Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A little of both.
There may well have been a sword called excaliber, but instead of being majic, it was used by a man who's skills with it were unmatched.
As with all Legends, there almost has to be some kernel of truth to it. Stories of heroic weapons and the men who wielded them have existed for as long as mankind has been making weapons. They even exist in the Bible. The idea that a particular weapon can make a man invinvible, or has certain powers goes to the heart of the ideal behind combat.... Courage.
The Vikings were well known for naming their weapons fearsome and gruesome things.... "Skull-Ripper", "Knee-Biter", "Wasp Sting" (a bow), MJOLNIR (Thor's Hammer) etc.... to strike fear into their enemies and to help settle their own nerves. So why would it be so amazing to find that a Saxon Lord carried a blade called "Excaliber" which was purportedly given to him by a supernatural force in his moment of need?
A little of both.
There may well have been a sword called excaliber, but instead of being majic, it was used by a man who's skills with it were unmatched.
Exactly. Did the Sword make the Man, or did the Man make the Sword?
Calling the Sword in the Stone "Excalibur" doesn't fit the Arthurian legend, as I know it. They were two different swords. The pulling of the Sword in the Stone was the feat that made Arthur king. Excalibur, on the other hand, was made later and presented to him by the Lady of the Lake. I know there are many variations to the story, but I don't recall any that conflated the two swords. Help with a cite?
Calling the Sword in the Stone "Excalibur" doesn't fit the Arthurian legend, as I know it. They were two different swords. The pulling of the Sword in the Stone was the feat that made Arthur king. Excalibur, on the other hand, was made later and presented to him by the Lady of the Lake. I know there are many variations to the story, but I don't recall any that conflated the two swords. Help with a cite?
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
*sigh*Calling the Sword in the Stone "Excalibur" doesn't fit the Arthurian legend, as I know it. They were two different swords. The pulling of the Sword in the Stone was the feat that made Arthur king. Excalibur, on the other hand, was made later and presented to him by the Lady of the Lake. I know there are many variations to the story, but I don't recall any that conflated the two swords. Help with a cite?
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
You've got the story wrong. Power was conferred by pulling the of the Sword in the Stone and the masses gave their mandate on that account. The presentation of Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake came later.
*sigh*Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
You've got the story wrong. Power was conferred by pulling the of the Sword in the Stone and the masses gave their mandate on that account. The presentation of Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake came later.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Calling the Sword in the Stone "Excalibur" doesn't fit the Arthurian legend, as I know it. They were two different swords. The pulling of the Sword in the Stone was the feat that made Arthur king. Excalibur, on the other hand, was made later and presented to him by the Lady of the Lake. I know there are many variations to the story, but I don't recall any that conflated the two swords. Help with a cite?
Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away.
You've got the story wrong. Power was conferred by pulling the of the Sword in the Stone and the masses gave their mandate on that account. The presentation of Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake came later.
*sigh*You've got the story wrong. Power was conferred by pulling the of the Sword in the Stone and the masses gave their mandate on that account. The presentation of Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake came later.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Monty Python?!?! What does that have to do with anything?
*sigh*You've got the story wrong. Power was conferred by pulling the of the Sword in the Stone and the masses gave their mandate on that account. The presentation of Excalibur by the Lady of the Lake came later.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Monty Python?!?! What does that have to do with anything?