This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Ununnilium: Actually, most versions of King Arthur seem to be around during The High Middle Ages, what with their plate mail, knights on horses, chivalry, and courtly airs. Only the 2004 King Arthur movie is anywhere around here; it's about the "real" King Arthur (actually, probably one of many sources of the various stories which eventually fused into the Arthur we know today) and set in 400 AD. Anyone mind me moving that stuff over?
Amethyst: Well... If you take Arthur out, there's not much left to Dark Age Europe. (Maybe you could just make a note that much of the style of Arthur dates from a later period, due to most of the authors who wrote about him living in a later time period...)
Licky Lindsay: real Dark Age Europe is Beowulf.
Ununnilium: But even the original stuff written about him puts him in The High Middle Ages, as well, not just the modern stuff.
Brickie: I agree with Unu .. thingy - the whole point of the 2004 King Arthur movie was that it was going to discard the medieval cruft that has grown up around the legend and go back to basics. It sucked, but that's another edit. Point is, King Arthur should be set in Dark Age Europe, but mostly it isn't.
Anyway, what I actually came here to ask was - this page seems to be largely duplicated with The Low Middle Ages - is there any point keeping both?
Skyblade I think it's kind of like how Batman can become a chameleon for practically any era. When most people think of King Arthur, they think of Plate Armor, but frankly by this point Camelot is like some Lord of the Rings period more than anything. But I don't see why he can't be mentioned in both.
And yeah, Dark Ages and The Low Middle Ages seem redundant. They're generally agreed to have come to an end at the Crusades, right?
