Emory Williams lecture on November 2, 2016 by Professor Dorsey Armstrong, Professor of English at Purdue University. For more information, visit college.emory.edu/home/academi....
I was just about to type something similar, scrolled down, and saw your remark! I totally agree, Dorsey Armstrong should have her own show or something
We "discovered" Professor Armstrong via our library's Kanopy subscription which presents many of the Great Courses - and what a treasure! We've gone through the Black Death and Arthurian lectures and are currently absorbing "The Year That Changed History 2015" of 24 lectures. As history aficionados, my wife and I are enthralled by Dr. Armstrong's knowledge and excellent presentations. History is seldom better taught!
Interesting lecture. Professor Armstrong is a fine lecturer. For more in-depth on the Middle Ages, listen to The Medieval World on the Great Courses. She is the lecturer in that one and does a great job.
Such a wonderful lecture. Been looking for something like this on UA-cam for a while now, no-nonsense, just sorting through the facts and history of Arthur. So interesting
She mentions how the Monty Python movie "King Arthur and the Holy Grail" stood the test of time. (Possibly tongue in cheek). True fact is that Terry Jones was a medievalist and wrote books on Chaucer.
If you look closely at the bookcase in the set for her Great Courses lectures you’ll see a set of coconuts. Why would those be there? Dorsey is a very interesting medieval history professor!
Dr. Armstrong is a very friendly person and a great lecturer (IMO). I’ve watched all three of her lecture courses (~12+ hours each) on The Great Courses Plus. One was a vastly expanded version of this lecture; incidentally, she’s the editor of the chief journal of research about Arthur legends, called Arthuriana (if I remember correctly). Just as interesting if not more so was her course about The Black Death, the plague(s) that devastated much of Asia and especially Europe in the 14th century. And the third course was about important and notable people throughout the Middle Ages. The only quibble I have with some of these filmed talks on UA-cam is that it sounds like someone recorded them with a potato. Seriously I have my iPad volume almost maxed out and it’s still pretty darned quiet. I have some headphones and a headphones amplifier that I could put it through to crank it up, but then UA-cam would definitely to cut to a loud ad and obliterate my head. For God’s sake, please normalize the volume on these videos!
@@darryljones8369 I completely agree a real welsh historian who has dedicated his life to finding the truth and who is confident in his abilities cymru am byth 😁
Wilson and Blackett have all the details on both Arthurs . Common knowledge to most Welsh people . no mystery at all . The books have been written in great Detail . an Excellent read .
3:15 Merlin, also known as Myrddin, is actually named Moros in ancient times, back when he was the last high councillor of Atlantis, before the Lanteans fled from the Pegasus Galaxy due to the lost Lantean-Wraith war. Moros later ascended, then upon realising the Ori threat made himself mortal again and created the legend of King Arthur, by inviting a few trusted humans into the small circle of people who knew about the threat the Ori posed.
@ 7:00 "They needed tin _for whatever reason_ ..." LOL! It's because tin is used to make bronze which was an important material at that time; that's why. Just fyi. ; )
Came here to say this. Makes me wonder what kind of scholar doesn’t know why the Romans wanted tin. That and not staying up on the DNA research on the Celts, and taking the Anglo-Saxon version of the invasion of Britain at face value…hella sus.
King of Glamorgan and Gwent South Wales, there’s no mystery about it go to Llandaf cathedral he’s on the stain glass window there and his grand father Twdrig , he’s in the book of Llandaf, or just look up Wilson and Blackett,
"Who is there , I ask , who does not speak of Arthur the Briton , since he is less little known to peoples of Asia than to the Britons as we are informed by pilgrims who return from Eastern lands? The peoples of the East speak of him as do the West , though separated by the breath of the whole earth. Egypt speaks of him , nor is the Bosporous silent. Rome , queen of cities , sings his deeds and his wars are known to her former rival Carthage. Anticoh , Armenia and Palestine celebrate his feats." Alain de Lille (1170) ... give "ARTHUR of the Goddoddin" a read ... take care ...
Very nice lecture, thank you. By the way, Hallam wrote that his father pronounced "Idylls" with a "long i": "EYE-d'lls". I, too was "corrected" to pronounce it with a "short i" as "IH-d'lls" when I was young. I have had to re-habituate myself to the right wrong pronunciation. :-)
I have always pronounced it EYE-dills. I didn’t even know there was a question about it. The short I sounds silly to my ears. Is it a US/British difference like Zeb- bra and ze-bra and alu-MIN-e-um?
That Arthur movie at the end with the Viking guy and Lord Bolton looks as bad as the other Arthur movie--no one ever gets it right, not Excalibur or any of them...Game of Thrones used some Arthurian ideas. If only someone would put the same effort as Thrones to Malory, it could be done, yet as usual, it could be totally screwed up--again. I like Professor Armstrong have become obsessed with Malory (Howard Pyle's version as a kid was a good rated G version of Malory, by the way)...Tennyson I can't get into poetry...T.H. White and other remakes I didn't like...But Malory--he was a genius, he took all the previous tales and added to them. And it's the spiritual message amid the knightly battles and jousting and chivalry and magic that is really the ultimate greatness of the work--spiritual hope in a mad world, spiritual hope after a great kingdom falls apart tragically. Malory could relate as England was in a civil war at the time with two kings fighting for the throne, the War of the Roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster (you can see how Game of Thrones took off on that with House Stark and House Lannister or how Jon Snow had a hidden royal birth like Arthur)...it's also interesting that the English line of Kings from Alfred the Great to William the Conqueror to Queen Elizabeth had created the fiction (maybe when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote the first version from Welsh folklore), that someone in the royal Saxon/Norman line had married into Arthur's lineage. I get a kick out of that.
I love the Arthurian legendary, but her speech is so exaggerated, because there are many historical characters and mythological characters are much popular than King Arthur.
King Arthur wasn't welsh ? so why is king Arthur's genealogy recorded at Llandaff cathedral Cardiff south wales with him on the stained glass windows ?
@@yohei72 genealogy is for tracing your family line for proof of kingship and pedigree and owning wealth land and property so how the hell is it made up lol
@@jackieroberts7895 Exactly, which is why it wasn't uncommon to fabricate parts of your genealogy to enhance the prestige or power of yourself, your family, your nation, your region of the country, etc. It's quite well known to historians that medieval (and other pre-modern) records often have political and/or religious agendas that make them unreliable. That's elementary. Almost all professional historians, "Anglo-Saxon" or otherwise, agree that Arthur is a largely or entirely fictional character, and that the records claiming to tell his true story are unreliable, based on a careful weighing of all the available evidence. You, on the other hand, are cherry-picking particular bits of evidence that you believe tell the story you want to hear.
And unless I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about, those stained glass windows are barely over 100 years old, so I'm not sure how they're evidence of anything that may have happened well over 1,000 years ago.
@@yohei72 of course they are going to say he is a myth the Anglo Saxons were his enemy's and welsh history is completely ignored he belongs to everyone except the welsh Bretons themselves and you wonder why the welsh are pissed off so anything what the English say is load of crap and try to claim him as there own even though they are Anglo Saxon lol
@@guillermofiscal4897 No such thing as a 'Fallen Angel', a Fallen Angel is an indoctrinated falsehood, Angels by their very nature cannot be Fallen. However two Angels in particular Samael and Azrael (Nephilim) became 'Evil Spirits' (not 'Fallen Angels') by losing their name, turning evil and becoming Semyaza and Azazel, and then procuring the 'daughters of men' into fashion, prostitution and wickedness. Of course this is only a matter of opinion. Views vary.
Me, every time: I'd like hear/read about one or a few of the 'original' Arthurian legends. The Internet, every time: HE WASN'T REALLY A KING, STUPID! Me: I know. I just wanted to hear the- The Internet: HE WASN'T EVEN BRITISH, MAYBE ROMAN, DEFINITELY A CELT. Me: Yeah, I know that. I was just wondering about- The Internet: GUINEVERE WASN'T REALLY A QUEEN. AND MERLIN DEFINITELY ISN'T REAL. GET A CLUE! WHY WOULD YOU EVEN THINK THAT? ROUND TABLE? WRONG! Me: Obviously. But what I wanted to hear was not about historicity but the actual leg- The Internet: THE HOLY GRAIL ISN'T EVEN A REAL THING. STOP ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS! Me: Okay, never mind. Seriously, can we just hear or talk about the actual legends for once?
I love the way Malory pieced all the legends together into a "whole booke"...Game of Thrones helped me rediscover how great the Malory legend is (can anyone ever make a good movie of it--I doubt it)...something about this version that's special and reflects the later history of Malory's Britain too. Also, the spiritual message is ultimately the most powerful thing to come out of it.
Geoffrey of Monmouth translated the Welsh (Gaelic) into Latin, those are the original Arthur legends from the Celtic culture, the earliest version. Wace added to it later, people created more fiction to it, the French poets of Brittany Chreten de Troy invented characters, and others after in what they call the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate tales of Arthur and his Knights. Then Malory took them all and added his own spin on it.
@@MartinJoyceUFOConspiracy That is precisely the information I was looking for. I had read parts of Mallory and knew of Geoffrey, but I did not know that Geoffrey was translating the Gaelic tales into his own tongue. That is exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you, Martin!
@@joshuapray No problem, Joshua, I'm fascinated by the Arthur tales and how they were written...I dabbled with some research, Geoffrey was a monk who became a priest and then a bishop, I think he rose in rank because of his literary achievement, his book the History of British Kings was written in the Norman Era for the royalty it seems, who wanted to create the fiction that Arthur's lineage married into the Saxon/Norman line at some point. Geoffrey translated the Welsh Gaelic to Latin, but I think he may've invented tales too, i.e. the original British King was Britto or Brutus of Troy, who was related to the Trojan hero Hector. I think it was to glamorize the lineage when in fact those Celts of Arthur's time were rather primitive. And before the Romans, there may've been Mediterranean mariners who came to Briton to get tin for bronze. The fiction that Briton got it's name from Britto or Brutus of Troy is just that, fiction...it was Caesar who named the Celts Pritani (or Britani) meaning painted ones, the Celts with their face paint and tattoos. Historically Arthur was probably just a renowned chieftain who fought some battles against the Saxons, and all the fiction was built up around him down through the years and centuries.
The Glastonbury connection is nonsense. It must be understood in the context of the Anglo-Norman destruction of Cymru. Arthur was appropriated by the English.
Arthrwys, or Arthur, spelled both ways in the Llandaff Charters, was king of Gwent and Glamorgan. No myth. No legend. Just a real king. His father was Meurig and his grandfather was Tewdric, both also kings of Gwent and Glamorgan. See the works of Wilson and Blackett, who brought the truth to light. Google Pro Anima Artorius. People are just confusing the literary Arthur, who was obviously a myth, with the real Arthrwys.
The Artognou stone has nothing to do with Arthur (it's a totally different name etymologically), and the monks' "discovery" of Arthur and Guinevere's graves is widely understood to be a hoax. I suggest reading Caitlin Green and Nick Higham, among others. Basically there is next to no evidence that Arthur wasn't entirely legendary right from the start, and if he is based on a real historical figure we will likely never be able to confirm it. edit - and none of the places she mentions - are connected with Arthur until the 12th century either. South Cadbury is total conjecture. So much wishful thinking here.
Arthur is named by people in a few documents including Mercator and John Dee..he existed and that is straight fact. We may not know exact details but it would be foolish to ignore mentions of him from prominent figures who talk of him as a real person
Wasn't Arthur a Celtic Briton so that even if he lived in what is now England back then it was Briton but the legend was preserved by the Celts of Wales when the Anglo-Saxons established England. That said, didn't Monmouth translate the Welsh to Latin for the Norman Royalty, I think, with the idea they made up that Arthur's lineage married into the line of Alfred and William sometime around the Plantagenets. Which methinks was a political ploy to get Celts to feel like they were part of the Anglo-Saxon culture, a way to create British unity through a folk tale.
@@MartinJoyceUFOConspiracy He would have been in the west of the Island, around Cornwall/Wales. Have a look at where locations like Cadbury Hill Fort are located.
@@kentallard8852 Yeah that's cool thanks (and what an amazing beautiful part of the British Isle! a majestic place for a chieftan to rally the Celts to fight back the Saxons, worth fighting for, legendary...now I'm into reading Mallory, how the Normans mythologized Arthur (from Geoffrey Monmouth to the French Vulgate tales) to make him a part of their Lineage--pure myth but good metaphors and reflects the Saxon and Norman history, a way to draw the Celts into British Unity even, whether effective or not...plus the quest for the Holy Grail supersedes all as our spiritual quest for the beyond...and written in the 1400s, amazing...
More politicised and heavily Anglicised nonsense by another so-called historian who couldn't be bothered to properly research her subject. Read the Welsh charters and educate yourself!
Here from the Wired video featuring this fascinating woman. She’s been doing this for a hot minute. Very cool.
I was just about to type something similar, scrolled down, and saw your remark! I totally agree, Dorsey Armstrong should have her own show or something
@@mikemarave2275Dr. Dorsey Armstrong ;)
Same. She needs a podcast, at a minimum.
Same 😂
@@thedukeofno She’s the best. She has quite a few audiobooks for Great Courses.
We "discovered" Professor Armstrong via our library's Kanopy subscription which presents many of the Great Courses - and what a treasure!
We've gone through the Black Death and Arthurian lectures and are currently absorbing "The Year That Changed History 2015" of 24 lectures.
As history aficionados, my wife and I are enthralled by Dr. Armstrong's knowledge and excellent presentations.
History is seldom better taught!
I’m going to have to sign up for Great Courses lol she’s so cool
Interesting lecture. Professor Armstrong is a fine lecturer. For more in-depth on the Middle Ages, listen to The Medieval World on the Great Courses. She is the lecturer in that one and does a great job.
I agree; she's excellent. I just bought her recent "Great Courses" lectures on The Black Death from Audible, and I'm already on my second listen.
I love her lectures. Her books are great.
AGREED lovely lady first rate scholar most likely lop your head off in combat.
I have tracked down all of her Great Courses of hers I can find. If it is possible to be a fan girl to a lecturer, I am one.
Such a wonderful lecture. Been looking for something like this on UA-cam for a while now, no-nonsense, just sorting through the facts and history of Arthur. So interesting
Check out the work of Alan Wilson.
@@richdj9780 I know him very well. His work is magnificent. One of the countries best historians
@@ChimozuFu I don't think he would have liked this "lecture"
She is such an amazing speaker! I can listen to her lectures all day!
An amazing puppet to the English Anglo saxons
She mentions how the Monty Python movie "King Arthur and the Holy Grail" stood the test of time. (Possibly tongue in cheek). True fact is that Terry Jones was a medievalist and wrote books on Chaucer.
If you look closely at the bookcase in the set for her Great Courses lectures you’ll see a set of coconuts. Why would those be there?
Dorsey is a very interesting medieval history professor!
50 years ago or so I might have been sitting in that lecture hall. Hail Purdue!
Dr. Armstrong is a very friendly person and a great lecturer (IMO). I’ve watched all three of her lecture courses (~12+ hours each) on The Great Courses Plus. One was a vastly expanded version of this lecture; incidentally, she’s the editor of the chief journal of research about Arthur legends, called Arthuriana (if I remember correctly). Just as interesting if not more so was her course about The Black Death, the plague(s) that devastated much of Asia and especially Europe in the 14th century. And the third course was about important and notable people throughout the Middle Ages. The only quibble I have with some of these filmed talks on UA-cam is that it sounds like someone recorded them with a potato. Seriously I have my iPad volume almost maxed out and it’s still pretty darned quiet. I have some headphones and a headphones amplifier that I could put it through to crank it up, but then UA-cam would definitely to cut to a loud ad and obliterate my head. For God’s sake, please normalize the volume on these videos!
A lot of this is nonsense. They erased our history. Check out Alan Wilson.
@@darryljones8369 I completely agree a real welsh historian who has dedicated his life to finding the truth and who is confident in his abilities cymru am byth 😁
Very nice lecture indeed. I wish our lecturers were like that!
Excellent lecture, Prof Armstrong knows her stuff
No she knows nothing just a repeater of the Anglo saxons
What a great lecturer! Thanks for uploading
She's a puppet for the English Anglo Saxons
need to show the map and the slides to see what she is talking about
Wilson and Blackett have all the details on both Arthurs . Common knowledge to most Welsh people . no mystery at all . The books have been written in great Detail . an Excellent read .
wonderful oratorical story based on a rewritten history.
It disturbs me that she doesn't mention the greatest King Arthur movie of all time Excalibur???
Haha. That is one of the best for sure. That and Merlin the TV movie with Sam Niel
3:15 Merlin, also known as Myrddin, is actually named Moros in ancient times, back when he was the last high councillor of Atlantis, before the Lanteans fled from the Pegasus Galaxy due to the lost Lantean-Wraith war. Moros later ascended, then upon realising the Ori threat made himself mortal again and created the legend of King Arthur, by inviting a few trusted humans into the small circle of people who knew about the threat the Ori posed.
I hope she has read Bernard Cornwell's Arthur trilogy, pretty much crafts a Britain in which she is describing.
Wired sent me here!
@ 7:00 "They needed tin _for whatever reason_ ..." LOL! It's because tin is used to make bronze which was an important material at that time; that's why. Just fyi. ; )
Came here to say this. Makes me wonder what kind of scholar doesn’t know why the Romans wanted tin. That and not staying up on the DNA research on the Celts, and taking the Anglo-Saxon version of the invasion of Britain at face value…hella sus.
not showing the slides , like it is audio only
King of Glamorgan and Gwent South Wales, there’s no mystery about it go to Llandaf cathedral he’s on the stain glass window there and his grand father Twdrig , he’s in the book of Llandaf, or just look up Wilson and Blackett,
Alan Wilson is the true historian this is just rubbish 🗑😑
Cymru am byth 😁
"Who is there , I ask , who does not speak of Arthur the Briton , since he is less little known to peoples of Asia than to the Britons as we are informed by pilgrims who return from Eastern lands? The peoples of the East speak of him as do the West , though separated by the breath of the whole earth. Egypt speaks of him , nor is the Bosporous silent. Rome , queen of cities , sings his deeds and his wars are known to her former rival Carthage. Anticoh , Armenia and Palestine celebrate his feats." Alain de Lille (1170) ... give "ARTHUR of the Goddoddin" a read ... take care ...
What about Excalibur the movie? That one was great
Henric AM Bronkhorst
A brilliant movie. It was as if there was a vid cam at Camelot just filming what happened.
Very nice lecture, thank you.
By the way, Hallam wrote that his father pronounced "Idylls" with a "long i": "EYE-d'lls". I, too was "corrected" to pronounce it with a "short i" as "IH-d'lls" when I was young. I have had to re-habituate myself to the right wrong pronunciation. :-)
I have always pronounced it EYE-dills. I didn’t even know there was a question about it. The short I sounds silly to my ears. Is it a US/British difference like Zeb- bra and ze-bra and alu-MIN-e-um?
Great lecture but how did she not mention John Boorman's Excalibur at the end? Come on man!
"They need tin, for whatever reason" :)
That Arthur movie at the end with the Viking guy and Lord Bolton looks as bad as the other Arthur movie--no one ever gets it right, not Excalibur or any of them...Game of Thrones used some Arthurian ideas. If only someone would put the same effort as Thrones to Malory, it could be done, yet as usual, it could be totally screwed up--again.
I like Professor Armstrong have become obsessed with Malory (Howard Pyle's version as a kid was a good rated G version of Malory, by the way)...Tennyson I can't get into poetry...T.H. White and other remakes I didn't like...But Malory--he was a genius, he took all the previous tales and added to them. And it's the spiritual message amid the knightly battles and jousting and chivalry and magic that is really the ultimate greatness of the work--spiritual hope in a mad world, spiritual hope after a great kingdom falls apart tragically.
Malory could relate as England was in a civil war at the time with two kings fighting for the throne, the War of the Roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster (you can see how Game of Thrones took off on that with House Stark and House Lannister or how Jon Snow had a hidden royal birth like Arthur)...it's also interesting that the English line of Kings from Alfred the Great to William the Conqueror to Queen Elizabeth had created the fiction (maybe when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote the first version from Welsh folklore), that someone in the royal Saxon/Norman line had married into Arthur's lineage. I get a kick out of that.
I love the Arthurian legendary, but her speech is so exaggerated, because there are many historical characters and mythological characters are much popular than King Arthur.
She forgot to mention that Arthur was actually a blonde girl that fell in love with a Japanese highschooler
Indeed archer
King Arthur wasn't welsh ? so why is king Arthur's genealogy recorded at Llandaff cathedral Cardiff south wales with him on the stained glass windows ?
You know that genealogy is made up, right? Arthur is fictional and so is any account of his family or ancestry.
@@yohei72 genealogy is for tracing your family line for proof of kingship and pedigree and owning wealth land and property so how the hell is it made up lol
@@jackieroberts7895 Exactly, which is why it wasn't uncommon to fabricate parts of your genealogy to enhance the prestige or power of yourself, your family, your nation, your region of the country, etc. It's quite well known to historians that medieval (and other pre-modern) records often have political and/or religious agendas that make them unreliable. That's elementary.
Almost all professional historians, "Anglo-Saxon" or otherwise, agree that Arthur is a largely or entirely fictional character, and that the records claiming to tell his true story are unreliable, based on a careful weighing of all the available evidence. You, on the other hand, are cherry-picking particular bits of evidence that you believe tell the story you want to hear.
And unless I'm misunderstanding what you're talking about, those stained glass windows are barely over 100 years old, so I'm not sure how they're evidence of anything that may have happened well over 1,000 years ago.
@@yohei72 of course they are going to say he is a myth the Anglo Saxons were his enemy's and welsh history is completely ignored he belongs to everyone except the welsh Bretons themselves and you wonder why the welsh are pissed off so anything what the English say is load of crap and try to claim him as there own even though they are Anglo Saxon lol
I know the truth to this legend, it's a place, feel free to ask questions
So where did the Angles come from, Atlantis?
MeMyself and I the grail itself.
Where? What place?
@@mjag2834 maybe fallen angels
@@guillermofiscal4897 No such thing as a 'Fallen Angel', a Fallen Angel is an indoctrinated falsehood, Angels by their very nature cannot be Fallen. However two Angels in particular Samael and Azrael (Nephilim) became 'Evil Spirits' (not 'Fallen Angels') by losing their name, turning evil and becoming Semyaza and Azazel, and then procuring the 'daughters of men' into fashion, prostitution and wickedness. Of course this is only a matter of opinion. Views vary.
Me, every time: I'd like hear/read about one or a few of the 'original' Arthurian legends.
The Internet, every time: HE WASN'T REALLY A KING, STUPID!
Me: I know. I just wanted to hear the-
The Internet: HE WASN'T EVEN BRITISH, MAYBE ROMAN, DEFINITELY A CELT.
Me: Yeah, I know that. I was just wondering about-
The Internet: GUINEVERE WASN'T REALLY A QUEEN. AND MERLIN DEFINITELY ISN'T REAL. GET A CLUE! WHY WOULD YOU EVEN THINK THAT? ROUND TABLE? WRONG!
Me: Obviously. But what I wanted to hear was not about historicity but the actual leg-
The Internet: THE HOLY GRAIL ISN'T EVEN A REAL THING. STOP ASKING THE WRONG QUESTIONS!
Me: Okay, never mind.
Seriously, can we just hear or talk about the actual legends for once?
I love the way Malory pieced all the legends together into a "whole booke"...Game of Thrones helped me rediscover how great the Malory legend is (can anyone ever make a good movie of it--I doubt it)...something about this version that's special and reflects the later history of Malory's Britain too. Also, the spiritual message is ultimately the most powerful thing to come out of it.
Geoffrey of Monmouth translated the Welsh (Gaelic) into Latin, those are the original Arthur legends from the Celtic culture, the earliest version. Wace added to it later, people created more fiction to it, the French poets of Brittany Chreten de Troy invented characters, and others after in what they call the Vulgate and Post-Vulgate tales of Arthur and his Knights. Then Malory took them all and added his own spin on it.
@@MartinJoyceUFOConspiracy That is precisely the information I was looking for. I had read parts of Mallory and knew of Geoffrey, but I did not know that Geoffrey was translating the Gaelic tales into his own tongue. That is exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you, Martin!
@@joshuapray No problem, Joshua, I'm fascinated by the Arthur tales and how they were written...I dabbled with some research, Geoffrey was a monk who became a priest and then a bishop, I think he rose in rank because of his literary achievement, his book the History of British Kings was written in the Norman Era for the royalty it seems, who wanted to create the fiction that Arthur's lineage married into the Saxon/Norman line at some point.
Geoffrey translated the Welsh Gaelic to Latin, but I think he may've invented tales too, i.e. the original British King was Britto or Brutus of Troy, who was related to the Trojan hero Hector. I think it was to glamorize the lineage when in fact those Celts of Arthur's time were rather primitive. And before the Romans, there may've been Mediterranean mariners who came to Briton to get tin for bronze.
The fiction that Briton got it's name from Britto or Brutus of Troy is just that, fiction...it was Caesar who named the Celts Pritani (or Britani) meaning painted ones, the Celts with their face paint and tattoos. Historically Arthur was probably just a renowned chieftain who fought some battles against the Saxons, and all the fiction was built up around him down through the years and centuries.
@@MartinJoyceUFOConspiracy welsh is Brythonic and Gaelic is Irish and Scottish
Sometimes she sounds like she's giving a briefing for a Delta Force Op.
The Glastonbury connection is nonsense. It must be understood in the context of the Anglo-Norman destruction of Cymru. Arthur was appropriated by the English.
Arthrwys, or Arthur, spelled both ways in the Llandaff Charters, was king of Gwent and Glamorgan. No myth. No legend. Just a real king. His father was Meurig and his grandfather was Tewdric, both also kings of Gwent and Glamorgan. See the works of Wilson and Blackett, who brought the truth to light. Google Pro Anima Artorius. People are just confusing the literary Arthur, who was obviously a myth, with the real Arthrwys.
Alan is the main man
I would say Beowulf is comparable to Arthur as far as longevity..
The Artognou stone has nothing to do with Arthur (it's a totally different name etymologically), and the monks' "discovery" of Arthur and Guinevere's graves is widely understood to be a hoax. I suggest reading Caitlin Green and Nick Higham, among others. Basically there is next to no evidence that Arthur wasn't entirely legendary right from the start, and if he is based on a real historical figure we will likely never be able to confirm it. edit - and none of the places she mentions - are connected with Arthur until the 12th century either. South Cadbury is total conjecture. So much wishful thinking here.
Arthur is named by people in a few documents including Mercator and John Dee..he existed and that is straight fact. We may not know exact details but it would be foolish to ignore mentions of him from prominent figures who talk of him as a real person
@@guillermofiscal4897 check out Alan Wilson and baram Blackett on king Arthur conspiracy its brilliant
If king Arthur wasn't welsh then why do the welsh have Arthurs red dragon on the welsh flag ?
Wasn't Arthur a Celtic Briton so that even if he lived in what is now England back then it was Briton but the legend was preserved by the Celts of Wales when the Anglo-Saxons established England. That said, didn't Monmouth translate the Welsh to Latin for the Norman Royalty, I think, with the idea they made up that Arthur's lineage married into the line of Alfred and William sometime around the Plantagenets. Which methinks was a political ploy to get Celts to feel like they were part of the Anglo-Saxon culture, a way to create British unity through a folk tale.
@@MartinJoyceUFOConspiracy He would have been in the west of the Island, around Cornwall/Wales. Have a look at where locations like Cadbury Hill Fort are located.
@@kentallard8852 Yeah that's cool thanks (and what an amazing beautiful part of the British Isle! a majestic place for a chieftan to rally the Celts to fight back the Saxons, worth fighting for, legendary...now I'm into reading Mallory, how the Normans mythologized Arthur (from Geoffrey Monmouth to the French Vulgate tales) to make him a part of their Lineage--pure myth but good metaphors and reflects the Saxon and Norman history, a way to draw the Celts into British Unity even, whether effective or not...plus the quest for the Holy Grail supersedes all as our spiritual quest for the beyond...and written in the 1400s, amazing...
@@kentallard8852 yes, awesome...I'm into reading Malory now...
@@MartinJoyceUFOConspiracy you should check out Alan Wilson and baram Blackett also
mohammed
Ok, You whan't to shout and scream about your dreams and beliefs, but other cultures say different because of different gods!
god, that guy ritchie film looks dreadful.
Alan Wilson is the main historian this woman hasn't got a clue about him
Hahahaha! Alan Wilson is a pseudohistorical crackpot on a level with Gavin Menzies and his "the Chinese discovered America" nonsense.
Cymru am byth
Sorry but her comments about Christ are off putting.
Why?
Because Jesus tales are 2000ish years old and the Bible is by far the most read book in history. It dwarves Arthurian legend.
Judge, Christianity didn't arrive in Britain until the late 5th century, around the time of Arthur, so it would make sense.
At the time one but clergy/monks or wealthy nobility could afford a bible until the invention of the printing press, let alone be able to read it.
More politicised and heavily Anglicised nonsense by another so-called historian who couldn't be bothered to properly research her subject. Read the Welsh charters and educate yourself!