King Arthur. Born of hopelessness
Each nation with long history, always present some kind of heroic epic, which highlights the case of bygone days. In this epic clearly defined goals and objectives, then stood before the people, and be sure to describe personalities, which is to be equal or which to hate.
The Scandinavians like the epic is the «Edda», at the Slavic Epic, Western Europe created the «Song of Roland»; but for the inhabitants of the British Isles, then there is Central a character like King Arthur.
We all remember fairy tales about the brave king, gathered under its banner the scattered tribes of Britons, and successfully winning the barbarians-the Saxons are invading their homeland Britain. And, of course, is Excalibur, the legendary sword, without which this victory has taken place. Reading biographies of Arthur, it seems that the more the noble hero of British land that time are unable to produce. Is it really?
To begin with the historicity of Arthur. Many scientists long believed that this character is nothing more than a figment of the imagination of authors of the middle ages, and later promoted by the British Medievalists. However, archaeologists examining the legendary castle of Tintagel, place of birth Arthur found a surprising discovery – a huge stone on which was engraved the inscription, in which king Arthur thanked your ancestor for what he at one time built this castle.
The discovery has caused intense excitement because the radiocarbon analysis of the thread surface confirmed its historicity – it really was made in the late 5th century BC, during the reign of Arthur.
There are more very interesting information about this king. His family coat of arms (three crowns in the red box) just pop up in the annals of the early middle Ages. Moreover, they all had different origins and were written by different authors. Mention of other kings of the period were exactly equal to historical specifications and is fully consistent with the official story.
Who was this legendary leader and why his historicity is open to doubt? Maybe in his biography had a lot of dark spots that are not too well would be reflected on a historical figure, but could just be easily forgotten in the personality of the legendary.
Any Regal character must be considered from the point of view of the political situation, which took place at that time. As the situation was, to put it mildly, very uneasy. The British Isles at that time was, perhaps, the only surviving legacy of the Western Roman Empire as preserved not only the political structure but also the customs and life of the time. It was so – Britons were carriers of Roman culture, and, despite some manifestations of separatism, it was almost a single political entity, living under the laws of the «good old world».
Of course, to put this tidbit in hand, there was a lot of wishing. The Huns, plundered Rome, was busy in the South, but, disturbed by them Saxons, were forced to head North. Apart from Britain, the North had a few interesting things, so the choice is, in fact, was small.
In the middle of the 5th century, the Saxons invaded Britain. Arthur gathers an army of the Britons and utterly breaks the troops of the Saxons. After some time he again faced with the Saxons and smashes them again. But, surprisingly, two defeats of the Saxons does not affect their intentions about military expansion in Britain: despite the brilliant military victories of Arthur, will be no more than 200 years, and Saxons will capture virtually the whole of Britain: independent from them will remain only a piece of modern Scotland and a small part of the possessions of the Picts. How did it happen, why brilliant military could not bring the case to the end, why he couldn’t stop the invasion of the barbarians, what could stop him?
Sharon Turner, writer and historian, who devoted his life to the study of the Anglo-Saxons, assumed that Arthur was a good commander but a politician he was very bad. Indeed, if you look at the military victories of Arthur, of which there were more than two dozen is not monitored any «General line». Usually go to war to impose its will on another country or to Annex his land. Analysis of the exploits of king Arthur allows you to say exactly what these actions favorably did not affect the brythonic state, rather the opposite: every year more and more intensified the internal contradictions among the brythonic kingdoms.
But the most interesting thing was not that. If you look at the description of the exploits of Arthur, formed a very funny picture: basically, the hero fought or against their relatives or former friends. The impression was that the whole historical drama – just figuring out who is «boss» no political goal or process these gains were not pursued.
And Saxons, invaded Britain, just caught under the hot hand of the most powerful of the local «warlords». Just look at the «political» map of Britain «the heyday of king Arthur» (about 500 BC) to be imbued with the spirit of the time: 41 small Principality, at the head of each of which is worth your such a «king Arthur». As they say, there is something to fall into despair…
The Saxons captured the 8 principalities, located on the East coast of Britain and they have no one did. Why? – Yes, because everyone was busy «fighting» with each other. Now it becomes clear that all the glory of king Arthur as the Savior of Britain from the Saxon invasion to be only a fiction. Of course, this hero had no place in historical epics. Saving the image of the hapless warriors, had to come up with this whole romantic plot with Merlin, Avalona, Round table and Lancelot…
But let, really in the then British there was no one who could take the place of Arthur in historical records, who was not only a more «statesman» than the hapless king? Most likely, such is not found, and Arthur was, figuratively speaking, «the lesser of two evils».
There is another interesting point of view, which claims that in fact king Arthur – is a collective image. No, such a person really existed, but it was just meaningless ruler, and the human memory has remained the acts of a few people, wrongly attributed to one person.
For example, Artius Moore, the ruler of pennino, lived in 5-6 centuries, fought against the Saxons.
The following interesting character: Owain White, was killed at the same time as king Arthur, moreover, in the same way – at the hands of his son Mailgun.
Artair Mac, Aidan the Scot, fought with the Picts and Saxons.
These people were many, and each biography, there is a particular slice of life Arthur…
Time has erased many of the «sharp corners» of the period. Now we look at king Arthur, as a fabulous character and this noble ruler. However, sometimes you have to dig a little deeper to understand that it wasn’t all nice and rosy as they want to portray the authors…