Arthurean Legend idea

[shiznaw]

The time line is screwed up. 10,000 years ago versus 1200 AD. There is an approximate 11,200 year gap.

[Dromag67]

Heh, I didn't even know that Arthur was related to the Holy Grail. Still, I love it since I get to know new stuff. If all they were doing were repeating what I've learned before in high school (and turning them into aliens), then it'll be boring.

Bingo

[Tenaka]

The time line is screwed up. 10,000 years ago versus 1200 AD. There is an approximate 11,200 year gap.

About 9200 really.

[Jarnin]

Heh, I didn't even know that Arthur was related to the Holy Grail. Still, I love it since I get to know new stuff. If all they were doing were repeating what I've learned before in high school (and turning them into aliens), then it'll be boring.

Perhaps you should read more about King Arthur and Merlin

The time line is screwed up. 10,000 years ago versus 1200 AD. There is an approximate 11,200 year gap.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... Is it that Merlin came back with the Lantians 10,000 years ago, so he should be dead by 1200 AD?

Two words: Time Travel.

The Lantians had time machines, and we know Janus built at least one after they returned to Earth from Atlantis.

[DENIZEN_OF_NE'TU]

Didn't it say in Arthur's Mantle that the reason Merlin was around thousands of years after returning from Atlantis was because he ascended and then descended again in in order to build his anti-ascended being weapon.

[Bragi]

Two words: Time Travel.

The Lantians had time machines, and we know Janus built at least one after they returned to Earth from Atlantis.

This one?

[Chaka's_Mum]

The Arthurian Legend as we know it today (you know the thing - Round Table/Guinevere etc. etc.) is probably the Mallory Version - which was based on a lot of the Mediaeval version of 'pulp literature' that was doing the rounds in France at the time. It's probably around that time, too that the link with the Holy Grail got established. They obviously hadn't got around to reading The Da Vinci Code yet...

But the aspects of Arthur that most historians tend to squabble about (and they do!) are much earlier. I'm pretty sure, too, that Merlin was an entirely separate mythological figure in his own right, long before the legends lumped him in to the same box as Arthur, but I'd have to chase that reference down because I can't remember where I came across it.

The first references to Arthur are in ancient poetic works, such as Y Gododdin - and, while these could well be the first time that these poems were written down (around the 6th Century), that doesn't mean that they hadn't been in circulation a lot longer. Many of the early story cycles of Wales, such as Y Mabinogion, would have been told verbally for donkeys years before anybody actually got around to committing them to parchment.

The useful thing about Arthur is his insubstantiality (is that a real word? Hope so - it sounds pretty cool and academic) You can't prove he existed, and you can't prove he didn't. The best documentary evidence about him is in stories and poems which could simply have been written down from general circulation at the time. If that's the case, then he could be as old as anyone wanted him to be - same for Merlin.

For myself, I'm not bothered about Stargate going down the Arthurian route - there are so many theories/beliefs/stories based on the legend/historical 'investigations' etc. etc. doing the rounds that there's always room for one more - and, in this case, at least no one's claiming it's anything other than fiction. There are a lot of people out there who insist their interpretation is absolutely real.

Hasty disclaimer: Hope this doesn't confuse or offend. I'm not an Arthur Scholar - this is my best guess and it could be total twaddle...