I assume everyone is aware of Professor Geoffrey Ashe's analysis which concludes that the king, known to history as Rigothamus (a name which is really a quasi Latinized title), was Arthur. It is difficult to see Aurelius who has a firmly established historical record of his own most of which is inconsistent with what we do know of Arthur, as being the Arturian historical figure.
I don't know much of anything in the historical record that would support the attribution of the victory at Mount Baden to Aurelius--in fact, the attribution of Baden to Arthur is so established that if it could be demonstrated that Aurelius was there, that might well make Aurelius Arthur without more and it does not.
Ashe has encouraged loose thinking about Baden, and other battles in England by leaving open the prospect that Rigothamus was killed in France in 480; in fact, the historical record leaves open the prospect that discovery will demonstrate that after the defeat at Ageidus in which most of his troups and generals were killed, Rigothamus survivied, returned to Britney, and subsequently to Britten.
Whaaat? Rigothamus returned to Britney Spears to lick his wounds? :;)
Seriously though, I'm a bit weak on this portion of british history. Do you have a source I can look for?