I have READ THE BOOKS and the Books say the same thing over and over again, that Nothing was written about Arthur in 600 AD. Arthur got a few mentions by 800 AD and by 1200 AD, the whole world consisted of squeeing Arthur fan-boys.
The BOOKS state that we know the square root of bugger all about the Dark Ages, who do what it says on the can.
It is a proven fact that Gildas does NOT say that Arthur was Dux at Badon. I thought Gildas stood up on his hind legs and deliberately said that Ambrosius was Dux at Badon.
Gildas was Vague about the Dux. I wanna believe the Vita even though it was written centuries later. I wanna believe in Arthur. I wanna believe that Saint Gildas was an unreliable narrator. That's logical, Captein.
Re: Rhemus de excidio
The BOOKS state that we know the square root of bugger all about the Dark Ages, who do what it says on the can.
It is a proven fact that Gildas does NOT say that Arthur was Dux at Badon. I thought Gildas stood up on his hind legs and deliberately said that Ambrosius was Dux at Badon.
Gildas was Vague about the Dux.
I wanna believe the Vita even though it was written centuries later. I wanna believe in Arthur. I wanna believe that Saint Gildas was an unreliable narrator. That's logical, Captein.