Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bamburgh Castle and Early British History
#6
As I said. There was not, nor has there ever been a King Arthur of the Britons.

Arturius/Artus, Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Lucius Artorius Castus or anyone else for that matter have nothing to do with the King Arthur which was portrayed by de Monmouth.

Whether or not there was a king called Arthur in the isles which now are known as Great Britain has never been definitively proved. Therefore we have to suppose there was none. He might even have been named Albert for all I care....

It is therefore fantasy and instigates wishful thinking beyond belief. Now while this is entertaining enough for many, to me it is not science, proper research or even an attempt at it.

Of course works like De Historia Britonum, Annales Cambriae and the Welsh Vitae are interesting nonetheless as is the story of Culhwch and Olwen. These stories might shed a little light on the darker period between the Roman occupation of Britain and the later early eras. They are not, however, part of the Arthur myth as we know it today nor can they be.

M.VIB.M.
Bushido wa watashi no shuukyou de gozaru.

Katte Kabuto no O wo shimeyo!

H.J.Vrielink.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Bamburgh Castle and Early British History - by MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 01-14-2012, 02:52 AM
Re: Bamburgh Castle and Early British History - by J. Harris - 01-16-2012, 07:13 PM

Forum Jump: