01-04-2009, 05:34 PM
Hi Robert, yes, I'm not a fan of explaining away Arthur this way. If Riothamus was Ambrosius I think that's who the empire would have addressed a letter to. Ambrosius seems to already be remembered in Amorica. As for Ambrosius' name, he supposedly already had another one: Emrys Wledig. This is his British name of course.
I understand the arguments behind someone being called different names at different times in their lives and, as Ashe says, the likes of Stalin and Caligula weren't remembered by their real names. Both extremely nice guys!
There are some interesting questions posed by Ashe with regards to the independent mentions of Arthur in Europe that don't seem to come from Geoffrey of Monmouth or one another. They all place him around 450 to 470 and one even says he fought in Gaul, if I remember correctly. These are the other arguments that Ashe uses for Riothamus being Arthur.
My counter argument to any of these claims is, if someone in a history or genealogy was also known to be the famous Arthur you'd think that kingdom would be damn sure that we were made aware of it. That's the strange thing about him, and why many say he never existed. No one claims him, and no Briton would take his name until the 13th century and the only two (possibly three) who did, in Dyfed and Stathclyde would be of Irish blood.
I understand the arguments behind someone being called different names at different times in their lives and, as Ashe says, the likes of Stalin and Caligula weren't remembered by their real names. Both extremely nice guys!
There are some interesting questions posed by Ashe with regards to the independent mentions of Arthur in Europe that don't seem to come from Geoffrey of Monmouth or one another. They all place him around 450 to 470 and one even says he fought in Gaul, if I remember correctly. These are the other arguments that Ashe uses for Riothamus being Arthur.
My counter argument to any of these claims is, if someone in a history or genealogy was also known to be the famous Arthur you'd think that kingdom would be damn sure that we were made aware of it. That's the strange thing about him, and why many say he never existed. No one claims him, and no Briton would take his name until the 13th century and the only two (possibly three) who did, in Dyfed and Stathclyde would be of Irish blood.
Arturus Uriconium
a.k.a Mak Wilson
May the horse be with you!
[url:17bayn0a]http://www.makltd.biz[/url]
a.k.a Mak Wilson
May the horse be with you!
[url:17bayn0a]http://www.makltd.biz[/url]
