Talk:Battle of Badon

message: 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)
thread_title: old talk

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me, it seems to be more relavant there.--Cúchullain t/c 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 

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

message: # 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: 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 (talk • contribs).
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)
thread_title: serious error

message: Is this the "Battle of Badon Hill" at which Brave Sir Robin personally wet himself? Applejuicefool (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I guess it helps to read the article before I ask stupid questions. Applejuicefool (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Python reference? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another popular reference 

message: "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)
thread_title: "altered days of death"

message: 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)
replies: text: Fair point that it shouldn't be included here.  But it was made in England, not Scandinavia. Bacon Man (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronistic Illustration 

message: :Fair point that it shouldn't be included here.  But it was made in England, not Scandinavia. Bacon Man (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 2022

message: 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)
replies: text: Neither here nor there but, since English isn't Latin, it's properly "the Annales Cambriae".  — LlywelynII 11:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Annales Cambriae 

message: * 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)
thread_title: Further Improvement

message: According to the Oxford Dictionary, the right pronunciation for Badon (Battle of Mount Badon) is /ˈbeɪdən/
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/badon_hill,_battle_of Hlnodovic (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That is ahistorical and incorrect. Cagwinn (talk) 02:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pronunciation of Badon

message: Or BArdon Mill Northumberland near Ravenglass Roman Barracks Hadrians Wall, both places are within a mile of eACH OTHER. bARDON mILL IS 16TH cENTURY BUT PERHAPS THE NAME RELATES TO SOMETHING OLDER ESPECIALLY WITH A rOMAN bARRACKS AND bATH hOUSE IN THE VICINITY?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.163.131 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Siege of Badon vs Battle of Badon

message: Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox "Result" 

message: GVGVNH,, 82.36.226.173 (talk) 08:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: All indications are that the Saxons were repulsed, but at a high cost, and it doesn't seem to have made much difference over the very long term. AnonMoos (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BATTLE OF BADON