"Angof" <angof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:42ba7c6c$0$2024$ed2e19e4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>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.
The trouble with this Gildas thing is that the Anglo-Saxon chronicles are
accepted as 100% true even though they were written centuries after the
collapse of the Western Roman Empire, and all Celtic sources are rejected
because they were written centuries after the collapse of the Roman
Empire.
If Arthur or Arc Turus was a title then why is there no record of Arc
Turus
being used as a title, like Dux Bellorem?
>
>
> "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
>>
>
>
|
