No. Because Wales is not free. Wales is the home of the Britons and it is told that Arthur along with Owain Glyndwr will one day come back and push the Germanic invaders out of Britain.
Of all the heroes in human civilization, none inspire me more than two of the UK's greatest champions; Arthur Pendragon and Robin of Locksley. Although they are mere "legends" in the eyes of our modern society, they embody what being TRUE heroes is about...which is something we've lost in our "sophisticated" modern world
@@PatriciaHain-uw8vx In this age of tyranical world leaders and greedy billionaires running the world, we could definitely use someone like Robin Hood defending us
@user-pq4fc1mc7q Arthur didn't conquer anybody...at least, not in any of the versions of his stories that I'VE read. As for how both of them inspired me...Arthur inspires me because he was able to turn many of his enemies into allies, something our presidents have continued to fail at for over a hundred years. Heck, thanks to Trump, half the world hates us. As for Robin Hood, he stood up for the little guy and took on corrupt authority. Anytime someone in our modern era tries to do the same, they're thrown IMMEDIATELY into prison; regardless of the reason behind their actions. Besides, much like Prince John; the rich of today's world continue to grow richer while the rest of us barely get by
@user-pq4fc1mc7q In some versions of the story; after Arthur pulls the sword from the stone, there are MANY who openly defy the miracle (despite having witnessing it right in front of them.) As a result, those who supported Arthur's claim as King almost went to war with those who doubted him. Many wouldn't listen to Arthur's pleas for unity simply for the fact that at the time, he was just a squire. For this reason, Arthur gives the Sword to one of these doubting knights and asks HIM to knight him (one version says it's Uriens, another says it's Pellinore.) With sword in hand and Arthur practically kneeling before him, the knight COULD HAVE slain him right then and there. But instead, the knight makes Arthur his equal and submits to him as his man. That, to me sounds more inspiring than a vicious conqueror
I just want to know why so many historians and governments want to deny his existence. What is the endgame of erasing him from existence and putting him into folklore?
Because they are embarrassed by their goodness. They feel better about their tawdry behavior and lackluster jobs as long as Arthur and Robin are mere legends. By keeping them ‘make believe’ they don’t have to strive for the creation of Camelot.
Nobody is suppressing anything. There's just no tangible evidence he existed. Only texts written after he supposedly died which have also had more edits and rewrites than the Bible.
He was crowned at Caerleon, and was the son of King Meurig ap Tewdrig, both of whom were Uthyr Pendragons, leaders of the British against Saxon incursion. Alan Wilsom believes the real Camelot, or the inspiration for it was Caermelyn (the yellow fortress), and is just 4 miles north of Cardiff.
@@RobinGardyne-gh7yg Arthur was the son of King Meurig Uthyr Pendragon as recorded. I cannot see St Dubritious travelling up to the far north to crown an obscure northern king as pendragon of the British against the Saxons in the southern areas of England. Impossible even as Dubritious would have been a child at the time of Arthrwys ap Mar. Yes he may have contributed to the later legend alongside at least 2 other 'Arthurs', but the main one that makes up 70 to 80% of the 'legend' is this guy in South East Wales. He was the embodiment of the 3 senior royal lines, that of Bran on his fathers side, of Coel via his grandfather Gwrgan Mawr (Aurelius the great) and obviously of the old imperial line via Magnus Maximus. Caerleon was the centre of Arthur's kingdom, and the whole of Glamorgan consisted of dozens of interconnected forts, many re-activated in the 6th century to counter the growing threat across the Severn. Even the famous battlesites can be found easily, most are in southern Scotland, but both Bayden and Camlan are to be found in Wales.
Theres a seed of truth in most mystic figures in history. Usually romantize in medieval and later histories. Imagine the stories we've never heard. I bielive the minions was the seed of Atlantis. Doggeerland the great flood. Fishermen found the new world a century or two. Maybe I'm wrong.
Camelot is NOT Cadbury - which doesn't even date to the right period. Camelot is (pretty obviously) Camulo Dunum, modern day Colchester, which was the original ROMAN capital of Britain - the one sacked and burned by Boadicea. This fact clearly points to the critical context of the original legend (not the Geoffrey of Monmouth fiction), it was the attempted restoration of the Pax Romana in Britain. It is clearly related to what was happening in the Kingdon of Soissons just across the Channel at the very same time. Arthur's authority was not based on any "Celtic" tribal domain but on Roman imperial tradition. He is REX but not a mere "king". When you frame it in these Roman terms and documented historical facts it makes sense, otherwise it is meaningless garbage - which is all the Tintagel/Glastonbury/Cadbury nonsense amounts to.
NOT ONE single proof of Arthur ' s existence was EVER discovered. No contemporary writings : not a word written about him dates back to the time of his alleged existence, though there are writings dating to the period. All writings about Arthur are way posterior.
@@pascaline161 There is little proof of anything in history. What we have is a reference in the Welsh poem Y Gododdin which dates from the 6th century - only shortly after the alleged events. The most comprehensive source is from Nennius (or unknown authors compiled by Nennius) in 829. It's important to know that Arthur is described in those early sources as a warlord not a king in the later sense. Claiming to be a king was in any case a very contentious issue in Roman society - which flipped from Republican to Imperial and shades in between. Since Arthur, or the story of him, is clearly part of the attempt to revive Roman order it is highly unlikely he was originally called a "king".
@@kubhlaikhan2015so now he fought the Romans? LMFAO! How is he fighting the Romans and the AngloSaxons. They didn't show up the day the Romans left. Such BS
@@poopoosplatter99 I didn't say Arthur fought the Romans I said the opposite. Arthur is Roman. He championed a restoration of Roman civilisation in the early years of its collapse - just as was happening in Soissons at the same time (and to which he must have been connected). He certainly never fought "AngloSaxons" either - since they never existed. They are an invention of historians to sell their tall stories. There is no evidence in either ancient documents nor in the ground for archaeologists to show in support of the anglosaxon myth. "Anglo-Saxon is a terma invented purely to describe a language and "the Anglosaxons" were then invented to explain why the British people switched to speaking it (which didn't even happen until the TENTH century).
The search for "King" Arthur, Excalibur, Camelot and the Round Table will always be fruitless and futile. They never existed, so there is nothing to find. I have no doubt about the existence of Arthur the warrior/war leader, but sadly, for a lot of people, a historical Arthur without the myth and magic attached just isn't very interesting. While I absolutely adore the legends and truly believe that they are some of the greatest stories ever told, when people try to discover something that was never there to begin with they will always be disappointed.
Believe it or not the now King Charles the III wanted to use his third name of Arthur when he became king. Is he really in touch with with reality? Thank god he was talked out of it, he’s no King Arthur to me.
It’s amazing how many people believe King Arthur is just a legend despite the overwhelming archaeological evidence that both he and Camelot were real. When will people finally accept the truth?
I agree it makes no sense, but that’s the problem with mainstream history. Is they make of how they want it’s like the pyramids were for Dead Egyptian rulers, but none of them were ever found in.
@@oessh9611The above comment was sarcastic. See below. Trouble is mainstream history goes with evidence. There are vague hints of a 6th century war lord but Camelot etc was actually invented by a French troubador as a medieval courtly romance. He invented Lancelot and the Grail story.
Arthur probably existed but l doubt he was a king, maybe the illegitimate son of Uther Pendragon but Britain now retaining some Roman Laws, he may not have been able to inherit
I believe continued patient historical research and archaeology will undoubtedly reveal the truth as more evidence is being uncovered. It's absolutely fascinating and such a beautiful story. I believe if they do one day find the evidence it should be made into a Christian Shrine and highly protected from thieves and vandals!
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Arthur the once and future King will live again!
We could certainly do with having him now
If the legend of King Arthur is real undoubtedly he is one of humanities greatest hero's!
No. Because Wales is not free. Wales is the home of the Britons and it is told that Arthur along with Owain Glyndwr will one day come back and push the Germanic invaders out of Britain.
Mythical hero, sure. But never existed in the flesh.
Arthur to me, is like the Troy and when Greek fought that they’re saying Troy never existed but now they might’ve actually found it
They did find it, it’s in Anatolia 🫶🏽
They did exist. And they as others are our ancestors.
very good program, well presented and enjoyable
Of all the heroes in human civilization, none inspire me more than two of the UK's greatest champions; Arthur Pendragon and Robin of Locksley.
Although they are mere "legends" in the eyes of our modern society, they embody what being TRUE heroes is about...which is something we've lost in our "sophisticated" modern world
Well said. 🤗
@@PatriciaHain-uw8vx In this age of tyranical world leaders and greedy billionaires running the world, we could definitely use someone like Robin Hood defending us
@user-pq4fc1mc7q Arthur didn't conquer anybody...at least, not in any of the versions of his stories that I'VE read.
As for how both of them inspired me...Arthur inspires me because he was able to turn many of his enemies into allies, something our presidents have continued to fail at for over a hundred years.
Heck, thanks to Trump, half the world hates us.
As for Robin Hood, he stood up for the little guy and took on corrupt authority. Anytime someone in our modern era tries to do the same, they're thrown IMMEDIATELY into prison; regardless of the reason behind their actions.
Besides, much like Prince John; the rich of today's world continue to grow richer while the rest of us barely get by
@user-pq4fc1mc7q In some versions of the story; after Arthur pulls the sword from the stone, there are MANY who openly defy the miracle (despite having witnessing it right in front of them.)
As a result, those who supported Arthur's claim as King almost went to war with those who doubted him. Many wouldn't listen to Arthur's pleas for unity simply for the fact that at the time, he was just a squire.
For this reason, Arthur gives the Sword to one of these doubting knights and asks HIM to knight him (one version says it's Uriens, another says it's Pellinore.)
With sword in hand and Arthur practically kneeling before him, the knight COULD HAVE slain him right then and there. But instead, the knight makes Arthur his equal and submits to him as his man.
That, to me sounds more inspiring than a vicious conqueror
Agreed 👍 💕
Thanks for your work and time ❤❤❤
Matt Lewis is awesome
In the legend - Merlin build Stonehenge? No one has explained Arthur 500AD and Merlin 2000BC? Why the difference in time?
:) Merlin lived backward in time, so in his timeframe he built stonehenge after he met Arthur.
@@zoetropo1ho my god ... now travel time in possible on earth 😱🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Why did you add a second show from 20 years ago
I just want to know why so many historians and governments want to deny his existence. What is the endgame of erasing him from existence and putting him into folklore?
Because they are embarrassed by their goodness. They feel better about their tawdry behavior and lackluster jobs as long as Arthur and Robin are mere legends. By keeping them ‘make believe’ they don’t have to strive for the creation of Camelot.
Becaus not ONE VALID proof was ever found of his existence.
Nobody is suppressing anything. There's just no tangible evidence he existed. Only texts written after he supposedly died which have also had more edits and rewrites than the Bible.
Mythology may be true. We do not know. I hate when they say oh, it’s a mythology they don’t know.
39:25 correction: the holy grail is the holy grail for historians
It’s interesting that the oval of the arena and the name avolon, pretty similar
He was crowned at Caerleon, and was the son of King Meurig ap Tewdrig, both of whom were Uthyr Pendragons, leaders of the British against Saxon incursion. Alan Wilsom believes the real Camelot, or the inspiration for it was Caermelyn (the yellow fortress), and is just 4 miles north of Cardiff.
Arthur was son of Uther son of Constantine, the last Roman emperor+nephew of ambrosios, better known as Merlin.
@@RobinGardyne-gh7yg Arthur was the son of King Meurig Uthyr Pendragon as recorded. I cannot see St Dubritious travelling up to the far north to crown an obscure northern king as pendragon of the British against the Saxons in the southern areas of England. Impossible even as Dubritious would have been a child at the time of Arthrwys ap Mar. Yes he may have contributed to the later legend alongside at least 2 other 'Arthurs', but the main one that makes up 70 to 80% of the 'legend' is this guy in South East Wales. He was the embodiment of the 3 senior royal lines, that of Bran on his fathers side, of Coel via his grandfather Gwrgan Mawr (Aurelius the great) and obviously of the old imperial line via Magnus Maximus. Caerleon was the centre of Arthur's kingdom, and the whole of Glamorgan consisted of dozens of interconnected forts, many re-activated in the 6th century to counter the growing threat across the Severn. Even the famous battlesites can be found easily, most are in southern Scotland, but both Bayden and Camlan are to be found in Wales.
Why have they hidden him👀
History has buried much concrete evidence of King Arthur, but that doesn't stop these folks from dedicated lives, looking for real proof!
Theres a seed of truth in most mystic figures in history. Usually romantize in medieval and later histories. Imagine the stories we've never heard. I bielive the minions was the seed of Atlantis. Doggeerland the great flood. Fishermen found the new world a century or two. Maybe I'm wrong.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Arthur was a Kernow king of Cornwall
His maternal uncle Hoel was Count of Kernev (Cornouaille).
Hummm 😊
I just watched the documentary and it said they just found a pendant and some bodies but I didn’t hear nothing about sword
That's the same thing I say! Troy was a myth until they found it. I believe Arthur and Robin Hood actually existed at some point.
SO MANY OF YOU HAVE KNOWN ALL THIS ALREADY !!
I never understood the English fascination with King Arthur. That's like the British being obsessed with Paul Revere or George Washington.
Camelot is NOT Cadbury - which doesn't even date to the right period. Camelot is (pretty obviously) Camulo Dunum, modern day Colchester, which was the original ROMAN capital of Britain - the one sacked and burned by Boadicea. This fact clearly points to the critical context of the original legend (not the Geoffrey of Monmouth fiction), it was the attempted restoration of the Pax Romana in Britain. It is clearly related to what was happening in the Kingdon of Soissons just across the Channel at the very same time. Arthur's authority was not based on any "Celtic" tribal domain but on Roman imperial tradition. He is REX but not a mere "king". When you frame it in these Roman terms and documented historical facts it makes sense, otherwise it is meaningless garbage - which is all the Tintagel/Glastonbury/Cadbury nonsense amounts to.
NOT ONE single proof of Arthur ' s existence was EVER discovered. No contemporary writings : not a word written about him dates back to the time of his alleged existence, though there are writings dating to the period. All writings about Arthur are way posterior.
@@pascaline161 There is little proof of anything in history. What we have is a reference in the Welsh poem Y Gododdin which dates from the 6th century - only shortly after the alleged events. The most comprehensive source is from Nennius (or unknown authors compiled by Nennius) in 829. It's important to know that Arthur is described in those early sources as a warlord not a king in the later sense. Claiming to be a king was in any case a very contentious issue in Roman society - which flipped from Republican to Imperial and shades in between. Since Arthur, or the story of him, is clearly part of the attempt to revive Roman order it is highly unlikely he was originally called a "king".
@@kubhlaikhan2015so now he fought the Romans? LMFAO! How is he fighting the Romans and the AngloSaxons. They didn't show up the day the Romans left.
Such BS
@@poopoosplatter99 I didn't say Arthur fought the Romans I said the opposite. Arthur is Roman. He championed a restoration of Roman civilisation in the early years of its collapse - just as was happening in Soissons at the same time (and to which he must have been connected). He certainly never fought "AngloSaxons" either - since they never existed. They are an invention of historians to sell their tall stories. There is no evidence in either ancient documents nor in the ground for archaeologists to show in support of the anglosaxon myth. "Anglo-Saxon is a terma invented purely to describe a language and "the Anglosaxons" were then invented to explain why the British people switched to speaking it (which didn't even happen until the TENTH century).
The search for "King" Arthur, Excalibur, Camelot and the Round Table will always be fruitless and futile.
They never existed, so there is nothing to find.
I have no doubt about the existence of Arthur the warrior/war leader, but sadly, for a lot of people, a historical Arthur without the myth and magic attached just isn't very interesting.
While I absolutely adore the legends and truly believe that they are some of the greatest stories ever told, when people try to discover something that was never there to begin with they will always be disappointed.
The Welsh pronunciation is terrible by the main narrator
A great old English folk tale.
Believe it or not the now King Charles the III wanted to use his third name of Arthur when he became king. Is he really in touch with with reality? Thank god he was talked out of it, he’s no King Arthur to me.
Where did you hear that?
Arthur is a lovely name.
It’s amazing how many people believe King Arthur is just a legend despite the overwhelming archaeological evidence that both he and Camelot were real. When will people finally accept the truth?
I agree it makes no sense, but that’s the problem with mainstream history. Is they make of how they want it’s like the pyramids were for Dead Egyptian rulers, but none of them were ever found in.
Uh huh. And Robin Hood was a real historical figure too I suppose.
@@djquinn11 haha I was obviously being sarcastic. I thought most people would see through it but maybe not lol.
Concerning Robin Hood; I suppose there was no King Richard The Lionhearted or Sherwood Forest or Holy Wars either.
@@oessh9611The above comment was sarcastic.
See below. Trouble is mainstream history goes with evidence. There are vague hints of a 6th century war lord but Camelot etc was actually invented by a French troubador as a medieval courtly romance. He invented Lancelot and the Grail story.
Arthur probably existed but l doubt he was a king, maybe the illegitimate son of Uther Pendragon but Britain now retaining some Roman Laws, he may not have been able to inherit
Key word ps : probably existed. Probably. No proof, only a personal belief ...
Mislabeled.
I believe continued patient historical research and archaeology will undoubtedly reveal the truth as more evidence is being uncovered. It's absolutely fascinating and such a beautiful story. I believe if they do one day find the evidence it should be made into a Christian Shrine and highly protected from thieves and vandals!
IF Arthur even existed, he certainly wouldn't have been a Christian! 😆
60 some ppl we're kings or queens ran Britons, and none were named Arthur. Thanks ever much
Charlemagne's life was converted into "King Arthur" by limited, unoriginal minds!
King Arthur - Jesus Christ about as much archeological evidence of an actual individual for either…
King Arthur
Is as real as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus
He never existed
Not unlike all the other English takes on the History of Britain. Pity.
He never existed
"They also found in the grave a perfectly preserved sword"
This story is so bogus lol 500+ years in acidic British soil. Yeah sure lol
Joseph of armenthia tells a better story
It was proven he was based on a real life African king.
Don’t be Ray Cyst.
Africa has never produced leaders to rival men like ours 😂🤦
Lol 😆
Scipio Africanus?
@@andsowot Hatshepsut was better than a man.