Talk:Ambrosius Aurelianus

I have removed the statement:

Perhaps Gildas' statement inspired -- or is explained by -- the Welsh tradition that he was one of the sons of the emperor Magnus Maximus and his Celtic wife, Helen.

I do not remember ever encountering this and am dubious that the tradition exists.

I also removed:

In speculating about this conflict, one must admit that it is very likely the historical Ambrosius and Vortigern never even heard of one another during their real lives, let alone actually met.

Why must one admit something so dubious? Certainly, if Vortigern actually lived, then Ambrosius certainly would have heard of him, even if their careers did not overlap and even if Vortigern was rather unlike the figure that tradition provides. jallan 01:25, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed the following (saved here for comments):

McCarthy's Synchronised Irish Annals include the entry "Ambrosius duc" for the year 479, implying that 479 was when Ambrosius took over from Vortigern as leader (became "wledig" or Overlord) of the Romano-British.

I'm not sure just who McCarthy is, but unless he has access to a primary document discovered within the last 10 years, what he writes is just one more theory to explain the facts; had the original Irish Annals mentioned Ambrosius, I would have heard of it.

Apparently Pachiaammos wrote:

Italic textBold text He is and he does. He is a precise scholar who has re-examined the various annals and used the ferials in their margins to co-ordinate them.

So you believe this McCarthy is a reliable source. Would you be so kind as to provide his full name & the necessary information to identify his book (such as title, publisher, date)?

(P.S. Please sign your comments; you can do this by adding three tildes -- ~~~ -- to append your name, or four tildes -- ~~~~ -- to add both your name & the time of your post.) -- llywrch 01:19, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have put back a shorter, less controversial, reference to the date 479. McCarthy published his Chronological Synchronisation of the Irish Annals from the Dept of Computer Science, Trinity College Dublin in 1999. The web reference is <<www.cs.tcd.ie/Dan.McCarthy/chronology/synchronisms>>. The author gives his own email for enquiries as <mccarthy@cs.tcd.ie>. ||||

I type 4 tildes and I just get 4 vertical lines, but yes this is Pachiaammosand it's 22 April at 9.05am BST

The more-precise meaning, "grandfather" is probably intended, for Gildas is addressing his contemporary (in c547) King Cynan of Powys whose Latin name, Conanus Aurelius, suggests direct descent from Ambrosius Aurelianus.

While some would argue this, it assumes that Aurelius & Aurelianus were the same family name -- much like Johns & Johnson. This assumption might be credible were it not for the fact both Aurelius & Aurelianus were very common family names in Late Roman times; thus to state this similarity (which just as easily can be argued is coincidence) tips the scales is POV.

The name 'Aurelianus' means (at least during earlier Roman times) that he was originally from gens Aurelia, and was adopted into some other family (an example: Gaius Octavius being adopted into gens Julia and thus being named Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus). Therefore, it is entirely possible (even if not definitive) that 'Aurelianus' and 'Aurelius' refer to the same family. Kuralyov 20:11, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be worth bringing up that the Bishop of Milan known in English as St. Ambrose was named Aurelius Ambrosius; and his father had been Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls, that is a noble of the highest rank below the Tetrarchs themselves, and administrator of a quarter of the Empire, including Britain. Solicitr (talk) 04:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Guoloph, according to Nennius, is Wallop in Hampshire, and the battle took place 12 years into the reign of Vortigern, said elsewhere to have begun in 425. The Ambrosius who fought there is surely, by inference, the father of Ambrosius Aurelianus, the one who wore the purple, or an earlier ancestor. Elsewhere, Nennius indicates that Aurelianus was still a lad when he was called to lead the Britons.

"Nennius" (as this contributor calls the Historia Britonum) is quoted to give this period a reliability that does not exist for this period, & Nennius' details raise as many questions as they appear to answer. If we are to spend the time extensively discussing Aurelianus in Nennius, then we should devote similar space to Aurelianus in Geoffrey of Monmouth, de Boron & the Welsh legends.

I've also had to fix some errors in the translation from the Latin (which is based on Michael Winterbottom's translation), where the orginal use of the singular has been replaced by plural forms for reasons I don't understand. -- llywrch 20:00, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The parents of Ambrosius Aurelianus “wore the purple”. Statistically, it is far more likely that his father wore the purple in the capacity of a Magistrate, rather than him being a direct descendant of a common soldier such as Constantine III.

The fact that Gildas praises him so highly makes it inevitable that Ambrosius Aurelianus was a devout and conformist Christian and that “Vortigern”, who is treated scornfully, perhaps represented the British Pelagians .

I think that the evidence points to Ambrosius Aurelianus being spirited away to Brittany following the death of his father. The resultant affinity to Brittany might well explain why a British Army was subsequently sent to Brittany under Riothamus (around 470 AD), by which time we must assume that A A was firmly in control in Britain. 10:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)10:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)~~ User: Black Death — Preceding unsigned comment added by British Pelagian (talk • contribs)

I hadn't known there was a Wallop in Wilshire; from my reading, I had assumed the only place identified as the location for this battle was Norton Shrubs, a village near Cirencester. (Admittedly it's an old identification, but when it's the only guess one has, one goes with that guess.) And I'd add this to the article, but I've misremembered the reference I had found this in. -- llywrch 18:11, 2 May 2004 (UTC)Reply

Supposition about medieval sources is one thing, but it seems off to make unreferenced suppositions about a 2004 film. Surely the movie makers know whether they based the movie "King Arthur" on Aurelianus or not, and we could find out which if anyone actually cared enough to put the effort in. So including guesses in the article, even if they're reasonable guesses, seems inappropriate. I've revised the paragraph accordingly. Have cleaned up the rest of the section a bit as well, to fix punctuation and remove a bit of commentary. I would recommend (but have not done) removing anything from the fiction summaries that is not directly relevant to Aurelianus.--Bedawyn 04:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply

The last two paragraphs of this section are problematic. First, what connection is there between the Welsh Emrys Wledig and Robert de Boron's version? If none, why are they in the same paragraph? "This is probably a confusion that entered oral tradition" -- Probably? Is there a source that validates this supposition? "someone has taken an early mention of Uther's epithet" -- Someone? Who? After several rereadings, I think that the writer meant this as a possible origin for the confusion (i.e., someone long ago made a mistake, leading others to repeat the mistake), but it's not really clear from the sentence structure. The final paragraph also includes editorial comment: "This makes Appelbaum's suggestion more likely. If we combine [Applebaum's?] etymology with ... then it is extremely tempting to connect this shadowy figure with Amesbury." If no one else does so and there's no further discussion here to the contrary, I'll remove these sentences the next time I stop by (whenever that may be). I'm hesitant to do so without giving the author(s) a chance to fix them first because the sentences in question do contain worthwhile content as well.

Finally, I'd love to see at least dates, if not dates and titles, for the Applebaum and Myres references.

The above was me, back in April.--Bedawyn 19:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just stumbled across your request now. I'm the one who wrote that back in the early mists of Wikipedia, but haven't had the time or the prodding (as in a nudge, not a delete ;) to find my source for Applebaum's statement. (I think it may have been in his contribution to The Agrarian History of Britain.) As for Myres & Vortigern's Pelagianism, I'll try to find the time to dig thru my pile of photocopied articles & reconstruct this scholarly myth; it's a fascinating tale, but one I didn't want to include because it was tangential to the subject of this article. -- llywrch 20:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

If it's a fascinating tale, does that mean there's enough content to justify an article of its own? (Of course, in the 4+ years intervening between our 2 posts, you may have already written it, but I don't know the link -- or moved on to other subjects.) Jmacwiki (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the citation to the Chronicon Maiora because there's no reference to Ambrosius in this work at all.

I'm using Richard Fletcher's "Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England" as a source and adding a few things from it; it's not the best source for Ambrosius, but the article is largely unsourced now and it's a start. Mike Christie (talk) 18:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

How could Ambrosius be linked to building Stonehenge in post-roman Britain when Stonehenge is more than a thousand years older than that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rattle (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Because it's fiction. The story appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae; the author didn't know how old Stonehenge was and made up the story.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand the (psychological) connection to the Amesbury hill fort. Why is the hill fort a temptation in relating AA and Amesbury? Making up the Stonehenge connection [see above] seems unmotivated on Geoffrey's part, but it would hardly be his first fictionalization. But why would he -- or, more to the point, we -- but "tempted" to connect the hill fort to AA, any more than to someone else?

Conversely, the hill fort article states that there are more than 2000 in Britain. So even if AA were believed to have used any in his battles, why should we be "tempted" to connect Amesbury's in particular?

I realize that the entire article, including this section, is very weak on citations. So perhaps this entire section will disappear when we have citations. But not so far. Jmacwiki (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I do not understand how the Welsh epithet 'wledig' (rural) was earned by Ambrosius exactly. Does anyone have any insight? I am taking Emrys Wledig to mean 'Ambrosius of the county'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.153.175 (talk) 10:57, 21 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

It's one of those rather baffling titles that feature in Old Welsh sources. Wledig is "rural" (approximately) in modern Welsh, but in medieval and early Welsh (so the reasoning goes) it can be title - "[of] the land", "Country" (or the nation, roughly), "landholding", "territory" etc, implying authority over the same. Thus, in vague terms, as in Macsen Wledig, something like "Emperor". Haploidavey (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Compare the Saxon title "Bretwalda": also of unclear derivation, though used to designate the supreme King. Zoetropo (talk) 08:32, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Constantine III was recognized co-Emperor, by Emperor Honorius, in 409 AD. Constantine was the ancestor of Ambrosius Aurelianus. Ipso facto, Constantine was the ancestor who had "worn the purple". Perhaps someone could cite a source, so improving the present article. 66.235.38.214 (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

"Constantine was the ancestor of Ambrosius Aurelianus." Citation needed. Seriously, what? Pseudo-history is significantly more dangerous than admitting we know nothing.88.90.184.135 (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

The article started out as completely unsourced and one-sided. It needs expansion and further sources. This is neither fringe nor POV pushing. Dimadick (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article could definitely use some refinement, but you are basing your edits on the work of fringe authors like Peter Korrel, Mike Ashley, and Frank Reno; none of them are reliable sources and much of what they write is spurious nonsense. Another problem with your edits is that you are padding the article with too much tangential, fluffy details that do not need to be here. Cagwinn (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nonsense. All of them are published authors, none of them seems to be fringe and in this case there is no dominant view to make them fringe. Details are hardly "fluffy" when needing to get a bigger picture of the 5th century. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can be a "published author" today; that means nothing! None of these authors are mainstream scholars - they are fringe nutjobs are their work is utterly worthless. Cagwinn (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

How are they nutjobs? They don't offer outlandish theories, base their theories on established facts, and 5th century Britain is hardly the domain of "mainstream scholars". Stop edit warring and provide alternative sources. Dimadick (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

They are nutjobs because they are not acknowledged specialists in the field (in fact, they are considered jokes), they employ poor scholarship, and push fringe theories. Their hypotheses do not belong on Wikipedia. Cagwinn (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ahhem. Not all sources have to be "specialists" to be reliable and I have yet to see you offer a specialist on the subject. These authors provide primary and secondary sources, and they offer a variety of viewpoints on the primary sources. They could hardly be considered "jokes" when they they don't contradict any established theory on the subject. Poor scholarship? Point me to a source evaluating them, not just your opinion. And again for a fringe theory to exist, a mainstream view has to exist and be contradicted. In this case there is actually none, since anything tangentially connected to Arthurian legend is actively debated and disputed. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

YOU ARE PUSHING FRINGE SCHOLARSHIP!!! This is not permitted according to Wikipedia guidelines. Go ahead and prove that these authors are anything other than jokes in the field. Cagwinn (talk) 19:09, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are pushing your extreme POV and have nothing to support it. Find at least one source and actually add to the article, contradict them. I don't have to prove that they are better than no sources at all. Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You just don't know what you are talking about and are being highly obnoxious.Cagwinn (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Last I checked, I have added sources on Gildas and all our primary sources, added references for each edit and new material, and have never insulted you. You have yet to add a single source, shouted at me for supposedly adding "fringe scholarship" (nonsense) and violated a very important aspect of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability. "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

You are being absolutely ridiculous! You are pushing fringe scholarship, which is equally forbidden by Wikipedia. Just because someone has published a book, does not mean they represent scholarly consensus - or are, in fact, even scholars. I will repeat for you, Korrel, Ashley and Reno are not reliable sources and their books are riddled with factual errors.Cagwinn (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Who is being ridiculous now? Point me to an author who does represent scholarly consensus on the same subject matter. For the time being these scholars are the ones who have written comprehensively on the matter and their views do not have to be the objective truth. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth: "material added to Wikipedia must have been published previously by a reliable source. Editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." ... "Sources must also be appropriate, and must be used carefully, and must be balanced relative to other sources".

In matters of social science like history, the essay points out: "there are no universal truths in social sciences. As said earlier, there are facts, opinions, facts about opinions and opinions about opinions." ... "As history is about things that took place in the past, there's the temptation to think that it is composed of truths, but it isn't. History is the politics of the past, same as today's politics is tomorrow's history."

Even works like the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire list sources who are not always reliable or infallible. "Individuals who are known only from dubious sources (e.g., the Historia Augusta), as well as identifiable people whose names have been lost, are included with signs indicating the reliability." Dimadick (talk) 20:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Both of you are very lucky you weren't blocked. I see I accidentally reverted before protecting, which would be improper, so I've undone that. I'm not endorsing either version. Settle it or ask me to extend protection. Go back to edit warring and you'll almost certainly be blocked. Maybe tomorrow I'll look and see how far past 3RR you both got. Doug Weller (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Let me help you with that. 16 straight reversions from Cagwinn, 13 straight reversions from me, and 4 times when the "reversion" was actually me saving the version I was working on. As far as I know, the incident only involves this article and has not involved other articles that we have recently edited. Dimadick (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Doug, I really wish you wouldn't leave the article in its current state with Dimadick's edits, which are absolutely terrible. There are now blatant factual errors in the article and absolute loons with no standing in the field of Arthurian studies are given equal footing with genuine, peer reviewed scholars. The article is now an abomination. Cagwinn (talk) 22:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's what's got to be discussed here. I can't protect and choose which version I want to protect. Lay out your argument. Doug Weller (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Doug, the article has been turned into a loon fest; the sources that this miscreant has used for his rewrite (Castleden, Korrel, Reno, and Ashley) are all fringe loons; none of them are regarded as serious Arthurian/Sub-Roman scholars and you will rarely (if ever) see their work cited in mainstream publications (and if they are mentioned, heavy criticism is generally lobbed at them). There are also blatant lies now present in the article, such as Gildas saying of Ambrosius "though brave on foot, he was braver still on horseback."; this is pure nonsense - nowhere does Gildas say this! Furthermore, I told Dimadick to bring his edits to the Talk Page for debate, but he flat our refused and started an edit war with me. This terrible rewrite of the article cannot be allowed to stand. Cagwinn (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I doubt that anyone of them qualifies as a loon and none of their theories on this particular subject seem all that strange. Whether their views on King Arthur are fringe or not, this does not automatically disqualify their analysis of the primary sources.

While I have found the phrase "though brave on foot, he was braver still on horseback." attributed to Gildas by one of these writers and it might be a mistake, the idea that is speaking about Aurelius Ambrosius is clearly attributed to the source.

Really? You told me to to start out a debate? You reverted all the edits and not only involving those particular writers. As for refusing to debate you, see my responses to you above.

If you find this rewrite "terrible", why don't you suggest improvements? The article was already in a terrible state. Dimadick (talk) 15:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

If you don't even know that the Gildas "quote" that you added is a total lie, you have NO BUSINESSES EDITING THIS ARTICLE!!! You haven't even read the primary sources!! Cagwinn (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Geoffrey, not Gildas: "though brave on foot, he was braver still on horseback."[1]. But Cagwinn, please calm down. Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I know that, Doug - and that's the problem here. Dimadick is clearly drawing from Rodney Castelden for this and is so unaware of the primary sources that he did not even notice that the quote has been mis-attributed to Gildas. Dimadick has no business editing this article. Cagwinn (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

And who are you to decide which editor or editors of Wikipedia are to edit specific articles? You sound like you own the article. Dimadick (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why would you even bother editing an article on an historical figure - no less engage in an edit war over it - when you can't tell the difference between genuine scholars and fringe authors who have written about him, and are not even familiar with the primary sources? It's ridiculous. Cagwinn (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ahem, I have also not read most of the primary sources on guys like Germanus (Caesar), Germanus (patricius), Harald Klak and Rorik of Dorestad, just decent secondary sources and translations. That has not prevented me from improving the articles on them and adding whatever sources I could find.

Historical figures happen to be one of my primary interests in Wikipedia. And I sincerely doubt that "genuine scholars" cover Ambrosius in much more detail. Dimadick (talk) 18:55, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Your statements are just proving over and over again that you are way out of your depth here. You apparently don't even know that the sources you have cited in your edits (which have made the article worse, not netter) are fringe authors who are not only way outside of mainstream scholarship on Ambrosius, but also careless scholars (if the term can even be applied to them). Castleden and Ashley are particularly egregious - no one (and I mean no one) involved in Arthurian studies and/or Sub-Roman British history takes their work seriously; they are considered jokes. If you don't know any of this, why are you editing this article, no less being obstinate about it? Cagwinn (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Two years ago, Cagwinn pretty much blanked the page and removed sources, calling them fringe. I have asked him/her to provide better sources. Currently he is at it again. And he/she still has not provided a single source. I don't believe he/she has any familiarity with the subject. Dimadick (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

LOL - I have only been studying sub-Roman British history and Arthuriana for 34 years now, regularly correspond with top experts in these fields, and participate on & run well-known online forums dedicated to the subjects! Mike Ashley and Peter Korrel are FRINGE AUTHORS! Their works are filled with factual errors and outright fantasies. Neither one have published in any respectable Arthurian or sub-Roman historical journals, nor are they ever cited as reliable sources by any genuine scholars in these fields. I suggest you familiarize yourself with WP's UNDUE WEIGHT policy. Cagwinn (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am familiar with the policy. When I came across the article in 2015 it had no sources at all. You have neither provided sources calling these writers fringe, nor have you provided "mainstream" sources on the topic. Up till now your edits are mostly blanking the page and hurling insults.

Does any of your online forums provide some perspective on this topic? Dimadick (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are not going to find sources actually labeling these authors as fringe (is this even a serious question?? If so, wow!...and you accuse me of not having any familiarity with the subject?? LOL!!); serious, academic-based scholarship generally ignores "popular" writers. Korrel has only written a single book on medieval Arthurian LITERATURE (not history!!) and should not even be cited as a source in this article, which concerns a historical figure. Mike Ashley - "British bibliographer, author and editor of science fiction, mystery, and fantasy" has churned out several shoddily researched books on King Arthur that are filled with factual errors, typos, and general misinformation (bordering on conspiracy theories in many cases); he has zero standing in the Arthurian academic community (he is not a scholar and does not publish in any Arthurian-related academic journals) and cannot, even by the loosest standards, be considered an expert on sub-Roman historical figures such as Ambrosius Aurelianus or Arthur. The fact that you are fighting me on this issue proves that you, yourself, don't have "any familiarity with the subject". Cagwinn (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am "fighting" you, because you have yet to produce better sources. For all your mentions of academic journals, you still did not actually suggest a source. Both Korrell and Ashley are cited for their opinions, and the article does not endorse any of them at this point.

Remember Wikipedia:Citing sources: "In-text attribution involves adding the source of a statement to the article text, such as Rawls argues that X.[5] This is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations, close paraphrasing, or statements of opinion or uncertain fact. The in-text attribution does not give full details of the source – this is done in a footnote in the normal way. See In-text attribution below." Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Dimadick: Please change the section heading to something less personal. "Sources" perhaps? Doug Weller talk 09:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done. There is already a section above called sources, so I named this Sources 2.Dimadick (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

He does reference books, anthologies, etc. on a huge range of subjects. That doesn't make him a specialist in these subject. We should either find a recognised authority making the same points or remove that paragraph. Doug Weller talk 09:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

The text says: "According to Gildas, Ambrosius organised the survivors into an armed force and achieved the first military victory over the Saxon invaders. However, this victory was not decisive: "Sometimes the Saxons and sometimes the citizens [meaning the Romano-British inhabitants] were victorious."" "Saxons" is an error here. Gildas says "the enemy" Freuchie (talk) 23:13, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

DEB:26.1 'Ex eo tempore nunc cives, nunc hostes, vincebant,'. The literal translation would indeed be 'from that time now the citizens and now the enemy, were winning,'. However, considering the context of the passage within piece, translating 'hostes' as 'Saxons' would be just as permissible as translating 'cives' as 'Britons'. It's less literal, yes, but it does not alter what Gildas means drastically. Ealdwin (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It makes a HUGE difference. When Gildas was referring to the enemy this was a reference to the Picts and Scots and NOT to Angles and Saxons. All the 12 Arthurian battles he lists were against the Picts and Scots. Freuchie (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The text says "In Chapter 31, we are told that Vortigern ruled in fear of Ambrosius." This is simply NOT true. Freuchie (talk) 23:35, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

HB:31 'Guorthigirnus regnavit in Brittania...urgetabur a metu Pictorum Scottorumque et a Romanico impetu, nec non et a timore Ambrosii', 'Vortigern has ruled in Britain...he was burdened (pressed, urged) by the fear of the Picts and Scots and by a Roman attack, and not to mention by the fear of Ambrosius'. At least according to Nennius, Vortigern was afraid of Ambrosius while he was ruling Britain. (Sorry for the succession of replies, I'm working with the texts at the moment, so they're fresh on the mind and on my desk). Ealdwin (talk) 07:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough, Ealdwin. There are variations in editions of Nennius and I had not seen this one. Freuchie (talk) 17:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply