New content on the Legend of King Arthur.
|
@johnevans8533
02/02/2026
Behold, Camelot!............................................................................It's only a model! [Monty Python and the Holy Grail]
|
@1703brianoneill
02/02/2026
I would have been interested in this if I hadn't discovered, in the first two minutes, that it is AI generated blah, blah, blah.
|
Arthur means Bear in old Britonic ,so how many cheifs would take that name. I think through the years all the battles and bases have been thrown into one story one King.
|
@WeliveHeretoo-r2o7k
02/02/2026
Camelot was found in the 1800s but unfortunately by the 1920s Camelot was completely removed the reason being is someone decided that the tartarian nation needed to be removed from history unfortunately King Arthur was a king of tartaria history upon him and his kingdom have been removed from history
|
Lowther Dam Pendragon here. Cuman, Cumbria, Cumania of Pennsylvania US, the Ingenious Kingdoms. The White and Yellow Dragons. I'm still watching but had to introduce myself. Lloegyr, Lough Gur, Lugus, Loges, Lodges, Clothier, Clodio, Lothair, Lothar, LLawdwig, Ludwig, Lodar, Louder, Loudermilk, Lowden, Lowe[der], Loweder, Lauder Leon, Macleod. Lowther [Lion/Claudi] -meaning cleansing river, Clouta, Clota, Cluta, Clud, Clyde, Afon Carthu etc etc etc etc... The Dragon Tribes are over 75,000 years old, from Africa and now everywhere else and in between. Tarim, Tarshish, Hari Tari, Harii Lugii. I'll stop talking now and finish the video. Thanks!
|
@arturnienartowicz7213
02/02/2026
Photographs of the sites and artefacts would make a much more compelling story. Names of the scientists mentioned would add credibility.
|
@rikhammond5842
02/02/2026
|
Reading the comments on this video just shows more research is needed but the true Arthur will probably not be proven because it happened so long ago that the definitive answers are more than likely degraded and lost to the conflicts and wars that happened in britons history. It would be amazing if the truth could be found but many people can claim decendancy from warlords and kings as many others didn't survive.
|
@nealpeterson3113
03/02/2026
Do not pronounce Lead Cross as "leed cross". Lead is the metallic element Pb, therefore pronounce it as "led cross".
|
@davidcollins2993
02/02/2026
I'm just waiting for some Walt person to say it was in Africa. And King Arthur was actually a black guy.
|
@roydownes2458
03/02/2026
norma lorre goodrich's research uncovered evidence that "avalon" was a fortress island off the isle of man.
|
Silly discussion. It is fairly clear, from not only archaeological evidence but even from the nature of the sparse written accounts, that "Arthur" could not have been a single individual (or at least, that the things attributed to him were not all done by one man). The Historia Brittonum would have us believe that he fought battles everywhere from central Scotland to the French mainland, over a period of some 50 years. If you have any experience studying the genesis of historical myth, you will find that characters like Arthur emerge at first from a single individual, but soon the stories told about them accumulate like a snowball, pulling in all sorts of actual or imagined events done by other people. For example, the story about a shop clerk boy who walks ten miles to return a customer's change appeared in many gazettes and newsletters in the Midwest, in the 1800s. Nobody is sure who first attributed it to Abe Lincoln, but there is documentary evidence that the story was ubiquitous before anyone ever suggested that Lincoln did such a thing.
In Arthur's case, for example, it is likely that every important battle fought by a Romano-Celtic leader against the Saxons was eventually attributed to "Arthur", as the names of lesser leaders were forgotten in the mists of time. One exceptional individual probably initiated the "snowball" but by the time someone got around to writing the story down, his legend had absorbed the story every other notable leader or notable event of the entire century. You could posit that there was a particularly large and ornate town or defensive position, during that period, which served the same function as "Arthur" did for the generic Romano-Celtic military leader. However, the archaeology suggests that no such place existed, at least not in the way described by later authors. The forts and defended towns of early post-Roman Britain were nothing like a "castle". The conflation of "Camelot" with a castle or fortress was an invention of 11th
|
Mispelled text, awful AI pronunciation mangling simple words, load of bollox. Life's too short.
|
Tinted dates from 13c - way too late.
|