Is there any evidence that the legend of robin hood is true?
407120
King John was definitely robbed, but not of his gold. He was not a popular king, but a most effective one, for he signed the document that was the basis of what is England's Parliament today, the Magna Carta. The hefty taxes levied upon the poor peasants of England were done so to pay the ransom for Richard, the Lionhearted, the absent hero of the Robin Hood saga. King Richard, on the other hand, despised England, and even after he was released from imprisonment, spent the remainder of his days in France...There is no factual basis for the stories of Robin Hood. However, Prince John did become king and ruled from April 6, 1199 until his death in 1216. He was largely unpopular due to losing coveted properties to France and for his excommunication from the Roman Catholic Church. That's why there have been very few royals since named John...The story of Robin Hood has no true merit in history. There are varying stories during that time when Anglo-Saxons and Normans still held prejudices against one another, some of them not so noble or heroic. It is widely believed that "Robin Hood" is a play on words evolving from the tales of an unsavory Robbing Hood or Thief. Despite Prince John's contributions - he is accredited with founding the Modern Royal Navy, he was considered unpopular among his contemporaries. Sad is the fact that while Robin Hood will always be fondly remembered as a wiley heroic fox, Prince John will go down in modern history as a thumb-sucking lion cub a la Disney. Hope this helped.
877529
yes they were. Ninjas were just like a "myth" of robin hood in england. "robin hood" was just a name taken by any bandit at the time looking to strike fear into his victems. There were actually a number of bandits that took the name.\n\nThe ninja- is much the same, sure japan had spies and assasins and saoteurs but saying "im a ninja" and having peope fall into the whole myth which spies and assasins let grow, created this "myth" that people on such missions could use to strike fear into thier enemies.\n\nIt is, the most likely story that "ninjas" were actually just samurai who specialized in the art of assasinations and spying.
1108553
I believe it is false.  You can go onto Snopes.com and check it out.  They debunk many of these urban legends.
373455
it only claims that it is based on facts that doesn't even exist.  like for one, in the book's fact page, the priory of sion was being mentioned as an organization in the early 1099. in 1975, the Les Dossiers Secrets was discovered in Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale identifying Leonardo Da Vinci as member of the org. this is the major basis of the novel.  but the truth of this is that the Priory of Sion did not exist until 1957.  How can Leonardo Da Vinci be a member or a grandmaster for that matter he has already rotten?  Everything that Dan Brown has written about the Priory of Sion was based not on historical facts but rather on claims found in the Priory of Sion documents – all bogus works of historical fiction stemming from Plantard's fertile imagination (and what gave them a deeper ‘esoteric’ flavour was Philippe de Chérisey's input, who tried to decorate the fantasies in a surrealist fashion).\n\nit has misrepresented the church as a murderous institution and that Christian faith is utterly false.  \n\nIt isn't a defense to say that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. Fiction can't change the basic facts about major historical figures without being subject to criticism. People would be outraged if Doubleday printed a novel portraying Adolph Hitler in a positive light. Christians have a right to be outraged when the basic historical facts about Christ are falsified. The criticism will be even more intense when a publisher releases a book parodying the most sacred beliefs of others in this fashion.\n\nFurther, as we have seen in this special report, the book takes great pains to create the appearance of factuality, including placing the infamous "fact" page at the beginning of the novel. Brown has stressed the ostensible accuracy of the book on his web site and in interviews. This is not a case where an author and a publisher have produced an ordinary novel. They have gone to great lengths to mislead people into thinking that the novel has a historical basis. They deserve especially sharp criticism for this, and when criticism is made they cannot hypocritically hide behind the "It's just fiction" allegation after having made such extensive efforts to convince the reader that it is not "just fiction."
246638
Yep. Dragon legends are found in nearly every culture and in all parts of the earth, so I would say it's fairly likely that they legends and myths have at least some basis in truth, and that dragons and people lived on the earth at the same time.\n\nMore importantly, the Bible talks about a fire-breathing dragon in Job chapter 41, and I believe that the bible is true, so I have to accept as a fact that God created a type of dragon that spewed fire.\n\nFor further study on this topic, visit this site:\nhttp://www.drdino.com
224353
King Arthur is a legend and a myth,king Richard was a well know monarch of the British Isle,so no they were not related.
268522
Anybody have any proof....one way or the other?
317598
Yes It coud be true.\nI doesn't have an experience of that but I seen one programme on discovery channel regarding it and I truely believe it.
738244
As of now, despite research, King Arthur, his knights, Excalibur, and Camelot are considered fiction.  It is believed that once there may have been an Arthur who was a warlord, who was probably the basis for the first story of King Arthur and the Knights of the Roundtable.  There are people (even archeaologists and historians) who believe there may have been a real King Arthur and a true Camelot (and Avalon), but the scientific proof has not been discovered yet.
270661
That rumor was going around about Rod Stewart, before Lil' Kim was even famous.  If you look it up on an urban legend site like www.snopes.com, it'll tell you it's a myth.  Same with the rumor about Richard Gere and the gerbil.
883330
this is a myth. perhaps this is true.
1185328
no.\nthere was a priory. but it was just a religious sect that eventaully died off within a few hundred years, by the 1300's.\nthe papers the book talks about are forgeries.
596
King Arthur really existed, but when you read the story, you will see it`s a legend, so some parts changed. The point is he really existed.
152384
I think it is likely there was, as most myths have some basis in reality.  However, who he actually was is lost to the mists of time.  Check out the link for interesting details, especially about the evolution of the legend.
824187
Nope.  \n\nSecularists especially, use these "Didn't the (whatever Bible story) get copied from (whatever extra-biblical source)?"  all the time.  These have been discredited over and over again, yet they keep coming back.\n\nWhile it is true that there are similar stories in various other ancient texts, they are also very dissimilar.  You can look to the Amarna Letters, Babylonian Theodicy, Elba Tablets, Hammurabi's Code, Ishtar's Descent, Ludlul Bel Nemedi, Mari Tablets, and innumerable others, and find stories that are similar to the Bible's.  That hardly allows for them to be sources.\n\nKeep in mind also, when the Flood occurred, it was world-wide, and every ancient civilization recorded it.  These are also descendants of Noah, who abandoned YHWH as God, and followed idols instead.  The veracity of the story remains.  You can look to other stories in the same vein.
452946
Joaquin Murrieta: Literary Fiction or Historical Fact?\nBy William Mero\n\nThe popular legend of Joaquin Murrieta is that of a peace loving man driven to seek revenge when he and his brother were falsely accused of stealing a mule. His brother was hung and Joaquin horsewhipped. His young wife was gang raped and in one version she died in Joaquin’s arms. Swearing revenge, Joaquin hunted down all who had violated his sweetheart. He embarked on a short but violent career that brought death to his Anglo tormentors. The state of California then offered a reward of up to $5000 for Joaquin "dead or alive." In the end Joaquin was hunted down, killed and mutilated by a drunken brute of a man, Harry Love. \n\nThis is the tale that a sometimes newspaperman and poet, John Rollin Ridge, wrote in 1854, a year after Joaquin’s death. John Ridge was a part Cherokee Indian who fled to California after killing a man in Arkansas. Borrowing from newspaper reports from the gold camps, he created a romantic story of lust and revenge starring the recently dead bandit, Joaquin Murrieta, as the victim of biased society. \n\nAfter Ridge’s book was published, it was rumored that Joaquin had not been killed but returned to Mexico. Even more fantastic was the story that he returned mortally wounded to Niles Canyon (part of Contra Costa County in 1853) where he died and was buried beneath the family adobe. In 1986 the adobe floor was even excavated in an unsuccessful attempt to find Murrieta’s bones. \n\nOn one hand we have the popular belief exemplified by the famous histories of Hubert Howe Bancroft who legitimized the Ridge version of Joaquin as a daring Mexican Robin Hood. We also have modern historians who charge that the real Murrieta was a vicious killer and thug. \n\nWhat can we make of all this? Can we find a general consensus after examining the known facts? Joseph Henry Jackson in his book, Bad Company (1949), carefully traced the evolution and growth of the Joaquin Murrieta legend around the world. Later researchers including Frank Latta, William B. Secrest, Remi Nadeau, James F. Varley and John Boessenecker uncovered original source materials that clarified this violent chapter in California history. \n\n\nThe Known Historical Record\nInteresting historical parallels exist between the Murrieta – Feliz family and the James – Younger gang. In both cases close relatives formed the core of the outlaw gangs. Both bands were spawned in the economic and political upheaval of a society disrupted by war. The gangs were sheltered and protected by citizens who were threatened by the new economic and social order. Strangely, in both cases, it was also newspapermen who built these outlaws into sympathic victims of an unjust society. \n\nWhat are the generally accepted and verified historical facts about Joaquin Murrieta? We know from Church records that Joaquin was born in the southern part of the Mexican state of Sonora in 1830 to Joaquin and Rosalia Murrieta. His mother had been previously married to a man named Carrillo. In later years Joaquin sometimes called himself Joaquin Carrillo, which led to much confusion and helped create the "many Joaquins" theory. The young Joaquin eventually married Rosa Feliz of Vayoreca. They, along with Jesus Murrieta and Rosa’s three brothers, went to California upon news of the gold strike. Rosa’s brother, Claudio Feliz, began gold mining with Anglo partners near Sonora while Joaquin and his bride eventually moved to Niles Canyon, then part of Contra Costa County. In these early years there is evidence that Joaquin worked as a vaquero near Oakley and Brentwood in 1850 and as a mestenero (mustang catcher). \n\nFrom court records and newspaper accounts, the first we hear of the Murrieta - Feliz clan’s brush with the law was in 1849 when Claudio was arrested for stealing another miner’s gold. The evidence of his guilt proved overwhelming. However Claudio was able to escape from the St
1173405
Yes, there is evidence that this is true. The Bushes have a long history of profitting from the misfortunes of others.