Even is he existed, he is dead for centuries.
Explanation:
- The lack of credible material and written sources related to the narratives of Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table might suggest that historical Arthur did not even exist.
- Yet, the prevalence of Arthurian legends in European culture require particular caution from historians who address the issue.
- Depending on what attitude historians have about oral tradition, its significance and role, different, sometimes even completely opposite, answers are formed to the question of whether or not legends are based on truth.
- Some historians still deny the existence of King Arthur today, while others emphasize his enormous role in sixteenth-century British history.
- The truth, as usual, is probably somewhere in between, so today is the most accepted viewpoint that speaks in favor of the existence of Arthur, but only as a warlord or local lord of some of the disparate areas inhabited by the Celtic tribes - the Britons.
Learn more on King Arthur on
brainly.com/question/558817
brainly.com/question/2673644
#learnwithBrainly
Answer: Angela Yvonne Davis
Explanation:
Over 100k? Or something like that
Answer:
The main purpose of The Federalist Papers was to explain the newly proposed constitution (we had a first constitution called The Articles of Confederation) to the people of New York in the hopes of encouraging them to ratify the new constitution in the upcoming ratifying.
Explanation:
