Was Ambrosius Aurelianus Arthur and Merlin roled into one?

[Mabon Dane]

If it is accepted as fact that the historical King Arthur comes from
the so-called Dark Ages then the question arises why is so little
written about King Arthur?

Reading all the texts of the time leads me to believe that King Arthur
was none other than Ambrosius Aurelianus. I also suspect that Merlin
was Ambrosius Aurelianus as a child. Uther Pendragon did exist but
was the older brother of Ambrosius who had his younger brother carted
off to a place of safety until he was old enougth to take up the
struggle against Vortigern.

Had Arthur been a man in his own right then as I have said in a
previous message there would have been plenty of praise or attacks
made upon him by the writers of the time. However there is nothing
written. But the writers do refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus. Was
Ambrosius Aurelianus the "Bear" which means "Arthur" in latin? Could
the "Bear" just be a title of a war leader and could this have been
the start of the confusion that led later writers to build up the
legend that is Arthur today?

[David]

I've asked something similar before on this group, but nobody really
goes with it. I think it's possible, though it's perhaps a little hard
to imagine a thoroughly Roman chap like Ambrosius adopting a
rough-arsed British title like the Bear.

Or perhaps it isn't. Dunno, guv.

Post by Mabon Dane
If it is accepted as fact that the historical King Arthur comes from
the so-called Dark Ages then the question arises why is so little
written about King Arthur?
Reading all the texts of the time leads me to believe that King Arthur
was none other than Ambrosius Aurelianus. I also suspect that Merlin
was Ambrosius Aurelianus as a child. Uther Pendragon did exist but
was the older brother of Ambrosius who had his younger brother carted
off to a place of safety until he was old enougth to take up the
struggle against Vortigern.
Had Arthur been a man in his own right then as I have said in a
previous message there would have been plenty of praise or attacks
made upon him by the writers of the time. However there is nothing
written. But the writers do refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus. Was
Ambrosius Aurelianus the "Bear" which means "Arthur" in latin? Could
the "Bear" just be a title of a war leader and could this have been
the start of the confusion that led later writers to build up the
legend that is Arthur today?

[Mabon Dane]

David - I know that Romans were supposed to be civilized but the
soldiers the world over and throughout history have a certain common
set of characteristics. Would not Roman soldiers be "rough-arsed" and
give nicknames to their generals? Lets face it a bear has quite a few
appealing characteristics about it to a soldier and I am sure a title
like "Bear" would be taken as an honour rather than as an insult.
What do you think?

Post by David
I've asked something similar before on this group, but nobody really
goes with it. I think it's possible, though it's perhaps a little hard
to imagine a thoroughly Roman chap like Ambrosius adopting a
rough-arsed British title like the Bear.
Or perhaps it isn't. Dunno, guv.

[Dennis Green]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[Sollers]

The problem with Gildas is being clear what he's saying in that passage -
referring to someone as the Bear's charioteer is a bit confusing at a date
when chariots were obsolete (except, of course for Roman racing).

The Bear connection is a bit tenuous because it depends on the resemblance
to the Welsh word (not Latin!). It's a bit disconcerting to remember that
Beowulf's name means "bear"!

I also found it extremely worrying to find a curse from a few centuries
earlier giving "Arthu" as the name of a demon.

I don't think Ambrosius Aurelianus was Arthur because I'm not happy with the
dates - not as given in Gildas and Nennius (Geoffrey is indeed very dodgy).

Post by Dennis Green
If you're looking for information predating what Geoffrey of Monmouth did to
the original story, check into Gildas' bitch book about the leaders of
England, he'll make reference to the bear (Artur) there.

Post by Mabon Dane
If it is accepted as fact that the historical King Arthur comes from
the so-called Dark Ages then the question arises why is so little
written about King Arthur?
Reading all the texts of the time leads me to believe that King Arthur
was none other than Ambrosius Aurelianus. I also suspect that Merlin
was Ambrosius Aurelianus as a child. Uther Pendragon did exist but
was the older brother of Ambrosius who had his younger brother carted
off to a place of safety until he was old enougth to take up the
struggle against Vortigern.
Had Arthur been a man in his own right then as I have said in a
previous message there would have been plenty of praise or attacks
made upon him by the writers of the time. However there is nothing
written. But the writers do refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus. Was
Ambrosius Aurelianus the "Bear" which means "Arthur" in latin? Could
the "Bear" just be a title of a war leader and could this have been
the start of the confusion that led later writers to build up the
legend that is Arthur today?

[Mabon Dane]

Quite amazing that a mistaken view of what Gildas said set off an entire
legend called "King Arthur" - the Bear in my opinion was none other
that Ambrosius Auerelianus who was given the title "Bear" by his
followers. Since Arturus is Bear in latin hence the legend of King
Arthur sprang up over confusion of what Gildas meant was the "Bear".

Mabon

Post by Dennis Green
If you're looking for information predating what Geoffrey of Monmouth did to
the original story, check into Gildas' bitch book about the leaders of
England, he'll make reference to the bear (Artur) there.

Post by Mabon Dane
If it is accepted as fact that the historical King Arthur comes from
the so-called Dark Ages then the question arises why is so little
written about King Arthur?
Reading all the texts of the time leads me to believe that King Arthur
was none other than Ambrosius Aurelianus. I also suspect that Merlin
was Ambrosius Aurelianus as a child. Uther Pendragon did exist but
was the older brother of Ambrosius who had his younger brother carted
off to a place of safety until he was old enougth to take up the
struggle against Vortigern.
Had Arthur been a man in his own right then as I have said in a
previous message there would have been plenty of praise or attacks
made upon him by the writers of the time. However there is nothing
written. But the writers do refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus. Was
Ambrosius Aurelianus the "Bear" which means "Arthur" in latin? Could
the "Bear" just be a title of a war leader and could this have been
the start of the confusion that led later writers to build up the
legend that is Arthur today?

[martymonster]

I can't seem to find any evidence that the word 'arturus' exists in latin.
Indeed what I do find leads me to believe that 'ursa' means 'bear'...as in
the star constellations.

can you supply us with a link to your source perhaps?

Post by Mabon Dane
Quite amazing that a mistaken view of what Gildas said set off an entire
legend called "King Arthur" - the Bear in my opinion was none other
that Ambrosius Auerelianus who was given the title "Bear" by his
followers. Since Arturus is Bear in latin hence the legend of King
Arthur sprang up over confusion of what Gildas meant was the "Bear".
Mabon

Post by Dennis Green
If you're looking for information predating what Geoffrey of Monmouth did to
the original story, check into Gildas' bitch book about the leaders of
England, he'll make reference to the bear (Artur) there.

Post by Mabon Dane
If it is accepted as fact that the historical King Arthur comes from
the so-called Dark Ages then the question arises why is so little
written about King Arthur?
Reading all the texts of the time leads me to believe that King Arthur
was none other than Ambrosius Aurelianus. I also suspect that Merlin
was Ambrosius Aurelianus as a child. Uther Pendragon did exist but
was the older brother of Ambrosius who had his younger brother carted
off to a place of safety until he was old enougth to take up the
struggle against Vortigern.
Had Arthur been a man in his own right then as I have said in a
previous message there would have been plenty of praise or attacks
made upon him by the writers of the time. However there is nothing
written. But the writers do refer to Ambrosius Aurelianus. Was
Ambrosius Aurelianus the "Bear" which means "Arthur" in latin? Could
the "Bear" just be a title of a war leader and could this have been
the start of the confusion that led later writers to build up the
legend that is Arthur today?

[g***@gmail.com]

Post by martymonster
I can't seem to find any evidence that the word 'arturus' exists in latin.
Indeed what I do find leads me to believe that 'ursa' means 'bear'...as in
the star constellations.

Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcturus:

Arcturus, the brightest star in the northern celestial hemisphere. Ptolemy called it "subrufa", meaning "slightly red".

Its name derives from Greek: Αρκτοῦρος (Arktouros) and means "Guardian of the Bear",[29] ultimately from ἄρκτος (arktos), "bear"[30] + οὖρος (ouros), "watcher, guardian".

Now, what's really interesting is that the commander of the Breton armies (5000 strong) that came over with William the Conqueror was Alan Rufus. He was William's chief bodyguard. William's name is derived as: wil = "will or desire"; helm; Old English helm "helmet, protection". So William wanted protection, and Alan provided it.

Alan was buried at the shrine of St Edmund in Bury, Suffolk. His epitaph called him "the flower of the Kings of Britain". His Breton name is Alan ar-Rouz (as in red rose). It also described him as "rutilans" (radiant golden-red). Rutilia of the roman family Rutilius Rufus was the mother of Aurelia of the family Aurelia Cotta, who was the mother of the dictator Gaius Julius Caesar.

Ambrosius Aurelianus, can also legitimately be called Aurelius Ambrosius, as among the Aurelii, surname and given name can be exchanged: we have learnt this from the inscriptions in the Hypogeum of the Aurelii in Rome.

So, whereas Arthur was "slightly red", Alan was "brilliant red". Alan's efforts were the culmination of the hopes of his 5th and 6th century predecessors.

[WebSlave]

Post by Mabon Dane
Quite amazing that a mistaken view of what Gildas said set off an entire
legend called "King Arthur" - the Bear in my opinion was none other
that Ambrosius Auerelianus who was given the title "Bear" by his
followers.

Who says Ambrosius was given the title "Bear"?

Post by Mabon Dane
Since Arturus is Bear in latin

It is?