Replies

I guess you can pick and choose what you want to beleive based o certain limited parameters at this point.

Personally, I believe Arthur was a real person, that he was a Romano-Celtic Warlord who fought against the invading pagan Anglo-Saxons.

Can I prove it beyond any question of a doubt? No. But the smattering of evidence and what we know of the historical background certainly doesn't rule it out.

Its a lot harder to prove that someone never existed than to prove he did, not that that is easy.

I have no doubt that someone named Arthur lived and did something so extarordinary that his exploits were recorded in song and legend. The fact that his name survives to this day is evidence enough of that--- He obviously made some impression in his day that is still remembered, even if only dimly.

Whether Arthur was a King or not (Nennius calls him Dux Bellorus, roughly "General") is open to debate.

Whether a sword sticking out of a stone in Italy is evidence of something in (for now) a legend as being reality is another question. It would not surprise me in the least if this was an elaborate hoax foisted upon a unsophisticated populace in a time of great turmoil in Italy's history. Symbolism is a powerful tool to gain allies or support.

I also submit for your thinking that other relics of the past have turned up from time to time, and it still doesn't prove all that much. Is the Shroud of Turin for real? Did Schliemann actually find Troy? Does the fact that both Carnarvon and Carter died prove there was curse on Tut's tomb? Hitler used false archeology to prove the Nazi's fitness to rule the world, and pieces of the True Cross turn up everywhere in history from Byzantium to Britain.

Just because something might be does not indicate that it's all it's cracked up to be. Sometimes people manipulate circumstances to justify their own beliefs, needs or theories.

It was mentioned earlier here that King Richard passed Excalibur on to King Tancred. While interesting, it doesn't jibe with what's known --- In Celtic burial rites a warrior's arms and armor were generally cast into the nearest body of water, for example, and the body was also often burned (which would blow the Glastonbury Tomb out of the water). So, if Excalibur existed, did Richard have it, was he duped by someone with a facsimile or was he full of it when he identified it as Arthur's sword? Such a powerful artifact and symbol of rulership would not have been cast aside or given away lightly.

The Sword in the Stone legend is one that supposedly proves the principle of divine right, do you think it entirely implausible that someone would manipulate that to his advantage one day?