King Arthur did exist, but he was a general

I came across this very interesting article that speaks of the existence of King Arthur and Queen Guinevere:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/king-arthur-legendary-figure-was-real-and-lived-most-of-his-life-in-strathclyde-academic-claims-10483364.html

King Arthur: Legendary figure was real and lived most of his life in Strathclyde, academic claims

Exclusive: Dr Andrew Breeze says he did exist – but was a general, not a king

He was married to Guinevere, held court over the Knights of the Round Table, wielded the sword Excalibur and, following his final battle with the traitor Mordred, was laid to rest at Avalon. At least that is how the mythological story of King Arthur goes.

The reality, according to new research by a British academic, is that the legendary British figure of the 5th and early 6th century did exist but was a general rather than a monarch, fought all his battles in southern Scotland and Northumberland – and lived most of his life in Strathclyde.

Dr Andrew Breeze, a professional philologist and Celticist from the University of Navarre in Spain, based his findings on a Latin chronicle called The History Of The Britons, written in the ninth century by the Welsh monk Nennius. This lists the names of nine places where Arthur defeated his enemies, but until now nobody has been able to say exactly where they were.

About Queen Alexis

Queen Alexis An art teacher, with over twenty years of experience in classroom, studio and art camp venues, brings her enthusiasm and skills to this unique and entertaining art form.

2 Responses to King Arthur did exist, but he was a general

  1. Andrew Breeze says:

    Alexis — thank you for the interest.

    AB

  2. benking333 says:

    veryinteresting

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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