King Arthur was a “genocidal warlord”, claims historianBy ANI
Monday, September 28, 2009
LONDON - A new book by a historian has claimed that the mythical King Arthur was actually a “genocidal warlord whose deeds would have been the stuff of Nuremburg trials today.”
According to a report in the Telegraph, Dr Simon Young, a historian and expert in Celtic studies, claims in ‘The Celtic Revolution’ that the valiant English hero of modern legend bears no resemblance to the historical reality.
Young said that Arthur was a hero of a very different kind for the Celts.
“Arthur was not supposed just to return his people to happiness but to entirely wipe out their neighbours - the English,” he said.
“He almost certainly was a historical figure and there are three or four major candidates. Warlords in the fifth and sixth centuries lived in an age which was extremely unpleasant and very violent,” he added.
“When we think of Arthur, we think of Walt Disney and the like. But the sword in the stone, the lady in the lake, the suit of armour - these were all added to the legend by English writers centuries later. He was not this wonderful, chivalric individual,” he further added.
ccording to Dr Young, two sixth-century warlords, one called Arthur and another named Artur, are the likely inspiration for the legend, while a Roman general named Artorius who served in Britain in the second or third centuries has also been suggested as a contender.
The English first claimed Arthur for their own in the 12th century, when writer Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote a History of the Kings of Britain.
It introduced the characters of Merlin and Uther Pendragon, and the sword, Excalibur. The Holy Grail and the Knights of the Round Table were later added to the legend.
Since then, he has been played countless times on screen, including by Clive Owen in the 2004 film, ‘King Arthur’. (ANI)