The Tactics of Riothamus

[Robert Vermaat]

Unless Frank Reno is right and Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus are one and the same (and Arthur) his name has disappeared from Britain. In Britanny he is remembered as their greatest of leaders and son of Prince Doroch I, born c435. He was exiled to Dumnonia, which could be why he came from Britain to help, or had troops sent from there, which is why he is said to have come ‘from over the Ocean’, hence the argument that he was from Britannia and not Britanny. Wherever he was from he was someone powerful enough to be known by the crumbling western empire and able to bring with him 12,000 men.

I must say that I never liked the argument of 'Mr. X must be Mr. Y and could also be Mr. Z' too much. Sure, we know that some people can go by another name, and that some names might be a title. But this seems to be restricted to religious aliases, kings taking new names upon accession, or people becoming known by a nickname muich later. In the case of Riothamus, a Latin and a Celtic name could be two names for one person, but three? hock:
Also, the information that we have of these persons suggests that all three can't be just one. Either Ambrosius and Riothamus might be the same, or Ambrsosius and Arthur, or Riothamus and Arthur. But all three combined seeem to be too much. Therefore I'd rather go for the solution that parts of each of these person's lives were later combined into 'Arthur'.

As to Riothamus being from Britain or Brittany, the choice must be easy. Even though I doubt the actual number of his army (even 1200 would be no small expeditionary force at the time), the phrase 'disembarked from his ships' can only suggest an insular army. No warlord from Brittany would go by sea if he could march the same distance across safe and dry land.