Wednesday, June 13, 2007
An English archaeologist has claimed that the mythological King
Arthur, of the Knights of the Round Table fame, was Irish rather
than British.
The royal debunking has been suggested by Prof Dai Morgan- Evans of the University of Chester, who said his research indicated that although generally hailed "as the ideal British bastion of
kingship", Arthur was an Irish war leader more at home on the
battlefield than the throne.
King Arthur is a significant figure in British mythology and is
said to have been born in the fifth century. The professor said
Arthur could have been part of the Irish colonies brought to
Britain by the Romans to help defend the Welsh coast.
He suggested that the Irish enjoyed political control over large
areas of western Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries.
"Based on the evidence at our disposal, it appears that Arthur
was effectively a senior military figure as opposed to a king,"
said Prof Morgan-Evans.
2 comments:
An English archaeologist, Prof Dai Morgan- Evans
of the University of Chester...
"Based on the evidence at our disposal, it appears that Arthur was effectively a senior military figure as opposed to a king,"
"Early sources award him the title of Dux Bellorum - Duke of Battles - which is a Roman title traditionally associated with great war leaders. The image of the knights might not be strictly accurate. Horses would have been used to ride into battle, but stirrups were a Viking tradition, so the traditional depiction of the knights jousting on horseback is probably mythical. The evidence certainly suggests Arthur was a figure in the mould of a General Montgomery, not a king."
The Irish Times, Ireland's premier newspaper. June 13 2007.
ratilfar
That's a dicey proposition. I am sure that his English counterparts would disagree, which makes it even more interesting. Of course this could be turned around to justify some English claims over Ireland, so it cuts both ways I guess.
Post a Comment