True Legends

Superman · Post by **Superman** » 2003-04-26 12:50am

I think it would have been cool if Sherlock Holmes was a real man. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-04-26 03:10am

Johonebesus wrote:
Baron Mordo wrote:Robin Hood was real. Or at least the basis for him was. A druid that lived in the Sherwood area.
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?

Actually there was a carving in a rock found somewhere in England that said Robin Heud 1235.

At least there was a guy with a similar name. Possibly.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-26 03:56am

Gandalf wrote:
Johonebesus wrote:
Baron Mordo wrote:Robin Hood was real. Or at least the basis for him was. A druid that lived in the Sherwood area.
You are being sarcastic, aren't you?
Actually there was a carving in a rock found somewhere in England that said Robin Heud 1235.

At least there was a guy with a similar name. Possibly.

If you're talking about the tombstone, most people agree that it's a hoax. A very old hoax.

And as for King Arthur, there is no real consensus. He may have been a Romanised Celtic general. But there are a multitude of contenders, and don't forget the Arthur legends from Brittany, as well.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-04-26 09:35am

Superman wrote:I think it would have been cool if Sherlock Holmes was a real man. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that.

I heard Sir Arthur Conan Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on himself or a professor from his university.

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-04-26 11:55am

Robin hood was based on a real life person, but the real life person was a bastard IIRC.

William Tell was real too.

Raptor 597 · Post by **Raptor 597** » 2003-04-26 01:06pm

Rye wrote:Who was that warrior queen we had? Boudica or something....wasn't she real?

Boudica was as stated real. It took 3-4 top notch Roman Legions to bring down her 70,000 man horde.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-26 01:11pm

Captain Lennox wrote:
Boudica was as stated real. It took 3-4 top notch Roman Legions to bring down her 70,000 man horde.

She got 0wNed.

Johonebesus · Post by **Johonebesus** » 2003-04-26 04:15pm

Frank Hipper wrote: And as for King Arthur, there is no real consensus. He may have been a Romanised Celtic general. But there are a multitude of contenders, and don't forget the Arthur legends from Brittany, as well.

The trouble with Arthur is that as you go back in the historical record, he disappears. The earliest author to mention him is, I believe, Nennius, writing in the ninth century. There is no significant reference to Arthur prior to that. The Welsh Matter was collected and recorded during the High Middle Ages, and the Saint's Lives which mention Arthur also have a late date. The only writer who would have known Arthur never mentioned him, and there is not a single piece of evidence, either physical or textural, to indicate that such a man ever existed. The only reason to believe in Arthur is: "well, there are so many stories, there must be some truth in them." Unfortunately, as the case of Roland shows, it is quite possible for great epics to be created from almost nothing.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-04-26 05:00pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:Mabd was real too, although I do't know about Cu-Culain

The genesis of the Chu Chulainn (Hound of Chulainn) legend was probably factual -- some guy kills some other guy's dog, feels really bad about it, takes the dog's place, does lots of cool shit.

The start of it sounds a little too humiliating to be completely imaginary.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-04-26 10:42pm

One that I propose for possibly being a historical character is Quetzalcoatl. According to the Aztec legends, he was a Toltec king who was tricked into having sex with his daughter, and left Mexico in shame. There are also Maya versions involving the founding of Chichen Itza. Whether an actual person, or perhaps a dynasty, it would appear that real people got involved somehow in earlier creation myths.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-04-26 11:39pm

The legends about the founding of Rome- i.e. the sack of the Sabines, the battle of the Curatii and Horatii, almost certainly have some founding in truth, so I'm not so sure about the Aeneid.