the lates was a real good work writen about 15 years ago by an american woman , it was called ,"THE MISTS OF AVALON"..
it was one of the best arthur storys that I have read.
they have just made a movie about it I think.
Didn`t what I say fit into every book you read because I only spoke about Arthur from a basic point of the legion.
The points I make about his heritage are in all of them that tell of Arthur.
as far as the myth goes , your right , there has been many fictisious books writen about it but the first two were written by historians and not writers of fiction.
Ok yauming,
I have read allot of different sauces so I will simply use the first encyclopaedia I find to make my point.
First,
The story that I told only covers the basics from the initial legend of Arthur although as you have said, there have been many writings added since the initial legends of Arthur and there is a lot of myth and simply fiction but were Arthur the king of the Britons and his heritage are concerned, well, I believe that is history and legend and it isnt myth.
As for the rest, yes, Celtic myth and out rite fiction.
this does become relevant to show the druids and the Celtic and most other Germanic tribes around 500 ad because they were also worshipping the goddess and had priestesses so this was relevant to the mingling of the Christian faith with all of the ancient pagan goddesses.
This also helps to establish my position on the 10 horns and the little horn in bible prophesies as I believe that prophesy was for the time period of king arthur , around 500 ad..
That is what we are talking about hear into it, bible prophesy.
Hears why I believe that Arthur the king and his heritage were most likely true;
(And if he isnt, it is still a good example to make the point that I was making by tell the Legend of Arthur (or myth). It was the story that pointed to the times I was referring to yauming, not weather this is a myth or history.)
should we get into weather genesis is myth or history
J/KThe first two men to write about Arthur were historians not fiction writers.
This info comes from the first place I look;
The Encarta encyclopaedia.
The Welsh historian Nennius first mentioned Arthur by name in the 9th-century Historia Brittonum (History of the Britons), but a full account of his life did not appear until about 300 years later, in the Historia Regum Britanniae (1136?; History of the Kings of Britain) by Welsh writer Geoffrey of Monmouth.
Geoffrey of Monmouth (circa 1100-54), Welsh writer and ecclesiastic. He was the author of Historia Regum Britanniae (1136?; History of the Kings of Britain), a work purporting to delineate the lives of British kings from Brutus the Trojan, the mythical progenitor of the British people, to Caedwalla, king of North Wales (reigned about 625-34). Although the work is known to have existed as early as 1136, copies now extant are believed to date from 1147. The history is based on the writings of the early British chroniclers Gildas and Nennius and on popular legends, but includes much fictitious material. The ninth, tenth, and eleventh books, of the twelve constituting the work, contain the first extensive collection of taleskj dealing with King Arthur that afterward formed the basis for the Arth
urian legend. A Norman translation of the Historia by the Anglo-Norman poet Wace was used in English about 1205 by Layamon, an English priest.
For his history, Geoffrey earned the favor and patronage of Robert, Earl of Gloucester; as a result, he was named archdeacon of Llandaff about 1140 and bishop of Saint Asaph in 1152.
Weather it is myth or history is irrelevant though yauming.
It establishes my position , slowly but shorly
Does that answer your question ??? or were you questioning my accuracy on the story of Arthur???
celtic crusader
Upvote
0
