is he real ?

[Ace]

people say that arthur was a legend. i dont know but it amazes me that
how one person , whose existence is doubtful can go and conquer as far
as Rome .it must be that he was real, although his character was highly
exaggerated as a conqueror , nonetheless, he was a good christian king
who continues to be a source of inspiration.

[Jennifer Blaustein]

Post by Ace
people say that arthur was a legend. i dont know but it amazes me that
how one person , whose existence is doubtful can go and conquer as far
as Rome .it must be that he was real, although his character was highly
exaggerated as a conqueror , nonetheless, he was a good christian king
who continues to be a source of inspiration.

Dare you criticize the king??

[Qur'mudjin]

Legends and folktales are generally accepted to be based on real characters,
however greatly their deeds and lives are exaggerated or confused with
others. I think I would have been laughed off the UseNet had I tried to name
this group alt.history.king-arthur, no matter how strongly some of us
believe a real person is behind the story. I also felt it inappropriate to
name the group alt.mythology.king-arthur, though there were many people
advising it in the moderations group.
Until more widely accepted evidence presents itself to historians and
archaeologists, I think "legend" is the best we can do.

--------------
Jim Corveddu * ***@earthlink.net

Arma virumque flavum atque mortuum cano

Post by Jennifer Blaustein

Post by Ace
people say that arthur was a legend. i dont know but it amazes me that
how one person , whose existence is doubtful can go and conquer as far
as Rome .it must be that he was real, although his character was highly
exaggerated as a conqueror , nonetheless, he was a good christian king
who continues to be a source of inspiration.

Dare you criticize the king??

[patrick boyd]

Post by Qur'mudjin
Legends and folktales are generally accepted to be based on real characters,
however greatly their deeds and lives are exaggerated or confused with
others. I think I would have been laughed off the UseNet had I tried to name
this group alt.history.king-arthur, no matter how strongly some of us
believe a real person is behind the story. I also felt it inappropriate to
name the group alt.mythology.king-arthur, though there were many people
advising it in the moderations group.
Until more widely accepted evidence presents itself to historians and
archaeologists, I think "legend" is the best we can do.

Legend was a good choice. There is certainly enough smoke to suspect a
fire, yet no actual evidence of one.

I would not be surprised if evidence, perhaps an engraving of some kind,
is found at some stage suggesting there was a 6th century Arthur. But I
am quite sure, if that happens, he will turn out to be a heroic warrior
or a minor warlord who was colourful enough to be subsequently enlarged
far beyond his original importance, and that he had little or no
connection to Ambrosius and the halting of German expansion in the first
half of the 6th century.

Personally, I would really appreciate it if some author of the Bernard
Cornwall ilk put his talents to telling a fictional tale of Ambrosius,
rather than the persistent lemming-like obsession with Arthur. And if
so, I would be inclined to paint Ambrosius and his army as far more
Roman than the usual hairy tribe of tartan-wearing throwbacks that the
Celtic Arthur is usually associated with in so-called historical
fiction. Britain had been Roman for 400 years and I just can't see
Romanisation vanishing overnight.

-- patrick

[Ace]

Post by patrick boyd

Post by Qur'mudjin
Legends and folktales are generally accepted to be based on real characters,
however greatly their deeds and lives are exaggerated or confused with
others. I think I would have been laughed off the UseNet had I tried to name
this group alt.history.king-arthur, no matter how strongly some of us
believe a real person is behind the story. I also felt it inappropriate to
name the group alt.mythology.king-arthur, though there were many people
advising it in the moderations group.
Until more widely accepted evidence presents itself to historians and
archaeologists, I think "legend" is the best we can do.

Legend was a good choice. There is certainly enough smoke to suspect a
fire, yet no actual evidence of one.
I would not be surprised if evidence, perhaps an engraving of some kind,
is found at some stage suggesting there was a 6th century Arthur. But I
am quite sure, if that happens, he will turn out to be a heroic warrior
or a minor warlord who was colourful enough to be subsequently enlarged
far beyond his original importance, and that he had little or no
connection to Ambrosius and the halting of German expansion in the first
half of the 6th century.
Personally, I would really appreciate it if some author of the Bernard
Cornwall ilk put his talents to telling a fictional tale of Ambrosius,
rather than the persistent lemming-like obsession with Arthur. And if
so, I would be inclined to paint Ambrosius and his army as far more
Roman than the usual hairy tribe of tartan-wearing throwbacks that the
Celtic Arthur is usually associated with in so-called historical
fiction. Britain had been Roman for 400 years and I just can't see
Romanisation vanishing overnight.
-- patrick

Britain had been roman for 400 years but changes in history can be
abrupt and quick.i don't wonder if the romans were swept away by the
uprising of the native celts in a 5-year period or so.mughals ruled
india for a long time but the british defeated them within 10 years
after declaring them their enemy. It is even possible that celts and
romans were not so antagonistic as shown by patriotic english
novelists, more so, the invasions of anglo-saxons , jutes etc may have
further given them the reason to act with unity.I am convinced that
Arthur existed and might have been a wonderful king, but certainly that
wasn't the reason enough that he is so highly regarded . he is not a
fiction but a fact.-ace