What Evidence Supports The Myth Of King Arthur
What evidence supports the myth of King Arthur?
“Some people believe that King Arthur is so inextricably tied up in Celtic Mythology that he must, in origin, have been, not a man at all, but a god.”
Arthur is claimed as the king of almost every Celtic kingdom known. The 6th century saw many men names Arthur born into the royal families of Britain but, even though, there were many attempts to identify the great man himself amongst them, there can be little doubt that most of these people were only named in his honor.
In the late 5th and early 6th centuries, a time known as the dark ages, British won a significant victory over the Saxon invaders of their country, so the Western Roman Empire had to shake off the dominion of the Germans. British tradition credited this victory to Arthur. …show more content…
Arthur wasn’t remembered as a dark age general, but preserved the memory of Arthur’s great legend, still potent in our own way.
Arthur was a golden age king who returned to lead his people again. Under his rule, they would regain the land that was theirs and the English would be driven from the island. This legend was so powerful, so believed, that it remained a threat to rulers of England after Arthur’s famous victory of Badon.
Badon is an definite historical fact, but Arthur, according to the current historical consensus, is a figure of a legend. He is studied under medieval literature, not Dark Age British history, since there is no evidence for his existence in up to date British record. But in truth it is not Arthur who is missing from the record; it is record itself which is
missing.
“on the ruin of Britain” is the title of the last surviving text from this period, from a monk named Gildas, who addressed this to Britain rulers, warning them of the dire consequences that must follow.
“the history of the kings of Britain” is the earliest surviving text to name Arthur in the ninth century, dark age historians concluded that Arthur was invented then. This book written by Geoffrey introduced Arthur as a British emperor, an equal, and the rival of emperor of Rome.
The riddle of Arthur can, in truth, be resolved from this one text, probably the most vilified, and certainly the most misunderstood history ever written. Condemned for centuries as a deliberate fraud, The History of the Kings of Britain is still used by Dark Age historians as a stick to beat the Arthurians with. But that is because they haven’t understood it for what it is.
The native Britons did not fall into cultural and political darkness the moment Rome withdrew her legions. Independent Britain freed herself from Roman and Saxon. But her period of glory was brief. A resurgent Roman Empire destroyed the Arthurian Golden Age. It was Rome’s attempt to regain control of a lost province which turned Britain over to the Saxons. And the written record which has come down to us has passed through her hands.
Arthur was not invented to fill the gap in the British record. The gap was created to remove Arthur. But enough remains to prove his historical reality. Rome is regarded as a heresy.
In conclusion, there is no physical proof of arthur existing. Most historians believe that the legends concerning Arthur are based around a real person, although generally he is considered not to have been a king but more of a general or battle leader. it began by embellishing these tales and the legends surrounding "King Arthur" which we are familiar with today were created, that assert the existence of Arthur . This supports the theory that Arthur was a real person and accordingly most historians consider him to have lived in the late 5th Century and early 6th Century AD. Do you believe that King Arthur existed?
“Some people believe that King Arthur is so inextricably tied up in Celtic Mythology that he must, in origin, have been, not a man at all, but a god.”
Arthur is claimed as the king of almost every Celtic kingdom known. The 6th century saw many men names Arthur born into the royal families of Britain but, even though, there were many attempts to identify the great man himself amongst them, there can be little doubt that most of these people were only named in his honor.
In the late 5th and early 6th centuries, a time known as the dark ages, British won a significant victory over the Saxon invaders of their country, so the Western Roman Empire had to shake off the dominion of the Germans. British tradition credited this victory to Arthur. …show more content…
Arthur wasn’t remembered as a dark age general, but preserved the memory of Arthur’s great legend, still potent in our own way.
Arthur was a golden age king who returned to lead his people again. Under his rule, they would regain the land that was theirs and the English would be driven from the island. This legend was so powerful, so believed, that it remained a threat to rulers of England after Arthur’s famous victory of Badon.
Badon is an definite historical fact, but Arthur, according to the current historical consensus, is a figure of a legend. He is studied under medieval literature, not Dark Age British history, since there is no evidence for his existence in up to date British record. But in truth it is not Arthur who is missing from the record; it is record itself which is
missing.
“on the ruin of Britain” is the title of the last surviving text from this period, from a monk named Gildas, who addressed this to Britain rulers, warning them of the dire consequences that must follow.
“the history of the kings of Britain” is the earliest surviving text to name Arthur in the ninth century, dark age historians concluded that Arthur was invented then. This book written by Geoffrey introduced Arthur as a British emperor, an equal, and the rival of emperor of Rome.
The riddle of Arthur can, in truth, be resolved from this one text, probably the most vilified, and certainly the most misunderstood history ever written. Condemned for centuries as a deliberate fraud, The History of the Kings of Britain is still used by Dark Age historians as a stick to beat the Arthurians with. But that is because they haven’t understood it for what it is.
The native Britons did not fall into cultural and political darkness the moment Rome withdrew her legions. Independent Britain freed herself from Roman and Saxon. But her period of glory was brief. A resurgent Roman Empire destroyed the Arthurian Golden Age. It was Rome’s attempt to regain control of a lost province which turned Britain over to the Saxons. And the written record which has come down to us has passed through her hands.
Arthur was not invented to fill the gap in the British record. The gap was created to remove Arthur. But enough remains to prove his historical reality. Rome is regarded as a heresy.
In conclusion, there is no physical proof of arthur existing. Most historians believe that the legends concerning Arthur are based around a real person, although generally he is considered not to have been a king but more of a general or battle leader. it began by embellishing these tales and the legends surrounding "King Arthur" which we are familiar with today were created, that assert the existence of Arthur . This supports the theory that Arthur was a real person and accordingly most historians consider him to have lived in the late 5th Century and early 6th Century AD. Do you believe that King Arthur existed?