They did, however, have to wrestle with the Vikings to retain control of their lands during that period, and were sometimes forced to concede power to Danish kings – including Canute (aka Cnut), who ruled an empire in England, Denmark and Norway.

The Anglo-Saxon era ended with William of Normandy’s triumph at the battle of Hastings in 1066, which ushered in a new era of Norman rule.

Here are 20 facts about this fascinating historical period:

1. The Anglo-Saxons were immigrants 

Around 410, Roman rule in Britain faltered, leaving a power vacuum that was filled by incomers arriving from northern Germany and southern Scandinavia.

As soon as Roman power began to wane, the Roman defences to the north (such as Hadrian’s wall) started to degrade, and in AD 367 the Picts smashed through them.

Hoard of Anglo-Saxon rings found in Leeds, West Yorkshire. Credit: portableantiquities / Commons.

Gildas, a 6th century monk, says that Saxon war tribes were hired to defend Britain when the Roman army left. So the Anglo-Saxons were originally invited immigrants.

Bede, a monk from Northumbria writing some centuries later, says that they were from some of the most powerful and warlike tribes in Germany.

2. But some of them took control by murdering their hosts

A man called Vortigern was appointed to lead the British, and he was probably the person who recruited the Saxons.

But at a conference between the nobles of the Britons and Anglo-Saxons [likely in AD 472, although some sources say AD 463] the Anglo-Saxons produced concealed knives and murdered the British.

Vortigern was left alive, but he had to cede large parts of the southeast. He essentially became ruler in name alone.

3. The Anglo-Saxons were made up of different tribes

Bede names 3 of these tribes: the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. But there were probably many other peoples who set out for Britain in the early 5th century.

Batavians, Franks and Frisians are known to have made the sea crossing to the stricken province of ‘Britannia’.

4. They didn’t just stick to the southeast of England

The Angles, Saxons, Jutes and other incomers burst out of the southeast in the mid-5th century and set southern Britain ablaze.

Gildas, our closest witness, says that a new British leader emerged from the onslaught, called Ambrosius Aurelianus.

Anglo-Saxons were often buried with everything they would need after death. In this case the dead woman’s family thought she would need her cow on the other side.

5. There was a mighty battle between the Saxons and the Britons

A great battle took place, supposedly sometime around AD 500, at a place called Mons Badonicus or Mount Badon, probably somewhere in the southwest of today’s England.

The Saxons were resoundingly defeated by the Britons. A later Welsh source says that the victor was ‘Arthur’ but it was written down hundreds of years after the event, when it may have become influenced by folklore.

6.  But Gildas might have spoken of Arthur in code…

Gildas does not mention Arthur, but there are theories as to the reason why.

One is that Gildas did refer to him in a sort of acrostic code, which reveals him to be a chieftain from Gwent called Cuneglas.

Gildas called Cuneglas ‘the bear’, and Arthur means ‘bear’. Nevertheless, for the time being the Anglo-Saxon advance had been checked by someone, possibly Arthur.

7. England wasn’t one country at this point

‘England’ as a country did not come into existence for hundreds of years after the Anglo-Saxons arrived.

Instead, seven major kingdoms were carved out of conquered areas: Northumbria, East Anglia, Essex, Sussex, Kent, Wessex and Mercia.

All these nations were fiercely independent, and – although they shared similar languages, pagan religions, and socioeconomic and cultural ties – they were absolutely loyal to their own kings and deeply distrusting of each other.

8. They didn’t call themselves the Anglo-Saxons

The term seems to have been first used in the 8th century to distinguish Germanic-speaking peoples who lived in Britain from those on the continent.

In 786, George, bishop of Ostia, travelled to England to attend a church meeting, and he reported to the Pope that he had been to ‘Angul Saxnia’.

9. One of the most fearsome warrior-kings was Penda

Penda, who was from Mercia and ruled from AD 626 until 655, killed many of his rivals with his own hands.

As one of the last pagan Anglo-Saxon kings, he offered up the body of one of them, King Oswald of Northumbria, to Woden.

Penda ransacked many of the other Anglo-Saxon realms, amassing exquisite treasures as tribute and the discarded war-gear of fallen warriors on the battlefields.

10. The Anglo-Saxon period witnessed the growth of Christianity in England

Religion changed a lot throughout the Anglo-Saxon period. Many people were initially pagans and worshipped different gods who oversaw different things people did – for instance, Wade was the god of the sea, and Tiw was the god of war.

This cross found in a Anglo-Saxon grave shows how important Christianity had become to the Saxons by Alfred’s time.

In c.596, a monk named Augustine arrived on England’s shores; Pope Gregory the Great had sent him on a Christian mission to convert Britain’s Anglo-Saxons.

Upon his arrival Augustine founded a church in Canterbury, becoming the settlement’s first Archbishop in 597. Gradually, Augustine helped Christianity gained a foothold in the southeast, baptising the local monarch in 601. It marked only the beginning.

Today we consider Saint Augustine the founder of the English Church: ‘the Apostle to the English.’

11. An African refugee helped reform the English church

Some Anglo-Saxon monarchs converted to Christianity because the church had proclaimed the Christian God would deliver them victory in battles. When this failed to happen, however, some Anglo-Saxon kings turned their back on the religion.

The two men chosen to keep them wedded to Christianity were an elderly Greek named Theodore of Tarsus and a younger man, Hadrian ‘the African’, a Berber refugee from north Africa.

After more than a year (and many adventures) they arrived, and set to work to reform the English church. They would stay for the rest of their lives.

12. One of the most well-known kings from Mercia was Offa, and remnants of his reign exist today

He declared himself the first ‘king of the English’ because he won battles involving kings in the surrounding kingdoms, but their dominance didn’t really last after Offa died.

Offa is most remembered for Offa’s Dyke along the border between England and Wales – it was a 150-mile barrier that gave the Mercians protection if they were about to be invaded.

A reconstruction of a typical Anglo-Saxon structure.

13. Alfred the Great is one of England’s most important kings

Alfred, king of Wessex, stood strong against Viking threat and thereby paved the way for the future unity of England, which was brought to fruition under his son and grandsons.

By the mid-10th century, the England we are familiar with was ruled as one country for the first time.

14. But he had a crippling disability

As he grew up, Alfred was constantly troubled by illness, including irritating and painful piles – a real problem in an age where a prince was constantly in the saddle.

Asser, the Welshman who became his biographer, relates that Alfred suffered from another painful illness that is not specified.

Some people believe it was Crohn’s Disease, others that it may have been a sexually transmitted disease, or even severe depression.

18th century portrait of Alfred by Samuel Woodforde.

15. Corfe witnessed a horrible Anglo-Saxon regicide…

In July 975 the eldest son of King Edgar, Edward, was crowned king. But Edward’s step-mother, Elfrida (or ‘Aelfthryth’), wanted Aethelred, her own son, to be king – at any cost.

One day in 978, Edward decided to pay Elfrida and Aethelred a visit in their residence at Corfe in Dorset.

But as Edward stooped to accept a drink upon arrival, the grooms grabbed his bridle and stabbed him repeatedly in the stomach.

There are several theories to who was behind the murder: Edward’s step-mother, Edward’s step-brother or Aelfhere, a leading Ealdorman

16. …and his body was only buried properly in 1984

Edward managed to ride away but bled to death, and was hastily buried by the conspirators.

Edward’s body was exhumed and reburied at Shaftesbury Abbey in AD 979. During the dissolution of the monasteries the grave was lost, but in 1931 it was rediscovered.

Edward’s bones were kept in a bank vault until 1984, when at last he was laid to rest.

Normans burn Anglo-Saxon buildings in the Bayeux Tapestry

17. England was ‘ethnically cleansed’

During Aethelred’s disastrous reign, he looked to make the Danes – who were by now respectable Christian citizens, who had been settled in the country for generations – into scapegoats.

On 13 November 1002, secret orders were sent out to slaughter all the Danes, and massacres occurred all over southern England.

18. And it partially led to the Anglo-Saxon’s downfall

One of the Danes killed in this wicked pogrom was the sister of Sweyn Forkbeard, the mighty king of Denmark.

From that time on the Danish armies were resolved to conquer England and eliminate Ethelred. This was the beginning of the end for Anglo-Saxon England.

19. Much of what we know about the Anglo-Saxons comes from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a collection of annals in Old English chronicling the history of the Anglo-Saxons. The original manuscript of the Chronicle was created late in the 9th century, probably in Wessex, during the reign of Alfred the Great (r. 871–899).

Multiple copies were made of that one original and then distributed to monasteries across England, where they were independently updated.

The Chronicle is the single most important historical source for the period. Much of the information given in the Chronicle is not recorded elsewhere. The manuscripts are also vital for our understanding of the history of the English language.

20. There are lots of archaeological sites of interest related to the Anglo-Saxons that have also helped us to learn about them

One famous example is Sutton Hoo, near Woodbridge, Suffolk, which is the site of two 6th and early 7th-century cemeteries.

The various financial agreements could be paid in coins, a certain amount of raw precious metal, or even in land and livestock.

One cemetery contained an undisturbed ship-burial, including a wealth of Anglo-Saxon artefacts of outstanding art-historical and archaeological significance.

Anglo-Saxons also minted their own coins, which helps archaeologists know when they were used. The coins changed depending on the region where they were made, who was king, or even what important event had just happened.

William the Marshal

Not many knights can claim to have served four consecutive English kings. None could have done so as well as William the Marshal, Earl of Pembroke. He is known for his military strength and his wise royal counsel.

By the age of 24, William had proven himself both a brave and capable knight, and in 1170 he became the guardian of Prince Henry, the eldest son of King Henry II.

Even after the young prince’s death, William continued to service Henry II. He fought alongside him in France, and served him loyally until Henry’s death in 1189.

While his king, Richard I, was off on crusade and then held hostage in Germany, William defended his throne. He helped drive William Longchamp into exile and prevented Richard’s younger brother Prince John from taking the crown.

After the death of Richard I, he then helped John to succeed his brother peacefully.

During his fight against the barons, William helped to counsel King John. He was an effective leader, and well respected. Before his death, John appointed Marshal protector of his nine-year-old son, the future Henry III, as well as regent of the kingdom during Henry’s minority.

This was a wise move on John’s behalf: Marshal was committed to ensuring the stability of the kingdom: he was victorious against a French invasion at Lincoln in 1217, and re-issued Magna Carta in the same year in an attempt to keep the peace between the crown and the barons.

King Arthur

There’s a very good chance you’ve heard of King Arthur, the legendary King of Camelot, and his Knights of the Round Table. His standing as perhaps the most famous knight in the world owes much to folklore of course, but Arthur is believed to be an actual historic figure who probably lived in the 5^th of 6^th century and led a resistance movement against invaders from Northern Europe.

Sadly, many of the details familiar from the myths and legends surrounding his story, much of which derives from Geoffrey of Monmouth’s imaginative History of the Kings of Britain in the 12th century, aren’t supported by evidence.

So we can’t confirm the existence of a magical sword called Excalibur. Sorry.

Richard the Lionheart

Richard I succeeded his father Henry II to become King of England in 1189 but spent only ten months of his decade-long reign in the country. The majority of his time on the throne was spent fighting abroad, most famously in the Third Crusade, where he earned a reputation as a brave and fierce knight and military leader.

Despite numerous famous victories in the Holy Land, Richard was unable to recapture Jerusalem. On his return to England he was captured by the Duke of Austria, who handed him over to the emperor Henry VI who held him for a huge ransom.

Richard spent less than a year of his reign in England, and showed little interest in his kingdom and its welfare: it was simply a source of funding for his crusading expeditions.

Richard spent the final years of his life doing what he most loved, fighting, and was mortally wounded by a crossbow bolt while besieging the castle at Chalus in France.

Edward the Black Prince

Likely named because he favoured black armour, Edward of Woodstock, Prince of Wales, won fame on at the Battle of Crecy, a key battle in the Hundred years War’. Edward led the vanguard despite his tender years – he was just 16-years-old.

An 18th century imagining of Edward III with the Black Prince after the Battle of Crécy. Image credit: Royal Collection / CC.

He rose to fame as one of the original Knights of the Garter and won his most celebrated victory at the Battle of Poitiers (1356), before travelling to Spain where he a series of famous victories restored Peter of Castile to his throne. He also fought in Aquitaine before returning to London in 1371.

Despite his fame Edward never became king. He succumbed to a particularly violent bout of dysentry in 1376 – an ailment which had plagued him for many years. His only remaining son, Richard, became heir apparent to the crown, eventually succeeding his grandfather Edward III in 1377.

John of Gaunt

Despite inciting his son’s accession to the throne in Shakespeare, the real John of Gaunt was much more of a political peacemaker.

His main military experience came during the Hundred Years’ War, where he led troops as a commander in France from 1367-1374.

In 1371, John married Constance of Castile. He tried to exploit his wife’s claim to the kingdoms of Castile and Leon following their marriage: John travelled to Spain in 1386, but failed miserably and renounced his claim.

Following the death of his father, Edward III, John was an extremely influential figure during the minority of his nephew, the new King Richard II, and made significant efforts at keeping the peace between the crown and a group of rebellious nobles, led by the Earl of Gloucester and Henry Bolingbroke, John’s son and heir.

One of the wealthiest and most powerful men of his time, John of Gaunt died in 1399: he is widely regarded by many as the ‘father’ of English kings: descendants from his line ruled England solidly until the Wars of the Roses, and his great-granddaughter was Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henry Tudor.

Henry ‘Hotspur’ Percy

Widely known as Harry Hotspur, Percy’s fame owes much to his inclusion in Shakespeare’s Henry IV and, indirectly, to the football club Tottenham Hotspur, which derives its name from the 14^th century’s most revered knight.

Hotspur was a member of the powerful Percy family and built his formidable reputation as a fighter from a young age, patrolling the Scottish borders with his father the Earl of Northumberland. He was knighted at just 13 and fought in his first battle a year later.

Hotspur played a significant part in the deposition of Richard II and the ascent to the throne of his replacement Henry IV, before falling out with the new King and taking up arms in rebellion. He died leading his rebel army into battle against royal forces at Shrewsbury at what some would deem the height of his fame. Although the new king Henry wept over his friend’s body, he had Percy posthumously declared a traitor and had his lands forfeited to the crown.

Joan of Arc

At the age of 18, Joan of Arc, the daughter of a poor tenant farmer, Jacques d’ Arc, led the French to a famous victory against the English at Orleans.

Her unlikely ascent to the role of military leader was driven by mystical visions which compelled her to seek an audience with the future Charles VII who, convinced of her holy destiny to expel the English and reclaim France, granted her a horse and armour.

She joined with French forces at the siege of Orleans where, after a long, hard battle they routed the English. It was a decisive victory that led to Charles being crowned King of France on July 18, 1429. Joan was at his side throughout the coronation.

The following year she was captured during a Burgundian assault at Compiègne and tried by a pro-English church court on the charges of witchcraft, heresy and dressing like a man. She was burned at the stake on the morning of May 30, 1431.

A posthumous retrial, ordered by Charles VII in 1456 and supported by Pope Callixtus III, found Joan to be innocent of all charges and declared her a martyr. 500 years later, she was canonised as a Roman Catholic Saint.

A miniature of Joan of Arc. Image credit: Public Domain.

In addition, there are differing views between most academics and amateur historians. A myriad of different theories placed Arthur in every corner of Britain and Europe across several centuries.

Historians generally have taken the view that he was either a mythical character or there may have been a figure in the 5th or 6th centuries, but that there is insufficient evidence.

Confronted with a confusing mix of competing theories, one turns to the source materials and experts, only to discover just how tenuous those theories are.

They often selectively used details from legends and genealogies written many hundreds of years after Arthur would have likely lived.

King Arthur as one of the Nine Worthies, detail from the “Christian Heroes Tapestry”, 1385 (Credit: International Studio Volume 76).

The main cause of all this sensationalism was Geoffrey of Monmouth writing his pseudo-historical ‘History of the Kings of Britain’ in the early 12th century. His Arthur was an all conquering king who subdued the Saxons, united Britain and invaded most of Europe: he certainly wasn’t a romantic, noble or chivalrous hero.

The only date he gave was Arthur’s death at Camlan in 542. Most of his story was fantasy but it inspired an explosion in interest and further works. These can be placed into two categories.

The two faces of Arthur

Defeat of the Saxons by Arthur (Credit: John Cassell)

Firstly the French Romances which introduced many of the concepts we know today: the round table, sword in the stone, the grail, Lancelot, Morgana, Lady in the Lake, Avalon, Camelot, Excalibur.

The second group of stories were the Welsh legends and Saints’ Lives. Our earliest copies post date Geoffrey and have likely been influenced and corrupted.

But some were thought to have originated as early as the tenth century, still hundreds of years after Arthur’s time. However it is possible that these stories inspired Geoffrey to write about Arthur, rather than the other way round.

These tales presented a very different Arthur. He was often petty, cruel and badly behaved.

A facsimile page of ‘Y Gododdin’, one of the most famous early Welsh texts featuring Arthur, c. 1275 (Credit: J. Gwenogvryn Evans).

The tales were full of magic, giants and quests for cauldrons or wild boars. It was very much a mythical Arthur.

So we have a 12th century invention on one hand, and a mythical magical figure on the other.

Looking at the evidence

If we take the earliest stories then some concepts and characters remain, such as Uther and Gwenhwyfar.

Readers may be disappointed to learn that, as Month Python put it, “strange ladies lying about in ponds distributing swords” are not part of the original legends any more than round tables or knights.

King Arthur in a crude illustration from a 15th-century Welsh version of ‘Historia Regum Britanniae’ (Credit: National Library of Wales).

The actual evidence for Arthur’s existence, listed below, was rather sparse:

1. The persistence of the legend over 500 years to the Middle Ages.
2. 4 persons called Arthur appearing in the genealogical records of from the late 6th century, suggesting the name became popular.
3. One line in a possibly 7th century Welsh poem saying a warrior of the Gododdin around Lothian was “no Arthur.”
4. Two entries in the Welsh Annals possibly dated to the 10th century: firstly Arthur’s victory at Badon in 516, and secondly the “Strife” of Cam llan in 537 where “Arthur and Medraut fell.”
5. The early 9th century ‘Historia Brittonum’ was the first to mention Arturus, which likely stems from the fairly common Latin Artorius.

Arthur likely derives from the Roman Artorius, or Arturus. Frustratingly Arthur could equally derive from Brythonic Arth– meaning bear. Arthur was described as a dux bellorum, a leader of battles, who fought with the kings of Britain against the Saxons.

In the ‘Historia Brittonum’ he was placed after the death of St Patrick and the Saxon leader Hengist, but before the reign of Ida or Bernicia, which implied a generation either side of 500. 12 battles were listed, among them Badon.

We do possess reasonably good records prior to the end of Roman Britain in 410 and from after around 600 when the first Anglo-Saxon kings could be confirmed.

We also have contemporary accounts about Britain from the continent from a variety of writers between 400-600.

Yet not one hinted at any figure called Arthur or any aspect of his story.

The Round Table experiences a vision of the Holy Grail, c. 1475 (Credit: Évrard d’Espinques / Gallica Digital Library).

Possible contenders

Our sole contemporary British writer was Gildas’ account, who in the first half of the 6th century confirmed the battle of Badon of around 500, but named only one person – Ambrosius Aurelianus. Gildas’ account was essentially a polemic on the suffering of the Britons – far from a factual or objective history.

Writing in the 8th century and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles in the late 9th, Bede added details to Gildas – but again failed to mention Arthur although Bede dated Badon to around 493.

Despite this, there was some consistency in the stories: after the Romans left, Britain suffered barbarian raids. A council, led by Vortigern requests aid from Germanic mercenaries who later rebel. A fight back by Ambrosius culminated in the battle of Badon. This stopped the expansion of the Anglo-Saxons until the second half of the 6th century.

In this gap of c. 450-550, the ‘Historia’ and later sources placed Arthur.

Another contender for the historical inspiration for Arthur is that of Magnus Maximus, a Roman soldier of Spanish origin, who usurped the emperor Gratian and became a Roman emperor in the western part of the empire between 383 and 388AD. Large parts of the version of Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Arthur bear parallels to the feats and actions of Magnus Maximus.

Caratacus is the third individual who Geoffrey of Monmouth’s King Arthur figure seems to have been inspired by: a chieftain who resisted the Roman invasion and occupation of Britain. Whilst his guerrilla warfare tactics were relatively successful, battles were his weakness and eventually he was captured by the Romans. His life was spared following an extremely eloquent speech which convinced the emperor, Claudius, to spare him .

The last major individual who Arthur is said to have been based on is Cassivellaunus, who led the major resistance to Julius Caesar’s second expedition to Britain in 54BC. His legacy was long-lasting, and Cassivellaunus appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History of the Kings of Britain on his own merits.

It is quite possible to create a theory out of selective 12th century legends and genealogies. However a better method may be to go through the historical records chronologically, starting with the end of Roman Britain.

That way when the evidence does appear in the timeline, we can assess it in context. It is up to the reader to decide the case for and against a historical Arthur.

Tony Sullivan spent 31 years in the London Fire Brigade before recently retiring. His interest in dark age history inspired him to write King Arthur: Man or Myth – his first for Pen & Sword – from the viewpoint of a sceptical enthusiast on the legend of King Arthur.

Firstly, it is believed that at Mount Badon, King Arthur achieved a decisive victory over the Anglo-Saxons. The early historians Gildas and Bede both wrote about Badon, claiming it was won by the Roman, Aurelius Ambrosius.

But, if we are to believe Nennius, a historian of the 9th century, Aurelius Ambrosius was, in fact, King Arthur. In short, the events at Mount Badon were essential to the legend of King Arthur.

A tapestry dated from around 1385, depicting Arthur wearing a coat of arms often attributed to him.

A victory fit for a legend

Secondly, Mount Badon was of huge importance to the Roman-Celtic-Britons because it resisted Anglo-Saxon invasions decisively for about half a century.

Hence, it was recorded by Gildas in the 6th century, and later in the texts of Bede, Nennius, the Annales Cambriae (Annals of Wales), and writings of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Thirdly, King Arthur became a legendary figure during the Middle Ages. According to many Britons, Arthur was in a state of ‘suspended animation’, recovering from wounds received at the Cattle of Camblan River, on the Island of Avalon.

It was believed that Arthur would soon return and restore Britain to the Britons. This seems to be the most likely reason the Arthurian legend was so prevalent in Europe at this time.

The fourth reason for the importance of the Battle of Badon is its modern importance within Arthurian legend. As Arthur’s exploits are recounted, read or watched world over, the events of Mount Badon are famed in their own league.

As a child growing up in Finland, I read about Arthur’s exploits in illustrated books, and later immersed myself in fiction and movies. Now, as an adult, I am so interested that I immerse myself in the original sources.

This heritage is alive and well. Is it a coincidence that so many Arthurian legends for children have been produced in Finland during the past two decades?

N. C. Wyeth’s illustration for ‘The Boy’s King Arthur’, published 1922.

Modern views

In academic discussion almost every detail concerning the battle is contested – as it should be. The nature – or science – of historical study requires everything to be challenged.

Firstly, was Arthur connected with the battle at all? A significant number of historians consider Arthur, at most, a legend of fiction.

But there is no smoke without fire. Indeed, many original texts,  such as those written by Geoffrey of Monmouth, contain decisive material, and with cross-examination the evidence is pretty concrete.

Secondly, when did the battle take place? According to Gildas, the battle took place 44 years and one month before he wrote his text, which was also the year of his birth.

Since we do not know when Gildas was born this has given historians plenty of alternative dates for the battle – usually from the late 5th century until the 6th century.

Bede stated the battle (fought by the Roman Aurelius Ambrosius), took place 44 years after the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons in 449, which would date the battle to the year 493/494.

However, Bede’s argument cannot be trusted, as he placed the battle before the arrival of St. Germanus in Britain – which happened in the year 429.

If we examine other evidence, the date 493/494 is too late, so this can be discounted.  It seems likely that Bede’s referral to 44 years comes from Gildas and is placed accidentally in the wrong context.

This problem of dating is compounded by the fact that there was also a second battle at Badon, which took place at some point in the 6th or 7th century.

King Arthur depicted in a 15th-century Welsh version of ‘Historia Regum Britanniae’.

The Battle of Bath: 465?

Despite this tricky set of evidence, by calculating campaigns backwards from the campaign of Riothamus in Gaul and accepting Geoffrey Ashe’s identification of Riothamus as King Arthur, I have concluded that the events at Badon happened in the year 465.

A final question, where did the battle take place? Several place names bear resemblance to the word Badon or Baddon, making this difficult to answer.

Some historians have even suggested places in Brittany or elsewhere in France. I identify Badon with the city of Bath, following the argument of Geoffrey of Monmouth.

Charles Ernest Butler’s heroic depiction of Arthur, painted 1903.

My reconstruction of the Battle

I have based my own reconstruction of the Battle of Badon on the assumption that Geoffrey of Monmouth and Nennius were accurate in their accounts, the only accounts to give any details of the battle.

When this information is combined with locations and road networks, it seems Arthur advanced along the road that lead from Gloucester to Bath to relieve the city from siege. The actual battle lasted for two days.

The Anglo-Saxons occupied a strong defensive position on a hill, which Arthur occupied during the first day of the battle. The Anglo-Saxons took a new defensive position on a hill behind it, but to no avail because Arthur defeated them decisively, forcing the Anglo-Saxons to flee.

The enemy forces were mopped up by the local Britons, allowing Arthur to march back north along the Gloucester road.

This battle belongs to the category of decisive battles.  It secured Britain for the Britons for the next half century, and its status as legendary is deservedly attributed.

.Dr Ilkka Syvänne is an Affiliated Professor of the University of Haifa and lives in Kangasala, Finland. He is the author of several books, focusing on the later Roman period. Britain in the Age of Arthur is to be published on 30 November 2019, by Pen & Sword Military.