Myths and Legends (King Arthur) by David ChristoffelszPosted: November 7, 2011
When I first started looking at the ‘Myths and Legends’, I
thought this will be easy. I was completely wrong, I first had to put questions
I wanted answered. The first question I wanted answered was, is the myth real
or not and is there any proof. My study was King Arthur; supposedly real, King
Arthur baffles even the most knowledgeable historians. I have done some
research into this.
The creation of King Arthur was brought up by a particular
form of a school of thought. As historian David Dumville put it ‘I think we can dispose of Arthur quite briefly. He owes his place in
our history books to a ‘no smoke without fire’ school of thought… The fact of
the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject
him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books.’ This
school of thought wrote 2 books called
Historia Brittonum (history of the Britons) and Annales Cambriae (Welsh Annals).
Both books mentioned King Arthur, I researched this’ school of thought’ and
found that they were a socialist group based on an opinion or outlook of a philosophy, discipline, belief, social movement, cultural movement,
or art movement.
Which means they could have been any age. Recent studies have suggested that
the Historia Brittonum cannot be considered a reliable piece of evidence for
this time period.
Was he real, if not what evidence is
there to say no?
answer to this question is up to the reader to decide based on evidence
available. I will now explain. If we go back into the Middle Ages you will find
documented legends like ‘Robin Hood’. The stories of King Arthur seem to be
made up from various storytellers. There don’t seem to be any written record of
King Arthur who apparently lived in the 5th to 6th
century AD. He was then talked about some thousand years later by a Welsh
Cleric. Tell me how that makes sense. How can somebody exist if they are talked
about thousands of years later in the time of ‘King Richard the Lion Heart’?
Arthur was supposed to be at the battle of Mt Badon (unfortunately there is no
date for this battle but it is believed to have taken place somewhere between 490 and 517 AD, during the
sieges of the Anglo Saxons.) where King Arthur (supposedly), single
handily killed 960 men. In most historical writing from that time he is not
mentioned at all. In conclusion the vote is entirely the in the hands of the
reader. The reader must draw their conclusion whether King Arthur was real or
If the reader is are unsure here
are some quotes to guide the reader:
think we can dispose of Arthur quite briefly. He owes his place in our history books to a ‘no smoke
without fire’ school of thought… The fact of the matter is that there is no
historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and,
above all, from the titles of our books.’
“At this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there
may well have been an historical Arthur [but]… the historian can as yet say
nothing of value about him”.
next line is a line from the records in 518: “The Battle of Badon in
which King Arthur carried the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and
three nights on his “shoulders” and the Britons were the victors.”
The next line is from Historia Regum Britanniae written 1135: “The strength of the Britons
decayed straight away; they would have come to ruin had not Ambrosius, the
survivor of the Romans who was monarch of the realm after Vortigern repressed
the overweening barbarian through the distinguished achievements of the warrior
Arthur. This is the Arthur of who the trifling of the Britons talks so much
nonsense even today; a man clearly not to be dreamed of in fallacious fables
but to be proclaimed in veracious histories as one who long sustained his
tottering country and gave the shattered minds of his fellow countrymen and
edge for war.”
Cambriae says for the
year 539: “the strife of Camlann in which King
Arthur and Mordred perished and there was a plague in Britain and in Ireland.”
In Nennius’ 9th century version which he
names as the Historia Brittonum, we have the first account of the
warrior leader of the Britons: “Arthur fought against the Saxons alongside the kings of the
Britons, but he himself was leader in the battles.” Then follows a list of King Arthur’s major victories.
I used Wikipedia but researched everything I read.
Myths and Legends Explained (book)
I researched everthing I read.
(The picture below is my recreation of King Arthur’s Castle Camelot)
(The Castle is not actually Camelot it is in fact Windsor Castle which I used to recreated camelot)
You +1’d this publicly. Undo