Post by Sunny on Mar 20, 2011 5:21:38 GMT -5
Why?
------------------
Evidence that Arthur existed
• There are ruins that have similarities to places in the story of king Arthur
• There is a “line” that Anglo-Saxons never passed. (Maybe someone like king Arthur)
• There is written evidence about someone who could be Arthur although they don’t mention a name.
• A king who we know lived was around at about the same time as Arthur was meant to be and there are lots of similarities between them.
• There is a hill which when flooded looks like an island. This could be the equivalent to the island where Arthur was supposedly buried.
• “Some historians believe that the story of King Arthur is largely a legend which may have been based on the actions of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a British king who lived in the 6th century A.D. and who is said to have fought against the Saxons, defeating them at the battle of Badon in 516, the same battle in which another source describes Arthur as having fought.”
• A monk called Gildas wrote a book called On the Destuction and Conquest of Britan. It describes the resistance to saxon invaders. It does not mention names of any leaders but one of them may have been the person who Arthur was based on.
• 200 years after Gildas a monk named Bede wrote about the same thing. He mentioned the Battle of Badon and he mentions someone called Ambrosius Aurelianus. Ambrosius could be who Arthur was based on.
• Nennius’ book is important. It used lots of old document from before his time: Annals of the Romans, Chronicals of the Holy Fathers, writings of the Irish and Saxons. He does not claim to be a professional historian.
• The Annals of Cambria Arthur mentioned twice.
• Geoffrey Says:
- Arthurs birthplace is at Tintagel Castle in south western England
- His father was Uther Pendragon
- He became a king as a teen, marries Ganhumara ....
- Etc.
Time line of some description (summary of the early written evidence of Arthur) :
448-last British request for Roman help against Saxons rejected
493-Arthur victorious over Anglo-Saxons. Battle of Badon.
519-Death of Arthur?
540-5 Gildas writes his book. Doesn’t mention Arthur by name
731 - Bede writes his book - History of the English church and people. Doesn’t mention Arthur
830 - Nennius writes history of the Britons mentions Arthur by name
871-90 - Anglo-Saxon Chronicles composed Arthur not mentioned but battles he fought in are
995 - Annals of Cambria
1066 - Norman conquest of England
1125 William of Malmesbury writes History of the English kings Arthur mentioned
1130 - Geoffrey of Monmouth works on book about Merlin
1135 Geoffrey produces History of the kings of Brittan Important role for Arthur
There is evidence that he might have existed but not enough to know for sure.
Even if he had existed he would not have been the same as in the stories, that time wasn’t really like what the story tells.
Intro
Who was Arthur 2-3 sentences
Evidence - literary, archaeological
Main Body
3 paragraphs
• Need for an “Arthur”
- There is a “line” that Anglo-Saxons never passed. (Maybe someone like king Arthur)
-
• Literary evidence
- On the Destruction and Conquest of Britain - Gildas
- History of the English Church and People - Bede
- History of the Britons - Nennius
- Anglo-Saxon Chronicles
- Annals of Cambria
- History of the Kings of Britain
• Archaeological evidence
- There are ruins that have similarities to places in the story of king Arthur
- There is a hill which when flooded looks like an island. This could be the equivalent to the island where Arthur was supposedly buried.
- Monks claim to have dug up Arthurs grave (Reasons to lie)
Conclusion
Because of all the evidence... blah blah blah ... Arthur was based on someone...
---------------------------------
lol, i keep pasting school work
------------------
Evidence that Arthur existed
• There are ruins that have similarities to places in the story of king Arthur
• There is a “line” that Anglo-Saxons never passed. (Maybe someone like king Arthur)
• There is written evidence about someone who could be Arthur although they don’t mention a name.
• A king who we know lived was around at about the same time as Arthur was meant to be and there are lots of similarities between them.
• There is a hill which when flooded looks like an island. This could be the equivalent to the island where Arthur was supposedly buried.
• “Some historians believe that the story of King Arthur is largely a legend which may have been based on the actions of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a British king who lived in the 6th century A.D. and who is said to have fought against the Saxons, defeating them at the battle of Badon in 516, the same battle in which another source describes Arthur as having fought.”
• A monk called Gildas wrote a book called On the Destuction and Conquest of Britan. It describes the resistance to saxon invaders. It does not mention names of any leaders but one of them may have been the person who Arthur was based on.
• 200 years after Gildas a monk named Bede wrote about the same thing. He mentioned the Battle of Badon and he mentions someone called Ambrosius Aurelianus. Ambrosius could be who Arthur was based on.
• Nennius’ book is important. It used lots of old document from before his time: Annals of the Romans, Chronicals of the Holy Fathers, writings of the Irish and Saxons. He does not claim to be a professional historian.
• The Annals of Cambria Arthur mentioned twice.
• Geoffrey Says:
- Arthurs birthplace is at Tintagel Castle in south western England
- His father was Uther Pendragon
- He became a king as a teen, marries Ganhumara ....
- Etc.
Time line of some description (summary of the early written evidence of Arthur) :
448-last British request for Roman help against Saxons rejected
493-Arthur victorious over Anglo-Saxons. Battle of Badon.
519-Death of Arthur?
540-5 Gildas writes his book. Doesn’t mention Arthur by name
731 - Bede writes his book - History of the English church and people. Doesn’t mention Arthur
830 - Nennius writes history of the Britons mentions Arthur by name
871-90 - Anglo-Saxon Chronicles composed Arthur not mentioned but battles he fought in are
995 - Annals of Cambria
1066 - Norman conquest of England
1125 William of Malmesbury writes History of the English kings Arthur mentioned
1130 - Geoffrey of Monmouth works on book about Merlin
1135 Geoffrey produces History of the kings of Brittan Important role for Arthur
There is evidence that he might have existed but not enough to know for sure.
Even if he had existed he would not have been the same as in the stories, that time wasn’t really like what the story tells.
Intro
Who was Arthur 2-3 sentences
Evidence - literary, archaeological
Main Body
3 paragraphs
• Need for an “Arthur”
- There is a “line” that Anglo-Saxons never passed. (Maybe someone like king Arthur)
-
• Literary evidence
- On the Destruction and Conquest of Britain - Gildas
- History of the English Church and People - Bede
- History of the Britons - Nennius
- Anglo-Saxon Chronicles
- Annals of Cambria
- History of the Kings of Britain
• Archaeological evidence
- There are ruins that have similarities to places in the story of king Arthur
- There is a hill which when flooded looks like an island. This could be the equivalent to the island where Arthur was supposedly buried.
- Monks claim to have dug up Arthurs grave (Reasons to lie)
Conclusion
Because of all the evidence... blah blah blah ... Arthur was based on someone...
---------------------------------
lol, i keep pasting school work