Food Establishment Standard Of Care - Maps And Records: Fill & Download for Free

1) The United States Military is one of the world's largest providers of international aid and disaster relief.I enjoy this fact because so little is it remembered. Not only is the US military usually involved with most global conflicts, but they are also present in the time of need for almost every international natural disaster in which aid can be rendered. I love advertising this fact because so often I hear about all the evils of the United States, but not once have I ever heard the phrase, "Hey America. Thanks a bunch for the assist. Tsunamis really suck."As well as this, the military also makes regular deployments to disenfranchised and impoverished developing nations to provide immediate health and medical support during times of non-violence or disaster. These services are free to the people of those nations and supported entirely by United States taxpayer dollars.Case in point, the USNS Mercy.This is the USNS Mercy. She is a massive hospital ship and, along with her sister ship the USNS Comfort, has the proud and distinguished mission to sail around the world to places in desperate need of medical aid and support. Officially, their primary mission is to:provide rapid, flexible, and mobile acute medical and surgical services to support Marine Corps Air/Ground Task Forces deployed ashore; Army and Air Force units deployed ashore; and naval amphibious task forces and battle forces afloat.Secondarily, they provide “mobile surgical hospital service for use by appropriate US Government agencies in disaster/humanitarian relief or limited humanitarian care incidents to these missions or peacetime military operations.”Looking at the record, you'll find that the Mercy and Comfort have been quite busy with "secondary" missions. Here is a list of some of the Mercy and Comfort's "secondary" missions:1987 - (USNS Mercy) Over 62,000 outpatients and almost 1,000 inpatients were treated at seven Philippine and South Pacific ports during training in 1984 through 1987.1990* - (USNS Mercy) Admitted 690 patients and performed almost 300 surgeries. (USNS Comfort) More than 8,000 outpatients were seen, and 700 inpatients. 337 surgical procedures were performed. Other notable benchmarks include: more than 2,100 safe helicopter evolutions; 7,000 prescriptions filled; 17,000 laboratory tests completed; 1,600 eyeglasses made; 800,000 meals served and 1,340 radiographic studies, including 141 CT scans.2001 - 9/11 - (USNS Comfort) The ship's clinic saw 561 guests for cuts, respiratory ailments, fractures and other minor injuries, and Comfort's team of Navy psychology personnel provided 500 mental health consultations to relief workers.[5] Comfort also hosted a group of volunteer New York area massage therapists who gave 1,359 therapeutic medical massages to ship guests.2003 * - (USNS Comfort) 590 surgical procedures, transfused more than 600 units of blood, developed more than 8,000 radiographic images and treated nearly 700 patients including almost 200 Iraqi civilians and enemy prisoners of war.2005 - Indian Ocean Tsunami - (USNS Mercy) Combined, provided 108,000 patient services, rendered by members of the Department of Defense, Project Hope, and the United States Public Health Service.2005 - (USNS Comfort) Comfort deployed on September 2, 2005, after only a two-day preparation, to assist in Gulf Coast recovery efforts after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Starting in Pascagoula, Mississippi and then sailing to New Orleans, Comfort personnel saw 1,956 patients total.2007 - (USNS Comfort) Central and South America. In all, the civilian and military medical team treated more than 98,000 patients, provided 386,000 patient encounters and performed 1,100 surgeries. Dentists and staff treated 25,000 patients, extracting 300 teeth, and performing 4,000 fillings, 7,000 sealings, and 20,000 fluoride applications. In addition to treating patients, bio-medical professionals fixed about a thousand pieces of medical equipment at local health facilities. The ship's crew also delivered nearly $200,000 dollars worth of donated humanitarian aid.2008 - (USNS Mercy) Over the course of one deployment, Mercy would treat 91,000 patients, including performing 1,369 surgeries.2010 - (USNS Mercy) Treated 109,754 patients and performed 1,580 surgeries in Southeast Asia.2010 - (USNS Comfort) Haiti Earthquake disaster. Between January 19 and February 28, 2010, the ship's staff treated 1,000 Haitian patients and performed 850 surgeries. Also, the mission saw the ship's first on-board delivery, of a 4-pound, 5-ounce premature baby named Esther.2011 - (USNS Comfort) - The ship deployed for five months providing medical services to locations in the Caribbean and Latin America.It is important to remember that all this is done, by only two ships. Beyond these two ships, the United States Navy takes part in many humanitarian service missions each year. Several ships are deployed with missions other than warfare to provide free aid and medical support.There are also ongoing operations such as the Pacific Partnership. The Pacific Partnership is an annual deployment of forces from the Pacific Fleet of the United States Navy (USN), in cooperation with regional governments and military forces, along with humanitarian and non-government organizations.The deployment was conceived following the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami. The goal was to improve the interoperability of the region's military forces, governments, and humanitarian organisations during disaster relief operations. Specifically, it focused on providing humanitarian, medical, dental, and engineering assistance to nations of the Pacific, and strengthening relationships and security ties between the nations. Between 2006 and 2010, Pacific Partnership has visited 13 countries, treated more than 300,000 patients, and built over 130 engineering projects.The MEU to the RescueWithin the United States Marines, there exists elements that specialize in being the first into a war zone. Most of the offensive parts of the Marine Corps are built around this idea, but particularly there is one capability that is most crucial to this mission.The Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU for short) is capable of deploying troops anywhere within reach of a the water within 48 hours. They are prepared for potential long-term hostile engagements, which means they have supplies and armaments to survive and thrive a long a long military campaign even without the support of the United States vast logistics network. As they say, “First to the Fight”. They are specialized to patrol every ocean in the world for signs of danger and disorder, and to do something about it.The Marine Expeditionary Units were built for an unforeseen sudden conflict, but their specialties make them particularly useful for rendering aid when less nefarious forms of disaster strike. They are adept to address and adapt to the needs of millions of people throughout the world in need of immediate emergency assistance. They are able to move so quickly that they outpace more formal relief organizations, like the Red Cross or the United Nations, by days or weeks. This is why these lethal warfighters are often given the mission to be the vanguard of western nations helping less fortunate nations in times of dire need.Marines supply civilians after the 2005 tsunami.Medical staff giving aid to displaced villager.3rd FSSG Marines assist with the distribution of humanitarian aid at Palonia Air Field, Medan, Indonesia, as part of Operation Unified Assistance.And Yes, There’s MoreMore recently, after the devastation from the 2010 Haiti Earthquake disaster, soldiers from the United States Army were deployed to assist in delivering badly needed supplies, such as food, water and other necessities to the region.Soldiers prepare food and water for Haitian victims of the Earthquake.I'm going to lay it out straight. I am willing to bet almost no one knew about the scale of the United States' disaster relief history before reading this answer. You probably had no idea of the depth of support that the United States military contributes to the world each time a major disaster strikes somewhere on the planet Earth. You know that help was sent, but did your ever really ask who it was or what form it took? You may have seen many headlines about the brave 150 doctors that went as part of the Doctors Without Borders program, but were you aware of the tens of thousands of soldiers, sailors, and Marines that were there before even the news journalists were present?And no, this isn’t just easy photo ops for the cameras. What the military does for those in need are things no one else would even attempt for people no one else seems to care about. In May of 2015, a UH-1Y with the III Marine Expeditionary Force, crashed while delivering aid to the remote mountain village of Charikot in Nepal following a 7.3 magnitude earthquake. The six Marines on that flight lost their lives, but you probably never heard about their great sacrifice, I’m sure.It’s easy to rattle off statistics and popular viewpoints about what monsters the American warfighters are. Cynics will moan about all the people that the harm and suffering wrought by the US military worldwide, but no one in the history of the world can declare that they have made such great strides in providing aid and relief like the Americans.This should ring especially significant, since we have absolutely no real obligation to do so if previous major world powers are to be our example.You could compare us to the Raubwirtschaft (plunder economies) of Germany, Japan and Russia during their time in power. You could also look at "aid" the European people provided the African colonies during their time as superpowers. Even better... look at what they are doing for the world right now. Where is their great big white boat with doctors and dentists? Where are their Marines after an earthquake or hurricane? At home, on their porches, sipping on a cup of self-righteousness as they lecture the world about the virtues of pacifism and the horrors of the American military. It's hypocritical and it's ignorant.While many find that the superstructure that is the US military is a bloated and imperialistic beast, it's still the largest and most efficient source in the world to get help where help is needed. That help happens whether that be in calming a diplomatic hot spot, giving food to a devastated rural village or fixing cleft pallets for children in a part of a country that has never seen a dentist or surgeon. Would I like to see other, more pacifist organizations do the job? Sure I would, but so far the world is more content to complain than attempt to do what we do.The US military doesn't suffer from that handicap.Say what you want about us, but without that aid provided by hundreds of thousands of American service people and a few hundred million taxpayers, millions upon millions of people who have been fed, vaccinated, operated on, given shelter, given homes, bathed, birthed, and listened to would not have the quality of life they now have. Let’s not forget how many of them, would also now be dead without us.Sure it's easy to gauge the military on violent metrics, (which is also appropriate) but how do you measure the value of those we have helped? That's a philosopher's discussion; not one for the Marines. Yeah, the Americans and their military have an ugly job, but if you're one of the veterans, you ought to be pretty proud right now. [2]That is such a pretty medal isn't it? About that...2) The uniforms are not provided by tax payer dollars. They are paid for by the troops themselves.Neat how I segued from the Humanitarian Service Medal to my point on how much uniforms cost, huh?See this beautiful example of a human being above? People who can read his rack (the medals on his chest) know this man is truly a boss. I'll list a few of the really cool ones. He's stellar: Two Navy Commendation Medals, Three Navy Achievement medals and a few Good Cookies. He's also a bona fide war hero: Two National Defense Medals (two different periods of war), several combat action ribbons, two devices known throughout the Corps as the “Recon Combo”, and the crème de la crème, the Enemy Accuracy Medal, better known as the Purple Heart. Plus, this flower looking thing I can only assume means he's awesome (or Canadian?) not to mention at least 13 different pieces of insignia I don't care to mention.Do you know how John D. Taxpayer thanks the honorable Gunnery Sergeant Awesomesauce? By making him pay for each and every freaking thing you see... even down to the buttons on his stinking coat. Did I mention those medals are gold plated?These are the Uniforms of the USMC. [3] I will make the caveat that it is true that military personnel are provided with one piece of every item they need when they first enter boot camp. What most don't know is that these also come out of their paycheck. It is sort of a hidden cost since we are more involved in boot camp than watching our finances. We all know it happens, but just have to get it done. It is assumed that this uniform item is supposed to last throughout their enlistment which could last 30 years. And those medals you earn? You're given one when earn it. It's like the Humanitarian Service Medal above. It isn't the gold plated version and basically, you have no uniform you are allowed to wear it in. For all the medals you actually wear, you have to pay between $13 and $60 for the pretty gold plated one. Interesting huh?This is made easier by a stipend military folks receive that is around $200 every year for replacement of uniform items. Let's look closer at that, though.I am going to go over an estimated cost of what is shown by the Gunnery Sergeant in this picture.Section A: CoverAnodized Cap Button Set: $3.95Black Chin Strap for Service Frame (All Ranks) $5.00Cap Ornament for Dress Frame Enlisted $6.95Enlisted Frame Only Bernard $33.50White Cover ONLY for Bernard Officer Frame $34.00Total Cost of "Cool Hat": $83.40Section B: MedalsAnodized Finish Full Sized Medals range from $13 - $80Purple Heart - $54Navy & Marine Corps Commendation Medal - $13Estimated cost of the other 10 medals at an average of $20 each: $200Combatant Diver Badge Regulation: $8.95Parachutist Wings Regulation, Anodized: $9.951/8" Single Star - $1.49 x 7 (visible): $10.43Total cost of "Bling" - $296.33Section C: Other DevicesRibbons: $1.15 x 8: $9.201/8" Single Star - $1.49 x 8: $11.92Other devices: $9.00Extra Doo-Dads - $30.12Section D: The Blues CoatButton Set for Enlisted Male Dress Blue Coat: $52.95Collar Ornament for Blue Dress Enlisted: $6.95Marine Corps Dress Blue Coat: $349.95Gunnery Sergeant Rank Insignia: $13.95Total for the Coat: $423.80Total for everything visible:$833.65[4]I'll remind readers that this is just what is visible in that image. I am only showing you the parts visible in the picture. Not shown, but simply must be there, are $83 pants, $99 shoes, a $50 belt buckle, service stripes, blood stripes and at least four other trinkets I can think of off the top of my head.Let's not forget that that guy doesn't look like a seamstress, so add in tailoring. And not to be topped, this is all still just one uniform of the six regulation uniforms that Marines are required to upkeep at all times, not to mention multiple sets of pristine camouflage utilities.You might not realize this from the outside, but military troops' uniforms come at a very high cost, so to speak.Not only is there the cost of earning the right to wear it, but the sacrifice of time and money to upkeep it. As I have said, we receive the few items we are issued (bought) at boot camp. We are issued one cheap version of the medals we earn, but aren't really allowed to wear them (because it's the cheap version). We also receive a regular pittance to upkeep it. I hope I have shown that that is hopelessly insufficient for all the gear and uniform items we are expected to maintain.I could go on about how many pairs of combat utilities I went through on my two Iraq deployments and my many training missions and how the two they gave me just didn't make it. I could go on about how if one of those gold medals got scratched... it was worthless and you had to get a new one. Did you know that gold is one of the most malleable metals on Earth? You will once you replace a $22 medal because Corporal saw a scratch on it. I could go on about the countless inspections to ensure that our uniforms were perfect... perfect. But I won't bore you with the detail on those. What I will say is that they are important to us. We work exceptionally hard to make sure that they are pristine and represent all the greatest qualities we can put into them. They are trying to convey an image and ideal of respectable men and women that instill courage and a sense of pride and security in the people they serve.Of course this is also why we write answers like this Nick Layon's answer to What is the fashion trend you dislike the most, and why? or go ballistic when we see celebrities do this:It’s also why comments such as this don’t usually have the intended result of shaming us back into our place:So what you don't like is when the citizens you protect wear the uniform you wear while preserving our freedom? And for this you raise your voice at them? Are you aware sir, that the taxes those people pay on the clothes you don't like them wearing are what pays your salary?Yes. In case you didn't know. Military personnel can easily spend more than a third of their after tax disposable income a year on uniform items. They do this out a sense of pride. They do this out of a sense of honor and respect to the uniform and what it represents. They do this so that when you see them, you can gain a sense of pride and feel safe knowing that when all hell breaks loose, a professional is ready to meet it. They do this to not be yelled at during inspections. They do this because it proves that they are special.What I hope you take away from this, if nothing else, is that your tax dollars are a drop in the bucket for what military personnel pay every year for their uniforms.Also, don't be surprised to receive a knife hand to the temple if you expect praise, gratitude, fealty, or admiration because you were so generous to pay your obligatory taxes this year. Military people don't owe you anything just because you pay taxes and you didn't put those medals on our chests. We look good because we paid for the right to, in more ways than one. [5]3) Our Navy Were Basically Pirates.Ok, I know I just made the biggest deal about how the United States military has relatively unheard-of aspects that include noble and virtuous service to disaster-stricken regions and that our uniforms mark us as some of the proudest and most professional military personnel on the planet.So why on Earth would I say that we started off as pirates? Because someone who reads the facts and has a vague understanding of military practices has some hard truths to deal with when looking at American military history. There are some colorful factoids hidden in sunken chests down under the sea that paint a picture few have ever really seen. There was some downright swashbuckling going on back then. I've taken a pretty liberal historical licence, but there is, as is the case with everything else, much more to the story than what made it to our history books. Let's take a look.Take a look at this flag. What do you see? Anything familiar?You guessed right! It's the flag of the British East India Company! How smart you are! Doesn't look at all like anything else after all...Notice again some of the elements of the flag. The first thing we need to know is that this was a Naval flag and all the elements have important naval meanings. It was colonial practice to place the mother nation's standard at the top corner against the mast. Here we see the Union Jack, the national flag of the United Kingdom, present, as it appeared during the time of the American Revolution. What is also important was the red field.In those days, such a flag would denote the ensign of the trade navy; ships not meant specifically for war, but to support the economic empires of the sea. Such a flag as the one below would indicate that it was an official trade ship flying under the protection of the crown of England. The red color also meant that it was a civilian ship and that its only mission should be one of trade.So alright, well still the stripes are a big deal though. It's hard not to see those stripes, right?Yes. It is hard. That's why many of the major shipping companies of that era made special marks on their flags by simply sewing white stripes across the field. Don't think of it as red and white stripes, but as a red field with white stripes on it. In fact there was one such company that made a remarkable effort to emulate the Colonial Flag, nearly 70 years before we ever flew it. They were the East India Trading Company, and had been waving a flag virtually identical to the Grand Union Flag, the first flag of the United States, for the better part of a century before the Revolutionary War.Now it's just me, but if I were a British ship just looking over and see a flag that looked like that, I probably wouldn't think of some navy that no one has heard of yet coming to buckle my swashes.With that said, I’m willing to bet that was the intention of the Continental Colors as it was used by the ragtag fleet of the American navy. Some might call that a case of mistaken identity, or clever use of unconventional warfare, while others might go as far as to say that it is downright piracy. Still some might just say it is one big convenient coincidence.I don’t believe in such coincidences.On MarinesHere are a few things that you should know about my beloved Marine Corps. One of the first facts that every good Marine knows, myself being among that noble tradition, is where the Marine Corps was born. Do you know? It was Tun Tavern in Philadelphia, Pennsylvanian.Yep, at a bar.The proudest and most lethal fighting men in the planet are the ancestors of a bunch of rowdy drunks. Well, for better or worse, little has changed.Our first recorded battle was the Battle of Nassau, led by Captain Samuel Nicholas, which consisted of 250 Marines and sailors who landed in New Providence and marched to Nassau Town. There, they wreaked much damage and seized naval stores of shot, shells, and cannon, but failed to capture most of the desperately needed gun powder. The forts at Nassau and Fort Montagu were raided and stripped of their armaments, while Marines occupied the town of Nassau for a lengthy stay. While in Nassau the Marines "relieved" them of some of their unwanted burdens, as well. Governor Browne complained that the rebel officers consumed most of his liquor stores during the occupation, and also wrote that he was taken in chains like a "felon to the gallows" when he was arrested and taken to the Alfred.Since then, for the most part, we have cleaned up our act — a bit. For those early days, however, it is my belief that the Continental Marines' use of "unconventional warfare" to complete their missions might warrant a closer look at our views of their history, or at least just reveal them as the colorfully exuberant fellows of cheer and good character that they were.The Father of the American NavySwitching back to the Navy, meet John Paul "Jones" and the Continental Navy. After combing the web for information on John Paul, on his best day, he was a jerk. Let's begin. This man is often cited as one of the founding fathers of the U.S. Navy. His sarcophagus even, rests to this day, in the US Naval Academy in Annapolis. Pretty cool, but let's check his resumé.Began work on a slave-trade ship.Next, worked on a brig (prison ship) where his first mate and captain conveniently died of disease, leaving him the de facto captain of the ship.He later captained his own ship where he savagely flogged two of his sailors for disciplinary actions, one to death.After this, he killed one of his sailors for mutiny by stabbing him in the chest. Following that incident he fled the Royal Navy and went to Virginia and added the surname "Jones" in an effort to avoid his pursuers for what amounted to murder. By his account, it was an act of self-defense, but no one I know runs to a non-extradition country and changes their name for self-defense. Just saying, I don't think he was all-in-all a stand-up guy.Following this John Paul Jones was recruited to the Continental Navy, because hey, beggars can’t be choosers. His successful exploits with the Royal Navy made him a prime candidate for a new navy starving for officers, even legit psychos. He then captained one of the vessels bound for Nassau in the Bahamas. The small fleet of ships captured the city, several ships and supplies, the whole time waving what was believed to be the Grand Union Flag that looked suspiciously like the 70 year old flag of a very, very famous trade company.From this point on, John Paul Jones led many other raids on naval shipping and port towns. He was successful enough that he was given the go-ahead to become a curse on English shipping.After touching base in France he actually sailed up to the coast of England and Ireland and started attacking British merchant shipping. In his career he captured many ships and a vast amount of supplies for the Colonial cause. All this while routinely facing problems from his crew who, as his journal accounts "'Their object,' they said, 'was gain not honor.' Among other actions his men were famed for raiding villages and conducting arson attacks on the English towns. In another report, Jones stated that at one point he wanted to leave, but his crew wished to "pillage, burn, and plunder all they could".Now this is just me talking, but I am surprised that a man who once beat his sailors to death would be having such discipline problems. Just sayin'.Now, I know that not everyone is a fan of 18th century naval warfare, but his tactics were conducive to a rather different form of naval warfare than his famed Bon Homme Richard, where he is famed for his saying, "I have not yet begun to fight!" No, this was a different form of naval practice. If you haven't pieced it together yet...John Paul Jones and much of the Colonial Navy were as close as it gets to pirates. [6]4) The United States Military is one the Most Educated Industries in the World.The United States military boasts some of the most educated warfighters in the world, not to mention in the history of warfare. All US service members must have at the time of their enlistment a high school diploma or the general equivalency diploma. To be more clear, more than 99% of those enlisted have a high school education comparable to about 60% that you will find in the general population. Also, compared to the population of the United States, more service members have also attended some college compared to their typical 18- to 24-year-old counterparts. They have all also passed a standardized test on English proficiency, mathematics, science and government. This test also serves as a placement exam for military jobs. [7]To top this, most Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) schools boast world-class educational training. First, you have to place high enough on the test to get into the school you want, which can have very high scores requirements to place. No, we don't have the greatest recreational facilities and the dorms suck; it isn't the Ivy League, but the education level is beyond par. While stationed in 29 Palms California, a hole in the middle of the California desert, I received two years worth of the most rigorous training in Computer Science, Data Network Administration, and Information Systems Maintenance. I say two years worth, except that I only had six months to do it. The training is taken very seriously. While typically, civilians are allowed to pass with virtually any grade so long as they beg enough, every test in a military school is a fail if scored under 80%, and if you fail you can be booted from the program.The Marine Corps InstituteThe United States Marine Corps even has an amazing secret that few on the outside know anything about. We have a correspondence college, which is a universal part of nearly every Marine's military experience. It is called the Marine Corps Institute (MCI for short).The MCI began when Major General Lejeune issued a Post Order establishing three new schools: Automobile Mechanics, Music, Typewriting and Shorthand with Special Order No. 299 on January 5, 1920.Of course, we have courses you won't find at Stanford, Harvard, or UCLA, or any state school, for that matter. There doesn't seem to be a need for 0321B - The M240G Machine Gunner, 0090A Pistol Marksmanship, or 0365 Antiarmor Operations there, but what you might be surprised by are the other courses one wouldn't expect to see by the barbarian warmongers that are the United States Marine Corps: 0119H Punctuation, 0120 Basic Grammar and Composition, and 1334 Math for Marines. Perhaps that's where Marines figure out what it takes to re-calculate the trajectory of an object traveling at 3,110 ft/s for a three-inch change in elevation at 5 times the length of a standard football field (American football, obviously) when factoring in for wind speed and direction, as well as differences in elevation?Commandant’s Reading ListOne more shocker regarding the nerdiness of the US Military? How about this, the Marines have a book club. This isn't Oprah's Book Club. It's the Commandant's Reading List [9]. On this list are books and documents intended to both encourage the martial spirit in the minds of young warriors and inspire the intellectual capabilities of scholarly warfighters. What follows are some of the more impressive works that appear. This is by no means a complete list.You will obviously find on the list titles such Marine Corps classics as:MARINE! THE LIFE OF LT. GEN. LEWIS B. (CHESTY) PULLER, USMC (RET.) - Burke Davis,AMERICAN SPARTANS: A COMBAT HISTORY FROM IWO JIMA TO IRAQ - James Warren,FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS - James Bradley.Also listed are many other works on warfare such as:THE ART OF WAR - Sun-TzuATTACKS - Erwin RommelBooks on Moral Codes and Ethics:ON KILLING: THE PSYCHOLOGICAL COST OF LEARNING TO KILL IN WAR AND SOCIETY - Dave Grossman,JUST AND UNJUST WARS: A MORAL ARGUMENT WITH HISTORICAL ILLUSTRATIONS - Michael WalzerBooks on Leadership, Management Philosophy and Administration:TEAM OF RIVALS: THE POLITICAL GENIUS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN - Doris Kearns GoodwinBLINK: THE POWER OF THINKING WITHOUT THINKING - Malcolm GladwellSOURCES OF POWER: HOW PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS - Gary KleinOUTLIERS: THE STORY OF SUCCESS - Malcolm GladwellWorks on military history:BATTLE CRY OF FREEDOM: THE CIVIL WAR ERA - James M. McPhersonTHE VIRTUES OF WAR - Steven PressfieldAs well as important world studies for the military minded:DIPLOMACY - Henry KissingerTHE LANDSCAPE OF HISTORY: HOW HISTORIANS MAP THE PAST - John Lewis GaddisTHE LITTLE BOOK OF ECONOMICS: HOW THE ECONOMY WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD - Greg IpTHE REVENGE OF GEOGRAPHY: WHAT THE MAP TELLS AS ABOUT COMING CONFLICTS AND THE BATTLE AGAINST FATE - Robert D. KaplanThere is even one on environmentalism!HOT, FLAT, AND CROWDED: WHY WE NEED A GREEN REVOLUTION AND HOW IT CAN RENEW AMERICA - Thomas L.Even books that show the importance of a civilian leadership and the consequences when they don't do a good job.SUPREME COMMAND: SOLDIERS, STATESMEN, AND LEADERSHIP IN WARTIME - Eliot A. CohenDERELICTION OF DUTY: LYNDON JOHNSON, ROBERT MCNAMARA, THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF, AND THE LIES THAT LED TO VIETNAM - H. R. McMasterAnd there is even a nerd section. You know that new movie Ender's Game? You know it was first a book written by Orson Scott? You know that it has been on the reading list for decades?ENDER'S GAME - Orson Scott CardMost importantly, there are two other works which are required reading. These are works that cement what it is that every military person stands for and what they fight for. They are the clear definition of the values of their nation. When you see what else is on this list... you'll wonder why no one else is required to read them as well besides members of the US military.U.S. CONSTITUTION - United States of AmericaTHE FEDERALIST PAPERS - Alexander Hamilton; James Madison; John Jay; Garry Wills (Introduction by, Editor)5) The military has a plan for everythingI was just watching a video on realism in medical shows and was reminded of a very disturbing fact.The US Army created a guideline for surgically removing unexploded ordnance (bombs) from a living person. Really. You can read it right here.Even stranger, the Department of Defense also created… wait for it… a zombie preparedness strategy, too. Here that is.Now, a big part of me is like, now why are we spending money on this?But the reason that plans like this exist are to test creativity and come up with innovative solutions to problems we never faced before. Flexibility is a skill. I believe for the zombie plan, it was play around with figuring out out to combat a mass panic mixed with a pandemic level viral plague.More feasibly, the military also uses these skills when they aren’t goofing off to create plans for every foreseeable military incursion imaginable. Iran? I guarantee you they have a mountain of digital documents into the many approaches to taking out the nation and then just as many on what to do with after we’re done. North Korea? Everything people were predicting would happen a few years ago under Trump probably fits into about 6% of the possible scenarios these boys have cooked up.The tradition dates back at least as far as the 1920’s where the US military created War Plan Red, a hypothetical plan to defend the Atlantic coast in the event of war with United Kingdom. I’ll be honest, it’s mostly about finally correcting history by annexing Canada. Yes, those crazy plans even include our allies… and still do.There’s actually an office that oversees all this planning. It’s called the J7 under the Joint Chiefs. J7’s mission, as their website states:The J-7 is responsible for the six functions of joint force development: Doctrine, Education, Concept Development & Experimentation, Training, Exercises and Lessons Learned.Yes, in case you’re curious, what that looks like in practice are the nerdiest nerds of the military (who are still terrifyingly dangerous) masterfully compile the best practices and learned experiences of the US military into doctrines that they apply to situations that most of us in civilian world can’t possibly imagine. Then to let those scenarios sit on a shelf for a number of years, until someone starts getting uppity. Then they are dusted off, revisited, revised, and used as reference for war planners. For that reason, when a new war pops up, we are without a doubt more prepared to end a regime than anyone could possibly imagine.6) You’ll be fine in it.Many assume that the only people who would want to join the military are those who want to die from some car bomb in Iraq. Just as many assume that the majority of us have seen more than we actually have. There is also this myth that we are all just "the lucky few" who survived four years in the middle of some never-ending artillery barrage. The truth is, while there are plenty of risks, which are widely known, you are far safer in the United States military than most would believe possible.For example, what if I told you that there is less than a one in a thousand chance that you might actually be killed if you even go to war when you go with the Americans? Granted that risk goes up drastically if you fight against the Americans, but that’s an article for another day.We have currently about 2,518,542 people in the United States military. Since 9/11, estimates would safely place the number of people who have served in some branch to be about 6 to 7 million people, probably more. As of the time of this writing, the total people who died as a result of action in either Iraq or Afghanistan since 9/11 is about 6,660. That means that fewer than about 0.088% of the people who have enlisted have been killed as a result of that decision. If you consider wounded, then the number increases to about 0.738% percent. For those not blessed with the ability to conceptualize such things, here's a tasty pie.To better answer this question I also wanted to address these statistics reflected when considering only those who actually participated in a combat deployment. I asked the question How many US troops have been deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan since 2001? to gain a better picture of just that question. From that, Daniel Kearns produced this document (Page on Senate) which is a brief and simple, but important piece of information on the Iraq War. From that, we have a best estimate of 1.5 million warfighters deployed to Iraq during the war. Taking this with earlier data, we see total killed accounted for .29% of those deployed while wounded accounted for 2.15%. So, to be clear, of those deployed to the hottest combat zone in recent American military history, the highest chance of death was .29% for deployed troops and risk of violent injury was still only 2.15%. [6]This trait, however, isn't anything new. The US military, at least since the dawn of the 20th century and perhaps because of the carnage of our own civil war, have adapted a mentality and strategy that ensures our military does not easily sacrifice its own. We simply have values that don't allow us to experience heavy troop losses and a wealth that affords the ability to win without them. In truth, we live today in a time-period where we have proven that experience matters more than assets and that a troop's life is almost always more valuable than the patch of Earth they are fighting for. But we still need that patch of earth.That's why modern warfare doesn't allow for high losses. Take a look at the figures for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, pulled straight from Wikipedia. This doesn't include the insurgency years that followed, but showcased the last time we fought a full-on war with an advanced national military.That last statistic is significant.The Coalition's troop strength before the battle was 265,000 troops, mostly from the United States and the UK. The Iraqis' troop level was 1,119,000, more than 4 times that fielded by the Coalition. The end result, however, was that through great strategic, technological, and logistical superiority, the American led Coalition was able to inflict as many as 261 times as many casualties as the Iraqi were capable of delivering in return. That's more than 250 Iraqi killed for every Coalition death. A more lopsided battle has never been fought.Perhaps it is just that we don't fight that much or stay safely behind our big walls. We just send out the evil drones and high powered missiles, snipers, and other cowardly means of fighting a war. Well, given the option... wouldn't you? I know these guys certainly would if given a second chance.A grim look through history will show that American military doctrine has focused on a few key tenets throughout at least the last century. We focus on augmenting our troops through overwhelming technology, training, and tactics, rather than creating a culture that loves war.The facts are that average Americans deeply hate conflict. We will do whatever we can to avoid it on an interpersonal level, regardless of whatever you think about our foreign policy. This is reflected in our demographics. Today, after 13 years of war, and with a sizeable portion of our Vietnam-era veterans still alive, US veterans still only number 22 million individuals and account for less than 7% of the total population. Note, that is veterans, not active service members. The Department of Veterans Affairs projects that that number is set to decrease, not only in percentages, but in real value. They project that by 2043 we will only have 14 million veterans alive for a total percentage of the population at only 3.5%. The decreasing number of veterans means a country culturally disconnected from the realities of its wars because of the peacefulness of the daily lives of its citizens.And that's how we want it.The alternatives are thus: during the Second World War, you saw very different social military philosophies come head to head. Among these were the Americans and the Japanese. The Japanese were fantastic engineers and created marvelous machines. One such was the Zero fighter. It had a turning capability and climb that was far superior to other fighters. It was more agile and a deadly threat.The trade-offs? It's aluminum coating was brittle and the plane offered no armor for the pilot, engine, or other critical points of the aircraft. Its light construction also made it prone to catching fire and exploding during combat. Add this to the practice of Japanese fighters on the ground routinely combating US Marines with suicidal "Banzai" charges, the human-wave attack and we see a culture which adopted an ancient form of warfare: the military death cult. Death and the warrior were at that time so intertwined through a perversion of the Samurai Bushido culture that the leadership of Japan could order hundreds of thousands of Japanese to their deaths without the Japanese people resisting at all. This culminated in the ultimate corruption of bravery and honor; the creation of the Kamikaze pilot and the "Baka" Bomb.The Kamikaze (Divine Wind) is named for the legendary holy force which protects the Japanese from invasion by outsiders, namely because of a storm which swallowed up tens of thousands of Mongol invaders hundreds of years ago before they ever set foot on Japanese soil. The Kamikaze myth was resurrected for the creation of a force of airmen who volunteered and trained for a mission in which they would surely die, once again, like a storm from Heaven protecting Japan from foreign invaders. So committed were these soldiers and those who commanded them to this idea of a glorious death for their nation and their emperor, they even attended a ceremony before their mission which could only be described as their funeral.The ultimate expression of this “Kamikaze” culture was the Japanese Yokosuka MXY-7 Ohka ("cherry blossom"), a rocket-powered parasite aircraft used towards the end of the war. The U.S. called them Baka Bombs (baka means "idiot” in Japanese). They called it this, because the only intended purpose of the aircraft was to be guided to impact directly with an enemy ship by a pilot who had reserved himself to die in the effort.In contrast, the American philosophy emphasized an entirely different approach. We preferred to keep our warriors alive, if for no other moral reason than to pass on their experience and be useful on a better day. We engineered fighter aircraft with more power that could give us the strength and survivability to keep fighting.Add to this the individual support given to the individual troop. While the base soldier thrown away during a Japanese suicide charge was said to be worth less than $10 by their own admiralty, the United States Marine, the most underfunded of the military branches, would deploy with supplies of everything from ammunition, food, water, and bandages, to paper and pencils, and eve glass eyes of every imaginable size and color... just in case. This excerpt from Flags of Our Fathers displays in the days and weeks leading up to the Battle of Iwo Jima the American philosophy, strategy, and implementation of sending every man with all the gear to have a dominating edge, and the greatest chance possible of coming home.... the movement of over 100,000 men, Marines, Navy support personnel, Coast Guard units across 4,000 miles of ocean for three weeks is a triumph of American industry galvanizing itself in a time of great national peril. At the outset of the war, Japan's naval strength was more than double that of America's, but across the American continent, the idling factories steamed and sparked to life. Most of the vessels came splashing off the industrial assembly lines in the six months before this assault...... And it has not just been a matter of hardware. The civilians of America have mobilized behind these fighting boys. Behind each man on board the ships are hundreds of workers. In the factories, in the cities and towns, on the heartland farms; Rosie the Riveter, boy scouts collecting paper and metal, the young girl who would become Marilyn Monroe, sweating away in a defense plant.Here is some of what those mobilized civilians have generated for this tremendous force: For each of the seventy thousand assault troop Marines 1,322 lbs of supplies and equipment. Some of it sounds weirdly domestic: dog food, garbage cans, light bulbs, house paint. Some of it suggests an island business office: duplicating machines, carbon paper, movie projectors. Some sounds like kids' camping gear: toilet paper, socks, shoelaces, paper and pencils, flashlights, blankets. Some begin to suggest a sterner mission: flares, plasma, bandages, crucifixes, holy water, canisters of disinfectant to spray on corpses. And some of it gets exactly to the point: artillery, machine guns, automatic rifles, grenades and ammunition. The transport ships carry six thousand five-gallon cans of water, enough food to feed the population of Atlanta for a month or the assaulting Marines for two months. The Marines brought along one hundred million cigarettes.This isn't to say our strategy made us invulnerable. We endured great losses to be sure; 19,000 at the Battle of the Bulge, 16,293 at Normandy, 12,513 in Okinawa, and countless other battles throughout the war, totaling around 405,000 dead Americans. While that number is appalling, it pales compared with others. Soviet Union - up to 13,000,000 military dead, Germany - up to 5,500,000, Japan - 2,120,000. These figures do not include civilian dead, of which the United States had virtually none.That said, we dominated the Japanese in World War II once we steadied ourselves from the attack on Pearl Harbor. We suffered 1/24th their total losses in a war they began. The same can be seen in Iraq or Afghanistan and can be seen, as well, in any major conflict we have been a part of in the last one hundred years. This is because our philosophy wins wars in this modern age. War isn't won by weapons; it is won by warriors. Make the warrior a weapon and give him the tools to succeed and come home, and no other force on Earth can defeat him.Liked this? You might also like my YouTube Channel. You can also connect with The War Elephant on Facebook. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Page to find out more.

Credit: Ancient EUContrary to the popular claims in modern times that there is no “evidence” for a King Arthur, the reality is that there is about as much evidence for King Arthur as there is for just about any other major historical figure of the ancient world.Historicity of King Arthur - WikipediaThe King Arthur of legend may or may not be true, but the existence of an early Christian warrior “king” who brought peace and prosperity to the Britons during his lifetime almost certainly did exist, and I intend to explain my findings later in the answer, while also giving the best evidence available with what we already have in regards to who the real King Arthur of history was.Before we delve into the historicity of King Arthur, it should be remembered that this “king” was probably born during the late fifth century, and died in the early decades of the sixth century.Arthur himself has been nicknamed the “Roman King of the Britons”, and not without good reason.Credit: WikipediaAbove: A 1385 Depiction Of King Arthur Sitting On His ThroneKing Arthur - WikipediaThe Romans themselves had only left Britain for good during the beginning of the fifth century: within a lifetime of the historical King Arthur’s birth.In addition, tradition states that Arthur was the illegitimate — and possibly estranged — son of Uther Pendragon; another warrior king who is deemed legendary.However, what is of significance here, is that King Arthur and his father are considered to be direct descendants of the late second century Roman military general, Lucius Artorius Castus (140–197 AD), who helped in establishing a stabilised Roman rule throughout the southern half of modern England, leaving only modern-day Scotland in the hands of the “barbarians”.Credit: WikipediaAbove: Map Of Ancient Briton As It Looked In 540 ADSub-Roman Britain - WikipediaThis Roman general has never been doubted to be a historical character, and in fact, some have even gone so far as to claim that he was King Arthur, because Castus even convened a council of senior officers to form the new Roman Government in the aftermath of the latest rebellion.These men would have ridden on horseback, and many regard this as the inspiration for the Knights of the Round Table.Credit: TV TropeAbove: Romanticised Depiction Of King Arthur Sitting (Top Centre) With His KnightsHowever, if a King Arthur of history did exist — a fact that is very likely — it is unlikely that Castus and his officers were the actual inspiration for the modern legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, even though it is quite plausible that Arthur’s lineage would have been influenced by this style of government, when Arthur himself supposedly came to the throne, some three centuries after Castus invaded modern Britain.For the sake of simplicity, King Arthur -- whose real name was, in all likelihood, Ambrosius Aurelianus -- will be the default name used throughout the entirety of this text, except for when I find it suitable to do otherwise.One of the reasons why I have chosen not to refer to King Arthur by his birth name, Ambrosius, becomes apparent once we realise that there were potentially two people associated with the King Arthur story whose names were also Ambrosius Aurelianus.Credit: WikipediaAbove: Fifteenth Century Depiction Of King Arthur’s Uncle, Ambrosius AurelianusAmbrosius Aurelianus - WikipediaThe first one is King Arthur’s own paternal uncle, who is traditionally believed to have been born in 450 AD, some twenty years before the birth of King Arthur. The second Ambrosius Aurelianus dates even earlier to around 400 AD, and who was probably the grandfather or great uncle of the legendary King Arthur.In fact, the historical evidence for King Arthur’s uncle, Ambrosius Aurelianus is so comparably strong when matched against other historical figures living in Britain during this time -- least of all, his own nephew -- that this military general is often proclaimed to be the real King Arthur of legend.However, the stories we have from the earlier centuries make it very clear that King Arthur was the nephew of Ambrosius Aurelianus, and not the same person.Another contemporary of King Arthur’s is the warlord Vortigern, whose claim as a historical individual — while not without its sceptics — is generally accepted as being based on a real person.Credit: King Arthur WikiAbove: An Older Vortigern Depicted In FilmVortigern - WikipediaThe stories behind Vortigern are likely more apocryphal, as he is sometimes regarded as both a friend and archenemy of King Arthur.What is remarkable, however, is that Vortigern is said to have first come into power sometime around the year 428 AD according to some books I have read on the topic. While this was clearly too early for King Arthur or his uncle, it would have fallen conveniently around the time when King Arthur’s grandfather or great uncle was in his prime.And, since they probably all had the same name, later generations may have attributed the interactions with Vortigern and King Arthur’s ancestor as being part of a legend that eventually blossomed into something more fictional than historical.It is imperative to note, however, that despite Vortigern being more widely accepted as a historical figure than King Arthur, nearly all the evidence we have of Vortigern’s existence come from none other than the stories of King Arthur himself.Credit: Coronado TImesAbove: Depiction Of A Younger King VortigernOne of the most plausible locations for Vortigern’s rule is in the modern city of Wroxeter. In more modern times, an ancient ruin said to be that of a royal mansion dating to the fifth century AD has been found near the centre of the city describing the name of a ruler who resided in this place between the years 460-475 AD, who is most generally believed to be none other than King Arthur’s legendary rival.Knowing that Vortigern was regarded as one of Arthur’s archenemies in many legendary stories -- despite the fact that King Arthur was himself merely a child when Vortigern would have historical died -- it is quite plausible that if Arthur was indeed related to Vortigern through his mother’s side, that a young Arthur may have resided either in, or near the mansion at some point during his youth, though we obviously cannot be certain.The strongest evidence we have that Vortigern “supreme king” ruled during this period, is an ancient stone from the late fifth century found near the ruins of the ancient mansion, which proclaims a ruler by the name of Cunorix as having resided here.Credit: Under The InfluenceAbove: Modern Illustration Showing King Arthur’s Cousin, Vortimer, In BattleKing ArthurSince Vortigern would sound like a pretentious name for a ruler during his lifetime (Cunorix does, however, translate to Hound King), the chances that his contemporaries would have regarded him by such -- at least on a personal level -- is slim.Vortigern’s grandfather was said to have been a man by the name of Cuhelyn, and his son, Maquicoline -- “son of the holly” celyn -- Vortigern’s father.The Mammoth Book of King ArthurThe stone commemorates Maquicoline’s son, who resided at the mansion for a period of fifteen years between 460-475 AD, making this a very likely -- though unprovable -- place for where Cunorix (Vortigern) may have resided in his later years.Credit: WikipediaAbove: The Ancient Public Bath Of Viriconium (Wroxeter) Believed To Have Been Located Within The Kingdom Of Powys During Vortigern’s TimeViroconium Cornoviorum - WikipediaNonetheless, even in those stories, Vortigern is often claimed to have been rivals with a man by the name of Ambrosius Aurelianus.ARTHUR’S EARLY LIFENow, let’s look at what life itself looked like in Britain during King Arthur’s early years.In all probability, King Arthur was born between 450–470 AD (with most believing the later date), either in the twilight years of the legendary Christian pope — Saint Pope Leo the Great, whose historical claim has never been seriously questioned — or shortly after the pontiff’s death in 461 AD.Pope Leo is widely credited for having an audience with Attila the Hun, where he persuaded the barbarian to turn away from Rome. Pope Leo -- while not without his human flaws -- was also known for his wisdom, and for giving everything within reason which the church possessed towards the poor, in addition to being seen as such a great writer that he would posthumously become one of only thirty-six Christians to date to receive the title “Doctor of the Church.”Credit: Stanford UniversityAbove: Saint Pope Leo The Great Meeting Attila The Hun In 452 ADIf King Arthur was born during this period, as most believers of the King Arthur story believe, it is beyond certain that King Arthur would have known about Pope Leo’s works, and that he would have been greatly inspired by the pope’s deeds, as King Arthur would also later on become known for his wisdom and religious devotion as much as he was known for his military and political endeavour.Geoffrey of Monmouth is considered to be one of the earliest writers whose works on King Arthur have survived in their entirety (though not the earliest references), and sceptics have pointed out that he had gotten his writings from Latin works as proof that the King Arthur story must be a fictional story dating back to pagan times.However, this argument erroneously assumes that modern English was the spoken language of the Britons at the time. During the late fifth and early sixth century, there was no universal language in the British Isles.Meanwhile, Latin, or a dialect of Latin would have been spoken by the more educated Roman population of the period, whom King Arthur himself was said to be descended from. The use of Latin by the elite classes of fifth and sixth century Britain is comparable to the Scandinavian languages spoken by the educated vikings and their descendants in later centuries, or French during the post-conquest age of William the Conqueror. (Henry V, victor at Agincourt, is said to be the first monarch in British history who learned English as his native language.)Credit: BritannicaAbove: King Henry V Defeating The French At Agincourt In 1415It therefore would not be unreasonable to assume that King Arthur’s strongest language would have been a form of Latin (possibly Vulgar Latin) and not a language that was traditionally spoken amongst most Britons of the period, and least of all, not the English language as we know it today, which is said to have only become more distinguishable during the late ninth century with the introduction of the Frisian language.In the world of Arthur, the Romans -- which he was a direct descendant of -- who came to the British Isles with the intention of “civilising” the Britons would have been comparable to the Europeans “civilising” the Native Americans in the New World a millennium later.Even though the historical Arthur would probably have become accustomed to the languages spoken by the native Britons over the course of his lifetime, it is very unlikely that Arthur spoke any language other than Latin, or a dialect of Latin, during his personal life.The name Arthur itself does not sound Latin, and yet Ambrosius — his uncle’s name, and probably his own personal name — is indeed a very Latin name. There is, in fact, evidence that the name itself may even have its roots in Ancient Greece, and that the name Ambrosius translated to someone who was either divine or immortal. Either way, the name itself is not native to the British Isles, and it was probably integrated into ancient British society with the arrival of the Romans between the first century BC or AD.Credit: BritannicaAbove: Modern Depiction Of King ArthurTo put this into context, Ambrosius Aurelianus was the most likely name given to the historical King Arthur during his lifetime in much the same way Jesus was known as Yeshua, Confucius as Kong Zi, or even Charlemagne as merely Charles.The name Arthur may have been a name posthumously bestowed upon him centuries after his death, when the post-Roman era was beginning to fade, and residents of ancient Britain wanted someone with a name more culturally recognisable to their own.According to one legend, a legendary leader dating to pagan times by the name of Artuir was prophesied to deliver the Britons from their oppression, and that this king would arrive in their hour of need as the messiah of the Britons.This story is said to date back at least two centuries before the birth of the historical King Arthur.That leaves us only four options regarding how we are to treat this story:Ambrosius Aurelianus/King Arthur knew the story and deliberately set out to prophesy the storyIt is a coincidenceThe Britons themselves embellished some claims in order to associate the historical King Arthur with the legendary ArtuirThose who wrote about the character Artuir -- who was a future character when the legend first came to fruition -- successfully predicted King Arthur’s own existenceCredit: Primary FactsAbove: Modern Illustration Depicting King Arthur Leading His Men In BattleKing Arthur: Facts and Information - Primary FactsEither way, I leave that for readers to decide, since my focus is on establishing the existence of a historical King Arthur, as well as his life, and not on whether or not the pagan stories surrounding an even older legendary figure are true or not.One area I do want to look at is the evidence for any rulers named Arthur who may have lived during the same period as King Arthur.In fact, the earliest recorded case of a British king by the name of Arthur, was of a ruler who ruled the Kingdom of Dyfed from 570–600 AD: more than a century after the birth of the King Arthur of legend.Soon afterwards, another ruler by the name of Arthur of Gwent also came along, and -- like Arthur of Dyfed -- has had many stories written about him, which has since resulted in Arthur of Gwent, son of Meurig, being recently declared a genuine candidate for the historical King Arthur.Credit: EntertainmentAbove: King Arthur Fighting The Black Knight In Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1975)https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/files/GCMS/RMS-2000-04_K._Dark,_A_Famous_Arthur_in_the_Sixth_Century.pdfHowever, there is another person who is far more important in identifying not only the historical roots of King Arthur, but in knowing a little bit more about the man himself.To know who King Arthur may have been, one should not go into the past, but into the future.I bring you, now, the historical founder of a united England:KING ATHELSTANThis king has been so closely related to the story of King Arthur, from his contributions, his personality, as well as his historical assumption to being the first true unifier in all of England, that until as recently as half a century ago, King Athelstan was generally accepted to be the true inspiration for the origins of King Arthur.Credit: WikipediaAbove: A Statue Depicting An Infant Athelstan Standing Beside His Aunt AthelfladJust like King Arthur, Athelstan is credited with unifying all of England in a single campaign which played out very similarly to the ones King Arthur is credited for waging.To make matters more interesting, there is no concrete evidence that King Arthur (Ambrosius) was ever married, least of all, to a woman named Guinevere.HOWEVER…King Athelstan’s mother was named Ecgwynn.Just think of the word gwynn and associate that with the name GUINevere.Even the movie, Monty Python and the Holy Grail takes place in the year 932, which was five years after Athelstan is historically assumed to have ascended the throne, and seven years before his death.Credit: Waterville Creates!Above: King Arthur And His Knights In Monty Python And The Holy Grail (1975)Monty Python and the Holy Grail - WikipediaIn all probability, this date was not an error, since Athelstan was widely credited with being the real King Arthur during the 1970s when the film was made, and many people still see it that way.Unlike the movies, however, which have been based on Athelstan (King Arthur) from Monty Python to The Sword in the Stone, it is obvious that Athelstan never became a fish or squirrel; he never defeated the Rabbit of Caerbannog with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch; he never got chased by a cartoon monster; nor did he have to ask a bridge troll whether he meant the air-speed velocity of a European or African unladen swallow.Oh, and he most certainly did not see the cricket player, William Gilbert Grace, appearing to him as God.Credit: BBC PlayerAbove: I Was Dominating The Game Of Cricket When The Dinosaurs Were Relevant!On the other hand, Athelstan’s reputation for being a “nice” king is historically founded according to his contemporaries, and his role in unifying England; notably after the Battle of Brunanburh in 937 AD, has helped in solidifying him in the Arthurian Legend.If you go online and type “nicest kings in history” there are more than a few articles which bring Athelstan up, and aside for his efforts in improving charity for the poor, Athelstan’s personality was described as holy by those who knew him.8 of the nicest kings in historyCredit: WikipediaAbove: Medieval Depiction Of King Athelstan Offering A Book To Saint CuthbertAccording to William of Malmesbury, King Athelstan was described as slim, blond and extremely knowledgeable, especially for his time period.Æthelstan, The First King of England (c.893-939).Even though Malmesbury himself was not a contemporary of King Athelstan -- being born a century after Athelstan’s rule -- it is probable that Malmesbury would have gotten his description of Athelstan from contemporary sources, which have all been lost.Athelstan was the grandson of the more well known English monarch, Alfred the Great -- a monarch from modern-day Denmark -- so it is quite probable that Athelstan as a teenager would have looked very similar to the depiction of Athelstan/”King Arthur” as seen in the 1963 animated film The Sword in the Stone.Credit: Movie FoneAbove: King Arthur/Athelstan Pulling The Sword In The Sword In The Stone (1963)No depiction from Athelstan’s lifetime are known to exist, and the ones that do most likely portray a physically inaccurate portrayal of the English monarch who was, until fairly recently, believed to be the inspiration behind King Arthur.For instance, his modern tombstone is believed to date from the fifteen century -- some 500 years after Athelstan’s -- while the earliest known surviving depictions of Athelstan were not created until the late medieval and renaissance period, when dressing styles were far different than they had been in the first millennium.Even modern science cannot help us know what Athelstan would have conclusively looked like, for his body has long since been lost or destroyed. Most historians believe that sometime before the year 1000 AD, his original tomb was destroyed alongside his body by Athelstan’s surviving adversaries.Credit: WikipediaAbove: A Fifteenth Century Depiction Showing Where Athelstan’s Tomb Once Stood At Malmesbury CathedralOn the other hand, many of Athelstan’s supporters treated the disappearance of his body, less than a lifetime after his death, as a sign that he had risen from the dead in much the same way Jesus had centuries earlier.Many critics of the King Arthur story dismiss it as an attempt for the English to have their own equivalent to Charlemagne, ruler of the Carolingian Empire. And yet, through Athelstan, many similarities between himself and Charlemagne can be found, and many of those who know about the relatively unknown English monarch have even declared him to be the English Charlemagne.Here is a brief sample of what they both accomplished:Both of them successfully secured their own territories; Charlemagne largely by checking the Islamic invaders in mainland Europe, and Athelstan by defeating the last significant pagan armies in the British Isles.Charlemagne -- with the help of his predecessors, Charles Martel and Pepin -- declared himself the first true ruler of the Carolingian Empire, which would in time separate into the French, Dutch and German Empires in much the same way that Athelstan is generally regarded as the first undisputed ruler of the modern British, largely with the help of his more famous grandfather, Alfred the Great.Charlemagne created the first universal set of laws in Western Europe since the collapse of the Roman Empire four centuries earlier, while Athelstan himself based many of his laws on the later sets of laws introduced in Charlemagne’s later years.Credit: HistoryAbove: Depiction Of Charlemagnehttps://www.heroicage.org/issues/7/hare.htmlIn many ways, had the two not lived nearly a century apart from one another, it is quite possible that Athelstan and Charlemagne would have become best of friends, despite having their own fair share of philosophical disagreements.Unlike King Arthur, whose written laws -- if they ever existed -- are nowhere to be found, there is more documented evidence regarding the penal code and civil laws created by Athelstan than any other English monarch before the late eleventh century.The laws themselves seem quite arbitrary, though this may be due to Athelstan having two sides to himself:On the one hand, it seems that his personal views were opposed to violence of any kind.On the other, it seems that he was unwilling to allow his personal views to conflict with his role as a monarch.Credit: Historic UKAbove: Athelstan’s Forces Triumphing At The Battle Of Brunanburh In 937 ADBattle of Brunanburh 937ADFor example, most crimes, including the theft of anything valued at more than eight pence, were deemed capital offences.However, Athelstan’s legal code also clearly stated that they were merely legal possibilities, and that local lords who were tasked with overseeing all criminal trials were encouraged to show mercy, even for more serious offences, such as murder and treason.This type of legal system meant that a very uneven legal system could emerge, whereby a lord could have someone executed for stealing an eight pence item, while simultaneously forgiving someone convicted of a far more serious offence.Historians more critical of Athelstan’s legal reforms, who have studied the legal system in Athelstan’s time period later criticised this type of system, for they felt it largely gave lords free reign over when to sentence someone to death, as well as when to give a more lenient sentence at a whim.At first, offenders as young as twelve were eligible for the death penalty, though no sooner than Athelstan introduce his penal code he increased the minimum age by three years from twelve to fifteen years of age.According to contemporary commentators of the period, it was done as both a personal statement that Athelstan was not particularly supportive of the death penalty in itself, and that he was especially opposed to the idea that younger offenders should be executed.Credit: TCM Classic Film FestivalAbove: A Young King Arthur/Athelstan Sitting In A Tree In The Sword In The Stone (1963)To give context regarding Athelstan’s law that nobody under fifteen could ever be executed, we should remember that from the late medieval period until as recently as 1908, children as young as eight could -- and reportedly were, from time to time -- be executed under more recent British legislation.Later on, Athelstan also mandated that all death penalty cases be submitted to himself in advance so that he could decide on whether to approve or disapprove a pending execution.This is generally considered to be the first example in English history where all criminal offenders had the legal right to appeal their convictions and sentences right up to the monarch themselves.Even without such clemency requests, it is doubtful that there were executions being carried out throughout most of Athelstan’s reign; and if there were, they probably weren’t very common, as most rulers at the time -- in England and out -- had written death penalty laws for which the rulers never intended to put into practice.In effect, many death penalty laws at the time were regarded as empty threats in much the same way that the more modern Bloody Code was far less extreme when applied in practice compared to what it appeared in writing.For instance, until as late as 1815, it was a capital offence in England to write a threatening letter to somebody, and yet, I have never heard of a case where someone was given the death penalty for such an offence.Credit: Daily MailAbove: A Public Execution In The UK During The Nineteenth CenturyEven for murder -- the most common reason for being executed during the colonial ages -- more than 70% of those sentenced to death had their sentences commuted, while many others charged with homicide were instead convicted of the far less serious crime of manslaughter.Therefore, while many jurisdictions in medieval Europe allowed for branding, or even the removal of one’s tongue for cursing or slander, it is very unlikely that the majority of rulers actually allowed such laws to be put into practice, and the ones that did were probably regarded as tyrants even by the standards of their own time.During Athelstan’s lifetime, even a lot of countries outside of Europe had ceased on capital punishment. One example was Japan, which had temporarily abolished the death penalty during the reign of Emperor Shomu during the Nara Period (710-784 AD) only for the death penalty to be outlawed once again in 810 AD by the Heian Emperor Saga. The death penalty would not return to Japan until 1156 AD.Credit: WikipediaAbove: Japanese Emperor Saga, Who Formally Abolished The Death Penalty In 818 ADhttps://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CCPR/Shared%20Documents/JPN/INT_CCPR_NGO_JPN_94_9324_E.pdfJapan had abolished the death penalty due to the influence of the earlier Chinese Tang Dynasty, which had itself outlawed capital punishment on multiple occasions; making this period one of the most liberal in both Chinese and Japanese history in regards to the treatment of criminal offenders.On the other hand, the general outlawing of the death penalty -- at least in practice -- throughout most of mainland Europe was the result of the legacy left behind by the Roman Empire.Contrary to popular belief, the Roman Empire was actually very liberal when it came to the legal treatment of its citizens.A Roman citizen could not be tortured; they could not be sentenced to an excruciating punishment of any sort; and the death penalty for a Roman citizen was -- with few exceptions -- outlawed by the Roman constitution.So, why did the Romans allow crucifixion, quartering, crushing and burning?Credit: AlchetronAbove: A Young King Arthur/Athelstan With Merlin In The Sword In The Stone (1963)Such punishments were constitutionally limited to slaves, subjects and foreigners convicted of certain offences.A Roman citizen, on the other hand, could only be given the death penalty for very specific offences, such as assassination or attempted assassination of the emperor; or acts of treason committed during wartime.And, when a Roman citizen was convicted of such a crime (assuming they were given the death penalty), they were given the more “humane” option of suicide by either drinking poison or slitting their wrists in a bathtub.In rare cases, a Roman citizen sentenced to death who declined to kill themselves would be given a swift beheading.Credit: EidolonAbove: Death Of Roman Philosopher And Writer, SenecaSince universal Roman citizenship had been granted to all subjects during the third century -- leaving only slaves and foreigners eligible for some of Rome’s grislier penalties -- the practice of not carrying out executions or torturing someone as a means of punishment was largely upheld by most rulers who came to power in the generations immediately following the collapse of the Roman Empire: including, quite possibly, the legendary King Arthur himself.The Codex Theodosianus, written by Emperor Theodosius II between 429 and 438 AD (in multiple drafts), is generally considered to be the first set of legal rights given to prisoners, whose writings have survived, and it would have been very well known in King Arthur’s lifetime, as the code itself would have been only a few decades old at the time Arthur himself came of age.Cathedra Petri. A political history of the great Latin PatriarchateSome basic rights granted by the Codex Theodosianus (Theodosian Code) include the right for prisoners to be given appropriate shelter, food and medical care; that they be given a certain amount of sunlight everyday; that they be allowed to bathe in the prison bath at least once a week for hygiene; that they be allowed to socialise with other prisoners; that they be allowed visitation rights, including their relatives and clergy; and that they be given the right to appeal and know the status of their conviction.Codex Theodosianus - WikipediaEven though not every post-Roman ruler upheld some constitutional rights granted by the Roman constitution, a fair number did so in their own ways, even though their successors would often discard such rights as quickly as they had been granted.Of course, King Arthur himself was indeed regarded as the ancestor of Roman generals, so it is not unsurprising that King Arthur would have adopted many policies that were introduced by the Romans, and use them for his own sake.Remember that during King Arthur’s lifetime, life in modern Britain would have looked far closer — culturally, politically and militarily — like it did in the ancient Roman Empire, than it did early medieval England.Credit: YouTubeAbove: First Knight (1995) Starring Sean Connery As King Arthur Depicts A More Medieval Lifestyle Than Would Have Been The Case In The Sixth CenturyHaving supposedly reigned nearly six centuries before William the Conqueror’s invasion, King Arthur was born in a timeline far closer to that of Julius Caesar and Jesus himself than he was to the first Norman monarchs.Half a millennium before Arthur’s reign, Ancient Egypt itself was still in its death throes, and Alexander the Great had existed only eight centuries earlier -- a period closer to the late fifth century than the age of William Wallace, who lived nearly nine hundred years after King Arthur was presumed to have existed.Hadrian’s Wall had been built less than four centuries before Arthur’s reign by the Romans in an effort to keep the “barbarians” located in modern-day Scotland away from their citizens. Even though the ancient Roman wall was almost certainly in ruins by the time that the later ruler, Athelstan, came to the throne, the walls themselves would have been in far better shape during the early sixth century during the lifetime of the historical King Arthur, and they were probably used as both a way to divide ancient borders, as well as a frontline for many military operations of the period.To make matters interesting, however, is the origins of Camelot itself.Credit: WikipediaAbove: Roman Walls Located In Colchester Believed To Have Been The Borderline Of Camulodunum (Camelot)Camulodunum - WikipediaIn all probability, Camelot is the inspiration of the ancient Roman town Camulodunum, located in modern-day Colchester. This is now the oldest surviving town in England, and yet, if King Arthur himself ever did set foot in this place, he most certainly did not live there, as the political situation during King Arthur’s lifetime were so chaotic that he was probably busy travelling from one region to the next, and could ill-afford to make any one location his permanent residence.On the other hand, King Arthur’s “legendary” ancestor, Lucius Artorius Castus, not only spent far more of his time in “Camelot” than King Arthur did -- seeing as Camulodunum was the only permanent Roman town in Britain during the second century -- it is also quite possible that Lucius himself was the driving force behind giving Camulodunum (later Colchester) its significance.Credit: King Arthur WikiAbove: Ancient Depiction Of Lucius Artorius Castus Wielding A Spear On HorsebackLucius Artorius Castus - WikipediaThis fact alone, added by Lucius’s introduction of a council of military officers, has been used as one of the main arguments regarding the possibility that Lucius Artorius Castus was indeed the King Arthur of legend.However, I personally do not agree with this, for I think that it is far more plausible to believe that Lucius Artorius Castus was the legendary second century “King of the Britons” King Lucius.KING LUCIUSAccording to the legend, King Lucius was the first Christian ruler of England. It is also traditionally said that before he formally converted, King Lucius -- whose real name was probably the Roman general Lucius Artorius Castus -- sent a letter to Pope Saint Eleutherius (reigned 174-189) stating his desire to become a Christian, and for the pontiff to approve of his conversion.Credit: WikipediaAbove: Medieval Stained Glass Depiction Of King Lucius (Centre) In York MinsterLucius of Britain - WikipediaIt is historically known that Lucius Artorius Castus, after having defeated several armies in the British Isles -- particularly the Pictish armies near the modern city of Dumbarton -- was sent back to mainland Europe, where he reportedly died in battle in modern-day Croatia, fighting off an army of Slavic invaders.Likewise, King Lucius -- who has been hastily disregarded as pure fabrication by modern historians -- also came to mainland Europe after winning his wars against the Pagan armies in England, only to be killed in battle, and then subsequently buried in modern-day Switzerland during the same time period.Does this prove that King Lucius was a real person based on Lucius Artorius Castus?No.But then again, I think the coincidences are too strong to be simply ignored.Credit: PinterestAbove: Aerial View Of Camulodunum (Camelot) As It Is Believed To Have Looked In Roman TimesSo, why did Lucius Artorius Castus die in Croatia while King Lucius died in Switzerland?Assuming that there is no doubt regarding the two figures from history being one and the same: it is quite likely that those who wrote the chronicles from that time period had come up with a far more accurate account regarding the place of their demise and burial, and that the confusion was due to centuries of border changes, added by the inevitable loss of documents over that same period.Just as we don’t know the exact location for the Battle of Mount Badon -- even though it would have been known to those living in sixth century England -- it is not inconceivable that a military battle fought by a potential ancestor of King Arthur’s three centuries earlier would be even blurrier.ROMAN SOLDIER CELIBACYThere is another legacy that was introduced during Roman times, and while it was long abolished by the time of King Arthur’s birth, it was nonetheless upheld by the more religious soldiers and rulers of that period: being forbidden from marrying or having sex.After the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, a law was introduced by Augustus Caesar, who forbade his soldiers from marrying or having sexual intercourse.This was due to the ancient Roman policy requiring soldiers to bring their families with them on military campaigns in order to ensure that they were fed and looked after. In return, women and children were expected to help set up camp, and to prepare meals for the soldiers.Credit: BBCAbove: Arminius Leading His Troops As The Roman Forces Are OverwhelmedDuring this particular battle -- one of the most humiliating the Romans had faced since the age of Hannibal more than two centuries earlier -- the Roman soldiers found themselves struggling to survive as their women and children fled from Arminius and his Germanic tribesmen; causing the Roman soldiers themselves to become far more disoriented than they otherwise would have been.The abolition of marriage and sexual intercourse amongst Roman soldiers was intended to prevent a repeat at Teutoburg Forest, and this law would not be abolished until later in the reign of Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (193-211 AD).Septimius Severus and the Marriage of SoldiersCredit: WikipediaAbove: A Bust Depicting The Roman Emperor Septimius SeverusThis means that while Lucius Artorius Castus (140-197 AD) was alive during the early years of Severus’s reign, it is very unlikely that he ever married or had children in much the same way it is probable that his descendant, King Arthur, remained celibate throughout his life.Even if King Lucius (Lucius Artorius Castus) had lived long enough to see the abolition of the law against Roman soldiers marrying, it is equally likely that he would have chosen to remain celibate as a form of piety.So, how did King Lucius become related to King Arthur?Assuming that King Lucius had not broken his vows when becoming a soldier, and had sexual intercourse -- a common trait amongst the less devoted -- it is more probable that King Lucius had siblings or cousins who had children, and one of them was the direct ancestor of King Arthur himself.Credit: Catholic365Above: Pope Saint Eleutherius — The Pope Credited With Baptising King LuciusThe identity of this mysterious sibling or cousin will probably never be known, as there is very little that we know about Lucius Artorius Castus, other than that he was almost certainly a real Roman military general of the second century, who appears in several ancient Christian sources, due to being one of the first high-profile Romans to have converted.We know even less about the legendary King Lucius, even though, in all probability, King Lucius and Lucius Artorius Castus are one and the same.Likewise, the early tenth century monarch, Athelstan -- who was for centuries considered to be the monarch behind the King Arthur story -- was himself succeeded by a brother, King Edmund I, due to not having any offspring of his own.Just like many ancient Roman soldiers, Athelstan was equally devoted to his religion, and he refused to marry or have sexual intercourse; making him one of the few virgin monarchs in world history. He would also have been one of the few known monarchs who lived out his life as a bachelor, comparable to the later English Tudor monarch, Queen Elizabeth.At the time, it was expected that the children of a deceased monarch would upkeep the memories of their father by writing stories and poems about them. The fact that King Lucius, King Arthur and King Athelstan were all probably celibate and childless at the time of their deaths may partially explain the lack of contemporary records regarding King Arthur.However, another equally important detail can be found in King Arthur’s historical contemporary, Saint Gildas, whom I intend to discuss later on.No coins are likely to ever be found dating from the time of King Lucius and King Arthur, because there is no evidence that the English adopted their own modern coinage until the reign of Athelstan’s nephew, Edgar, during the late tenth century.Credit: PinterestAbove: Front And Back Coin From The Early Tenth Century Depicting King AthelstanThe first recognisably modern currency made by the Britons was implemented during the reign of Athelstan, whose grandfather, Alfred the Great, had the original concept already in writing.Between the period after King Arthur, to the reign of King Athelstan (reigned 927-939 AD) local rulers generally created their own currencies and coins. A ubiquitous currency endemic to the British Isles first came into existence during the reign of Athelstan, who demanded that all the Britons be subjected to a single currency.Just like his grandfather, however, Athelstan came across a predicament when the lack of proper resources made the job of creating a permanent currency much more strenuous than what either he or his grandfather had anticipated.Credit: The Book PalaceAbove: King Alfred The Great And The Burned CakesUltimately, the English were left without a recognisable currency until as late as the 970s, when Athelstan’s nephew, Edgar, oversaw the completion of its transition, and subsequently abolished all local currencies in favour of a national monetary system.Naturally, the English coinage system would have been comparably obsolete during the late fifth and early sixth century when King Arthur is most likely to have lived. If any currency did exist during the post-Roman period, it is more than likely that Roman currency was used (similar to how the Euro is today the most recognisable currency in mainland Europe), combined with the ancient system of bartering.Therefore, the lack of coins with King Arthur’s face dating from the sixth century is not proof that this legendary character did not exist, since it is very unlikely that British currency was available during the mid-first millennium AD.THE SAXON INVADERSNow, turning our attention towards the political and military situation during King Arthur’s presumed lifetime (470-537) the situation is apparently dire enough that creating a modern currency was probably not a priority for the Britons.Credit: Historic UKAbove: Modern Reenactment Of Saxon Invaders Preparing For BattleThe Saxons of the north, who may have been the descendants of Scandinavian raiders that later generations would refer to as Vikings, were reputed for their barbarity and “non-Christian” way of life.Even though we may not be able to ascertain with any degree of certainty how truthful the accusations were, some of the things the Saxons were accused of doing included, but were not necessarily limited to:Sacrificing animals and humans alive on the altarCannibalising their sacrificial victimsDestroying churches and Christian burial groundsEnslaving the Christian population not outright killed by the Saxon raiders, and doing less than pleasant things with themEven Saint Patrick, who was said to have been born in 386 AD and died in 460 AD had been a slave by pirates (possibly the Saxons) for more than six years before he was able to escape, when he successfully converted his captors to Christianity.Credit: PinterestAbove: Modern Illustration Showing Saint Patrick Banishing The Snakes From IrelandSaint Patrick also famously “kicked the snakes out of Ireland” though this could be a parable describing the “ungodly heathens” since snakes have long represented the devil in Christianity.This saint, whose historical status is not widely questioned even amongst the less religious, would have lived during the papacy of Pope Leo the Great, and would have died either shortly before or after King Arthur’s birth.In all probability, just as Pope Leo had been able to save Rome from a barbarian invasion, Saint Patrick’s religious influence in helping turn the tide for the Christians within a lifetime of Arthur’s reign would no doubt have convinced the Britons living in modern England to do the same against their Saxon enemies, whose alleged cruelty would have been quite palpable even by the standards of the mid-first millennium AD.Credit: Catholic SaintsAbove: Pope Saint Leo The Great — Many Believe He Was The Later Inspiration For MerlinThe Mammoth Book of MerlinIf such barbarians existed in England during the latter half of the 400s AD, it is not surprising that the Britons would have been in fear for their lives, and would have rallied around any military leader who was deemed capable of driving away the Saxon forces from their homeland.According to tradition, King Arthur’s uncle, Ambrosius Aurelianus, was that man.KING ARTHUR’S LINEAGEAfter the older Ambrosius Aurelianus’s death or retirement, King Arthur — who was himself almost certainly known as Ambrosius during his lifetime — is said to have continued the work of his uncle, and even ruled over a peaceful Britain for forty years after driving away the Saxon armies.The military stories of the young King Arthur are that he won his first war against the Saxons after having fought a series of no fewer than twelve battles, with the Battle of Badon Hill being the decisive battle of the war, which saw peace restored to the Britons.A king with such a great legacy should surely have had far more historical evidence to his name, right?Credit: YouTubeAbove: Modern Painting Depicting King Arthur On Horseback With His KnightsAfter all, there are kings of far lesser “value” who date before the legendary King Arthur, yet they have far more historical evidence attributed to their name.So, why would there be a lack of evidence when it comes to King Arthur?Even though I cannot pretend to have conclusive answers, there are several additional possibilities which I have not yet brought up, that could help clear things up. I will then go through all of them in greater detail:“King” Arthur was never a king in the traditional sense; hence the reason why a plausible King Arthur of legend has never been found amongst the lists of any royal rulers of this periodThe Saxons, who were able to pillage the Britons shortly after the death of the legendary King Arthur, may have sought to erase their “scourge” from historyWe assume that the name for which he is today known in history is what people would have known him as during his lifetime“King” Arthur was never a king in the traditional senseHow does one reconcile such a claim when his claim to fame is as a wise king who united the entire population under his domain?One should remember that there were several kingdoms within modern England at the time of Arthur -- in addition to dozens of local rulers whose “sovereign” territory may have been no bigger than a modern village -- so it is not as though this historical Arthur would have ruled England as a traditional king over an entire population.So how did he become known as “King of the Britons”?Quite possibly, his military achievements against the Saxons may have earned him the reputation of being a protector of the Britons. He was then granted the title of King as a posthumous honour in much the same way we attribute “the Great” to historical figures who would most certainly not have been given such a title during their lifetimes.Likewise, Jesus -- the symbol of the Christian faith -- was never a “king” in the traditional sense of the word, despite being often regarded as the “King of the Jews” or the “King of Kings”.English figures from history who would be more comparable to the historical King Arthur would not be the more successful monarchs of later years, but military generals, such as the Duke of Marlborough or the Duke of Wellington.Credit: India TodayAbove: Arthur Wellesley (Duke Of Wellington) At The Battle Of WaterlooBoth of them were known for their military strengths, and while their most famous battles were fought away from the British homeland, someone with the reputation of the historical King Arthur -- who spent most of his life fighting the northern barbarians, as well as other domestic foes -- would have been valued just as much in his time period as later celebrated British generals are.Aside from what is mentioned above, the Duke of Marlborough and Wellington also fought under a single, recognisable ruler, against other Christian foes. By contrast, King Arthur fought most of his battles against pagans while simultaneously under the service of multiple rulers, who would have likely agreed to contribute a certain amount of aid.It would be erroneous to compare King Arthur to Charlemagne, as so many have tried to do, since the latter was an undisputed ruler of an empire, whereas the former was probably a military general, politician and religious philosopher who never formally ruled over any jurisdiction during his lifetime.Credit: War History OnlineAbove: Joan Of Arc Leading Her French Soldiers Through The A French CityOther French heroes, such as Chevalier Bertrand du Guesclin, or even Joan of Arc would have made far better comparisons, since both of them were French military commanders from the later medieval period who used their religious devotion -- particularly Joan of Arc -- in persuading their armies, as well as their respective French monarchs, to fight for their cause.In that sense, the only things separating King Arthur, are that he lived several centuries before either of them, and that he was fighting wars against a group of pagans who are today considered part of the same country.Knights Of The Round Table?Cadbury Castle has often been suggested as the site for where King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table discussed political and religious issues, though it is not likely that there was ever a single location for King Arthur’s meetings, since Britain during this time period was palpably unstable.Geographical borders would quickly change from one day to the next, especially during the earlier years of King Arthur, for which he is best remembered. In all likelihood, whenever King Arthur would have had such meetings with his military commanders, he would have done so wherever it was most convenient to do so.The Castus (later Aurelianus) line -- from which King Arthur’s ancestry is said to have originated -- was most well known for being a family of military commanders, and not divine kings like William the Conqueror or Henry the Eighth.And yet, during times of war, skilled military generals could very much have as much influence over the daily lives of the population as though they were a blood king in much the same way as would happen today if a foreign enemy were to invade a country, and martial law was declared; leaving a shrewd military commander to assume overall command.Ultimately, the only evidence we have of the historical Ambrosius Aurelianus — military commander and uncle of King Arthur — are from his military campaigns. Perhaps this is a sad indication for admirers of King Arthur, and for general historians alike, that their relevance petered out during more stable times, and as a result, we have few records of the Aurelianus line not involving some form of military conflict.This means that we are left to fill the gaps during the forty years of relative peace that King Arthur was said to have fulfilled before the second Saxon Invasion in late 536 or early 537 AD.Credit: English MonarchsAbove: Badbury Rings Hillfort Located In Dorset — A Possible Site For The Battle Of Badon HillAs indicated earlier, the most statistically probable answer regarding the personality of King Arthur himself can be found in the life of King Athelstan, whose historical background is far more extensively documented than King Arthur and all his immediate relatives combined.While it would be presumptuous to assume that Arthur and Athelstan were agreeable on everything, I do believe that one of the main reasons why Athelstan seemed to have been intertwined with King Arthur since at least the late medieval period, until fairly recently, is because Athelstan himself behaved so much like the historical King Arthur, that later writers and historians assumed he must have been the inspiration behind the story.Of course, we now know that the King Arthur story is far older than Athelstan himself, as the earliest dated copy we have regarding the specific mention of King Arthur goes back to the year 829 AD in the Historia Brittonum, authored by an early ninth century monk by the name of Nennius.Credit: AmazonAbove: Modern Copy Of Historia Brittonum By NenniusNennius - WikipediaThe problem with dating ancient books and manuscripts is that they need to be proven authentic, and not a forgery. Ultimately, it took many generations of research in order to prove that the stories regarding King Arthur date back to a period far earlier than the thirteenth century historian, Geoffrey of Monmouth, who was, until the late twentieth century, regarded as the earliest historian to mention King Arthur, whose authenticity could be reasonably proven.Monmouth is also credited with being the first documented historian to mention Guinevere, and he helped popularise the more mythical version of the Knights of the Round Table, involving Sir Lancelot and Galahad amongst others.Quite interestingly, however, whereas most stories of King Arthur and his knights depict only a small group of men scavenging the wilderness for holy relics, and fighting larger than life foes, the historical group of knights were actually far more numerous.Credit: ListverseAbove: Medievalised Depiction Of King Arthur And His Knights At The Round TableWriters, such as Thomas Malory, have written by name the identities of up to 150 men who comprised the Knights of the Round Table. In effect, this is the equivalent of an entire company of infantry.Knights of the Round Table - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.More likely than not, however, these knights were officers who were each in charge of their own personal unit, who then got together in order to discuss and debate military strategy, and therefore did not fight directly side-by-side in most cases.To date, no evidence of Guinevere in writing has been proven to date any earlier than the thirteenth century, even though there is a famous story -- probably apocryphal -- claiming that Richard the Lionheart had sent his men to Glastonbury to find the graves and remains of King Arthur in order to discredit the Welsh population, who believed that King Arthur was either still alive, or that he had resurrected.Credit: WikipediaAbove: 1860 Painting Of Queen Guinevere By James ArcherGuinevere - WikipediaAt the time, Richard was himself getting ready to embark on a religious crusade, and he was apparently concerned that an open riot in support of the legendary King Arthur could break out while he was absent.However, no grave like that of King Arthur’s was ever found to have existed at the alleged site (many have since claimed the island near Glastonbury to be the historical Avalon), nor are there any writings from within that period that are known to specifically talk about this case; leaving us with only copies of what later writers claimed was discovered.Accordingly, the monks excavated the site and discovered the alleged grave of King Arthur (later versions claim that Guinevere’s grave was also present) and that their bones and tombstone simply disappeared into dust upon being discovered.This all sounds too convenient for two groups of people:Those who want the legend of King Arthur to be trueThose who want to disprove the belief that King Arthur is somehow still aliveCredit: WikipediaAbove: The Ancient Ruins Of Glastonbury Abbey — Located Near The Alleged Site Of King Arthur’s GraveGlastonbury Abbey - WikipediaRichard himself reportedly wanted to find Arthur’s grave for the latter reason, and by claiming that their physical graves were only able to be left exposed long enough to be identified before literally dissolving into history would have made it somewhat more challenging for those living in the late twelfth century and later to challenge the official story of King Arthur’s alleged grave site.The fact that even the oldest versions of this story don’t even mention a Queen Guinevere is all the more telling, as it is likely that if a Guinevere ever did exist (and, as pointed out earlier, Guinevere sounds like the name of Athelstan’s mother, and not Arthur’s wife) it is more likely that she was based on King Arthur’s sister Anna, or that she a high-ranking woman in early British history who was given a stronger connection to King Arthur’s story during the medieval ages.The Mammoth Book of King ArthurKing Arthur’s Guinevere is very comparable to Robin Hood’s Maid Marian. There is historical evidence that the two male figures existed, though very little to suggest likewise for their female companions, who were either outright fabrications invented for later storytelling, or individual women of their own time period who were later associated with the King Arthur and Robin Hood stories.Maid Marian has long been believed to be based on the Virgin Mary, as Robin Hood was known for being religious, and that he did pray to her frequently throughout the course of his lifetime, only for a human character in the form of Maid Marian herself to be later added to the Robin Hood storyline.Credit: WikipediaAbove: Sign Marking The Alleged Spot Of King Arthur’s GraveRevealing King ArthurEven though it is more debatable as to why later Robin Hood stories introduced a Maid Marian, it does make sense from a medieval perspective to invent a Queen Guinevere, for it was considered sacrilege during the early second millennium AD for a monarch to be deliberately celibate, for they were expected to marry and father legitimate children of their own.Quite ironically, by the laws of the thirteenth century -- when Queen Guinevere made her first recorded appearances -- King Arthur would himself have been disinherited from the throne, and he would not have been eligible to inherit and property from his birth parents, since King Arthur was himself the illegitimate son of Uther Pendragon and Igraine, who was the younger sister of Vortigern, and also traditionally the father of Vortimer (which would make Arthur and Vortigern’s son cousins).Vortimer - WikipediaCredit: YouTubeAbove: The Ruins Of Tintagel Castle In Modern-Day CornwallAccording to some legends, Uther himself sneaked into Tintagel Castle because he and Igraine secretly loved each other (some stories claim he had to disguise himself in order to gain entry), even though Vortigern himself hated Uther and his family (possibly because Vortigern had himself been enemies with King Arthur’s great-uncle in his earlier years, and was now in rivalry with Arthur’s father).The castle itself was being besieged at the time by Uther’s forces, and while the end result of this siege cannot be historically known -- thanks to all the fictional accounts which have since permeated the historical siege -- Vortigern himself obviously survived, since he is said to have outlived Uther Pendragon himself.ARTHUR AND THE BATTLE OF BADON HILLEven though the Battle of Badon Hill is traditionally said to have been fought in the year 517 AD, it is now believed that the battle was fought far earlier, with 497 AD now being the most commonly cited date (some even argue that the battle was fought as early as 485 AD).What evidence do we have that the Battle of Badon Hill was fought some two decades earlier than originally believed?Two main pieces of evidence come to mind.Credit: Caliburnus RiseAbove: King Arthur At The Battle Of Badon HillThe first is King Arthur’s contemporary, the English historian Saint Gildas, who claimed that the Battle of Badon Hill was fought on the year of his birth.Even though the exact year of birth of Saint Gildas is unknown, he is generally believed to have been born sometime shortly before 500 AD, with the year 497 being the date most repeated.The second piece of evidence is that of Dionysius Exiguus, an ancient monk who was said to have been born in 470 AD -- the same year as King Arthur, according to tradition -- championed the introduction of the Julian calendar in 525 AD while Arthur himself was still alive.This means that when the Battle of Badon Hill was fought, the modern year system as we know it today did not exist. And, because it is a transition to get dates of events to be adapted to a more modern calendar system, it is probable that the Britons themselves did not change the old calendar system until sometime after King Arthur’s death.Jesus’s birth year is also no longer known, which is ironic, as the Julian Calendar was intended to start with the year of Jesus’s birth. Instead, historical errors made by contemporaries of Arthur and Exiguus resulted in Jesus’s more likely year of birth to fall in the year 6 BC.Credit: WikipediaAbove: Medieval Depiction Of King Arthur’s Contemporary — Dionysius ExiguusDionysius Exiguus - WikipediaAs a bonus, the Battle of Camlann is traditionally said to have been fought in the year 537 AD, and unlike the Battle of Badon Hill, the year that the Battle of Camlann was fought seems to be more accurate, according to the writings of Saint Gildas, who boasted that the victory at Badon Hill brought a peace to the Britons that was to last for forty years.The year 497 is indeed precisely four decades before the Battle of Camlann, and the year 537 -- which was said to have brought winter to the British Isles during the summer months -- is actually backed by historical evidence which will also be discussed in greater detail later on.Ultimately, the date of the battles themselves are not the most important aspects of the King Arthur debate, as it is still unclear as to where exactly these battles were fought, even though there have been several plausible sites.During the Battle of Badon Hill, it is alleged that King Arthur killed 960 men “with his own hands”.Credit: YouTubeAbove: Battle Of Badon Hill Depicted On Screen In The Movie King Arthur (2004)I am almost beyond certain that this was intended as a symbolic, rather than literal interpretation, as it probably implies that 960 Saxons — nearly a thousand — were killed during the battle itself; concluding the first major Saxon invasion in King Arthur’s lifetime, as well as a twenty (or forty) year peace amongst the Britons.A thousand people dying in a single battle — even in a relatively remote part of the world like post-Roman Britain, whose entire population at the time was probably well under a million — is definitely not implausible, as far bloodier battles dating 2,000 years before King Arthur’s existence have been extensively recorded worldwide, from the steppes of Asia, to sub-Saharan Africa.If anything, losing a thousand men in a single battle — after presumably losing eleven previous engagements — when the Saxon population would also have been very low by modern standards, may explain why a battle whose size seems to have been insignificant (being little more than a bloody skirmish in today’s world) would have had such devastating effects.Theoretically, it is possible that Arthur personally executed nine-hundred-and-sixty prisoners with his own hand after the battle, though this is also unlikely, not just because it would be exhausting, but because it would not be an “Arthurian” thing for him to do, as early Christian rulers would have wanted to separate themselves from the pagans they were fighting, and one of those traits was that enemy prisoners were not to be killed for any reason.This practice was followed by all military leaders in the west with few exceptions until at least the crusader era.Credit: PinterestAbove: A More Historically Accurate Depiction Of A Briton Soldier Of The Sixth CenturyOn the other hand, it should be remembered that no matter how “wise” and pious King Arthur may have been, he was still a human being capable of doing things outside of his own characteristic, so it would not be an impossible belief that he resorted himself to killing captives after some of his battles, no matter how rare such incidents were said to be during this period in European history.One of those people Arthur is most famous for killing -- whether directly or indirectly -- was none other than Hueil mab Caw, the brother and contemporary of early sixth century writer, Saint Gildas.ARTHUR’S REPUTATIONEven though King Arthur may be regarded as a heroic figure of legendary status today, his more human side has been neglected to a more godlike stature.Despite the Saxon defeat bringing a forty-year period of relative peace for the Britons, this does not mean that the inhabitants were living in some sort of utopia as described in the stories of Camelot.One of Arthur’s biggest rivals during the years between Badon Hill and Camlann was said to be Saint Gildas’s older brother, Hueil mab Caw.Credit: PinterestAbove: An Ancient Norse Base On The Isle Of Man Believed By Some To Have Been The Site Where King Arthur And Hueil Mab Caw Fought Their Last BattleHueil mab Caw - WikipediaHow and why Arthur killed him has been broken into two versions:A more legendary version, as well as a more plausible version based on history.In the legendary story, King Arthur got into a personal duel with Hueil, in which he lost with an injury to the knee. Arthur forced Hueil to make a promise that he would never reveal the story.Shortly afterwards, however, the young rival general broke his promise, and when King Arthur found out, he challenged him to a second duel, where he either killed him on the spot, or had him executed in public as an example to everyone else.The more historical version of this event, whose earliest records date to the early twelfth century by the writer Caradoc of Llancarfan, who wrote about this event in the book The Life of Gildas, mentions that Hueil -- unlike his younger brother, who was probably still a child at the time -- refused to accept Christianity, and he commanded an army of Picts, who were determined to retain their old pagan roots.This army likely came from modern-day Scotland, and it is said that Hueil’s forces massacred and pillaged all the villages they came across until Arthur was able to respond with his own army.Credit: Historic UKAbove: The Coast Of The Isle Of ManUltimately, Arthur triumphed over the Pictish forces in a series of battles which were fought from the British mainland, all the way to the Isle of Man in Ireland. At that point, the Pictish leader (Hueil mab Caw) was said to have been killed, either in battle, or by Arthur’s own hand upon the batte’s conclusion.Nobody -- including those who lived during this time period -- would know for certain how Hueil would have met his demise, since it appears that the circumstances surrounding his death were divisive, even back then. However, it is quite probable that he was simply killed in battle at the end of a military campaign against Arthur’s forces.Less chivalrously, however, it is equally possible that Arthur -- who was known for his wisdom and benevolence -- may have been so enraged at the destruction inflicted on the inhabitants by Hueil’s army that he had him personally executed in the nearest town square as an example to all other would-be invaders.Either way, most early writers make it clear that Gildas was enraged at the death of his brother, and that his personal hatred towards Arthur for causing the death of his brother -- regardless of the reasons or circumstances surrounding his death -- may have contributed to Gildas deliberately omitting Arthur from his writings altogether, and only mentioning Arthur’s older uncle, Ambrosius Aurelianus.Credit: Travis MikhailAbove: Medieval Depiction Of Arthur’s Presumed Biographer, Saint GildasGildas - WikipediaGerald of Wales (1146-1223) even claims that Gildas -- who had began writing about the legendary King Arthur in his youth because of his personal affection and loyalty for him -- was so resentful at the thought that his childhood hero could have caused the death of his oldest brother that he destroyed a series of books he had already written in dedication to Arthur.Most versions of the story state that only in later life was Gildas able to “forgive” Arthur, after the legendary king personally sought forgiveness from Gildas, and agreed to do penance for the sin of killing his brother.The earliest mention of Arthur killing Hueil, however, does not mention any sort of reconciliation between Arthur and Gildas, and it is quite possible that Gildas remained hateful towards Arthur until his dying day; hence the reason why no written records of Arthur survived.On the other hand, it is quite possible that Gildas did indeed mention Arthur, and that his writings were simply lost over the course of history, as nearly all such writings from this period are, or that they have yet to be found.Credit: GeniAbove: Depiction Of King Arthur And Queen GuinevereEither way, one should not be looking for any specific name for King Arthur written before the early ninth century, since neither Gildas, his contemporaries, nor the immediate generations who lived after the legendary King Arthur would have known him as anyone other than Ambrosius Aurelianus: the most plausible name for the King of the Britons.THE ATTEMPTED BLINDING OF ATHELSTANA similar comparison can be found in the story of King Athelstan, and his brother Edwin.In this story, the latter sibling hatched a plot in which he intended to destroy the young Athelstan by having him blinded and then thrown into a monastery in order to ensure that Athelstan would never be king.Obviously, this was a form of high treason, and Edwin recruited the help of his cousins, as well as some loyal supporters, to help him in this scheme.The plot failed, for Athelstan was able to discover it before it came into fruition.Having them hanged, drawn and quartered was not a legal possibility like it would be in later English history, as such punishments did not exist during Athelstan’s reign.The first documented case of someone in English history suffering such a fate was the rebel and former Prince of Wales, Dafydd ap Gruffyd, who was arrested on December 11, 1282 and executed for treason on October 3, 1283 during the reign of King Edward the First, more than 350 years after King Athelstan convicted his brother and his accomplices in the plot to take his life.Credit: Daily MedievalAbove: Painting Of An Early Form Of Quartering (Late Thirteenth Century)Dafydd ap Gruffydd - WikipediaIf King Athelstan would have chosen to go through with a death sentence, the conspirators would have probably suffered either death by hanging, or a beheading.A choice in sentence would never have to be made, as King Athelstan -- in an act of chivalry -- decided to unconditionally forgive those who had plotted against him.Credit: YouTubeAbove: King Arthur/Athelstan’s Foster Father Asking Forgiveness For His Neglect In The Sword In The Stone (1963)However, many of Edwin’s supporters remained suspicious of the monarch’s intent, and when Edwin died in a shipwreck in 933 AD while travelling to France to work in the newly established embassy between the two nations, Athelstan’s enemies claimed that the king had deliberately ordered the ship sunk in retaliation for the earlier conspiracy on his life.This claim was still being repeated two centuries later when Symeon of Durham wrote in his own history book that he believed that Athelstan had orchestrated the death of his brother, and of the ship’s crew.Either way, King Athelstan agreed to take penance by self-chastisting himself. Whether this was because he really was guilty, or because he was attempting to placate those who would never be convinced of his innocence is debatable, only to the extent that it cannot be proven or disproven either way, despite the near universal consensus pointing towards the latter.The English coast itself is notorious for being one of the most dangerous in the world; rivalled by only a few other coastal islands (such as the Canadian Province of Nova Scotia, located on the opposite side of the North Atlantic), and this would have been doubly true for a wooden ship of the early tenth century.Credit: HistoryAbove: An Ancient Shipwreck Rotting On The CoastEdwin, son of Edward the Elder - WikipediaIn all likelihood, it was simply bad luck, or an act of negligence on the part of the crew itself which resulted in the demise of Edwin and his fellow occupants. By the time of his death in 933, many years had already elapsed since his attempted “assassination” on Athelstan, and he had been working in his service ever since.If Athelstan had any intentions on killing him, he could have done so far earlier, and under far less dramatic circumstances than causing a shipwreck itself.Nonetheless, the story of Athelstan taking penance over the alleged death of his brother is indeed in parallel with the story of the legendary King Arthur taking the same punishment against himself for causing the death of Gildas’s brother, Hueil mab Caw.Is it a coincidence? Did Athelstan and his contemporaries feel inspired to repeat history over the death of Edwin by having Athelstan himself take penance?We will probably never know, though the constant similarities between Athelstan and King Arthur are so strong that it becomes more understandable as to why it was believed for centuries that Athelstan had been the true inspiration for King Arthur until it could be proven that the oldest writings we have left (those of Nennius) predate Athelstan by up to a century.THE “COURT” OF KING ARTHURAs previously stated, there probably never was a physical court of King Arthur, whose identity can be revealed as a single location, since it is not likely that King Arthur was a traditional monarch, and that it is even less likely that King Arthur would have been living in a single place for any appreciable duration during these most turbulent times.Credit: Zen DonaldsonAbove: Romanticised Depiction Of King Arthur’s CourtWhile the Saxons may have been repelled throughout all but the final days of Arthur’s later life, the stories of him fighting the “tyrant” kings of the Britons makes it quite evident that Arthur was dealing with a lot of powerful enemies who were -- at least in theory -- his allies.Locking people up for life in iron cages; blinding them with hot pokers; amputating their hands and feet etc. were common punishments carried out by many of these “tyrannical” rulers during this period as an alternative to the death penalty.Several rulers living in Britain during this period were said to have had a tendency to carry out such grisly punishments quite frequently; sometimes just for their own personal amusement.Credit: All That’s InterestingAbove: Depiction Of Torture During The Late Medieval AgesSome examples of the “tyrant” kings who were thought to have lived in Arthur’s lifetime include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:CUNEGLASUSThe first example is quite interesting, since a small number of historians have recently come to believe that the tyrant may have even been the historical Arthur himself.Gildas refers to Cuneglasus as the “tawny butcher” and talks about how he had his own wife imprisoned for life in a monastery so that he could marry her sister instead, on top of raiding nearby settlements as some of the major “sins” attributed to Cuneglasus.Cuneglasus - WikipediaWould someone with this type of reputation be later remembered as a wise and benevolent “ruler” like Arthur was supposed to have been?Probably not.MAGLOCUNUSHe is often regarded as Maelgwyn, and Gildas seems to have had an even worse opinion on this ruler than Cuneglasus, whom Gildas refers to as “the first evil”.Just like Cuneglasus, Maglocunus has also been accused by Gildas for having disposed of his wife in order to lust after another woman.The Kings & Queens of BritainOnly, Maglocunus does not merely send her to a monastery, but also has her violently executed by a gang of hired assassins.And then, upon finding out that this woman -- his niece on his former wife’s side of the family -- refused his approach, he went over to her brother and had him killed in a similar manner as his first wife in order to intimidate her into marrying him.Credit: English HeritageAbove: The Ruins Of Hadrian’s WallGildas also mentions several other tyrants, including Constantine and Caninus, and mentions a list of sins ranging from “warmongering, fornication, incest and corruption” as some of their negative attributes.According to Gildas and the later writer, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Caninus even had Constantine assassinated in order to usurp the throne for himself.Even though executions during this period were not unheard of, they were also not very common, and it seems that tyrannical rulers who enjoyed torturing their subjects to death did not have a reason to put their opponents to death when they could keep them indefinitely alive under circumstances every bit as repugnant as Dante’s Inferno.LIFE WITHOUT THE ROMANSWhen Arthur was born, he would have known people who were old enough to remember the days when the fleeting Roman presence in ancient Britain was still a reality.Arthur’s generation was therefore one of the first to experience life in Britain after the Roman Government itself left the country for good sometime after 400 AD when the situation in mainland Europe made it impossible for native Roman soldiers to retain a presence in Britain; leaving it up to Arthur and his “Roman” relatives to make the best out of their situation.Despite the Romans no longer having a direct presence in Britain by the time of Arthur’s birth several decades later, the Roman Empire no doubt played a very direct role in the customs and beliefs of Arthur’s generation in much the same way that England continued to play an important role in the governance of Americans for decades after the American Revolutionary Wars.Credit: PinterestAbove: Illustrated Depiction Of A Roman PhalanxRather than the medieval armies of modern Arthurian legend, it is far more likely that the armies in Arthur’s time would have continued to fight in a “phalanx” formation, with spears as the primary weapon, and swords, the secondary weapon.When William the Conqueror faced the Christianised Saxons nearly six centuries after Arthur’s birth at Hastings in 1066 AD, the Saxons were noted to have fought in a walled formation which would have been outdated even by the standards of eleventh century mainland Europe.It is doubtful that the armies of Arthur would have been any more modernised than the Saxon army of Harold Godwinson, especially when the Roman phalanx had been credited for the victory at the Catalaunian Plains in 451 AD -- the “ancient Battle of the Nations” -- less than two decades before Arthur’s likely birth.RISE AND FALL OF KING ARTHURKing Arthur likely won the Battle of Badon Hill either shortly before, or shortly after, the Frankish King Clovis was crowned king of the Carolingian Empire (most of modern-day France and the Rhine region) after formally converting to Christianity on Christmas Day, 508 AD.In later life, King Arthur would have likely experienced the effects of 536 AD, which is said by many to be the worst year in human history.Sometime between December 535 and January 536 AD, Mount Ilopango, located in El Salvador, was said to have erupted with more power than Mount Tambora did in 1815 — Mount Tambora being the strongest volcanic eruption in modern history (1,000 times more powerful than the eruption of Mount Saint Helens, or the 79 AD eruption of Mount Vesuvius).Credit: National GeographyAbove: Mount Ilopango In El Salvador As It Looks TodayThe volcanic effects from Mount Ilopango were said to have been the worst the world had experienced in more than 2,000 years, and that it brought an end to many civilisations from North and South America (such as the Moche civilisation), all the way to East Asia and modern Oceania (Australia).In March 536 AD, a “dark cloud” was said to have formed over the Mediterranean world, and that it lasted for more than three years.Extreme weather events of 535–536 - WikipediaWhen Mount Tambora erupted in 1815, many contemporaries proclaimed 1815 (and, to a lesser extent, 1816) “the year without a summer”.And yet, modern estimates are that Mount Ilopango released ten percent MORE aerosol than Mount Tambora did, which hardly makes it surprising that the eruption of late 535 to early 536 AD would have had such an impact on the world.To make matters worse, however, in 540 AD, a second volcanic eruption with similar power was said to have erupted somewhere in Antarctica, which only prolonged the climatic impact on the world.Mount Vesuvius itself was reported to have had a minor eruption in 536 while Mount Ilopango was reportedly erupting halfway around the world.Mount Vesuvius - WikipediaCredit: PDX RetroAbove: Mount Krakatoa Erupting In 1883Mount Krakatoa -- once believed to have had its last major eruption in 416 AD, before the 1883 eruption -- has also been claimed as a possible volcano that may have contributed to the cause of the weather disasters between 535-540 AD.Sixth-Century Misery Tied to Not One, But Two, Volcanic EruptionsCredit: NASA Visble EarthAbove: Aerial View Of The Gulf Of Carpentaria — Said To Have Been Caused By An Asteroid Hitting The Earth In 535 AD — Triggering The Volcanic Events Of 536–540 ADWhat makes these volcanic eruptions biblical in themselves, is that a common theory explaining why so many powerful volcanoes erupted almost at once (a single volcano of this intensity rarely erupts more than once every few centuries) was due to a powerful asteroid (640 metres long) striking the earth’s surface in Australia; causing the magma chambers under several volcanoes to be ignited almost simultaneously.The Global Cooling Event of the Sixth Century. Mystery No Longer?The eruptions themselves would prove to be only the beginning of the near collapse of ancient civilisations worldwide. Harvests failed because it reportedly snowed during the summer for at least three consecutive years; followed by disease outbreaks which threatened to kill all the survivors who had survived the initial disasters.Credit: ListverseAbove: Romans Dying On The Streets During The Justinian Plague10 Scary Facts About The Justinian Plague - ListverseIn mainland Europe, this epidemic would be known as the Justinian Plague.The Justinian Plague was a predecessor to the more well known Black Death, as both of them are believed to have been caused by the bacteria Yersinia Pestis which is also believed to be responsible for the even earlier collapse of the Neolithic population some 5,000 years ago.Unlike the outbreak of 1348-1352, which killed anywhere between 10-30% of the European population, the Justinian Plague was estimated to have killed anywhere between 40-50% of the population of Europe (most between 540-541) with some historians suggesting it could even be as high as 70%.For decades after the outbreak, smaller outbreaks continued to literally plague the European population; contributing to the start of the Dark Ages, where written documents from that period became comparably harder to find, since it is likely that all of the ancient writers of the early sixth century had either been killed, or were too busy doing farming to concern themselves with recording any historical events.Of course, if dates are to be believed, by 540 AD, when the Justinian Plague’s main outbreak started (it had already been brewing for a few years before that), the Battle of Camlann had already been fought, and King Arthur himself was dead.Credit: About HistoryAbove: Justinian The GreatOn the other hand, he would have been very much alive when Mount Ilopango would have erupted, less than five years earlier.The Ilopango eruption alone proved devastating enough that nations far more durable than post-Roman Britain had historically been, from Europe and Africa, all the way to Asia and the Americas, collapsed very suddenly in the face of this volcanic episode.Harvests failed, and famines would have broken out.More capable rulers would have been desperately trying to confiscate all the grains in an effort to stave off as much of the negative impact which the famines undoubtedly incurred upon the population of this period.Meanwhile, the Saxons, who had yet to convert to Christianity, and who were probably still bitter at having been defeated by an ageing King Arthur nearly half a century earlier, would have seen this as a golden opportunity to strike the Britons while they were at their weakest.Credit: Historical AssociationAbove: Depiction Of Saxon Warriors In The Late First MillenniumEven though King Arthur had been more than capable in defeating the first Saxon invasion during his youth, and in being able to bring relative peace to the Britons during the forty years after the first Anglo-Saxon War, it seems that this second invasion -- in the face of everything else -- proved too overwhelming even for the legendary King Arthur to handle.The Saxons proceeded to pillage the Britons, and during this period, some of his senior officers -- including the character that Mordred is allegedly based on -- may have deserted King Arthur in order to save their own lives.However, most early evidence suggests that Arthur’s nephew, Mordred, died fighting not against, but with Arthur, and that what probably started off as a verbal military disagreement between the two later evolved into Mordred becoming his last nemesis, and ultimately, his assassin.Credit: WikipediaAbove: King Arthur Fighting His Nephew Mordred At CamlannBattle of Camlann - WikipediaWhere this happened is not certain, but some believe that “Camlann” may have been located near the River Avon, as there is evidence that it was regarded as a significant military prize during the early sixth century, due to the ruins of multiple fortifications which were undoubtedly still being inhabited up until around this time.The name “Camlann” is said to be based on an ancient word called camboglanna, which means “crooked bank” and one of the turning points of the river is claimed to be where the final battle took place.Historic Figures of the Arthurian EraSupposedly, Arthur’s body was even said to have been buried on the Island of Avalon; a name very similar to the River Avon.Another candidate is believed to be the modern River Camel, whose geographical features are also similar to the River Avon.Credit: WikipediaAbove: The “Crooked Bank” On The River Camel — Believed By Some To Be The Site For The Battle Of CamlannRiver Camel - WikipediaWhile we may never know which river -- or which part of the river -- the Battle of Camlann was fought: the physical description of the Battle of Camlann does impeccably match at least several spots in modern-day England, so it is far more likely that the Battle of Camlann is indeed based on a historical event, and not pure legend.Top 10 clues to the real King ArthurToday, people might ask themselves why would battles such as Badon Hill and Camlann -- battles which were said to have so much of an impact in early sixth century Britain -- be so “forgotten” that their geographical locations are not known.One should remember that the Battle of the Catalaunian Fields (or Plains), which was fought by the Romans against Attila the Hun less than a lifetime before Arthur, is also no longer known. Several plausible sites for the final major battle with Attila the Hun have been suggested, though none of them have ever proven conclusive.In the grand scheme of things, the defeat of Attila the Hun, and thus, the salvation of Rome itself, would have been regarded as a far more important historical event than Badon Hill or Camlann.Very few people today seriously question that the battle with Attila the Hun really did take place, and that it was one of the main reasons why -- alongside the legendary encounter with Pope Leo the Great -- that Rome itself was never sacked by his army.Credit: The Deadliest BloggerAbove: Attila The Hun Charging At The Battle Of The Catalaunian Plains In 451 ADThe battle of the Catalaunian Fields is also said to have mustered a total of 200,000 men -- half on each side. By contrast, it is unlikely that any battles fought in Britain during this time ever mustered more than a few thousand men at any one time.Battles such as Badon Hill, which probably involved no more than 10,000 men, would have been regarded as a small military engagement, even by late fifth century standards.From the perspective of outsiders, comparing the Battle of Badon Hill to the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains would be like comparing the invasion of D-Day to some tribal fight in a remote corner of the world.The closest that historians have gotten to locating the site for the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains is that they “believe” it probably took place somewhere in north-east France along the Rhine Region, which is a potential area that is about as ambiguous as locating the sites of the far smaller Battle of Badon Hill and its successor, the Battle of Camlann (not to mention the list of other battles fought by King Arthur, whose locations are no longer clear).To conclude, even though the lack of a decisive location for where Arthur’s battles took place is not evidence that they took place, it is also not evidence that they did not take place, either.ARTHUR’S BURIALAs for where Arthur is buried: it is quite possible that he wasn’t.Credit: Wikimedia CommonsAbove: Romanticised View Of King Arthur Being Taken Away To AvalonSince the Justinian Plague was likely underway by the time of Arthur’s demise, sometime in 537 AD -- which was to explode by 540 AD -- it is probable that his body may have been pushed off into the water by inhabitants who were too scared to touch his corpse.During historical plagues of the Justinian Plague variety, it was rare for proper burials to be given, even for a state ruler.Even though it is obviously not sanitary to throw thousands of corpses into a nearby body of water, it is probably something which was very common for ancient people whenever they were dealing with an epidemic, as it was far quicker to throw a body into the water than to bury it, and it was also less likely that a body that sank at the bottom of the river would be able to infect the locals, compared to a body buried beneath their soil.Credit: ListverseAbove: Sixth Century Burial Trench Believed To Contain The Remains Of Some Victims Of The Justinian PlagueSometimes, funeral pyres were created, and thousands of bodies were burned, though this is less likely to be the fate of Arthur’s body, since even the earliest Arthurian legends make it quite clear that he was pushed out into the water, where his body was said to have been laid to rest in Avalon.Knowing that disposing the bodies in water was the second most common option for dealing with plague-ridden corpses, I somehow think that it gives a kernel of truth to the story of Arthur’s body being ceremoniously pushed off into a body of water.Consequently, since King Arthur was most certainly regarded as some sort of messiah by the inhabitants of that time, they may have circulated some sort of rumour that King Arthur was not really dead, but that he had been merely sent off to recuperate from his injuries, and that he would one day return to save his people.Credit: Wikimedia CommonsAbove: Romanticised Depiction Of King Arthur Being Nursed At AvalonToday, many people insist that Elvis is not really dead, and while the many centuries may make it hard for people to grasp the historical events as they occurred during the early sixth century: for people living in that period, a historical event was not just a “moment in time” but an event that was constantly evolving.After the September 11 attacks, many rumours continued to circulate about which have largely been debunked today, but were widely believed at the time. And this is during a time when we have televisions, radios and the internet to help those experiencing a historical moment to understand what was going on.Such media did not exist during the time of Arthur.Additionally, it is also unlikely that writing was a possible form of communication during the years immediately after Arthur’s death, as famines caused by the Justinian Plague were known to force even scholars and writers living near Rome and Constantinople to permanently abandon their old profession, and to resort to farming in order to keep themselves alive.One of the few writers from Britain during Arthur’s time whose identity can be confirmed is, of course, Saint Gildas, who was said to have been born sometime before 500 AD, and was reportedly alive (in modern-day France) living in a monastery until around 570 AD.Credit: Clas MerdinAbove: Close-Up Picture Of The Sign Claiming The Discovery Of King Arthur’s Grave In 1191Even though he never mentions a man by the name of King Arthur -- not surprisingly, considering what I have written about his relationship with King Arthur and the Justinian Plague in earlier paragraphs -- he does make it clear that the victor of Badon Hill was a man by the name of Ambrosius Aurelianus, who wore a plate of armour with the Holy Cross painted on it before driving off the Saxon Army, and killing “nine-hundred-and-sixty men”.Legend states that Arthur became “king” at the age of fifteen, and that he fought twelve battles (or campaigns) with the final one being at Badon Hill.If Arthur was born in 470 AD and he became a “king” in 485 AD, then it would make sense to believe that the final battle would have been fought in 497 AD when Arthur was twenty-six or twenty-seven years old.As for when Ambrosius Aurelianus senior died is unclear, though it is unlikely that Arthur’s uncle would have died before 485 AD, and some believe that the Ambrosius Aurelianus mentioned by Gildas at Badon Hill was not the legendary Arthur at all, but his uncle.CONCLUSIONEven though we will never know beyond proof who the real King Arthur was, it is very unlikely that King Arthur was merely a fictional character who was then repeatedly passed down as fact in the centuries after his death.Credit: VoxAbove: Depiction Of King Arthur In The 2017 Film, King ArthurThe Saxon invasions of 537 AD, and the Justinian Plague, likely destroyed most of the writings dating before the sixth century -- including those which talk about earlier historical figures.On the other hand, it is also quite likely that during the days of Geoffrey of Monmouth six centuries later, a far greater volume of works dating back to ancient Britain would have been known, and that he would have relied on sources for his work, which have long since been lost.The Library of Alexandria, for instance, would have contained much information from the ancient world, and yet barely any information from that period exists, because the library was burned several times throughout its history (most notably in 642 AD) alongside all the scrolls and ancient books stored there.Even books and letters not destroyed in fires could have been lost for any other number of reasons, ranging from floods, accidental mishaps, vandalism or pure negligence.Credit: Ancient World MagazineAbove: Burning Of Alexandria In 642 ADThe earliest biographies of Alexander the Great to have survived into the modern ages were not written until nearly three centuries after his death, and yet we don’t question Alexander the Great as a historical character, even though Alexander would have been of far greater importance throughout the ancient world than King Arthur.In all probability, these historians who wrote about Alexander the Great had gotten their information from writers predating their time.FINAL LEGACYNot all is lost on the King Arthur story, however.Credit: The Vintage NewsAbove: Some Versions Of King Arthur Claim That The Sword Excalibur Was Both The Sword In The Stone, As Well As His Battle SwordEven though King Athelstan most likely never pulled a sword out of a stone as is claimed in the legendary tales of King Arthur, and that he did not become a monarch until he was approximately 33 years of age, there are several obvious traits behind Athelstan which give honour to the more chivalrous and grandiose personality of King ArthurAthelstan is widely regarded as the first ruler of a united England; his penal code -- while harsher in writing -- also encouraged the type of leniency found in many King Arthur stories; he defeated a Viking Invasion in a campaign similar to the one Arthur had fought against the Saxons four centuries earlier; he was a religiously devoted military general, just like his legendary predecessor; Athelstan was reported to have a benign personality comparable to King Arthur…And… last of all… This first true King of England was probably so identical in his personality and contributions that for a long period of time, Athelstan was considered the historical equivalent of King Arthur.In the end, while the King Arthur of history may never have been the king of a unified country, it seems evident that Athelstan -- who would most certainly have been aware of King Arthur’s legacy -- was so inspired by the life of Arthur himself that he decided to emulate his reign after the legendary warrior; making Athelstan the first King of England in body, and King Arthur, the first King of the Britons in spirit.Now, how legendary is that?Credit: YouTubeAbove: A Child Version Of King Arthur/Athelstan In The Sword In The Stone (1963)FURTHER READING:For a real life biography of Robin Hood, see answer below:David Frigault's answer to Is Robin Hood a historical figure?For a real life biography on the English pirate, Blackbeard, see answer below:David Frigault's answer to Who in history is looked at as a terrible person but is actually a hero?

Q. What kind of students get into the University of Chicago?A. To meet your U Chicago Admissions Requirements:Earn a 4.23 GPA or Higher (Greater emphasis on rigors of secondary school record, than GPA or class rank)Get a 33 on the ACT, a 2235 on the SAT, or Higher (Greater emphasis on standardized tests)Have the Extracurricular Advantage (Greater emphasis on character and personal qualities)Emphasis on Recommendations and EssaysHow to Get Into University of Chicago (Student-Tutor)University of Chicago: Profile Class of 2020US News Rankings and ReviewsCollegeData College ProfileQuestions | Noodle: University of Chicago StudentsPresident Barack Obama speaks to students at the University of Chicago Law School on April 7, 2016 in Chicago, Illinois. Obama addressed his U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland as he hopes members of the Republican party will give Garland a hearing and a vote in Washington. (Photo by Joshua Lott/Getty Images)How to Get Into University of Chicago: Admissions RequirementsCo-authored by Renae HintzeUChicago considers itself “One of the world’s premier academic and research institutions”.Sound too good to be true?They may be tooting their own horn, but Students and faculty from UChicago have made great strides over the years, such as developing the first cloud-based computing system to process cancer data (in 2013) – I mean, wow. I still burn my popcorn in the microwave sometimes.With an average of 27,500 students applying every year, the UChicago acceptance rate comes in at only 9%. I already know what you’re thinking… 9%?! So what does it take to be part of that??Without further ado, I bestow you these 12 Steps to increase your student’s UChicago Admissions chances! (Number 10 is pretty unique.)Step #1: Earn a 4.0 GPA or HigherCheck this out… It’s a chart of University of College Admissions statistics. See all those little blue and green dots? They represent the students that were accepted. And check out where they’re pow-wowing up around the top – it says “4.0”.While we could argue that there ARE acceptances below a 4.0, and that the blue dots at the top represent students who didn’t attend, your student should aim for a 4.0 or higher to increase their University of Chicago admissions chances.Having a 4.0 or higher is also a good indication that your student will succeed at UChicago. The average GPA for students enrolled is 4.23!Step #2: Get a 33 ACT, 2235 SAT, or HigherAs we mentioned in our article on how to get into UC Berkeley, Ivy Leagues review their applications holistically, meaning they take all things into consideration.Ok, but exactly how real is this holistic approach??On the same chart of University of Chicago admissions statistics that you just saw above, the majority of acceptances thicken significantly around a 30 ACT and 2070 SAT score. I circled it for ya here.So in order to have the BEST chances of meeting University of Chicago admissions requirements, you should aim for the middle-ground (or higher) of accepted scores: a 33 ACT or 2235 SAT score.But what about the SAT subject test you may ask?No SAT subject tests are required for your application, but we’re going to recommend your student takes them… Remember the 9% admittance rate?UChicago Admissions are super competitive, so you really want to take every opportunity there is to stand out. Have your student study hard for at least two and submit those scores.And don’t forget about Super Scoring!Super Scoring…what’s that?The University of Chicago uses what’s called “Super Scoring”, (or Score Choice) when accepting your ACT and SAT test scores. It means that if you submit multiple test scores for either the ACT or SAT, they will take the highest score you submitted!Step #3: Have the Extracurricular AdvantageWe’ve got something for this too! Remember our article on Extracurricular Activities increasing your Ivy League admissions chances?Well, UChicago is no exception to all that. Here is a pie chart that shows the actual anatomy, if you will, of the University of Chicago in terms of their Extracurricular make-up.So what can you take out from this infographic above? What seems to be to focus?YES, you got it! It seems like there are three categories that are prominent here.U of Chicago Extracurricular Prominent Categories:AthleticsMusicVolunteeringI’m not saying these are the only extracurriculars that the University of Chicago cares about. BUT the fact that the majority of current UChicago students are involved in these categories does say something for the extracurricular habits of students accepted.So maybe you’re not an athlete and don’t play an instrument… But anyone can volunteer! AND there’s quite the variety of community service options open to students these days.Here are some Volunteer tips!Make hygiene kits for the homelessVolunteer at a food bank, food pantry, or soup kitchenBring new or lightly used toys and stuffed animals to a children’s hospital.Teach computer skills to the elderlyThese are just a few specific examples I took from TeenLife’s 10 Community Service Ideas for College-Bound Teens and 50 Community Service Ideas for Teen Volunteers.Step #4: Create a UChicago AccountA UChicago Account is simply an online account where you can access all the information you’ll need as both an applicant, and a student of UChicago.With a UChicago account, you can:Check the status of your applicationUpdate informationApply for financial aidView your admission decisionGet started with your UChicago Application.Step #5: Complete the Universal and Common ApplicationsThese are two different online application sites that allow schools to view student’s applications, and teachers to give college recommendations to those students.For filling these guys out, all you need to do is go to their homepage and follow the steps they give!Start your Universal College Application here and/or start your Common Application here.Step #6: Do Well on the UChicago SupplementNow this is an important one so LISTEN UP! The UChicago Supplement is available through either your UChicago Account or Common Application.The University of Chicago Supplement requires:Extended Essay (You’ll have 5 prompts to choose from)Short essay on why you want to go to UChicagoOptional essay on art or mediaSo what do these essays look like?You can expect to see (and write about) some pretty uncommon things on your essay. Literally, the University of Chicago takes prides in having uncommon essay prompts.What do they mean by using the term “uncommon”?How about a prompt asking you about the latest trends of society?Or a prompt that just catches you completely by surprise?The following were two REAL prompts used for the UChicago extended essay.In other words, you can expect the unexpected when it comes to the University of Chicago extended essay. And here’s some specific examples of essay answers to uncommon UChicago prompts. Your student can read these and get a feel for the tone they want to capture and follow some of our tips we have provided below.University of Chicago Extended Essay “Do’s and Don’ts”:Extra Tip: You don’t have to write about yourself to answer the question. You can, but it’s totally up to you!Step #7: Have a Good Secondary School ReportThey want a secondary school report too? How about my right foot??But remember at a 9% acceptance rate, you are being considered for one of the world’s premiere universities. So yeah, they want it.The secondary school report is basically a recommendation from your student’s advisor. It will ask for the basics, like grades and test scores, but it will ask a few more unique questions too – how organized your student is and what their personality is like, for instance. So make sure to keep your advisor on your good side.Step #8: Get 2 Stellar Recommendations from TeachersSchedule a meeting well in advance to meet with your counselor/advisor and submit this recommendation via either University College Application or the Common Application (I mentioned these earlier!)In another blog I talked about creating the “Ideal Candidate” for the school that your student wants to attend.You can use some of those same categories to find the teachers for your student’s recommendations!Now that you know what kind of teacher to ask, make sure your student gives them plenty of time to write the recommendation.What’s plenty of time?Teachers are busy. A week before the deadline is probably even pushing it, so give them 2 or more. And when you do ask for a recommendation, make sure to have a brag sheet prepared.A brag sheet? You mean you want me to brag about myself?Yup. Think of it this way: Let’s say you’re in a room with 10 people. If all 10 of you applied to the University of Chicago, that means only one of you would be accepted, if any.You need to do everything you can to BE that one! So your teacher needs to know your accomplishments in order to write you a stellar recommendation letter that stands out and fits exactly what the university is looking for.Provide a sheet with the following:Volunteer WorkLeadership PositionsInvolvement in Music and the ArtsClubsCultural ExperiencesHonors and AwardsCommunity ServiceEmploymentIn other words… just follow the steps to fill out our Student Profile.Step #9: Submit a Mid-Year ReportMid-Year report? Didn’t I already submit all my grades?You did. Now they want to make sure you didn’t start slacking afterwards.Your student needs to ask their Academic Advisor to send a mid-year report with grades or transcript your first semester or first trimester.Their school may have their own form for this, or the counselor can use the UCA or CA’s form. Either will work — just make sure this gets done, and looks good!Step #10: Use Extra Opportunities to Stand OutThis means the supplemental criteria offered as an option for University of Chicago admissions.There’s a Portfolio in your student’s UChicago account where they can submit any type of artwork, writing, or anything else they are substantially proud of. This is another chance for your student to shine in the eyes of UChicago.So that portrait of Beyonce they painted in art, or that awesome mini-novel they wrote for English class… those will work.What about the UChicago Interview?Interviews for the University of Chicago admissions are conducted on and off the campus.Face-to-face is always a good way to show your interest in something. That’s why I recommend that your student does one of these.On-Campus interviews your student is interviewed by a fourth-year student in the Office of College Admissions in Rosenwald Hall. And, guess what? The University actually has a current list of the UChicago student interviewers. When your student goes for their interview, they’re bound to see one of these lovely faces there.For Off-Campus interviews: Off-campus interviews are conducted by UChicago alumni. For off-campus interviews, your student should come armed with the following:Knowledge of UChicagoA few questions for the alumnusYou can only book one or the other so your student can either schedule their on-campus interview or schedule their off-campus interview on their UChicago Account.Step #11: Meet Your DeadlinesStep #12: Qualify for a Merit ScholarshipYes, UChicago has merit-based scholarships!However, they’re not exactly the same criteria as you’ve heard from us in reference to a merit scholarship.Basically how it works is when the University of Chicago receives your student’s application, the admissions counselors will review it for possible scholarship awards in addition to them being admitted.So they aren’t automatically awarded after admission, but they’re automatically considered.And they will look at everything: GPA, test scores, personality, and what you did in High School. They might even call your twice removed cousin and see what you did at your 2nd birthday… Ok maybe not that far, but you get the idea.If your student is found eligible for a scholarship, they can receive up to $15,000 per year. (The lowest they can receive is $5,000 per year).ConclusionJust to keep things fresh, let’s review the steps we talked about.To meet your UChicago Admissions Requirements:Earn a 4.23 GPA or HigherGet a 33 on the ACT, a 2235 on the SAT, or HigherHave the Extracurricular AdvantageTo Meet your UChicago Application Requirements:Create a UChicago AccountComplete the Universal and Common ApplicationsDo Well on the UChicago SupplementHave a Good Secondary School ReportGet 2 Stellar Recommendations from TeachersSubmit a Mid-Year ReportUse Extra Opportunities to Stand OutMeet Your DeadlinesApply for Financial AidBioLatest PostsTodd VanDuzerCo-Founder & CEO at Student-TutorHOW TO GET INTO UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO / U CHICAGO ADMISSIONS / U CHICAGO EXTENDED ESSAY / U CHICAGO INTERVIEW / U CHICAGO SUPPLEMENT /UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ADMISSIONSAdmissions & AidProfile for the Class of 2020Apply The Application U Chicago Supplement Essay Questions Class Profile Preparing for CollegeVisitingAcademicsStudent LifeHousing & DiningAfter GraduationCosts & AidContact UsApplications to University of ChicagoNumber of Applicants 31,411Number Accepted 2,498Number Enrolled 1,591Distribution by RegionInvolvement in High School ActivitiesCommunity Service 81%Editorial (newspaper, literary magazine, yearbook) 26%Music 44%Religious Organizations 12%Student Government 31%Theater 17%Varsity Athletics 53%Standardized TestingACT Middle 50% 32-35SAT Middle 50% 1460-1550ACT Score Range (Admitted Students) 20-36SAT Score Range (Admitted Students) 1020-1600DiversityAsian 19.04%Black or African American 8.61%Hispanic or Latino 12.95%Other 8.74%International 13.7%Gender DistributionUniversity of Chicago5801 S. Ellis Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637 | (773) 702-1234#3 (tie) in National UniversitiesOverviewRankingsApplyingCost & AidAcademicsStudent LifeServicesMapMore ▾2017 Quick StatsTUITION & FEES $52,491 (2016-17)ROOM AND BOARD $15,093 (2016-17)TOTAL ENROLLMENT 12,962APPLICATION DEADLINE Jan. 1More from this SchoolUndergraduateGlobalGraduateView All 7 Photos »University of Chicago is a private institution that was founded in 1890. It has a total undergraduate enrollment of 5,844, its setting is urban, and the campus size is 217 acres. It utilizes a quarter-based academic calendar. University of Chicago's ranking in the 2017 edition of Best Colleges is National Universities, 3. Its tuition and fees are $52,491 (2016-17).The University of Chicago, situated in Chicago’s Hyde Park community, offers a rich campus life in a big-city setting. The Chicago Maroons have more than 15 NCAA Division III teams, which compete in the University Athletic Association, and have strong basketball and wrestling programs. At Chicago, freshmen are required to live on campus, and more than 50 percent of students choose to remain on campus, while others live in off-campus apartments and houses. On-campus students are placed in "houses" within their dorm, which serve as tight-knit communities and provide academic and social support. Chicago offers more than 400 student organizations.The University of Chicago is comprised of the College and a number of graduate and professional schools. Its postgraduate offerings include the highly ranked Booth School of Business, Law School, Pritzker School of Medicine, Harris School of Public Policy Studies and Department of Geophysical Sciences, as well as a top-ranked graduate program in economics and a well-regarded Divinity School. Since 1987, the school has hosted the four-day long "University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt," now a venerable university tradition. Famous alumni include former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics recipient Milton Friedman, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and author Kurt Vonnegut Jr.General Information1890 YEAR FOUNDEDQuarter ACADEMIC CALENDAR$6,553,570,933 2015 ENDOWMENTSchool Mission and Unique QualitiesContent is provided by the school.The University of Chicago is universally recognized for its devotion to open and rigorous inquiry. The strength of our intellectual traditions, intense critical analysis, and free and lively debate draws from our engaged scholars who continually seek creative solutions to complex problems. Our College graduates have made discoveries in every field of academic study; they are ambitious thinkers who are unafraid to take on the most pressing questions of our time. Their accomplishments have established the University's legacy as one of the world's finest academic institutions. The University of Chicago is affiliated with 89 Nobel Prize winners, over 260 Guggenheim Fellows, 32 MacArthur "Genius Grant" Fellows, and 24 Pulitzer Prize winners.UChicago is also renowned for the unparalleled resources it provides its undergraduate students. Our 217-acre campus contains six libraries with over 11 million print volumes; over 150 research centers and institutes, including the new Institute for Molecular Engineering and the Institute of Politics; world-class theaters, museums, and art centers; and three of the nation's top professional schools in law, business, and medicine. Rooted in Hyde Park, a neighborhood home to both our campus (certified as a botanical garden) and over 60 percent of the private homes of our faculty, UChicago offers a true campus-based community within the context of a major American city. Our students engage the city of Chicago and its many neighborhoods through groundbreaking research and scholarship, unparalleled internship opportunities, and a commitment to community service. Just as Chicago is a global city, the University of Chicago remains a truly international university: we offer over 45 faculty-led study abroad programs in over 20 countries, including those in conjunction with our centers in Beijing, Hong Kong, Delhi, and Paris.Yo Yo Ma with Woodlawn Campus Students University of Chicago Charter SchoolUChicago maintains a student-faculty ratio of 5:1, ensuring that every classroom experience exemplifies our commitment to close interactions between students and faculty in small, discussion-style seminars. Our famous Core curriculum - courses in eight subject areas that all students, regardless of their major, are required to take - provides students with a common vocabulary and a well-balanced academic experience, while allowing them the flexibility to explore their own particular interests within those eight subject areas.The Office of Career Advancement helps students translate what they are studying in our classrooms to their future careers. Career Advancement counsels students through individual meetings and larger pre-professional programs, the UChicago Careers In programs. There are eight different UChicago Careers In programs that cover sectors ranging from business and law to health professions and journalism, arts, and media. Additionally, Career Advancement connects students with over 1700 Metcalf internship opportunities - fully funded internships across a range of industries that are only available to UChicago students. Students also enjoy a highly successful Division III sports program; a small but active Greek life community; over thirty-five student theatrical productions a year; a rich music scene; and extraordinary opportunities in politics, music, theater, commerce, and neighborhood life in the city of Chicago.The University's Financial Aid program is extraordinary thanks to the new No Barriers program. No Barriers is a comprehensive plan to increase access to college, support students as they receive an empowering education, and prepare them for lifelong professional success. Families who apply for financial aid do not have to pay a college application fee to UChicago. All of UChicago's need-based financial aid comes in the form of grants and scholarships, which do not need to be repaid. No loans are included as part of financial aid packages at the University of Chicago.University of Chicago - CollegeData College ProfileQuestions | Noodle University of Chicago Studentskatherine16, University of Chicago '16 Aug 12, 2015Everyone is so smart and so interesting. People really care about learning, about the things they're doing, and about each other. I constantly feel challenged and motivated to push myself harder. There's a crazy amount of opportunities and professors/advisers/Resident Heads want to help you every chance they can.Admitsee student at University of Chicago, University of Chicago '17 Aug 12, 2015The core curriculum, size, resources, and values are aspects of UChicago that I find most appealing. To me, the Core seems to provide a common language that unites a unique mixture of students. I enjoy interacting with students who are passionate about subjects that differ from my own interests, so surely Core disciplines would be some of my favorites. Moreover, I admire the core curriculum itself "eager to indulge in a rich foundation of knowledge." The medium sized student body also fits my ideal college experience: just large to meet new people, but small enough to see familiar faces. Additionally, Chicago is my favorite city in the United States, which is peculiar considering I live thirty minutes outside Manhattan. When I visit family in the Windy City, I relish the friendly Midwestern mentality and the deep-dish pizza. Since my perfect college experience includes a stimulating nearby city, UChicago is ideal. In terms of academic resources, I plan to major in Public Policy on the Pre-medicine track both of which the College is distinguished for. In fact, I hope to engage in undergraduate public policy research, concentrating in urban healthcare allocation. Finally, the University's values, such as involvement in surrounding community, appreciation of humor, and holistic approach to academics, resonate with my own beliefs.jasonzhao3, University of Chicago '18Aug 12, 2015The students here actually genuinely love learning, and will discuss pretty intellectual topics casually. I have heard a ridiculous amount of Marx or Durkheim themed jokes. The school has a definite sort of 'quirkiness.' The housing system is also great in that you enter college with an already existing network of supportive students. It's like having a college family with its own strange quirks and traditions. The city of Chicago is also just great and offers many unique opportunities and sights to see.DeltaXue, University of Chicago '17 Aug 12, 2015This school is so ridiculously quirky in every fashion possible. First the architecture: the quad looks like it came straight out of 18th century England or something, yet we have buildings that look like some futuristic setting (see Booth School of Business or Renee Granville-Grossman). It's a wonderful mix and I appreciate the beauty of the juxtaposition. It's also a really small campus so everything is very lively a lot of the time. Smaller college wide traditions include $1 Milkshake wednesdays (YES THE BEST), Lascivious Ball (semi-naked dance party sponsored by the college!), Kuvia ( get up at 6am every day to go do sun stances, though I already do that for crew, and earlier), and so much more. Culture is wonderful at this school, but there are those that choose to not participate in it and are locked into their work. I don't believe them, and I don't respect them because they choose to not participate in said events. They will be the people telling college students in the future to enjoy the moment because they did not themselves. Seriously, enjoy college culture.aros888, University of Chicago '17 Aug 12, 2015It's very nice to have a city school, for one. There are so many opportunities for internships, work, etc. For UChicago more specifically, I very much enjoy the common core. There are a large number of required classes (though you can pick among a set of options), generally concentrated around the "common" readings of great works, from people like Plato, Aristotle, Bacon, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Durkheim, etc. It's not work that will directly apply to anything you do, but the critical thinking and writing skills you gain are useful, and the actual work is very interesting.Fifty Years of Clinical Legal Education at Chicago LawBest Law Schools#1 Yale University New Haven, CT#2 Tie Harvard University Cambridge, MA#2 Tie Stanford University Stanford, CA#4 Tie Columbia University New York, NY#4 Tie University of Chicago Chicago, IL#6 New York University New York, NY#7 University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, PA#8 Tie University of California—​Berkeley#8 Tie University of Michigan—​Ann Arbor#8 Tie University of Virginia Charlottesville, VABest Business Schools#1 Harvard University Boston, MA#2 Tie Stanford University Stanford, CA#2 Tie University of Chicago (Booth) Chicago, IL#4 University of Pennsylvania (Wharton) Philadelphia, PA#5 Tie Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sloan) Cambridge, MA#5 Tie Northwestern University (Kellogg) Evanston, IL#7 University of California—​Berkeley (Haas) Berkeley, CA#8 Tie Dartmouth College (Tuck) Hanover, NH#8 Tie Yale University New Haven, CT#10 Columbia University New York, NY#1 Harvard University Boston, MA#2 Stanford University Stanford, CA#3 Tie Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD#3 Tie University of California—​San Francisco#3 Tie University of Pennsylvania (Perelman) Philadelphia, PA#6 Washington University in St. Louis St. Louis, MO#7 Columbia University New York, NY#8 Tie Duke University Durham, NC#8 Tie University of Washington Seattle, WA#8 Tie Yale University New Haven, CT#11 Tie New York University (Langone) New York, NY#11 Tie University of Chicago (Pritzker) Chicago, IL#11 Tie University of Michigan—​Ann Arbor#14 University of California—​Los Angeles (Geffen)#15 Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN#16 University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, PA#17 Northwestern University (Feinberg) Chicago, IL#18 Tie Cornell University (Weill) New York, NY