Vortigern Studies

What's New I Sitemap I Bibliography I Vortigern I Vortigern Studies l Wansdyke I POLLS I LINKS l Sitemaster I FAQs
about Vortigern Studies l Games I Arthurian Collection I View Guestbook I Sign Guestbook l Webrings

  Vortigern Studies > Vortigern > The Sources > Gildas > When?

Vortigern Studies Index



The Sources
click here

When did Gildas write?
Robert Vermaat

Between several continental fifth-century historians and Bede in the eight century, Gildas is the single major source for events in Britain during the fifth and sixth centuries. Though distorted and often misinformed, Gildas sheds at least some light on Britain in the Dark Ages, which was then in the process of changing from a Roman province into a myriad of English and Welsh kingdoms. Gildas may even have been the only one writing a history (although we can hardly call him a historian) for that period, for no other source is available to us. No one before Bede uses Gildas, no one even mentions a ‘lost source’ that could have rivalled Gildas.

A transcript of the relevant chapters can be found at this site.

Dating Gildas
Why would we want to date Gildas’ publication as accurately as possible? The question may seem unimportant, but dating Gildas’ De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (DEB) as exactly as we can also helps to interpret the text. Gildas narrative is vague, and more often than not we are left guessing what really happened. Scholars have tried to reconstruct several events of the fifth centuries from the first 26 chapters of the DEB, but the results tend to differ. Finding an exact dating for the text is demanded for such a reconstruction. Dating the text as exactly as possible would also enhance its credibility.

But when did Gildas write his ‘history’? There are several indicators which have been used over the ages.

Since Gildas does not provide us with any clear dates himself, which means we can only compare the internal evidence of the text with events which are know from history. The orthodox date for DEB, a date which can be found in almost every standard textbook and work of reference down to the present time is Sir Frank Stenton’s date of “a little before the year 547”. This article examines the evidence for this ‘orthodox’ date, why it was chosen and whether this was valid.

There are several internal indicators that limit the period of the search. The upper limit is indicated by the total lack of reference to the Paschal Controversy, that hit Britain simultaneously with the continent in AD 600. This may be confirmed by the reference to Gildas in a letter by St Columbanus to the Pope in AD 595 (see below, Columbanus), in which he mentions several subjects about monasticism also found in DEB, which may possibly indicate the Epistola. The lower limit is indicated by silence about any sign of a flourishing Church in Ireland and the notice that monasticism in Britain was still very limited, which means that DEB was written probably before 540. Even more so Gildas’ stress of his Romanitas and that of his ‘fellow-citizens’ suggests as early a date as possible.

The most widely used internal proof used to determine the orthodox date of DEB is about persons. On the one hand the admonition to the five kings in chapters 28-36; Constantine, Aurelius Caninus, Vortiporius, Cuneglasus and Maglocunus. On the other hand the information that Gildas shares about his own life in chapter 26; the 44 years that have passed since the ‘siege of Badonis Mons’ was fought and the year in which this siege might have taken place.

The five Kings

First, though, we must look at the available information about the five British kings, for they will give us the best idea of the period we are discussing. We assume that all of them were alive at the time of publishing (Gildas could have denounced any long-dead tyrant or persecutor, but he did not), and that DEB was no forgery of a later date. Adding their general floruits (the period of their grown-up life), we should arrive at a general period in which to place the writing of DEB.

Another assumption is the relative trustworthiness of the royal Welsh Pedigrees. These were compilated in the tenth century, though based on earlier documents. There are, however, great dangers connected with the use of these pedigrees as a source of history. During the ninth century, the larger parts of Wales were united under the sole dynasty of Rhodri Mawr. Rhodri had inherited Gwynedd and Powys and received Ceredigion and Ystrad Tywi through marriage. It is small wonder that this unification is reflected in the genealogies, for these served mainly the purpose of proving a claim of heritage, to glorify their patrons. Therefore, as Patrick Sims-Williams insists: “the Welsh genealogies cannot be used with any assurance as an independent check on the period of Maglocunus and his contemporaries, calculation back with generation averages, because the pedigrees all have unverifiable weak links in them, and because they have come down to us from the same milieu, indeed in the same earliest manuscript, as the Annales Cambriae”.

Starting with the kings, the first of these is Constantine of ‘Damnonia’. This king is certainly alive, because Gildas mentions information that he has received ‘just now’. He is usually identified with Custennin Corneu of Dumnonia which is usually compared with Devon and Cornwall. Though the Jesus College MS does not mention him (Gereint m. (map=son of) Erbin m. Kynvawr m. Tudwawl m. Gurvawr m. Gadeon m. Cynan m. Eudaf Hen), the
Bonedd y Saint does, making him the son of Kynvawr and the father of Erbin. Later Welsh tradition associated Eudaf Hen with Magnus Maximus (383-388) and his son Kynan with the first migration to Brittany, which would place Custennin’s birthdate c. 510. Geraint on the other hand, Constantine’s grandson, is connected with the Gododdin a heroic poem situated c. 590-600. Though there is an entry in the Annales Cambriae that claims a conversion of Constantine in AD 598, this might equally have referred to a northern Constantine, who was the contemporary of St.Kentigern and St.Columba (d. 597). Concluding, though the evidence is scarce, it agrees with the orthodox dating of Gildas.

Aurelius Caninus
This ruler is a bit of an enigma. Though the name Aurelius may point to Ambrosius Aurelianus as his ancestor, this rests on no more than conjecture. The epithet is difficult to interpret. Obviously a ‘pun’, but on what name? A good candidate is Cynin, short for Cynfor or Cunomorus (Kynvawr), son of Tudwal Befr (‘the Radiant’), whose epithet might point to ‘Aurelius’. Kynvawr’s floruit was c. 485, which is too early for Gildas. But here the information stops. Attempts have been made to identify Kynvawr with the Breton Cunomorus or Marcus of Cornwall, who is connected with the Tristan legends. But Tristan’s Mark was the son of Meirchiawn, not of Tudwal, so a duplication looms. This was confirmed by De Situ Brecheniauc, which mentions ‘Cunin Cof, son of Tutwal Pefir’, and separately mentions ‘Kynuarch son of Meirchyavn’. Also, ‘Cinmarc map Merchiaun’ is mentioned by the Harleian pedigrees as the father of Urien of Rheged. This Cinmerc may be the best candidate for our Caninus. He lived during the mid-sixth century, which would indeed fit Gildas’ floruit.

Dumville mentioned another candidate: Cinnin, great-grandson of Britu, the son of Vortigern (see genealogies of East Wales). This king of Powys is otherwise unknown, but his birth could be placed c.500, which would also fit Gildas’ floruit. Identifying Caninus with a king of Powys would be attractive, for it would close a gap in Gildas’ political landscape. Bartrum has come up with another candidate, Cynan Wledig, the Welsh version (in the Brut Brenhinedd) of the Aurelius Conanus of Geoffrey of Monmouth, who drew his material from Gildas. Bartrum identifies this king of Powys with the Cynan Garwyn (from Carr-wyn = of the white chariot?) from the pedigrees, who was the great-grandson of Cadell Ddyrnllug, but who figured in the same, confusing line of the king of Powys, descended from Vortigern. The Book of Taliesin praises Cynan for raiding Gwent, Brycheiniog, Dyfed and Anglesey; Cynan may have fought those civil wars that distressed Gildas so much. Though Cynan may have lived in the first decades of the sixth century (and thus be a prime candidate for Aurelius Caninus), the trouble with the pedigree of the kings of Powys is its unreliablity. Cynan may thus have lived in the seventh century as well. Dumville warns that the ‘main Powysian trunk-line is severely defective in its seventh-century section’, which makes dating and calculating a generation-average extremely difficult. Maybe we should heed this warning and push no further.

The memorial stone of Votiporigis, the protector of Dyfed.Vortiporius
Vortiporius or Vo(r)teporix of the Demetae is maybe the best documented of all five kings. He claimed descent (see genealogies of
South Wales) from Magnus Maximus, but he and his ancestors most likely came from Ireland. He ruled Dyfed in the fifth generation from Magnus Maximus. A memorial stone commemorating a Votiporix has been found in Castell Dwyran, Carmarthenshire, bearing the inscription Memoria Voteporigis protectoris (‘the memorial of Voteporix the Protector’) in Latin script, and Votecorigas (‘of Votecorix’) in Ogham. Some authors believe that this stone relates to a different man, while others think that the stone provides the correct form of the name of the king mentioned by Gildas, but that the name changed with an intrusive -r because of names like Vortigern and Vortimer. And although all later sources carry that first -r, they also agree on but one man named 'Vortipor of Dyfed', with a (distant) ancestor being named 'Protec(tor)', never mentioning a second. Some scholars argue that it's possible to see the Brythonic name 'Voteporix' the Latin name 'Protector' as possible equivalents.
Even though the etymology of the name on the stone and the name on the sources do not agree, it's indeed tempting to hold them to be similar (as many scholars do) or at least somehow related (as many do who think of the names as of different men).

A possibility that Vortipor’s fourth ancestor lived in the times of Magnus Maximus means that Vortipor could be dated to c. 500, which would fit the traditional chronology of Gildas.

Cuneglasus, or rather Cynglas, is well known from the genealogical lists. Welsh genealogies made Cuneglasus and Maglocunus first cousins, with their fathers (Owain Ddantgwn and Cadwallon Lawhir) being sons of Ennian Girt, who was in turn the son of the famous Cunedda. Since this line of kings of Gwynedd later died out, their descendants vary in the pedigrees. For this reason, a floruit is difficult to establish, and it may vary from 495 to 525. Both are within the traditional dating of Gildas. But unfortunately, it is not that simple. Since his lineage is connected to that of Maglocunus, there are a lot of problems, which I will deal with below.

Maglocunus of Gwynedd is the last in the row, but surely the most important, because his floruit is usually seen as parallel to that of Gildas, and his death supposedly occurred shortly after DEB was published. We will start by looking at his floruit, before attempting to prove or disprove his year of death.

Like Cuneglassus, Maglocunus has the problem that the number of his descendants varies, which makes date-guessing even more hazardous than it already is. The only option is finding secure descendants whose historical cross-dating is more secure. We know that his great-grandson Iacob (Iago) died in the battle of Chester (c. 613), and Iago’s grandson Cadwallon died c. 633. If we reckon back, taking the usual 30 years to a generation, this would mean that Maglocunus died c. 484! This would be a little early, even if we would shorten this reckoning by a generation to arrive at c. 515. Scholars such as Miller have doubted the average length of the Venedotian dynasty, which she thinks is shorter, based as it is on cousin-to-cousin instead of father-to-son. Which means that Maglocunus could have lived later, but we can’t be sure.

Another attempt can be made to date Maglocunus by identifying his son. This son was mentioned as Bridius filius Meilochon by Bede, and as Bridei filius Mailcon by the Pictish chronicle, which records campaigns of him in 557 and 559. He seemed to have been the contemporary of Columba, who visited him during his mission to Britain (ad 563-97). But was this Bridius/Bridei/Brude the son of Maglocunus /Mailcun /Maelgwn? Pictish history is riddled with kings by this name; 36 at the last count! What speaks mostly against this identification is that their relation as father and son is mentioned nowhere, but even more that the Pictish king is a pagan! Maglocunus was a Christian king and (temporarily) even an ecclesiastic, so the chance that his son would have returned to paganism should be considered rather impossible. Dating Maglocunus through Bridei fails.

A last attempt can de made by dating his forefathers. Cunedda, founder of the dynasty, was dated to have come to Gwynedd 146 years before Maglocunus by the Historia Brittonum in a text that predated the pedigrees. I will not discuss how this period came to be at this point. Cunedda is called atavus, which strictly means ‘great- great- great- grandfather’, or rather more simply ‘ancestor’. In most pedigrees, Cunedda is only the great-grandfather of Maglocunus. But Cunedda was already of advanced age when he came to Wales, his sons being old enough to fight battles. If we should date Mealgwn‘s death to AD 547 (but see below), this would mean that Cunedda came to Gwynedd 146 years before Maglocunus’s reign, which would put him in the time of Magnus Maximus. Other interpretations have dated Cunedda’s migration to AD 401 or even AD 429, acting together with St.Germanus… Which would cut Maglocunus’s reign very short, if we would see Maglocunus as the fifth generation below him, but it would be acceptable if he were the third. If Mealgwn’s death is dated to AD 547, it would imply that Cunedda’s obit is dated to AD 390x400, or else to AD 447x457. To take every possibility into account, Mealgwn’s floruit could range from about 440 to 530. Since the exact lineage remains uncertain, we must give up all attempts to date Maglocunus through his pedigree.

It has become usual for scholars to date DEB as close as possible to Maglocunus’s death, which is conventionally dated to AD 547. This date is provided by the Annales Cambrae (Welsh Annals, c. AD 955):

Annales Cambriae, annus ciii (AD 547)
Mortalitas magna, in qua pausat Mailcun rex Guenedotae

That Maglocunus is meant here is beyond doubt, but the year is not. However, the entry itself is suspect. It was almost certainly copied from the earlier Chronicle of Ireland, which originally mentioned a list of Leinster names (not Maglocunus). The Welsh copyist may have had authority to substitute these names, but this is unknown to us. If not, the whole entry is false and any discussion bound to be useless.

However, should we accept (but on no real basis) that the Welsh copyist indeed had access to reliable information, we can concentrate on the year itself. If we compare it with the date for the battle of Badon (AD 516), we would end up with a publishing-date for DEB in AD 560, which is 13 years too late (below, Badon). One of the years must be wrong, but which?

The Mortalitas magna is usually seen as the ‘Great Plague of Justinian’, which started in the east in AD 542, and which could easily have reached Britain by AD 547. But how sure are we that Maglocunus indeed died in that plague?

Yellow fever
There is a problem, because Procopius (ca. 550) mentions this plague as a bubonic plague, whereas (much) later tradition such as Welsh vernacular texts mention only a ‘Yellow Pestilence’ (Vad Velen), which is definitely different from the bubonic version. Maglocunus, cursed by Taliesin the poet, fled to a church in Rhos, were he was followed by Vad Velen. The doomed king peeped through the keyhole, saw the monster and died. The Story of Taliesin describes it as a curse:

Mabinogion, Hanes Taliesin
A most strange creature will come
From the sea marsh of Rhianedd,
As a punishment of iniquity,
On Maelgwn Gwynedd;
His hair and his teeth,
And his eyes being as gold;
And this will bring destruction
On Maelgwn Gwynedd

Alas, all references of this Vad Velen, come to us through Edward Williams, a.k.a. Iolo Morganwg (1745-1820), who, according to Ifor Williams, was "the greatest forger of Welsh documents ever known. The damage that man has done! Maybe he was mad - let us be charitable" (..). Early MSS of the Mabinogion do not include these references to Vad Velen, but there are other sources that do. One is the Vita Teiliavi (Life of St.Teilo, 12th century), which confirms the death of Maelgwn in a Pestis Flava, while a second MS of the Annales Cambriae mentions Hir hun Wailgun en llis Rhos (‘The long sleep of Maelgwn in the court of Rhos’). To sum up, we have no evidence at all that Maglocunus died of the bubonic plague, but only that he might have died in a pestilence that turn victims yellow. If not a plague, what could this disease be?

The ‘Yellow Pestilence’ is recorded for Ireland in the sixth century as the Cron Chonaill, which was mentioned by the Annals of Ulster for 548, which would fit the entry concerning Maglocunus. This disease was no plague, but might best be identified with ‘relapsing fever’, which occurs often together with a plague. Relapsing fever was common in Ireland together with famine, and its modern name is still fiabhras buidhe (yellow fever). And if we consider that famine fever can spread from people lacking food to those with plenty of it (as it spreads through lice), we might have found a good candidate for the death of the king of Gwynedd.

Which leaves us with a circular argument: We cannot prove that Maglocunus died in AD 547, nor that he died of plague, so his death may not have been confirmed by the Great Plague of Justinian in 542 at all. The date of 547-8 may be confirmed by Irish annals, but they speak only of Yellow Fever, while the Annales Cambriae speak of plague. Which leaves us with an unconfirmed date that is provided only by an untrustworthy source. With these attempts to date Maglocunus and the British kings finalized, we must come to the conclusion that it is not possible to date DEB to a few years before 547, for the simple reason that it is not possible to date the death of Maglocunus/Maelgwn Gwynedd to that year. Even more so, if we look at the very scarce information about the floruit of each king, it seems possible to date their floruits to a generation after 500, rather than two. This seems to be supported by the mentioning of Gildas by Columbanus.

Columbanus is in fact the very first to mention Gildas. Columbanus wrote between 595 and 600 to pope Gregory the Great about monks becoming hermits, referring that some ‘Vennianus’ (probably St.Finnian of Clonard, d. 549) consulted Gildas (Giltas auctor) on the subject. Gildas wrote on the matter of simoniacal bishops, which fits his ideas on the clergy as written in de Excidio and the Fragmentae. The Life of St Finnian of Clonard mentions a similar dispute between Gildas and David, probably about a particular form of monastic life. Gildas criticises those who flee to a stricter discipline, which is very like the subject of his advise to Finnian. Gildas, expressing an intention to enter the monastic life himself, nevertheless later thought David’s rule too severe and strict. In any case, later tradition seems to indicate that Gildas lost the dispute, and went to Ireland. If the above identification is correct, and keeping in mind that Finnian died halfway during the sixth century, Gildas probably entered the monastic life a few years earlier in order to become an internationally recognised expert on the subject. This would date the writing of De Excidio to only a few years after 500, i.e. when based on the orthodox dating scheme.

The meaning of the ’44 Years’

The next possibility to date DEB is by following up the lead of the Quadragesimus Quartus Annus (44th year) that seem to have to be placed between Badon and the time of writing the DEB. The Badonic passage of DEB, on which this period is based, reads as follows:

DEB 26
Ex eo tempore nunc cives, nunc hostes, vincebant…usque ad annum odsessionis Badonici montis, novissimaque ferme de furceferis non minimae stragis, quique quadragesimus quartus ut novi orditur annus, mense iam uno emenso, qui et meae nativitatis est.

The usual translation would be:

After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, … until the year of the siege of Badon hill, when took place also almost the last, though not the least slaughter of our cruel enemy, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month, and also the time of my own nativity.

44 Years since Badon and Birth
It is widely believed that Gildas tells us here that he was born in the same year of the siege of the hill at Badon, and that he is now writing in the second month of the forty-fourth year since then. However, this opinion is based solely on the translation by Theodor Mommsen in his authoritative edition of DEB:

The year of the siege of mons Badonicus … which also is the year [back] from that which [at present] begins, one month already elapsed, which too is [that] of my birth.

Mommsen could only arrive at this translation by emendating the words ut novi with est ab eo qui. This change has no basis in the text and has been criticised accordingly. Notwithstanding that criticism, the explanation that Gildas seems to have been writing in the first month of the 44th year after both Badon and his own birth, has been accepted widely. However, there are several partisans of other interpretations.

44 Years since the Adventus Saxonum
The first of these is none other than the famous English monk Bede, who was the first to mention Gildas and used his work extensively. Bede paraphrased the passage of the Badonic siege:

Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book 1, chapter 16
From that day, sometimes the natives, and sometimes their enemies, prevailed, till the year of the siege of Badon hill, when they made no small slaughter of those invaders, about forty-four years after their arrival in Britain.

This is much clearer and more specific, but the interpretation is totally different. Bede saw 44 years between Badon and the Adventus Saxonum, the arrival of the Saxons in Britain! J.A. Giles turned this around, and based his edition of DEB on this interpretation:

After this, sometimes our countrymen, sometimes the enemy, won the field, to the end that our Lord might this land try after his accustomed manner these his Israelites, whether they loved him or not, until the year of the siege of Bath-hill, when took place also the last almost, though not the least slaughter of our cruel foes, which was (as I am sure) forty-four years and one month after the landing of the Saxons, and also the time of my own nativity.

(This edition of Gildas’ work is now very common on the internet, being the only e-text without copyright, so let this be a warning to all users: this is not the authentic version of Gildas!)

Several later authors have followed Bede’s lead. De la Borderie used Bede’s date for the Adventus (AD 449) and dated Badon to AD 493.
Charles Plummer went one step further, he added the ‘traditional’ 44 years and added the publication of DEB to 449+44=493+44=AD 537! According to him, this did fit with the traditional dating (which can’t be denied) and that both periods were of the same length was merely coincidence. But since Bede’s ‘44’ was his interpretation of Gildas’ ‘44’, this explanation must be rejected.
G.H. Wheeler agreed that the ’44 years’ started with an event that signified the coming of the English, but he dated it to the last year when dating by consuls ceased, AD 473. The only argument in its favour is that this dates Badon to AD 516, which corresponds with the year assigned by the Annales Cambriae, whose unreliability we have already discussed above.
C.E. Stevens dated this year to the more agreeable year of AD 441-2, which is reported in the
Gallic Chronicles as the year of the Saxon takeover. Badon would then take place in AD 486.

44 Years since Ambrosius
Other authors, though following Bede in placing Badon not at the start, but rather at the end of a period of 44 years, assign the start of this period to the actions of Ambrosius. The logic to them was that the period described by Gildas lay between to great victories, that of the first (by Ambrosius) and the greatest (by Arthur). Some did not hesitate to add another 44 years for the publication, a futile attempt as we have seen above. Not so futile, however, was the suggestion that Gildas, when writing about the year of his birth, actually means the victory of Ambrosius! Of course it would become clear that Gildas, reckoning by the traditional dating, would have reached the age of 94 years in all…

But let us remain with the victory of Ambrosius. Several authors based this interpretation on Gildas’ assurance in the remainder of chapter 26, where he continues that the wars against the Saxons have ceased a generation since:

DEB, 26
And yet neither to this day are the cities of our country inhabited as before, but being forsaken and overthrown, still lie desolate; our foreign wars having ceased, but our civil troubles still remaining. For as well the remembrance of such a terrible desolation of the island, as also of the unexpected recovery of the same, remained in the minds of those who were eyewitnesses of the wonderful events of both, and in regard thereof, kings, public magistrates, and private persons, with priests and clergymen, did all and every one of them live orderly according to their several vocations. But when these had departed out of this world, and a new race succeeded, who were ignorant of this troublesome time, and had only experience of the present prosperity…

Especially the reference to a new generation has inspired authors more than the vague ex eo tempore.

Nikolay Tolstoy based the rise of Ambrosius on Bede’s dating of AD 449, adding the 12 years mentioned in the Historia Brittonum (c. 66) between the Adventus and the battle of Guoloph, in which (an) Ambrosius was engaged, to arrive at AD 458. Tolstoy dated Badon to 501, 43 years + one month later (and Gildas’ birth to Friday, January 29, AD 501)! But sadly, Bede’s date has no real basis, and in any case, Tolstoy miscounted the 12 years of Guoloph, which are counted from AD 425, the accession of Vortigern, instead of the Adventus, which was dated to AD 428. Besides, when he used that period, Tolstoy should have used ‘Nennius’ suggestion of AD 428 for the Adventus. Ambrosius rise would then have been AD 437, and Badon AD 481.

This might have led John Morris to include a second Ambrosius, which he dubbed ‘the Elder’, referring to Gildas’ mentioning of Ambrosius (anonymous) parents. Morris believed, however, that the wars had ended a generation before Badon. Anyway, Morris clearly thought AD 481 too early for Badon, for he dated it to AD 500, basing this on the traditional dating of DEB to Maglocunus’s supposed death of plague in AD 547 (which we have dealt with above).

Ian Wood had a very interesting solution, in which he separated Badon from the 44 years. He thought the word Nouissimae could hardly describe an event 44 years back, and that the mentioning of mense uno emenso (‘one month has already passed’) meant something far more specific. Wood concluded that Gildas hints that his birth had been in the same year as Ambrosius’ victory, which happened 44 years earlier, and that Badon has happened only a month before he wrote DEB! This would fit the information that Ambrosius’ grandchildren were conspicuous in Gildas’ day. It would also agree with Bede, who would then have dated the Adventus to just before the victory of Ambrosius. Wood dated the DEB to AD 485x520, which would indeed agree with some of the floruits of the British kings mentioned above, though AD 485 is too early. AD 516 would, however, fit with the date from the Annales Cambriae.

O’Sullivan, writing a little before Wood, came to a similar solution. He was convinced that Gildas referred to a generation which had witnessed the Saxon revolt as well as the recovery under Ambrosius, and was now dead. Consequently, the 44 years should refer to an earlier event, possibly Ambrosius’ victory. The siege of Badon, however, had taken place in our time (DEB, c.2), which could only have been two or three decades, no more. This differs from Wood’s solution of one month (which O’Sullivan does not specify), but O’Sullivan explains those few decades by stressing Gildas’ referral to a generation that had grown up in peace. This peace would have come after Badon, which consequently must have taken place a few decades before the writing of DEB. It also means that Gildas was born in the same year as Badon (hence his mentioning the battle), not 44 years before. O’Sullivan proposes that Gildas wrote the work when he was still young, about 25 or thirty, and then had thought ten years about it, as he tells us (DEB, c.1). Thus Gildas would have been rather young (15 to 20) when he wrote this part of DEB (the Historia), whereas the Epistola was written at a more mature age. Dating Ambrosius’ victory to 450x460, Badon would have been ca. AD 500, and DEB ca. AD 520-30, which also fits the floruit of the British kings.

I tend to agree with this solution. Though the passage seems clear, and Gildas seems to tell us that he was born in the same year as the siege of Badon, and that 43 years and 1 month have already passed, this is not the correct, straightforward translation, which Mommsen himself proved when he amended the text of the passage. Many authors have based an (Arthurian) ‘period of peace, lasting 44 years’ upon this passage, fruitlessly seeking it in the archaeological record.

But Gildas clearly tells us something else. The Saxons had revolted, while the nation had only just been saved by Ambrosius, until the Saxons were decisively beaten at Badon, 44 years after their arrival, and Gildas had been born. Twenty-five to thirty years later, all those who had witnessed the original revolt had died, but the siege of Badon could still be described as in our times. He wrote DEB at a time when he was old enough to be distressed by the low morals of his countrymen. This solution is neither perfect nor unassailable, neither is it the interpretation followed by most authors. But I believe this usual solution imperfect and based on a flawed translation, and closely linked with an impossible dating of Maglocunus’s death (above). However, it does not exclude the years found for the traditional dating, if we can date the siege of Badon.

The Battle of Badon

Having established the period between Badon and the writing of DEB, we should now determine the date of the battle of Badon. This battle has been dated by the Annales Cambriae or Welsh Annals (c. AD 955) to annus lxxii (AD 516). As we have seen with the dating of Maglocunus in the Annales (above), this year cannot be relied upon.

Now becomes immediately clear that when we compare the internal evidence of DEB with this date, we can’t use the traditional opinion: Gildas claims to have written 44 years after Badon, yet admonishes a living Maglocunus. This faces us with a contradiction: Maglocunus died (according to the Annales) in AD 547, but that would mean that Gildas had actually admonished him in AD 560, 13 years after his death! We are forced to choose: either Gildas did not write 44 years after Badon, but sooner (which I proposed above), or Maglocunus did not die in AD 547 (which, as shown above, is likely) or the Annales Cambriae are completely false. Oh, the agony of choice! We know the Annales are wrong when dating Maglocunus’s death to AD 547. But Gildas, when writing 25-30 years after a Badon that took place in AD 516 (as supplied by the same Annales), could very well have been writing to a living Maglocunus in AD 541-46! And if Badon took place c. 500, which is most popular today (which means that the Annales are indeed wrong for both dates), Gildas would have been writing to admonish a very living Maglocunus in Ad 525-30, which fits even better with the most likely floruit that we have found for him. Remains to fit this with a siege of Badon around this time.

Badon in the sources
While the date for Badon from the Annales may be wrong, it remains the only early date from the sources. The other source, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, does not mention it. The Chronicle, however, is unfortunately not very reliable for the fifth and early sixth century. There are some indicators of this battle from this source, but the evidence is very shaky. Several authors, however, have pointed to this ‘evidence’ in an attempt to date the battle of Badon anyway.

Baring-Gould and Fisher pointed to a gap in the Saxon ‘invasions’ between AD 519 and 552, a gap of about a generation which they assigned to the defeat of the Gewissae (later West Saxons) of Hampshire at Badon, c. AD 520. To square this with the Annales, they changed year 1 of these annals from the conventional AD 445 to 449.

This use of the Chronicle has long since been superseded, as the sources cannot be used in such a way. For instance, the Gewissae ‘of Hampshire’ have long since been relegated to the Upper Thames region, from where they conquered the Jutish province of Hampshire only in the seventh century (under pressure from Mercia themselves). The kingdom of Wessex then usurped the Jutish history, making Cerdic ‘land’ at the Hampshire coast (below).

This usurpation has been noted by Stenton, Wade-Evans and Kirby, who found that certain events repeated themselves at a systematic distance in time. From their findings, we may now conclude that the seventh-century English kingdoms had a very small clue about their origins in the fifth century.

Myres noted that nothing is known from the kingdom of Kent for half a century after AD 491. Worse for Sussex which, despite Bede’s assertion that its king Aelle was the first ‘Bretwalda’ (usually interpreted as the ruler of all Britain), does not know his successors for more than two centuries. The next entry is only in AD 547, the accession of Ida of Bernicia. Apart from this , there are only the primitive annals of Wessex, which are very complicated to decipher.

At first glance, it seems that a (British-named) king called Cerdic landed in Hampshire, after which the dynasty fought itself northwards. But modern opinion now agrees upon an anonymous genesis for the West Saxons (or the Gewissae as they called themselves) in the upper Thames region around Dorchester-on-Thames. Archaeology has dated their remains back to the Late Roman period, long before any conventional Adventus. The first kings from this dynasty are Ceawlin (ASC: AD 560-593) and his direct descendants. He and his sons fought in this region, but only in the seventh century did they conquer Hampshire, which until then had been a Jutish kingdom or province, closely associated to Kent. It is small wonder that the entries of the West Saxon annals resemble those of Kent, and scholars now believe that the Kentish/Jutish ‘history’ (skimpy as it was), was usurped by the conquering Gewissae.

Badon and Ceawlin
To authors like Evison, Hunter Blair and Leeds, Ceawlin and his battles have been seen as a solution for Badon. One of these was the battle of Bedcanford (ASC AD 571), which is usually identified with Bedford, in which the Chilterns were conquered from the British. Today, this area is seen as a British enclave based on St. Albans, surrounded by Saxon territory on all sides. But to the aforementioned authors, the year of the battle must have been wrong, and they identified it with Badon, the date having possibly been AD 471. But like Stenton, Hunter Blair associated this area with territory lost at Badon in the late fifth century. This was confirmed by Copley, who ascribed the construction of East Wansdyke to this battle and the Thames Valley Saxons.

Apparently, this is about all we can say about Badon. Either connected with the South Seax of Aelle, or the anonymous Saxons of the Thames, or any other locality in Britain, we seem unable to pinpoint Badon to an exact spot. ‘Roughly around 500’ seems the best we can do, since Badon is not signified by clear archaeological changes, nor by any recorded event in the sources. The only signs I can come up with are the expedition of Riothamus to Brittany and a ‘back-migration’ of Saxons to the continent.

Badon and the continent
Riothamus has recently been made famous by Geoffrey Ashe, who championed an identification of this commander with the legendary Arthur, an identification that was made long ago by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who ‘borrowed’ the historical campaign of Riothamus, and embellished it to a conquest by Arthur. Riothamus is known from the writings of Sidonius Appolinaris (letters), Jordanes (history of the Goths) and Gregory of Tours (history of the Franks) to have supported the Franks and the Romans of Gaul in a campaign against the Visigothic forces of Euric during the reign of Anthemius (AD 467-72), probably ca. AD 469. But he was betrayed, and a defeat ends his historical appearance. Either Riothamus’ ‘Britons’ were settlers, but looking at the numbers, I would opt for an army from Britain (but were all of these soldiers really British?). If this is correct, the above date of AD 571-100 = AD 471 must seem really attractive, at least when we assume that Badon must have come before the defeat. It would seem possible that the British, after their crushing victory at Badon, were confident enough to re-enter continental politics again (to their demise). The reader must of course make up her or his own mind, but it might seem a little too early for Arthur, whereas Gildas (born in AD 469, or even in AD 425: see the
Gildas of Mont Saint Michel!) would have written DEB in AD 469 or AD 500- the floruits of all British kings (AD 510-30) are somewhat later.

The so-called ‘back-migration’ may offer more support. Rudolf of Fulda, writing before AD 865, wrote in his Translatio sancti Alexandri about Saxons migrating from Britain to the continent in AD 531. Though the information is very vague, it seems to find an echo with Procopius (ca. AD 550), who reported accounts from a Frankish mission to Constantinople in AD 553, who told of all kinds of people migrating from Britain to the continent. Though the distance and language would account for the strangeness of the reports, it might signify British migrations and Saxon re-migration to Gaul in the late 520s and early 530s. But that would be too late for Badon as well!

Finding it impossible to agree upon a precise reference for Badon in both historical sources and archaeological record, the only possibility to date Badon is from the internal evidence of Gildas, which we have discussed above. Since the floruits of the British kings seem to be ca. AD 510-30, and Gildas seems to have written after AD 500, we should date the siege of Badon roughly AD 490x510. Though unsubstantiated by hard evidence, this timeframe also fits the traditional dating scheme.


The ‘orthodox’ date of shortly before AD 547 is, as we have seen, without any real foundation. There are but a few indications of dating the writing of DEB, which are the five British kings, the period of 44 years between some event and writing the manuscript and the battle of Badon.

As we have seen, the floruits of the five kings, though based on late evidence, should preferably be assigned to the first decades of the sixth century, rather than the orthodox middle. Especially the reign and death of Maelgwn Gwynedd, the anchor point of the orthodox dating scheme, can no longer be seen as terminating in AD 547. This means that DEB was probably written a generation earlier than usually thought.

Likewise, the traditional interpretation of the 44 years between Badon and the writing of DEB should be rejected. Gildas seems to indicate that he wrote 44 years after probably the victory of Ambrosius over the Saxon invaders, yet after the battle of Badon, which happened within living memory of a generation that had grown up in peace. This means that DEB was probably written between AD 515-20, which is confirmed the floruits found for the five kings.

Lastly, dating the siege of Badon has been impossible, since references from the earlier sources fail or are unsupported. However, the indications support a date ca. AD 500, which would fit the other evidence. Gildas, then, wrote his De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae most probably ca. AD 515-520.


  • Bartrum, P.C. (1966): Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts, (Cardiff).*
  • Bartrum, P.C. (1993): A Welsh Classical Dictionary, (Cardiff).*
  • Caradoc of Llangarfan: The Life of Gildas, ed. Hugh Williams, translator, in: Two Lives of Gildas by a monk of Ruys and Caradoc of Llancarfan, Cymmrodorion Record Series, 1899. Facsimilie reprint by Llanerch Publishers, (Felinfach 1990), at: http://members.aol.com/michellezi/translations/LifeofGildas.html
  • CISP: Celtic Inscribed Stones Project (CISP) on-line database: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/archaeology/cisp/database/
  • Copley, Gordon J. (1954): The Conquest of Wessex in the Sixth Century, (London).*
  • Dumville, David N. (1984): Gildas and Maelgwn: problems of dating, in: Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas: New Approaches, pp. 51-60.*
  • Dumville, David N. (1984a): The chronology of De Excidio Britanniae, Book 1, in: Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas: New Approaches, pp. 61-84.*
  • Dumville, David N. (1984b): Gildas and Uinniau, in: Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas: New Approaches, pp. 207-214.*
  • Gildas: The Ruin of Britain and other works, Latin and trans. M. Winterbottom, History from the Sources 7, (Old Woking 1978).*
  • Gildas: De Excidio Brittonum, trans. John Allan Giles, in: Six Old English Chronicles, of which two are now first translated from the monkish Latin originals (London, George Bell and Sons, 1891), full text (English) at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gildas-full.html.
  • Gildas: The de excidio Britonum (The Ruin of Britain): ed. and Latin Keith Matthews (2000), based on Mommsen's version, at: http://www.kmatthews.org.uk/history/gildas/frames.html.
  • Gildas: The Ruin of Britain &c., ed. and trans Hugh Williams, in: Cymmrodorion Record Series, No. 3. (1899), at: http://www.ccel.org/p/pearse/morefathers/gildas_02_ruin_of_britain.htm
  • Evison, Vera I. ed. (1981): Angles, Saxons & Jutes, essays presented to J.N.L. Myres, (Oxford 1981).
  • Jackson, Kenneth H. (1982): Varia: 2. Gildas and the Names of the British Princes, in: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 3, pp. 30-40.*
  • Kirby, D.P. (1970): Vortigern, in: The Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 23, pp. 37-59.*
  • Kirby, D.P. (1991): The Earliest English Kings, (London).
  • Leeds, E.T. (1933): The Early Saxon Penetration of the Upper Thames Area, in: Antiquaries Journal 13, pp. 229-251.*
  • Morris, John (1973): The Age of Arthur, a History of the British Isles from 350 to 650, (London repr. 1989).*
  • Miller, Molly (1975-6): Date-Guessing and Pedigrees, in: Studia Celtica 10/11, pp. 96-109.*
  • Miller, Molly (1976-7): Shorter Article: starting to write History - Gildas, Bede and 'Nennius', in: The Welsh History Review 8, pp. 456-465.*
  • Miller, Molly (1977-8): Date-Guessing and Dyfed, in: Studia Celtica 12/13, pp. 33-61.*
  • O'Sullivan, Thomas D. (1978): The De Excidio of Gildas, its Authenticity and Date, Columba studies in the Classical Tradition 7, (Leiden).*
  • Sims-Williams, P. (1983): Gildas and the Anglo-Saxons, in: Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 6, pp. 1-30.*
  • Sims-Williams, P. (1984): Gildas and vernacular poetry, in: Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas: New Approaches, pp. 169-190.*
  • Stenton, Frank (1943): Anglo-Saxon England, Oxford History of England 2, (Oxford repr. 1989).*
  • Thompson, E.A. (1979): Gildas and the History of Britain, in: Britannia 10, pp. 203-226.*
  • Winterbottom, M. (1978):The Ruin of Britain and other works, History from the Sources 7, (Old Woking).*
  • Wood, Ian N. (1984): The End of Roman Britain: Continental Evidence and Parallels, in: Lapidge and Dumville, Gildas: New Approaches, pp. 1-26.*

VortigernStudies is copyright Robert Vermaat 1999-2010. All rights reserved