THOSE PESKY IRISH-DESCENDED ARTHURS (WHO JUST REFUSE TO GO AWAY)

I keep trying to downplay the significance of the Dyfed and Dalriadan Arthurs, but that tactic isn't working.

We know of several Dark Age Arthurs in the North, and one in the South. 

Why did these Irish-descended dynasties in Britain give their royal sons the name Arthur?

Well, the Dalriadans came first. It is logical to assume they picked the name up from intermarriage with the Strathclyde Britons and we know, in fact, that such intermarriage did occur.

But here's the problem. We have to propose the following: there had been a famous Strathclyde Arthur the generation before. A man who had somehow fought from Caledonia in the Highlands down to York, and perhaps even to Buxton. 

I have failed to explain such a range of battles, actions that pretty much all follow the Roman Dere Street. And, indeed, such a military career in sub-Roman Britain seems impossible.

Is it not more probable that the Strathcylde Britons knew of a great legendary Artorius, a name that would have connoted a quasi-mythical, perhaps semi-divine Bear hero, who had led the legions of Rome along exactly the same path to his various victories?

If someone like L. Artorius Castus had not made himself famous in Lowland and Highland Scotland, how would the Strathclyde Britons have come to know the name? And why would it be important to them?

No, I'm afraid all my efforts to make someone other than Castus work have failed.

I must embrace ARM.GENTES for the Castus stone.

Camlan remains a problem, but could well belong to other emporally displaced Arthur, like the ones in Dyfed and Dalriada.  I will be concentrating future efforts on dealing with this issue. 

Badon is pretty simple: the site is in the South and Arthur (whoever he was) never fought there.