So me stating that Arthur is a mythological character, a view supported by pretty much everyone, this is a hoax?jusplay4fun wrote:NO matter the evidence I present, jimb will will continue his HOAX.
So you just proved me correct.jusplay4fun wrote:
I did find this, from May 2017:
When the movie King Arthur: Legend of the Sword hits theaters Friday, it will add the latest twist to a legend that’s been evolving for nearly a millennium. This version of the legend (starring Charlie Hunnam and Jude Law) pits King Arthur against his uncle, who seizes the crown until the famous episode in which young Arthur pulls the sword from the stone and proves he is the rightful king.
It’s a fanciful tale and one that’s been told many times, but where does it come from?
Some people do believe that King Arthur could have been a real person, but despite the occasional news story about an archaeological discovery that may provide clues, experts on Arthurian legend tell TIME that there is no evidence — no primary source from the time — to confirm that King Arthur was ever a real person.
Also note… “some people” not “some learned scholars”.
Sure. It’s “possible” Arthur is based on a real person. I never disputed this. The fact that this article quotes one historian who’s speculating about one possible “historical Arthur” theory proves nothing. He’s not even saying he believes this… he’s just giving the author of the article some speculative filler. Note the language he’s using… he’s very very far from actually claiming this theory as valid. Additionally it’s amusing to me that in this particular “theory” the historical figure referenced “Riothamus” isn’t named “Arthur” or any version of Arthur in a different language.jusplay4fun wrote:What is possible, however, is that Arthur is based on a real leader from the 5th or 6th century. One promising theory points to a person known as “Riothamus” — an honorific for “supreme king” — who crossed the English Channel to fight in France. That’s something that Arthur also does in early texts. “It may be the closest we will come to locating a specific model for Arthur,” according to Norris J. Lacy, a medievalist and former international president of the International Arthurian Society.
If an “Arthur-type” figure were alive around that time, then he was probably a military leader reacting to the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain, a very violent time and a setting ripe for the creation of a legend. “There was no centralized government, and British life was essentially tribal,” says Lacy. “Rulers would occupy an area, often a hill, that would be easy to defend. Local wars were frequent, with much hacking and ‘smiting.’ Life being as uncertain as it was, and with society torn by war, strife, and sometimes famine and disease, it is not surprising that people would latch onto stories of a benevolent king or warlord who is intent on peace and prosperity.”
So your whole post just proves you wrong. Keep going bruh.





