Could the historical King Arthur have in fact been Scottish?

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.

36 thoughts on “Could the historical King Arthur have in fact been Scottish?”

  1. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. +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

  4. 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.

  5. 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!

  6. +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.

  7. 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.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top