Sub-Roman Britain (Cavalry etc)

[Agraes]

Some have questioned Riothamus and his Gallic adventure as a legend on the level of him-who-must-not-be-named. Is Riothamus better supported, historically? (To add to the confusion, I seem to remember that "Riothamus"--something like "high king"--may have been his title, not his name.)

He is clearly historical, as we have three contemporary or near contemporary sources. We know of his expedition thanks to Jornandes and Gregorius of Tours, and Sidonius Appolinaris did wrote him a letter just a few time before or after (the chronology is not clear) he got defeated by Euric. His name came from a celtic Rigo-thamos if I'm not wrong, which can be translated as "super-king". I already mentionned his potential identification with Ambrosius Aurelianus, and he is also famous for having been identified as "him-who-must-not-be-named" by Geoffrey Ashe. At least it is very likely his continental expedition and his legacy influenced the development of the arthurian legend, but this is not the subject of the discussion.
One "Riatam" is also mentionned in the breton kinglists for continental Dumnonia. Those kinglists beeing quite late.

Here a discussion about him on the forum:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25393">viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25393<!-- l

There once was a long, very interesting thread here about the Anglo-Saxons more assimilating the Britons than conquering them, and certainly not wiping them out. We often use the verb "pushed back" to describe the Briton remnant remaining in Cornwall and Wales, but the consensus seemed to be that most Britons stayed in place as a part of the new Saxon-dominated kingdoms of Wessex, Mercia, etc.

That may be one of that ones:
<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25429">viewtopic.php?f=25&t=25429<!-- l

There is also some bits about that subject lost on the precise thread you are currently reading.
At least that theory seems to be accepted by most scholars today. We have the other extreme opinion with people such as Francys Pryor suggesting there was no saxon invasion.
As often it is wise to aim for the in-between theory. There were clearly wars between Saxons and Britons, invasion and slaughters. However it is not to be forgotten the Saxons were invited in the first place by the Britons more or less as foederati. Stuart Laycock proposed it was by some of the civitates to be used as extra-muscles in the civil wars. Ken Dark has also argued the early settlement pattern of the Anglo-saxons shows they installed themselves in the borders of several civitates. It is for me clear many of those newcomers were under Brittonic command, and we do have evidence of the survival of those brittonic estates in eastern Britain into the 6th century. Anyway, the British population will slowly adopt the ways of the germanic settlers, such as they adopted roman civilisation a few centuries ago. But for the 5-7th centuries, we have a picture of a mixed civilisation in the emerging anglo-saxon kingdoms. Cerdic and Cynric of Wessex had celtic, not germanic names. The 6th century corrugated spearheads found in Wessex are derived from Latenian celtic forms. Mercia and Northumbria had a lot of diplomatic links with "celtic" kingdoms, be they Pictish, Gaelic or Brittonic. Several exemples could be added, but the overhaul picture shows something quite similar to what happened in the continent. In Gaul the Merovingian culture was a combination of the Frankish and Romano-Gallic cultures. The processus was of course different, as Frankish aristocracy was probably more romanised than Anglo-saxon aristocracy, adapting quickly to the organisation of Roman Gaul to build on a powerful kingdom. In Britain, conquest was much more slower, this had maybe both to do with the already existing fragmentation of political power when the Anglo-saxons arrived and the number of different groups within the settlers. Such a slower process also may explain why the germanic culture had more impact on the locals and why english, not latin nor brittonic, became the dominant language of Britain.