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.

[Conal]

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!)

I am lost at the logic of this as even with just 20 ships making five or so trips you could transport 12000 men across the channel in a week to 10 days. Add another week or two for equipment & horses I'm sure a muster could have been achieved inside a month in an emergency. Are you disputing the 12000 figure or arguing that not all the troops came from Britain?

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:

A Namibia which supposedly had 12000 troops it was willing to put at GWs (sorry BOs) disposal :?

[Ron Andrea]

Alanus raises a good point reminding us that there were (at least) two "parties" among the Britons after the withdrawl of the legions. One, whom we call the sub-Romans, apparently tried to maintain Roman order and discipline. The other, Britons, favores returning to a tribal organization and way of life.

Both approaches ultimately failed, but since our buddy Riothamus seems to have been of the sub-Roman party it may be assumed that he employed Roman organization and tactics, in so far as he knew them. That last is big because enough time had past that real Roman tactics might have left with the legions, and Briton was left with "sub-Romans" playing at being Romans.

[Alanus]

I was simply suggesting that the figure of 12,000 men-- all coming from the isle-- was an inflated one by a writer who wanted his own gens (Euric and his Visigoths) to look macho in the eyes of posterity. A great portion of Jordanes shows this.

We also must remember that he was not just transporting men. He had food and supplies, equipment, and horses. And he had fair wind on one day and a crappy breese on the next... the very reason Caesar won the day against the Veneti. Time stands still in the tactical and logistical world.

The other point is this-- Riothamus was a prince of Domnonnee, and a leader of Armorican troops. Sidonius calls them such. What would he do? Transport a bunch of Bretons to Britain so he could sail them back over to the continent slowly and methodically... while the Western Empire rapidly goes down the tubes? Naturally the Breton contingents, plus the Burgundi, and Arverni, the Alans and Taifli, all of whom were in this mess against Euric, used ROADS, not ships. Jordanes was the most unreliable of historians, who boiled down the work of Cassiodurus into a hodge-podge of poor dating. He placed Tomyris and her fictional Gothic "Geti" in the seaport town of Tomis on the Black Sea littoral, never mind that she lived in Kazahkstan and her people were Massagettae/Alans.

Ron makes a good point. There were two powerful factions in Britain, and the pro-Roman one initiated the "second migration" to Armorica, just in case the Vortigern element continued in power. The pro-Roman element is seen in the families of Saloman, Thieudebalth, Cunedda, Aurelianus, and Rusticus, all of whom intermarried, all of whom were originally "planted" on the island by the Imperial military.

Two commanders, whom we have come to know as Cunedda Wledig and Emrys Wledig, were the men who continued the standard posts of Comes Britannarium and Count of the Saxon Shore. They both led a legion of 2,000 men, plus a cavalry of 300 horse. Each legion was called a Gosgordd, and there were three. The third one, also with 2,000 foot and 300 horse, was commanded by the Imperitor or Dux Bellorum, a roving command over the two Gwledigs. This structure of post-Roman Britain's army matches that of the Romans. I take no credit in figuring this out. It was noticed back in the 1860s by W.F. Skene, and enlarged by the observations of professor John Rhys.

The amazing likenesses, the terms found in the poem "Chair of the Sovereign," repeat Roman structure-- "the steel alas" and "the loricated legions." The Imperator or Sovereign was not a "High King" but a continuation of the Count of Britain in the personage of Theodoric, who called himself "the bear," as found in Gildas. This is not an old fart's conjecture, but born out by the Welsh lanugage itself... and a solid military link between Roman Britain and post-Roman Britain. Not much changed.

This structural info comes from the worst source, Welsh poetry. But it' not fictional. We all know what happened in 1976, when two good men were chastized for "using ambiguous traditional sources." The scholarly venue plummeted and the nut cases came out of the woodwork. That criticisim was unwarrented, because all we have is poetry, pedigrees, and a few scrids of truth. To give up, to simply set the post-Roman problem aside and relegate it to the Wilsons & Blacketts, to the Norma Goodridges, is defeatism.

Where Riothamus fits into this scheme is dubius. He was a general in charge of Armoricans, yet he transported some Britions up the Loire. They fought Euric's Goths... and a great percentage went down to where worms live. This appears to be the fate of Riothamus.

Have a good one,
A.J. Campbell, freezing in Maine

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Alanus,

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." [..]
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.

Yes, IF you look at it that way, but it seems to me that that's a very strained explanation of a perfectly Brythonic name. Rigothamos, indeed, needs no Greek of latin explanation at all, and means 'most kingly'. Many of such names occur in early Medieval Britain: other examples are Vortigern (*Wortigernos 'great lord'), St Kentigern (Cunotigernos 'Hound-like Lord'), Catigern (Catutigernos 'Battle Lord'), Tigernmaglus (Tigernomaglos 'Lordly Prince'), or Ritigern (Rotigernos 'Great Lord'). Other known personal names formed on other words for 'ranks' are also familiar, such as Vortimer (*Wortamorix 'Highest King') and the Anglized Tudor (the family of Henry the VIII), which stemmed from Tudyr (Teutorix 'King of the Tribe')! None of these or other name compounds in *tigernos or *rix or the like expressed social ranks as common-nouns. Aristocratic names in -rix are common in early Celtic without any implication that any of the holders of them were kings.

Saint Germanus of Auxerre, who was totally Alamannic, his father being Fraomarius Rusticus, King of the Alamanni, and his mother being Germanilla.

I beg your pardon?? Where did you get that pedigree from???

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.

A five-family 'party'??? Coal? You speak in riddles.

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:

I have no reason whatsoever to compare Anthemius with JB. What grounds would there be for that? He was a candidate for the Roman throne sent by the ruler of the eastern Empire, Leo.
But, Anthemius might have had a throne and could argue that, in theory, his rule extended from the Danube to the Med, from Africa to Scotland. But, of course, he would be lucky to just control Italy. Which is why he needed the armies from Britain and who knows else he could get.

[Robert Vermaat]

The other point is this-- Riothamus was a prince of Domnonnee, and a leader of Armorican troops. Sidonius calls them such.

Nope, he never does call them Armoricans. Plus the Breton connections, or better said, claims about Riothamus, are all much later and smell badly of trying to incorporate earlier figures from history into much later pedigrees.

Naturally the Breton contingents, plus the Burgundi, and Arverni, the Alans and Taifli, all of whom were in this mess against Euric

Sez who?

There were two powerful factions in Britain, and the pro-Roman one initiated the "second migration" to Armorica, just in case the Vortigern element continued in power.

Sez who, again? Pure speculation? We have no idea whatoever about any 'migration waves', so to claim that, plus that we know that they were centrally orchestrated, plus that we know by whom, is nothing but empty speculation. Best stick to facts Alanus.

The pro-Roman element is seen in the families of Saloman, Thieudebalth, Cunedda, Aurelianus, and Rusticus, all of whom intermarried, all of whom were originally "planted" on the island by the Imperial military.

More and more riddles.

Two commanders, whom we have come to know as Cunedda Wledig and Emrys Wledig, were the men who continued the standard posts of Comes Britannarium and Count of the Saxon Shore. They both led a legion of 2,000 men, plus a cavalry of 300 horse. Each legion was called a Gosgordd, and there were three. The third one, also with 2,000 foot and 300 horse, was commanded by the Imperitor or Dux Bellorum, a roving command over the two Gwledigs. This structure of post-Roman Britain's army matches that of the Romans. I take no credit in figuring this out. It was noticed back in the 1860s by W.F. Skene, and enlarged by the observations of professor John Rhys.

Come on Alanus, this is getting ridiculous. Medieval titles and names, numbers juggled out of nowhere. You're right to take no credit for that, it's 19th c. fantasy. Best let it stay that way.

I'm sure I'm going to do so if this discussion does not sway back from these marshes on to steady ground. :twisted:

[Alanus]

I was incorrect, Robert. Sidonius doesn't call them "Armoricans," he referrs to them as "certain Bretons." (Sidonius, III, ix) And of course, we have no idea, especially based on traditional fantasies, why Riothamus would be heading a contingent of "Bretons."

This short war was based on Euric's aggression, and the first above him were the Taifals living on the south side of the Loire. They could not have sat this thing out. The Alans were positioned just above the Taifals and west of the cantons of Britanny, also in harm's way. The Burgundi were given the Saxon hostages from the first engagement; and directly after the major conflict, they were given food and shelter by Ecdicius the Arvernus, and strange gesture if they were not allies. (Sidonius, Letter to Ecdicius) So I was overly bold for adding up geographical and humane evidence.

I am guilty of using traditional Celtic sources which cannot be actual truth, since the Celts (and myself as a Campbell and one of those Celts) must have created them out of swamp gas. But when I find both Ashe and Morris trying their best to come up with an incredible scenario for the reason that Daniel, the rumored son of Riothamus, was known as "a king of the Alamanni," I have to search deeper. Then I find in the obsensibly innaccurate pedigrees that Riothamus' father married the daughter of Fraomarius Rusticus. I search further and find that Valentinian advanced Fraomarius to king of the Alamanni and then "sent him to Britain with the rank of tribune." (Ammianus, XXIX, 4, 7). But it was unwise of me to arrive at my conclusion that possibly Daniel inherited this kingship within his own family, and that this family was in any way connected to the Roman military.

The same goes for Cunedda, called a Wledig by a Celtic tradition of breathing too much swamp gas. It was foolish of me to assume that his grandfather, "Patricius of the Red Cloak," and his great-grandfather, "Tacitus," could have been connected to any Latin-speaking army. The Romano-Britons, being drugged on fantasies and a mixture of blood, never could have had the mental acuity or organization to form two groups-- one pro-Roman and the other pro-Celtic. And again, as one of those silly Celts, I must have arrived at that conclusion through an unchecked imagination.

And last, the numbers were not juggled out of nowhere, but arrived through careful readings by honest men who could recognize Celtic word-play, something missing in modern scholarship, although I notice that a few people such as yourself, do have the ability. The numbers are found in "Chair of the Sovereign" which verbally predates the middle ages and may go back to the period under discussion. Few men are recorded as Gwledigs, and only one man was called the Imperator; and they show up in unrelated material over a span of half a century or more. Yes, the material is traditional, but so is much in Herodotus and confirmed by archaeology.

In the end, I am an old fart who believes that Rhys and Skene, those senile old Victorians, had something to offer in their scenarios... which are no worse than the postulations of "modern" politically correct historians. For his scolarship and attention to students, John Rhys was raised to knighthood after the Victorian era, an honor which has eluded his successors in the field of ancient Britain. Conversely, the very judgement of modern scholars is marred by the phrases "late antiquity" and "BCE." I am proud to be one of the former, with a modicum of imagination, yet the ability to connect links in a reasonable manner, even if using unpopular ancient materials that just might have an underlayment of historisity. Everything written about the "tactics of Riothamus," the brunt of this tread, was and will always be conjectural. There are few facts, only fuzz presented by Gregory and Jordanes, plus the personal letters by Sidonius. But we cannot dismiss the implied, especially when the same phrase or event shows up laterally in history, folk tales, poetry, and even stupidly inaccurate pedigrees.

Thank you for the opportunity of free speech and presenting silly scenarios that might have credence,

Alan J. Campbell, and proud of it

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Alan,

I was incorrect, Robert. Sidonius doesn't call them "Armoricans," he refers to them as "certain Bretons." (Sidonius, III, ix) And of course, we have no idea, especially based on traditional fantasies, why Riothamus would be heading a contingent of "Bretons."

No he doesn't.

This is the English translation from 1915:
"Book III, letter IX:
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 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."

This is the original latin text however:
LIBER III, EPISTULA IX
Sidonius Riothamo suo salutem.
1. Servatur nostri consuetudo sermonis: namque miscemus cum salutatione querimoniam, non" omnino huic rei studentes, ut stilus noster sit officiosus in titulis, asper in paginis, sed quod ea semper eveniunt, de quibus loci mei aut ordinis hominem constat inconciliari, si loquatur, peccare, si taceat. sed et ipsi sarcinam vestri pudoris inspicimus, cuius haec semper verecundia fuit, ut pro culpis erubesceretis alienis.
2. gerulus epistularum humilis obscurus despicabilisque etiam usque ad damnum innocentis
ignaviae mancipia sua Britannis clam sollicitantibus abducta deplorat. incertum mihi est an sit certa causatio; sed si inter coram positos aequanimiter obiecta discingitis, arbitror hunc laboriosum posse probare quod obicit, si tamen inter argutos armatos tumultuosos, virtute numero contubernio contumaces, poterit ex aequo et bono solus inermis, abiectus rusticus, peregrinus pauper audiri.
vale.

You can see that the interpretation of 'Britannis' with 'Bretons' is purely in the mind of the translator. :evil:

This short war was based on Euric's aggression, and the first above him were the Taifals living on the south side of the Loire. They could not have sat this thing out. The Alans were positioned just above the Taifals and west of the cantons of Britanny, also in harm's way. The Burgundi were given the Saxon hostages from the first engagement; and directly after the major conflict, they were given food and shelter by Ecdicius the Arvernus, and strange gesture if they were not allies. (Sidonius, Letter to Ecdicius) So I was overly bold for adding up geographical and humane evidence.

You don't know any of that when the texts do not speak of it. We have no information on what the Taifali or the Alans did, if they were allied to one side or another, or managed to buy one or both parties off, or indeed moved out of the way, or joined in the fighting. Speculation, alas.

I am guilty of using traditional Celtic sources which cannot be actual truth, since the Celts (and myself as a Campbell and one of those Celts) must have created them out of swamp gas. But when I find both Ashe and Morris trying their best to come up with an incredible scenario for the reason that Daniel, the rumoured son of Riothamus, was known as "a king of the Alamanni," I have to search deeper. Then I find in the obsensibly innaccurate pedigrees that Riothamus' father married the daughter of Fraomarius Rusticus. I search further and find that Valentinian advanced Fraomarius to king of the Alamanni and then "sent him to Britain with the rank of tribune." (Ammianus, XXIX, 4, 7). But it was unwise of me to arrive at my conclusion that possibly Daniel inherited this kingship within his own family, and that this family was in any way connected to the Roman military.

Yes, I see how you made the connections, which if you use historical method are indeed impossible connections. medieval poetry, alas, cannot offer us much more than an indication of what stories were known to the poet and his audience, and what they thought of it at those times, much later than when these things actually occurred. And poetry, same as medieval pedigrees, cannot offer us more than that - just a view from centuries later, not long-surviving detailed accounts of what happened.

The same goes for Cunedda, called a Wledig by a Celtic tradition of breathing too much swamp gas. It was foolish of me to assume that his grandfather, "Patricius of the Red Cloak," and his great-grandfather, "Tacitus," could have been connected to any Latin-speaking army. The Romano-Britons, being drugged on fantasies and a mixture of blood, never could have had the mental acuity or organization to form two groups-- one pro-Roman and the other pro-Celtic. And again, as one of those silly Celts, I must have arrived at that conclusion through an unchecked imagination.

Well, yes, those ideas about pro- and anti-Roman (or anti-Imperial, as I've also read some times) were very popular during the earlier 20th c., but they're really more about modern views of history than about reality. based as they are mostly on hints about culture (Vortigern being a Brythonic name - British party, Ambrosius being a Latin name- Roman party) and religion (Ambrosiuss - Catholic- Christians, Vortigern - myths about paganism - pagans) which were not based on solid evidence , but led to spin-offs of fantastic political scenarios.

And last, the numbers were not juggled out of nowhere, but arrived through careful readings by honest men who could recognize Celtic word-play, something missing in modern scholarship, although I notice that a few people such as yourself, do have the ability. The numbers are found in "Chair of the Sovereign" which verbally predates the middle ages and may go back to the period under discussion. Few men are recorded as Gwledigs, and only one man was called the Imperator; and they show up in unrelated material over a span of half a century or more. Yes, the material is traditional, but so is much in Herodotus and confirmed by archaeology.

Poetry is nice, but see above - I'm not prepared to discuss the numbers of Arthurian-period infantry units from the evidence of 9th to 11th-c. poetry. It's impossible. I'm very sorry for all of those who still believe that such manuscripts could actually show long-remembered information that someone managed to stash away somewhere.
I mean! Even from Roman sources we have great troubles getting exact information about actual unit strength (you've maybe noticed the many discussion about that topic on this forum), so why would we accept that medieval Welsh poetry could have access to such information which we don't get from Roman burocrats?
And frankly, I have not come across two people who actually agree on what a 'Gwledig' actually is. it's a title of sorts, or not.

In the end, I am an old fart who believes that Rhys and Skene, those senile old Victorians, had something to offer in their scenarios... which are no worse than the postulations of "modern" politically correct historians.

No no no, I must disagree with that. Those modern historians (and it's not very nice to all lump them together under a 'PC-banner', is it?) at least looked in many more sources than the Victorians did. Plus they did not alter the original sources as those Victorians did (see the 'translation of Sidonius, above) without blinking. You may not know it, but there are loads of discussions going on about our reliance on those 18th and 19th c. 'historians', who started traditions of interpretations which we must unravel again these days. Modern historians also have a century of development at their assistance (the study of manuscripts, development of sociology and what not) should they choose to use all that (I must add).

For his scolarship and attention to students, John Rhys was raised to knighthood after the Victorian era, an honor which has eluded his successors in the field of ancient Britain.

Well, very nice, but you know as well as I that he would not have received such an honour these days. :wink:

Conversely, the very judgement of modern scholars is marred by the phrases "late antiquity" and "BCE." I am proud to be one of the former, with a modicum of imagination, yet the ability to connect links in a reasonable manner, even if using unpopular ancient materials that just might have an underlayment of historicity. Everything written about the "tactics of Riothamus," the brunt of this tread, was and will always be conjectural. There are few facts, only fuzz presented by Gregory and Jordanes, plus the personal letters by Sidonius. But we cannot dismiss the implied, especially when the same phrase or event shows up laterally in history, folk tales, poetry, and even stupidly inaccurate pedigrees.

Well, I disagree. Oh no, you won't find me using nonsense like 'BCE' or 'BP' or that stuff (it's BC and AD for me, not because of religion but because that's the current choice of system). But I draw a sharp line between writing history and writing novels. What Rhys and colleagues did was the second.

[Agraes]

A note on the Breton genealogies. They were mostly made up in the central and late middle ages, to assert the strenght of the dukes of Britanny, to prove their lineage was older than the king of France's ancestry.
The "king of the Alemanni" passage is thought since a long time to be a simple corruption of "king of Albanni", ie the Britons, which would make way more sense.
The very existence of the kingdom of Domnonée is nowadays put in question, as we only heard of it in saints life and genealogies, but in no real trustable source.

[Robert Vermaat]

A note on the Breton genealogies. They were mostly made up in the central and late middle ages, to assert the strenght of the dukes of Britanny, to prove their lineage was older than the king of France's ancestry.

Exactly. When studying the Breton Life of St. Gurthiern I learned that hardly any historical material not copied elsewhere had survived Viking times.

The "king of the Alemanni" passage is thought since a long time to be a simple corruption of "king of Albanni", ie the Britons, which would make way more sense.

How about 'king of the Al(em)an(n)i? There are other cases where Alani and Alemanni are garbled.

[Alanus]

Hello to you both.

First let me apologize to Robert. I used the Anderson translation of Sidonius (1965) thinking it was more accurate than the 1915 version, and had failed to copy the original Latin text. Should have known that the term "Bretons" would not have been used in 470.

This "king of the Alamanni" reference is a mystery because it refers to an obscure person, Daniel or Dremrud, who was not a king of Britain. Robert may have a good point with the Alanic connection, since the family "ap Saloman" appears to be more likely Iranian than British, and the scribal fudging of this pedigee is substantial. I still believe the link, other than the Alanic one, is through Fraomarius Rusticus as found in Ammianus. It seems highly doubtful that the recordists of the Saloman line would have linked it to Fraomarius based up the info in Ammianus, yet we get the son of Riothamus as the great grandson of Fraomarius whom the scribes turned into a good Roman, aka "Flavius," totally unaware he was king of a Germanic tribe. The anamolies in a pedigee tell us more than the "bloodline" itself.

Once again we are conjectuting. But how can we not help it? "There is no history, only stories." And I believe the human animal has been postulating since the time of Lucy (perhaps a thought not welcomed by Creationists.)

As a footnote on this "Salt-a-mon" character, his corrupted name shows up in middle-age folk tales as Bors and two other knights sail off in "Solomon's ship."

[Arturus Uriconium]

Who'd have thought asking about the tactics of Riothamus would have brought about all that! Not complaining, I thinks it's been extremely interesting.

The whole Britannis and Britannia naming has caused many confusions. As mentioned, there was no Brittany or Breton in 470 - although talking about Britons doesn't mean they were natives of Britannia, they could have been of Letavia - and it happened later with Geoffrey of Monmouth and the book from Britannia, who many think meant Brittany, even though there's plenty of written evidence saying that Wales was referred to as Britannia in his time. I can't give you the direct quote at the moment, but one mentions: "Hereford, on the boarder of Britannia and Anglia."

Spelling changes through the ages - and even at the time - will always confound us and always lead to speculation and conjecture. I see nothing wrong with that as long as that we know that's what it is and don't say we've proved something - as is said in many, even 'respectable', books - and leave it open to debate and discussion. I have to say, it's times like this that I really wish I had a time machine!

[Agraes]

Salomon (or Salaün in breton) was the name of one of the kings of Brittany in the IXth century, and Salaün nowadays is a very popular last name here. It is very possible the pedigree melted up characters from various periods, even fictionnal ones, and it is aswell possible that several rulers had this name before the IXth century. It's a biblical name, but other famous high middle ages bri(e)ton had such names, Im mostly thinking to St Samson, one of the best well-known breton saints, he probably lived in the VIth century and his vita is the earliest of the breton saints vitae, possibly from the VIIIth century.

As for the possible corruption of Albani, I got to find the exact quote, I guess it's from Léon Fleuriot.

[Alanus]

If I can find it, I'd like to read the Life of Saint Sampson. Although the pedigree of this Riothamus line was "created" at a late date, it nonetheless shows the anamolies extending from fictional generations before Saloman. The pedigree is fascinating in two respects: it appears to be the oldest traces of the personal name "Alan" (also in Geoffrey's Historia) through alternating generations; and it's also full of more Biblical names than you normally see in a pedigree-- Andrew, John (Riothamus), Daniel, Jacob, Samson, all in successive generations.

By marriage (either fictitiously or possibly real) the pedigree connects this gens with that of Fraomarius Rusticus and his son Saint Germanus, and also to the gens of Theodoric ap Thiudebalth. Theodoric was the grandfather of Athruis who took the epithet of "Arthwyr." According to the Department of Welsh, University of Wales, Lampeter, the nomen Arthwyr means the "bear's grandson." This link to Theodoric (flourished 440 to 470) may place him as "the bear" of Gildas.

I don't know where this primary info falls. Either "third hand" or fictional; but if it was fictional, it rings far beyond coincidental, and written within a time period when the scribes had no clue of historical events in the fifth century. Based on that, some of this pedigree stuff could be true.

[Robert Vermaat]

I don't know where this primary info falls. Either "third hand" or fictional; but if it was fictional, it rings far beyond coincidental, and written within a time period when the scribes had no clue of historical events in the fifth century. Based on that, some of this pedigree stuff could be true.

But of course they had - some sources were known, such as Jordanes, Gregory of Tours and similar sources. It was from such sources that names were 'borrowed' to make up the pedegrees of important people, or people important to others.

You can see that with St. Gurthiern. By himself maybe even a non-existant person and hence totally unimportant, were it not that he had been chosen to be the founder of a Benedictine abbey, and a forged history of the supposed 6th-c. foundation was created during the 12th c. If you read the text, the information seeems tantalizing. The saint looks like he might be Vortigern himself, fled from Wales to Brittany, where he became a saint. His paternal ancestry resembles that of Vortigern, and his maternal ancestry seems to offer valuable new information... until you realise it's stolen in it's entirety from St. Kentigern. And then all pieces fall into place: St. Gurthiern does not exist, he's a cut-and-paste job from a 12thc. writer who no doubt worked for the abbey.

Nothing out of the ordinary. Not for brittany, where no real local historical information of pre-Viking times had survived, but also not ffor the rest of Europe, where often 5th c. founder were 'transplanted' onto later families.
Read how it works here:
St.Gurthiern: http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artsou/gurthiern.htm
Wandering connections: http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/arth ... tsmove.htm