Historical Arthur

What's the most likely theory for a historical figure that inspired the legend?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A comfy Arthurian thread? Why not

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    honestly? Prehistoric.
    I spit on the post-Roman warlord hypothesis
    Artur preceded the romans

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    he was probably a celt

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Roman*

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Angel-Sachsen

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Roman*

      *Romanized Celt

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    NOT a Sarmatian

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    A Roman Briton who fought against the Saxon invaders.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Anglo Saxon Hyberboreo-Tartarian Hunn who fought against Italo-celtic paleoatlantic invaders.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        He was an exiled European Prince. (From Jupiter's moon, not the Earth continent.)

        He was clearly an Etrusco-Lemurian mercenary from Sogdiana who fought the Tocharian and French Acadian menace.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          Revisionist.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        I'd watch that if you include a brooding Barbarian mercenary type as a Conan the barbarian stand-in.

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    He was an exiled European Prince. (From Jupiter's moon, not the Earth continent.)

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    All I know is that he was Breton.

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        As to whether he was a Goth, he was crowned in old Gothic tradition after defeating the Muslims which says quite a bit.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Piss off moron

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        No.

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Did he get cucked like in the later
      stories?

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Gildas only sort of hints at his existence at best.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      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

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    He was GREEK. His named was Arcturos. Britain is GREEK clay.

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    he was a SERB

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    He wasn't real. He literally did not exist in any way, shape or form.

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Celt of course.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit, this comic was moronic. Anglo-Saxons were exclusively depicted as dark-haired and eyed. I still liked it as a kid, though

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *