| >> |
05/19/11(Thu)12:09 No.26067843>>26067726
That's a bit exaggerated. We know there is some real basis for Arthur. We know the battle of Baddon Hill actually happened; everyone around the time of its occurrence recorded it. We know that most British kingdoms paid homage to a primary warlord at times, and the most successful stalled Saxon expansion quite substantially for decades, even pushing them back some places, until he presumably croaked.
The thorny part is, we don't know what his actual name was (there are candidates, though, but none are actually called Arthur save Artair, who was substantially important, but didn't fight Saxons at any point), we do know he had a bear-banner though (Arthur meaning Bear; it might just refer to his symbol then). We also know of other battles credited to him, except they fall at completely different periods, and had to have been fought by different men (hell, he gets credited with some battles that were definitely fought by Niall of the Nine Hostages, an Irish king who exerted tremendous influence over lesser kings...you know, like Arthur was supposed to have done in Britain).
I'm a fan of 'there was no single 'Arthur', but rather an ass ton of different petty kings, actual over kings, lesser chieftains and warlords who's feats all got amalgamated into a character called Arthur, presumably drawn from some element of one of the actual figures' names or signs'. |
