While the Age of Arthur is a good read, unfortunately it is quite out-to-date when it comes to Arthurian research.
Is this Arthurian research really just recent speculation using the same sources that Morris had?
While the Age of Arthur is a good read, unfortunately it is quite out-to-date when it comes to Arthurian research.
Is this Arthurian research really just recent speculation using the same sources that Morris had?
The Britons were apparently also hit by a plague, spread from the Mediterranean by traders, which [perhaps] didn't hit the Saxons as hard because there was relatively little regular contact between the peoples at that stage.Always good to take Gildas, Bede, and a lot of Arturian history with a grain of salt. However, it does appear that:
- Some of the earliest Saxons were invited as mercenaries or a counter-balancing force
- Then Saxons, Angles, Jutes, etc came in repeated waves.
- The Britons had success for a period of time beating them back but were eventually overwhelmed, probably due to disunion.
The Britons were apparently also hit by a plague, spread from the Mediterranean by traders, which [perhaps] didn't hit the Saxons as hard because there was relatively little regular contact between the peoples at that stage.
I think so, although it might have taken slightly longer to get this far west.Justinian's?
There IS some historical evidence for Arthur, but it's pretty fragmented and uncertain. He may have been a warlord with a strong band of cavalry as you note, but the whole set of Vortigern, Pendragon, Uther relations is uncertain. Many such things could be an interesting basis for a thread, but a lot of it would be a fairly week historical foundation to start from.