The Tactics of Riothamus

[Alanus]

Robert,

I think you're right about not following Bede too closely. Personally, I'm a Gildas man, simply because he could count to 44. (Which puts the Battle of Badon in 470-472.) I'm not much of a Jordanes man, either. He was (naturally) pro-Gothic; and Euric did not take Arvernia after defeating Riothamus. He beseiged Claremont-Ferrand, got kicked by Ecdicius and 16 horsemen; and it took two years to gain that city... and he only did it through a peace treaty. :roll:

This Riothamus thing has been tossed around since Turner in 1799; and even Gibbon mentioned him earlier. Ashe, who like Morris, is or was a "High King" buff. Frankly, if we go back to Sidonius, he spells the name as "Riothamos," fairly Greekish or Gallic. If we look at "rio" as a diminutive of "rigo" or "rix, and equate "thamos" with the Lat. Thamos or Gk. Thaumos, then his name would mean "Prince of Renewal," or more simply "The Restorer." (Thaumos was the father of Iris, aka "father of spring, renewal." This type wordplay was typified by educated men such as John Reith (Riothamus), Theodoric (the Bear), and Sidonius when he tells Ecdicius that the Gauls are willing to follow him or "lose their hair." In other words, I doubt Riothamus was a High King as Ashe claims, nor was he Arthur. If we can accept the pedigrees as "marginal hearsay," then Riothamus becomes Arthur's brother-in-law. Perhaps he was confused with Arthur because his wife's name was Gwenonwry.

As his name implies, Riothamus was pro-Roman, a member of a faction trying to restore the "Roman way of life," as we might say. If the pedigrees are correct, and if he was John Reith (John Lex), then his father was Andrew (Aldrian), his grandfather was Saloman (the Alan, as in Sarmatian) and his uncle was Saint Germanus of Auxerre, who was totally Alamannic, his father being Fraomarius Rusticus, King of the Alamanni, and his mother being Germanilla. This faction stems from the Roman military and intermarries to create a five family pro-Roman "party" that over-throws Vortigern to keep what they had-- land, clients, coal, and enough lead to keep Roman water-fountains gushing for centuries.

You gotta love the fifth century. That's why the Oxford types avoid it. And the ones that don't, get it wrong anyway. But we are lucky to have Riothamus; because like Gildas, he gives us a historical window and places the whole shooting match between 410 and 470. And this window has to accomodate the deeds and misdeeds of Vortigern, Ambrosius, Arthur, and Riothamus. The sixth and seventh centuries have nothing to do with any of these individuals. It's all rumor and not hard facts. But we have resonable dates for Germanus and the "coming of the Saxons" from Constantius and Prosper. It certainly seems that Riothamus was a big cheese in Armorica, that he did bring some troops over from Britain (but not all 12,000 in ships that could hold only 100-125 men, as if he were sailing for Troy with more ships than the Greeks used!) and then fought the Battle of Deols (he must have marched his Bretons down perfectly good Roman roads). All of this makes us wonder why Anthemious (the George Bush of his time) pleaded to the Bretons-Britons if in fact the isle of Britain had severed political and military connections at the currently popular year of 410.
It was like the United States asking Nambibia for aid. :lol:

Best regards, Alanus
aka A.J. Campbell, "Siberia," Maine
been a long time.