The Tactics of Riothamus

[Arturus Uriconium]

Morning all,

I know there's debate as to whether Riothamus (Riotimus/Rigothamus/ Rigotamos)was a king of the Britain or king of the Bretons (Amorica), but either way he helped the Romans fight the Visigoths in Gaul around 475. Some believe him the historical Arthur. Here's what Jordanes says:

"Now Euric, king of the Visigoths, perceived the frequent change of Roman Emperors and strove to hold Gaul by his own right. The Emperor Anthemius heard of it and asked the Brittones for aid. Their King Riotimus came with twelve thousand men into the state of the Bituriges by the way of Ocean, and was received as he disembarked from his ships. Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them with an innumerable army, and after a long fight he routed Riotimus, King of the Britons, before the Romans could join him. So when he had lost a great part of his army, he fled with all the men he could gather together, and came to the Burgundians, a neighboring tribe then allied to the Romans. But Euric, king of the Visigoths, seized the Gallic city of Arverna[4]; for the Emperor Anthemius was now dead."

I wondered what the tactics were of this time? I realise this depends on the make-up of the units but just wanted to get a general view.

I've put a link below for anyone wanting to know more about him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riothamus

Ta

[Urselius]

The distinction between Bretons and Britons was not really relevant at the time as evidenced by regional names - Cornwall and Dumnonia in Britain, Cornoualle and Domnonie in Brittany. Also figures like King Mark were described as reigning both in Britain and Armorica.

As for tactics, all the forces involved would have employed variations of Late Roman tactics. Infantry drawn up in a shield-wall type formation with missile troops behind them, cavalry posted on the wings.

The infantry clash frontally in a shoving match and attempt to wear the opposition down, the cavalry are kept in hand until an opportunity to attack presents itself. If things go badly, in theory, the cavalry cover the withdrawal of the beaten infantry, in reality the cavalry tend to decamp to the rear at high speed when things start going wrong.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Thanks for that Martin. That's what I thought the tactics would be but wondered if there were any others known.

Yes, Britanny was of course known as Little Britain at the time and, as you say, there wasn't much difference between them. As you probably know the difference matters with Geoffrey Ashe's argument as there's a big difference between a High King of Amorica and a High King of the Britons, although I doubt that any high king of this time would have been one of the whole of Britannia, or even of all the Britons not under Anglo-Saxon rule. Also, his name may have meant something like High King, but that doesn't means others saw it that way.

It could also matter as to where he was from because if he is from Britannia how could it spare 12,000 men and a High King for a foreign campaign if they were under constant attacks by their Germanic friends at home, as we're lead to believe. You'd think he and his men might be wanted elsewhere. I personally feel that he could be a Breton, as that's where his lineage is recorded and for the other reasons I stated.

Makes you think though.

[Urselius]

Armorica was settled by Alan auxilliaries, hence the many later counts of Brittany named Alan, any force including Bretons may have had a fairly prominent cavalry component.

I think that connections between Britain and Armorica were so close that any figure of wide-ranging authority would have had some political clout on both sides of the Channel. Vortigern also had a name, or title, meaning "overlord" and the later institution of "bretwalda" may have merely been an anglicisation of a position of authority or eminence previously in native hands.

I think that people tend to look at Britain in this period through a lens in which ethnicity plays too large a part. The basic political units of both Britons and Anglo-Saxons were quite small and I imagine that ethnicity played a small role in most political relations. We know from a slightly later period that one of the greatest Anglo-Saxon kings, Penda of Mercia, was allied to British princes throughout his reign and all his recorded wars were against fellow Anglo-Saxons. At the time of Riothamus I'm sure that similar cross-cultural alliances existed and that a powerful British overlord would have counted at least some Anglo-Saxon regions as being under his authority.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Thanks again Martin,

I should probably say that I'm not one of those who thinks ethnically when it comes to this period of British history. I've studied it for 20 or so years now and am a great believer in the works of Nick Higham and the like on the subject.

What I find interesting about Riothamus is that he was contacted and asked to help. Ironic since the previous emperors seem to have turned down any help for Britain when it was requested. Does this indicate he was simply a pro-Roman faction, a none Briton (as in not from Britannia) or a mercenary? Or is it now completely down to religious affiliations and he was an ancient crusader against the heathens? Or is it that the empire saw Little Britain and its leaders in a different light to those of its Big Brother?

He seems to have been a good man as indicated by Sidonius Apollinaris’ letter to him, dated between 460 and 470 and addressed to Riothamus King of the Brittones:

“I will write once more in my usual strain, mingling compliment with grievance. Not that I at all desire to follow up the first words of greeting with disagreeable subjects, but things seem to be always happening which a man of my order and in my position can neither mention without unpleasantness, nor pass over without neglect of duty. Yet I do my best to remember the burdensome and delicate sense of honour which makes you so ready to blush for others' faults. The bearer of this is an obscure and humble person, so harmless, insignificant, and helpless that he seems to invite his own discomfiture; his grievance is that the Bretons [Britons] are secretly enticing his slaves away. Whether his indictment is a true one, I cannot say; but, if you can only confront the parties and decide the matter on its merits, I think the unfortunate man may be able to make good his charge, if indeed a stranger from the country unarmed, abject and impecunious to boot, has ever a chance of a fair or kindly hearing against adversaries with all the advantages he lacks, arms, astuteness, turbulences, and the aggressive spirit of men backed by numerous friends. Farewell.â€

[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.

[Arturus Uriconium]

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.

[Agraes]

As a side note, I would like to add that Armorica is not Brittany. Armorica by the time of the roman conquest, means the various gaulish tribes bordering the Channel sea. In late roman times, this was the region more or less between Loire and Seine, including what will become Brittany.

It seems Brittany don't get its name before the VIth century. Before, it was also known as Letavia, or Letau in Brittonic (still Llydaw in modern welsh), thought it is not clear if the term means the three civitates that were massively settled by the Britons, the whole continent and by extension the Briton settlements there, or only what will become Léon, in the North West of Brittany, once known as pagus Legionensis.

Briton implantation was in no way restricted to later Brittany (and there, Rennes and Nantes regions were not at all settled by Britons, only conquered in the IXth century). Their presence was very important in the Loire valley, and in the whole north of Gaul where a lot of toponyms in Bret- like Bretteville for exemple still testify today of their passage.

Unto the "Riothamus" subject, Im personnaly still convinced by Léon Fleuriot arguments identifying him with Ambrosius Aurelianus.

Here a sum up of his arguments:
- both characters lived in the same period, Riothamus in 469, Ambrosius circa 460-480 AD and were kind of "supreme leaders"
- both were held in great estim by the clerics, Ambrosius beeing called a uir modestus by Gildas and Sidonius speaking about uestri pudoris and uerecundia in his letter to Riothamus
- Ambrosius is also known in the Irish version of the Historia Brittonum as Ambrois ri Frangc e Brethan Letha, king of the Francs and Letavian Britons
- still in the HB Ambrosius is called rex inter omnes reges Britannicae gentis, so he is for Fleuriot the supreme-king, exactly the meaning of Rigotamos

Fleuriot also thought Ambrosius Aurelianus Riothamus helped Syagrius against Childeric, and that the letter Sidonius adressed to Riothamus was written after Déols (Im particulary interested in the exact datation of this letter, the theory beeing deeply based on it), meaning that even after his defeat Riothamus still had great forces.

The Alan connection in Brittany was disregarded by him. The name Alan beeing linked in a way more simpliest way with animals with red fur.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Thanks for the clarification Agraes, and you're absolutely right. I was using Britanny purely to identify the rough region of today. It should also be mentioned that there were Saxons around the Loire also.

Fleuriot does have very interesting arguments with regards to Ambrosius and Riothamus, as does Ashe. The only counter arguments for these are the British tradition for Ambrosius, which make him a Wledig (land holder/commander?), and the fact that neither Gildas nor the tradition refer to him as a king. (Gildas seems to have a thing against kings (tyrannus) but not Ambrosius). Whilst the former can be argued against, Gildas' account is a harder one.

I wonder why Riothamus would only be remembered in Letavia and Gaul by that name/title but not in Britain? If he was indeed the 'supreme-king' why is he remembered here as Ambrosius? Or is this purely down to the only account of him coming from Gildas? Or is it because he was a 'supreme-king' in Amorica but only a land holder and commander in Britannia? I don't have any answers, just lots of question.

As you probably know, there are arguments for the reference of Llydaw as also being a region of what is now Wales. Hence Lake Llydaw in Snowdonia, near Dinas Emrys, Ambrosius' so called fort. It's very doubtful that it ever was his fort and this could all be secondary location, but it's there never-the-less.

I'd say we have to be careful in how far we trust the HB as a totally reliable source. Whatever it says it was written around 400 years after these events. (I certainly don't trust it with the Arthurian section). Having said that, it does indeed call Ambrosius a king and this information could be from an unknown source.

The dating of the letter is, as you say, very important, but all those I've seen so far put it between 460 and 470, meaning before Riothamus' defeat. As mentioned earlier, this means his troops would have been in the region many years before the battle.

It's all very interesting and it's great to hear the view of a Letavian! All I wanted to know about were the possible tactics used but it started a very interesting debate, which I'm very grateful for, so many thanks.

[Agraes]

Yes, HB is not always reliable. Fleuriot thought this irish version to be one of the oldest, tracing it back not to the IXth but (at least in part) to the VIIth century, I guess from Rhun map Urien.

Argument for the Riothamus name was people in Gaul heard more often his title than his real name, and so remembered only his title.


For the tactis, I guess I can help on that. Persistance of Roman military traditions in late Vth and early VIth century Britons, especially the Letavians, are the precise thema of my re-enactment group, Letavia. How much roman tactics and drill they preserved exactly is to be questionned, but at least in western Brittany there are several clues about such an heritage beeing preserved - of course probably among some more "celtic" way of fighting.

Here an article I made about the martial specificities of the Britons in the late roman era and high middle ages, if you read a bit of french or are armed with patience and a good translator :wink:
http://magister.olympe-network.com/foru ... 576312c393

There is this famous quote from Procopius, speaking about soldiers keeping every aspect of roman traditions in the middle of the VIth century in Gaul, in the service of the Francs and Armoricans, and foes of the Wisigoths. Fleuriot thought they were Britons, I think it includes them and likely some other sub-roman troups.
The Letavi are also known as part of the coalition who fought against Attila under Aetius at Campus Mauriacus in 451.
"Franci, Sarmatae, Armoritiani, Litiani, Burgundiones, Saxones, Riparioli, Ibriones" is from Jordanes Getica. The word Litiani have been explained as a corruption of Laeti, but for Fleuriot it was a corruption of Letavi, the v beeing often corrupted into a n in that period manuscripts; and the word beeing replaced by Brittones in one of the older manuscripts from Paulus Diacrus which includes a similar list.

I already mentionned a pagus Legionensis that became Léon in Brittany (where I live), and in Trégor 4 coins respectively two from Zenon and two from Julius Nepos were found, two of those in a small fortress with ditches, alongwith a coin from Valentinian.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Many thanks for that Benjamin. I'll dig out my French dictionary - or a French friend - as soon as I can! Wish my French/Breton was as good as your English.

Very good photos at your site too!

[Arturus Uriconium]

There is an interesting article at Robert's Vortigern Studies website about the Vortigern/Ambrosius/Riothamus question. Whilst I don't agree with its Vortigern=Ambrosius outcome it has some interesting theories on the dating of events:

[url:2um6z0ct]http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestpat.htm[/url]

[Robert Vermaat]

There is an interesting article at Robert's Vortigern Studies website about the Vortigern/Ambrosius/Riothamus question. Whilst I don't agree with its Vortigern=Ambrosius outcome it has some interesting theories on the dating of events:
[url:38nmib47]http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestpat.htm[/url]

Yep, one of the guest articles which I'm hosting, this one by Patrick Constable.

[Arturus Uriconium]

Yep, one of the guest articles which I'm hosting, this one by Patrick Constable.

What do you think about his dating?

[Robert Vermaat]

You mean his chronology? Too much following Bede for my taste.