Who was the authentic King Arthur? How would his lifetime have been?https://www.biography.com/history-culture/king-arthur-fact-or-fiction-legend-of-the-sword
The idea of a historical King Arthur is something that is still highly debated. I doubt we'll ever find the answer, as historical evidence for the time period in which Arthur allegedly lived are very sparse, and the narrative around his figure really only forms in the High Medieval period. Archeological evidence for his existence are also almost nonexistent. An archeologist might, for example, find a cup bearing a name similar to Arthur, but it would be hard to prove his existence based on a cup bearing a name that would be quite common in that region.
>>17436460He played bass for a Saxon cover band in the early 1980s, the years ad1-ad1968 didn't happen.
>>17436460There wasn't one. It's an amalgamation of stories.
>>17436460I thought it was a mish mash of Welsh folklore or something
Riothamus, Ambrosius or one of the Anglo-Saxon kings named Offa, possibly one of the first to convert to Christianity or King Offa of Mercia. Camelot is a clear allusion to Camulodunum, Avalon is in France suggesting Riothamus.We found the remains of Troy and "Atlantis". A myth that was quickly and widely accepted suggests it is based on some historical event, albeit with a few details lost or changed here and there.
>>17436460Several Arthurs, their names variously spelled Arthur, Artuir, and Artur, were attested as living during the latter 6th and early 7th centuries, but I don't know about earlier than that, and the name seems to have hibernated until some point during the High Middle Ages, when it got revived due to King Arthur legends popularizing the name again.
>>17436460Was he originally said to have been born in Wales, Cornwall, or some uncertain part of what is now England, maybe closer to one of the big cities, Eburacum, Camulodunum, or Londinium?
>>17436862My guess is if he was an actual person, he would have been romano-gallic. Wales and Cornwall were too literal who.
Ralph Ellis already proved that King Arthur is based on Jesus, who he claims was exiled to England
>>17436863Maybe even a Breton recent arrival from Britannia who might have returned later?
>>17436823>>17436857>>17436862Why does he have to have existed in the first place? Couldn't he just a complete fabrication in the 10th or 11th century?
>>17436869The original basis was probably this fellow. It explains that the Latin version of Arthur was in use by a Roman military leader who had visited Britain, possibly inspiring locals to take up his name, and especially to carry what they remembered of his persona as a warrior into folklore. He was not a 5th or 6th century figure, but a man of the 2nd or 3rd centuries, though time could have allowed his fame to grow and transform into legends of Arthur.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Artorius_Castus
>>17436892>probably>could haveHe also probably could have formed the basis of the Apollo-Napoleon myth of the early 19th century.
>>17436917The name Artorius is Latin for Arthur, if merely the name is good enough for some level of basis for the later British legends. Arthur had to have come from somewhere. Most likely, the origin of the name comes from this influential military officer.
As a Welshman I'm terribly fond of Arthur, but that said the fact that a christian king fighting saxons isnt mentioned in Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum at all despite writing from only a handful of centuries after, when the memory of Arthur would be fresh discredits him almost entirely in my mind
>Welsh invite pagan demon worshipping Saxons to save them from Christian IrishmenWtf were they thinking?
>>17437350>IrishmenNo real evidence exists of extensive Irish raids and all Roman writings exhibit the came from North of Hadrian's wall
>>17436460King Batraz of Ossetian myth. The only knights in Roman Britain could've been Roman cataphracts. The British cataphracts were recruited from Alanian sarmatians. The Alanian folklore has been preserved by their direct descendants the Ossetians, whose legendary king Batraz has many features corresponding with King Arthur. Batraz might have also been a real person.
>>17436823Where is Atlantis
>>17436823>This is the official letter that is sent out by the museum when the question of a link with King Arthur, Camelot and Colchester is raised. The subject of Arthurian links with Colchester is one that keeps cropping up over and over again. Unfortunately most of the claimed links are spurious. Even, however, if we accept that Arthur was an historical figure, which I personally do, it would be impossible and inconceivable to link him to the Colchester area, or to Essex more generally. Eastern England lay in the heart of the region first occupied by the Saxons and so cannot have been the area in which Arthur operated. Acting as a military leader of the Britons fighting the invading Saxons, any historical Arthur would have had to have been operating outside the area of primary Saxon settlement. He would have to have been operating in western or northern Britain, which not surprisingly is where many of the legends/stories related to Arthur are based. Incidentally, we also know from archaeological evidence that during this time Colchester itself was largely deserted.
>>17436460https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artuir_mac_%C3%81ed%C3%A1n
>>17437375Southeast wales is full of Ogham inscriptions, and one of the local kingdoms (Dyfed) was founded by Irish immigrants taking over the civitas of the Demetae
>>17437308Bede was an Anglo, and hated the native British Church.His work has to be read keeping in mind it's anti-British, pro-Augustinian propaganda.Why would he admit that those same people who he targets with venom fought a pagan menace from which he descends personally?
