jusplay4fun wrote:NO matter the evidence I present, jimb will will continue his HOAX.
So me stating that Arthur is a mythological character, a view supported by pretty much everyone, this is a hoax?
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 thatās 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.
Itās a fanciful tale and one thatās 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 ā no primary source from the time ā to confirm that King Arthur was ever a real person.
So you just proved me correct.
Also noteā¦ āsome peopleā not āsome learned scholarsā.
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 āRiothamusā ā an honorific for āsupreme kingā ā who crossed the English Channel to fight in France. Thatās something that Arthur also does in early texts. āIt may be the closest we will come to locating a specific model for Arthur,ā according to Norris J. Lacy, a medievalist and former international president of the International Arthurian Society.
If an āArthur-typeā 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. āThere was no centralized government, and British life was essentially tribal,ā says Lacy. āRulers would occupy an area, often a hill, that would be easy to defend. Local wars were frequent, with much hacking and āsmiting.ā 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.ā
Sure. Itās āpossibleā Arthur is based on a real person. I never disputed this. The fact that this article quotes one historian whoās speculating about one possible āhistorical Arthurā theory proves nothing. Heās not even saying he believes thisā¦ heās just giving the author of the article some speculative filler. Note the language heās usingā¦ heās very very far from actually claiming this theory as valid. Additionally itās amusing to me that in this particular ātheoryā the historical figure referenced āRiothamusā isnāt named āArthurā or any version of Arthur in a different language.
So your whole post just proves you wrong. Keep going bruh.