Riothamus is the “Briton king from across Ocean” whom Geoffrey Ashe identifies as Arthur of the fifth century, but should be the epithet referring to Ambrosius Aurelianus, defeated by Euric the Visigoth. RIOTHAMUS: AMBROSIUS AURELIANUS’S EPITHET BRITON KING FROM ACROSS OCEAN As the section in this website titled Ambrosius Aurelianus indicates, King Arthur’s historicity is not during fifth-century Briton history, which transfers to Ambrosius Aurelianus, a king recorded in Gildas Badonicus’s De Excidio, Bede’s History of the English Church and People, and Nennius’s Historia Brittonum. As worded in The Arthurian Encyclopedia, consensus is that The Latin form Riothamus, used with slight variants in continental text, corresponds to the British Rigotamos. Rig, with the added o in a compound, meant ”king”; tamos was a superlative suffix. As a noun, this word would mean “king-most” or “supreme king.” To attest whether or not Ambrosius Aurelianus can assume the role of Riothamus, a chronology and a fix on historical figures of that era must be devised to determine if Ambrosius’s floruit and life-span fit the mold, a task which is difficult because of inconsistencies and contradictions during a period when loyalties changed more rapidly than temperatures. Two key historical figures are Ægidius and his son Syagrius. During this time, Ricimer, a barbarian German federate allied to Valentinian III’s court, installed a puppet, Livius Severus, to rule the Frankish empire. Maintaining loyalty to the weakening Western Roman Empire, Ægidius withheld allegiance to Ricimer. In 457 the Frankish settlers in that area were in conflict with their king Childeric, and in order to stop civil infighting they banished him; ignoring the puppet Livius they accepted Ægidius as their leader. The second migration of the Britons during this period was not a panicked headlong rush off the island. Ambrosius’s victories as recorded by Gildas probably stabilized the internecine combat on the island so that a pact might have been forged to help quell the insurrections in Gaul. It was likely that Ægitius and his son Syagrius put Riothamus and Britons in charge of coastal defenses in return for a land settlement. Upon Ægidius’s death, Syagrius became ruler of Gaul. Childeric was later reinstated as leader of the Franks, and several significant events happened in rapid succession. During the period between 468 and 470, a leader named Odovacer (Odoacer), a part of the Roman Army and a member of the Imperial Guard, became dissatisfied during the unrest and switched allegiance to the warring Saxons who were aggressively active in the Loire Valley and around Angers. In a compact, history, Gregory of Tours relates that when the rampaging Saxons under Odovacer reached Angers, the Romans and the Franks fought the Saxons: Saxons fled and left many of their people to be slain, the Romans pursuing. Their islands were captured and ravaged by the Franks, and many were slain. As an aside, Geoffrey Ashe proposed in The Discovery of King Arthur A startling possibility is that Agned is Angers, where the Loire Saxons were beaten, probably when Arthur- Riothamus was in the neighborhood. It has rising ground where some of the fighting may have taken place. Gregory of Tours in the sixth century gives Angers the Latin names Andegavi and Andegavum. When writing of the Saxons and their collapse he uses both spellings. Given either, in Gregory or elsewhere, scribal contraction and corruption would have been quite equal to producing Agned. This explanation could not compete with a known and confirmed Agned in Britain, but none exists, and even the possibility is exciting, in a place where a major Saxon defeat is on record and the King of the Britons [i.e., Riothamus] may have played a part. Since King Arthur’s historicity is associated with the fifth century between 468 and 470, if the name Arthur is changed to Ambrosius Aurelianus, the same could be true for the above citation. After Leo I appointed Anthemius to rule as the bonafide emperor of the Western Empire, deep rifts occurred. According to W.B. Anderson, Anthemius supported the Britons and Gauls (in 467) against Euric, who had murdered his brother Theodoric (in 466) to become the sole king of the Visigoths. However, the new emperor’s seditious viceroy, Arvandus, urged Euric not to make peace with Anthemius but to attack the British beyond the Loire, claiming that a treaty had partitioned Gaul between the Visigoths and Burgundians. Arvandus’s message was intercepted and Arvandus was summoned to Rome to stand trial, but the essence of the message was still conveyed to Euric, who realized the perfidy at the core of Gaul’s empire. Jordanes, in his Gothic History of 551, wrote Now Euric king of the Visigoth, 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 [Riothamus] came with twelve thousand men into the state of the Biturges by way of Ocean, and was received as he disembarked from his ships. Euric, king of the Visigoths, came against them [Riothamus’s forces] with an innumerable army, and after a long fight he routed Riothamus, king of the Brittones, before the Romans could join him. So when [Riothamus] 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. This cataclysmic defeat followed on the heels of the victory over the Saxons at Angers. Roman reinforcements never arrived because of a rebellion by Childeric and the Saxons. The treaty with the Saxons after the Battle of Angers had supposedly made the Saxons and Franks allies, and therefore a contingent of the Roman army was deterred from joining Riothamus, who was then overwhelmed. Gregory of Tours in the History of the Franks adds one more detail: “The Britanni [which would include Riothamus] were driven from Bourges by the Goths, and many were slain at the village of Deols.” After Riothamus’s retreat into Burgundy, he drops from the histories. The letter from Sidonius to Riothamus helps sort out the confusing history of this period by validating at least one date, and in itself provides some personal information about Riothamus. In late 469, Sidonius was installed at Clermont as bishop of the Arveni and was therefore in Gaul at the same time that Arvandus, Anthemius’s seditious viceroy, was on trial. As a high ranking cleric, Sidonius was asked to make a plea to Riothamus on behalf of a humble rustic whose slaves were being enticed away from the farmer by soldiers of Riothamus’s army. In the letter’s introduction, he writes: Here is a letter in my usual style, for I combine complaint with greeting, not with an express intention of making my pen respectful in it superscription but harsh in the letter itself, but because things are always happening about which it is obviously impossible for a man of my rank and cloth to speak without incurring unpleasantness or to be silent without incurring guilt. Because Sidonius is in Gaul and had been installed as bishop in 469, his use of the words “rank and cloth” refer to his ecclesiastic position, showing that the letter was written after his appointment. His compliments to Riothamus indicate that he has already had several contacts with him and knows of Riothamus’s impartiality and fair dealings with others: However, I am a direct witness of the conscientiousness which weighs on you so heavily, and which has always been of such delicacy as to make you blush for the wrongdoing of others. These praises of Riothamus bring to mind Gildas Badonicus’s praise of Ambrosius Aurelianus. Summarizing the points about Riothamus: 1. Jordanes and Gregory of Tours both refer to Riothamus as a Briton, not a Breton. 2. Riothamus comes to Gaul by way of Ocean. 3. There is no “High King” of Britain named Arthur during the sixth decade of the fifth century. 4. The one “High King” of merit from Britain during the sixth decade of the fifth century is Ambrosius Aurelianus, named by Gildas Badonicus, Bede, and Nennius. 5. Both Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus are wreathed with praise. 6. Floruits are the same for both Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus. 7. The battle of Angers (the eleventh of the battle-list) might very well have been fought by Riothamus, a.k.a. Ambrosius Aurelianus. 8. No death-date is provided for either Riothamus or Ambrosius Aurelianus. 9. And interestingly, Riothamus’s disappearance into Burgundy closely matches the date some researchers claim was the inception of the historic King Arthur in the 470s.