[infidel29]

HERE IS A LINK to a portion of the index in the book "The History of the Kings of Britain" by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Not saying this is the be all end all on the Arthur discussion, but we read this book in my "Medieval Studies" class back in college. I wish I still had the book to post something more than just an index page.

My own opinion of the Arthur legend is somewhere between the classical romantic view of Camelot and the Knights of the round table and the film. (great flick BTW)

The book cited above tends toward the romanticized view, but does reference historical facts.

[InsureAmerica]

I'll have to find that book. I love medieval history. My ancestor, Charles, came from Ireland in the 1300's to England and his occupation was listed as "Knight"..

[nopardons]

I still have the book...what would you like posted from it?

[Cronos]

Rotten flick -- completely false. Firstly, it states that Pealgius was tried for heresy and exectued -- absolutely factually false -- Pelagius died of old age. Next, the time between the first Saxon attacks ant the battle at Baden hill is separated by quite a while of time. Next, who the heck were the "woads"? tehre was never any tribe in England called that -- there were the britons in what is now england (they were the ancestors of the Welsh and their bloodlines are in the English as well) and there were Picts in what is now Scotland. the Britons were as Roman as you could get, the Picts, some speculate, weren't even Celtic.