lol. He was most definatly a legend, considering, a monarch be that nice! LOL. Thats almost as messed up as saying Bush is a genius.
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Legend or not the guy stood for courage and knightly behaviour
he even promoted a non discriminatory policy
the round table was one of the first communist egalitarian approaches
I think the guy ruled!
Che Guevara Forever!
lol. He was most definatly a legend, considering, a monarch be that nice! LOL. Thats almost as messed up as saying Bush is a genius.
he was'nt nesscarilly a english monarch,its more likly he was welsh and also he may of been a tribal leader not a king,kind of like papa smurf to the welsh smurfs i assume
yes he was celtic so it is likely he was more of a tribal leader. It was a nice legend and/or truth and his approach was revolutionary for a monarch
<span style=\'color:red\'>"I'm going to brutalize you so forcibly, Buddha will explode!!"</span>
also he probally did'nt have plate mail because at that time(around 650ad was when he was supposed to of fought camlann) the country was receding technologically so the armor would of been composed of leather,scale,a little chain and some roman armor.
this would i guess bring into question the existence of knights in full armor astride horses...but hey forget i posted this i'm all for king arthurs legend
ar you guys forgetting something? this so called fair person hummiliated lancelot and guinvere publicly throughout all of the myths...and he bedded his half-sister which was disscusting..not to mention he judged all of the trials at the time...hes great sure but there are two sides to the coin
Here comes the story of the Hurricane
That's what kings tend to do.
I think he was probably an asshole. He didn't even exist, it's all bullshit.
-insert witty phrase in between two equals sign here-
canikickit, Dodos never existed
<span style=\'color:red\'>"I'm going to brutalize you so forcibly, Buddha will explode!!"</span>
Chances are Arthur did not exist, let alone Lancelot or the Round Table. Anyone interested should read David Dumville's article, "Sub-Roman Britain: History and Legend" (from the magazine "History" issue 63, 1977), in which he proves that there is not conclusive evidence for the existance of Arthur. The only near primary souce, Gildas (who wrote c 650, about 100 years - that is three generations at the time - after Arthur was supposed to have fought the Saxons) makes no mention of Arthur and rather attributes the victories of the Romano-British to Ambrosius Aurelius. The tales of the great King Arthur only begin to surface in 10th century Welsh litterature such as Nennius' "Historia Brittonum".
I feel sorry for people who don\'t drink. When they wake up in the morning, that\'s as good as they\'re going to feel all day. - Frank Sinatra
SUPERMAN CAN STOP HIM.
SUPERMAN AS THE BLACK KNIGHT WILL AID THE BAND OF REBELS TO OVERTHROW THE KING.
And they all had lightsabers in the kingdom of camelon.
Ahem... Knights also have big lightsabers! :biggrin:
Which makes them so popular with the ladies in the "Damsel in Distress"-type stories.
I think Arthur existed, but he is not as mighty and strong is in the myths. But common people, LMAO! Why are you talking seriously about him? It's just a fairy tale... er I mean myth. I mean, I wouldn't bother be talking about politics on... lets say... Count Dracula? There is nothing politic about myths, the only link I see is monarchy, but what else?
“He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.” (§ 146) Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Besides the fact that looking for Arthur is a wild goose chase, if he had existed he was an absolute monarch, and not some early socialist. In the words on the Monty Python boys, he probably stuck to 'outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society'.
I feel sorry for people who don\'t drink. When they wake up in the morning, that\'s as good as they\'re going to feel all day. - Frank Sinatra
your all wrong...
You must whach the film: -Monty Pythons search for the holy grail.
May you find the truth in that film...
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's Razor
When my dad was in his first year of university his professor for Medieval History asked each student why they had signed up for the course. He explained that Monty Python and the Holy Grail inspired him to do so. Aparently the professor was NOT amused (he said something along the lines of 'oh... I HATE that movie').
I feel sorry for people who don\'t drink. When they wake up in the morning, that\'s as good as they\'re going to feel all day. - Frank Sinatra
Thats a great film... so funny. The Coconuts will live for ever in my mind... and the Rabbit, with big pointy teath.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's Razor
theres a thread in chitchat for that kind of talk.
incidently, i know there are remains of many castles but i dont believe there is one of camelot.
i think arthur is as believable as the iraqi information minister.
It is BELIVED by most experts who have wasted years studying this thing.. lol.... that the story of Arthur is partly pased on a real life Celtic chief or lord in about the 5th cent. To realy understand this era, you have to read and study Beowulf which comes from that period.
Although they are talking about the Danes, I believe England at the time was set up in the same way.. Small petty barrons or lords that had enough power and wealth around them that they could comand a small army of warriors. There was no real "England" as known in the high middle ages, and Arthur was not really king of all of Britan or even England.
There are also alot of elements in the story that are kind of conflicting to period, context etc. For one, there is a mixture of Pagan and Christian elements. ( this is also present in Beowulf) Arthur and his knights are so overly Christian in fact that it's rather silly. Christanity was around in the isles in the 5th c. but not heavy... Even during the time of Edward II and the black Prince in the 13th c. Christianisty was still concerntrated into the cities, while Edward II was known to have sypathies with the Pagan community, and even started the "order of the Gartter" Displaying 168 gartters on his breastplate and one on his leg to make 169 or 13 x 13 (13 = sacred Pagan number).
What I'm trying to point out is that Arthur couldn't have been as anti-Pagan as he is made out to be.
And there are conflicting messages in it as well... The Green knight for example that chalenges people to cut his head off is very much a Pagan symbol and falls out of place with a supposed Christian king's court.
In Solidarity,
RC
Its believed that if camolot exists it is in glastonbury.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
- Hanlon's Razor
