Originally posted by Ushgarak
Kurdy, you were talking crap before annd you are talking crap now.My first statement on all history from more than a few centuries ago is absolutely true. it is all based on hearsay, biased record and archaeological evidence.
We actually know as much about King Arthur as we do about the Battle of Hastings, so you were wrong there as well. All we know about Hastings is that the Normans won. Everything else about it which you assume to be true is based on no more, or even less, than the things we know about Arthur.
There is aactually a considerable amount of archaeological evidence about the Arthurian vibe.
There is no 'could' about him being an overlord. He definitely was and was probably known by a word that would now translate to 'King'.
And I get this information from decent historians, not clueless fools like you.
And we DO know about hist battles, in fact.
You are a complete ignorant in this area. Don't wade into something you clearly know nothing about; just makes you look like an idiot.
The fact of the matter is we have absolute evidence of things like the existence of the Overlord who held back Saxon expansion which is the basis for the Arhtur myth, and battles he fought in like Badon Hill. We have direct record of the time of battles like Camlann directly mentioning Arthur by name. There is lots and lots of stuff like that and you simply cannot just close your eyes and ears and pretend it does not exist.
You're wrong, but I'm not gonna repeat myself for the twentieth time.
But if you are so sure, why don't you give me some evidence ? Unlike you, I'm not an unreasonable person, I can accept evidence.
But you have to see evidence, before you can accept it. And until now, you have brought nothing new to the table.
Oh I forgot, you got your information from, I quote, "decent historians."