|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Gecoren  writes: |
According to the archaeological record, someone or something stopped the Angle/Saxon incursion for over 50 years around the year 500 to 550 AD. Maybe it was one man. If it was, Arthur's a good a name as any. Guy |
Back to the Homepage
2,875 hits since 1 Jun 2005
©1994-2010 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?
If you were a member of this website, you could participate in website polls. Would you like a free membership?
| VOTING RESULTS | |||
| Answer | Votes | % | Chart |
definitely historical | 32 | 6% |  |
|---|---|---|---|
probably historical | 74 | 15% | |
both historical and fictional | 338 | 67% | |
probably fictional | 35 | 7% | |
definitely fictional | 11 | 2% | |
don't have an opinion | 8 | 2% | |
not interested in King Arthur | 3 | 1% | |
not interested in this historical period | 1 | 0% | |
| POLL IS CLOSED |
| POLL DESCRIPTION | |
Some historians theorize that the story of King Arthur is based on an actual person - possibly Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman of the 2nd Century; or Riothamus, "King of the Brettones." Other historians argue that Arthur derives from a Celtic deity, or is a fictional character (similar to Beowulf), or is a confusion of different stories (even from later eras) amalgamated together. Do you believe that the King Arthur of legend is based primarily on a historical personage, or is he primarily a fictional character? |
