🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus And don't forget to check out the SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items: spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
Nowadays it is generally believed that Arthuran mythos is a complication of numerous stories, including those mentioned by you here. So technically there is three Kings Arthurs, representing different parts of his story.
The legendary "King Arthur Pendragon" was based on one of the Welsh rulers known to all as King Artur ap Pedr, he ruled the kingdom of Dyfed. It is obvious that it was from him that the famous legend of King Arthur came, because the word Pendragon came from his surname Pedr. The famous Battle of Badon Hill, which took place in 500 and which is also called the last battle of "Antiquity", was fought by Ambrosius Aurelian. It was this famous commander Ambrosius Aurelian who became the prototype of the legendary wizard Merlin!
I think Arthur was a composite character of many different British kings and warriors between the 5th and 9th centuries. I like the idea that the magnificent court of ‘Camelot’ was a fading memory of marble buildings, running water, and of Romanitas
One of the best retellings of Arthur as a Romano-Briton was Sword at Sunset by Rosemary Sutcliffe. The other noteworthy one is Mary Stewart's Crystal Cave and its sequels.
The legendary "King Arthur Pendragon" was based on one of the Welsh rulers known to all as King Artur ap Pedr, he ruled the kingdom of Dyfed. It is obvious that it was from him that the famous legend of King Arthur came, because the word Pendragon came from his surname Pedr. The famous Battle of Badon Hill, which took place in 500 and which is also called the last battle of "Antiquity", was fought by Ambrosius Aurelian. It was this famous commander Ambrosius Aurelian who became the prototype of the legendary wizard Merlin!
The ex-Legionary Fortresses at Colchester, Gloucester and Lincoln were converted into Colonia's for retired veterans while later on another Colonia was established alongside the permanent Fortress at York not to mention the various Auxiliary soldiers from various provinces manning the Fort's
@@yellowsocker Would be awesome indeed, but some folks have a bad reaction to contacts, Daniel Radcliffe, actor for Harry Potter, who couldn't wear book accurate green contacts is the first that came to mind. Targaryens, Velaryons, Celtigars, etc have valyrian purple eyes, sure, but it would be difficult to put it on screen, that's partly why they decided to not go with it during the original GoT series.
@@TurtleTurtle-ii3lq I watched it and I liked the premise but even it was loaded with modern political tropes. What I prefer is for filmmakers to attempt and make a historical film within its own context as much as possible, to be transported to that time and immersed in that world. Very few attempt to actually do this. They’re addicted to attempting clunky allegory and morality plays. See Kingdom of Heaven.
It amazes me how no one mentions the similarity of the sword in the stone to the story in which odin stabs a sword in a pillar in a viking/germanic house and then says that whomever pulls the sword will lead his people into victory. This then develops into the story of the rheingold...
It's not really connected. Put a sword into stone just meant stop the wars, it is metaphorical. Same as "Burrow the waraxe". Actually Arthur received his sword from Lady of the Lake
Arthur is a composite historical character that could have resonated with many cultures as it does with western cultures today. Thank you for your video on this subject
I was in Rome in January with family just before Covid broke, and was sitting in the Forum next to a dig site that was fenced off. Turned out that they had found the tomb of Romulus. The reason I mention this is that many so-called 'myths' have turned out to true in many respects, though highly embellished over the centuries. Archeologists in Briton have essentially determined that Roman culture and control survived for a long time after the Western Empire abandoned Briton. and they still had contact with the Eastern Empire at least through trade. It stands to reason then that these people had a leader or leaders who tried to maintain the status quo against the Germanic invasions, and it might well have been an 'Arthurian' character who was Romano-British. The connection of the Sarmatians and the sword, as well as the name meaning 'the bear' suggest that the man's name was probably not 'Arthur', but a prominent Roman who was nicknamed that.
Funnily enough, I had just recently watched King Arthur (2004); that film has its merits but tried to mix in too many ideas and theories of who a Romano-British Arthur might have been, and mangled the politics of the time. While my ideal versions of King Arthur are the fantastical versions like Excalibur, I would love to see a *great* version of a post-Roman King Arthur and his knights blending a Welsh and Cornish mythological sensibility with preserving the last vestiges of Roman civilization against the tides of Saxons, only to be betrayed by his own foibles and the likes of Mordred.
The modern Sarmat (Sarmatian) tribe of Kurds still take oath on a steel sword stuck into the ground. The idea was naturlly an import into Britain, presumably brought in by the Iranic Sarmatians, who were sent there by the Romans. The thing is still practiced in the area in northern and western Kurdistan near the Black Sea, where the town of Kalaibar was and is now (a village, actually). Ex Calibur (meaning "from Kalibur/Kalaibar" in Latin) is the name of the Arthurian steel sword--the same type that is still used by the Sarmat Kurds who practice Yezidi religion (to which, Mithras is still the primary divinity). Metropolitan Museum in New York published a good deal about this when they had a special exhibit on the Sarmatians in the late 1970s. They still got them books and articles
@@uan9166 Not so. Medes like Sarmatian and other Aryans, all came from the Steppes into the Middle East, and ALL of them together became ancestors of the Kurds, not just one of them. Besides, Medes NEVER called themselves by that name, but always (as Herodotus tells us) called themselves Arians.
One King Arthur certainly was not based on was King Alfred the Great of Wessex (871-886) and then the King of the English (886-899). But there is a lot of parallels between Alfred’s incredible life and Arthurian legend (although King Arthur was not an Anglo-Saxon king and, in fact, fought against Anglo-Saxons). It’s so bemusing that King Alfred’s tomb was desecrated and remains reburied in a kind of a mass grave with other Anglo-Saxon royals during the dissolution of monasteries under Henry VIII, a great admirer of Arthurian legend. He venerated legend and had little if any idea about his fabulous ancestor… Like Emperor Majorian, Alfred for quite a while was an unsung hero.
I believe he was Ambrosius Aurelianus, and I think Arthur was his nickname. Some say that Aurthur was a general of his. You are a go-to source when I need to study for my historical fiction books! Thank you so much!
A well done presentation. A fascinating subject. There may be one main character who fits the descrption; likely a Romano/Briton who carried the traditions of the mid to late empire. It is also true that other similar traditions attach themselves to the main theme over time. Is there a single individual who provides the foundation for this story ? It would be wonderful to know. You did a very nice job. All of the characters mentioned are worthy of investigation on their own merits.
Arthur, as well as Robin Hood, are both characters that become almost completely unrecognizable to the modern audience if we go deeper back to older sources. For example, originally Arthur in the oldest sources (Historia Brittonum, Annales Cambriae (and Gesta Regum Anglorum which was a recap of the previous ones )) was not a king at all but simply a millitary commander, dux bellorum, who led the war against Saxons in the battles of river Glein, river Dubglas in Linnuis (Lindsey), river Bassas, forest of (Cat Coit) Celidon, fortress of Guinnion, the City of the Legion, river Tribuit, Mount Agnet, Mount Badon and last was in the fortress of Camlann. But even earlier sources Gildas and Bede are even more interesting, because they do not mention Arthur at all, but Ambrosius Aurealianus instead (where the connection between these two characters is derived and comes). The idea that Athur was the king who united all the Britons is a much later and younger invention from the 12th century (pseudo-history Historia Regum Anglorum, c. 1136).
Yes, and Arthur is Alan Rufus, who was the Breton Dux for the Norman army that conquered the Anglo-Saxons in 1066. He fought battles all over England, then, in an amazing flip, trained the survivors to conquer Normandy in 1091.
According to the Breton king lists, Riotham(us) reigned in Domnonea from AD 460 to AD 520. So he long outlived Euric’s ambush: long enough to lead soldiers at Mount Badon. Remember that the southern British kingdoms were maritime and spanned the Channel.
Italy: Alan Rufus’s brother Brian of Brittany was Constable of Apulia under the Hauteville dukes. Brian made a deep impression on the Eastern Roman imperial family: Anna Comnene wrote admiringly that he was the most courageous and most honourable of all the Gauls. Meanwhile, in Tuscany, La Gran Contessa Matilda was engaged awhile to Welf II, whose mother was Judith of Flanders, named after her grandmother Judith of Brittany. So the Breton influence was extensive.
I have always believed that King Arthur was a Romano-British Soldier/General who fought the invading Anglo-Saxons to a standstill. A last stand for civilization against the coming Dark Ages.
Excellent video! I highly suspect King Arthur is a fusion of various real-world figures. We may never know the details of how this hybridization of historical events occured, but most legends have a kernal of truth at their core around which compelling narratives are fashioned over times. And it has been said, "when legend becomes fact, print the legend." In many ways, the legend of King Arthur would outlive the real-world facts, even if we had access to them.
glad to see you are tackling some topics that attract a wider audience then maybe the more narrow slice of late Roman historiography that is your home turf... being a little clickbaity is not a bad thing in this case!!!! it spreads actual knowledge to people who might not otherwise have been interested, and maybe, they will find out about things they knew little about.
I've been looking forward to this video. My vote is for Riothamus. As we know, that was apparently not a name but a title (Riothamus/ Rigotamus). Maybe his name was Arthur/ Artorius....?
It has happened where a colonizing people arrives, some try to be more Roman than the Romans (or Greeks or British) while other go native and make that their whole identity. It has been suggested the Arthur was one of the latter.
Love from Taipei. I strongly recommend you collaborate with an excellent Welsh youtuber Cambrian Chronicle. You two should be capable of expanding this topic into "The Harry Potter For Thousand Years (before 1999 Most Popular Fantasy Story of English Speaking World)" and look for more evidence to also explain the environment when the Arthurian legend was written in 12th CE. BTW I love how our host here pronounced Arthurian as Ahh Thor Ian. Sounds truly Roman!
The legendary "King Arthur Pendragon" was based on one of the Welsh rulers known to all as King Artur ap Pedr, he ruled the kingdom of Dyfed. It is obvious that it was from him that the famous legend of King Arthur came, because the word Pendragon came from his surname Pedr. The famous Battle of Badon Hill, which took place in 500 and which is also called the last battle of "Antiquity", was fought by Ambrosius Aurelian. It was this famous commander Ambrosius Aurelian who became the prototype of the legendary wizard Merlin!
I've got a nonfiction book from 1992 by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman, "King Arthur". They traced the sources back to the oldest available and found a certain Owain Ddantgwyn, son of a King from Gwynedd. The also point out, that "Arth" in celtic languages means "Bear". And Arth-us is the latin form, indicating a male person. The roman tradition seemed to be very strong in Britain of these times, and one might guess, that it's still alive today, surviving in language, law and science.
The Japanese manga “Vinland Saga” has an arc where one of the major characters is revealed to be the last living descendant of King Arthur, based heavily on the first theory proposed in this video. One of the most jaw-dropping scenes in the entire story is when this character states calmly, but with deadly intent, that “My name is Lucius Artorius Castus, and *I* am the rightful King of Britain.”
Most likely Riothamus' life served as base to build a legend, then Autari and each protoWelsh or Anglo-Saxon king added more legend until we got today's legend.
*Please* read The Skystone by Jack Whyte. It is the single greatest Arthurian legend I've ever come across. It's my firm belief that he was part Roman.
I think the biggest obstacle to finding the real Arthur is knowing what to look for, as well as who. If you are trying to find someone at approximately the right time in roughly the right place with the name Arthur, or a close approximation then you won't find him. The name Arthur was not used in Britain at the time. The nickname that sounds like "Arthur" was in use, and it means "the bear" in Welsh. So, if you look for a British leader who was nicknamed "the bear", you have found your man. First, a keen researcher would have to re-read the ancient texts and look for references to "the bear". He might turn out to have been a relatively minor chieftain whose reputation was enhanced way beyond his actual achievements, or it might turn out to be someone quite well known, like Ambrosius or Riothamus.
I don’t know why no one seems to have looked into the work of Alan Wilson. It’s right here on RUclips. His work is more informative than the interminable rehash of the same Arthurian myth.
Interesting. Source? My research brought up that Gildas mentioned Ambrosius, the battle of Mount Badon, but didn't mention Arthur directly by name. Hence the ambiguity with some thinking Ambrosius might be Arthur, or a prototype of him.
I don’t remember where I read it, Guildas mentioned names of several kings in Wales and Cornwall that in the Arthurian legend play role of King Arthur’s relatives. Constantine of Dumnonia was personally castigated by Guildas for murdering two royal youth in a church; Geoffrey of Monmouth calls that very monarch a successor of King Arthur as king of Britons.
I take this back - he mentioned the battle of Badon Hill but not who led the britons, though later authors said it was King Arthur. Sorry for the initial misinformation.
I believe that the Arthurian myth was an amalgamation of several historical people and events in Britain, France and possibly Italy but i also beileve the Arthurian mythology was created and primarily used as a benchmark for what good leadership and governance should look like in the high middle ages.....
Thats what I was going to say if he was a Roman his name would not have been Arthur, it would have been Artorious or Arturius or Arturio, Arturo or Arturis or something along these lines...The name would have been Anglicized as it was passed down through the centuries...
It's difficult to say if there really was a "King Arthur". It seems that the legend has its roots in the turmoil of the fall of the Roman Empire, mythologised with the mediaeval ideals of chivalry. I guess that whoever was the archetype for "King Arthur" was likely a Romano-Briton, and in command of a military force that included cavalry. Of course, "Arthur" has the connotation of "Stone", as in the word "Stan" in Anglo-Saxon. Interestingly, one of my grandfathers was Arthur, and the other was Stanley ("Field of Stones"). This is the connection with the "Sword in the stone" part of the legend. Also remember that both in Ireland and in Scotland, there was a "Stone of Kingship". We will likely never be able to pin the name of a historical figure on the legend.
except...by the most classical version of the legend, as King, it is very unlikely that King Arthur was a Christian... whilst he seems to have allied with certain Christian forces late in his reign, by all accounts that are vaguely early (Pre-Canterbury-Tales), and even in some works of Chaucer, he is very much a pagan king with strong connections to local sorcerers, druid leaders and other members of the Shamanic class... indeed, it seems from what we know, he is remembered for re-establishing rituals at a lot of the ancient Henges & using the druidic faith to unite the disparate Celtic peoples of the Isles... later, when he lost most of his Druidic army, he does seem to either convert, or at least seek an alliance with the Church, but, that is a move only towards the end of his life, and how "earnest or tactical" it was is hard to tell. some versions give him a Christian burial, but most others, describe something that is very reminiscent off the Celtic idea of a procession into an eternal existence (story of Avalon), suggesting he was subject to a Pagan ritual.
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 Not a Christian???!!! Ok, so he would hang out with pagans, like Merlin, but if he wasn't a Christian, why would he send his knights out to find the Holy Grail?
Do you have any books/scientific papers on the matter? I would gladly dive into them. Also I see some changes in formula of your videos, but still - great choice of topics and kudos to your love for late roman era!
This similar to the Legend of Siegfried killing the Dragon and later killed by his kins, a similar story to the story of Arminius who destroyed the Roman army marching like a dragon and later killed by his kins
King Arthur was indeed a real person. There were at least two King Arthur's in Brittany, which is part of the initial confusion. Arthur I (son of Emperor Magnus Maximus) who fought the Romans in the 4th Century and then King Arthur II who fought the Saxons in the 6th Century. Arthur II is the Round Table King who fought in the famous battles of Badon Hill and Camlaan. Arthur II was King of Glamorgan and Gwent (Wales). For anyone interested in learning the truth, a good starting book is "The Holy Kingdom" by Adrian Gilbert. Also, researchers Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett uncovered the hidden history of Arthur's reign and much more.
There were multiple individuals, mythical heroes and events known in the period. These may have all been attached to a famous leader from around 500AD. Later there were recorded leaders in Britain in the next couple of hundred years named Arthur, probably in memory of some original Arthur who made the name notable.
But a Centurion would hardly command 2 Legions, though he might have been in charge of part of such a force. Only if the Samaritans remained in Britain as a regular Cohort, or Ala of the Province until the end, then military units could have survived into the sub Roman period. Ambrosius is the nearest in date & most likely associated with 'Arthur', who may have served under him against the Saxons.
As an Englishman, I believe it is very possible that Arthur was an a Roman General that saw England as his home. But we will never know for sure without direct evidence
When Rome left Arthur half Roman half Britton was able to hold off the Anglo-Saxons for a while, though eventually it became Anglo-Land to England. OH that temporary period was called Camelot.
likely one of the few remaining literate officers. Possibly combining the Celtic name for 'bear' 'Arth' with the Latin 'auctor' from which we derive 'author'.
Gildas also mentioned that the parents of Ambrosias Aurelianus came from families who “bore the purple”. Scholars believe Gildas is referring to Aurelianus belonging to a lineage of Romano-Briton patrician, senatorial or even imperial figures (Aurelian?). Roman emperors and members of the aristocracy and bureaucracy wore purple dyed clothing as a sign of wealth and rank. A tradition that goes back to the senatorial classes of the Roman Republic and even the legendary kings of Rome.
Fiction is *always* inspired by the reality in which the author is living... with so many possible sources for King Arthur, it could all of them, or none... Regardless, there is so little in common between those real people and Arthur that it makes him, in my opinion, totally fictitious. Very interesting video. Thanks.
So many people named Arthur just after the battle of Badon. Maybe these people were not part of a composite Arthur but actually named after King Arthur and modeled themselves somewhat after the kind they were named.
Some interesting thoughts there. I would note that the modern Welsh for bear is 'arth', suggesting at learning the possibility that the Arthurian legendarium has roots in one or other of the Celtic languages, though more likely from a P-Celtic source. Worth noting is that the only surviving Celtic language in mainland Europe is Breton (Brezhoneg), a tongue descended from insular Celtic, specifically that dialect from which modern Cornish (Kernowek) also claims it's roots. Reason? Brythonic refugees fleeing the relentless Saxon advance. Geoffrey of Monmouth is better known for prosaic exaggeration and outright invention than anything we'd regard as a reliable account, think 'medieval David Starkey'.
Cymraeg, however my theory is that whilst there is a historical germ of truth behind it all, the name Arthur probably accrued to several heroes over time, just like back in the wild west if there was a bank robbery it was Jesse James, even if he was nowhere in the vicinity. Arthur has become since ancient times a hero for everybody and has transcended the narrow bounds of geography and ethnicity and what is more he definitely shot Liberty Valance.
Perhaps Arthur's legend has its roots in one of the kings Gildas complains about in his de Excidio - perhaps Aurelianus Caninus (possible relative to Ambrosius) or Maelgwyn (the dragon of the island, who took his nephew's wife)
Several of your theories about Arthur I have heard before; others are new to me. One theory about "Arthur" however that you might delve into is that the name of Arthur, while a legitimate Roman name, is actually a "nom de guerre" for some other person whose Christian name we may or may not already be aware of. In the 5th & early 6th centuries, late Classical authors were fond of complex word-play, including obscure allusions to Classical myth, astrology and older literature (such as Homer & Virgil). Standard Latin literature is complicated enough, but late Classical "bejeweled" literature is extremely difficult to translate into modern idiom. Thus the name Arthur may actually "Art-Gur" a nickname for someone famed as a war leader but not under the name we know him by. In any case, the basic thesis that "Arthur" was a late Roman (or 'sub-Roman'/Romano-British) leader, either a dux or an "Ameradaur" (Imperator) has much to recommend it. That he possessed a Navy and was in contact with not only the eastern Romans, but Visigoths, Vandals and Franks is also a possibility with some evidence to support it. Keep up the good work. I find your videos interesting and informative.
Which one? There were two Aurthers. Both Welsh, one directly decended from the other, both of the noble house of Siluure. One fought the Romans to a stalemate. The latter fought the Saxons. Research Wilson and Blacket.
The name Arthur originates from the Sarmatian word Horator, Orathor, - the commander of the Sarmatian cavalry who is the first to call for the charge with the roar of HOURA-HURRA. Houra is the Sarmatian god of death and war, by shouting his name they sacrificed enemy to him, they believed that he would recognize them in battle, and that he would kill as many enemies as possible. The call to charge -HURRA can still be heard today in the armies of Eastern Europe.But the real meaning has been forgotten...Arthur could be Romanized Sarmatian Briton, or maybe just a Romanized Briton, but his name evolved from the rank of Sarmatian cavalry commander.
About the fore knights of the Round Table Sarmatians or Alan's (Ossetians) ? Some Alans settled in Transylvania under another name. They revolutionized horse riding with better saddles. Horsemanship was their primary sought skill as mercenaries.
What about St Patrick, another late Roman Briton? He was born somewhere near Deva ( Chester ) and captured by Irish raiders, then got home and returned to Ireland to covert the land to Christianity. Lots of historical fog swirling around these people but the legends are stimulating.
Riothamus is much more likely to be Ambrosius, the 'name' is a title and as they would overlap in time it's much more likely Ambrosius was the 'High King'. As you correctly said, Ambrosius is a generation before Arthur.
🤗 Join our Patreon community: www.patreon.com/Maiorianus
And don't forget to check out the SPQR Shop, excellent hand-crafted Roman rings and other items:
spqrshop.com/?sca_ref=4770010.FM16q4LJHr
Enter the code "Maiorianus" to get a 20% discount on every purchase. The ideal present for any fan of Rome 😉!
Nowadays it is generally believed that Arthuran mythos is a complication of numerous stories, including those mentioned by you here. So technically there is three Kings Arthurs, representing different parts of his story.
The legendary "King Arthur Pendragon" was based on one of the Welsh rulers known to all as King Artur ap Pedr, he ruled the kingdom of Dyfed. It is obvious that it was from him that the famous legend of King Arthur came, because the word Pendragon came from his surname Pedr. The famous Battle of Badon Hill, which took place in 500 and which is also called the last battle of "Antiquity", was fought by Ambrosius Aurelian. It was this famous commander Ambrosius Aurelian who became the prototype of the legendary wizard Merlin!
If Arthur really existed, he would have been a Romano-Briton.
Most definitely
Drusus germanicus ( Paul Atreides ), Lord of the alpheides (elves).
That seems the most likely hypothesis.
Great faction to play as in total war games
His name was arturios
I think Arthur was a composite character of many different British kings and warriors between the 5th and 9th centuries.
I like the idea that the magnificent court of ‘Camelot’ was a fading memory of marble buildings, running water, and of Romanitas
Camelot = the Camillus (water-carrier) place.
Camelot = Camulodunum (Roman civitas).
11th century, mostly, but also Riothamus from the 5th century who was the one who went to Avallon. It’s in Burgundy: hello Siegfried!
Thats on my list on top - its sounds most plausible, but we will never know for sure
@@bearonaromp7473Camulodubum was destroyed by Boudica and the the Iceni tribe. Did they ever rebuild it?
Fun fact : King Arthur, Attila and Hypatia are in the same time period but many movies got the costumes wrong.
Also, Hypatia movie is based on the anti church and anti Christian legends from 19th century authors than historical truth.
@@elleanna5869You might want to look into what actually happened to Hypatia...
If you refer to Attila the Hun, i guess he's some centuries later. But yes, historical costumes in movies are generally wrong.
@@elleanna5869I suggest you read Socrates Scholasticus before claiming they were 19th century fabrications.
One of the best retellings of Arthur as a Romano-Briton was Sword at Sunset by Rosemary Sutcliffe. The other noteworthy one is Mary Stewart's Crystal Cave and its sequels.
Thank you for the recommendations. I was able to track down an original hardback copy of Sword and Sunset, they are not easy to find.
Mine is the Winter king by Bernard Cromwell
Someone should do a remake of 2004 King Arthur but in this one using the clothes of the late roman empire
Setting it in Britannia Prima rather than along Hadrian's Wall
That movie was rubbish and not worthy of being remade.
@@hardywatkins7737 then a whole new one with the same concept
@@guadalupe8589 Yeah, fair enough.
They would make it woke as hell.
The legendary "King Arthur Pendragon" was based on one of the Welsh rulers known to all as King Artur ap Pedr, he ruled the kingdom of Dyfed. It is obvious that it was from him that the famous legend of King Arthur came, because the word Pendragon came from his surname Pedr.
The famous Battle of Badon Hill, which took place in 500 and which is also called the last battle of "Antiquity", was fought by Ambrosius Aurelian. It was this famous commander Ambrosius Aurelian who became the prototype of the legendary wizard Merlin!
PLENTY of retiring Roman soldiers stayed put in England and had local wives.
The ex-Legionary Fortresses at Colchester, Gloucester and Lincoln were converted into Colonia's for retired veterans while later on another Colonia was established alongside the permanent Fortress at York not to mention the various Auxiliary soldiers from various provinces manning the Fort's
You look like a Targaryen, love it.
Where's your dragon?
His room is on it's back, lol
all he needs now are purple contacts lmao
@@yellowsocker Would be awesome indeed,
but some folks have a bad reaction to contacts, Daniel Radcliffe, actor for Harry Potter, who couldn't wear book accurate green contacts is the first that came to mind.
Targaryens, Velaryons, Celtigars, etc have valyrian purple eyes, sure, but it would be difficult to put it on screen, that's partly why they decided to not go with it during the original GoT series.
Does he know any Huns or Dothraki?
@@Obsidius They could have done it with visual FX.
All of them. All of them are King Arthur. Mixture of many glorious men into a representative of ideal Christian sacral kingship and honor.
Who else think of the movies such as The Last Legion from 2007 and King Arthur 2004 after watching this video?
It's a good thing you mention Arthur of 2004 with Clive Owen. Because the last King Arthur with Jude Law is a pile of rubbish.
Vinland Saga too with Ashkelad's backstory.
I think those movies are too loaded with modern tropes to be worth anything.
@@teddyjackson1902 Imagine most are, but the mentioned "King Arthur" of 2004 with Clive Owen seems more realistic to me, absolutely worth watching.
@@TurtleTurtle-ii3lq I watched it and I liked the premise but even it was loaded with modern political tropes. What I prefer is for filmmakers to attempt and make a historical film within its own context as much as possible, to be transported to that time and immersed in that world. Very few attempt to actually do this. They’re addicted to attempting clunky allegory and morality plays. See Kingdom of Heaven.
The Sarmatians were known as the dragon people because of their scaled armor.
It amazes me how no one mentions the similarity of the sword in the stone to the story in which odin stabs a sword in a pillar in a viking/germanic house and then says that whomever pulls the sword will lead his people into victory. This then develops into the story of the rheingold...
It's not really connected.
Put a sword into stone just meant stop the wars, it is metaphorical.
Same as "Burrow the waraxe".
Actually Arthur received his sword from Lady of the Lake
Arthur is a composite historical character that could have resonated with many cultures as it does with western cultures today. Thank you for your video on this subject
Thanks, Maiorianus. A really interesting presentation. I have never thought about the origins of King Arthur - but this article really makes me think.
I was in Rome in January with family just before Covid broke, and was sitting in the Forum next to a dig site that was fenced off. Turned out that they had found the tomb of Romulus. The reason I mention this is that many so-called 'myths' have turned out to true in many respects, though highly embellished over the centuries. Archeologists in Briton have essentially determined that Roman culture and control survived for a long time after the Western Empire abandoned Briton. and they still had contact with the Eastern Empire at least through trade. It stands to reason then that these people had a leader or leaders who tried to maintain the status quo against the Germanic invasions, and it might well have been an 'Arthurian' character who was Romano-British. The connection of the Sarmatians and the sword, as well as the name meaning 'the bear' suggest that the man's name was probably not 'Arthur', but a prominent Roman who was nicknamed that.
How could they know it is the tomb of Romulus?
Funnily enough, I had just recently watched King Arthur (2004); that film has its merits but tried to mix in too many ideas and theories of who a Romano-British Arthur might have been, and mangled the politics of the time.
While my ideal versions of King Arthur are the fantastical versions like Excalibur, I would love to see a *great* version of a post-Roman King Arthur and his knights blending a Welsh and Cornish mythological sensibility with preserving the last vestiges of Roman civilization against the tides of Saxons, only to be betrayed by his own foibles and the likes of Mordred.
Have you read the winter king series by Bernard Cromwell the writer of the lady kingdom? It had everything you are looking for
@@caniblmolstr452 I will look into that, thank you!
@@caniblmolstr452
There's also the Dream of Eagles series of novels by Jack Whyte.
The modern Sarmat (Sarmatian) tribe of Kurds still take oath on a steel sword stuck into the ground. The idea was naturlly an import into Britain, presumably brought in by the Iranic Sarmatians, who were sent there by the Romans. The thing is still practiced in the area in northern and western Kurdistan near the Black Sea, where the town of Kalaibar was and is now (a village, actually). Ex Calibur (meaning "from Kalibur/Kalaibar" in Latin) is the name of the Arthurian steel sword--the same type that is still used by the Sarmat Kurds who practice Yezidi religion (to which, Mithras is still the primary divinity). Metropolitan Museum in New York published a good deal about this when they had a special exhibit on the Sarmatians in the late 1970s. They still got them books and articles
Too bad you didn't read them or any other relevant literature, but just a lot of mixed up nonsense on the internet.
@@bradleyskene7172 Still thinking with big your mouth, eh? Try using your brains instead
But Sarmatians lived in the steppes, Kurds descend from the Medes
@@uan9166 Not so. Medes like Sarmatian and other Aryans, all came from the Steppes into the Middle East, and ALL of them together became ancestors of the Kurds, not just one of them. Besides, Medes NEVER called themselves by that name, but always (as Herodotus tells us) called themselves Arians.
@@bradleyskene7172 Still thinking with your big mouth instead of your brains, eh?
Great video as always @Maiorianus. Thank you
Thanks for another fascinating and informative video on the topic of late Roman history…
This is so weird because I was just researching this like two days ago. Crazy! Cant wait to watch this video
One King Arthur certainly was not based on was King Alfred the Great of Wessex (871-886) and then the King of the English (886-899).
But there is a lot of parallels between Alfred’s incredible life and Arthurian legend (although King Arthur was not an Anglo-Saxon king and, in fact, fought against Anglo-Saxons).
It’s so bemusing that King Alfred’s tomb was desecrated and remains reburied in a kind of a mass grave with other Anglo-Saxon royals during the dissolution of monasteries under Henry VIII, a great admirer of Arthurian legend. He venerated legend and had little if any idea about his fabulous ancestor…
Like Emperor Majorian, Alfred for quite a while was an unsung hero.
I believe he was Ambrosius Aurelianus, and I think Arthur was his nickname. Some say that Aurthur was a general of his. You are a go-to source when I need to study for my historical fiction books! Thank you so much!
Woohoo! Glad you got this video out so soon!
A well done presentation.
A fascinating subject. There
may be one main character
who fits the descrption; likely
a Romano/Briton who carried
the traditions of the mid to late
empire. It is also true that other
similar traditions attach themselves to the main theme
over time. Is there a single
individual who provides the
foundation for this story ? It
would be wonderful to know.
You did a very nice job. All of
the characters mentioned are
worthy of investigation on their
own merits.
Arthur, as well as Robin Hood, are both characters that become almost completely unrecognizable to the modern audience if we go deeper back to older sources. For example, originally Arthur in the oldest sources (Historia Brittonum, Annales Cambriae (and Gesta Regum Anglorum which was a recap of the previous ones )) was not a king at all but simply a millitary commander, dux bellorum, who led the war against Saxons in the battles of river Glein, river Dubglas in Linnuis (Lindsey), river Bassas, forest of (Cat Coit) Celidon, fortress of Guinnion, the City of the Legion, river Tribuit, Mount Agnet, Mount Badon and last was in the fortress of Camlann. But even earlier sources Gildas and Bede are even more interesting, because they do not mention Arthur at all, but Ambrosius Aurealianus instead (where the connection between these two characters is derived and comes). The idea that Athur was the king who united all the Britons is a much later and younger invention from the 12th century (pseudo-history Historia Regum Anglorum, c. 1136).
Drusus Germanicus (Santiago, James the Just) ?
Yes, and Arthur is Alan Rufus, who was the Breton Dux for the Norman army that conquered the Anglo-Saxons in 1066.
He fought battles all over England, then, in an amazing flip, trained the survivors to conquer Normandy in 1091.
According to the Breton king lists, Riotham(us) reigned in Domnonea from AD 460 to AD 520. So he long outlived Euric’s ambush: long enough to lead soldiers at Mount Badon.
Remember that the southern British kingdoms were maritime and spanned the Channel.
Sol Invictis is a continuation of the Sabine cult of Sol, whose priests were the Aurelii.
Italy: Alan Rufus’s brother Brian of Brittany was Constable of Apulia under the Hauteville dukes.
Brian made a deep impression on the Eastern Roman imperial family: Anna Comnene wrote admiringly that he was the most courageous and most honourable of all the Gauls.
Meanwhile, in Tuscany, La Gran Contessa Matilda was engaged awhile to Welf II, whose mother was Judith of Flanders, named after her grandmother Judith of Brittany.
So the Breton influence was extensive.
Lucius Artorius Castus
The true king of England you viking scumm!
Longinus
Riothamus
Biggus Dickus
I have always believed that King Arthur was a Romano-British Soldier/General who fought the invading Anglo-Saxons to a standstill. A last stand for civilization against the coming Dark Ages.
There is no such thing as the dark ages, it was early modern bs-ing over an earlier age
Excellent video! I highly suspect King Arthur is a fusion of various real-world figures. We may never know the details of how this hybridization of historical events occured, but most legends have a kernal of truth at their core around which compelling narratives are fashioned over times. And it has been said, "when legend becomes fact, print the legend." In many ways, the legend of King Arthur would outlive the real-world facts, even if we had access to them.
glad to see you are tackling some topics that attract a wider audience then maybe the more narrow slice of late Roman historiography that is your home turf... being a little clickbaity is not a bad thing in this case!!!! it spreads actual knowledge to people who might not otherwise have been interested, and maybe, they will find out about things they knew little about.
I've been looking forward to this video. My vote is for Riothamus. As we know, that was apparently not a name but a title (Riothamus/ Rigotamus). Maybe his name was Arthur/ Artorius....?
It was a wonderful analysis about that legendary fighter in british legend literature.. thanks
It has happened where a colonizing people arrives, some try to be more Roman than the Romans (or Greeks or British) while other go native and make that their whole identity. It has been suggested the Arthur was one of the latter.
Love from Taipei. I strongly recommend you collaborate with an excellent Welsh youtuber Cambrian Chronicle. You two should be capable of expanding this topic into "The Harry Potter For Thousand Years (before 1999 Most Popular Fantasy Story of English Speaking World)" and look for more evidence to also explain the environment when the Arthurian legend was written in 12th CE. BTW I love how our host here pronounced Arthurian as Ahh Thor Ian. Sounds truly Roman!
Same thought
I suspect there may have been several Arthur's between the 5th to 7th centuries.The final one being Prince Artuir of lowland Scotland.
Artur ap Pedr almost matches perfectly with Arthur Pendragon
The legendary "King Arthur Pendragon" was based on one of the Welsh rulers known to all as King Artur ap Pedr, he ruled the kingdom of Dyfed. It is obvious that it was from him that the famous legend of King Arthur came, because the word Pendragon came from his surname Pedr. The famous Battle of Badon Hill, which took place in 500 and which is also called the last battle of "Antiquity", was fought by Ambrosius Aurelian. It was this famous commander Ambrosius Aurelian who became the prototype of the legendary wizard Merlin!
Always was fascinated by this man!
A very good retelling of Arthur's story are the 3 books of Bernard Cornwell (same guy who wrote the Uthred Saga).
I've got a nonfiction book from 1992 by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman, "King Arthur". They traced the sources back to the oldest available and found a certain Owain Ddantgwyn, son of a King from Gwynedd. The also point out, that "Arth" in celtic languages means "Bear". And Arth-us is the latin form, indicating a male person. The roman tradition seemed to be very strong in Britain of these times, and one might guess, that it's still alive today, surviving in language, law and science.
The Japanese manga “Vinland Saga” has an arc where one of the major characters is revealed to be the last living descendant of King Arthur, based heavily on the first theory proposed in this video. One of the most jaw-dropping scenes in the entire story is when this character states calmly, but with deadly intent, that “My name is Lucius Artorius Castus, and *I* am the rightful King of Britain.”
based
🌿🔥 Roma Invicta 🔥🌿
Ich bewundere wirklich deine Arbeit. Sehr wertvoll und notwendig. Danke. Ulric aus Nicaragua.
Most likely Riothamus' life served as base to build a legend, then Autari and each protoWelsh or Anglo-Saxon king added more legend until we got today's legend.
Anche in Italia c'è il mito della spada nella roccia. E c'è davvero questa spada.
I like the format with you talking
*Please* read The Skystone by Jack Whyte. It is the single greatest Arthurian legend I've ever come across. It's my firm belief that he was part Roman.
It's magnificent!
Just got the book and I like it so far. Thanks for the recommendation!
@@majorFaulker The Skystone is one of several books in Whyte's Arthurian arc series. I read them all and recommend they be read in sequence.
@@roncatdog I’ll be sure to do so! Thank you sir!
I think the biggest obstacle to finding the real Arthur is knowing what to look for, as well as who. If you are trying to find someone at approximately the right time in roughly the right place with the name Arthur, or a close approximation then you won't find him. The name Arthur was not used in Britain at the time. The nickname that sounds like "Arthur" was in use, and it means "the bear" in Welsh. So, if you look for a British leader who was nicknamed "the bear", you have found your man.
First, a keen researcher would have to re-read the ancient texts and look for references to "the bear". He might turn out to have been a relatively minor chieftain whose reputation was enhanced way beyond his actual achievements, or it might turn out to be someone quite well known, like Ambrosius or Riothamus.
Atreus = Alpheus, lord of the alpheides (elves)
I don’t know why no one seems to have looked into the work of Alan Wilson. It’s right here on RUclips. His work is more informative than the interminable rehash of the same Arthurian myth.
Gildas actually mentions Arthur by name, as does the later Goddodin epic.
Interesting. Source? My research brought up that Gildas mentioned Ambrosius, the battle of Mount Badon, but didn't mention Arthur directly by name. Hence the ambiguity with some thinking Ambrosius might be Arthur, or a prototype of him.
@Maiorianus_Sebastian That concurs what I've heard in a lecture at York a couple of years ago.
I've looked, and didn't find a mention by Gildas, but others have said he did refer to him. Maybe I haven't seen the full version of his writing.
I don’t remember where I read it, Guildas mentioned names of several kings in Wales and Cornwall that in the Arthurian legend play role of King Arthur’s relatives. Constantine of Dumnonia was personally castigated by Guildas for murdering two royal youth in a church; Geoffrey of Monmouth calls that very monarch a successor of King Arthur as king of Britons.
I take this back - he mentioned the battle of Badon Hill but not who led the britons, though later authors said it was King Arthur. Sorry for the initial misinformation.
For those who like books and this period I recommend a book named "the last legion" by valerio Massimo manfredi
I believe that the Arthurian myth was an amalgamation of several historical people and events in Britain, France and possibly Italy but i also beileve the Arthurian mythology was created and primarily used as a benchmark for what good leadership and governance should look like in the high middle ages.....
Thats what I was going to say if he was a Roman his name would not have been Arthur, it would have been Artorious or Arturius or Arturio, Arturo or Arturis or something along these lines...The name would have been Anglicized as it was passed down through the centuries...
It's difficult to say if there really was a "King Arthur". It seems that the legend has its roots in the turmoil of the fall of the Roman Empire, mythologised with the mediaeval ideals of chivalry. I guess that whoever was the archetype for "King Arthur" was likely a Romano-Briton, and in command of a military force that included cavalry. Of course, "Arthur" has the connotation of "Stone", as in the word "Stan" in Anglo-Saxon. Interestingly, one of my grandfathers was Arthur, and the other was Stanley ("Field of Stones"). This is the connection with the "Sword in the stone" part of the legend. Also remember that both in Ireland and in Scotland, there was a "Stone of Kingship". We will likely never be able to pin the name of a historical figure on the legend.
If Arthur wasn't a British king who fought a holy war against the invading Germanic barbarians, then he wasn't King Arthur, he was someone else.
But which German barbarians?
except...by the most classical version of the legend, as King, it is very unlikely that King Arthur was a Christian...
whilst he seems to have allied with certain Christian forces late in his reign, by all accounts that are vaguely early (Pre-Canterbury-Tales), and even in some works of Chaucer, he is very much a pagan king with strong connections to local sorcerers, druid leaders and other members of the Shamanic class... indeed, it seems from what we know, he is remembered for re-establishing rituals at a lot of the ancient Henges & using the druidic faith to unite the disparate Celtic peoples of the Isles... later, when he lost most of his Druidic army, he does seem to either convert, or at least seek an alliance with the Church, but, that is a move only towards the end of his life, and how "earnest or tactical" it was is hard to tell.
some versions give him a Christian burial, but most others, describe something that is very reminiscent off the Celtic idea of a procession into an eternal existence (story of Avalon), suggesting he was subject to a Pagan ritual.
@@stanleyshannon4408 that I think we know... everybody talks about the Saxon tribes.
@@stanislavkostarnov2157 Not a Christian???!!! Ok, so he would hang out with pagans, like Merlin, but if he wasn't a Christian, why would he send his knights out to find the Holy Grail?
he was scotish tribal king uther (pendragon )
Do you have any books/scientific papers on the matter? I would gladly dive into them.
Also I see some changes in formula of your videos, but still - great choice of topics and kudos to your love for late roman era!
I thought he was a young British squire who pulled a legendary sword from a stone when no grown knight could even come close 😨
This similar to the Legend of Siegfried killing the Dragon and later killed by his kins, a similar story to the story of Arminius who destroyed the Roman army marching like a dragon and later killed by his kins
Read Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell. It's a good fiction story with Arthur being a former Roman legionary.
I tried to, but it was too depressing. Plus, I think he's got an anti-Christian bias, which kills a lot of the joy in his series.
His name was Sextus Perennis (the WRE general that starts in Britannia)
King Arthur was indeed a real person. There were at least two King Arthur's in Brittany, which is part of the initial confusion. Arthur I (son of Emperor Magnus Maximus) who fought the Romans in the 4th Century and then King Arthur II who fought the Saxons in the 6th Century. Arthur II is the Round Table King who fought in the famous battles of Badon Hill and Camlaan. Arthur II was King of Glamorgan and Gwent (Wales). For anyone interested in learning the truth, a good starting book is "The Holy Kingdom" by Adrian Gilbert. Also, researchers Alan Wilson & Baram Blackett uncovered the hidden history of Arthur's reign and much more.
There were multiple individuals, mythical heroes and events known in the period. These may have all been attached to a famous leader from around 500AD. Later there were recorded leaders in Britain in the next couple of hundred years named Arthur, probably in memory of some original Arthur who made the name notable.
Love your videos
But a Centurion would hardly command 2 Legions, though he might have been in charge of part of such a force. Only if the Samaritans remained in Britain as a regular Cohort, or Ala of the Province until the end, then military units could have survived into the sub Roman period. Ambrosius is the nearest in date & most likely associated with 'Arthur', who may have served under him against the Saxons.
I didn’t know they had a king. I thought they were an autonomous collective.
King Arthur? I didn’t know we had a king, I thought we were an autonomous collective…
As an Englishman, I believe it is very possible that Arthur was an a Roman General that saw England as his home. But we will never know for sure without direct evidence
A Magnificent Video.
Every one in Britain who wasn't Saxon was a Roman....the emperor earlier made everyone in empire a Roman citizen
La spada nello roccia in Italia è in Toscana, nell'Eremo di S. Galgano.
When Rome left Arthur half Roman half Britton was able to hold off the Anglo-Saxons for a while, though eventually it became Anglo-Land to England. OH that temporary period was called Camelot.
Sebastian, qual o seu livro de ficção histórica preferida sobre Roma?
likely one of the few remaining literate officers.
Possibly combining the Celtic name for 'bear' 'Arth' with the Latin 'auctor'
from which we derive 'author'.
Gildas also mentioned that the parents of Ambrosias Aurelianus came from families who “bore the purple”. Scholars believe Gildas is referring to Aurelianus belonging to a lineage of Romano-Briton patrician, senatorial or even imperial figures (Aurelian?).
Roman emperors and members of the aristocracy and bureaucracy wore purple dyed clothing as a sign of wealth and rank. A tradition that goes back to the senatorial classes of the Roman Republic and even the legendary kings of Rome.
Fiction is *always* inspired by the reality in which the author is living... with so many possible sources for King Arthur, it could all of them, or none... Regardless, there is so little in common between those real people and Arthur that it makes him, in my opinion, totally fictitious. Very interesting video. Thanks.
So many people named Arthur just after the battle of Badon. Maybe these people were not part of a composite Arthur but actually named after King Arthur and modeled themselves somewhat after the kind they were named.
how about in Y Goddodin? Aneirin mentioned him, he says "he was no Arthur"
Yes Arturius
Some interesting thoughts there. I would note that the modern Welsh for bear is 'arth', suggesting at learning the possibility that the Arthurian legendarium has roots in one or other of the Celtic languages, though more likely from a P-Celtic source.
Worth noting is that the only surviving Celtic language in mainland Europe is Breton (Brezhoneg), a tongue descended from insular Celtic, specifically that dialect from which modern Cornish (Kernowek) also claims it's roots. Reason? Brythonic refugees fleeing the relentless Saxon advance.
Geoffrey of Monmouth is better known for prosaic exaggeration and outright invention than anything we'd regard as a reliable account, think 'medieval David Starkey'.
Cymraeg, however my theory is that whilst there is a historical germ of truth behind it all, the name Arthur probably accrued to several heroes over time, just like back in the wild west if there was a bank robbery it was Jesse James, even if he was nowhere in the vicinity. Arthur has become since ancient times a hero for everybody and has transcended the narrow bounds of geography and ethnicity and what is more he definitely shot Liberty Valance.
Colchester or Roman Camulodunum might for the obvious reason could be one element later added to the story.
Perhaps Arthur's legend has its roots in one of the kings Gildas complains about in his de Excidio - perhaps Aurelianus Caninus (possible relative to Ambrosius) or Maelgwyn (the dragon of the island, who took his nephew's wife)
Several of your theories about Arthur I have heard before; others are new to me. One theory about "Arthur" however that you might delve into is that the name of Arthur, while a legitimate Roman name, is actually a "nom de guerre" for some other person whose Christian name we may or may not already be aware of.
In the 5th & early 6th centuries, late Classical authors were fond of complex word-play, including obscure allusions to Classical myth, astrology and older literature (such as Homer & Virgil). Standard Latin literature is complicated enough, but late Classical "bejeweled" literature is extremely difficult to translate into modern idiom. Thus the name Arthur may actually "Art-Gur" a nickname for someone famed as a war leader but not under the name we know him by.
In any case, the basic thesis that "Arthur" was a late Roman (or 'sub-Roman'/Romano-British) leader, either a dux or an "Ameradaur" (Imperator) has much to recommend it. That he possessed a Navy and was in contact with not only the eastern Romans, but Visigoths, Vandals and Franks is also a possibility with some evidence to support it.
Keep up the good work. I find your videos interesting and informative.
Also the Pendragon Cycle is set earlier and in alignment with this idea.
I think it makes sense
King Arthur is the English/Roman version of Achilles Hercules and Perseus
Interesting topic!
Which one? There were two Aurthers. Both Welsh, one directly decended from the other, both of the noble house of Siluure. One fought the Romans to a stalemate. The latter fought the Saxons. Research Wilson and Blacket.
His existence is debated a lot like Ragnar Lothbrok, another legendary figure.
@1:40 So, he was Sarmatian. Calling a Sarmatian slave a Roman wold be like calling Sparticus a Roman rather than a Thracian slave.
I don't know the legendary King Arthur. Even if he had lived, he lived before my time. Could never know him. Anyone here over 1500 years old?
My knees keep telling me that I'm nearly that old! :D
Evan Mathusela died before that age.
There's Max, the 2,000-year-old mouse :P
The name Arthur originates from the Sarmatian word Horator, Orathor, - the commander of the Sarmatian cavalry who is the first to call for the charge with the roar of HOURA-HURRA. Houra is the Sarmatian god of death and war, by shouting his name they sacrificed enemy to him, they believed that he would recognize them in battle, and that he would kill as many enemies as possible. The call to charge -HURRA can still be heard today in the armies of Eastern Europe.But the real meaning has been forgotten...Arthur could be Romanized Sarmatian Briton, or maybe just a Romanized Briton, but his name evolved from the rank of Sarmatian cavalry commander.
Maiorianus still going, hope u get more popular
great video
About the fore knights of the Round Table
Sarmatians or Alan's (Ossetians) ?
Some Alans settled in Transylvania under another name.
They revolutionized horse riding with better saddles. Horsemanship was their primary sought skill as mercenaries.
What if there was ONE late Romano-Britain guy named Artwyr or some other Welsh variant and he inspired a trend of royal baby names?
Sorry, but where are you getting 'Artwyr' from?
What about St Patrick, another late Roman Briton? He was born somewhere near Deva ( Chester ) and captured by Irish raiders, then got home and returned to Ireland to covert the land to Christianity. Lots of historical fog swirling around these people but the legends are stimulating.
A great video,
Gunnar Heinsohn's theory :
Aththe-Domaros of Camulodunum, the finest Celtic military leader in the period of Emperor Augustus.
King Arthur and Robin Hood, are the same in that they are both most likely amalgamations of various different people into 1 huge legendary person
Riothamus is much more likely to be Ambrosius, the 'name' is a title and as they would overlap in time it's much more likely Ambrosius was the 'High King'. As you correctly said, Ambrosius is a generation before Arthur.