Actually, yes I did.  I had never really understood that period of England's history, or who the Saxons or the Normans were.  I didn't know who William the Conquerer was, though I had heard of him.  Now I do.  I had certainly never heard of Hadrian's Wall, Badon Hill, the massacre at Stonehenge, or many other references that you Brits must take for granted.  All in all, I found it to be fascinating and informative.

Quote:

Never heard of that one myself. ??? I wouldn't believe all they tell you on the History Channel. http://www.anima.demon.co.uk/stonehenge/

If it follows the usual Hollywood tradition this new King Arthur film will bear very little resemblance to history.

Quote:

I think this quote from my link says it all.
Quote:


The original Britons were tribal Celtic people & mainly driven out of what is now called England (Angle-land) to Scotland, Wales & Ireland by the Anglo-Saxon invaders from Germany. The British Isles were invaded in turn by the Romans, Saxons, Vikings & finally the Normans in 1066.

Quote:

No. I believe the Normans were of Viking ancestry & settled in a small area of France. This was known as the "Duchy of Normandy". The invaders very quickly adopted the religion, customs, and language of the surrounding French population. The duchy was run more like an independent kingdom rather than being part of France. By the 11th century it was one of the most powerful regions of western Europe.

Well, even though I didn't watch the documentry i've read enough about King Arthur to believe most of it is true. If you read the transcrips by Geoffry of Monmouth then you will find that King Arthur ruled soon after the romans left and a centuarys before the Angles, saxons and Vikings showed their faces. Arthur is believed to be the tribal chief that took over command of the country when the romans buggered off back to italy and is the one who kept the picts at bay for a few years. However, even though we don't know this for certain as it was the dark ages, I believe its highly possible that Arthur existed. Afterall, the romans were likely to leave one man in charge, of if they didn't one was highly likely to take charge.

Now for those who care, Arthurs last battle, was supposedly fought in Cornwall, near what is now Looe. Looe pool is the body of water where Excalibur was thrown by Sir Galihad after Arthur was mortally wounded in his showdown with Mordred and Arthure himself was supposedly buried either in the land of Lyonesse (the land ruled by Sir Tristen) or on one of the islands of the Scilly isles (there are two islands there that bear his name big arthur and little arthur).

Quote:

Not being a specialist in this period of history I can only go by what I've been told or read over the years. I think it's generally agreed that the Normans (Northmen) originated in Scandanavia (Vikings). I've always understood that William of Normandy (William the Conqueror) was the bastard son of the Duke of Normandy & of Norman decent.
Quote:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MA/NORMANS.HTM

As for King Arthur being a Cornishman take your pick. Depending on who you believe he is claimed by Somerset, Wales, Scotland & even France.
http://www.earlybritishkingdoms.com/arthur/places/index.html
Although there might be some truth in it I think you have to accept that it's all mainly legend & myth. A nice story though.

As I said, take your pick. None of this was documented at the time. As you pointed out earlier it was the Dark Ages.

Quote:

Quote: