Some scholars seem to think so. Personally I'm not entirely sold on the idea that there ever was a historical Arthur upon which the legend was based but it certainly is an interesting piece of historical investigation if nothing else.
Case in point: Brittany has many claims to be the land of King Arthur with sites across the Brocéliande Forest mostly linked with the legend of Merlin (though how historical those are I'm not sure)
Embedded Link
Scotland Back In The Day: King Arthur was real … and he was Scottish
THERE have been numerous assertions down the years that King Arthur was actually Scottish.
Google+: Reshared 5 times
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
Just like how Hitler was part Jewish
+Paul Desmond What does that have to do with anything? O.o
That would be interesting to find out.
All signs point in the direction he was Roman/Brythonic(Welsh)
+Dreoilín ÓCoigligh I would tend to agree with you but given the sparse records we have of life in the 5th and 6th centuries we can't know for sure
I doubt that it could ever be proven one way or the other. Still, this is fascinating! Having been to Dunadd, I can easily envision Arthur placing his foot in the foot print carved into that stone. Although I did not come back with a sword, just beautiful photographs. Must read those two books!
I think the confusion arrieses on the topic because of Merlin. Or should I say Merlins. The Welsh one of Carmarthen is linked with Arthur where as Merlin who went mad in the woods and lived like a hermit after the death of his king at arthuret (arfderydd) in Scotland 573. It's because Merlin is an agnomen that causes much confusion.
National Geographic had a nice program about king Arthur. The myths, castles, domicile and place of birth. Some historical "evidence" was direction Wales indeed…
There is no "historical king Arthur“
+Paul Desmond one cannot be "part Jewish“. Judaism is a religion.
+Plautus Satire Unless you have a time machine you can't know for sure whether there was a historical figure to inspire the legend of King Arthur
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith that's not how science works. In the absence of evidence any belief may safely be deemed false.
Hmmmm, a study for me to do too then. I am interested in learning about him. And i love History 🙂
+Plautus Satire there are various records of a war band and persons by the name artos.
+Dreoilín ÓCoigligh don't waste your time with him, he has a very… personal way to understand the scientific process.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith I subscribe to the accepted definition of science, which requires experiment.
+Dreoilín ÓCoigligh there have been countless people named Arthur throughout history. That doesn't mean that fables about magical swords become real.
+Plautus Satire I never suggested anything magical or swords.
+Dreoilín ÓCoigligh that is correct you did not
+Plautus Satire Not all science requires experiment. The basic foundation is observation and hypothesis and then repeatable experiments, if possible, to confirm or deny one's hypothesis, written in scientific papers which are reviewed by peers in your field.
However you can't experiment on planets & the cosmos, or history or certain branches of physics. Yet theoretical particle physics is still a science.
But then you've made it clear
1. You don't believe carbon in the atmosphere drives climate change
2. You don't believe in peer review
3. You make bold assumptions about people's statements and comments yet accuse them of doing exactly the same
4. You've shown signs of delusion and paranoia
I'm starting to wonder if you're just what your name say: satire
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith yes all science requires experiment
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith historical data shows that not only does carbon dioxide not drive climate but that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations actually lag behind temperature increases by several hundred years.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith peer review is an irrelevant political process that is not part of the scientific method and therefore not part of science.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith I've neither made nor expressed any assumptions of any kind.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith I suffer neither delusions nor paranoia, despite your rather scurrilous accusations to the contrary.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith it's not precisely accurate to say experiments cannot be performed on planets but it is exceedingly difficult. That being said, any physical principles can be demonstrated by controlled experiment in the lab.
This is hilarious:
"+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith peer review is an irrelevant political process that is not part of the scientific method and therefore not part of science."
followed By
"+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith I've neither made nor expressed any assumptions of any kind."
I rest my case, now please go bother someone else with your fallacies.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith my comments that you quote here are not based on assumption but on the definition of the scientific method
I saw an interesting PBS video recently that postulated that the sword in the stone may have been the smelting process. Indeed, the sword blade was poured into a stone mold, then removed as a rough blade. In the 5th and 6th centuries that, in itself, would have appeared magical! Imagine going from stone weapons to bronze and more advanced metallurgy weapons. It was interesting to say the least!
+Sharon Wright That type of sword forging was really only done with bronze swords. You need an insane amount of heat that they would not have been able to achieve in the first millennium for turn steel into liquid.
It's not entirely improbable but seems a little far fetched to me.
+Sharon Wright bronze actually is rather advanced metallurgy and is certainly much more difficult to smelt than iron, which casts serious doubt on the academic dogma about "bronze age" and "iron age" and their chronological order.
+Jean-Loup Rebours-Smith what's the basis for your claim that steel could not have been melted in the "first millennium"? Also, does your term "first millennium" suggest that it's your belief that it was the first thousand years of earth's existence, or just humanity's?
I'm so tired of this guy!
Academic dogma and chronological order aside, I still think removing a smelted sword from a stone would have appeared magical to people who had not seen such artistry previously. Culture bearer myths hardly ever withstand modern scrutiny for accuracy; they certainly do add to the intrigue and make the entire hypothesis interesting to say the least.
Any argument without base is a fallacy.
Precisely why I believe the "real King Arthur" story will not be solved.