Morien
03-21-2014, 10:52 AM
Another thing I found when I was looking at the Anderida connection... Ulfius claims that King Hengest dies in bed 491.
Saxons! itself is contradictory. In history, p. 34, Hengist (different way of spelling) is killed in 469 in battle. His son Aesc lands in Kent with an army in 473, reconquering it for the Saxons. However, in the description of Kent (p. 37), Hengist is the King until 488, and Aesc follows him from then on.
In 5th ed Pendragon, there is no contradiction and there is actually no Battle of Conigsborough in 469. There is no reason in 5th edition why Hengest could not have survived until 491, and indeed, with how active the Kentish are in 469 onwards, it hints that unlike in Saxons!, they are very much in an aggressive mood rather than having been driven out. So I guess my conclusion here is that Saxons! is wrong and the latest publications (5th Ed, GPC) trump the older ones as usual. Unfortunately, that does mess up the Adventure of the Spectre King.
Saxons! itself is contradictory. In history, p. 34, Hengist (different way of spelling) is killed in 469 in battle. His son Aesc lands in Kent with an army in 473, reconquering it for the Saxons. However, in the description of Kent (p. 37), Hengist is the King until 488, and Aesc follows him from then on.
In 5th ed Pendragon, there is no contradiction and there is actually no Battle of Conigsborough in 469. There is no reason in 5th edition why Hengest could not have survived until 491, and indeed, with how active the Kentish are in 469 onwards, it hints that unlike in Saxons!, they are very much in an aggressive mood rather than having been driven out. So I guess my conclusion here is that Saxons! is wrong and the latest publications (5th Ed, GPC) trump the older ones as usual. Unfortunately, that does mess up the Adventure of the Spectre King.