It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

King Arthur

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   
Hey any body know if the found proof of King Arthur and the knights of the round table??????????

~~~~~~~~
Mod Edit - spelling in post and title


[edit on 8-9-2006 by masqua]




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Indeed I heard a lot about "King Arthur". Well you can begin your search on Wikipedia for that, but won't find many proofs of hsi existence and life.



[edit on 8/9/06 by Echtelion]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:30 PM
link   
Sorry but nope. However, scholars have found a few historical characters on which the legends might have been based; ranging from Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer who served in Britain in the 2nd century; Roman usurper emperors like Magnus Maximus; and sub-Roman British rulers like Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Owain Ddantgwyn and Athrwys ap Meurig. Courtesy of en.wikipedia.org...

My personal belief is that Lucius Artorius Castus has the strongest case for being King Arthur out of the rest.

Now just for fun, some people actually think that King Arthur Will return and soon.....and his identity will be revealed soon, he is the Antichrist.
www.angelfire.com...




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Not so fast, Echtelion...slymattb is looking for proof, not just the books, films or the supposed legends or myths the story was built on. Archaeology has come a long way these past few years. Perhaps there is some evidence.

I think it's a valid question that should be given a bit of time for some of our more knowledgeable members to bring that forward, if it does exist.

Edit to add...

here's some quick links

www.uidaho.edu...
www.bbc.co.uk...
news.independent.co.uk...

BTW, slymattb...he was also known as Arturius, but for the sake of easy recognition, let's call him Arthur.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by masqua]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
As far as I am aware there isn't any solid proof linking anything to the famous King Arthur legend.

Manuscripts have been found written in Latin and mention the name Arthuou (as far as I can remember) showing someone of high noble status was around back in the 5-6th century.

Other manuscripts also mention a fierce warrior named Arthur fighting at Badon Hill I think, again pointing to a leader of somekind.

Many researches have found evidence of castles, yet it is all to easy to suggest it could have been linked to Arthur king of England. No solid proof of any archelogical evidence has been found as far as I am know.

Knights.

[edit on 8-9-2006 by Knights]



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:02 PM
link   
This is a really interesting read on the subject of Arthur.

britannia.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
So the question then is did they arually find the round table or just the making. Second so you all are saying the recent movie king Arthur who work for the romans is Arthur. My question now would be if that is Arthur, how accuret it the story. I ask this cuz I dont really have roll models. WOW Micheal can throw a ball and get it in a hole. LOL People I choose for roll models are Like William Wallace or King Arthur. So I always wundered if he was reall. And what the true story was.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The best thing to do would be to stray from the film industry. They basically make a watchable story for people to follow. William Wallace or Braveheart was largely made up. I can't say i've watched King Arthur but I presume it would be similar.

One of my military heros is a British General, General Wolfe. He is still remembered on military unifroms to this day and has a statue in London. He fought 6-7 battles before being shot in the chest- just as the battle had been won. A fictional hero has definitely got to be Sharpe- for any American's who don't know him or have never heard you have to watch the episodes.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Hi slymattb,
ready for your world to be rocked? I give you information from a Mr Graham Phillips, and his excellent book - the marian Conspiracy. Read it if you love history - you will come away from that book with a whole new world view i promise you. heres summing it up.

Arthur means 'Bear' in ancient welsh. thats right, arthur wasn't his name it was a battle name. He was called the Bear, or in ancient brythonic 'arthur'. He was no knight in armor, he was a tribe leader in leather and skins around 500 AD. Yes you read that right. He was an ancient king of a land that now is part of north wales called Powys.

His real name was Owain Ddantgwyn - you can find proof of his life in the Welsh annals - Oh and the isle of Avalon was and is Anglesy.

Do a quick bit of research, maybe go to the Bod libary here at oxford - you can if you speak modern / read modern welsh speak ancient brythonic. Yep it survived to this very day. Interesting hey? Hope that helped clear it all up.

There were no Knights in shining armor, but there was a mighty King with a mighty group of soldiers who fought with him. Oh and this will also help. The translations were wrong when the did the story of arthur - he didn't take the sword from the STONE, he took the sword from the SAXON. In brythonic the words are almost identical and very easy to mix up. So there you go. They found written documented proof of this man, his kingdom, his people, his battle name, and what happend when he died. He was taken to the Isle of Anglesey to a convent famed for its abilities to heal people.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
The Round Table, Camelot, and the likes of Sir Lancelot and Sir Galahad are all medieval inventions. It's a bit like trying to find evidence for the existence of a soldier called Sharpe, or a sailor called Hornblower, in Napoleonic times (both being fictional characters appearing in historical novels).

The character of 'King' Arthur likewise is a medieval invention, but in this case there is at least evidence he was based on a real person who lived in the 5th century and fought a number of succesful battles, notably at a place known as Badon (possibly Bath?) in which the Saxons suffered a major defeat. He was not himself a king, but may have taken command of the combined armies of the various British kings (this being a celtic tradition in times of major conflict) who were at that time fighting the Picts, Irish (Scots) and Saxons. Or possibly he acted as a mercenary for different kings at different times. Either way, he built up a reputation as a fearsome warrior. Though probably not as righteous and noble as later legend paints him


He may have died in a minor battle in North Wales.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Essan's summary matches the most recent studies on this fascinating legend.


Originally posted by Essan
The Round Table, Camelot, and the likes of Sir Lancelot and Sir Galahad are all medieval inventions. It's a bit like trying to find evidence for the existence of a soldier called Sharpe, or a sailor called Hornblower, in Napoleonic times (both being fictional characters appearing in historical novels).


If you read the stories, starting with the oldest ones, it's pretty clear that this is a fictional character. The stories change from most ancient to most modern... in the very oldest verions, the character names are "Widow Lady" (yes, really) and "King Fisherman" and are clearly Christian fable archetypes.

They take place in lands that aren't (and never were) on any map. They tell us a lot about the expectations of knighthood and the attitudes of the people of that time. The popular version (knights in armor, jousts and tournaments, round table and all) is based off courtly life in the 1100's-1500's... and when you read the books with an eye on the maps of the lands and on known (written) history, it's very evident that Arthur is fiction, though fiction that MAY have been constructed around a local hero.

Instead of reading second material, I always say "Hey! Go to the original texts!" Here's a translation from the mid-1800's of Arthurian legends. You can see how much we've changed them... how different today's version is.
www.gutenberg.org...

In the oldest version that I've read (translated from a manuscript of the 1500's or so), Queen Guenevere dies about 2/3 of the way through the book... and she and Arthur have a son who is killed by Kay the Seneschal.


The character of 'King' Arthur likewise is a medieval invention, but in this case there is at least evidence he was based on a real person who lived in the 5th century and fought a number of succesful battles, notably at a place known as Badon (possibly Bath?) in which the Saxons suffered a major defeat. He was not himself a king, but may have taken command of the combined armies of the various British kings (this being a celtic tradition in times of major conflict) who were at that time fighting the Picts, Irish (Scots) and Saxons. Or possibly he acted as a mercenary for different kings at different times. Either way, he built up a reputation as a fearsome warrior. Though probably not as righteous and noble as later legend paints him


The search for Arthur seems to be as compelling as any search for any grail. I've read quite a few papers (and books), and while I find some to be very attractive, the truth is that all the "link this guy with this legend" falls short in some measure or another.

Here's a good web page on this where the author actually reviews several candidates.
www.mun.ca...



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by D4rk Kn1ght
Hi slymattb,
ready for your world to be rocked? I give you information from a Mr Graham Phillips, and his excellent book - the marian Conspiracy. Read it if you love history - you will come away from that book with a whole new world view i promise you. heres summing it up.

Arthur means 'Bear' in ancient welsh. thats right, arthur wasn't his name it was a battle name. He was called the Bear, or in ancient brythonic 'arthur'. He was no knight in armor, he was a tribe leader in leather and skins around 500 AD. Yes you read that right. He was an ancient king of a land that now is part of north wales called Powys.

His real name was Owain Ddantgwyn - you can find proof of his life in the Welsh annals - Oh and the isle of Avalon was and is Anglesy.

Do a quick bit of research, maybe go to the Bod libary here at oxford - you can if you speak modern / read modern welsh speak ancient brythonic. Yep it survived to this very day. Interesting hey? Hope that helped clear it all up.

There were no Knights in shining armor, but there was a mighty King with a mighty group of soldiers who fought with him. Oh and this will also help. The translations were wrong when the did the story of arthur - he didn't take the sword from the STONE, he took the sword from the SAXON. In brythonic the words are almost identical and very easy to mix up. So there you go. They found written documented proof of this man, his kingdom, his people, his battle name, and what happend when he died. He was taken to the Isle of Anglesey to a convent famed for its abilities to heal people.


Please read the above that i posted. It contains every thing you need to know about the historical Arthur, his kingdom, its location, and its time frame. It is all factual, documented, and researched very well by graham Phillips and his team of part time researchers.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   
oh and if you want a historical proof about arthur, get a permission to go to Oxfords Bodliean libary, and ask to view the war poem
"The song of llywarch the old".

The kings mentioned are the heirs to great arthur. Ie arthurs sons or next in line to the throne.

Oh and his capital city was the ancient city of virconium.

He was real, very real, and a great great King of old. Its just that he got lost in the fog of translation along the way through the ages, and then placed in the wrong time frames in the early tenth century.

Oh, and as for the battle with his nephew, yes indeed that did happen, and his battle with his nephew was in the valley of camlan in northern wales.

here, read this.

www.history.kessler-web.co.uk...&Arthur.htm

[edit on 9-9-2006 by D4rk Kn1ght]



posted on Sep, 12 2006 @ 04:15 AM
link   
As to whether or not, Arthur or his knights were real, I don't think anyone here can honestly, say yes or no. In my reading, I did come a across a book on the search for truth to the Merlin character of the Athurian Legends appropiately entitled, Merlin by Norma L. Goodrich. Her reasearch seemed very thorough, including cited the Welsh annals and other works (I'd name them all, but it took up several pages of bibliography at the end, plus the fact that I've recently loaned the book to a friend to read). I believe there was mention that she also wrote a book on Arthur as well, but I haven't come across it myself. Actually, here is a list of her writings from the Harper Collins website:

"Norma Lorre Goodrich, Ph.D., K.C., FSA Scot, has been teaching for forty-five years and is a professor emeritus at the Claremont Colleges. She is the author of King Arthur, Guinevere, Merlin, Heroines, Priestesses, Ancient Myths, and Medieval Myths. She lives in Claremont, California, with her husband."

I'm not saying that she is a grand authority, but she seems to have done her research well and presents it in a fairly objective manner, albeit in a bit stiff and droning academic way. Being a history major in college, I'm used to reading things like that.

I hope I've beeen helpful in search, or at least pointed you to a new source to look at.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join