Hello everyone,

I was wondering if we do have a plausible explanation for this case of The Legendary ‘Sword in the Stone’which was discovered at Montesiepi Chapel in Italy, and belongs to St. Galgano Guidotti.

More information on this link: http://www.hoaxorfact.com/history/the-legendary-sword-in-the-stone-is-real-discovered-at-montesiepi-chapel-in-italy-facts.html

Waiting for your views. Thank you

Could you perhaps explain what form of explanation you want?

It's a sword in a stone. I am not clear what needs to be explained about that? It seems pretty self-explanatory to me!

Probably the Italians got jelly RE the Arthurian legend so decided to make their own version. A lot of time on their hands, monks...

ETA: Oh wow my avatar!!

That dude from Turin left it there.

mercy18 wrote:The Legendary ‘Sword in the Stone’which was discovered at Montesiepi Chapel in Italy, and belongs to St. Galgano Guidotti.

Incidentally, it wasn't really 'discovered' - it's not only been there for centuries, but they built a massive great abbey around it specifically because it was there, and the guy got sainted on account of it within a few years of his death.

My explanation is that Simon de Montfort (1208-1265) knew about it and incorporated it into his writings, which were the source of the modern legend, compiled by Thomas Mallory in the 15th century.

There are those hereabouts who will recall that I spent more than five years tracking Arthurian tales to source. I considered writing a book about it at one point.

laklak wrote:That dude from Turin left it there.

But don't you know that NASA produced a 3d image?

Sheesh. Rubes.

hackenslash wrote:
There are those hereabouts who will recall that I spent more than five years tracking Arthurian tales to source. I considered writing a book about it at one point.

You know what? I never knew that and I've always loved the Arthurian legend, and the associated tales' folk-lore origins.

Write it and I guarantee I will read it!

It’s bullshit.

From a rather more scientific source

https://archive.archaeology.org/0201/newsbriefs/sword.html

I quote

readers should be informed that the sword was easily removable from the stone until 1924, when the crevice was filled with lead.

Blackadder wrote:From a rather more scientific source

https://archive.archaeology.org/0201/newsbriefs/sword.html

I quote

readers should be informed that the sword was easily removable from the stone until 1924, when the crevice was filled with lead.

I was kind of wondering whether we were meant to explain the fact of it being in the stone when it has apparently been in the stone less time than it's been out of the stone!

The current one is a replica cemented in. I think the original hilt and pommel is still kept on the abbey grounds though.

The apparent large cavity in the stone lower down may give some easy clues as to how the sword got into the stone though, if that was the OP's question. Basically, they cut a hole in the stone and put the sword in. It's not really hard to imagine; it's the kind of thing you could do at home with normal household tools.

hackenslash wrote:My explanation is that Simon de Montfort (1208-1265) knew about it and incorporated it into his writings, which were the source of the modern legend, compiled by Thomas Mallory in the 15th century.

There are those hereabouts who will recall that I spent more than five years tracking Arthurian tales to source. I considered writing a book about it at one point.

It's possible, but the traditional importance of stones and swords was not strange to Celtic history:
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/art-and-design/a-history-of-ireland-in-100-objects-1.613295

hackenslash wrote:My explanation is that Simon de Montfort (1208-1265) knew about it and incorporated it into his writings, which were the source of the modern legend, compiled by Thomas Mallory in the 15th century.

There are those hereabouts who will recall that I spent more than five years tracking Arthurian tales to source. I considered writing a book about it at one point.

Are you also going to look into the Roman-Briton person mentioned by the 9th century monk Nunnius and the pseudohistoric account by the 10th century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:... the pseudohistoric account by the 10th century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth?

12th century, no?

Spearthrower wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:... the pseudohistoric account by the 10th century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth?

12th century, no?

Probably yes, I googled his name, which I remembered, but not the date of publication and his birthday was in 1095.

Edit. Which would make it 11th century.

I suspected so, but you can never tell as there always appears to be multiple people with the same name and appellation just when you least expect it!

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My explanation is that Simon de Montfort (1208-1265) knew about it and incorporated it into his writings, which were the source of the modern legend, compiled by Thomas Mallory in the 15th century.

There are those hereabouts who will recall that I spent more than five years tracking Arthurian tales to source. I considered writing a book about it at one point.

Are you also going to look into the Roman-Briton person mentioned by the 9th century monk Nunnius and the pseudohistoric account by the 10th century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth?

Already did, though Arturis wasn't Roman-Briton, he was a Rusky, from the Steppes.

hackenslash wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My explanation is that Simon de Montfort (1208-1265) knew about it and incorporated it into his writings, which were the source of the modern legend, compiled by Thomas Mallory in the 15th century.

There are those hereabouts who will recall that I spent more than five years tracking Arthurian tales to source. I considered writing a book about it at one point.

Are you also going to look into the Roman-Briton person mentioned by the 9th century monk Nunnius and the pseudohistoric account by the 10th century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth?

Already did, though Arturis wasn't Roman-Briton, he was a Rusky, from the Steppes.

I meant the time period not the nationality of that Arthur.

hackenslash wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

hackenslash wrote:My explanation is that Simon de Montfort (1208-1265) knew about it and incorporated it into his writings, which were the source of the modern legend, compiled by Thomas Mallory in the 15th century.

There are those hereabouts who will recall that I spent more than five years tracking Arthurian tales to source. I considered writing a book about it at one point.

Are you also going to look into the Roman-Briton person mentioned by the 9th century monk Nunnius and the pseudohistoric account by the 12th century cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth?

Already did, though Arturis wasn't Roman-Briton, he was a Rusky, from the Steppes.

WTF?

Svartalf wrote:
WTF?

You have to follow the innumerable interpretations given across the ages to understand the relevance.

I think in Nennius' interpretation or, more accurately, modern interpretations of Nennius' interpretation, "Arthur" was a Sarmatian war leader sent by Roman Emperor Commodus along with a retinue of his fellow country-men to guard Hadrian's Wall. In this interpretation, his Roman name was Lucius Artorius Castus. The story goes that in 185, Caledonians overran the wall, "Arthur" initially led the defense of Roman Britain before being sent to deal with Gaul uprisings in Armorica, after which he returned to Britain. An awful lot of this is based pretty much solely on his name asserting that 'Arthur' isn't a name you find in British history preceding this, plus some apparently wilful make-believe that Castus' pennant was a red rampant dragon.

Bearing in mind as well that in this story, Camelot is Eboracum, for some unknown reason I can't begin to fathom.

What's most interesting about this conjecture is how motivated the modern renewals of this interpretation are, and how they're invariably related to notions of white supremacy, typically of a Serbian flavour, and the alleged origins of the 'white race' as being slavic. All the white nationalists want Arthur as their own, as well as all the other historical 'great' figures.