What's the most likely theory for a historical figure that inspired the legend?
Historical Arthur
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
A comfy Arthurian thread? Why not
honestly? Prehistoric.
I spit on the post-Roman warlord hypothesis
Artur preceded the romans
he was probably a celt
Roman*
Angel-Sachsen
*Romanized Celt
NOT a Sarmatian
A Roman Briton who fought against the Saxon invaders.
Anglo Saxon Hyberboreo-Tartarian Hunn who fought against Italo-celtic paleoatlantic invaders.
He was clearly an Etrusco-Lemurian mercenary from Sogdiana who fought the Tocharian and French Acadian menace.
Revisionist.
I'd watch that if you include a brooding Barbarian mercenary type as a Conan the barbarian stand-in.
He was an exiled European Prince. (From Jupiter's moon, not the Earth continent.)
All I know is that he was Breton.
Gallo-Roman warlord (not a king).
Throughout the lands that were part of the Western Roman Empire we constantly see this recurring return of the local populations to their previous, pre-Roman, power structures, in order to cope with new invaders.
An Arthurian-like figure of which we know much more (and whose historicity isn't in question) is Don Pelayo (or Pelagius) of Asturias, a Gallo-Roman warlord who led the Christian resistance to the Muslims in Iberia after the Visigoths failed to do so.
Pelagius most likely was a Goth. It's kind of contentious topic in general but we know that he was some form of nobility, the chronicles mention him being a Goth and he called his son a gothic name. You can argue for the other hypothesis(the fact he himself didn't have gothic name for starters, hunting that later naming of his successor is just legitimacy stunt), but the straightest reading of sources is as seen above.
As to whether he was a Goth, he was crowned in old Gothic tradition after defeating the Muslims which says quite a bit.
It is still a mystery due to lack of evidence. Possible candidates are Riothamus, Ambrosious or possibly one of the first Anglo-Saxons to convert to Christianity, early foederati or later conversions. Many Anglo-Saxons were named "Offa", including the father of the first King of Essex who was perhaps a warlord who presided over Camulodunum, a possible site for Camelot.
Of course it is always possible many elements of the story are distortions, errors, fabrications or confusion with other memories of Roman Britain added over the centuries.
>Chapman: Saxon R1b-U106
>Connery: Norse R1a
>Hunnam: Saxon I1
>Owen: R1b-l21
Owen is the only Romano-Celt so it is he who should play Arthur, because that's what Arthur was.
Piss off moron
No.
Gildas clearly and with no equivocation mentions Arthur as a native Brythonic warlord during a period of civil conflict and the invasions of the Anglo-Saxons within about a century of Rome's fall. His historicity is virtually beyond dispute. Who he was and what exactly he was like is the real matter of contention.
Did he get cucked like in the later
stories?
There is no historic Arthur
The only source for the period that could be said to be somewhat historical is Gildas' account, and he doesn't mention an Arthur at all. Later 'sources' like Geoffrey of Monmouth's are just made up and it is completely absurd to take seriously. There are people trying to make connections
Some like Riothamus. He is quite literally refered to as King Riothamus by Jordanes, it doesn't make any sense to call him by (title) (title) and he is even addressed personally as Riothamus as his own name by Apollinaris. It is just pure speculation to say that it was in fact a double-title of 'King Very-Kingly', there is no evidence to suggest that it was anything other than his name. Neither is there any evidence that is 'name' was Artorius in any respect.
The search for a historical Arthur is essentially the most popular pseudo-history out there. People will take one shred of non confirming evidence and speculate it to death, proving nothing and getting nowhere near to any supposed historical Arthur.
Gildas doesn't mention him at all. He mentions a Dux Bellorum. Not a King. and certainly not Arthur as name.
Gildas only sort of hints at his existence at best.
Gildas only mentioned a dude named Ambrosius Aurelianus that apparently lead the romano-britons in a great battle against the Anglo-saxons around a century before he wrote his lamentation. But he didnt wrote more infos about him because the work was meant as a shitpost against the romano-briton kings of his timeframe and not an historical document
He was GREEK. His named was Arcturos. Britain is GREEK clay.
he was a SERB
He wasn't real. He literally did not exist in any way, shape or form.
Arthur was a real person and the legend is 100% true. Even the stuff that was "made up later" was divine revelation restoring the story to the original truth.
Celt of course.
Holy shit, this comic was retarded. Anglo-Saxons were exclusively depicted as dark-haired and eyed. I still liked it as a kid, though
Arthur did hunt for the holy grail. After a long exhausting search they found that the friendships forged in their quest were the true holy grail.