I think this is one of many of the thoughts about arthur and it's certainly
interesting, and all stories generate exaggeration as they move into myth,
for instance Gildas makes no mention of an Arthur but it is speculated
that
Arthur was actually a title rather than a name, which might explain it.
Who
knows. History is all about perspective. We cling onto what suits us.
"hawker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <flink@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d9b1o0$61$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> At last everyone knows the truth about the original Arthur, he was not a
> king, he came from Northern England, and his only claim to fame was that
> he killed a lot of Celts. Somehow this guy became a Celtic hero, perhaps
> due to some kind of Celtic masochism, the guy who did not kill Saxons
but
> killed Celts instead became a great guy among the Celts, and no doubt
> among the Saxons as well for doing the job for them. So let's turn to
king
> Arthur of Tintagel. Who was this guy? First there probably were minor
> kings of Tintagel, archaeology has shown that Tintagel was an im****tant
> place during the sub-Roman era. Second the name Arthur would have become
> popular due to some kind of Celtic masochism, so there could well have
> been a minor king of Tintagel called Arthur. All we have are legends,
but
> what are these legends, there could be grains of truth in them about a
> real Celtic hero called Arthur who was a real kind and who fought real
> Saxons.
>
> hawker
>
|
