Sounds complicated, let's just let them fight and the one who kills the others becomes king.Hey, no need to fight. We can find a compromise! What about multiple stones with multiple swords stuck inside, and if more than one guy manages to pull a sword out of a stone, we can have a vote between them. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Sounds complicated, let's just let them fight and the one who kills the others becomes king.
God I love MP, well donePulling swords out of stones is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate given from the masses, not from some farcical stone based ceremony....
However, in the most famous English-language version of the Arthurian tales, Malory's 15th-century Le Morte d'Arthur
It's actually called The Whole Book of King Arthur and His Noble Knights of the Round Table, but the publisher changed it after Malory died.
It's actually called The Whole Book of King Arthur and His Noble Knights of the Round Table, but the publisher changed it after Malory died.
sure he was.I visited Arthur's supposed grave in Glastonbury recently. What a crock of shit that is. They do tell you that the body that was supposedly found there was gigantic before it mysteriously disappeared in the reformation. They don't tell you that the Abbey was absolutely skint at the time of the 'finding', had already tried to claim the bodies of several other noted figures including Saint Patrick in the years previous with limited success and that the supposed confirmation of the discovery by the King had more to do putting down rebellious mystic Arthur cults than it did with the truth of the matter.
I do like to believe he was real though.
I mean I think the most likely scenario is that current arthurian lore rose as an amalgamation of several distinct historical figures whose stories kind of got blended and mixed with fantasy over timeArtorius is believed be some to have something to do with Arthur but he lived 300 years before Arthur, which means that all the things that Arthur is supposed to have done (become king, fought off the saxons etc etc) could not possibly have happened to Artorius in the 2nd Century, during the imperial period. If Arthur is Atorius then Arthur, as we know him, does not exist.
A more likely candidate is Ambrosius, a Romano-British warlord who seems to have some of the same narrative beats as Arthur (lived in Britanny for a time, fought and defeated saxons).
I prefer to believe those that speculate that Arthur came shortly after Ambrosius and did fight the famous battle of Mons Badonicus (possibly located to a hill near Bath, not far from where I live) where the Saxons were driven off before dying in a battle with a would-be usurper (Mordred in the stories). This basically rests on the idea that even in the dark ages Nennius couldn't have completely invented a famous King out of nowhere without people noticing. Arthur is missing from the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, which goes against him clearly but an explanation could be that he was a pagan and the Christian chroniclers preferred not to glorify him.
There's enough there to believe if you want to.
I haven't seen VS but it's got Arthur and Ragnar Lothbrook in it? Might have to watch it
lmaoNormally I would agree, but have you seen our recent succession of Prime Ministers?
I mean I think the most likely scenario is that current arthurian lore rose as an amalgamation of several distinct historical figures whose stories kind of got blended and mixed with fantasy over time
Completely off-topic but this guy's channel is a delight. I haven't checked back in with him in a while but I've seen a lot of his earlier videos. His video about square vs. round concrete stakes is great lol.When the guy tells that 90% of anvil had been melted since 1940, I had feelings that usualy I should reserve for animal species.
Correct, a watery tart threw a sword at Arthur.