But of course, all the medieval legends have distorted the historical truth of any such person. And the lack of contemporary written evidence for Arthur doesn't help either. 
I usually say that King Arthur was real but he wasn't a king and his name wasn't Arthur. He was probably a local warlord who inspired the imagination and stories started up about him. And they just grew. I love the stories so much I refuse to believe that he didn't exist in some form.
The historical and archaeological evidence is intriguing too. It makes for a good mystery.
*NM*
- 19/04/2004 01:17:51 PM
6 Views
- 19/04/2004 03:13:25 PM
10 Views
- 19/04/2004 03:31:14 PM
10 Views

*NM*