Its funny how people can be idolized for the weirdest reasons i bet that a 100 years from now Elvis will be worshipped as a mesiah and people will swear he actually performed miracles on stage. Reports of his drug abuse will probably be considered apocriphal
>>50336 Nah, I think someone like David Koresh would probably be more apt to be distorted into a strange messianic figure like a hundred years from now. The Waco siege provides a pretty good platform and conclusion for a tragic narrative of persecution and social subversion that could be rediscovered and outrageously reinvented a long time from now.
Legends about him started way too far after he supposedly reigned. A prominent British warlord having the name in the sub-roman period is possible (although all the details that got filled in 400 years later are clearly fiction) but a mythical figure becoming historicized seems a more likely explanation.
There were similar and older myths from native peoples. After Rome left and Britain was invaded those stories were updated and adapted to a small number of successful kings or generals. For whatever reason a few of them had names like Art, Artus, etc. After a while all of the previous stories and the actual historical figures got mixed together, embellished, and retold until we got the Arthurian tales.
>>50336 Have you ever played Fallout: New Vegas? A gang of thugs find a school for Elvis impersonators and vague records of who he was and decide that he was some kind of great hero/king/deity who was worshiped in Las Vegas.
I think there's too much access to information around now for people start thinking Hitler had goat-legs or that Elvis summoned angels with his singing anytime soon. The only way I see it happening is in the distant future so much information will have accumulated that things that seem like common sense to us will be lost in a tide of trivia to massive for a layman to sift through. Historians of the future will have their work cut out for them.
The legend of King Arthur is obviously a myth, but like people have mentioned before, he was an amalgamation of various tales around the time after the fall of Rome and the Anglo-Saxon invasions, mostly from the remnants of the original British, which is why you'll find older versions of the tales from Wales.
Stories are cool and he was probably based on someone real, but Arthur himself is probably just legend. Besides, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
>>50366 Had Harold won the battle of hastings, how much of a difference to the world would it have made. Maybe there should be an alt history thread but as an idea what do you think. The entire royal line would have been different, we would never have had the war of the roses, or the hundred years war. Perhaps parliament would never have formed. The british empire would never have been a thing. etc
>>52365 No, the Plantagenet Kings promoted King Arthur to quell the Welsh. They built a fake tomb and fully immersed themselves in Arthuriana in order to completely crush any hopes of Welsh sovereignty.
>What's your favorite Arthurian romance? >What's your favorite historical analysis of King Arthur? >Does your country have a cultural counterpart(s) to King Arthur? >Favorite piece of modern (20th-21st century) Arthurian media?
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.