Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Arthur's Round Table Found?

  1. #1
    Eala Freia Fresena
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ocko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, April 12th, 2020 @ 07:31 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Friese
    Ancestry
    Friesland
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Montana Montana
    Location
    Glacier park
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    selfemployed
    Politics
    rightwing
    Religion
    none/pagan
    Posts
    2,926
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    49
    Thanked in
    47 Posts

    Arthur's Round Table Found?

    Historians locate King Arthur's Round Table

    Historians claim to have finally located the site of King Arthur’s Round Table – and believe it could have seated 1,000 people.



    Historians claim to have found the site of Camelot Photo: photolibrary.com Researchers exploring the legend of Britain’s most famous Knight believe his stronghold of Camelot was built on the site of a recently discovered Roman amphitheatre in Chester.

    Legend has it that his Knights would gather before battle at a round table where they would receive instructions from their King.



    Barracks site is location for fresh battle But rather than it being a piece of furniture, historians believe it would have been a vast wood and stone structure which would have allowed more than 1,000 of his followers to gather.

    Historians believe regional noblemen would have sat in the front row of a circular meeting place, with lower ranked subjects on stone benches grouped around the outside.

    They claim rather than Camelot being a purpose built castle, it would have been housed in a structure already built and left over by the Romans.

    Camelot historian Chris Gidlow said: “The first accounts of the Round Table show that it was nothing like a dining table but was a venue for upwards of 1,000 people at a time.

    “We know that one of Arthur’s two main battles was fought at a town referred to as the City of Legions. There were only two places with this title. One was St Albans but the location of the other has remained a mystery.”

    The recent discovery of an amphitheatre with an execution stone and wooden memorial to Christian martyrs, has led researchers to conclude that the other location is Chester.

    Mr Gidlow said: “In the 6th Century, a monk named Gildas, who wrote the earliest account of Arthur’s life, referred to both the City of Legions and to a martyr’s shrine within it. That is the clincher. The discovery of the shrine within the amphitheatre means that Chester was the site of Arthur’s court and his legendary Round Table.”
    source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...und-Table.html

    One of the commentators wrote:

    The last time I saw Arthurs table it was hanging in the great hall over the judge at the old Winchester Crown court in 1972. I believe it was taken down when the new court was built and may be a replica made in the 17th cent. The problem I have with Arthurian legend is that all the characters names sound French and may have been brought to England by Monks as a good story to tell while spreading Christianity to those seeking authentication for the christian belief that good triumphs over evil. I think Chester is too far north and are'nt we missing a castle in this plot.



    So it seems there is a lot to question.
    weel nich will dieken dej mot wieken

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Irby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Online
    Friday, May 4th, 2012 @ 03:03 PM
    Ethnicity
    German/Ulster-Scots/English
    Ancestry
    Germany, Ulster, England, Isle of Mann
    Subrace
    Atlanto-Keltic Nordic+Dalofaelid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Mercia Mercia
    Location
    Wirral
    Gender
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    national socialist
    Religion
    folk and fatherland
    Posts
    163
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Recently discovered, I went to the amphitheater in Chester on a school trip when I was 8!!!

    I know this site well, one half of it is obstructed with a Victorian building, and the last time I look, they had dug some of this side, but I am not sure how the amphitheater in Chester could have archaeological remains which are not as old as the feature which is already showing. The amphitheater is Roman, and King Arthur from the British-Romano period is later. Therefore how can they have found evidence of features that are hundreds of years later, than the archaeological remains visible today?

    If this is truth then it is a first in archeological history, a kind of reverse stratigraphic sequence.
    De weg naar de hel is geplaveid met goede voornemens.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •