> >I studied medieval history last year and my lecturer suggests firmly that
> >Arthur never existed.
> On what grounds Erica?
*the great complexity of the transition from "Roman Britain" to England
*paucity/obscurity of sources in the 5th 6th 7th Cs compared to the
*the retelling or compilation of history/stories/epic sometime after they
occurred. Others have mentioned this. eg Ninius, Gildas, Bede, Geoffrey
of Monmouth, Anglo Saxon Chronicle (Alfred 9th C), Welsh Poems.
*the name Arthur itself
* circa 20 archaeological sites for Arthur's castle which leds credence
to the theories others have mentioned re Arthur being a title rather than
name (as Vortigern?). There were, however, reputed a large number of Arthurs
born at the time he supposedly lived.
*Perhaps another problem is in interpretation. Was Arthur British, a
warlord etc as people have asked already? What evidence do we use for
*The Age of Arthur by Morris gives much evidence but without footnote or
limited citation. These were to be given in a second volume which was not
published because of the author's untimely death.
Erica...who loves the way people always seem to need to add a little bit
on the end.