The Everlasting King
by
Dee Taylor
During the Dark Ages he was believed to rule mankind during?a time few could?barely fight if trampled on, lacking the skills to defend themselves, their family or home.
We can thank his existence to the retold tales of great deeds accomplished during his short life.
Today we?value every fable attributed to his chivalry and honor more than any other figure from our?past, and it doesn't matter he never lived to hear the word knight become a word, or that he never knew his chivalry was so great he had a round table built so he didn't sit above others when they conferred.
He is a continued myth we grew up with, held onto, dreamed about, and some have quietly defended, while others neatly tucked it away in their hearts believing every fragment was true.
To this day he is contested and debated over whether he was real or not, while those of us fortunate to be?knighted in his future times continue to embrace his left behind virtuesevery day.
But was Arthur real, fictitious, or just another legend that kept getting handed down?
It's much easier to believe he was real, and very difficult to accurately prove.
Over the centuries Arthur has been given so many facts and matched to so many legends?that no one has yet been able to decipher which ones are true, may be true, or should even be associated to him.
Yet do most care if any of that matters more than the man himself?
If you‘re thinking absolutely, then you should know Arthur is a proven fact.
It is still known if was was just a great warrior, knight turned king, or born a king.
The confusion as to who he really is?may have started with the tenth century monks were given the task of scribing all Anglo-Saxon oral tales and legends??onto paper before they were?lost in time.? Their writings?themselves has proves?that they?Christianized the?names, just as they did the earlier Celtic legends of England.
Contributing to that?may?have been centuries?later?writer’s such as Geoffrey of Monmouth who read them became?so inspired he?continued their cause by taking one of those?legends to a greater height. Apart from all arguments for and against Arthur, what is is what makes him so enthralling; all the mysterious facts and legends that surround him.
As a warrior of our history he began as a Roman and his name became Christianized by the monks to Arthur.
It's impossible to ignore the sixth century Beowulf legend having the exact same standards as Arthur's, nor that there are five other great warriors or kings who actually did exist during the fifth centur, of which the mightiest is a red-headed bear of a man, or that there were was a leader names Arthur who actually did lead a cohort of Sarmatian knights into battles and quests and never lost a single one.
Contradicting that face is that Arthur existed two centuries before the legendary king Arthur, and he did it by the name of Lucvius Artorius Castus, a Roman General, a dux or commander of war assignedf to Britannia in 181 a.d. to protect and keep the Caledonians or barbarian Scots, on the other side of Hadrian's Wall and out of Roman territory.
The Scots finall did succeed in overrunning the wall im 185 a.d.
Interestingly, Geoffrey Mommouth who wrote the legend of King Arthur wrote extensively from Wales during the twelfth century, nerarly seven-hundred years after Arthur suppossedly lived. Of interest as well is the fact taht the name Artorius, known in Welch means Bear, was never heard of in Britannia, only Scotland and Wales, and then only after Luciou's duty in Britannia was over and he was ordered back to Rome, leaving behind his five-thousand Russian Sarmatian knights who were from south Ukranian.
An ancient name of a region in east Europe situated between the Vistual, a river in Poland, flowing north from the Carpathian Mountains past Warsaw into the Baltic near Danzig, and the Volga, a river flowing from the Valdai Hills in the west Russian Federation east then south to the Caspian Sea. it’s the longest river in Europe at 2,325 miles. In 1136 Geoffrey of Monmouth while at Oxford college in Wales Scotland wrote the ‘Historia Regum Britanniae’ or History of the Kings of Britain.
Their own folklore told of a warrior named Batraz who rode with an elite group named Natz who engaged in quests. He had a magical sword which was cast back into the waters just before his death. Sound familiar?? After Lucius returned to Rome and their duty to Britannia had ended, many Sarmatian cavalry remained in England, settling in a Colonia or established city for legionnaires/warriors, where their stories of conquest could have easily spread to the local Celtic people who retold them from their ideals and thinking.
??Is Arthur mere legend or a factual person? I suspect both.
There are two early known references to Arthur in the form of odes or poems of those times. The first is documented and dated as fact, the second and it's?date is less unsure.
1. Aneirin's poem titled 'Gododdin'?written in 594 ad.
2. A second ode written by Taliesin titled 'Journey to Deganwyy' is merely believed to have been composed in 547 ad.?
It chronicles the lives of all the? kings of the Celtic people of Britain, spanning a time frame of two-thousand years, beginning with Homer's?Trojan's?through the Anglo-Saxon kings who controlled Britain in the 7th century.
Many scholars and historians have rejected much of his work, especially the earliest kings since he provides no basis or facts to back up their lines beyond their names.?? The only thing they do agree on is the genealogy of the Romans, which archeologists have proven to everyone’s satisfaction.
Geoffrey's Regum says his sources were Nennius and Gildas as well as many Welch chronicles and documents, which sadly have been lost over the ages., though what has been proven by fact doesn't seem to agree with most of what he wrote.? His opening narrative of the Regum though is a central source in the'Matter of Britain' legends concerning the Celtic people.