The changes? Geez, I imagine that the story has changed dramatically from Arthur's time. But there are bits that seem ancient to me. Like the heavy druidic overtones of Merlin (omniscience, demand of Arthur unchristened, etc) the random bits of historical explanations (like who married who and who they were related to). But as for what has changed over time and what parts still reach back to the original story... who knows? Maybe if there was an Arthur, he was a bastard of a noble. Christianity and Paganism were both present in Britain at 500 CE, so maybe there was that odd religious tension in his early life. Later we're going to see water playing a heavy role in his destiny and it will have a spiritual aspect to it, which sounds pretty druidic to me. Many of his battles involve crossing, which would have put a small cavalry unit at an advantage against a larger infantry army. And in the historical recount of the anglo saxon age, we're going to see that many of the "Battles" of this period were closer to gang fights. The massive scale of warfare that the Romans employed would disappear. In general, the fights were small and very personal. So perhaps, if there was an Arthur, he was a rebel leader who used small numbers of cavalry to ambush his rivals' infantry formations. This is all stuff I'll be chatting about in the podcast, I'm sure. But it's pretty interesting, I think....Anyway, that's enough of me talking and I don't want to stifle the discussion. So... thoughts on Le Mort D'Arthur (or on the myth of Arthur in general)?