>>520082 Jesus Christ. Far more evidence. Far more people who knew him at the time wrote about him after he died, all within a hundred years of the time he walked on Earth. This is just not so with King Arthur.
It wouldn't surprise me, however, if the King Arthur story had at least some basis in fact. These things don't usually just materialize out of nowhere. Everybody thought the Iliad was a piece of fiction because the Odyssey is so ridiculous until they found Troy and it had been destroyed.
>>520082 Coming from an a-political athiest, for lack of bias. Jesus has FAR more evidence, basically as much as any other historical person of his time. Arthur as one single king, has almost no evidence, He seems to be an amalgum of early briton kings and myth.
>>520242 >he was even recorded in Roman execution records, barely however.
The only mention by Roman historian I know about Jesus was decades after his death and that one is highly probable to be forgery. There isn't actual execution record for the person known as Jesus of Nazareth anywhere.
>>521362 Arthur was the leader of the Romano-British forces at the Battle of Badon against the invading Saxons. Gildas mentions the battle as happening in his lifetime (around the turn of the sixth century) but doesn't mention leaders. The reference to him leading the battle comes a few centuries later but the tradition probably stretches back further.
Jesus. There are only two non-gospel sources verifying the historicity of Jesus, but both were written only a relatively short while after his death, and one would have had basically no ideological motivation to mention him if he were a fabrication (Tacitus).
Actually, Gildas' Latin makes it clear that the leader of Badon was Ambrosius Aurelianus, NOT Arthur. Winterbottom's translation is notoriously unreliably, given that it was overseen by John Morris, whose Age of Arthur it was intended to supplement is an exercise in pseudohistory.
There is NO mention of Arthur anywhere before the 9th century when the Historia Brittonum was written.
Moreover, Gildas says that the battle of Mons Badonicus took place in the year of his birth, 44 years before he put pen to paper.
The dating of Gildas to c.540 is erroneous. It is based on equating the tyrant 'Maglocunus' with Maelgwn of Gwynedd - while Maglocunus IS the name Maelgwn in Latin, the issue is that there is nothing to suggest Gildas' Maglocunus, 'insularis draco' is Maelgwn of Gwynedd, whose death date is preserved only in a 10th century genealogy. The name was that of many kings and was current into the 12th century, and so there is no reason to assume they are the same men, much less that the dating is correct.
Gildas' Latininity makes it far more likely that he was actually writing in the late 5th century - his writing make clear that he received a secular Romanising, not clerical monastic education, and his reference to Latin as 'lingua nostra', as well as his extremely precise use of Late Roman administrative technical terms suggests Latin was his first language, not one acquired through a church education.
Dumville destroyed the 540 dating based on Maelgwn's alleged death date, but tried to reinstate it by suggesting a relative chronology based on the adverbs used to bridge Gildas' passages. However, Gildas almost always uses words like 'interea' (Meanwhile) which are utterly vague, and as has been convincingly demonstrated by Halsall, the De Excidio Britanniae may tell a story of simultaneous events in different parts of the island rather than one continuous narrative.
As I say, the best evidence for Gildas' date is his Latinity.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.