dagblog - Comments for "KING ARTHUR WAS DISTRAUGHT"

Well thank you Cville.

Richard Day — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:46:39 +0000

In reply to So glad to see you back, and

Well thank you Cville.

Long time no see.

Take care.

So glad to see you back, and

CVille Dem — Mon, 19 Oct 2015 14:08:57 +0000

In reply to KING ARTHUR WAS DISTRAUGHT

So glad to see you back, and this was excellent, as usual!

I enjoyed this. Thanks.

trkingmomoe — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:29:15 +0000

In reply to KING ARTHUR WAS DISTRAUGHT

I enjoyed this. Thanks.

I think the majority of

Aaron Carine — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:16:31 +0000

In reply to Nennius was aonk, as I recall

I think the majority of historians think that Arthur was historical, although everything after Nennius is mythical, or 98 percent mythical.

Nennius was aonk, as I recall

Richard Day — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:49:13 +0000

In reply to If you are interested, you

Nennius was a monk, as I recall, existing sometime in the early 9th century? and evidently surrounded by parchment. hahahhhahaa One page of his extant 'works' lists the twelve great battles led by Arthur as Dux Bellorum.

Since we really cannot count on Bede who hints at an Arthur in the early 8th Century but never really names him, Nennius is our first Arthurian historian.

With no cites. HAHAHAHA

So we are stuck with Geoffrey of Monmouth some three hundred years prior to Mallory and Geoffrey leaves us with no supporting data at all.

King Arthur is therefore a myth hidden in some legend lost to all of us.

Which makes me just love the legend

MrSmith1 — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 16:30:33 +0000

In reply to I read a whole bunch of books

Nicely done, DD.

I don't remember if I've asked you this before, but have you ever read Will Cuppy's "The Decline and Fall of Practically Everybody?" It was published posthumously in 1950. I discovered it when I was in either the 9th or 10th grade. Very dry humor about lots of historical figures. I think you'd enjoy reading it.

If you are interested, you

Aaron Carine — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:07:48 +0000

In reply to I read a whole bunch of books

If you are interested, you might want to read Nennius, who provides the earliest account of Arthur--the passing references to Arthur in earlier Welsh poetry aren't stories or narratives. But perhaps you have already read it.

I read a whole bunch of books

Richard Day — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:00:32 +0000

In reply to Very 11th century exclamation

I read a whole bunch of books on this subject!

Geoffrey of Monmouth (precursor to Oxford) certainly added to this fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N8oMW2v8KJ8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>Geoffrey_of_Monmouth

hahahahahh

Arthur most probably lived in the fifth or early sixth century. Ash is the real historian in regard to this issue. And of course his first name is Geoffrey. hahahahah

But, only in the 11th century, did HE survive. hahahahahah

Why it took six hundred years for us to hear about it? I do not know.

If you wish to have me bore you further....just ask

hahahahah

Very 11th century exclamation

NCD — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:45:03 +0000

In reply to WHY NOT?

Very 11th century exclamation.....when the knights of King Arthur lived.

WHY NOT?

Richard Day — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:35:49 +0000

In reply to GOD WILLS IT!

WHY NOT?

HAHHHAAHHAAHAHAH

You betchya.

Why not?

Thank you for showing up NCD