I'm going to repeat my post below. Can you show any evidence of a mass barbarian invasion from the mainland? There hasn't been a shred of evidence. No battle sites, no mass graves, no DNA, nothing a part from one monks writings...he also talked about half man half beast creature's etc. Please stop pushing this false narrative

Your pronunciation of Romano-Britons is a bit confusing. I kept thinking what do good people of Brighton have to do with it 😁

Dear Sebastian ... Congratulations on another excellent video! No matter how much I hear about the Roman Empire, it's never quite enough! Especially seen that it's likely you are to pick up on the themes you left this episode with, to echo @fierceuk above, and with all humility and acknowledgement that your English is about 734 times better than my German, if you do make another video, please please note it is a "hard i" in Briton. In other words the "i" is the same sound as in "it" "bit" and "pinch". In fact, it is is extremely similar to how one says "Britain" - certainly the first syllable is identical. With "Briton" even the stress is still in the first syllable like it is with "Britain". But where the "ai" part of "Britain" is a schwa - a general, non specific vowel sound - you can differentiate Briton from Britain by forming a more definite "hard o" sound like you are already doing - as in "off" "pot" and "cottage". Brighton - which is what you're currently saying - is a large, prosperous and cosmopolitan town on the south coast of England which enjoys sunny weather and a somewhat louche reputation - I have friends there, and they are VERY louche, so take my word for it😂 I wouldn't normally quibble over accents/pronunciation - in fact they add charm and engagement - but where it can cause confusion or inhibits the natural flow of your narrative (in other words creates barriers to understanding and/enjoyment), that is a slightly different matter. I only mention it to help and advise and allow you to make any small changes so you can keep your output the best it can be!!🙂

what is the big mystery ? iecland vulcanos had 2 year eurupsion making the sun go black for 2 years no harvest and evry tribe on raiding for survival THATS why rome left england thy tink it whas the end of times

Hi Sebastian. Have you looked into the recent archeological research on Ostia Antica? It’s now believed that people continued to construct buildings there even as the port city declined at the end of Roman times.

In the past great civilizations were conquered and their citizens died in battles the world will never forget defending them to the last. Our civilization looks like being the first in history that will die because its citizens simply lost the will to live shortly after inventing reality TV.

What you’re describing is a demolition.

Civilisation is sometimes a thin veneer applied by a civilising coloniser, which can collapse abruptly if the coloniser departs with little warning. Kenya... India... Rhodesia... Afghanistan... all examples. Surviving a decolonisation without falling into sectarianism, civil war and kleptocracy is near-miraculous, and I have huge respect for those that have done so - it is a true mark of civilisation.

I'm from near the Welsh borders myself and agree the most recent research papers point to a much more subtle and varied process of continuity fusion and transition after the initial migration phase which had most impact on the southeast coast region .

@grahamdeamer128 - It seems logical that "Romanitas" would have had a greater hold in the big cities and more settled areas and probably less in the more rural areas, just as the Norman Conquest probably had more immediate impact in terms of who the local bigwigs were and didn't entirely displace the "Saxon" culture of the average serf!

@@phil5365 I'm Welsh, but lived in East Anglia for a long time. There the Anglo-Saxons lived in huts and let their animals live in the Roman villas (according to an archaeologist friend of mine). It says a bit about the people from that area. 🤣

@@dandare1001 Yes - but that happened AFTER circe 540...

@@teleriferchnyfain So is that when the Anglo-Saxons were more established? Before that was the slow exit of Roman culture. Is that what you mean?

They’d find it hard to believe Britannia would eventually have the largest Empire in the world (and around it) but they’d definitely take credit like you said😂

The latter, of course.

That's unironically what the ancient Chinese thought when they made contact with Rome. They literally wrote that the Romans were from China, but left it at some point.

Or that they would again be overrun by immigrants.

Yes I thought that was funny and interesting, same with them thinking Rome produced their own silk. The Chinese also had the habit of calling everyone that wasn't Chinese "barbarians" - which probably wasn't the wisest diplomatic strategy, especially when speaking to countries that became more powerful than them.@@samiamtheman7379

Good pick-up of the Justinian Plague c532+. Intriguing...

"Stay a while and listen"

The Justinian plague was truly apocalyptic

Would make sense it would have killed of the populations of many of Britain's last big cities that the Romano britonic Lords pulled their romanised manpower from, this decrease in manpower could left have the armies of the britons in the western territories in areas like Cumbria and Wales undermanned who would have pulled men from big cities , that would have been severely hit by plague.

​@@constantinexi6489it was the black plague after all.

Riothamus came to Gaul as an ally (probably as a foederati force), as the video clearly states.

He’s also the BEST candidate for Arthur…

Thats a great analogy! I could see it being very similar, with their own militia, speaking their own language stubbornly hokding on ehike dreaming of past glories.

Interesting analogy and highly evocative, especially since in Heart of Darkness a similar analogy is drawn about the first Romans arriving in Britain!

Probably didn’t know how to live any other way.

Wow, I was just gonna type this! Exactly what I was thinking. All this optimistic-hype - when it could be a brutal reality. That some Romans spent their fortunes hiring mercenaries to guard their plantations. And they instilled a reign of terror on the populace, in attempt to hang on to the past. Finding a "newer" mosaic on the floor speaks nothing of what really went on. It was a time of epic collapse, volcanic winter, worldwide plague/famine, and the breakdown of society. My guess - it was NOT rosy.

@dhm7815 Bede (modern English spellng) actually did work to reform the entire Calendar. This was because the old Julian system had become increasingly out of step with the actual seasons of the year. (This was due to the fact that while the Romans understood the priniciple of the leap year, the solar year is not precisely 365.25 days long and eventually the very small difference added up to a huge error.) While Bede's work was important, it required both a shift to the Gregorian Calendar, which was created in1582, but not adopted in England until 1752, and modern technology, to really measure the year. Bede did not really change the date of Easter, rather he was interested in the system of mathematics which the Catholic Church used to calculate Easter and reported how the English Church came to adopt the Roman dating and system of calculation after the Synod of Whitby in 664 and how this brought unity to the English Churches. Prior to Whitby, different systems were used and this meant different areas began and ended Lent or celebrated Easter at slightly different times. This was no problem until a Queen from Kent married a Northumbrian King. They could end up fasting or feasting days apart from one another. Bede did not get rid of the need to calculate the date for each year - this is due to the fact that Easter is connected to the Jewish Passover and the Equinox and the differences between an imprecise Solar calendar and an imprecise Lunar calendar made the calculation more complex over time. There are still differences in the date of Easter, not only from year to year, but between Catholics/Protestants and the Orthodox and Coptic Churches as well as others such as the Armenian Church. For historical and scientific reasons some wish to continue to calculate Easter, based on Passover, the Equinox and the full moon, while others wish it were a fixed date every year. See: theconversation.com/fix-the-date-of-easter-the-venerable-bede-would-be-spinning-in-his-grave-54096#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20key%20episodes,was%20still%20fasting%20for%20Lent.

@@charleshayes2528 Well explained. Just an honorary mentioning of professor Milutin Milanković (1879-1958) who produced a Revised Julian calendar in 1923 now adopted by all but five of Eastern Orthodox churches. I am mentioning this for the “Julian” element in the name: it reminds us of its Roman origins.

@@someoneno-one7672Thank you for telling me. I didn't know that. Sadly, the historical schism between Catholics and Orthodox (c. 1054) and political tensions since, means Orthodox are historically unwilling to use the Gregorian Calendar, since it is named after the Roman Catholic Pope Gregory XIII. This may also explain why other Ancient Churches, such as the Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian Churches also use a different calendar for their liturgical year. However, modern ecumenical endeavours, including the attempt to fix the date of Easter in a way which would be acceptable to all, might mean the calendars eventually become aligned. By the way, I read a weird short story, years ago, where it was said that Satan wanted everyone to agree on the Calendar, because only then could he bring about the end of the world, so that resistance to a standard was actually a good thing. It is probably 40 or even 50 years since I read that, so I am sorry I can't remember the details or the author or even the title.

@someonenp- one7672 ...and Caesarian origin !

There are almost no coins found at Hadrian's Wall older than 402 A.D. No coin means no army. Maximus took troops in 383 A.D., Stilicho took troops in 401 A.D., and Constantine took anyone else left behind in about 407 A.D. That's it. After that, no more troops in Britain are getting paid from Rome. Local defense militias? Sure, but not getting paid.

Not only that ..many were "Germanic" descended particularly the dispatch riders of the angarion who maintained the roads way stations and postal and haulage systems.

exept britannia was de romanized.

​@flyingfoamtv2169 Pretty much right after it was de-romanised, it began to be romanised again. The Anglo Saxon Kings, Welsh Princes, and Gaelic Kings of Scotland all began flirting with roman imperial status once they established themsleves in the aftermath of the anglo-saxon migrations. Then the further spread of roman Catholic christianity drew the British Isles back into the wider post-roman world

@@Oldmanplum catholisicm doesnt equal roman society. i dont consider the catholic world to be roman by default, in fact i wouls argue that in the medieval era all of western europe was culturally and politically post roman.

It's been centuries since Spain left the New World, and yet Spanish culture is alive and well throughout Latin America.

@@rumrunner8019 Tell this fact to our(Romania) neighbor to the West, who keeps pushing a self-interested narrative that denies our Latin heritage.

Historians write history..many were little people

@@HepatitisBChannelHepatitisB The literate write history; historians compile it. Elites choose what will and won’t be broadly published and easily accessible.

I’d be really interested in a video of this era from a class struggle point of view. Why did peasants continue to work for the landed gentry when the army was gone?

@@andyds11 I’m sure you could find one in the Moscow state archives.

@@andyds11 Because the landed gentry had the overwhelming majority of the military power, and hence the peasants needed (or were 'convinced' of the need for) their protection. Also, the peasantry was a very disparate 'class', and they had no 'class consciousness' as the Marxists like to say - so no one felt the need to overthrow the landed gentry, which often wasn't that different from the peasants anyway. At least this is how I understand the situation; I'm not a historian and the British Isles were (and still are) a very different place depending on where you are.

I heard that too. Somebody was REALLY lazy when they came up with that one.

Well there’s definitely some truth to that, look at the decline of African countries after they became independent from their European conquerer.

The technological rollback was much worse in some regions such as Wales. In other areas, as long as the remaining population was high/dense enough and the local resources allowed it, city life continued for a while. Depopulation (not just from the loss of elites), lack of access to goods that used to be imported, and fragmentation of the territory can really hasten the decline. Culturally, everyone wants to continue, but they have to abandon the institutions, services, and even the cities themselves, once they can't occupy all the roles and maintain what's there.

I was mostly making fun of the horrible history teacher I had in high school, it know it was much more complicated but she truly believed Europeans were just idiots that couldn’t do anything.

The Welsh language, has a lot of Latin borrowings, or rather evidence of Latin words borrowed into the Brythonic language, the ancestor language of Welsh, which have carried in being used till today There also standing stones from the 6th century written in Latin. Many Christian foundations, churches and monastic date to the 6th Century in Wales.

I've wondered how organized and purpose-driven the Anglo/Saxon/Jute migration to Britain was along those same lines. Was it intended as an immediate conquest or just a desire to integrate into the area so long as their needs were met?

Excellent point.

They were unconnected raiders, like the later Vikings. There was no ‘invasion’ nor ‘conquest’

DNA research in the UK certainly shows there was no replacement of Celts by Anglo-Saxons. We carry both sets of genes plus much more.

Really? I wonder how the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa thought of that?

That's just your theory? Have you copyrighted it because it seems to be the story of every arthurian novel i have read in the last ten to twenty years.

I work in the shadow of Caer Guorthigernus, where he (Gwrtheiryn or Vortigern, depending on how Brythonic was transcribed) met his end when his tower caught fire after being struck by lightning while besieged by Uther Pendragon, according to Geoffrey of Monmouth. Monmouth is just over the other side of the hill. A few hundred yards from my office is St. Dubricius Church (Dyffrig or Tiburcius in other transcriptions) - he who crowned Arthur at Amesbury and at his Whitsun court at Caerleon, just 15 miles down the road. Around the bend in the River is Hentland, where Constantine of Kernow (Custennin) founded a seminary, and on the other side from Coppett Hill was King Constantine's Ford, overlooked by a Norman Castle built to guard it, and between the seminary and the ford is the former St Constantine's Church. The ford remained in the Crown Estate until a bridge was built in about 1870. Constantine it was to whom Arthur passed his crown to deputise for him. I could go on...

When the British monk Gildas wrote a Jeremiad against the contemporary rulers of Britain about in the first half of the 6th century he referred to the ruler who invited Saxon mercenaries in only as "superbus tyrranus", the "proud usurper". Centuries later the Welsh writer Nennius called him Vortigern. However the prefix vor- could simply be a translation into Welsh of superbus, and tigern is the Welsh pronunciation of Latin Tyrranos. Look at all of the alleged Saxon "victories" prior to 546 in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles. These appear to have been excerpts from Saxon sagas, that is dinner theatre. These stories were recounted to glorify the host. Moreover when you look at the details of these battles they appear yo involve no more than a couple of dozen fighters on each side. But the bottom line is all of these alleged battles are located within less than 30km/18miles of the eastern or channel coast. And the Kingdom of Wessex was ruled by kings with Welsh names until the 8th century. Why 546? Firstly it is almost certainly after the Welsh States were described as still having a Latin administration as a result of a political restoration by Ambrosius Aurelianus after the alleged Vortigern, but also because 546 has recently been identified as "The Worst Year" in the first millenium because it was a year without a summer, probably because of a volcanic mega-eruption.

@@jamescobban857 Hi, thanks for the linguistic lesson and for the information about "The Worst Year". It would be interesting if someone did a video or a series on how weather or natural phenomena impacted history. There are the volcanic eruptions, the little Ice-Ages, such as the climate that influenced Dickensian views of White Christmases as normal and there are also the floods that hit the Humber and River Hull in 1253 and the possible "tsunami" that travelled up the Severn in 1607!

There’s a lot of evidence that this actually happened, you know.

This is true. Many had started new lives, and had established homes and families. There was no real reason to leave.

The British WERE Roman citizens, since 212. Many legionnaires retired in Britain, as did Senators & rich merchants. It was just as Roman as Hawaii is American - more so in fact .

Only a/the Field Army left with Constantine 3rd, & it may have not been in Britain long in any case. The regular garrison would only have supplied any elite troops for his expedition into Europe. He was successful for a couple of years, enough time to sort out the defences of Britannia, as he also had the Roman Rhine armies to use, as well as barbarian allies. No one expected that Britain was to be lost to Rome, this only happened after Constantine's defeat, when Rome failed to send a new administration, because of the chaos at the centre of the Empire. The Britons would not have considered the Romans to be occupiers at this time, because they were Romans. It was the incoming Germans that were foreigners.

@@danielferguson3784 Actually Britannia WASN'T lost to Rome - Rome (in the form of the Roman Governor of Gaul) even asked Riothamus (High King of the Britons) to give aid against the Franks. Rome told the British Romans to 'fend for themselves' ie choose their own officials instead of waiting for Honorius to do so (cause, very over-extended & facing lots of problems at the time.

It has: "The Long Sunset", R. C. Sheriff, kzfaq.info/get/bejne/etuBo8qduM6vpnk.html

Roman British citizenry didn't evacuate, period. The legions were recalled.

They may have used Ermin Street between Cirencester, Swindon and Marlborough to outflank the Saxon army. (And this battle may have also been the origin of the legend of King Arthur.)

All the evidence is that Badon took place at the end of the 5thC not in the early 6thC. There is zero evidence that it was against the Jutes and Saxons expanding westwards on the south coast. This is pure speculation. The Anglo Saxon chronicle which (supposedly) records that south coast expansion, makes no mention of Badon.

Ambrosius Aurelianus, as is evident from Gildas, (probably writing in the mid 530s), was a character of the 5thC, not the 6th, since Gildas mentions his grandchildren. He was likely dead for more than 50 years by 520.

They still speak French in West africa today.

Died around 498-500

Yeah - that’s pretty much what most think…

Many immigrants to America wound up going back home, but the Irish had the fewest returnees.

Ed. Consistent, not consistence. Predictive texting!

Sadly the pub in Chedworth itself, the Seven Tuns, has now closed. I know the Green Dragon though, at Cowley.

@user-re2fl3sh2d While a fair number must have fled to e.g.; Brittany (witness how many Cornish Saints turn up in Brittany for instance) it can't be the whole story, since the Synod of Whitby, 664 and two generations after Augustine of Canterbury, met to discuss which celebration of Easter to adopt - popularly it is seen as Irish versus Roman, but the one they actually chose may have been Northumbrian (and not strictly the Roman dating) rather than the Irish one. Another issue, which seems trivial to us, is which monastic haircut to use, "Irish" or "Roman". Augustine's mission seems to have been to the new Saxon/Angles/Jutes in Kent and surrounding areas and not so much to the indigenous and already Christianised peoples, but if Augustine had completely won over all of the "English" to Roman Christianity and if Celtic Christianity had been entirely limited to Brittany and Ireland (and maybe, bits of Wales) then there would have been no need for the Synod. It can only have been because there was a living tradition of "Irish" monasticism and diverse celebration of Easter that the Synod was necessary. Also, monastries were often the founding or mother church of an area, so monastic tradition would have almost certainly influenced popular piety. I am a retired Evangelist and Bible Teacher and am very aware that the "Irish"/Celtic methods of planting monastic communities and churches varied somewhat from the Roman approach, which was more bureaucratic and centred on Bishops. However, one of my books, which is excellent in other ways, is deeply disappointing because it begins its discussion of English Christianity with Augustine and doesn't really ask what came before. The fact that the Anglican Church (and the pre-Reformation Catholic Church) traces back to Canterbury for its foundation shouldn't, at this late date, prevent an honest appraisal of what came before. After all, the Celtic churches were still within the mainstream (both Catholic and Orthodox, since they were still one Church at this point) and brought in traditions, such as Confession, which may go back to Egyptian monasticism and which were much more tolerant than the view that post-baptismal sin could not be forgiven.

@@charleshayes2528 Thank you for raising some of the points that I left out of my original post for reasons of brevity: touching on "Irish" monasticism, the Synod of Whitby and the apparent tensions in continuing English Christianity that the latter sought to resolve. (The additional point you raise regarding the strong Breton connection is well taken.) The key issue is, I think, pointed at in your statement that "Augustine's mission seems to have been to the new Saxon/Angles/Jutes in Kent and surrounding areas and not so much to the indigenous and already Christianised peoples...". Even accepting the underlying premise that Augustine targeted exclusively the new Kentish overlord-class - a very Roman Church way of doing things which that Church continued to favour universally over the intervening centuries - we are indeed left with the erasure from history and the record of those "already Christianised peoples" left over from Rome's occupation of the island. What of those who did not flee but stayed on as farmers and (vestigial) urban dwellers? Insofar as Provincial England had a continuing Christian church, then it no doubt mirrored in its form and organisation the models found in nearby Gaul and the Low Countries - if not the wider Empire. That implies bishops and elders/presbyters. Had these all vanished before Augustine turned up, or did he just discard them as redundant and superseded, best passed over in silence and neglect to avoid embarrassing questions of whose legitimate authority trumped whose? Did Augustine write them off as Donatists? You can see why both the pre-Reformation and post-Anglican might edit out entirely this hangover story from the end of Roman Britain.

@@user-re2fl3sh2d Hi, thanks. I do tend not to be brief. However, I will try here. Your questions are all good. On the one hand, it isn't correct to see the Romano British (Celtic) Churches as somehow completely separate from Rome or as proto-Protestant. It is not at all similar to the current separation of Western Catholicism from Eastern Orthodoxy, or even more the schism between Catholics and Protestants, where the "orders" and sacraments of the latter aren't considered valid by Rome. In the 6th/7th century historical context, there was still only one Church, but with varying traditions and interpretations. It took centuries for the schism of 1054, between East and West, to finally take place and while there was obviously diversity in the West, hence Whitby, there was also an underlying unity at a time when things were less solidified and codified than later. The Western Church didn't introduce compulsory celibacy for priests until the 11th century, for example. So, it isn't likely that Augustine saw the locals as heretical or false. However, their use of different traditions and having a different model of evangelism may have raised his eyebrows. From my reading, it was a rare Bishop who could distinguish the common core of the faith from the specific "correct" way of doing things. OK, better stop, not as brief as I intended.

You're jumping to many conclusions without real evidence, his writing are in latin and therefore he's gonna use a whole bunch of terms which he believed were applicable but meaning something different and more local to what you interpret it as.

@@nodruj8681 I did not jump to any conclusions. I said it is a possibility. But I will gladly explain why I formulated this hypothesis. As I said, Gildas never refers to the Britons as Romans. He calls them cives. Taken in isolation , this fact does'nt mean anything. But let's compare Gildas to other sources which relate the course of events occurred in the fifth and sixth centuries elsewhere in the former territories of the Western Roman Empire. Hydatius and Isidore of Sevilla, when describing the gradual conquest of the Iberian peninsula by the Visigohts and the Suebi, when referring to the local population, use systematically the term "Romans". The same goes for Gregorius of Tours when describing the conquest of Gallia by the Franks. When Eugippus describes the evacuation of the civil population from Noricum by Odoacer he uses the term Romans as well. We observe the same usage by Aurelius Victor and Procopius when referring to the civil population living in Africa and Italy under Vandalic and Ostrogohtic rule respectivly. Even in the postroman berber kingdom of Altava a part of the population was still called roman and the king was " rex Maurorum et Romanorum". Furthermore, Gildas states that Ambrosius Aurelianus was possibly the only Roman who survived the onslaught of the Saxons. That clearly means that Gildas did not consider the Britons as Romans anymore.For this reasons I deem possible that the Britons reverted to their ancestral national identity in a relative short time. Concerning the title "dux" in opposition to "rex" , Gildas is quite clear: he mentions reges and tyranni. Kings and Tyrants. They were of course petty tribal kings and chiefs. Ambrosius is the only one called " dux" which is a typical roman military title. In this capacity, Ambrosius had the supreme command over the numerous petty kings and led the romano british forces against the Saxons.According to Gildas, Ambrosius's father wore the purple. That can only mean he was either a patrician senator or a high magistrate( with civilian or military powers, either a consul or a consularis ). So it is safe to assume that Ambrosius instead of reclaiming the title of rex, wich was sacrilegious for a Roman, tried at least to rivive a roman military office, ( the one of dux Britanniarum reported in the Notitia Dignitatum for instance).

But 'Cives' meant Roman.

Wow you mean the anglo saxons were illegal immigrants in there day. Did they come in rubber boats.

@antoniotorcoli5740 If Isidore or Gregory refer to Romanized people outside of Italy as Romans, and Gildas does not, that reflects not at all on the Romano-Britons. If Gregory referred to Gauls as Romans and RB as something else, that could be significant. But we have no such comparison. That makes it very likely that not using Roman is a Gildas peculiarity, especially when he obviously wishes to denigrate the RB compared to Real Romans.

Yes, one of my favorite Kipling poems. Also C.S. Lewis presents a very interesting picture of Merlin as a Romano-Brittan in his novel _ That Hideous Strength _.

@olwens1368 I don't think I know that poem, although I have read a lot of Kipling. I never thought about the question of enlistment in the Legions, just had a look, and apparently, we are talking about 17 years old at minimum and a usual service of 25 years. So a soldier could be in his early 40s when given the opportunity to retire and we know that many did retire into cities and towns referred to as "colonia" where the Roman population held Roman citizenship, even if they were born there as children of veterans. Apparently, Colchester, Gloucester and Lincoln are known to have been "colonia". Perhaps Kipling didn't have access to the data, but even a man of 40 years service would only be 57 and could live for decades longer if fit and well-fed. (Of course, average lifespan doesn't mean that individuals were all dead at a young age, since the average is influenced by infant mortality, illness and accident. Most Victorians, for example, could and did live far longer than the average, which is skewed by the massively high infant mortality under the age of 5 and other early deaths before adulthood.)

Wonderful Old RK was ahead of his time for sure.........a prescient genius if ever. Like you I adore this work....unlike Orwell!......and the Centurion's Song 'moves' me so and has done for many years. Such 'sweep' from so little:~ "Let me work here for Britain's sake ~ at any task you will ~ A marsh to drain, a road to make or native troops to drill'"

...lurk and listen ...😂😂😂 Kinda what we all do.

Three place names on the Mersey Estuary: Inch (Ynys), Celtic; Frodsham, Saxon; Helsby, Norse. Evidence here of a mixed population fifteen hundred years ago.

English leaders. The Scottish sent the Romans packing.

​@@dirkscott5410 Nah, they just thought Scotland was worthless and saw no point in invading.

One of them (I’d say Riothamus) is undoubtedly the ‘real’ Arthur in fact.

@@teleriferchnyfain Based on what I've read about the guy, I'd have to agree. His name may have been "Arthur" or "Artorius" as "Riothamus" was apparently a title.

@@morgan97475 Exacty. He's the origin of the legends in other words.

@@morgan97475 Artorius possibly. Or Ambrosius Aurlianus. Or Vitalinus of Glouscester (or a son of his). Or Caradoc... All strong contenders.

Definitely a cognomen rather than a name. BTW Riothamus is a title, as is Vortigern….

Germanic bear god was my understanding.

The person using ‘Arthur’ as a cognomen was tapping into the double significance of that name - the Celtic deity as well as the Roman Lucius Castus Artorius of the 2nd century.

Yes, covered in Holy Kingdom by A.Gilbert

And by Ross at Britain's Hidden History

A great read about the so called dark ages of Britain is " The Age of Arthur" by John Morris. Following the withdrawel of the Roman troops in 410 the Christian Diocese, province of Brittania was left to organize it's own affairs. And leaders such as Vortigern and Aurelianus set themselves up as local emperors ( Carausius did this in 4th Century), and wore the imperial purple. This leads to the not so mythical Artorius who defeated the pagan Saxons at the battle of Badon. Thus establishing for a period of 25 years or so a golden period of a romano Christian Britain again. He probably died at the battle of Camlan. About 21 years after battle of Badon. The Cambrian Annals state that " the Battle of Camlann, where Arthur and Medraut fell". Medraut ( Modred) probably served Arthur rather than, in later stories, being his enemy. It is no coincidence that royal families in the successor states in the future fragmented Britain often named their sons Arthur. The reign of Arthur which ended around 525 A.D. marked the end of Roman Britain and the beginning the Medieval period and the eventual conquest by the Daxons of most of Britain.

@@Ian2844 - Interesting theorization. I do wonder about the issue of the Church, because the Arthurian legend may represent it as important but that may be embelishment by the Christian authors which wrote the legend down later on. What does archaeology tell us about post-Roman religion, how do churches and monasteries evolve: do they decline, are ransacked or even existed in England to begin with? Christianity was not that strong in the Western Empire and Britain is a case where we do know for sure that dechristianization happened to nearly total extent, although if this owes to the Saxon invasion or is something older I don't know for sure.

Except it’s not a myth’ in the way most people think - it’s a legend based on a real person (the one who DID hold Roman Britain together). My vote goes to Riothamus.

@@teleriferchnyfain - I'm all for legends (oral history) having a kernel of truth and disentangling that part being most interesting. Myth (mythos) is a Greek word that means "thread" after all, as in Ariadne's thread maybe, which you have to follow to escape the labyrinth... but which is anything but straightforward anyhow. Do we know that post-Roman Britain was held together and that it was specifically by some guy named Arthur? We don't. What legend says is that, after a period of decay and probably of wars the guy became king and restored a semblance of order but that he could not ultimately keep the realm together (died trying). TBH, what intrigues me the most is the conflict between Morgana and Arthur, the Pagan (goddess, same as the Morrigan, ultimately the same as Basque Mari but in subsumed Indoeuropean version) vs the Christian, which resembles a lot some Basque legends, especially the one in which the Lord of Bicay marries Mari (supreme goddess, a ritual that AFAIK also happened in Insular Celtic contexts as legitimization of the monarch) and has to swear that he would never bring his Christian religion inside the home. However one day he discovers his wife having a goat-like foot and instinctively makes the sign of the cross. At that point she jumps out of the window with her sons never to return (symbolizing maybe the breakdown of the pact and thus suggesting the illegitimacy of that Lord and his Castile-allied dynasty).

@@LuisAldamiz A lot (like the Arthurian ones) have more than just a 'kernel' of truth. You realize that Davy Crockett is basically as much a 'legendary figure' as Arthur, in many ways (so many stories that didn't really happen, at least as reported....) There actually was a Perseus, an Aladdin, a Heracles... Riothamus basically fits what Arthur is supposed to have done, frankly. We don't KNOW his name nor do we know Arthur's - Arthur is a nickname, Riothamus is a title.