irish in western and northern Britain, and Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes during the post-Roman period in the early 5th century).
During the mid-5th century and continuing through much of the 6th century, there was a greater influx of Germanic peoples - how many people came over is still a subject of debate, but there were certainly enough to cause a great cultural disruption in Britain. Many wars were fought between native Britons and Germanics during this time period and the over all trend was for the British to lose their hold over much of the territory that was to become England. Those Britons who didn't die in battle either fled to western Britain (where they blended with the locals to became the Welsh, Cornish and Cumbric peoples), or to Armorica in Gaul (where they blended with the locals, but maintained their British language and culture, thus becoming the Bretons), or they surrendered themselves to living under Germanic rule, their descendants gradually becoming Germanicized and intermarrying with their new overlords, producing the English people.
The word "Welsh" did indeed mean "foreigner" or "slave" in English - but more specifically, it meant any "Romanized person"; it is an old Germanic word and originally was borrowed from the Gaulish ethnic name Uolcae, whom Germanic people on the Continent came into contact with in ancient times.Cagwinn (talk) 16:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure about "abandoned their native religion for Christianity along with the rest of the Roman empire", which suggests that Christianity became the only religion of Britain and the Empire! When it comes to "fled to western Britain (where they blended with the locals...)", that has a definite ring of 1066 and All That. Moonraker (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Whether you are sure about it, or not, is immaterial; this is a matter of historical record - the Britons south of the Wall were thoroughly Christianized under Roman rule (of course, like everywhere else, traces of the old religion were absorbed into their version of Christianity). I have no idea what you are trying to say with your second point it is established fact that some Britons were pushed into western Britain and Brittany due to the encroachments of the Anglo-Saxons.Cagwinn (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Then we agree that the pagan religions were not quite abandoned. I'm sorry, Cagwinn, it was just your image of those disappearing Britons (the ones who hadn't been killed in battle, that is) fleeing for the west or over the sea and then "blending with the locals". We now believe that most of the Britons were neither killed in battle nor fled for the hills, and the "blending with the locals" is a bit of a scream. After all, it was your Britons not killed in battle who had to find locals to blend with. The Britons who "surrendered themselves" to living under Germanic rule had to blend with themselves and with the Germanics. Never mind, this is not a serious dispute. Moonraker (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
You really need to brush up on your history - you seem to have some very warped ideas about Britain in late antiquity and the post-Roman period. For all intents and purposes, paganism was wiped out in Britain; sure, some much debased form of it was being kept alive among the peasant class in the countryside, but there were no more pagan priests (The Romans had already outlawed and destroyed the Druid class centuries earlier), the temples were left to rot (as vividly described by Gildas), and public pagan ceremonies that couldn't be Christianized were abolished. As far as my "blending in with the locals" line, there's really no other way to put it; Southwestern Britons who left Britain for Armorica did just that (as the archaeological and historical record affirms). Cagwinn (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I see, so a much debased form of paganism was being kept alive among the peasant class in the countryside, but that doesn't count, being much debased, and bearing in mind that the townspeople were so much more significant than the peasants, even if there were not very many of them. I think the funniest thing about the blending was that it was the Britons not killed in battle (the actual chaps, you see, rather than the Britons collectively) who went off and found some locals to blend with. But no matter, Cagwinn, if you can't see the funny side of it, it's no big deal. Moonraker (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe Cagwinn was just attempting a simple narrative to answer the anon's questions generally. But yes, there could be more nuance. For starters, following the Roman takeover there was substantial syncretism between British and Roman (and other Continental) religious practice. Britain's most famous temple, at Bath, is essentially a Roman edifice dedicated to a heavily Romanized deity. And "paganism" was certainly not wiped out by 300 AD in either Britain or the Empire generally. In Britain alone temples continued to be used (on a much reduced scale) into the fifth century, and less formal practices can be assumed to have continued well after the point there is evidence for them.
However, it is true that the real established power was Christianity after that point, and I think the summary of what happened in the Anglo-Saxon settlement is pretty accurate. He's clearly talking about those Britons in the territories conquered by the Saxons being pushed west (to "blend" with other Britons there) or else becoming Germanicized.--Cúchullain t/c 14:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Move to Battle of Badon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 19:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Battle of Mons BadonicusBattle of Badon – Per WP:USEENGLISH & WP:COMMONNAME; further, arguments for current non-english, non-commonname unconvincing. Badon, Badon Hill, & Mount Badon are roughly equally common: Badon's shortest.  — LlywelynII 10:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Coming back to the discussion above about this page being at the wrong name, this page is at the wrong name. The fact that all three of Badon (132 actual uses), Mount Badon (104), and Badon Hill (130) are equally much more common is not an argument for having it at a third, much less common name (76). (And that's at Google Books; general use is more lopsidedly non-random-Latin-name friendly.) Incoming links break down similarly evenly: 10-12-12. That ignores links to the current name. There's more of those, but only because kind editors pipe it in. Cf. England#Middle Ages: "Their advance was contained for some decades after the Britons' victory at the [[Battle of Mons Badonicus|Battle of Mount Badon]] Or List of historical drama films: "King Arthur    2004    early 5th century    the Roman withdrawal from Britain and the [[Battle of Mons Badonicus|Battle of Mount Badon]] Or Annales Cambriae: "Year 72 (c. AD 516) The [[Battle of Mons Badonicus|Battle of Badon]]..." No one, anywhere on this talk page, uses Mons Badonicus to discuss the battle itself.

As far as why use "Badon" in preference to the other two: it's shorter; includes the others; and doesn't specify a height for the place. It's also the original name of the battle (even in Latin) in surviving Welsh sources like the A. Cambriae. — LlywelynII 10:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Support. This ngram for books published since 1960 shows "Battle of Badon" as easily the most common name over "Battle of Mount Badon", "Battle of Badon Hill", and "Battle of Mons Badonicus" (the least common). While "Battle of Badon" also returns hits for "Battle of Badon Hill", "Badon" in its own right is quite common in the literature, and additionally splits the difference between "Mount" and "Hill", the two competing translations of "Mons".--Cúchullain t/c 14:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support: A well argued case, and the evidence is pretty convincing. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:19, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME as explained by nom and Cuchullain.--Staberinde (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support since we use English and common names, not Latin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Annales Cambriae[edit]

Quotes like "Annales Cambriae ... preserve an entry for AD 665" and "The later Annales Cambriae offers the date 516" mean it's worth mentioning:

The Annals of Cambria have no dates.

The A text has none whatsoever (nil, nada, zippo); the B and C texts don't start dating their entries until well after the first millennium.

The "dates" these sources discuss are those reconstructed by other historians. If those dates are off, it's not necessarily the Annals' fault. In fact, the B & C text annals do have entries all the way back to the birth of Christ. If you just count forward from there, Badon occurred in 487, not 517. The fly in the ointment is that the texts disagree with themselves: by the time the Dionysian-era dates start, they're off by about 30 entries. Where those 30 years got lost is a matter of scholarship. The reconstructed Badon date being off by 30 years isn't a point against the text – it's a sign the currently-accepted dating's lousy.  — LlywelynII 11:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Neither here nor there but, since English isn't Latin, it's properly "the Annales Cambriae".  — LlywelynII 11:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
That may be worth adding if you have a source for it. In general this article could use a makeover.--Cúchullain t/c 14:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Further Improvement[edit]

  • I'm loathe to keep the old "date" and "location" sections that just repeat text, but if anyone were interested enough to build a wp:table for the dates and locations in the different sources, it'd be nice. They could just sit in the scholarship section.  — LlywelynII 15:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)