JennifersLost
11-24-2008, 08:58 PM
My tenth grader just turned in an essay that I think is horrendous, but before I go off the deep end on this kid, I'm wondering if someone else would take a look at it and tell me what overall grade they'd give it. It's about 3 single-spaced pages.
Here it is:
Was King Arthur a Real Historical Figure?
If there was any truth behind the legends of King Arthur of Camelot is a very debated fact among historians. It is likely that there was some truth to the legends, but exactly how much reality there was is not known, and as of yet can not be accurately stated. If there was a real figure behind the myths and legends, he may have been a valiant hero who managed to drive the Saxons out of England, or may have simply been a ruler who's accomplishments were blown out of proportion.
King Arthur lived around the fifth or sixth century A.D., though the legends about him didn't become widely popular until the twelfth century when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae. This book presented British history from when Aeneas first made his journey to Rome up until the end of King Arthur's rule in Britain. The Historiae was one of the first sources from which information about the historicity of King Arthur was taken into consideration as evidence. The sources used by Geoffrey of Monmouth are a disputed topic, however. He claimed that he translated the contents of another ancient book from Latin, but no evidence has been found of this 'ancient book', and it seems likely that he used other histories of his time as references.
The content of the Historia Regum Britanniae was originally looked upon as a true history of Britain, but now, even though it does contain some truth, it is dismissed as historical evidence by scholars. This is especially true for the existence of King Arthur, as no one is quite sure where Geoffrey of Monmouth obtained his information about the king. The only source cited was, “a very ancient book in the Latin tongue.” Most of the book seems to be from other histories of the time, however, such as Bede's Historia Eecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, and Nennius' History of the Britons. A fair amount of the work may also have been completely from Geoffrey of Monmouth's imagination, rendering it useless as historical information.
There were stories and legends of King Arthur being told even before he began to become widely popular in Britain. These works varied from one to the other widely, but each had the same King Arthur featured or mentioned briefly in them. The texts include works such as Y Gododdin, and the Annales Cambriae. The Annales Cambriae had the best evidence of a King Arthur, as every other historical figure mentioned in the work had been proved to be genuine. It emerged long after the original time of Arthur however, and so the legends passed down may have easily been muddled. This and the reason that its sources were incredibly wide and diverse caused historians to disregard it as any evidence.
There have been multiple findings of inscriptions on stones or tablets that are thought by some as evidence to show that King Arthur existed. One such inscription was found on the Arthur Stone, a stone found in Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, England. This stone was dated at around the sixth century A.D., and the markings on it seemed to point to the existence of King Arthur. The inscription, however, was very roughly scratched into the stone, and is labeled more of a historical graffiti than actual evidence of a real Arthur. It was found being used as part of a drain in the castle, broken in two halves, meaning that its value was not very great. Other inscriptions found on various objects, including the Glastonbury Cross, which was found at what was believed to be Arthur's grave site, are suspected of forgery, and to this day none can be proved as significant evidence.
Some believe that the King Arthur of the legends may be based on a king who was not from England, but from another part of Great Britain entirely. For example, there is evidence to support a King Arthur from Wales. One of the sources which provides such evidence is a short history written by the monk Nennius, in which there is a passage mentioning a leader named Arthur. This leader was claimed to have won twelve separate battles against the invading Saxons, but this is where the fault in the evidence lies. Two of these battles, the Battle of Badon and the Battle of the City of Legion, were fought one hundred years apart. It would be almost impossible for a ruler to live that long and still be able to carry out a battle. Along with this, the passage never states who exactly this Arthur was, or where he came from, meaning that it quite possibly was not have the same Arthur. These inaccuracies and flaws in the work caused it to become disregarded as any sort of proof.
As of yet, no verified records of King Arthur have been discovered between the years four hundred A.D. To eight hundred A.D., and, since this was around the time that he would have lived, this is yet more support for the assumption that there was not a real King Arthur. It was still possible that stories of him were simply passed from mouth to mouth through the generations, but the change these stories would have experienced would be greater than if they had been written down, meaning that they could not be fully trusted as sources. This isn't to say that King Arthur wasn't based on another historical figure, however, perhaps another king in that era who helped drive the Saxons from England.
It is possible that King Arthur may have been based upon any number of other rulers or kings, particularly given the fact that there doesn't seem to be a time period which there wasn't a king other than Arthur ruling. This theory is the one most widely held when inquiring into the reality of King Arthur, but even now there is no one king who is currently thought of to be the basis for the legends. There have been many candidates, but none of them have provided enough evidence to be held as the basis for the legends of King Arthur.
One emperor who may have been the basis for the legends of King Arthur was Ambrosius Aurelianus, who was a leader of the Romano-British army. Like the legendary Arthur, he won a major battle against the Anglo-Saxons of England, though the victory did not drive them from their territory. He is mentioned in multiple works of literature, mainly the Historia Regum Britanniae, the Historia Britonum, and the sermon De Excidio Britanniae.
From the work still available, it appears that Ambrosius was of Roman decent, though it was also possible that he was himself a Romano-Briton. This conflicts with the story of King Arthur as Arthur was born in England. Ambrosius may have been born elsewhere, quite probably outside the British Isles entirely. Another point against him is the fact that many of the sources where information about him is found are inaccurate. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historiae Regum Britanniae, is one of the places where he is mentioned, a source proven to have multiple flaws. As well, the dates given for certain battles that were won by King Arthur and Ambrosius give more reason to suspect that the two were not one and the same. In De Excidio Britanniae, Ambrosius is told to have defeated the Saxons at the battle of Mons Badonicus. At the point in time when this battle was fought, King Arthur would have been at least seventy four years old. It is not as unbelievable as him leading a battle when he was over one hundred, but still very unlikely for that time period.
Another historical figure who could possibly be the basis for the King Arthur legends was Lucius Artorius Castus, a military commander in ancient Rome. The only evidence which remains of Lucius today are three fragments from an ancient sarcophagus which he was thought to be buried in, and one memorial plaque near the Chapel of St. Martin. The lack of evidence gives historians enough cause to dismiss the evidence provided, but just these four pieces of evidence have given archaeologists a good deal of information about Lucius.
The inscriptions on the coffin were dated at before the year two hundred, which is off the track of the dates that King Arthur was thought to have lived around. The inscriptions on the sarcophagus suggest that Lucius was a commander of a Roman army in Britain, and from this information some historians have come to believe that he was the leader of the army in the expedition to Armorica, which was the only military movement around that time. This mission was documented, but a name for the leader was never given, making it possible that Lucius could have been the one in charge of the army. A point of conflict arises between the story of Lucius Artorius Castus and the legends of King Arthur, which is that Lucius never led an army against any battles to drive the Saxons out of the Britons' territory. For this reason, some have been led to believe that it is possible that the stories of Lucius began as local legends which eventually grew to encompass the Saxon invasions. No one can be sure of this though, so a link between King Arthur and Lucius Artorius Castus can still not definitely be drawn.
It seems likely that the mystery of King Arthur may never be solved, and he will remain a shadowy figure from the past for the rest of time. While no one has been able to disprove the existence of Arthur to a satisfactory extent, no one has been able to prove it either. So while evidence almost certainly keep popping up over the years to come, there may always be a way to disprove the evidence as much as use it for support. It may continue in this way until the end of time.
Here it is:
Was King Arthur a Real Historical Figure?
If there was any truth behind the legends of King Arthur of Camelot is a very debated fact among historians. It is likely that there was some truth to the legends, but exactly how much reality there was is not known, and as of yet can not be accurately stated. If there was a real figure behind the myths and legends, he may have been a valiant hero who managed to drive the Saxons out of England, or may have simply been a ruler who's accomplishments were blown out of proportion.
King Arthur lived around the fifth or sixth century A.D., though the legends about him didn't become widely popular until the twelfth century when Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae. This book presented British history from when Aeneas first made his journey to Rome up until the end of King Arthur's rule in Britain. The Historiae was one of the first sources from which information about the historicity of King Arthur was taken into consideration as evidence. The sources used by Geoffrey of Monmouth are a disputed topic, however. He claimed that he translated the contents of another ancient book from Latin, but no evidence has been found of this 'ancient book', and it seems likely that he used other histories of his time as references.
The content of the Historia Regum Britanniae was originally looked upon as a true history of Britain, but now, even though it does contain some truth, it is dismissed as historical evidence by scholars. This is especially true for the existence of King Arthur, as no one is quite sure where Geoffrey of Monmouth obtained his information about the king. The only source cited was, “a very ancient book in the Latin tongue.” Most of the book seems to be from other histories of the time, however, such as Bede's Historia Eecclesiastica Gentis Anglorum, and Nennius' History of the Britons. A fair amount of the work may also have been completely from Geoffrey of Monmouth's imagination, rendering it useless as historical information.
There were stories and legends of King Arthur being told even before he began to become widely popular in Britain. These works varied from one to the other widely, but each had the same King Arthur featured or mentioned briefly in them. The texts include works such as Y Gododdin, and the Annales Cambriae. The Annales Cambriae had the best evidence of a King Arthur, as every other historical figure mentioned in the work had been proved to be genuine. It emerged long after the original time of Arthur however, and so the legends passed down may have easily been muddled. This and the reason that its sources were incredibly wide and diverse caused historians to disregard it as any evidence.
There have been multiple findings of inscriptions on stones or tablets that are thought by some as evidence to show that King Arthur existed. One such inscription was found on the Arthur Stone, a stone found in Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, England. This stone was dated at around the sixth century A.D., and the markings on it seemed to point to the existence of King Arthur. The inscription, however, was very roughly scratched into the stone, and is labeled more of a historical graffiti than actual evidence of a real Arthur. It was found being used as part of a drain in the castle, broken in two halves, meaning that its value was not very great. Other inscriptions found on various objects, including the Glastonbury Cross, which was found at what was believed to be Arthur's grave site, are suspected of forgery, and to this day none can be proved as significant evidence.
Some believe that the King Arthur of the legends may be based on a king who was not from England, but from another part of Great Britain entirely. For example, there is evidence to support a King Arthur from Wales. One of the sources which provides such evidence is a short history written by the monk Nennius, in which there is a passage mentioning a leader named Arthur. This leader was claimed to have won twelve separate battles against the invading Saxons, but this is where the fault in the evidence lies. Two of these battles, the Battle of Badon and the Battle of the City of Legion, were fought one hundred years apart. It would be almost impossible for a ruler to live that long and still be able to carry out a battle. Along with this, the passage never states who exactly this Arthur was, or where he came from, meaning that it quite possibly was not have the same Arthur. These inaccuracies and flaws in the work caused it to become disregarded as any sort of proof.
As of yet, no verified records of King Arthur have been discovered between the years four hundred A.D. To eight hundred A.D., and, since this was around the time that he would have lived, this is yet more support for the assumption that there was not a real King Arthur. It was still possible that stories of him were simply passed from mouth to mouth through the generations, but the change these stories would have experienced would be greater than if they had been written down, meaning that they could not be fully trusted as sources. This isn't to say that King Arthur wasn't based on another historical figure, however, perhaps another king in that era who helped drive the Saxons from England.
It is possible that King Arthur may have been based upon any number of other rulers or kings, particularly given the fact that there doesn't seem to be a time period which there wasn't a king other than Arthur ruling. This theory is the one most widely held when inquiring into the reality of King Arthur, but even now there is no one king who is currently thought of to be the basis for the legends. There have been many candidates, but none of them have provided enough evidence to be held as the basis for the legends of King Arthur.
One emperor who may have been the basis for the legends of King Arthur was Ambrosius Aurelianus, who was a leader of the Romano-British army. Like the legendary Arthur, he won a major battle against the Anglo-Saxons of England, though the victory did not drive them from their territory. He is mentioned in multiple works of literature, mainly the Historia Regum Britanniae, the Historia Britonum, and the sermon De Excidio Britanniae.
From the work still available, it appears that Ambrosius was of Roman decent, though it was also possible that he was himself a Romano-Briton. This conflicts with the story of King Arthur as Arthur was born in England. Ambrosius may have been born elsewhere, quite probably outside the British Isles entirely. Another point against him is the fact that many of the sources where information about him is found are inaccurate. For example, Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historiae Regum Britanniae, is one of the places where he is mentioned, a source proven to have multiple flaws. As well, the dates given for certain battles that were won by King Arthur and Ambrosius give more reason to suspect that the two were not one and the same. In De Excidio Britanniae, Ambrosius is told to have defeated the Saxons at the battle of Mons Badonicus. At the point in time when this battle was fought, King Arthur would have been at least seventy four years old. It is not as unbelievable as him leading a battle when he was over one hundred, but still very unlikely for that time period.
Another historical figure who could possibly be the basis for the King Arthur legends was Lucius Artorius Castus, a military commander in ancient Rome. The only evidence which remains of Lucius today are three fragments from an ancient sarcophagus which he was thought to be buried in, and one memorial plaque near the Chapel of St. Martin. The lack of evidence gives historians enough cause to dismiss the evidence provided, but just these four pieces of evidence have given archaeologists a good deal of information about Lucius.
The inscriptions on the coffin were dated at before the year two hundred, which is off the track of the dates that King Arthur was thought to have lived around. The inscriptions on the sarcophagus suggest that Lucius was a commander of a Roman army in Britain, and from this information some historians have come to believe that he was the leader of the army in the expedition to Armorica, which was the only military movement around that time. This mission was documented, but a name for the leader was never given, making it possible that Lucius could have been the one in charge of the army. A point of conflict arises between the story of Lucius Artorius Castus and the legends of King Arthur, which is that Lucius never led an army against any battles to drive the Saxons out of the Britons' territory. For this reason, some have been led to believe that it is possible that the stories of Lucius began as local legends which eventually grew to encompass the Saxon invasions. No one can be sure of this though, so a link between King Arthur and Lucius Artorius Castus can still not definitely be drawn.
It seems likely that the mystery of King Arthur may never be solved, and he will remain a shadowy figure from the past for the rest of time. While no one has been able to disprove the existence of Arthur to a satisfactory extent, no one has been able to prove it either. So while evidence almost certainly keep popping up over the years to come, there may always be a way to disprove the evidence as much as use it for support. It may continue in this way until the end of time.