Oh no, not another Camelot!

[Imperial Dave]

In Gildas' preface, he writes:

"... for it is my present purpose to relate the deeds of an indolent and slothful race, rather than the exploits of those who have been valiant in the field"

This, to me, looks like the true explanation.

Fair point.  Combining with Harry's comment about it being too obvious who won the battle, we should expect our proto-Arthur to be a well-known fighter/military leader, rather than one of the generally immoral political figures he likes to lay into.  The later reputation as dux bellorum would fit with this.

As to "Arthur by other names" I am a little surprised no-one has brought up the Geoffrey Ashe theory that equated him to Riothamus.  I'm particularly surprised that Patrick has not hit on this, as it involves yet another large Breton army and a name co-incidence, as Avallon features in the tale.

Patrick's point is indeed a fair point to discuss and your interpretation Anthony is also fair in terms of a war leader rather than a king.

Re Riothamus, we have to be careful that we are now attaching elements of much later traditions/tales to that possibilty eg Aval(l)on is first mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth

[Erpingham]

Re Riothamus, we have to be careful that we are now attaching elements of much later traditions/tales to that possibilty eg Aval(l)on is first mentioned by Geoffrey of Monmouth

Yes, forgive the tweak to Patrick's tail   The Riothamus suggestion was, however, a genuine proposal from Ashe and perhaps should be considered if we are looking for people who might be Arthur under another name.  I am, I must confess, a bit sceptical of the alternative name approach, though.

[Imperial Dave]

  tweaks and add ons are part and parcel of Arthuriana Anthony

[eques]

re omitting Arthur from castigation because he is dead didnt stop him doing it to Magnus Maximus. This then leads us to a possibility that he  is a minor king/leader and too far removed from Gildas timeframe. This then creates a problem that this possible 'Arthur' isnt the all conquering hero the later writings make him out to be. After all if he won all those battles and stopped the Saxons/Picts/Scots/other internal enemies in their tracks his fame surely should demand a response from Gildas?

This is certainly problematic.

However, to refine the argument further, Gildas' mention of names would be haphazard rather than structured.  He might well mention names if they fitted into the sentence, or to his argument, or just if he randomly felt like mentioning them, but he would not feel obliged to mention them all.  He was not writing a work of reference or thinking of the peace of mind of future historians.

He was writing a tract and therefore while names would obviously intrude into that, he was not writing with the intention of providing a work of reference for us.

I was not saying he consciously thought "Arthur's dead so I won't mention him", just that he would be less likely to automatically do so while writing about contemporary politics.

Also, as he seems to generally be pleased about the subduing of the Saxons, he may have thought that then launching into his usual rant against the person responsibe for that would confuse things, or just detract from the flow of his argument.

There are a lot of left wing people today who don't like Churchill but who do like to celebrate the defeat of Nazism...such people tend not to mention the 2 together.

I am not saying this definitely explains the lack of mentions for Arthur (which is a bit odd) but it is AN explanation and quite a satisfying one.

PS wasn't aware of Gildas saying that about the valiant deeds in the prologue, but it definitely strengthens this argument.  It could even be read as "If you're expecting another soppy paean to Arthur bloody Pendragon you can look elsewhere!"

[Patrick Waterson]

What is known about Riothamus is delineated in the relevant Wikipedia article.  Sidonius' letter and Jordanes' reference (the relevant passages are quoted in full, in Latin and English) do give the impression (to me at least) that Riothamus was a Breton king or war leader, not a Briton.

The article does suggest that Riothamus may have become confused with Arthur and hence provided the basis of the legend of Arthur campaigning on the continent against the Roman Empire.  I think they have the right idea but the wrong person: the continental campaigns of 'Arthur' look to me more like a mixture of those of Constantine I and III.  Not sure that Riothamus actually fits into the Arthur cycle anywhere, least of all as a historical prototype or the man himself, not least because far from fighting against the Empire he was marching to its assistance (or at least that of the Western Emperor of the day).  He is also a generation too early for the Mons Badonicus timeframe suggested in the Wikipedia article on that particular topic.  (The Annales Cambriae actually put Mons Badonicus in AD 516.)

I think Geoffrey Ashe was taking an over-blurred view of the available evidence, along the following lines: Arthur must have been someone mentioned around the latter half of the 5th century AD; this is someone mentioned around the latter half of the 5th century AD, so maybe this is Arthur.  To him, as I see it, the overriding question was not whether he had the right Arthur but whether Arthur actually existed, and in this respect Riothamus was a potential godsend: a historical entity from almost the same culture present at almost the right time and almost doing some of the right things.

Sadly, there are too many wrong things for Riothamus to be Arthur.  I think we need to look within Britain itself, in the generation before Gildas.

Nennius is a little more useful: in chapter 56 he writes:

"At that time, the Saxons grew strong by virtue of their large number and increased in power in Britain. Hengist having died, however, his son Octha crossed from the northern part of Britain to the kingdom of Kent and from him are descended the kings of Kent. Then Arthur along with the kings of Britain fought against them in those days, but Arthur himself was the military commander ["dux bellorum"]."

Arthur is here mentioned by name and status made a contemporary of Octha.  Octha (Octa) is dated to AD c.500-543.  Perhaps revealingly, in chapter 38 of Nennius' Historia Brittonum, Octa and his brother Ebusa raid Scotland and carve out a dominion there.  This may be the 'northern part of Britain' from which Octa came on the death of Hengist.

"Octa and Ebusa arrived with forty ships. In these they sailed round the country of the Picts, laid waste the Orkneys, and took possession of many regions, even to the Pictish confines."

This provides an interesting reason why Arthur's York campaign extended into a campaign through central Scotland: the Saxons controlled land there.  It also provides a reason for the Saxons to send a significant fleet to Scotland during the campaign: to hold their dominions, which may have been extensive.

This brings us no nearer finding a named and identifiable Arthur, but it is interesting how the temporal and geographical pieces are falling into place.

[Imperial Dave]

I can see why Riothamus is an interesting figure in the search for 'Arthur'. Some of the details of what is attached to this person seems to fit although for me more the latter 'Arthur' of medieval fame.

What I am interested to find out more about is why the migration of Britons to Brittany kicked off to begin with and ultimately how many and when was the apogee. I mean we can blithely state that Britons migrated to Brittany to escape Picts/Scots/Saxons etc but is the only or main reason or indeed was it something else? I think this will help with determining some of the conditions in Britain at the time of our enquiries. Also ascertaining how many may also help to explain some of the potential 'emptying' of the landscape theories and colonisation by the English

[aligern]

I am a great believer that the migration was organised by the Christian priests. The Saxons were aggressive and persecuting pagans and priests had a very good reason to encourage their flocks to flee.  A good example is Silchester where archaeologists puzzled as to why a walled town was abandoned, without signs of it being taken.  Priests have anther advantage in leading a migration in that they have the contacts in Gaul to arrange reception of the refugees.
Roy 

[Imperial Dave]

thanks Roy, it would be interesting to find out (not likely I know!) what the main areas for emigration where. I mean was is mainly lowland Britain or a mix of all areas? If I look at your suggestion I would hazard to postulate that lowland Britain was more 'Roman' and more 'Christianised' and so presumably would feel the brunt more and also see more benefit to moving to Brittany...?

[Erpingham]

Breton migration, and Breton/Britain links, are big topics.  On where people came from, we might actually be able to get some clues from archaeology if we had cemeteries of the right period, from isotope studies.  Never seen any reference to that though.

Geographically, the naming of parts of Brittany after Devon and Cornwall should hint where the maintained links were, but obviously, migrants could have left from those areas having fled from elsewhere.

Language is another element.  The settlers presumably came from British rather than Latin-speaking areas, to impose British as the native tongue.  That would then involve us with a question of what language different parts of Britain spoke, though.  Also the interesting question of how the Breton language became dominant.  It does suggest the British were in a culturally influential position rather than desperate boat-people.

[Imperial Dave]

excellent point Anthony thanks.

The geographic element is interesting and I share your reasoning re the SW hints and also we shouldnt rule out Northern Britain (or anywhere else for that matter! ) although admittedly it would be difficult for emigres from that area to traverse all the way to Brittany in 'one journey' (I am thinking Damnonia here in addition to the normal Dumnonia).

The language element is really interesting. It could suggest the majority of emigres coming from less Romanised areas of Britain who firmly spoke Brythonic first and Latin (if at all?) second.  It could also suggest that the area had a very long standing (trade/tribal/heritage etc) realtionship with say the SW and Brythonic was already in use as a part of a multilingual society there (happy to be shot down for this suggestion not having one much research on Brittany per se!). If we dont accept the pre existing use of Brythonic in Brittany prior to large scale migrations (do we have evidence for numbers potentially?) then it tends to suggest enough people coming over to establish that language in an otherwise presumably Latin orientated situation (or is it more complicated than that).

Another element is religion, could it be not just the Pagan vs Christian question but potentially the form of element that is the driver? (eg Pelagianism vs Orthodoxy?). I have read that Pelagius has been placed in Brittany as an alternative to Britain as his birth place by some. Could this mean that Pelagianism was potentially strong in Brittany and thus many emigres from Britain made the move to escape religious persecution by other Christians?

[Erpingham]

The religious aspect is interesting because we know lots of early Breton saints were considered to have come from Britain as missionaries.  Linking back to the position of the emigres and language, we might speculate that Christian immigants might be better able to connect into sub-Roman structures and hence be influential than a largely pagan native population.

[Imperial Dave]

I am happy to see a potential model based on either Pelagians escaping to Brittany or Roman Catholics escaping there (delete according to taste and reasoned arguments). One interesting thing is that (assuming its actual), if Germanus of Auxerre arrive in Britain early 5th C and hung around preaching about the wickedness of Pelagianism, could this have been an impetus for the those adherents to start migrations to Brittany? As we see, if we could fix a date for the beginning of migrations (or at least mass migrations) it could fit in with this hypothesis.

[Patrick Waterson]

There are a number of aspects highlighted by period (or possibly period) sources.

1) Brittany was the repository for the fighting men of Britannia who followed Maximus Magnus to the continent.  When he met his Waterloo (or Aquileia) Conan Meriadoc (who inadvertently subsequently gave both his names to heroic fantasy) settled the warriors in Brittany, perhaps as a way of avoiding Theodosius' 'object lesson' to Maximus' supporters, Brittany or at least key parts of it being quite defensible.  This gave Brittany the basis of a good, effective army which could not or would not be stripped out by later desperate Roman magistri militum, and hence made it a natural refuge for people from Britannia (not least because the men in charge shared the same culture and spoke the same languages).

2) Theodosius brought Christian, or at least Athanasian, intolerance to new depths, and things were apparently no better under his successors.  Dave's observation about the religious element looks valid; anyone leaving Britannia in a hurry for religious-based reasons of self-preservation would find in Brittany a natural stopping-point, perhaps the safest one around, and quite probably the most tolerant.  ("Mithras?  Yes, we do Mithras: even got the chalice."  "Pelagius?  Decent enough chap; not sure why all the fuss about him." etc.)

3) Britannia was increasingly subject to barbarian incursions, and Roy's point about likely organised departures (e.g. Silchester) would suggest a significant movement of Britannian population into Brittany as barbarian raids and seizure of territory intensified.

We may thus have a continuing flow of emigrants for a number of reasons from the late 4th century AD to the 6th, peaking on various occasions.  I would suggest that survivors from Saxon-struck regions or those about to be would form the bulk of the flow, but that is just my guess.

[Jim Webster]

I am happy to see a potential model based on either Pelagians escaping to Brittany or Roman Catholics escaping there (delete according to taste and reasoned arguments). One interesting thing is that (assuming its actual), if Germanus of Auxerre arrive in Britain early 5th C and hung around preaching about the wickedness of Pelagianism, could this have been an impetus for the those adherents to start migrations to Brittany? As we see, if we could fix a date for the beginning of migrations (or at least mass migrations) it could fit in with this hypothesis.

I'm not sure that Pelagians is an issue. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3310/1/Gilmarcus.pdf is worth a look, but I'd suggest that there wasn't really two competing factions at the ground level.
It's worth reading for the comment;-

"It is no accident that Pelagius was a lawyer with no responsibility for anyone else apart from a handful of upper-class ascetics in their villas, to whom he offered guidance, while Augustine was the bishop of a north African town full of off-duty sailors, dodgy shop-keepers, married couples who were not immune to the attractions of other people's husbands and wives, people who were less than generous in their almsgiving, and folk still shamefully attracted by the exotic revelries celebrated at New Year – people he compassionately described as often 'weeping and groaning' while they sin"

[Imperial Dave]

Maybe the religion thing was an issue or maybe it wasnt, its just one of those timing coincidences with the Pelagian heresy raging within Britain and other parts of the empire around the early to mid 5th C. I do maintain that we shouldnt discount it though and Patrick's amusing aside did make me chuckle (for the right reasons and with a little nod towards Monty Python et al )

re the settling of Armorica with troops from Maximus's Britain contingents its a definite possible beginning of the reason for the focus point for any disaffected Britons looking to escape Britain for whatever reason