Camelot: The Archaeologists Digging For The Real King Arthur | Myth Hunters
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 бер 2024
- Is there any truth to the legend of King Arthur? Archaeologist Leslie Alcock, a charismatic figure, led an excavation in the 1960s in Somerset, aiming to prove Camelot's existence. Despite challenges and doubts from academics, Alcock's team discovered evidence of fortifications at Cadbury Hill, suggesting a Dark Age castle. While Alcock's work faced criticism, his legacy includes advancing understanding of Dark Age Britain and inspiring future archaeologists.
Welcome to Chronicle; your home for all things medieval history! With documentaries covering everything from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the beginnings of the Renaissance, from Hastings to Charlemagne, we'll be exploring everything the Middle Ages have to offer.
Subscribe now so you don't miss out!
Chronicle is part of the History Hit Network. To get in touch please email owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com.
📺 Discover the past on History Hit with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly presented by world-renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis, and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code CHRONICLE 👉 access.historyhit.com/
Excalibur was not the Sword in the Stone. That sword, said to be Uther's sword, broke in an early battle. He asked Merlin's aid in obtaining a new sword, and the old enchanter brought him to the Lady of the Lake. It was from her, that Arthur obtained Excalibur, also known as Caliburne.
In was going to tell the same, I don't need to anymore.
Absolutely correct.
The sword IN the stone is likely a metaphor for the sword being crafted from metal ore obtained from meteor. This would have made it far superior to standard weapons.
No, the S-Word in the S-Tone, is a cryptic clue. For Merlin’s enchanting, the stones of Stonehenge.
King Arthur’s education in ruling the kingdom, was learning some of Merlin’s wisdom.
Camelot is really Jerusalem. A later invention, after the Crusades. When the stories of King Arthur and Merlin were popularised. There’s Camels in Jerusalem, not in Britain.
Cryptic stories and propaganda, about Richard the Lion heart, the Knights Templar and the Holy Grail. The Quest of Christendom, to control the Holy Land.
Where the Silk Road, Spice trade, Sugar, Ivory and Gold from Africa. As well as many other goods and resources, coalesced and intersected.
@simonpayne8252 that's a great insight, I hadn't thought of it that way. Well done.
English folks: how can you stand to live near these sorts of sites without answers about what they were? The suspense and mystery of it would KILL me!
Hi @purplecleo. But not having the answers or proof leaves the romance of possibility still very much alive, which is far more fun. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Regardless of what evidence is, or is not found, King Arthur is so very much part of our mythological past that the legend will live forever. My personal favourite is the Victorian view of the Arthurian myth, as it is about as romantic as you can get as well as being about as far from the truth as you can get lol. Check out the custard king and King Arthurs Halls in Tintagel. All complete nonsense but great fun. Best Wishes from the U.K.
I've always been so jealous of England. Im American. We can find stone artifacts thousands of years old bit we certainly don't have great castles or cathedrals that have been standing for hundreds upon hundreds of years. Even ruins of freaking Roman civilization! Just amazing.! If thats not enough you have things from the bronze age and stone age! STONEHENGE!
@@vincentshaw-morton3757 I remember reading a tweet from someone years ago that basically said “bigfoot is magical until some hilbilly shoots one”
There is an earlier but oblique reference to Arthur than Nennius. In “The Ruin of Britain” written around 540AD by Gildas, who claimed to have been born in the same year as the Battle of Badon. Writing only a short generation after the supposed events surrounding the Arthurian Legend, Gildas laments that Britain no longer has a great Battle leader like one that won Badon. Maybe not a King, name unknown (perhaps) but maybe an equivalent
Didn't Gildas also mention someone riding in the chariot of the bear? (Sorry, can't remember reference, more research needed)
There was also a theory that Arthur/Artos/however you spell him was very unpopular with monks and churchmen generally because they denied him the resources he needed to maintain his troops, who were defending the monks as well as the rest of the population, so he simply appropriated supplies from the monasteries to feed said troops.
❤That 🍺🇮🇲
@@christopherlawley1842 "Arturos" was the name written on the 10th century cross. I like your comment
With the technology that we have today, why hasn’t someone gone to that spot in Cadbury and reexamined what Alcock did and expand upon it?
The question we're all asking. Someone get on it!
@@ambrosius It is a waste of time and money its too far to the South however it was refortified in the 5/6th C a church was begun but little more than the foundations were constructed but were robbed out it was Cruciform in groundplan.They would be better to reinvestigate Caermelyn nr Cardiff the original Camelot plus search round Atherstone actually Arthurstone in W Warwickshire and nearby Hartshill/Oldbury where the first King Arthur aka Guy of Warwick was buried in circa 431AD.
I would imagine that it's an issue of funding. Arthurian legend is widely regarded by the academic community as falling under the dominion of English lit or mythology and folklore. It isn't often regarded as archeologically valuable or technical medieval studies, insofar as it would get a grant for an expedition for a dig. Digs, or field work, need funding and universities usually fund them. Unfortunately, there aren't a whole lot of universities that find field work in the lit/folklore departments. Sometimes anthro departments or comparative religious studies will team up with a lit department for some amount of field work (like an exploration of Gerald of Wales' Journey through Wales to note changes in geography/agriculture, or a topographical mapping of the place names listed in the Domesday book), but it doesn't happen often. Yet, it should. The academic world of the 1960s was profoundly more tilted towards the himanities in terms of allowing funding for research, and so Alcocks dig was under the banner of the archeology department. Luckily, back in the day many of the universities funded far fetched or idealist digs, but its just not that way anymore. Universities now care more about whether or not mice can complete a maze while dosed on cocaine water rather than whether or not camelot actually existed. Sadly, its probably true that STEM murdered the humanities. College sports funsjng didnt help either. My personal belief is that folklorists should have just as much access to university funds for field work as archeology department do. Think of all we could learn about characters like Ragnar Lothbrok by studying the exact places wherein the Norse sagas present. But a lot of times, myths function differently than history, and folklorists and mythographers prefer to keep myths myths and legends legends for the sake of certain functional and structural components, like national pride or socio-religious architectural identities (as is the case with Vlad Dracul). And yes, I'm aware that some universities still fund this stuff and that some archeology departments are interested in legend. But it isn't fruitful for a university to look for Camelot. Now, if a researcher had AMAZING evidence that he knew where it was, then yeah, the university would probably fund that in order to be the blokes that found it 😂😂
So there's me talking way more than was necessary. Have a good day.
There is an earlier but oblique reference to Arthur than Nennius. In “The Ruin of Britain” written around 540AD by Gildas, who claimed to have been born in the same year as the Battle of Badon. Writing only a short generation after the supposed events surrounding the Arthurian Legend, Gildas laments that Britain no longer has a great Battle leader like one that won Badon.
@@davidgifford8112 The actual Battle was fought at Myndd Baedan 3 miles NW of Bridgend,Glamorganon the A4063 on the Maesteg Road in 547/8 AD when the Wessex Saxons invaded to take out Arthwys 11nd but were heavily defeated and routed only a few escaping to their Galley's on the R Ogmore Estuary that for a generation Sth Wales was safe from the Sais though raids from Ireland continued until 579 when the Vandals from Ireland allied with Medraut/Modred were defeated at Camlann and of course Gildas wrote his Complaining Book about the Apostasy of the Britons states that a Warlord was no Arthur.
The traditional British Histories place King Arthur's home in Cear Leon, South Wales.
Never heard of this one, please explain.
@@manuellubian5709 The original mytho-historical accounts of King A are found in a series of medieval books called ''the Bruts'' They are called this because they describe the history of the people of ''Brutus'' to Britain, whom these books attribute as the origin of the Britons. Brutus et al. were refugees from the destruction of Troy. Arthur is described clearly as being a south welsh king based in Caer Leon. Camelot is likely old Welsh for ''the yellow fort'' Caer-Mylott (or close to it). This was almost certainly the 6th century hillfort overlooking Caer Leon to the east.
I agree, it was the Tudors that claimed King Arthur as their own or for England to bolster their claim to the English throne
Edward I claimed Arthur as English or at least Norman
Most historians indicate that if Arthur lived then he would of been a Romano-Briton.
Even if it wasn't a hall grand enough for a King surely it would have been suitable for the leaders of the troops who garrisoned the site, Arthur was in theory 'Dux Belloram' a military leader or General, if you will. Taking that into consideration, who, from what's been said in this programme, can refute the evidence discovered? He isn't Royalty, he's a soldier, a leader, but he would surely have lived and fought alongside his troops, and got down and dirty with them on a day to day basis like any good military man. It seems to me they expected to find a palatial residence fit for a Royal family. I bet they (the critics) were disappointed there was no trace of a Trooping the Colour parade.
Yes ... 'Arthur' means 'Great Bear'
@@brianhodgson9547 Actually Iron Bear and there were two Arthurs one lived 365-431AD the second his G,G Grandson was fatally wounded at Camlann 579AD after defeating the invading Vandals who were allied to Arthurs nephew Medraut or Modred this battlesite is 17 miles due east of Borth N of Abertrystwyth on Cardigan Bay.
Alan Wilson is worth watching and reading. He never gets a mention
Agreed. He and Baram Blackett did extensive research.
That's all very well, but castles didn't really start to exist until the middle ages they were effectively a Norman invention.
The whole concept of The Castle is that it forms part of network of strongholds for a conquering force in a hostile land. We see this during the initial invasion in 1066 and the subsequent occupation of the interior of England.
Later on we also see the same strategy in Edward I's invasion of Wales.
What Camelot would have been is a hybrid between an Iron Age hill fort, housing a community in a defensible location with commanding views over it's district, and a Roman Castrum, where professional soldiers could assemble, train, and their commanders meet for strategic planning. This, if it ever existed, would be a focal point for those who wanted to resist the Anglo-Saxons, to assemble, arm, train, and sally forth.
Without at least one such focal point its hard to imagine any long term feasible resistance, even to defend relatively easy places such as the South West peninsula, Wales, or Peak District.
I suspect that there wasn't a single "Camelot", with potential regional ones at Wroxeter, Chester, Cadbury Castle and, yes Tintagagel. Ultimately however, history shows that they all fell, somewhere between the latter 5th century, and mid 6th, at the latest, as the Saxon presence coalesced from invasion, to occupation, and then to kingdoms.
I wish this "documentary" had focused less on 13th century, and 20th century whimsy, and more on Dark Age geopolitics, with finds to back up the, let's be honest, guesswork about what was going on.
I completely agree with everything you have said here, and personally I'd like to add that I don't believe for a minute that King Arthur existed at all, in fact I have read many accounts which all point to him being a work of fiction from dark age Britain, loosely based on a combination of Welsh warlord, a Pictish King from the highlands and a Cornish kindly landowner.
Or, maybe even, that the word Camlann has nothing to do with Camelot & that, when Camelot was added to the Arthur story the writer thought that the original word had been corrupted & it must have originally been Camelodunum, or something. Maybe he recognized the placename as a former great capitol & figured whoever had told him or written down Camlann had no idea what they were saying.
I read a very good article that suggest the location Camulodunum Fort in Slack, West Yorkshire, which just makes alot of sense in every way possible.
This is soooo cooool!! I grew up reading stories of King Arthur and his knights of the round table. LEGENDARY~
VERY❤❤❤
Yes Good Story But Lil FACTZ
Leslie Alcock was a brilliant academician and a dreamer. I wouldve been proud to have known him. He was so courageous!
There are records in Llandaff Cathedral concerning Arthur, son of Meurig who was a king of the Britons. There's plenty of evidence to support his being the King Arthur of the legend. The places in the legend are there in S Wales and explained clearly in The Holy Kingdom by Adrian Gilbert, with Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett. It's worth reading.
It's a curious book, for all kinds of reasons, but it'd be fair to be hugely sceptical even on the starting point that Athrwys is a variant of Arthur/Artur/Artuir/Artorius (which are all known forms of the name from the mid 6th/7th century). Two very different names to a Welsh speaker.
Wasn't it Old Sarum that was rebuilt in the 6th Century, even more comprehensibly than when it was originally built
The first Roman fortress/capital in Britain was built at a place called Camulo. It was therefore Camulo Denum, "Fort Camulo". Impartiing it with a French spelling and removing the Latin word for Fort gives you Camelot. Since the period of Arthur is marked by struggles to reimpose the Pax Romanum in the west (as with Aegidius in Soissons) it seems more than obvious why a new Imperial leader would install himself in Camulodenum. That tells us very clearly where to look for Camelot - it is under modern day Colchester. The same capital, incidentally, that was burned to the ground by Boadicea to symbolise her rejection of that very Pax Romana. The historical Roman context explains who Arthur was, where Camelot was and why his sword was Ex-Calabra. Other "theories" are frankly garbage that make no historical sense whatsoever.
I wish I could just save this comment.
@@kellysouter4381 You can. Just highlight it and then print the selection to a document.
I'll never understand why people who deal with studying human remains are so literally minded.
I believe Arthur lies buried beneath every Iron Age hill fort in England. Hill forts are there, in your face, they are obviously from a lost era, a lost civilisation. Massive human efforts built by resolute people attached and part of the land.
I agree they are precious places @@AndyJarman, but I think the British people voted with their feet when they embraced the Pax Romana. Rome was not an imposition, it was a choice, and when it began to crumble most people struggled to restore it. We should also remember that there had never been a nation called "Britain" and the people of the time were not trying to defend "Britain" but rather the entire western region of the empire. As such, we should be looking for Arthurian connections, landmarks and relics not only in Britain but all over western Europe.
at 13:28 is the actual find that is always used on the opening scene of time team...always wondered what and where the bit being held up to the light came from ...now i actualy know what where and even now by whom it was being held up to the sun for inspection by. wonderful
WOW🎉
👁️🗨️👁️🗨️🔎Great🤔👍🏼& SHARING🥳
Very interesting. The name Arthur will probably never be proven, but this opened a window on ancient history.
It is proven, he was a welsh king who fought against the saxons. His cousin was st teilo.
Fascinating exploration into the search for the legendary King Arthur and Camelot. Can't wait to see what the archaeologists uncover next!
@@Helieos45 sure???
My guy. . . This was back in the 1960's. Archeologist have found thousands of things since then. Or are you talking specifically about Camelot?
My personal view is that 'Camalot' is the massive Roman fort at Chester.
Real or myth ? ........ Whatever , Arthur has become a legend & his tales will live on .
These breathless videos with the Haydn-at-gunpoint soundtracks are almost good parody at this point...
Lol "Haydn-at-gunpoint" that's gold
King Arthur I and King Arthur II have already been found by Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett. Any conclusions that do not include the work of both those men are either poorly researched or purposely misdirecting you, period.
"He is harder to miss than he is to find." -Alan Wilson
I have heard in Wales there were Kings named Arthur, is this something to look into.
"And you must bring to us.... A shrubbery!"
I watched a documentary years ago about King arthur being a myth or based on reality. I don't remember much, but one thing that stuck in my mind was a quote from a very early manuscript "for all know of the warrior Arthur."(this was from the eastern mediterranean.)
There was also a hypothesis that many of the legends were based on two historical figures not one and perhaps that is the reason for a lot of the confusion and later embellishments didn't help.
Our history is researched by Egypt who always try to tie in Egyptian marriages.
Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett on YT
At the end of the day , Alcock was very smart indeed.
Perhaps it’s gone into mists like Avalon has
Avallon is a living city. It’s in Burgundy. This story element is drawn from the life of Riothamus.
I wonder if camelot may have been a literary transcribing of a once double barrel linguistic name.
Caer Merlot or Caer Merlin for instance.
Especially as Merlin (europena falcon) Merle (blackbird) was supposed to be the designer of the fort.
More so with the relationship with blood and wine and the last supper and of the round table of 12/13 as the disciplined/disciples and the 13 sidereal phases or 12 synodic full/new period of the moon
That Sothic 360" Year circle + 5 epagonemal days, is that of the human anatomy with the radian as the 1 second circle of 57.6" major or 60" passus minor.
And its 10:1 fractals of Stonehenge, human, skull with crosed solar burst, and 3rd eye.
If you say so Baldrick go on tell us another one 😂
Does anybody know what the music is @ 38:44 & 41:20? Thanking in advance.
I thought Camelot's location was Camulodunum in Slack, West yorkshire.
The Mabinogion cites Arthur dining with his knights at the Castle of the Legion on Usk, Caerleon.
Camelot is near seers village and catherby I sometimes climb white wolf mountains that’s near there. Whenever I’m on vacation.gielinor is such a beautiful place.
Great place for a staycation I suggest a boat trip to port sarim
It’s a fictional place. It was first written by Geoffrey of Monmouth in his book, “History of the Kings of Britain.” King Arthur was a conglomeration of several Kings, not one. The Knights of the Roundtable originated in France with Cretien de Troyes’ writings.
just lile atlantis, but isnt it fun to see these peeps searching hehe
Once and future king.
T.H. White (1958), based on "Le Morte d'Arthur" by Sir Thomas Malory.
They should go looking for the witch’s house made of sweets too!
Hell yah I love RuneScape
Mr Alcock reminds me of Terry Thomas.
Another great presentation.
Thank you for your effort’s.
Always good stuff and without pathetic adverts and such greasy garbage.
Proves the point that good content will always outweigh having to resort to whoring oneself for some shit commercials.
The landscape is perfect for a castle ill say that and im sure at some point someone else seen that also
At 15:01, wasn't it possible to use a historically correct map?
Indeed carry on with this historical research as some of my suspecions are being confirmed by these continued documentaries! Actually its amazing to here them being confirmed by additional ancient writtings. So my basic theories are actually being confirmed as to the cause of these ancient invasions!
A rather silly place
It's only a model.
Id rather Camelot than lets say Afghanistan or somethin
@@jsy-takit's a line from a Monty Python movie, "the Holy Grail".
….read my mind! where did you get a coconut?
From a African Swallow😂 @@nohalfmeasures2773
It's only a model.
18:42 Red & white double rose, white & green background. Looks very Tudor for Edward I.
I’m glad the study of history has gone through a transition to a field much more realistic and scientific! We have to look at ancient or even just very old texts for what they are prior to freedom of speech and that is historical propaganda. There are always truthful and factual ELEMENTS, but things are being told a certain way to accomplish a goal, the gain sympathy or generate pride and glory to your cause, etc.
A Legend that also inspire me in the fantasy books I am writing using Ser Lancelot and Excalibur, twice in the time line that goes on in my books. Once with Leonardo da Vinci some 500 years ago, and in present time. This legend will never die for writers of fantasy :)
Я читал его(арлока) монографию. Она шикарная. А ещк читал города кента дарка. У с нет возможности купить его вторую монографию про пост романскую британию. А это печально. Я против пиратства,но эту бы монографию спиратил 😅
Maerlin's forest is in France, as is the famous lake where Excalibur lays......I'm.pretty sure Avalon was in north Bretagne.
Read Chretien de Troy books about the Graal legend he wrote a few of the first books about Arthurian mythology and characters
FALSE. The FIRST Tales of Arthur and Merlin were written in Wales SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS before the First French Fiction .. The Welsh Tales are based on history .. the French Tales are 1000% Fairy Tale and have nothing to do with the HISTORICAL ARTHUR or the HISTORICAL MERLIN ..
He's in Edinburgh haven't you heard of Arthur's seat? Plus, Merlin lived in Scotland and I believe that you will find that Camlon Falkirk area is Camelot
Saint Kentigern converted Merlin at Stobo near Pebbles.
Why didn't GB continue with the excavations and completely clear out the site? Why let it get overgrown?
It’s the finding of the truth that ends the “magic” of the story.
Have you tried colchester?
The romans called it Camelodunum... i.e. Camelod - One.
That would be a good place to start!
Don't ya think?
Just thought I would say...
🎤 I have to push the pramaaallllot!
🐦 🥥🐦
Camelot is Richmond in North Yorkshire, at the very centre of Britain.
Richmond’s builder was the great architect, soldier, diplomat, jurist, administrator and economic and political reformer, Alan Rufus.
In one battle, that of Hastings, he charged over water traps to devastate the English frontlines and rescue the surrounded Duke William from imminent death.
Alan’s ancestry was Welsh and Cornish according to the historic record, and Roman according to his Y-DNA.
How do we know that Alan Rufus is the ‘King Arthur’ of the Romances? It is due to the stories’ provenance. Alan was a co-founder of Monmouth Abbey, Geoffrey of Monmouth named Arthur’s family after Alan’s, Geffrei Gaimar and Wace of Jersey wrote admiringly of Alan’s prowess in battle against the English.
Thomas Malory’s “Le Morte d’Arthur” was named and edited by two of Alan’s heirs (*), whose aunt Catherine de Luxembourg was the widow of another of his heirs, Duke Arthur III of Brittany.
As for the Historia Brittonum and other accounts that mention Arthur, their oldest documents are centuries younger than Count Alan.
The oldest tale of the Mabinogian is Culhwch and Olwen, the text of which dates to 1060-1100.
(*) One of these was Edward IV's Queen, Elizabeth Woodville.
King Arthur or at least one of the figures he is based on was based in Glamorgan. Camelot most likely being a bastardisation of Caer Melyn (meaning yellow fort).
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake, [singing] her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they’d put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! - HELP! HELP! I’m being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a giveaway. Did you here that, did you here that, eh? That’s what I’m on about - did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn’t you?
Is this from Monty Python's film?
Yeah, classic scene 😂 "Constitutional Peasants"
An aquatic bint dispensing cutlery.
Oh, this dialog is a scream. Where did you get it?
Monty Python and the Holy Grail.@@manuellubian5709
Arthur was possibly a real person from the Dark Ages & may have been originally a Roman citizen. Good luck with finding any trace of that. But it is a wonderful legend. He certainly didn't have a suit of armor.
What's shown here doesn't indicate that Alcock believed he could name the leader in charge of the South Cadbury hall, much less prove the details of the Arthurian legend, even limited to Historia Brittonum. At most, he seems to have believed that he had found evidence that there was a kernel of truth behind Historia Brittonum's claim of a fortress from which someone had ruled, whom it rightly or wrongly named Arthur, and that this in turn, to some extent, increased the credibility of Historia Brittonum. The fact is, he was indisputably correct in that. Unusually for historical research and archeology, he followed the method of natural science. He formulated a theory, with a specific prediction. Then he performed an experiment that could potentially falsify the theory. That's solid science.
The theory was that there was a kernel of truth to Historia Brittonum's version of the Arthurian legend. The prediction was that there would be a Dark Ages fortification on a specific hill. The experiment was an excavation. The falsification would've been if he didn't find a Dark Age fortification. Then he found a Dark Age fortification, exactly where he predicted he would. There's absolutely no room for doubt that this is scientific evidence that there's a kernel of truth to Historia Brittonum's version of the Arthurian legend. It's simply a fact that it fulfills all the criteria. Snotty youngsters within the field who claim otherwise are making a laughing stock of themselves and their understanding of methodology.
However, very importantly, scientific evidence isn't absolute evidence. To definitively confirm a theory requires many predictions and many substantiations (in theory, infinitely many, though consensus tends to occur after a mere extremely many), without any falsification occurring. So, it's not definitive proof, and no one should draw a final conclusion from it, but it most definitely is evidence.
Finally, it makes sense that the Anglo-Saxon migration was far more complex than many have imagined, including more politics and trade, and probably less movement of populations. However, imagining that it was an entirely peaceful process is naive beyond belief. There was an increase in the number of people with competing ambitions; that inevitably results in conflict. Some of those people were rulers; conflict between rulers will always result in implied threats of military force. Implied threats of military force always carries a significant risk of actual war. If there are dozens of petty kings, hundreds of undisciplined earls and chiefs, and thousands of miscellaneous political operators, over a period of many years, there will inevitably be many battles fought. One leader fighting 12 battles in his lifetime doesn't seem at all implausible.
I don't know if it matters anymore if it was true. It was too long ago to make a difference in our lives. What's fascinating is the archaeology, the way archaeologists put together a jigsaw puzzle.
"King Arthur: The True Story" by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman is an interesting resource if you're interested in the legends of Arthur. They claim that Arthur is in fact Owain Ddantgwyn (The Bear), who was based in the old roman city of Wroxeter, in Shrophire.
He was the last Grail King it's all been gaslit by the Illuminati families because he is from the grail Line. His soul is a Eternal Solar Dragon and never left/Stasis. He will be reseated with his wife in the Albion UK.
Such out of date stuff !!!! see the 2017 Archaeology Dig by CAU at Tintagel
Ive always been interested in artorios pendragon ive read a book called firelord about arthurs life from child to adult theres another book called the once and future king when it comes to misterios historical characters that there isnt much documentation on you have to be able to seperate the facts from the legends arthur is just as historical as julias ceaser or george washinton hes just less documented
You will never find it, coz you’re searching in the wrong place. The drama of King Arthur and Camelot all happened in continental Europe, especifically in today’s Switzerland.
FALSE
'Set in stone' can also have another meaning beyond the literal.
It can also mean something that is permanently agreed and can not be changed. Eternal. A Covenant.
Like facts being facts and truth being truth.
Interstingly a christian parallel to the burning sword at the gateway to another world, but also a matephor for the word and truth as a burning tongue.
Something that is also unbreakable. Where truth is relfected by judge and 12 jurors. Hence the final judgement.
Anyone interested should get a copy of Holy Kingdom by Adrian Gilbert. He presents the tireless research done by Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett in a very cohesive and easy to understand manner.
" I think I'll call you What ."
The there is the frozen ice cavern associate with merlin.
The thermal spectrum of the human anatomy is 1 radian in thermal degrees, using -22C as the freezing point of saturated saline.
That needs scientific study of the phenomena in a relvant location...frozen saline...sea cave with temperatures below -22C.
But with the study of ice, also comes the study of the reflection and refraction of water...aka Rainbows.
This is also the nature of scrying.
Someday.........it will be found .🤔🤔
If Arthur was a Romano/Briton trained and raised in the last years of Roman occupation he would have taken a centralized formidable Roman fortification as his power center not some bronze age hillfort rebuilt from scratch ! It would have to be located on a centrally located road system with the surrounding territory highly condusive to horse raising . The central theme of the Arthorian legend being based on cavalry / fast reaction units . That Arthur is a real person I've never doubted , such a person had to have existed and been an important figure to have inspired such an deeply rooted legacy !
Avalon and Camelot are inside the Earth. You can't find them here. Just like all these mythical cities they exist inside under the inner sun. In a place with no death and no rain as Arthur says.
"It's only a model"
Caburn. In your own time.
14:01 ... it's been said that the Dark Ages were made DELIBERATELY 'Dark' ...
I'm not to familiar with British country side cause I'm American but although I'm an American this has always peaked my interest cause I know my fore father's came from across the lake some Brits and Americans share same harrietage I love story's anything about Arthur Merlin Camelot Excalibur
The problem I have with this is in most cases you have science leading the archeology. Anytime, people stray from the science and let myth, or religious beliefs start to dictate what you find, then you will find it whether it is it or not.
There were several generals and chieftains in the 5th and 6th centuries, several hillforts built or reoccupied. Britannia had problems with pirates and raiders from the continent for a long time, way before the fall of the Empire. After the Roman troops had left, some of the "barbarian" warriors and mercenaries were hired by noble Britons for protection against the Scots and Picts and some of those raiders. Then some Anglo-Saxon tribes did attack,i nvade and take over land, whereas others just migrated peacefully looking for a better life. It all depends on the when and where. All the different peoples that inhabited Britain in that period and for a while longer fought each other at some point, got along at some other points in time, traded with each other...it wasn't a one directional thing with completely separate cultures that had no contact and nothing to do with each other. Obviously there were more or less organized armies, there were castles, there were battles and everything. Even the name Arthur has roots in Rome with the "Gens Artoria", a noble family that had several military officials and was well established in Britannia. There were other warlords with similar sounding names or with nicknames that could be interpreted as variations of Arthur. Maybe it was just a very popular name in the middle ages. There was most likely not ONE Arthur, not ONE Camelot but many leaders and forts that kinda were merged into one for storytelling purposes.
My questions, raised by this excellent documentary, contemptoraly who were the Britons? Where did they live?
The britons were the Celtic people (welsh, bretons, Cornish etc) they lived in the lands of Briton and when the English(anglo saxons) came the Britons were pushed back to the area now known as wales. The Cornish and bretons aren’t really around anymore due to being incorporated into the English. But the true Britons are the welsh
Excalibur wasn’t in the stone. Lady of the Lake gave him Excalibur. Speaking of the legends and stories I know of, of course, given there was no was such thing as a sword in the stone or a lady in a lake. 😊
On dear no, Excalibur was the sword given to him by the lady of the lake. The sword in the stone had a different name.
Very interesting 😊😊😊😊😊😊😊😊
Dark age “castles” wouldn’t have been “castles.” Wish they had stated that by now. (Minute 13-14.)
the problem is no one know the area, but its no doubt that he existed. one day the remains of a castle will be found, after all Greek and other nations still have their historical remains and the timing was even longer than king Arthur's time
History? The blind leading the blind!
Ridiculous the amount of advertisement in these interesting documentaries .
Arthur legend is heavily wrapped up in history of Charlemaine Arturious was but a mix of some 20 men around time of Roman empire collapse
I hate to say it but King Arthur andd Guebivere were ny ancestors.Quitr a little shock for me too.
Could this be Authur's place? I think it is possible and I think that it is possible that Authur was a real person, but I also think that Authur could have been someone with who legends are made. He could have been a real person who actually done "X" and then is credited with "U, V, W, Y and Z". In other words, he could have been a true "War Lord" whose exploits and legend grew over time, and this is his place. It is just an idea.
They didn't have sat nav back then
Very interesting. But can you Please turn down that music. Its not even background !
As usual Oxbridge Historians are on the wrong track there were two Arthur's the first one was the Eldest Son of Magnus Maximus Co Western Roman Emperor 383-388 AD (Macsen Wledig) to give him his Welsh Name he was assassinated by his Co Emperor who also tried to kill his son Arthwys aka Artvengarius also known as Guy of Warwick who evaded capture and death to reach Britain,he organised the resistance to Rome's attempt to retake Britannia/Wales having a serious of campaigns against Vortigern's Regime inc fighting against Vortigern;s Saxon Mercenaries later Allies then to overrule the hapless Vortigern when they realised that he was an empty shell.The second King Arthur was born C 530AD and died of his wounds after the Battle of Camlann 579AD as his nephew Medraut allied himself with the invading Vandals a Germanic Tribe evicted from N Africa in 551AD by Justinian of Constantinople since then had invaded and ravaged Ireland the Irish having united and thrown them out.These Vandals being routed fled eastwards settling in the Midlands becoming the Mercians as these lands were sparsely populated after the Comet Airburst of 562AD they appear again in 620AD allying themselves with the NE Celts,Forty years would be enough time to invigorate themselves to start expanding the Mercian Domains again.
AURTUR WAS welsh.
And
2 of them
1 re-buried IN ENG LAND.
but its in WALES.❤
What if King Arthur is a legend not because he didn't exist but because he wasn't English but a young sailor from Lusitania of Jewish origin? During the confusion of the Roman withdrawal from Britain, he ended up being forgotten on land in Titangel. He immigrated to the south of England on foot and ended up having to work as a blacksmith to avoid starving. Arthur specialized in making bronze swords in stone molds. When his workshop was destroyed by a Saxon attack he swore revenge and with his last sword he joined a band of Englishmen fighting the damned invaders. Standing out for his courage, brutality and treachery, the hero of Lusitania ended up becoming an English warrior leader and created a fortified village on a hill that he called Camel lot (camel in honor of his Jewish ancestors who raised and sold camels in the surrounding area of Caesarea). But unfortunately for Lusitania, after his death the real nationality of the real Arthur began to be omitted until at a certain point the cunning English storytellers began to say that he had been born in England.😂😂
King Arthur is possibly a Pict??
Glastonbury is 500 years after Arthur watch Wilson and blacket.
So you are saying that in 500AD there were Norman style castles in Briton? I suggest Camelot was built of wood
The brilliant, real, actual history of these islands constantly gets ignored in favour of Celtic/Victorian fantasies.
Mel Gibson even made a hugely successful movie based on nonsense.
Pop history will always ring hollow - as this ridiculous video (with pop fiction authors selling ridiculous books) demonstrates.
No-one on this channel knows what they are talking about. Ken Dark says that Arthur was not a king but was given the title of battle leader. Historia Brittonum has "Tunc Arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus cum regibus Brittonum, sed ipse dux erat bellorum." Had Dux Bellorum been a title it would not have been split by the verb and would have been written "sed ipse dux bellorum erat". That he fought together with the kings of Britain as battle leader does not preclude that he himself was a king. The channel is also wrong that Geoffrey of Monmouth mentioned the Round Table and Camelot. He did not. Not until Wace and Chretien de Troyes were they respectively mentioned. The research is of a very poor standard.
Isn't Camelot supposed to have been the original Roman capitol, Camelodunum? That seems pretty on the nose.
Today, there's a technology that lets archaeologists detect structures under the ground without digging. I don't remember its name. It's been used to find ancient structures in South America and Cambodia.
Are you thinking of lydar?
LIDAR
There are geophysical survey techniques that could be used but they won’t give very clear results. And once analysed, the ground will need to be dug anyway to work out what’s down there. I recommend watching some Time Team episodes to see “geophyz.” being used and then after they dig up the hits they find nothing.
And theres alot of legends surounding merlin also and once again u have to be able to seperate fact from fiction
How are they going to find a fictional Kingdom?
On quite an important level it's about the existence of Christianity in Britain before the Norman Conquest. King Arthur is not really dead if he died in union with Christ, in a state of sanctifying grace.
A lot of people here are poking fun at it and comparing it to Atlantis. Sure, most of it is myth and legend. But just like Atlantis, people thought Troy was a legend only to be discovered a little over 100 years ago. Most of these stories start with a base of truth.