Riothamus is one of the few 100% historically rooted Brythonic figures from the 5th century. While we can generally trust that many of the figures I’ve discussed here were historic, Riothamus is definitely historical. He has become ever present in the discussion of Arthuriana as part of the inspiration for the later composite Arthur, so naturally I would have to address this and discuss Riothamus at some point.

The Sources

Sidonius

Unlike many of these figures we have a contemporary mention of him in a letter from Sidonius Apollinaris

To his friend Riothamus

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 letter, while lacking major information on the man gives us two things, first that he held power over the Bretons, and two that he was a contemporary of Sidonius and has a Floruit beginning before 485, Sidonius’ death.

Jordanes

The next source to mention him is The Origin and Deeds of the Goths by Jordanes, written around 551a.d.

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 Arvernum; for the Emperor Anthemius was now dead.

With Jordanes information provided we can then fine tune when Riothamus was operating, as it must have started before Anthemius’ death in 472. roughly While it would seem that Sidonius insinuates that he was a King over the Bretons, Jordanes calls him the less specific “King of the Britons” and says he brought twelve thousand “by the way of the Ocean”. While this may seem to mean that Riothamus crossed the channel from Britain, it is equally possible that it was easier for him to transport troops up the coast from wherever his seat of power was in Armorica by the sea. This does however open up a possibility that he and Ambrosius Aurelianus are actually the same figure. Both being called 'King of the Britons’ after Vortigern and being roughly contemporaneous. It is possible that the “high-kingship” in Britain at the time included power over Armorica as well. This would imply that Riothamus was not a personal name, but a title, which clashes with earlier letter from Sidonius, although it may have been a nom de guerre that became common use for the man even in his lifetime.

Sidonius’ letter to Vincentius

While nothing more from the period addresses Riothamus directly, there may be an indirect reference to his military force, mentioned in intercepted correspondence between the Praetorian prefect of Gaul Arvandus, and the King of the Visigoths, Euric.

They brought, with other matters entrusted to them by the province, an intercepted letter, which Arvandus' secretary, now also under arrest, declared to have been dictated by his master. It was evidently addressed to the King of the Goths, whom it dissuaded from concluding peace with 'the Greek Emperor', urging that instead he should attack the Bretons north of the Loire, and asserting that the law of nations called for a division of Gaul between Visigoth and Burgundian.

Geoffrey Ashe takes these “Bretons north of the Loire” to be Riothamus and his forces, and paints Arvandus letter as a betrayal ala Mordred. After the apprehension of the letter Arvandus was recalled to Rome, was subsequently put on trial and found guilty. While this letter does not directly link Riothamus and Arvandus it certainly seems to line all the pieces up perfectly.

Riothamus comes to Emperor Anthemius’ aid, Arvandus warns Euric, Euric cuts Riothamus off and deals him a massive defeat. The one thing that doesn’t line up here is that if Sidonius and Riothamus were well acquainted as the letter between the two suggests, it would be strange to not mention Riothamus’ defeat in his letter to Vincentius. This does pose a problem for this interpretation in my opinion, and makes it more likely that these are separate incidents, and Riothamus’ defeat at the hands of Euric was likely after letter from Arvandus to Euric, and instead of meaning to cut off Riothamus from coming to Anthemius’ aid instead it was to further divide the empire by stirring up trouble.

Riothamus as Arthur

Many have noted similarities between Riothamus and especially Geoffrey of Monmouth’s rendition of Arthur (who as I discuss before is a composite figure where it overlaps with history, but is generally ahistorical). These are generally proposed as his position of “King of the Britons”, his military action in Gaul, as well as his supposed betrayal at the hands of Arvandus.

We have touched on the holes with the ‘betrayal’ of Arvandus, but what of the other two points? First the ‘King of the Britons’ connection. In the period that Riothamus was operating the ‘King of the Britons’ was either Vortigern late in his reign, or Ambrosius during his. So either Riothamus was Ambrosius successor if we are to take this as the position of ‘High King’ which would align with Geoffrey’s contention that Arthur was High King after Ambrosius, but also shifts Riothamus further out of sync. If this was truly one single title ‘High King of the Britons’ then Riothamus is more likely to be Ambrosius than he is Arthur as I have mentioned before. This brings us to the military action in Gaul. I will concede that this easily could be true, and as such could be the contribution of Riothamus to the later composite Arthur, however, it is as likely that this was inspired by tales of Magnus Maximus, who is heavily remembered in Brythonic legend, and his continental campaigns more likely account for the later interpretation by Geoffrey of Monmouth that Arthur fought the Romans, defeated them, and became Emperor.

A Small Point of Potential for Riothamus as Ambrosius

There is another bit of potential evidence within Gildas. Gildas mentions that Ambrosius descendants had “become greatly inferior to their grandfather's excellence” while we don’t have confirmation from Gildas who exactly these descendants were, we might have clues from Gildas himself. One of the Kings he mentions is Aurelius Caninus, a curious connection of names there. If Aurelius Caninus is a descendant of Ambrosius, who may he actually have been? While it has been suggested that it Caninus is Cynan Garwyn, this is unlikely as his pedigree shows descent from Vortigern. It could be that Aurelius Caninus (Little-Dog) is possibly Conomor of the Domnonée who is similarly remembered as being an evil man. If this is Ambrosius’ descendent, maybe there is a stronger case that Riothamus and Ambrosius were possibly the same man. Sadly there isn’t much room for confirmation here so we are subject to the realm of conjecture.

Maybe, Maybe Not

While Riothamus is a fascinating figure, and can easily be molded to fit a “Proto-Arthur” it requires a significant amount of stretching to say “This was THE Arthur”. While it is always possible that the inspiration for the later Composite Arthur’s Gallic Campaigns came from Riothamus, they easily can be explained in other ways, however he still remains a valuable insight into the period, and possibly gives more precedent to a wider Brythonic ‘High King’ within the realm of real history.

With Vortigern’s children out of the way it makes sense to touch on the Coelings, who controlled Northern Britain. At this point Coel’s territory had been split among his descendants, Mar ap Ceneu, Pabo ap Ceneu, Gwrwst ap Ceneu, and Dyfnwal ap Garbanian. Mar ruled Ebrauc, Pabo the Pennines, and Gwrwst ruled Rheged, while Dyfnwal ruled Bryneich. The Brythonic practice of splitting kingdoms between descendants was already producing problems at this point, with a possible succession crisis for the throne of Ebrauc I have discussed here. Many of these men are only known through the pedigrees or poetry. There is basically no contemporary evidence for these men’s existence, however, like the Arthur of the next generation the poetic and circumstantial evidence is there.

Ceneu’s sons

All evidence points to Ceneu having stepped down after his sons came of age, and took up the monastic life, establishing a church at Clydau which was named after him, Llangeneu. This was likely around the year 470ad. There is an alternative scenario here that I will briefly entertain, Ceneu didn’t step down willingly. There is a tradition of Ceneu accepting the help of Saxons to maintain his rule against Pictish and Irish raiders, a constant problem for much of Britain at the time. This lines up well with Octa of Kent’s time in the north. With a little bit of speculation it may be that Octa was living large on Ceneu’s dime so to speak, and his sons put an end to it. This is when Octa went back to Kent to take over upon Hengist’s death. After this Ceneu may have been forced to become a monk by his sons, unwilling to allow their father to continue ruling after such disgrace.

Mar, King of Ebrauc

Mar, or Mor (often seen in Latin manuscripts), was likely born around 450ad, and was possibly known originally by the name Masguid, or Maeswig, as a son of Ceneu is sometimes referred to by this in the pedigrees, and as P.C. Bartrum believes, they are one in the same, just being given different names in the different pedigrees, as they are often listed with overlapping descendants. Mar is given a number of sons in the pedigrees, Arthuis, Llenneac, Einion, Cerdic, and Morydd. It is likely that Mar appears in the Stanzas of the Graves:

The grave of Mor, the magnificent, immovable sovereign,
The foremost pillar in the conflict,
The son of Peredur Penwedig.

I think there is a possibility here that this is Mar and his Great-grandson Peredur, corrupted from a few hundred years of tradition into Father and Son, and may in fact be the part of Sir Moriens of later tradition appearing as Peredur’s son or half-brother, or nephew.

Gruffudd Hiraethog claimed that Castell Gwernfor was named after Mar ap Ceneu ap Coel Godebog. This would seem to be Ruthin Castle in Denbighshire. A bit suspect for Mar as this would have been solidly in the territory of Einion Yrth of Gwynedd, or his son Cadwallon Lawhir. The kingdom of Ebraucs likely territory was probably not far from Gwynedd, and may this implies some sort of remembered kinship between the kings, as if the memory of Cunedda marrying Coel’s daughter is true, then in fact Einion and Mar are distant cousins. This wife is remembered as Gwawl ferch Coel. This is a rather unattested name and literally means wall, associating Coel further with Hadrian’s Wall. That is not to say that the memory of the marriage is fictitious in and of itself, but that it is likely that Gwawl was not her name, and was either a corruption or intentional play on words, which is common in Brythonic derived sources.

Mar appears in the Geoffrey of Monmouth’s pseudohistory De gestis Britonum as Morvidus, and is painted as a rather awful figure.

He would have been a prince of extraordinary worth, had he not been addicted to immoderate cruelty, so far that in his anger he spared nobody, if any weapon were at hand. He was of a graceful aspect, extremely liberal, and of such vast strength as not to have his match in the whole kingdom.

He then recounts Morvidus’ defense against an army from what is now Boulogne, showing him a competent military leader. This anecdote may be a misremembered repulsion of a Maeatae raid by the sea.

CHAP. XV.—Morvidus, a most cruel tyrant, after the conquest of the king of the Morini, is devoured by a monster.

In his time a certain king of the Morini arrived with a great force in Northumberland, and began to destroy the country. But Morvidus, with all the strength of the kingdom, marched out against him, and fought him. In this battle he alone did more than the greatest part of his army, and after the victory, suffered none of the enemy to escape alive. For he commanded them to be brought to him one after the other, that he might satisfy his cruelty in seeing them killed; and when he grew tired of this, he gave orders that they should be flayed alive and burned.

Geoffrey then gives an account of Morvidus’ death at the hands of a monster from the Irish sea.

During these and other monstrous acts of cruelty, an accident happened which put a period to his wickedness. There came from the coasts of the Irish Sea, a most cruel monster, that was continually devouring the people on the sea-coasts. As soon as he heard of it, he ventured to go and encounter it alone; when he had in vain spent all his darts upon it, the monster rushed upon him, and with open jaws swallowed him up like a small fish.

This may recount a death in battle against Irish raiders. Perhaps an early incursion into Rheged or Alt Clud from Fergus Mor of the Dal Riata? There is a possibility that Mar is Fergus Mor himself, grafted into the pedigrees. Possibly employed by Ceneu and described later as a son instead (a possibility we have discussed with Garbanian Ceneu’s ‘brother’ in the last generation.)

Pabo ap Ceneu, or Pabo Post Prydain

Pabo’s place in history often gets confused as a later pedigree lists him as a son of Arthuis ap Mar, leading to confusion. An earlier, less corrupted pedigree lists him as Arthuis uncle, and Mar’s brother. This does cause issues with chronology as Pabo’s descendants are shifted much further out of line, although the later foruit also shifts things out of line s well. It may be that there were two figures by that name, or even a son of Arthuis maybe using it as a title for himself, to try and improve his prestige. He could have been a much younger son of Ceneu, being born as late as 465, possibly even 470, making him closer to his Brother’s children’s generation substantially reconciling the timeline. We may even, and I find this likely be missing a generation, some of his children possibly even being his grandchildren. His epithet “Post Prydain” means “Pillar of Britain” and implies that he was a military leader of some renown, defending Britain from Irish and Pictish invaders alike, from his Kingdom in the Pennines, inherited from his father Ceneu splitting his kingdom amongst his sons. Pabo himself is attributed with four children, Dunod Fwr, Sawyl Benisel, Cerwydd and Arddun Benasgell, the wife of Brochwel Ysgithrog, further strengthening him as a younger son of Ceneu, placing his daughter being born sometime around 500, and of a similar age to Brochwel. Another daughter supposedly married Maelgwyn Gwynedd, again suggesting this ‘middle of the road’ floruit, although another claims Sawyl married the daughter of Muiredach Muinderg implying an earlier birth. It might be that Sawyl was actually the father of the wives of Maelgwyn and Brochwel, and that Dunod is actually Sawyl’s son and not brother?

Pabo has often been conflated with St. Pabo, and if this is correct it would seem that Pabo retired from the life of a king, became a monastic hermit, and established the church at Llanbabo on Anglesey. A Stone effigy supposedly featuring Pabo was dug up in the 17th century, reading ‘Hic iacet Pa[bo] Post Priid Co[nf Gr] … [t]el [i]ma[ginem obtulit]’ ‘Here lies Pabo the Upholder of Britain, Confessor.’

Nothing else substantial can be said of Pabo, without delving too much into his descendants, which is for another article.

Gwrwst Ledlum

The first king of what was to become Rheged, again a son of Ceneu. He is generally only given one son Meirchion Gul, although one corrupted pedigree gives him other sons, such as Ellifer (a son of Arthuis). In Culhwch and Olwen, Gwrwst is given a son named Dyfnarth, and was captured by Gwyn ap Nudd, later to be freed by Arthur himself. Some have suggested that this is in reality a memory of Fergus Mor and his son Domangart, thus leading to the conclusion that the Gwrwst in the pedigrees is similarly Fergus Mor, leading to the possibility that Fergus was the founder of Rheged. Gwrwst (welsh), Fergus (irish), and Vurguist (pictish), are all cognates. This is once again an interesting possibility, but it is conjecture once again only based on a name alone. Dyfnarth does not appear in the pedigrees, so one might come to the conclusion that while Culhwch and Olwen is genuinely remembered Fergus Mor and his son Domangart, it may be that Gwrwst of Rheged was not the same man. His epithet though may give some extra insight, as Ledlwm often interpreted as “the ragged” means Half-Bare, Gildas in his work De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae excoriates the Picts and Gaels for their nakedness

in a preference also for covering their villainous faces with hair rather than their nakedness of body with decent clothing

Possibly strengthening the idea that Gwrwst and Fergus are in fact the same man.

This early Kingdom of Rheged spanned much territory, from Hadrian’s Wall, all the way down to a border with both Powys and Gwynedd. Rheged while seemingly uninvolved at this point in history, becomes extremely important in the later half of the 6th century, and yet we still know so little about it. Could it be, that shrouded in the mists of history the Irish king Fergus Mor, being used as Foederati by a British King was the founder of Rheged, or otherwise Interpolated into the pedigrees?

There is little other information to convey about Gwrwst without delving into his descendants, similarly to his ‘brother’ Pabo.

Bryneich

While we have discussed Ceneu’s children that leaves us with Ceneu’s brother Garbanian’s son Dynfwal Moelmud. Bryneich was still intact at this point, with the Angle kingdom of Bernicia having not yet formed, or at least in it’s infancy as a small coastal community of Angles, and seemingly under fairly strong leadership, acting as a buffer from the Gododdin directly north, as well as the more northerly picts.

Dyfnwal Moelmud “Dyfnwal the Bald and Silent”

Dyfnwal it would seem was Garbanian ap Coel’s only son, and was likely king of Bryneich sometime in the 480s. I have discussed that this may have been because his father Garbanian seemingly ruled Ebrauc for a time. He had two sons Bran Hen, and Cyngar, both of who eventually succeeded him, though it is possible he split his kingdom.

He like his father Garbanian, he also appears in Geoffrey’s DgE transported back to roughly the 5th Century B.C. this similarly to his father being shifted back to the 4th century B.C. He appears as Dunvallo or Dunwallo, and is established as a mighty war leader, and lawmaker.

CHAP. XVII.—Dunwallo Molmutius gains the sceptre of Britain, from whom came the Molmutine laws.

At length arose a youth of great spirit, named Dunwallo Molmutius, who was the son of Cloten king of Cornwall, and excelled all the kings of Britain in valour and gracefulness of person. When his father was dead, he was no sooner possessed of the government of that country, than he made war against Ymner king of Loegria, and killed him in battle. Hereupon Rudaucus king of Kambria, and Staterius king of Albania, had a meeting, wherein they formed an alliance together, and marched thence with their armies into Dunwallo's country to destroy all before them. Dunwallo met them with thirty thousand men, and gave them battle; and when a great part f the day was spent in the fight, and the victory yet dubious, he drew off six hundred of his bravest men, and commanded them to put on the armour of the enemies that were slain, as he himself also did, throwing aside his own. Thus accoutred he marched up with speed to the enemy's ranks, as if he was of their party, and approaching the very place where Rudaucus and Staterius were, commanded his men to fall upon them. But Dunwallo Molmutius, fearing lest in this disguise his own men might fall upon him, returned with his companions to put off the enemy's armour, and take his own again; and then encouraged them to renew the assault, which they did with great vigour, by dispersing and putting to flight the enemy. From hence he marched into the enemy's countries, destroyed their towns and cities, and reduced the people under his obedience. When he had made an entire reduction of the whole island, he prepared for himself a crown of gold, and restored the kingdom to its ancient state. This prince established what the Britons call the Molmutine laws, which are famous among the English to this day. In these, among other things, of which St. Gildas wrote a long time after, he enacted that the temples of the gods, as also cities, should have the privilege of giving sanctuary and protection to any fugitive or criminal, that should flee to them from the enemy. He likewise enacted, that the ways leading to those temples and cities, as also husbandman's ploughs, should be allowed the same privilege. So that in his day, the murders and cruelties committed by robbers were prevented, and everybody passed safe, without violence offered him. At last, after a reign of forty years spent in these and other acts of government, he died, and was buried in the city of Trinovantum, near the temple of Concord, which he himself built, when he first established his laws.

Though his law codes were eventually replaced and superseded by Hywal Dda’s, his standards of measurement were kept, giving him a lasting place in Brythonic History.

The Next Steps.

I find this generation to be extremely frustrating overall, as so many of the figures would seem to have solid historical roots, but scantly show up in poetry, and with there being no major contemporary Saints Lives to draw on it leads to an extremely muddled and obscured view. As always though this is the chore of researching Brythonic history, and one I feel that I (and my readers if you have been following my work since the beginning) am all too familiar with now.

In part 3 of this generation we will visit Fergus Mor of Dal Riata, Erbin of Dumnonia, Dyfnwal Hen of Strathclyde, and possibly more.

This group is surprisingly less rooted in real history than any of the last generation, but they are still present in less reliable sources, and as they are the foundation for Arthur’s generation, they are worth touching on. Most of these men have a floruit starting sometime between 450-470, and as such are active in roughly the later half of the 5th century. These men would have been leading offensives against the Germanic invasions, and like their later descendants, fighting heavily amongst themselves. Some of them may have even been fought under Ambrosius, cutting their teeth in his battles as soldiers and commanders, eventually becoming leaders in their own right.

The Sons of Vortigern

As I have discussed in my entry on Vortigern, I personally propose a later chronology for Vortigern than many normally do. This is based on Cadell’s floruit starting in the 470s, based on his likely interaction with St. Garmon, as opposed to St. Germanus. This shifts everyone forward a generation. This does pose problems, as is common with working from these early records, however, there are a few reasons why this makes sense. First of all, this later chronology places Vortigern during the correct time period. This also causes our first problem, how could a man who was born between 390 and 400 have married the daughter of Magnus, who died in 388? This is where I think Vortigern has been conflated with his grandfather Vitalinus. With the earlier floruit for Vortigern he is still likely too young to have been married to a daughter of Magnus Maximus, whereas with the later chronology Vitalinus is of the perfect age to marry Magnus’ daughter Severa. It is often proposed that this was a family name as well, and that Vortigern may have himself been named Vitalinus leading to further confusion. Secondly this later Chronology places Vortigern’s more historically rooted descendants, such as Brochwel the grandson of Cadell in his proper time.

It is debatable as to whether Vortigern had three, four, or even five sons. Vortimer, Britu, Pascent, Catigern (Cadeyrn), and possibly Faustus of Riez. Vortimer, Britu, Pascent, and Catigern are all named as sons in various places, while Faustus is more contentious, but seems to be the Clergical name of one of the earlier figures.

From Nennius

He had three sons: the eldest was Vortimer, who, as we have seen, fought four times against the Saxons, and put them to flight; the second Categirn, who was slain in the same battle with Horsa; the third was Pascent, who reigned in the two provinces Builth and Guorthegirnaim, after the death of his father. These were granted him by Ambrosius, who was the great king among the kings of Britain. The fourth was Faustus, born of an incestuous marriage with his daughter, who was brought up and educated by St. Germanus. He built a large monastery on the banks of the river Renis, called after his name, and which remains to the present period.

Vortimer, Catigern, Pascent, and Faustus are all mentioned here, but not Britu, he instead shows up on the Pillar of Eliseg

From the Pillar of Eliseg, which gives us the association with Severa the daughter of Magnus Maximus

Maximus of Britain, Concenn, Pascent ... Maun, Annan. Britu moreover son of Guarthigern, whom Germanus blessed and whom Severa, bore to him, the daughter of Maximus the King, who slew the king of the Romans

Here we have Britu given as being blessed by Germanus, sounding similar to the account of Faustus. Further strengthening this is the connection between Faustus and Riocatus, the son of Pascent mentioned by Sidonius in his letters to Faustus. Vortimer, the eldest son of Vortigern was apparently also blessed by Germanus supposedly, muddying the waters even more. I do not expect any conclusions I may make here to be uncontroversial, especially when it comes to dating, however the only conflict that really rears it’s head here is the issue of Severa which we have already addressed. As it stands though, well look at each of these figures individually.

Vortimer, a prototype for Arthur?

Vortimer, being the eldest son of Vortigern would have had a likely floruit starting between 445-460. Vortimer is often known by the epithet Fendigaid, meaning 'Blessed'. This stems from a tradition that he and his brother Britu were both blessed by Germanus of Auxerre on one of his visits to the Britain.

The beginning of Vortimer's military career begins around the same time, or shortly after, as 'the Groans of the Britons' recorded by Gildas. Rising up in opposition to his father's Saxon burden, he proceed to fight a campaign of four battles against them. One of the battles is actually corroborated in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, although the ASC states that Vortigern himself was the victor, not Vortimer. Nennius calls it Episford, while the ASC mentions it as Ægælesprep. This has long been held to be Aylesford in Kent. It is in this battle that both the Saxon leader Horsa, and Vortimer's brother Catigern died. Mapping this small campaign is still a fairly involved affair, and I may visit it in a substack article at a later time, but for now we move on.

Vortimer then either becomes ill, or dies during the later part of the campaign. He tells his companions to bury him where the Saxons landed. They do not heed his device and the Saxons eventually regain strength. Geoffrey of Monmouth (dubiously) expands upon this, adding that Vortimer was named high king while his father was still alive, and drove back the Saxons. It was then that his Step-Mother, Rowena, Hengists own daughter, poisoned Vortimer. Vortigern was once again high king.

Vortimer appears in the Triads as well.

Three closures and three disclosures of the Island of Prydain... the bones of Gwerthefyr (Vortimer/Vortipor) the blessed, which are buried in the principle ports of this island

Henry of Huntington gives us a different account of Vortimer’s military exploits in his Historia anglorum. Here Vortimer and his brother Catigern are Generals under Ambrosius, fighting the Saxons alongside him.

There are a number of echoes of Vortimer's story in Arthur's own story. The son of a corrupt king, staunchly defending his people from the Germanic invader in a series of battles, and eventually losing his life to treachery. Could Vortimer even be Arthur himself? While it is tempting to think so Vortimer is at best one generation, at worst two generations out from the most acceptable chronology for Arthur's existence, especially for him to be the victor at Badon.

Catigern, The First King of Powys?

the second Categirn, who was slain in the same battle with Horsa;

Catigern further serves to muddy the waters of the early kings of Powys. We know almost nothing about him aside from the fact that he died in the same battle as Horsa. We know the battle that Horsa died in from this entry in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

Hengist and Horsa fought against Vortigern the king in the place which is called Ægælesprep, and his brother Horsa was killed. And after that Hengist, and Æsc his son, succeeded to the kingdom.

This is Vortimer’s battle of Episford, or Rithergabail from Nennius. Interestingly Catigern is sometimes listed with a son named Ruddfael. Rithergabail, and Ruddfael are essentially the same name, and it would seem that at some point working from fragmentary documents a later writer or copyist of a pedigree inserted this battle as a son instead. Catigern appears all over the place in the genealogies sometimes listed as Cadell’s son, sometimes as Cadell’s father. This leaves us with the questions of which interpretation is most likely. I think the simplest, less muddied explantion the best, Catigern was Vortigern’s second son, and Cadell’s father. There is a possibility that Cadell was entirely unrelated to them, but there is much speculation in that conclusion. If we take Catigern as Cadell’s father, it is unlikely that Catigern himself ruled Powy as he pre-deceased his father Vortigern, although it is possible that Vortigern gave him Powys to govern while he was still ruling. Perhaps Catigern’s early death at Rithergabail allows for the legend of Cadell’s servitude under the Irish raider-king Benli, who maintained a usurper kingdom while Vortimer and Vortigern were otherwise occupied fighting Saxons elsewhere. Benli, as an Irish chieftain and usurper, wouldn’t necessarily appear in any regnal lists, or genealogies.

There isn’t a whole lot more to glean about Catigern that doesn’t get into the realm of extreme speculation, i.e. conflating him with other figures, or working with names to come to a conclusion etc.

Pascent, King of Buellt & Gwerthrynion

the third was Pascent, who reigned in the two provinces Builth and Guorthegirnaim, after the death of his father. These were granted him by Ambrosius, who was the great king among the kings of Britain.

Similarly to Catigern there is scant information on Pascent. He is mentioned twice by Nennius, once in the quote above and another when detailing the genealogies of Vortigern, in the next chapter. He also appears on the Pillar of Eliseg, and as such some have thought that he may in fact have been a ruler of Powys itself, although traditionally he is said to have ruled the mountainous portion of Powys, Buellt, and the small sub-kingdom of Gwerthrynion. The famous enemy of his father, Ambrosius gives him these lands upon his father’s death, treating him quite honorably, possibly corroborating Henry of Huntington’s assertion that the sons of Vortigern fought as commanders under Ambrosius, and thus were well rewarded. Geoffrey tells a different and much embellished story, wherein Pascent rises up against Ambrosius, and eventually after being defeated twice by him, offers riches to anyone who will kill Ambrosius. Eopa, a Saxon poses as a doctor and poisons Ambrosius. This could be a conflation with other later Pascents of sore reputation.

As with Catigern, Pascent shows up all over the place in the genealogies. Some view this a reflection of later dynastic squabbles, which then spill over to the genealogist’s quill. There may be something to this, but I think there are other possibilities. It seems to me that many folks (pardon this short diatribe) are under the assumption that names are generally unique things, and that within a few generations that these names if reused are obvious interpolations in the genealogies. I think this is ridiculous personally, and who is to say that a Pascent ap Cadell didn’t exist, as well as Pascent ap Vortigern, with the the later Pascent being named for his father’s uncle? I think this scenario is far more common than most realize, and that many of the ‘duplicates’ within these genealogies are in fact different people.

Faustus

The fourth was Faustus, born of an incestuous marriage with his daughter, who was brought up and educated by St. Germanus. He built a large monastery on the banks of the river Renis, called after his name, and which remains to the present period.

This would seem to be Faustus of Riez, a Bishop of Riez in Southern Gaul. Independent of this potential identification, there isn’t much else to go on as far as information about Faustus as a son of Vortigern, but from a letter from Sidonius we can glean that the two men were almost certainly the same person. Sidonius mentions that a Presbyter named Riocatus is transporting books back to Britain for him. Riocatus is likely the son of Pascent’s, and Faustus ap Vortigerns nephew. Additionally Sidonius refers to 'your Britons' further linking him to either Brittany or Britain. So it would seem that Sidonius helps us confirm that Faustus of Riez was in fact a son of Vortigern. Faustus isn’t mentioned anywhere else, but it would seem that Vortigern had another son that is, and we find him mentioned on the Pillar of Eliseg. This is Britu, who was also blessed by Germanus of Auxerre. Germanus was apparently Faustus’ mentor and foster father. Could Britu have been Faustus’ birthname?

Part 2.

This entry would be ridiculously long if I continued with the rest of the figures I’d like to discuss here, these include Mar ap Ceneu, Pabo Post Prydain, Gwrwst Ledlum, Fergus Mor, Erbin, Dyfnwal Hen, Dyfnwal Moelmud ap Garbanian, and maybe others as it strikes me. This may even be a three part entry.

Excalibur, the sword of Arthur, a weapon more legend than history at this point. Where does this famed sword first appear? The answer comes in the Welsh story Culhwch and Olwen. In this story Culhwch with his cousin Arthur's help (King Arthur himself) sets off to find his bride.

You shall have what your head and tongue may seek, as long as the wind dries, the rain wets, the sun moves, as far as land and sea encompass, except my ship and my mantle, Caledfwlch my sword, Rhongomiant my spear, Wyneb-Gwrthucher my shield, Carnwennan my knife, and Gwenhywfar my wife . . .

Caledfwlch being the original Welsh name for Excalibur, meaning "Hard Cleft" or sometimes "Cut Steel". Many have drawn a connection between the Irish Caladbolg, and Caledfwlch, upon phonetic grounds. Both names likely share a common root, but many scholars agree that it is unlikely one was derived from the other. Bromwich and Simon in their work Culhwch and Olwen: an Edition and Study of the Oldest Arthurian Tale address this as follows.

For a number of years Caledfwich was looked upon as a borrowing from the cognate Ir. Caladbolg (calad 'hard', as noun 'hardship'; DIL, 'C' 58 + bolg 'gap' DIL'B' 139, on which see O'Rahilly, Ériu xiii, 163-4). But this now seems unlikely, in spite of the superficial correspondence between the two names. In the Táin Bó Cúailnge from the Book of Leinster (ed. O'Rahilly, (DIAS 1967), 1.4720 Caladbolg is the name of sword which Fergus mac Róig inherited from Fergus mac Leite; elsewhere in the same manuscript (LL 1. 32517) caladbuilg (pl.) appears in the tale Togail Troi as a general and unspecific name for swords (cf. EIHM 68n.). Vendryes has argued convincingly (EC v (1940), 15) that in Irish Caladbolg was originally a generic name for a sword, rather than the name for any one sword in particular. The editors of the Book of Leinster, R. I. Best, Osborn Bergin, and M. A. O'Brien (DIAS 1954-67) state that the manuscript is the work of one hand written over a long period in the second half of the 12th cent. (see further W. S. O'Sullivan, 'Notes on the Script and Make-up of the Book of Leinster', Celtica vi (1966) I-31, esp. 26-8). Since Geoffrey of Monmouth's HRB first appeared c. 1136-8, Geoffrey's Caliburnus is older than the date now accepted for the Book of Leinster: if Caliburnus is accepted as the Lat. rendering of Caledfwlch, the Welsh name must predate 1138. With respect to the occurrence of Caletfwlch in Culhwch, it must remain uncertain whether the name is a borrowing from the early 13th-cent. Brut, or whether it can go back to an earlier redaction of the tale. In favour of its antiquity, however, is the very early occurrence of the name of Arthur's ship Prydwen (see n. to 1.938): CaledfwIch, as the name of Arthur's sword, may well be equally ancient and traditional. In his Heldensage 114-15, Thurneysen took it for granted that Caliburnus is a borrowing from Ir. Caladbolg, and this led him to believe that the Book of Leinster predates HRB. Since modern palaeographical scholarship does not concur with so early a dating for the Book of Leinster, Thurneysen's view can now be discounted. As there is no means of knowing how much older the names Caladbolg and Caledfwlch may be than the manuscripts in which they first appear - whether in written or in oral sources the question of the relationship between the two remains incapable of final solution: both may have similarly arisen at a very early date as generic names for a sword. With Caladbolg the name of Cú Chulainn's spear the Gai Bolga, may also be compared. See further EIHM 68-71, and P.

The sword then appears later in the tale being wielded by Llenlleawg the Irishman, killing the giant Diwrnach and his men with a single stroke.

Llenlleawg the Irishman seized Caledfwlch and let it go out in a circle: it killed Diwrnach and his entire retinue. The hosts of Ireland came to fight them, and when they had been driven off completely, Arthur and his men took the cauldron—full of Irish treasures—and entered the ship before their very eyes. They disembarked at the house of Llwydeu son of Cel Coed at Porth Cerddin in Dyfed. And “Cauldron’s Measure” is there.

As I have mentioned in before, Llenlleawg is sometimes thought to be a proto-lancelot, and may be in fact based on the historical figure Llennaec, father of Gwallog who we will discuss later.

From there the legend of the sword grows with every tale told after, From Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Caliburnus, to the present we are still writing of Exalibur, some adding more and more embellishments, and others trying to trim it back to it's roots, The sword of a late 5th century Brythonic warlord.

When I see Caledfwlch in my mind I think of a late Roman spatha, like these from the Kragehul bog find in Denmark, especially the leftmost example. An heirloom inherited from father to son since the old days of Roman occupation. A fitting sword for the waning Dux Britanniarum, grasping onto the old ways, but surrounding by crumbling memories.

"For a heartbeat she was a shining bar of blue flame poised in the heavens, and then she fell." -Bernard Cornwell "Excalibur"

Follow me on Twitter

I have lately been using the term “The Brythonic Heroic Age”. This as far as I can tell is my own invention. I thought I would do a short post about why I am using it, and what it is.

Others use their own terms for this period, the main being the “Sub-Roman Era” or some variation thereof, however I think this is a poor representation of the era. Others like John Koch have lumped this into a greater “Celtic Heroic Age” as seen in his book “The Celtic Heroic Age: Literary Sources for Ancient Celtic Europe and Early Ireland and Wales”. It is understandable to lump this era into both the greater Celtic group as a whole, and the Roman era, however I think it is also appropriate that it has a more focused name when discussing it alone. The most fitting in my opinion is something that addresses the fact that many of the formative heroes of the descendants of the Britons lived (or are attributed to have lived) during this period. Thus The Brythonic Heroic Age. A more evocative name than “sub-Roman Britain” and more specific than “The Celtic Heroic Age”

So what is this era? This is the period roughly from the exit of Rome (or expulsion, it's complicated) around 410 A.D. to the establishment of the major Anglo-Saxon kingdoms starting with Æthelfrith’s establishment of a united kingdom of Bernicia and Deira around 604. It was during this era that Romano-British identity began and faded, when heroes like Caradog Vreichfras, Urien of Rheged, Cadwallon Lawhir, Rhydderch Hael, and Arthur himself would have lived. I think it fitting that these men fighting against internal and external threats deserve an era of their own, separate from the Romans they so revered, and the Irish they fought, and intermarried with.

An ancient bull's thoughts.

The Search for the Historical King Arthur: Vortigern and Ambrosius

Most of the men within this entry have a floruit starting sometime roughly between 430 and 460 and some of the figures from my last piece are still around during this era, such as Cunedda, who kind of straddles the gap between this generation and Coel’s, but because of his interactions with figures like Coel, I included him in the last generation, it al…

Read more

4 years ago · 4 likes · Aurochs

I will however add a little bit here, with some notes to chew on a while reading this. There is some contention as to whether some of these pedigrees are actually instead regnal lists misconstrued as pedigrees, assuming Primogeniture, or the usual Brythonic practice of subdividing one’s kingdom amongst his sons, leading to what may have been a transfer of power between generals, instead being interpreted as a father handing power over to a son. A few of our subjects in this article are possible instances of this. I do not think this is the case most of the time but these are slightly compelling.

Coel’s Sons

I will start here with Garbanian, who sometimes appears as Garbanion, and interestingly as Gorbanian/Gorbonianus in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae some 700 years out of place. You can read more in depth about that here in this substack article, and subsequent twitter thread, however I will discuss it lightly in this article as well.

An ancient bull's thoughts.

Arthgallo, Arthwys ap Mar, and Arthur

This is going to be a small expansion upon the last part of my article in Issue 7 of Raw Egg Nationalist’s wonderful Man’s World Issue 7. In that article I put the spotlight on three figures I think play some part in Arthur’s creation. One of these was Arthwys ap Mar. I will eventually do a longer piece focusing exclusively on him, and what we can glean…

Read more

4 years ago · 1 like · Aurochs

It would seem that Garbanian was born sometime around the turn of the 5th century a.d. and is the progenitor and first of the kings of Bryneich, Which ultimately became the Angle kingdom of Bernicia. Among his descendants is Morcant Bwlch who is the man who had Urien of Rheged assassinated amongst a winning campaign against the Angles, of whom Morcant had lost significant amounts of territory to at that point. He shows up as I have mentioned in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s work in a few different places, once at King Arthur’s coronation, and again in the earlier misplaced in time story of the kings of Eboracum

CHAP. XVI.—Gorbonian, a most just king of the Britons.

He had five sons, whereof the eldest, Gorbonian, ascended the throne. There was not in his time a greater lover of justice and equity, or a more careful ruler of the people. The performance of due worship to the gods, and doing justice to the common people, were his continual employments. Through all the cities of Britain, he repaired the temples of the gods, and built many new ones. In all his days, the island abounded with riches, more than all the neighbouring countries. For he gave great encouragement to husbandmen in their tillage, by protecting them against any injury or oppression of their lords; and the soldiers he amply rewarded with money, so that no one had occasion to do wrong to another. Amidst these and many other acts of his innate goodness, he paid the debt of nature, and was buried at Trinovantum.

Here Geoffrey is obviously weaving a narrative from a scant northern chronicle that left many gaps that he felt he needed to fill. This may give us some evidence here that Garbanian shortly ruled York for a time, taking the throne upon his nephew Mar’s (Morvidus’) death, and ultimately with Arthwys taking the throne after. This leads us to another interesting point and this is Garbanian’s name. Garbanian is known in latin as Germanianus, possibly noting that he was not actually a son of Coel, but instead a Romano-British military leader, or purely Roman, or even of Germanic stock, and was generally accepted as being an ally of the Brythonic people/ Brythonic himself regardless of his origins. There are interesting possibilities here, Either Ceneu and Garbanian are brothers, and he got his name as an epithet later in life (a likely possibility, maybe gaining fame leading a host of Germanic Foederati?), they are half brothers, with Coel possibly having taken a Germanic wife, or they are unrelated and their kinship was a later association to try and solidify royal claims. I think it is likely here that Garbanian is descended from Coel in this case, as his descendants are often associated as Coelings themselves.

Ceneu

Ceneu as well seems to have been born around the same time as Garbanian, although I do think that this poses problems in chronology. Ceneu himself was blessed with many descendants. One of his sons Gwrwst the great grandfather of Urien of Rheged, who is often dated to around 510, which works with the chronology of Ceneu being born around 400-410, keep this in mind, there will be more on this later. Ceneu seems to have left little impact on preserved history. He is mentioned in the poem The Affair Of Argoed Llwyfain, one of Taliesin’s songs of praise of Urien of Rheged.

Flaindwyn called out again, of great impetuosity,
Will they give hostages? are they ready?
Owain answered, Let the gashing appear,
They will not give, they are not, they are not ready.
And Ceneu, son of Coel, would be an irritated lion
Before he would give a hostage to any one.

This mention is not without contest however, and some (Ifor Williams specifically) translate the line mentioning “Ceneu, son of Coel” instead as “A welp of Coel” and attribute Ceneu in the genealogies as an addition from misunderstanding this part of the poetry. I do not hold this belief myself however, and do believe that the corroboration from other places weakens this argument, including memories of Garbanian and Ceneu attending Arthur’s coronation in Geoffrey’s Historia (Possibly a memory of the some ceremony involving Arthwys ap Mar, Ceneu’s grandson and Garbanian’s Nephew, certainly not the high medieval coronation that Geoffrey would suggest, but possibly something older.) Ceneu upon his death seems to have split his kingdom as is typical of Brythonic practice at the time, with the major power center at Ebrauc going to his son Mar, who is sometimes attested as Mor, or Masguid, or Masguic Gloff(the lame), and Gwrwst taking the west. This leaves us with Pabo, who in and of himself is problematic here. He appears as a son of Ceneu in the earliest genealogy, but elsewhere as a son of Arthwys ap Mar. There are some possibly explanations here, but I will save those for Pabo’s entry in our next generation.

Garbanian and Ceneu both have very little trace in the historic record, but there seems to be a tradition of both of them using Angle Foederati, setting the stage for the eventual downfall of their descendants kingdoms.

A quick discussion of Chronology, and Some possible issues with accepted dating for Coel, and many of his descendants.

A note on chronology here. The dating for Ceneu we discussed earlier is not without it’s problems. The Chronology we discussed before this would have Urien born around 510 a.d. and this would make Urien around 75 at his time of his assassination. This isn’t outside of the realm of the possible, but I have a feeling we are either missing a generation here (unlikely) or that either some of these figures had children extremely late, or Coel wasn’t as “old” as he is sometimes said to be. I think the last is the most likely possibility. By moving the chronology up by a single floruit almost every person is exactly when the were supposed to be to participate in the events they are claimed to have participated in. Everyone from Urien, to Peredur and Gwrgi, Ceredig of Elmet, and others end up when they are likely to have lived. This also has interesting implications on the question of finding the Arthur of Badon himself. That is not to say that there aren’t problems with this later chronology, as there are, and we will discuss them when we get there, but overall it gets the post-Badon generations especially when they need to be. This would place Garbanian and Ceneu being born in the 420’s roughly instead of the 400 or even 390 sometimes seen in other chronologies.

Cunedda’s Sons

All of Cunedda’s sons accompanied him to Gwynedd (Venedotia) and helped him expel the Irish, save his eldest Tybion, who died prior to Cunedda leaving Manau Gododdin. All either established, or were given kingdoms in reward for their service, and I will address them and their kingdoms here, in order of age.

Ysfael, King of Ysfeilion

Ysfael was given a portion of Ynys Mon as his kingdom of Ysfeilion. As with many of these figures little is known of them, save his offspring. In this case Ysfael had three sons, Meilir Meilirion, Cynyr and Yneigr, who later with the help of their cousin Cadwallon Lawhir drove the Irish out of Ynys Mon. Ysfael may be the same figure sometimes seen in some sources as Gwron ap Cunedda.

Rhufon, King of Rhufoniog

Rhufon was given the area now known as the town of Denbigh. He was ultimately succeeded by his son Mor.

Dunod, King of Dunoding

Dunod ruled the innermost part of the Llŷn Peninsula, and the territory directly to the south of it. His list of descendants is quite longer than many of his brothers, showing rulers until at least the 10th century, although most of these were subordinates of the Kings of Gwynedd.

Ceredig, King of Ceredigion

Here we have a son we have a little more information about, relative to most of his brothers. His kindom of Ceredigion as it became known, was the southernmost, bordering Dyfed. This has implications that I will speculate on. Dyfed’s nobility seems to have been of Irish stock, likely the Déisi nobility primarily, evidenced by names, as well as recent archaeological evidence in the form of burials, and ogham stones that have been found. This would place Ceredig in a position to be a buffer for the rest of his brother’s kingdoms. This may indicate that Ceredig was quite capable for his father to invest such an important position in him. It could also indicate ill favor otherwise. Heavy speculation of course, but interesting. He also has the distinction of marrying Meleri, a daughter of the famous and powerful Brychan ap Anlach (not to be confused with his son (or maybe grandson) Brychan of Manau). Ceredig and Meleri’s daughter Ina, may be the Saint Ina that St Ina's Church in Llanina is dedicated to. Ceredig’s kingdom was maintained by his descendants until Gwgon ap Meurig drowned in a river crossing while fighting Vikings. Rhodri Mawr who was Gwgon’s son in law took over rule until his son by Gwgon’s daughter Angharad, Cadell was old enough to take power.

Afloeg, King of Afflogion

Afloeg was given the tip of the Llŷn Peninsula. His kingdom of Afflogion did not retain autonomy long, and was absorbed into Rhos by the time of Maelgwyn. This is all that is known of this small kingdom which seems to have had little impact.

Einion Yrth, King of Gwynedd

Cudedda’s seventh son, but generally his most famous, born rather late as far as this generation goes, with his sons being contemporaries of the fourth generation in our series, the generation of Arthur himself. Einion bridges that gap similarly to his father Cunedda, as an intermediary between generations 2 and 3, while Cunedda bridged 1 and 2. Most of Einion’s fame is from his sons, and their descendants. As a seventh son it is surprising that he was given his father’s central base of power, the kingdom of Gwynedd (Venedotia). Little else is known directly of Einion himself, unfortunately, but he must have been quite favored, even with a epithet like Yrth (the Impetuous).

Dogfael, King of Dogfeiling

Dogfael’s kingdom was established in the area around Rhuthin. The kingdom was eventually absorbed by Gwynedd in the early 8th, possibly late 7th century, and likely was a client state of Gwynedd even in the earlier period.

Edern, King of Edeirnion

Edern ruled a tiny kingdom situated near Bala, with nothing known beyond it’s founder Edern’s name, eventually being absorbed by Powys.

Meirion, King of Meirionydd

Also known as Meirchion or Mark, Meirion is sometimes interpreted to be a grandson of Cunedda, being the son of his eldest son Tybion. This comes from an interpretation of a passage from the manuscript known as Harleian Ms 3859, translated by Peter Bartrum.

"These are the names of the sons of Cunedda, whose number was nine: Tybion, the firstborn, who died in the region called Manaw Gododdin and did not come hither with his father and his aforesaid brothers.  Meirion, his son, divided his possessions among his brothers. 2, Ysfael, 3. Rhufon, 4. Dunod, 5. Ceredig, 6, Afloeg, 7. Einion Yrth, 8. Dogfael, 9. Edern" 

Bartrum interprets this to mean that Meirion was Tybion’s son and divided Tybion’s possessions amongst Tybion’s brothers. There is a case to make that instead “Meirion, his son” could be interpreted as meaning Cunedda’s son. This along with the practice in Welsh law of “the youngest son is to divide”, possibly giving us an interpretation of Meirion as Cunedda’s 10th/9th son if you do not include Tybion. This ambiguity has been the source of confusion for many years.

Meirion had three sons, Cadwaladr, Cadwallon, and Bleiddud, and his kingdom of Meirionydd was situated south of Dunoding and North of Ceredigion, was considerably powerful compared to the other kingdoms of Cunedda’s sons. His dynasty maintained power for around 400 years before being absorbed into Gwynedd.

Were these men actually sons of Cunedda?

I think there is a case to be made here that many of these men may not have been sons of Cunedda, but possibly close relations otherwise, or military commanders that were basically given fiefs. This opinion is not an uncontroversial one though, but I think there may be some merit here, as Einion Yrth inheriting the central powerbase seems strange, especially considering that he was the 7th son. Succession can be tricky though, and Brythonic practice did seem to be to split kingdoms amongst sons, so it is hard to say either way. It is an interesting possibility to think about either way, and potentially adds context to why Einion was given Gwynedd over say the eldest Ysfael, or youngest Meirchion(Meirion).

Amlawdd Wledig

Here we have the shadowy Amlawdd Wledig, one of these progenitor figures who may be a fabrication, but maybe not. Amlawdd’s many daughters seem to fill in gaps in many of these genealogies, and possibly give more credence to claims with a famous ancestor.

Of note here is the mother of Culhwch, Goleuddydd, and her sister Eigr, who many are more familiar with as Ygraine, the mother of Arthur. This is something to mull over. Eigr and Arthur seem like later fabrications here, but there is always a possibility of a kernel of truth. Gwen the wife of Cunedda appears here as well, which does fit with him being a contemporary of Cunedda’s sons, and may be a preservation of real history.

Amlawdd’s name is unique, and doesn’t seem to have been used outside of this instance, and is possibly the same as the Norse name Amleth. Could it be that a figure of Norse tradition over the years was grafted into these genealogies? The question here is why? There is the convoluted possibility that a much later figure has been grafted in, who for some reason was popular with the Welsh during the Norse invasions. I think this is shaky ground though and probably coincidence.

There is the possibility that it is not a name, but a title misremembered as a name. King Budic of Armorica is the son of Emyr Llydaw, a name which could mean Ruler (leader) of Armies, Llydaw possibly being a corruption of the Welsh Luyddog meaning host or army. One can see how Emyrllydaw may become Amlawdd through contraction or copyists errors etc. This is once again speculation, and may not mean anything in the long run, but could be a possibility still.

So why would so many of these later kings want to show descent from a fictional figure as many would have Amlawdd be. I think this is where the kernel of truth may lie. While Amlawdd exists as a genealogical convenience he may in fact be a memory of a very real person known by another name, who’s identity and deeds have been lost through the ages. The men who wanted to claim descent from him obviously knew he was important, but sadly the reasons aren’t preserved for us. Whether his name was Amlawdd, Emyr Llydaw, Amlóði, or even Ambrosius we will possibly never know, unless some dusty tome lying in wait is miraculously found. Maybe one day.

Our Next Generation

In the next installment we will meet leaders from the North, Pabo, Mar, and Gwrwst all sons of Ceneu, Dyfnwal Moelmud ap Garbanian, Dyfnwal Hen ap Cynwyd, the sons of Vortigern, and possibly a few others.

Follow me on Twitter!

Most of the men within this entry have a floruit starting sometime roughly between 430 and 460 and some of the figures from my last piece are still around during this era, such as Cunedda, who kind of straddles the gap between this generation and Coel’s, but because of his interactions with figures like Coel, I included him in the last generation, it also gives more realistic regnal dates for his descendants like Maelgwyn, and Cynlas Goch, both contemporaries of Gildas. Vortigern, who we have quite a bit of information on, looms large during this period. That is not to say there isn’t still some mystery to him though, as it is unclear whether Vortigern was his name, a title, or a nickname given by Gildas originally and picked up by later writers. Much like the later composite Arthur, Vortigern himself may be a composite by the time of Nennius, and could even be a figure we’ve visited before, such as Cunedda. The next figure we’ll touch on here is the incredibly famous Ambrosius Aurelianus, the Roman Arthur, who seems to operate across the later part of this generation and first part of the next, supposedly handing off power to a young Arthur. These two figures are so intertwined that it’s almost impossible to not include them both within this entry. We will briefly visit Ceneu, and Garbanian, Coel’s progeny, as well as some of Cunedda’s children, and the mysterious Amlawdd Wledig. Most of these figures are descended matrilineally from the shadowy 4th century chieftain Eudaf Hen, who I have otherwise only mentioned in the first article in this series.

Vortigern the “superbo tyranno” of Gildas’ Writing

The first mentions of Vortigern by name are in two copies of Gildas, one as Uortigerno and the other as Gurthigerno. Gildas never calls him king, but usurper, or superbo tyranno. He appears as part of the council that decides to invite the Saxons to Britain. This is likely a continuation of the practice of using Foederati as the Romans did. This can be explored in more depth, but for the sake of brevity I will not tread there in this article. Gildas qualifies his usurper as "unlucky" in that his council's invitation to the Saxons then backfires.

Vortigern is then found in Bede, most likely drawn mainly from Gildas' account. This is where Hengist and Horsa first appear in the written record, as the Saxon brothers invited by Vortigern's council.

Things get less certain after this, however I think it’s still worth trying to make some connections here. Vortigern is said to be the grandson of Vitelinus, and the son of Vitalis, and if Vortigern is a title as has been surmised, it is likely his name was the same. This brings us to an issue, and confuses things a bit, as now we have potentially for these figures to have been conflated, and it is possible that some things that are attributed to Vortigern are in fact things his father or even grandfather did. An important part here is to try and develop a rough chronology like we have worked out for other figures. His grandson Cadell is key to this, as there are two fairly definitive ways we can date Cadell’s floruit, you can find this reasoning here in this article, as well as more info about Cadell himself.

An ancient bull's thoughts.

Who Is the Real Arthur?

Originally published in Man’s World 7 and reprinted with permission of the editor. To get the full experience with @babygravy9’s amazing layout and graphics you can find issue 7 here, Download, Flipbook, as well as a prodigious amount of other fantastic articles…

Read more

4 years ago · 5 likes · Aurochs

Cadell’s chronology revolves around two things, whether it was St. Germanus or St. Garmon he actually encountered, and the fact that he was an adult when he encountered them. This gives us a rough 25 year floruit if it was Germanus of 445-470. If it was in fact St. Garmon instead it is more likely 470-495. These give rough birth dates of 420-430 or 440-450. Going from here we can get rough floruit’s for his predecessors.

St. Germanus based floruit

St. Garmon based floruit

This second chronology makes a little more sense overall, as Vortigern would have been absurdly long lived to have been both a contemporary of Magnus Maximus (albeit a generation younger), and Ambrosius, with his birth being somewhere around 375 and death around 450 making him around 75 during the time of his wars with Ambrosius, not impossible, but unlikely it would seem. This does bring him more in line with Severa, his supposed wife, the daughter of Magnus Maximus, but I find it more likely that she was his mother or grandmother, in the later Garmon based chronology.

The St. Garmon chronology gives us a birth of roughly 400, making him around 50 when he died, and bringing other figures dates a little more in line with what’s accepted such as Cadell’s likely grandson Brochwel who died sometime around 560-570. This would make Severa likely married to his father or grandfather, both who likely shared the same name with Vortigern, thus leading to the later conflation and the supposed extremely long reign of Vortigern.

This then leads us to Ambrosius Aurelianus, “The Roman Arthur”

Ambrosius Aurelianus: The Roman Arthur?

Much of what we known of Ambrosius comes from Gildas, and he holds the distinction of being one of the few people Gildas writes about that he obviously admires. Gildas refers to him as a "senior official" and "Gentleman"

take up arms and challenge their victors to battle under Ambrosius Aurelianus. He was a man of unassuming character, who, alone of the Roman race chanced to survive in the shock of such a storm (as his parents, people undoubtedly clad in the purple, had been killed in it)

Here Gildas gives us the impression that Ambrosius' father was at least a noble of a very senior position, possibly a governor of Consular rank, of which there were two in Britain in the early 5th century, Maxima Caesariensis and Valentia, though we have no records of their names. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan was known by the similar name of Aurelius Ambrosius, and his father, also Aurelius Ambrosius was a praetorian prefect of Gaul, and was the position that the vicarius of Britain reported to as well. If Ambrosius is related to this family then it makes sense that he makes a special point to emphasize his prestigious name.

Regardless of who his family was, we do know that under Ambrosius' leadership the Britons gained victory against the invading Saxons most likely in the 460s-470s, roughly one generation before Badon.

Now we come to Nennius, which proves problematic for Gildas description and our potential dating of Ambrosius, as Nennius says of Vortigern "He had cause for dread, not only from the Scots and Picts, but also from the Romans, and a dread of Ambrosius." Nennius also records a battle between Ambrosius and Vitalinus at Guoloph in 437 which further muddies the waters, as Vitalinus is said to be Vortigern's Grandfather, making him either extremely long lived or possibly Vortigern's actual name, being named after his grandfather. This also ties in with the earlier discuss of Vortigern’s chronology, but seemingly stretches Ambrosius even further.

Nennius also gives us the story of the young Ambrosius advising Vortigern on why he was having trouble building his citadel on a specific spot of land. This clearly seems to be the later Ambrosius we hear about in Gildas, so could Vortigern's feared rival Ambrosius be this boy's father?

From there we get to Geoffrey's account of Ambrosius, who records that in the eventual end of the conflict between the two that Ambrosius beseiged Vortigern in his fortress Cair Guorthigirn, and miraculously was struck by lightening and burnt Vortigern and his men inside. After Vortigern's death Ambrosius was generally fair in dealing with Vortigern's descendants specifically allowing Pasgen to keep his lands.

Ambrosius then according to Geoffrey fought Hengist and won a great victory, then after pursuit won another victory with the help of reinforcements from Brittany, capturing and beheading Hengist. Afterwards Ambrosius pardons Octa and Eosa, and gives them land in Scotland. Ambrosius was then poisoned by the Saxons at Winchester (Caer Guinntguic) and was buried at Stone Henge.

Regardless of whether Ambrosius was one man, or two, he certainly seemed to strike a chord with the people of Britain, being remembered as Emrys Wledig (Imperator Ambrose) and as a likely large contribution to the later Arthurian legend.

Pt 2. To Come Soon

This one I realized was getting rather long in the tooth, as Vortigern and Ambrosius are easy to get into the weeds with, and this article is going to be about twice as long as I intended. I tried my best here to not repeat myself, as like I said in the intro, Ambrosius and Vortigern’s stories are intertwined. Part two of this generation featuring Coel’s sons and Amlawdd Wledig, as well as some of Cunedda’s sons hopefully will be done later this week.

Setting the Stage for the Rise of ‘Big Men’

“In 410 Britannia rejected Rome.” Max Adams succintly claims in his recent book “The First Kingdom”, but of course it’s more complicated than that. Prior to 410 there seems to have been quite a bit of civil strife between pro-Roman factions, and pro-British factions, with this conflict likely lasting until the time of Ambrosius. The leaders of the Civitates seemed to be solidly pro-Roman, and in favor of remaining part of the Empire, while it seems the Vicarius of the time, controlling larger areas were in favor of taking power themselves. This generation likely consists of these men and other local ‘Big Men’, who shifted into the role of the feudal warlord we are all so familiar with. Ultimately the people of Britain had no say in whether they remained in the Empire or not, and were told by Honorius to “Look to your own defenses”. In the wake of this, men like Coel Hen, stepped up and took power. These are men who remembered what Rome was, and very likely served the Empire themselves, and I imagine as they aged they became more and more acutely aware that they were struggling to maintain something that could not be saved.

With each of these figures we visit I am including a small family tree, to help link these different figures in your mind. I will be including these with each subsequent figure in this series as well. There are numerous connections between these figures to keep up with, so an aid to keep the familial connections straight should be helpful.

Coel Hen

Coel seems to have ruled a significant territory in the north between Hadrian's wall all the way to the southern Pennines. Coincidentally the Dux Britanniarum during the Roman period was in control of a similar territory. This is not to say he was the Dux Britanniarum of his time, but it is interesting that he is ruling the same territory, and it would seem that he may have been intimately familiar with the Roman military, and it's way of life.

Coel was one of the men who arises to fill the vacuum left by Rome after roughly 410AD. Being born in the late 4th century it is a possibility that Coel was a son of a Romano-British family, or a high ranking British Aristocrat, maybe even of the Dux Brittaniarum. Actual hard information on Coel's background is scant. Interestingly enough though he may have gone by the Roman name Agricola, of which the Welsh equivalent is Aircol. Possibly unrelated but interesting is that Aircol of Dyfed is listed as Vortipor's father, Coel's title Guotepauc is romanized as the same name Vortiporius. This could be conflation, coincidence, an example of Coel's range of influence that he would have power from the wall all the way to Dyfed, a combination of all three, or honestly, none.

Coel has a prodigious number of descendants, including people we have previously met in this series. Ceneu, Peredur, Gwrgi, Arthwys, Mor, Pabo, Gwenddoleu, Urien of Rheged, Ellifer of the Great Host, and more speculatively Aneirin the Bard, Gildas, and many others. The famous Clydno Eidyn is often listed as one of Coel’s decendants, however this is likely not correct. The roots of the misattribution likely lies with Clydno’s father, Cynfelyn with a later copyist assuming Clydno ap Cynfelyn was son of Cynfelyn ap Arthwys, when in fact Clyndo is decended from Ceredig Wledig, another of these progenitor figures like Coel.

Coel the Old does not seem to be the inspiration behind the common Nursery Rhyme Old King Cole but maybe the roots run that deep and we just can’t find them?

We can glean more information about Coel through Welsh Poetry. In Y Gododdin, the "Son's of Godebog (Coel's epithet meaning protector)" are mentioned. Descendants of Coel in this period are numerous, including Owain ap Urien, Cadrod Calchfynydd, and possibly the Poet Aneirin himself!

In "Marwnat Cunedda" or "The Death-song of Cunedda" It is alluded to that Cunedda once made war upon Coel and Coel's descendants, Which with some speculation is likely what led Coel to wed his daughter Gwawl to Cunedda.

Legend also holds that Coel, made war upon the Picts and the Irish who were establishing themselves on the Western Coast, which according to legend Coel then tried to play them against one another, but instead they united. After a small campaign of back and forth fortune and misfortune Coel was eventually overrun at a fortified camp at what later became Coylton. He then wandered through the unfamiliar territory, and ultimately lost, drowned in a bog near Coilsfield.

Coel like many others in this first Sub-Roman generation seemed to try their best to continue Roman practices and style of rule, but as seen time and time again, despite best efforts, without Rome's massive infrastructure, things still crumbled. Coel is sometimes considered the last Dux Britanniarum. In my mind he seems a solemn ruler, commanding from a collapsing Roman Fort on the Wall, painfully aware of what has come before, all the while striving to maintain what has been lost.

Cunedda Wledig

This leads us to Cunedda Wledig the progenitor of the kings of Gwynedd.

Cunedda was born in Manaw Gododdin in the late 4th century. Supposedly decended from men who ruled with Roman authority (Aeternus, Paternus, and Tacitus), he also claimed decent from Eudaf Hen, father-in-law to Magnus Maximus. He was semi-contemporaneous with Coel Hen, and Ceredig Wledig, the progenitors of the Coelings and the kings of Alt Clut respectively. Likely 10-20 years younger than his contemporaries. He likely got his start as a warlord of the Gododdin, also known as the Votadini, fighting the Irish and Picts in the late 4th, early 5th century. It seems many warlords of this period cut their teeth fighting the Irish and Picts, as Coel does the same.

Sometime after establishing himself as a capable Warlord, Cunedda and his warband turn up the area that becomes known as Gwynedd. Nennius' Historia Brittonum states that he "Expelled the Scots with much slaughter" Scots being the Irish Gaels who had settled there.

We can only speculate why Cunedda found himself there, with a quite speculative earlier date it could have been at the behest of Macsen Wledig (Magnus Maximus), or in a more likely timeline some other Over-king of the period, Which I would suggest was Coel Hen. I would think this is likely as well, not only because the time line works out that way, but because Coel Hen was said to have fought the Irish on the western coast as well before. Not only that, but Cunedda was married to Coel's daughter Gwawl. If we speculate a bit, this marriage could have been the ultimate result of the conflict between Coel and Cunedda, leading Coel to marry his daughter, and allow him to set up a kingdom in Gwynedd, an area Coel seemed to have much influence in.

After clearing out the Irish, Cunedda set himself up as king of the area, establishing the "Kingdom of Gwynedd" Little is known of him from this point onward.

I will do a little bit of speculation here that shouldn't be taken as fact, but I do find it compelling.

Cunedda does have some parallels with Vortigern. I do think that multiple people contributed to the later idea of the "Usurper" described in Gildas, and I think that Cunedda may have been one of them. He is in the right time and roughly place, and his death falls around the same time as Vortigern/Vitalinus would have died fighting against a young Ambrosius (Who is roughly a generation younger) But this is just speculation, as all we can do is compare what little facts and timelines we have.

Cunedda had a prodigious amount of children (not to the level of Llywarch Hen with his 29 or 39 depending on who you talk to) with known children Tybion, Ysfael, Rhufon, Dunod, Ceredig, Afloeg, Einion, Dogfael, and Edern, with most eventually ruling sub-kingdoms of their own, such as Ceredigion and Meirionnydd

His son Einion Yrth takes over after his death around 467a.d. Einion is the father of two famous sons Owain Ddantwyn and Cadwallon Lawhir, both who have interesting stories in their own right.

Ceredig Wledig

Ceredig Wledig, also known as Caradog, or the latin Coroticus, ruled from a mighty fortress on Dumbarton Rock, Altclut. Like Cunedda, he also seems to be descended from Roman stock being descended from Clemens (great grandfather) Quintilius (Grandfather) and Quintilupus (father).

We find a reference to Ceredig in an odd place… One of the surviving letters of St. Patrick. Patrick bemoans that Ceredig’s warband had forsaken their duties as Romans

Soldiers whom I no longer call my fellow citizens, or citizens of the Roman saints, but fellow citizens of the devils, in consequence of their evil deeds; who live in death, after the hostile rite of the barbarians; associates of the Scots and Apostate Picts; desirous of glutting themselves with the blood of innocent Christians, multitudes of whom I have begotten in God and confirmed in Christ.

Further stating that he is excommunicating Coroticus’ warband.

We can help date both Ceredig, and St. Patrick because of this letter. This would have to have been shortly after Rome had been expelled/ left, with Patrick still viewing himself, and his fellow Britons as being Roman citizens. Working backwards from genealogies from figures we have more certain dates for gives us this early 5th century date for them both, with the supposed early 4th and late 3rd century datings holding less water.

Little else is known of Ceredig, but many of his descendants will make appearances elsewhere in subsequent articles. Men like the Tri-Hael, Mordaf, Nudd, and the famous Rhydderch, as well as his grandson Dyfnwal Hen, and Clydno Eidyn.

Lucius Artorius Castus and the Sarmatian connection.

Could a 2nd century Roman commander and a contingent of Sarmatian Cataphracts in Britain be the inspiration for the 5th century warlord?

We begin with Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman commander attested in two inscription fragments from Croatia. The first from a sarcophagus and the second a memorial.

The Sarcophagus lists his numerous ranks and units throughout his career, one translation as follows.

To the Spirits of the Departed, Lucius Artorius Castus, for himself, the centurion of the leg. III Gallica, also the centurion of the leg. VI Ferrata, also the centurion of the leg. II Adiutrix, also the centurion of the leg. V Macedonica, also the primus pilus of the same, praepositus of the classis Misenensis, twice the praefect of the leg. VI Victrix, the Dux of the three British legions against armed men, the procurator centenarius of the province of Liburniae with 'ius gladi' six times, he himself while alive built this for himself and his family."

Two important ranks here link him to Britain, Praefectus of Legio VI Victrix, and Dux Legionum Trium "Britanicimiarum". As Preafectus of the Legio VI Victrix, he would have been responsible for maintenance of the legionary fortress and management of provisions and equipment. During Castus’ time with the Legio Vi Victrix he was likely stationed in Eboracum (York) the majority of the time, and would have overseen detachments to Hadrian’s wall as well.

Dux Legionum was a temporary title given to those who are operating above their normal position. As Dux Legionum Trium "Britanicimiarum" he likely led an otherwise unknown expedition of three British legions, the II Augusta, the XX Valeria Victrix, and the VI Victrix.

These ranks place him in Britain likely fairly late in his life as normally Prefect of the Legion was one of the last ranks a man would serve as. So what part do the Sarmatians play in this, and how can Castus be linked to them? The main connection here is that Castus likely fought against the Sarmatians and Marcomanni as part of the Legio V Macedonica earlier in his career.

In 175 Marcus Aurelius stationed 5500 Sarmatians in Britain, this contingent seemed to serve in Northern Britain for multiple generations, so with a little conjecture one could say he was possibly given his post in Britain because of his prior experience with said Sarmatians.

We have another angle with possible links to later Arthurian legend and the "Nart Sagas" from the Caucasus not far from Sarmatia. These feature not only a Cup reminiscent to the Grail, that only a worthy warrior could use, but also a white clad woman associated with water.

The Sarmatians were famed for their horsemanship, fielding the feared Cataphract, armored man and horse complete with lance. Very reminiscent of the later Knight in Shining Armor motif we see in later Arthurian Legend

Upon one of the Nart's deaths he gives his sword to his friend to be thrown into the sea, which the friend then lies about twice before finally committing. Sounds an awful lot like Bedivere in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur.

The Nart Saga's were first written down in the 19th Century, but are assumed to be older. Is this a case of blind coincidence, shared cultural motifs, or original inspiration?

There is also the discussion of Castus' nomen gentilicium, Artorius, which has been proposed as the origin of the name Arthur, although there are multiple possible Celtic origins for the name as well.

Sadly I do not think there is enough evidence to link Castus with the earliest tales of Arthur, and the post-Galfridian tales are so far removed that it is hard to say that these are directly linked, although I do think there is some other merit to this theory.

The conjecture of Castus leading Sarmatians is a bit of a stretch as we have no evidence other than Sarmatians being present in Britain at the same time as him, and the commands given to him in Britain are in no way related to the Sarmatians there. However there is an interesting possibility that they inspired the native Brythonic warriors to revere cavalry, as much of their poetry and praises revolve around cavalry in early welsh sources. This could be linked to the Sarmatians, or the general use of cavalry in late Roman Britain.

Overall I do not think the theory as a whole holds water, but is it fun to think about Roman led Sarmatian Cataphracts fighting Caledonii at Hadrian's wall? It definitely is!

Was Constantine the Great's mother Helena British?

It is often said that Constantine the Great's mother Helena was British Princess, the daughter of King Coel, a legend seemingly starting with Henry of Huntingdon's work Historia Anglorum, and shortly after perpetuated by Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae.

Henry tells us that Constantius (Constantine the Great’s father)

…received in marriage the daughter of the British king of Colchester, whose name was Hoel or Helen, our Saint Helena, by whom he had Constantine the Great. Constantius, a great and accomplished prince, died at York.

Geoffrey greatly expands upon the information Henry of Huntingdon provided and proceeds to make Constantine an ancestor of King Arthur.

Constantine the Great → Constantine II → Uther → Arthur

The aforementioned “British king of Colchester” is often held to be Coel Hen. There are issues with this.

Coel and his contemporaries are the progenitors of the Brythonic Heroic Age, a period that starts after the Roman administration left/ were expelled from Britain, placing his rule solidly after 410a.d. So how could a man who ruled after 410, be grandfather to a man born in 272? The answer is surprisingly easy to track down.

The answer lies with a British noblewoman named Elen ferch Eudaf. Elen was the daughter of Eudaf Hen (Octavius the Old) a Romano British ruler with a floruit likely in the early 4th century. Eudaf is an ancestor of many figures we have visited here one way or another. So why might one confuse Elen ferch Eudaf, for Helena, mother of Constantine I? Well aside from the similarity of names lets make some other connections.

Both were married to Emperors. Helena to Constantine's father Constantius (Emperor from 293-306), and Elen to Magnus Maximus (the famous Macsen Wledig of Welsh legend, Emperor from 383-388) With Magnus Maximus marrying twice with the second Marriage being to Elen, and siring many children by her.

This is where another important connection can be made and what seems to have maybe been the actual cause for conflating Elen with Helena, and that is that one of Elen's sons was according to tradition also named Constantine. Elen and Magnus’ son Constantine is known by the Britons as Custennin Fawr and seems to have ruled somewhere in the North of Wales prior to Cunedda.

It is easy now to see how these two Historical figures became conflated through years of telling and retelling and of very similar names and situations. So was Constantine the Great half British? No, but it is easy to see why that myth began!

Magnus Maximus The Usurper Emperor Behind Arthur’s European Campaigns

Maximus was born sometime around 335ad in Gallaecia, the son of general Flavius Julius Eucherius. Maximus claimed relation to Flavius Theodosius, who he served under during The Great Conspiracy. From 367–368 Seemingly coordinated attacks by the Picts, Scotti, Attacotti, Saxons, and Franks harried the Island of Britain, this event is known as The Great Conspiracy. Maximus, under Theodosius proved to be a capable leader, helping to quell The Great Conspiracy, as well as serving in Africa in 373.

He was then given a post in Britain in 380, and fought against a Pict and Scotti incursion the next year. In the coming years the emperor Gratian had become increasingly unpopular, eventually leading to Maximus being proclaimed emperor by his own troops. He then led campaigns in Gaul using soldiers from Britain, weakening Britain's defenses considerably. Maximus then used these troops to take on Gratian and his army, eventually defeating him, and leading to Gratian's death.

He then proceeded to rule Britain, Gaul, Spain and Africa from his established capital at Augusta Treverorum. He became known as a defender of the church for some time, and in particular went after heresy harshly.

In the ensuing years Magnus became quite popular, though he continued to keep pressure on Valentinian II eventually driving him to Theodosius I, son of the previously mentioned Flavius Theodosius (A relation of Maximus' if we are to believe he was related to Flavius Theodosius)

Maximus was ultimately defeated at the Battle of Poetovio, surrendering at Aquileia and was executed.

Many of you are probably wondering "what does this have to do with Arthur?" A number of events in Maximus' life tie in to the greater Arthurian legend, with Maximus himself being stated to be an ancestor of Arthur in many sources.

Arthur is often stated to have made war in Gaul, and then upon Rome, even killing an Emperor, leading to the creation of his own Western-European Empire. This is likely inspired by Magnus Maximus' exploits as a usurper emperor, warring in Gaul, and eventually leading to Gratian's death. These are eventually wrapped into Arthur’s story and become his deeds instead of Maximus’.

Magnus Maximus himself is the subject of a tale in the Mabinogion The Dream of Macsen Wledig (Magnus is known in Welsh as Macsen Wledig, Wledig being a title many of you have seen before in this series meaning Lord, or Ruler, or Great Land-Owner) In this tale Magnus falls asleep after a hunt and dreams of a beautiful maiden, and upon awakening he sends his men to the ends of the earth to search for her, leading him ultimately to Caernarfon in Gwynedd. It is found to be Elen, discussed earlier in this article!

Magnus Maximus seems to have been remembered fondly in British legened, even though he is likely a root of some of the later troubles as according to Gildas he deprived Britain of it's Roman garrison, warbands, governors, and the "flower of her youth"

Thank you for reading this updated version, and be sure to catch the next article where we will look at the first post-Roman generation of leaders in the beginning of the Brythonic Heroic Age!