|
|
|
|
|
Historians have been lit by the fire within for generations in the quest to find distinct clues that will conclusively point the way to the "real" Arthur. And even though several important scholars have voiced their convincing theories in the last few generations, conclusive proof remains elusive. Romantics and historians alike undoubtedly hope in no small part that no conclusive proof is ever found.
Now, this argument operates under a tremendous assumption: that the true story of Arthur will be disappointing in comparison to the supposed story of Arthur. Even from a historical point of view, Arthur is said to have been a great war leader who won at least a few smashing victories and with whose help the Britons stayed the Saxon migrations for many years. How would such historians feel if presented with evidence that the "real" Arthur was a lowly lieutenant whose name was misrepresented in early accounts and whose misrepresentation was perpetuated into full-blown mistaken identity? Does this sound silly? It might be. It also might not be. We simply don't know who Arthur was (or if his name really was Arthur), where he lived, where he fought, or any other of a long list of details. With such ignorance to go on, we can't rule out the possibility that he was a nobody. Some historians might very well be afraid to prove such a reality. We also can't rule out the possibility that he was a tremendously gifted warrior whose ability to win battles and inspire the hearts and strengths of men was as legendary as his deeds are said to be. Go To Page: 1 2 |
|
|
|