Who was Arthur, Vortigern, Vortimer, Ambrosius Aurelianus and Riothamus

[Riothamus]

1/2/13
Open for discussion. First post will be updated periodically and dated as characters are explained. Any opinion on topic will be respected

edit:From the Authors perspective thus the IB2 Britanniae historical guideline:
I dont expect everyone to agree to the below opinion nor would I want it to be that way. Not even w/my my own developers. Its an opinion among many filled w/inconsistencies as with every other written thought on this topic. Its not my intention to try sway anyones idea of Arthur and the characters associated w/him. Never the less a story needed to be told and to the best of my knowledge this is how I see it. Having studied this on the graduate level and as a personal interest, a predecessor RTW-BI mod(ATW-Agraes), and a brilliant cast of developers for further insight, I feel in good conscious to have created a story w/some flexibility that might have been. Vortigern, Vortimer(Cadeyrn), Ambrosius, Riothamus and Arthur set the table as to the mods story line so its important to understand how they are represented in the mod.

-Background
(still in edit)IB2 Conquestvs Britanniae story is based mid 5th century North western Europe with the focal point on the Conquest of Britannia. For centuries Roman Empire ruled these lands or at the very least they had some influence over them. But now the sun had set on what was left of the Empire's remains. New Factions were born within its confines and these regions were lost to knowledge and correspondence. The result was much of these places became shrouded in mystery and were ripe for later legends.
Not all of this history disappeared into Roman dust. We do know enough of Marshal Aetius and several of his Gallic predecessors plight with the Franks and we know of the Germanic peoples who migrated from Germania to carve out kingdoms on the isle of Britannia. We are aware of the Gaels in Hibernia and to their east and the war like Picts north of Hadrian's wall. From the last ripples of this era a heroic age whispers just loud enough for us to discern who they really might have been and the historical roles they played. In Britain they were Vortigern, Vortimer, Ambrosius, Riothamus and off course, Arthur

(Finished edit)Vortigern-Vitalis Unifier or Usurper. Hero or Villain?
To begin with Vortigern appears to be the first of Britain's post-Roman strongest leaders. He is generally described as the leader of Britanniae Councilium, Britanniae's ruling government. As the head of the Councilium he was assigned the title Vortigern, Britanniae's overlord or overking. Although successful as Britains ruler, his historical persona later on took on a tyrannical, short sighted aspect that eventually would be blamed for the ruin of Britain.
Vortigern's real name was Vitalis or Vitilinius and he likely came to power around 417-425AD. His stronghold was centered around some of the important walled towns in the west of Britain. In reality, Vitalis was Britain's savior. He unified and maintained a cohesive Britain and avoided its dissipation during an uncertain time of change. Politically cunning he uses the Irish, Scotti and the Gewissae as foederati while moving Cunnedda and sons with a Votadini contingent into Wales as a counterbuffer and to rid any unwanted Irish. He places certain strong figures loyal to him in strategic regions throughout Britain and a period of stability and peace ensues.
As any ruler in power he would have found internal discontent by those who felt burdened by heavy taxes - those who had to sacrifice their wealth, crops and pecious metals to provide payment for the overlord's professional army. Those who felt squashed under this system could only abide by the policies for the alternative was the Saxon sword. So not only did Vortigern have to deal with the Scots and Irish to his west and the Angli and hostile migrating Saxons to his east, he had a disconted church and the decuriones(tax collectors) within his realm that in their moments of greed believed the proud tyrant's rule over Britain would be better without him...and history would later tell their story. Vortigern married to royalty, as would any leader of his time to strenghten or legitimize his position. He had sons, one known by the name Ambrosius Aurelious around the year 420AD. For reasons not Known, Vortigern married again sometime later and this was to become the historical lineage. Vortimer(Catigern) First born son of Vortigern. Ambrosius now grows up on the outside of the royal family and a potential rival to he family of Vortigern and in 437AD as a very young upstart given lands to rule but under the Vortigern rule.
As with any peace it didn't last forever. In 441AD plague ripped through Britain. Food and provisions had become scarce. Saxon and Irish Foederati were no longer paid and they begin to rebel. They were joined by the existing Germanic coastal settlements. Towns were burned and some captured including London by the Saxons. As the Gallic Chronicle writes, Britain is now lost to the Germanic peoples. To the Britains it may have seemed like the end of the world. Vortigern dies in this notable storm and Britain teeters on total destruction. Much of what was built along with the truth had disappeared in the rubble, but yet not all hope was lost.

-Myths:
#Vortigern relied on foederati exclusively and Britain did not possess a Romano army
#Vortigern hired Jutes that rebelled causing the ruin of Britain.
#Vortigern lusts cause political disaster
#Vortigern is feeble
-Truths

#Notes: (Open to alternative Generalities but not always depicted as such in the game)
#Possibly Vitalis was the farther of Vitalinus thus the Grandfather of #Vortimer(Cadeyrn)
#Vitalis and Vitalinus is the family name
#Vitalis 411-25AD
#Vitalinus 425AD-441AD
#Vortimer-Cadern or Cadeyrn (Battle Leader-Dux) is Vortigerns first born son
#Vortimer is Ambrosius, First born of Vortigern but from a previous wife.

PART II IB2 Conqvestvs Britanniae II-449AD
Next-The Groans of Britain The Appeal to Aetius - The Real Saxon(Jute) Advent of 450AD. The Rise of Vortimer(Cadeyrn), Ambrosius, Riothamus and Arthur

[rhalina]

Always though this was the tittle "Arth-Rhu", or "Rio-Thyme" or something like this.. but my knowledge on britons is extremly limited

[Kambe]

I am not sure of the exact identity of King Arthur but I do believe that he was the person who rallied Britons against Saxons and stopped their progress and that Arthur was his title not his name.

[caratacus]

Identifying a particular person as being the inspiration for the Arthurian legend has baffled scholars for generations and there really is no clear cut answer given the unreliableness of historical accounts which were usually written many years after the events surrounding the legend took place. I myself have doubts whether it is a particular person.

Having examined the origins of the Breton Kingdom (influenced greatly by IB2 ) I wonder whether the origins of the legend could possibly stem from a military intervention by the Bretons to support and liberate their fellow Britons fom Germanic warbands. We know that the Breton region was colonised by substantial numbers of troops from Britain and that the area subsequently became the centre of a large scale evacuation of Brythonic people from South West England, partly because of this but also owing to the close links of trade there had been for centuries between the two regions. It seems to me plausible to suggest that there is likely to have been a strong feeling amongst the new arrivals of resentment and a need to strike back against those that had inflicted harm upon their communities. From this feeling, military operations are likely to have been considered either through raids or invasion.

The peninsular landmass of South West England with it extensive coastline with numerous beaches coves etc lends itself to such a campaign and given the long tradition of fishing and boat building in both the West Country and in Western Armorica (Brittany) it would be a great leap of the imagination to see the Saxons being thwarted at conquering the region and beyond by a campaign of organised resistance using the sea for transportation. With such a theory in mind both the names of Ambrosius Aurelianus and Riothamus both seem to fit very well, indeed Riothamus was called "King of the Britons" by the 6th-century historian Jordanes. Such military leaders would have been well placed to organise such a resistance in terms of Roman organisation and weaponry, and as an outsider to the Britons, would be more likely to galvanise support amongst the various kingdoms to undertake a concerted attack against the invaders.

[Riothamus]

Identifying a particular person as being the inspiration for the Arthurian legend has baffled scholars for generations and there really is no clear cut answer given the unreliableness of historical accounts which were usually written many years after the events surrounding the legend took place. I myself have doubts whether it is a particular person.

Having examined the origins of the Breton Kingdom (influenced greatly by IB2 ) I wonder whether the origins of the legend could possibly stem from a military intervention by the Bretons to support and liberate their fellow Britons fom Germanic warbands. We know that the Breton region was colonised by substantial numbers of troops from Britain and that the area subsequently became the centre of a large scale evacuation of Brythonic people from South West England, partly because of this but also owing to the close links of trade there had been for centuries between the two regions. It seems to me plausible to suggest that there is likely to have been a strong feeling amongst the new arrivals of resentment and a need to strike back against those that had inflicted harm upon their communities. From this feeling, military operations are likely to have been considered either through raids or invasion.

The peninsular landmass of South West England with it extensive coastline with numerous beaches coves etc lends itself to such a campaign and given the long tradition of fishing and boat building in both the West Country and in Western Armorica (Brittany) it would be a great leap of the imagination to see the Saxons being thwarted at conquering the region and beyond by a campaign of organised resistance using the sea for transportation. With such a theory in mind both the names of Ambrosius Aurelianus and Riothamus both seem to fit very well, indeed Riothamus was called "King of the Britons" by the 6th-century historian Jordanes. Such military leaders would have been well placed to organise such a resistance in terms of Roman organisation and weaponry, and as an outsider to the Britons, would be more likely to galvanise support amongst the various kingdoms to undertake a concerted attack against the invaders.

Well said caratacus,
I've read where historians even though if they thought a man named Arthur may not have existed they never the less coined the time frame the Arthurian fact meaning something Arthurian like did happened in 5th-6th century Britain.

Léon Fleuriot leans toward your ideas that Ambrosius Aurelianus and Riothamus were the same man and had strong ties to Brittany.

I am not sure of the exact identity of King Arthur but I do believe that he was the person who rallied Britons against Saxons and stopped their progress and that Arthur was his title not his name.

Always though this was the tittle "Arth-Rhu", or "Rio-Thyme" or something like this.. but my knowledge on britons is extremly limited

Yes. I think so too and I wonder if the Bear was his standard such as the Boar or the Dragon, thus giving some rise to the name Arthur- the Bear

[caratacus]

Well said caratacus,
I've read where historians even though if they thought a man named Arthur may not have existed they never the less coined the time frame the Arthurian fact meaning something Arthurian like did happened in 5th-6th century Britain.

Léon Fleuriot leans toward your ideas that Ambrosius Aurelianus and Riothamus were the same man and had strong ties to Brittany.

I think a Breton origin for Arthur is very strong indeed. Quite apart from ties of kinship and language as well as resentment from those people displaced by the invading Saxons and Jutes, lets not forget that Cornwall had a valuable resource of tin that had been exploited for centuries and exported across Western Europe. There is little doubt that this alone could prompt an armed intervention of the Romanised population in Brittany, even if they themselves had not been displaced. The Arthur figure can therefore be seen in terms of a military commander undertaking an organised campaign against the Saxons rather than a ruler of a British Kingdom of noble birth. From his (or they, since it may have been more than a single commander ) operating base in Brittany, would then be able to strike at the enemy more effectively than any individual British ruler. Such an elusive enemy would not only strike fear and dread in the Saxons but also be seen as a very enigmatic hero by the population.

In my studies of archaeological sites in Northern England, it seems there was probably a widespread movement of people to escape the Saxons advance, with many ancient Hill-forts which were abandoned during Roman rule, re-inhabited and adapted further. However these people would not have been part of the extensive tribal groups their ancestors formed part of and amassing a large defensive force sufficient to push back the invaders would have been extremely difficult, given this and the lack of resources available to them.

However even if you disregard Arthur as more or less a legend conjured up by a conquered people to provide some dignity in their defeat. There is little doubt that the progression of the Saxons would have been significantly checked by warfare with a range of British leaders attempting to protect their own interests. But whether any of them achieved the same level of cooperation and success that Arthur is reputed to have achieved is little known. In my opinion, one such leader Urien, is worthy of the same respect afforded to Arthur in his battles with the invaders.

[A_Dane]

I've read most of the things in the regard of Arthur was, as has been posted here, and decided to go with "a 5th century dux named Arthur", not because I particuarly believe this is correct, but because I think he's probably an amalgamation of several people from sub-roman britain

[Magister Militum Flavius Aetius]

If I recall correctly Riothamus was a title, for Ambrosius Aurelianus.

I think Germanus of Auxerre was Arthur, as he is recorded coming to Britain twice and defeating the Picts in e Battle of Mold. Although he died rather early (in the 440s).

Other than that, Ambrosius Aurelianus would seem like a likely candidate. Badon hill was probably Mynyyd Baedyn (Mons Baeden in Latin, Mount Badon in Engrish).

[caratacus]

I think Germanus of Auxerre was Arthur, as he is recorded coming to Britain twice and defeating the Picts in e Battle of Mold. Although he died rather early (in the 440s).

Germanus of Auxerre is a really interesting character but I am confused by his role as both an emissary of the Roman Church and as a military commander and whether this period predates the conflict with the Saxons to fit an Arthurian figure.

According to the references provided by the Venerable Bede in his "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation", he notes a battle took place against the Picts and Saxons but does not date or locate it.
Yet the traditional site of the this great battle attributed to Germanus, referred to as the 'Alleluia Victory' of the Britons, is marked by a stone obelisk on a pedestal erected in a field near Mold in 1736 at a place called Maes Garmon. But the date marked of AD420 is probably too early for the inclusion of the Saxons in such a conflict and anyway, why would they be fighting with the Picts against the Britons I wonder? not as their mercenaries surely!. So I'm wondering whether this might have been the actual battle site at all. Without any archaeological evidence, it is perhaps a case of of an 18th century landowners romantic notion, based on a sketchy record of the event from, what can be described as somewhat biased ecclesiastical source and a series of stories woven into Welsh legend. I will endeavor to find out more about Germanus of Auxerre

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[ceretic]

I am a fan of Geoffrey Ashe on this topic and believe in my heart that "Arthur" existed and achieved a notable victory at Mount Badon sometime around the end of the fifth Century or the start of the sixth.

I am also inclined to believe that the male skeleton with the head injury which was exhumed at Glastonbury at depth of 16 feet (5 m) in a hollowed oak trunk in 1191 was indeed Arthur. Above that grave but buried at a depth of around six feet under the covering stone was, according to Giraldus Cambrensis and a corroborating independent secondary account, a leaden cross with the inscription Hic jacet sepultus inclitus rex Arthurus in insula Avalonia meaning "Here lies interred the famous King Arthur on the Isle of Avalon"). I appreciate this may seem almost "too good to be true" but the unglamorous nature of the burial, the depth by which it was buried and the wall of silence which this discovery was met with by the Welsh (who were at this time still politically independent) indicates they believed it was indeed him at the time - and I believe this was him. I don't by the revisionist claptrap that this discovery was an invention.

The Arthur whom I believe existed and achieved legendary status amongst the Britons after his death (c.530) was the same Arthur alluded to in the 7th Century poem Y Gododdin ("he was no Arthur") and again in the Triads. He is the same Arthur whose memory was violently defended before Malory (et all) in 1113 by mention (in the records of the papal legate) of a fight which broke out at Bodmin, Cornwall, because some Frenchmen laughed at a local man who assured them King Arthur was alive.

Being British the thing people who are not British must appreciate is that Arthur has an almost religious significance in the UK and a great deal of 'King Arthur' is about belief rather than fact. True Welshmen are particularly defensive about his memory and often won't even discuss the matter with saes or for that matter y dieithriaid. The scant evidence for his existence may be interpreted in contradictory ways and thus in the absence of what we knowit is what you believe which is what's important. It is a shame some "revisionists" seem to dismiss as fabrication any material which does not fit their hypotheses.

In a nutshell and reluctant to go into a big debate about it (because there are no facts, as I said before) I think it is most likely that the Arthur who won a series of battles culminating in Mons Badonicus was later conflated and confused (perhaps wilfully) with other heroic or notorious characters who lived before and perhaps after his time. I think "Riothamous" is most likely a title attributed by the Romanitas to Arthur (or another man) whilst "Arthur" itself is a Brythonic personal name derived from a Celtic word meaning "bear" and then Latinized into 'Artorius'. The legend of a British chief who sent troops to Gaul is almost certainly, in my view, a confused recollection of the deeds of Macsen Wledig, Constantine III (Custennin) or both.

I think Ambrosius (Emrys Wledig) certainly existed, I think he was most likely a descendant of the Emperor Constantine III (fl. 409) and if Ambrosius Aurelianus was really Arthur then the British writers of the time would have said so... personally I think they lived at the same time and were related to each other.

Call me an old romantic but I like the legends and am inclined to believe that the legends contain truth. As they say in Kernow: Nyns-yu marow myghtern Arthur

[JVR]

I seem to recall a reading about a letter sent from a bishop from messina talking about the king of the britons and named him riothamus, he came over add this bidding of syagrius i think or his father aegidius to help fight against the visigoths who were pushing north from spain, and that he had been beaten back (riothamus) by the visigoths and had retreated to benwich or somthing of that nature. As for who arthur or artorius in latin, i believe he was a man, perhaps a protege of ambrosius, possibly a local warlord, who had a group of warriors from his land who were exceptionally brave, i mean the thought of knights in shinning armor may not be true, however the recent development in cavalry the romans incorrpurated in their defense of barbarians would have been learned by the britons of a region where war horses would be bread. Horses need land, open land, south west britain was perfect, i think the romans set up breeding developments in these flat grassy areas that later helped develop the only real weapon useful against such an infantry based "sea raider" enemy such as the "saxons", and later lending to the legend of mounted warriors.

[JVR]

btw the author that has explianed much on the subject is geoffrey ashe

[Tighd Mhic Dubhghaill]

If Arthur was a tittle (Arth Ru or similar) then it would most likely be used in the areas with greater Gaelic influence since it clearly has an Irish root if taken to be a title. Ard Rí was used as the title for the High King (or a powerful king) . This remains almost identical to the words high and king in modern Goidelic languages but is unlike the modern Welsh words of similar meaning.
Based on this if it was a title it many refer to an Irish 'Arthur' since the Gales of Munster had several 'conquests' of Dyfed. Alternatively it could be a use of an Irish title by a Warlord or King from some of the more 'gaelicised' Brythonic areas.
There's also the fact that most Celtic cultures have a very lenient approach to history and seem mainly concerned with telling a good story. There's a theory that Arthur was already a legend and within a few generations any particularly good achievements would be told as his - an idea that seems weird today but has substantial circumstantial evidence (a guy called Simon Young argues this very well in his book The Celtic Revolution).

[caratacus]

If Arthur was a tittle (Arth Ru or similar) then it would most likely be used in the areas with greater Gaelic influence since it clearly has an Irish root if taken to be a title. Ard Rí was used as the title for the High King (or a powerful king) . This remains almost identical to the words high and king in modern Goidelic languages but is unlike the modern Welsh words of similar meaning.
Based on this if it was a title it many refer to an Irish 'Arthur' since the Gales of Munster had several 'conquests' of Dyfed. Alternatively it could be a use of an Irish title by a Warlord or King from some of the more 'gaelicised' Brythonic areas.
There's also the fact that most Celtic cultures have a very lenient approach to history and seem mainly concerned with telling a good story. There's a theory that Arthur was already a legend and within a few generations any particularly good achievements would be told as his - an idea that seems weird today but has substantial circumstantial evidence (a guy called Simon Young argues this very well in his book The Celtic Revolution).

I am not sure about the linguistic origins of this title, but I think it would be unlikely that Arthur would have an Irish connection. The Celtic cultural ties across the Irish Sea so strong in Bronze age and early Iron Age times had ceased by that period owing to Roman occupation and the Romano-Britons defined themselves as quite separate from both the Picts of Caledonia and the Scots from Hibernia. As you state, Irish regularly raided and invaded the entire western coastline and in the North would ultimately dominate Scotland through union with the the Picts. At the close of Roman rule the king of the Votadini, Cunneda Wledig, responded to requests of the Welsh of Gwynedd for help to repulse an invasion of Scots from across the sea. King Cunedda sent a substantial force which drove out the invaders and in return the Votadini were gifted large parts of the region of Gwynned to settle and defend against any further attack. The success of against the invading Irish Scots by Cunneda, was also rewarded by marriage to the daughter of Coel Hen, High king of North Britain who then ruled over many of the northern tribes of England.

The reason why the Votadini of Northern England were asked in particular for help, was their expert use of cavalry developed during Roman occupation. They were a tribe allied to the Romans and given tribute in return for helping them patrol the great expanse of upland in the area north of Hadrian's Wall. In this task they were ably assisted by the Sarmatian cavalry units of the Roman army who were expert horsemen and the two people developed a strong relationship which was to last longer than the Empire itself and make the cavalry of the Votadini the most powerful in Britain at that time. It is considered that the dragon symbol of Wales may actually stem from this military intervention of the Votadini against the Scots, as the dragon symbol may have been adapted by the Votadini from their close Sarmation links. Arthur's success in battle was known from his use of cavalry, which I think would provide a substantially greater regional connection with North Wales and the Votadini along Hadrians Wall than Ireland.

[Tighd Mhic Dubhghaill]

I am not sure about the linguistic origins of this title, but I think it would be unlikely that Arthur would have an Irish connection. The Celtic cultural ties across the Irish Sea so strong in Bronze age and early Iron Age times had ceased by that period owing to Roman occupation and the Romano-Britons defined themselves as quite separate from both the Picts of Caledonia and the Scots from Hibernia. As you state, Irish regularly raided and invaded the entire western coastline and in the North would ultimately dominate Scotland through union with the the Picts. At the close of Roman rule the king of the Votadini, Cunneda Wledig, responded to requests of the Welsh of Gwynedd for help to repulse an invasion of Scots from across the sea. King Cunedda sent a substantial force which drove out the invaders and in return the Votadini were gifted large parts of the region of Gwynned to settle and defend against any further attack. The success of against the invading Irish Scots by Cunneda, was also rewarded by marriage to the daughter of Coel Hen, High king of North Britain who then ruled over many of the northern tribes of England.

The reason why the Votadini of Northern England were asked in particular for help, was their expert use of cavalry developed during Roman occupation. They were a tribe allied to the Romans and given tribute in return for helping them patrol the great expanse of upland in the area north of Hadrian's Wall. In this task they were ably assisted by the Sarmatian cavalry units of the Roman army who were expert horsemen and the two people developed a strong relationship which was to last longer than the Empire itself and make the cavalry of the Votadini the most powerful in Britain at that time. It is considered that the dragon symbol of Wales may actually stem from this military intervention of the Votadini against the Scots, as the dragon symbol may have been adapted by the Votadini from their close Sarmation links. Arthur's success in battle was known from his use of cavalry, which I think would provide a substantially greater regional connection with North Wales and the Votadini along Hadrians Wall than Ireland.

It's very unlikely that we know enough to say that Arthur's success in battle was linked to his use of cavalry. If we had so much information as to be able to make that statement we'd also likely have enough to not need this thread. The Sarmation link seems to be popular at the moment but really is only based on speculation, the main root behind it seems to be that it would give origins to a cavalry/proto-knight Arthur although it's just as likely that all the knight-like elements were added later.

Also Wales isn't particularly good cavalry country but een if we're going to base stuff on cavalry, Ireland had a reasonably strong cavalry tradition. I'm unsure how early it dates back but Irish light cavalry (which is unlikely to have sprung up over night) was famed in the Middle Ages and gave rise to the hobilar type rider which was used extensively in the British and occasionally continental armies so even if we were to say Arthur was well-known for his cavalry it wouldn't neccessarily exclude it being Irish.

As for the dragon symbol, I've know idea why the Welsh use it so it could well be from Sarmation links but the Saxons of Wessex used a dragon as well and are highly unlikely to share those links.

[Riothamus]

If Arthur was a tittle (Arth Ru or similar) then it would most likely be used in the areas with greater Gaelic influence since it clearly has an Irish root if taken to be a title. Ard Rí was used as the title for the High King (or a powerful king) . This remains almost identical to the words high and king in modern Goidelic languages but is unlike the modern Welsh words of similar meaning.
Based on this if it was a title it many refer to an Irish 'Arthur' since the Gales of Munster had several 'conquests' of Dyfed. Alternatively it could be a use of an Irish title by a Warlord or King from some of the more 'gaelicised' Brythonic areas.
There's also the fact that most Celtic cultures have a very lenient approach to history and seem mainly concerned with telling a good story. There's a theory that Arthur was already a legend and within a few generations any particularly good achievements would be told as his - an idea that seems weird today but has substantial circumstantial evidence (a guy called Simon Young argues this very well in his book The Celtic Revolution).

I'm so happy you brought this topic up, specifically the Arth Ru title. Its really fascinating when looking at it with the possibility of an Arthur(King) connection. We do know there was a very plausible strong connection between the Gaelic peoples from Ireland and Vortigern himself. Sorry if a bit of point here wth this next point, but there was even a reversal of British-Irish slave raiding as Patrick was a Briton whom was taking away as a captive and later in time him writing a letter to a particular Ceretic(most likely the king Ceretic of the kingdom odf Alt Clut) for his slave trade of captive Gaelic Christians from Ireland. It shows a potentially powerful British emergence with a extending political and military arm. Linguistically, this King of Britain in the mid 5th century could have ben known by the Gaelic elite who were(postulated) settled in parts of Wales and Scotland-(Dal Riata)(as Foederati) etc. as an Ard Ri - translating to Arth Ru - Arthur. This part of Britain lived on as eastern Britain was eventually over run as we know thus the oral traditions could have survivd and been passed on for several centuries creating part of the historical legend.

I am not sure about the linguistic origins of this title, but I think it would be unlikely that Arthur would have an Irish connection. The Celtic cultural ties across the Irish Sea so strong in Bronze age and early Iron Age times had ceased by that period owing to Roman occupation and the Romano-Britons defined themselves as quite separate from both the Picts of Caledonia and the Scots from Hibernia. As you state, Irish regularly raided and invaded the entire western coastline and in the North would ultimately dominate Scotland through union with the the Picts. At the close of Roman rule the king of the Votadini, Cunneda Wledig, responded to requests of the Welsh of Gwynedd for help to repulse an invasion of Scots from across the sea. King Cunedda sent a substantial force which drove out the invaders and in return the Votadini were gifted large parts of the region of Gwynned to settle and defend against any further attack. The success of against the invading Irish Scots by Cunneda, was also rewarded by marriage to the daughter of Coel Hen, High king of North Britain who then ruled over many of the northern tribes of England.

The reason why the Votadini of Northern England were asked in particular for help, was their expert use of cavalry developed during Roman occupation. They were a tribe allied to the Romans and given tribute in return for helping them patrol the great expanse of upland in the area north of Hadrian's Wall. In this task they were ably assisted by the Sarmatian cavalry units of the Roman army who were expert horsemen and the two people developed a strong relationship which was to last longer than the Empire itself and make the cavalry of the Votadini the most powerful in Britain at that time. It is considered that the dragon symbol of Wales may actually stem from this military intervention of the Votadini against the Scots, as the dragon symbol may have been adapted by the Votadini from their close Sarmation links. Arthur's success in battle was known from his use of cavalry, which I think would provide a substantially greater regional connection with North Wales and the Votadini along Hadrians Wall than Ireland.

All good points caratacus and I do agree there is a Votadini connection in some form,(a particular tribe from them) but I tend to lean more on the idea that not all Gaelic peples were driving out but only those unwilling to bow to Britains highest authority. The region of Powys, as it was in the 5th century around the Servern river and Viriconium, would have been suitable for cavalry but the mostly mountainous regions furher west were suited for gurrilla tactics ambush etc... Just an opinon for discussion though as this is what the thread is for and dont intend in away way to change anyones idea

Spell check working? I desperately need it..

[Tighd Mhic Dubhghaill]

Also the cultural ties increased in the period just after the Romans left. In the late 300s and early 400s the Déisiof Munster established themselves in Dyfed in the SOut West of Wales and to the North the Kingdoms of STrathclyde and Mann were reasonably well influenced by the Gaels. There are defintiely cases of soldiers in this period being described as Galwyddel or similar names meaning Irish (and later probably Irish-styled).

[caratacus]

It's very unlikely that we know enough to say that Arthur's success in battle was linked to his use of cavalry. If we had so much information as to be able to make that statement we'd also likely have enough to not need this thread. The Sarmation link seems to be popular at the moment but really is only based on speculation, the main root behind it seems to be that it would give origins to a cavalry/proto-knight Arthur although it's just as likely that all the knight-like elements were added later.

True there are no clear accounts of battles, but we do know that the Romans used Cavalry extensively to protect the region of Hadrian's Wall against the Picts and worked closely with the Votadini to that end. It is unlikely that this major advantage that Romano Britons had over invaders would be simply abandoned and the ability to travel over long distances quickly would be extremely valuable one against the Saxons who didn't use cavalry to any great extent.

Also the cultural ties increased in the period just after the Romans left. In the late 300s and early 400s the Déisiof Munster established themselves in Dyfed in the SOut West of Wales and to the North the Kingdoms of STrathclyde and Mann were reasonably well influenced by the Gaels. There are defintiely cases of soldiers in this period being described as Galwyddel or similar names meaning Irish (and later probably Irish-styled).

I didn't know about the area of Dyfed and the Déisi Muman peoples, a name which originates in Irish as déis meaning "vassal" who were invited to migrate to the region by the Romans between 350 and 400 AD. Yes there could be an Irish connection if Arthur did originate from this region. In fact there seems to be a connection with Magnus Maximus and a local leader called Voteporix, so the link is an intriguing one for sure. But I'm just doubtful about the influence of Goidelic language on the Brythonic tongue spoken by the Britons elsewhere either during or after Roman rule. Even during the substantial influence of the Celtic Irish Church during the time of the Saxon kingdoms there isn't much linguistic influence of Gaelic in the general converted population as Latin remained the mother tongue of the Church. In Cumbria, Northern England in the former kingdom of Rheged, where the Norse Gaels settled much later in the 10th century, there are many new Norse words introduced into the local dialect but no Gaelic ones I am aware of.

Given this lack of linguistic influence even during the emergence of influential Irish Celtic Church much later, why would a Goidelic title "Ard Ri" be used for a military leader in the 5th or 6th centuries, unless of course he was Irish Gaelic or from Dyfed of course. However another explanation might be to it being ascribed well after the character or characters were alive and given a term known as referring leader in a Celtic language as the Brythonic equivalent was unknown. which would increase the likelihood of Arthur's origin being more a creation of fiction rather than from a folklore construct of an actual historic person if the name did originate from the title "Ard Ri".

[Tighd Mhic Dubhghaill]

There's a good case for a reasonable amount of influence going both ways. Generally loanwords are present when their use was dominant in one (there are cases where axes were refered to a tua in Welsh - a weapon that was more common with the Irish than the Britons) but in modern Welsh these are often replaced with loanwords of a anglo-germanic origin (axe is now ax). The languages of the brythonic north died out so there's less information that I'm aware of, I do think that the interactions were different in the north and the south, the Déisi were assimilated to an extent and cultures were combined while in the north the Picts and they Gaels came closer together but relations with Rheged etc. were generally somewhat hostile.

The Irish Church wouldn't generally have spread Gaelic but a strange form of Latin, there's a reasonable amount of evidence for this. There a record somewhere I can't quite remember but an Irish monk who was known to speak perfect latin could barely speak with the roman clergy although his writing was perfect, if they were to spread any linguistic influence it would be this Celtic-Latin.

If the title was used there could be several reasons. There were several Irish kings who crissed over briefly and fought sometimes against the Britons and sometimes against the Saxons, it could be a story of an Irish kings arriving to the rescue that got blown out of proportion. Otherwise there's the fact that Gaelic Ireland was at it's most prosperous and was in a state of relative peace with quite ritualistic warfare, compared to the struggle in Britain they were stable and powerful and there is a tendency for people to ape the powerful (how many titles are linguistically descended from Caesar for example). Finally it could just be an influence - say that Arthur was called the Ard Rí in Dyfed and the Imperator in Dyneint and something else somewhere else, and it just happens that the term Arthur stuck. It could even be a list of titles that got messed up, same way as there were compound titles else where (William the Conqueror was King of England and Duke of Normandy - Arthur could be teh Arthur of Western Wales, Imperator of Dyfneint and King of Gwent etc. or something like that.

Given the amount of Gaelic influence there could be a huge number of reasons. Of course given the situation it's almost as likely that it wasn't related. Everything sourounding Arthur manages to be obscured by legend - possibly his most famous battle was Mouns Badon and it seems likely he wasn't there or even involved (of course if it was a title it could have been aplied later and Arthur was Aurelius Ambrosius

[Tighd Mhic Dubhghaill]

It's true that it would be unfair to say the Saxons steamrolled the Britons. I doubt the Saxons were ever a majority, their culture may have become dominant after a while all though their was a fair bit of assimilation. Militarily though, they were a steamroller - despite setbacks they crushed the military opposition relatively quickly (and in doing so ended the idea of a Romano British nation any larger then the Wlesh or Northern petty Kingdoms). Eventually they were defeated by the terrain and since there is no evidence to suggest a true conquest the Britons who lacked the advantages of terrain must have adopted the ultimately superior Saxon style of warfare.