An Australian “sustainable development” research centre has devised a plan to control and restrict energy consumption for households.  They claim to mitigate the effects of climate change.  However, the result will be […]

by Jack Montgomery, The National Pulse: Kamala Harris describes her Indian grandfather, P.V. Gopalan, as a progressive “independence fighter” against British rule, which ended shortly after the conclusion of the Second World War. Her claims are sparking angry recriminations in India, however, as he was actually a “diligent civil servant” who worked for the British Imperial Secretariat Service. Harris has downplayed her Indian heritage in recent […]

  The president of the United States is often considered the most powerful individual on the planet and the leader of the free world. Therefore, it’s no surprise that the election of this leader, which occurs every four years, occasionally results in soaring political tensions, allegations of fraud, and even provokes violence. Between the creation of the position and today, the US has had 59 presidential elections. Some are especially noteworthy for revealing or causing significant sociopolitical divides and shifts. Others are noteworthy for revealing circumstances where a presidential candidate can win the White House while winning fewer popular votes than a rival, which is often considered undemocratic. Here are the eight most divisive presidential elections.   Setting the Stage: The Electoral College A quote by Alexander Hamilton in his Federalist Paper No. 68 about the importance of the electoral college in the proposed US Constitution. Source: Heritage Foundation   The US Constitution of 1787 created a new position: chief executive. Under the unsuccessful Articles of Confederation, the fledgling United States had struggled without a central government that possessed any sort of executive authority. To correct this, the framers of the Constitution bestowed the new chief executive, known as the president, with significant powers. He was to be commander-in-chief of the military, chief executive and enforcer of laws, and chief of state. To ensure that only a wise and capable man could attain the position, the framers created an electoral college to select the nation’s singular leader.   Of course, the notion of an elite group of electors contrasted sharply with the direct democracy used in most states at the time. Many were skeptical and felt that the institution was undemocratic. Constitutional framer Alexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist Paper No. 68, arguing that protecting the public from foreign interference in elections and the rise of charming but corrupt politicians was necessary. In its first use, the Electoral College unanimously selected George Washington, hero of the American Revolutionary War, as the first president of the United States. While Washington was universally popular, would future electoral college picks be as readily accepted by the electorate?   Setting the Stage: The Peaceful Revolution of 1800 Thomas Jefferson (left) defeated incumbent US President John Adams (right) in the election of 1800, prompting questions about the peaceful transfer of power. Source: Ashland University   Washington handily won re-election in 1792 before voluntarily passing off the position. The winner in 1796 was John Adams, Washington’s vice president. Although the 1796 election had been America’s first partisan contest and featured significant negative campaigning (criticism of opponents), Adams’ victory meant a simple transfer of power. But what would happen whenever an incumbent president lost to a challenger? Many wondered if the president, stinging from an election loss, would refuse to relinquish power.   In 1800, both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams ran again, this time with Jefferson winning. As incumbent, Adams could have tried to use his executive authority to delay, or even prevent, Jefferson’s taking power. Fortunately, Adams accepted his loss gracefully, and incoming President Jefferson, during his inauguration, strove for unity. Thus, America’s first peaceful transfer of power between political factions (today known as parties) was completed. Although all elections since have resulted in peaceful transfers of power, there have been intense political upheavals and even violence both before and after some of these momentous elections.   1. 1824: House of Representatives Picks Adams The House of Representatives by Samuel F.B. Morse, 1822, reworked 1823. Source: National Gallery of Art, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC   Early presidential elections in the United States were more complex than those of today due to the presence of multiple popular candidates who could vie for electors. Most states allotted electors—members of the electoral college—in an all-or-nothing fashion: whichever candidate won the most popular votes in the state received all of the electors. This meant that a field of four popular candidates could result in all of a state’s electors being awarded to someone who won significantly less than half of the popular vote. It also meant that it was easy for no candidate to receive a majority of votes in the electoral college, which was required to win the presidency.   A political cartoon criticizing the allegedly undemocratic and complex US presidential election of 1824, which was decided by the House of Representatives. Source: Protect Democracy   If no candidate won a majority in the Electoral College, the top three electoral vote winners moved to the US House of Representatives, where state delegations voted. No weight was given to performance in either the national popular vote or the electoral college vote, meaning the third-place candidate in the electoral college could easily be chosen president by the House. This happened in 1824 when the House chose John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson despite Jackson performing the best of four candidates in both the popular vote and the electoral college. Angry, Jackson prepared for a rematch for four years, honing his populist rhetoric and developing a dim view of elites. The resulting era of Jacksonian Democracy would forever change American politics.   2. 1860: Lincoln Wins Without Southern Ballots A political cartoon illustrating the divisiveness of the 1860 US presidential election in tearing apart the country between slave states and free states. Source: Virginia Humanities   After the era of Jacksonian Democracy in the 1820s and 1830s, slavery became the dominant issue in American presidential politics. As the nation expanded westward, it was hotly contested whether each new state or territory would be slave or free. Many sought a balance, with one slave state being added to the union for each free state created. In the 1840s, the addition of Texas to the union, followed immediately after the Mexican-American War and the resulting Mexican Cession of the Southwest and California, intensified this debate.   In the 1860 presidential election, the new Republican Party chose anti-slavery candidate Abraham Lincoln as its nominee. Outraged, the South, composed of slave states, refused to put Lincoln on the ballot. However, Lincoln won the presidency anyway due to the greater population of the North. Frustrated, Southern states began to secede and form their own country, the Confederate States of America. In April 1861, the American Civil War began shortly after Lincoln’s inauguration when Confederate troops fired on Fort Sumter, South Carolina. Although Lincoln did not live to see the end of the war, he did abolish slavery in practice thanks to his famous Emancipation Proclamation of September 22, 1862.   3. 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes Wins With Elector Hijinks A poster criticizing the US presidential election of 1876, which involved conflicting panels of electors from states. Source: Smithsonian Institution   The next US presidential election to spark allegations of undemocratic behavior occurred in 1876 when Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes faced off against Democratic candidate Samuel Tilden. Although Tilden won the popular vote and had more votes in the electoral college, there was a delay: three states’ electoral votes were in dispute. These three states were in the South, under Reconstruction after the Civil War. Because of this, Republicans—the party of the Union during the war—were effectively in charge of elections. These Republicans allegedly threw out Democratic votes in order for the delayed electoral votes to be given to Hayes.   More complications emerged in other states, such as electors being chosen improperly. Then, some states sent, perhaps accidentally, multiple sets of electoral votes to Washington DC, causing confusion. In January 1877, a commission was created to decide the election between Hayes and Tilden. When the commission narrowly awarded the election to Hayes, Democrats in Congress reacted angrily. Allegedly, Hayes smoothed this over by promising to end Reconstruction in the South, prompting Southern Democrats to end their opposition. Ultimately, Hayes won by a single electoral vote… with the election decided just two days before inauguration.   4. 1960: Kennedy Wins a Close One Thanks to Television The presidential debate on September 26, 1960 between John F. Kennedy (left) and Richard M. Nixon (right) was the first to be televised, opening a new era in politics. Source: NPR   Although the election of 1948 is famously known for the incorrect Dewey Defeats Truman headline, with incumbent president Harry S. Truman scoring an upset re-election win, the election of 1960 was even closer. Republican Vice President Richard M. Nixon squared off against Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy of Massachusetts, with both men representing a youthful new era of leadership. Kennedy was handsome and popular, but Nixon enjoyed two terms of prosperity and strong leadership under President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a groundbreaking new development, both nominees debated on television on September 26, 1960.   Over sixty million people watched the relatively new technology, and they were seen as the most momentous debates since Abraham Lincoln debated Stephen Douglas in 1858 (creating the popular Lincoln-Douglas debate format). Famously, viewers largely felt that Kennedy won the debates… if they had watched on television. Radio listeners were more likely to vote for Nixon, suggesting that Kennedy’s performance on television was boosted by his physical appearance. Ironically, despite viewers feeling that Kennedy was healthier and more vigorous than Nixon, Kennedy had many health problems, and Nixon’s “sickly” appearance was due to his refusal to wear makeup.   5. 1968: Riots Lead to Nixon Law-and-Order Clincher Anti-war protesters in Chicago ahead of the 1968 Democratic National Convention, which sparked riots. Source: Chicago History Museum   Eight years later, Nixon, having narrowly lost in 1960, was looking for an epic comeback. Kennedy’s vice president, Lyndon B. Johnson, became president in November 1963 after the Kennedy assassination and won by a landslide in 1964. However, the painful stalemate in Vietnam and urban race riots during the summers beginning in 1965 had sapped Johnson’s popularity. In the spring of 1968, Johnson chose not to run for re-election, opening up the Democratic primaries. Democratic senator Robert F. Kennedy, the younger brother of John F. Kennedy, was assassinated in June while campaigning in California, traumatizing the country again only two months after the assassination of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr.   Amid the turmoil, the Democratic National Convention was held in Chicago. In a surprise move, the convention chose Vice President Hubert Humphrey as the presidential nominee, despite Humphrey not announcing his candidacy until well into the primaries. Many young Democrats were upset, and the convention coincided with major riots in Chicago that were televised worldwide. The disarray of the Democrats helped Nixon win the election in November on a law-and-order platform, with an alleged strong assist from the Chennault affair and supposed sabotage of Johnson’s peace talks with North Vietnam. As a result, 1968 is often considered one of the most tumultuous years in domestic politics after the Civil War.   6. 2000: Green Party and Recount Drama in Florida Election officials in Florida examine a paper ballot during the November 2000 recount of ballots in the state, leading to the Bush v Gore Supreme Court decision. Source: PBS   The 2000 presidential campaign occurred with relatively little drama, thanks to a strong economy and peaceful international situation. Democratic Vice President Al Gore, enjoying two terms of peace and prosperity under President Bill Clinton, faced off against Republican governor of Texas George W. Bush, son of former president George Bush Sr. It was a relatively close election, and Gore won the popular vote… but not the electoral vote. At issue was a near-tie in the state of Florida, leading to a recount. What heightened the drama was the fact that Florida’s governor, Jeb Bush, was George W.’s younger brother.   A hand recount of ballots resulted in lots of consternation as election officials, who may have had partisan leanings, struggled to determine whether various states of chads (perforated spots of the ballot intended to be punched through) indicated a vote. Democrats were also furious at a strong third-party attempt by Green Party nominee Ralph Nader, who had won almost 100,000 votes in Florida. Nader’s pro-environmentalism votes, most of whom likely came from Democrat-leaning voters, were far greater than George W. Bush’s eventual margin of victory in the state. Ultimately, the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore ended the recount and allowed Florida to cast its electors for Bush, giving the Republican the win.   7. 2016: Trump Shocks Despite 2 Million Popular Vote Loss A predicted electoral map for the 2016 US presidential election, which was like most in underpredicting support for Republican nominee Donald Trump. Source: University of Virginia   The 2016 presidential election saw unexpected twists and turns for both parties. In early 2015, it was almost universally assumed that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the former First Lady and US Senator (D-NY), would easily be named the next Democratic presidential nominee. However, a left-leaning independent US Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders, announced his own candidacy and made surprising headway. Despite mainstream media predictions that Sanders would soon fizzle, the self-proclaimed democratic socialist kept the primaries competitive all the way until California in June 2016. Although Clinton clinched the presidential nomination, pundits were shocked at the strength of a renewed progressive movement among younger Democrats.   Similarly, the pundits were also surprised on the other side of the political aisle. Donald Trump, the real estate mogul and former reality TV star, actually clinched the Republican presidential nomination in May. Most political analysts felt that the divisive political rookie had little chance in the general election against a powerhouse like Clinton, but Trump won a major upset… in the electoral college.   Although Clinton won almost 3 million more popular votes than Trump, the Republican nominee narrowly won most of the swing states, allowing for his electoral college victory. Due to Clinton’s strong popular vote margin of victory and Trump’s controversial nature, as well as the media’s embarrassing failure to predict the election outcome, the 2016 election is one of the most divisive in history.   8. 2020: Allegations of Fraud Lead to Epic Tensions US President Donald Trump, speaking shortly after his 2020 election loss, claimed the election was fraudulent despite presenting no meaningful evidence. Source: NPR   The 2020 presidential primaries were not as dramatic as their 2016 predecessors, but the unexpected late-blooming strength of former Democratic vice president Joe Biden caused drama later on. Biden became the first presidential nominee in modern history to not win one of the first three primary contests, surprising analysts. When Biden eventually clinched the Democratic nomination instead of Bernie Sanders, pundits eagerly watched to see how the former veep would do against incumbent president Donald Trump. Biden played the quiet moderate to Trump’s usual outspokenness, frustrating Trump’s campaign due to a lack of openings to attack.   With America on edge due to the ongoing Covid pandemic, the first presidential debate between Trump and Biden resulted in rudeness and hostilities. Although a second debate went smoother, the incumbent president struggled as a candidate due to the Covid pandemic. Biden won handily on election night in November, but then Trump refused to concede the election. In a first since 1800, an incumbent president was declaring the election fraudulent.   On January 6, 2021, two weeks before the inauguration, pro-Trump protesters stormed the US Capitol, allegedly fueled by Trump’s continued insistence that the election had been “stolen.” As of 2024, this event remains the subject of many criminal investigations. Ultimately, Trump did allow for the peaceful transfer of power on January 20, with Biden being inaugurated as planned, though Trump himself broke with tradition by refusing to attend.

  Impeachment in the United States is a constitutional mechanism allowing the President and other high-ranking officials to be charged with gross misconduct, and potentially removed from office. The first US President to be impeached was Andrew Johnson, a white supremacist Southern Democrat with controversial views on Reconstruction and the civil rights of former slaves. As Abraham Lincoln’s Vice-President, Johnson assumed the presidency after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865. Due to his white supremacist opposition to Reconstruction, repeated clashes with Congress, and general disregard for the post-Civil War political landscape, Johnson was impeached in 1868.   Road to the White House   Andrew Johnson was sworn into office as President of the United States, New YorkDaily Herald, 1865, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Andrew Johnson was born into poverty in North Carolina in 1908. Unable to read and write he became an apprentice tailor before moving to Greeneville, Tennessee as a teenager. Despite having no formal education, Johnson became a skilled orator and against the odds entered politics.    He was elected alderman in 1829 and later served as mayor of Greeneville in 1935. Johnson’s political career progressed rapidly: he joined the state legislature, was elected to the US House of Representatives in 1843, served as governor of Tennessee twice, and eventually became a US Senator.    Johnson remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War, despite the succession of Tennessee. His loyalty as a “Union Democrat” led to his appointment as military governor of Tennessee and later earned him a place on Abraham Lincoln’s 1864 ticket as vice president. When Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson became the 17th president of the United States.   President Johnson In Power Sketch of President Andrew Johnson pardoning Confederate rebels in the White House, 1865, Source: Wikimedia Commons   Taking office after Lincoln’s death, Johnson faced the critical task of leading the nation through Reconstruction. Though he was known to be an affable extrovert and a skilled administrator, Johnson was an ideologically committed white supremacist, committed to obstructing civil and political rights for black Americans.    In office, he pursued a policy of Presidential Reconstruction that sought the rapid reintegration of Southern states into the Union, without securing protections for former slaves, and including pardons for ex-Confederates. Johnson’s opposition to Civil Rights for blacks and his lenient approach towards the South led to frequent conflicts with the Republican-controlled Congress.    A vocal advocate for his own class, poor Southern whites, Johnson viewed the Southern planter class as an enemy. However, he was also a former slave owner vehemently opposed to the idea of interracial democracy. He referred to the idea of equal rights for black Americans as an unacceptable “Africanization” of the country.    Impeachment and Trial Men and women in the gallery of the Senate, during the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, Source: Library of Congress   Rather than seeking to forge a compromise between the goals of radical Republicans and moderates in Congress, Johnson pressed forward with his white supremacist agenda. He opposed key Reconstruction legislation, including the Freedmen’s Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment (which established the idea of universal US citizenship).    The first attempts to impeach President Johnson began in 1867. The tipping point came when he violated the Tenure of Office Act – a law passed by Congress to restrict the president’s power to remove certain officeholders without Senate approval – by dismissing Secretary of War, Edwin Stanton, a close ally of the radical Republicans.    Stanton’s dismissal, alongside the president’s general contempt for Congress, served as the pretext for impeachment. Johnson’s Senate trial ultimately fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction, allowing him to finish his term, albeit from a radically weakened position.  Legacy The Union as it was the lost cause, worse than slavery by Thomas Nast, 1874. Source: The Library of Congress   Andrew Johnson’s legacy is deeply intertwined with the failure of Reconstruction, one of the most pivotal periods in US history. During this time, America faced monumental challenges: healing the wounds of the Civil War, reintegrating the southern states, and addressing the status of newly freed slaves.    Johnson failed to rise to the challenge. Instead, he actively undermined the progress made in securing rights for formerly enslaved people. His policies emboldened white supremacists to wage guerrilla war against black American citizens, resist the push for racial equality, and paved the way for the rise of Jim Crow.   Many historians view Johnson as one of the worst presidents in US history, particularly given the critical juncture at which he served. His failure to guide the nation through Reconstruction – to the benefit of all citizens – effectively earned him the distinction of being the first US President to be impeached.

  It has been convincingly argued by several scholars that the usurpation of Magnus Maximus in the 4th century was the origin of the legend of King Arthur conquering Europe. However, Maximus himself does not appear to be the “Arthur figure” who serves as the protagonist of this legend. Rather, it appears that it was Andragathius, a cavalry commander in his army. But aside from the Arthurian legend itself, is there any trace of him being remembered within Welsh tradition?   Who Was Andragathius? Map of the Western Roman Empire, most of which was conquered for Magnus Maximus through Andragathius’ campaigns. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Andragathius was the cavalry commander of Magnus Maximus’ army. Roman sources inform us that Maximus gave him “the general direction of the war.” A number of his actions appear to be identifiable as the actions of Arthur in the legend of King Arthur’s European conquests. One example is that Andragathius was the one who pursued and personally killed Gratian, the Roman ruler of Gaul. This is precisely what Arthur does in the legend, only the Roman ruler has a different name.   Coin depicting Magnus Maximus, minted in London, 4th century. Source: Gwalter   Andragathius lived in the second half of the 4th century, long before the traditional Arthurian era. He led Maximus’s army in 383 when Maximus began his usurpation. Later, he continued to lead the army in 387 when Maximus decided to attack Italy. In 388, he allegedly committed suicide after his army was defeated at the battle of Siscia. This appears to correspond to the bloody battle of Siesia in which Arthur’s army was “routed” according to Welsh tradition.   Traces in Welsh Tradition Illustration from the Llanbeblig Book of Hours, possibly depicting Magnus Maximus, 14th century. Source: National Library of Wales   If Andragathius and his conquests in Europe really did come to be remembered in Welsh tradition, we would expect to see evidence of this. It is well known that Magnus Maximus was fondly remembered by the Welsh, and various medieval sources refer to his usurpation. Without a doubt, it was an event that left an indelible mark on the memory of the Britons.   Regarding Andragathius himself, he does not appear to be mentioned anywhere in Welsh tradition by that name. However, this does not necessarily mean that he does not appear anywhere. Medieval Welsh records sometimes recorded historical figures with names that were actually epithets. For instance, one of the early Anglian kings of Bernicia is recorded in a Welsh poem with an epithet meaning “flame-bringer.” Another figure (from the same line of kings) appears in a Welsh poem as “Ulf.” It is thought that this is a shortening of King “Freothulf,” showing how figures were sometimes remembered by short forms of their names.   Magnus Maximus’ Legendary Son Harleian MS 3895, folio 193r, showing ‘Anthun map Maxim’ near the bottom right corner. Source: The British Library, London   Is there any figure associated with Maximus in medieval Welsh records who might be identifiable as the historical Andragathius? As it happens, one particular figure in an early genealogy is conspicuous. In the Harleian MS 3859, which preserves what appears to be a 10th-century genealogical list, Maximus is presented as having a son named “Anthun.”   The medieval Welsh records provide Maximus with several different sons, but this Anthun has by far the most similar name to “Andragathius.” There is evidence that “th” could sometimes be mistaken for a “d.” We see this, for instance, in the case of a female figure named Ardun, whose name is misspelled as Arthur in at least one record. This same example also shows that there was sometimes confusion between the letter “r” and the letter “n.” With these facts in mind, we can see that the name “Anthun” appears to be composed of the first part of the name “Andragathius.” This would be similar to the Welsh tradition that preserved only the final part of Freothulf’s name.   Anthun, King of Greece Jesus College MS 20, folio 33r, showing “annwn du vrenhin groec” [“Anthun the Black, king of Greece”] on the 5th and 6th lines. Source: Bodleian Library, Oxford   Of course, this is not necessarily to say that Andragathius actually was the son of Magnus Maximus. The Harleian MS 3859 is a record from centuries after the fact. The contemporary Roman records make no mention of Andragathius being his son, although admittedly this is not proof that he was not. Perhaps he was Maximus’ son by a non-Roman wife. In any case, the fact that he was closely associated with Maximus makes sense of the fact that he was recorded as his son in Welsh records.   As well as the plausible connection between the name “Anthun” and the start of “Andragathius” and both figures’ close association with Magnus Maximus, what other basis is there for equating the two? In a variety of other records, such as the Jesus College MS 20, Anthun appears at the head of several genealogical records. In these records, he is referred to as “king of Greece.” This is a fascinating record which helps us to come to some important conclusions.   Walls of Thessalonica, the administrative center of the Prefecture of Illyricum in the 380s. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Now, to be clear, there is no tradition whatsoever of Maximus himself coming from Greece or marrying a princess from Greece. Thus, the most logical explanation for Anthun being described as the king of Greece is that he was held to have conquered that land. This provides further reason to connect him to Andragathius.   It is true that Andragathius never did conquer quite as far as Greece. However, he did conquer a large portion of the Prefecture of Illyricum, whose administrative center was in Greece, even reaching as far as the Balkans. It is surely straining credibility to attribute Maximus’ son’s association with Greece to anything other than the historical usurpation of Maximus. And within that usurpation, Andragathius’ final stand at Siscia in Croatia is the furthest Maximus’ army ever got to Greece.   Based on this information, what can we conclude? It seems very likely that the figure recorded as Anthun son of Maximus, king of Greece, is a distorted and exaggerated memory of the historical Andragathius.   King Arthur’s Conquest of Greece Jesus College MS 20, folio 33v, showing the mistaken “Arthur” on the fourth line. Source: The Bodleian Library, Oxford   As we have already seen, it is very likely that the legend of King Arthur conquering a large portion of Europe comes from Andragathius’ conquests as preserved through Welsh tradition. The fact that Andragathius appears to have been remembered as “Anthun” apparently provides the explanation for how the account of this conquest was misapplied to Arthur. Recall the fact that Ardun, a female figure, was mistakenly recorded as “Arthur” in at least one record. If this could happen to her, then it could certainly have happened to Anthun, whose name is at least equally similar to “Arthur,” if not more so.   Further evidence that Andragathius—through the Welsh tradition as Anthun king of Greece—contributed to the legend of Arthur is seen from Culhwch and Olwen. This is a tale from around 1100, part of the Mabinogi collection. It is widely agreed to be independent of Geoffrey of Monmouth, who wrote the first Latin account of Arthur’s European conquests. This tale contains a very interesting statement.   An illustration from The Mabinogion, by Charlotte Guest, 1877. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Apparently describing the same European conquest that Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote about, the text of Culhwch and Olwen mentions in passing that Arthur had, at one time, conquered Greece. This is a very rare claim. The only other apparent reference to it is in the later Mabinogi tale, The Dream of Rhonabwy, where some men from Greece come to give Arthur tribute. Although obscure, this shows that a tradition existed in which Arthur conquered Greece.   Aside from Arthur, Anthun the son of Magnus Maximus is apparently the only figure in medieval Welsh records credited with a conquest of that region. This is surely significant.   Culhwch and Olwen explicitly associate this conquest with Arthur’s European campaign. As we have already seen, there is good reason to identify Maximus’ usurpation of the Western Roman Empire as the origin of this story. Therefore, Arthur’s legendary conquest of Greece would logically have something to do with this historical event too. This strongly supports the conclusion that the conquest of Greece, along with the European campaign as a whole, was taken directly from records about Anthun — that is, Andragathius.   How Andragathius Contributed to the Arthurian Legend Illustration of King Arthur from Royal MS 20 A II, 14th century. Source: The British Library, London   In summary, we can see that King Arthur’s legendary European campaign is believed to have come from the historical events involving Magnus Maximus. His cavalry commander, Andragathius, appears to be the specific “Arthur figure” identifiable in those events. Very likely, he can be identified as the figure recorded as Anthun son of Magnus Maximus in medieval Welsh tradition.   The name “Anthun” presumably comes from the beginning of Andragathius’ name, a corruption that is comparable to others which we see in medieval Welsh records. Anthun was recorded as the king of Greece in a number of documents. The reason for that is probably attributable to Andragathius’ conquests deep into the Prefecture of Illyricum, whose administrative center was in Greece.   Certain Welsh tales preserve, along with the European campaign in general, the fact that Arthur was believed to have conquered Greece. This otherwise inexplicable tradition must come from the more historically logical reference to Anthun son of Maximus as the king of Greece.

It's a reminder of what a scary game the NFL can be: We're talking about a potentially life-altering injury. Damar Hamlin is involved, but it doesn't even involve him receiving the injury. Instead, it's yet another scary concussion for Miami Dolphins star quarterback Tua Tagovailoa -- one that leaves open...

It appears WNBA star Caitlin Clark doesn't want any bad blood with her fans. The Indiana Fever star -- who somehow became controversial for making the sport interesting -- spouted nothing but neutrality about the 2024 presidential election when asked about liking Taylor Swift's Instagram endorsement of Vice President Kamala...

It is worth remembering, as the presidential race hits the homestretch, that the same party that says Vice President Kamala Harris is a competent, moderate, joyful alternative that Americans of all stripes can be confident will govern in their best interests is also the same party that said, just two...

Well, you've got to hand it to Tim Walz: Usually, when he makes disgusting comments, it's on purpose. For instance, take his first speech as Vice President Kamala Harris' running mate. He used the quite serious occasion to make a disgusting joke regarding a fake internet rumor about Trump's running...

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said Americans will be "appalled and astonished" by the monumental security failures committed by the Secret Service and the Department of Homeland Security culminating in the July 13 assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The rabid Trump critic made the remarks Thursday following...