Do you think King Arthur was true?

Answer 1

King Arthur was real but the story of his life I believe is more false.

Answer 2

From the books that I've read and the background information on the film " King Arthur " there has been factual archieval evidence found to prove where the real Arthur or Artorius (Roman for Arthur) comes from. Arthur Castos was a child of a Roman father and British mother who became a commander of Salmatian Knights. The teachings he was raised on led him to the belief that all men should be treated as equals which is where the theory of the round table came from. (No head at either end..round so that all who sat at it were of equal stature) The thing is with watching this movie is that you have to throw all preconceived notions of King Arthur and such away and open your mind to other possibilities. The bonus features on the DVD tells where the archieval evidence was found that they based the movie on. It's actually very interesting to watch. Besides, for me, if there was any time period I could go back to it would be the medievil/renaissance time frame.

Answer 3

You hit my favorite topic. I don't think there was a horse riding, banners-waving King Arthur who lived in a stone castle. That type of story was invented by the Old French. But I do think there may have been a Celtic warlord with the title Artos ("the bear" in Celtic). "Camelot" could be a corruption of "Caer Mallot" or castle of the king, in Celtic (the mallot, or hammer, was the weapon traditionally associated with the king). Also, there may have truly been a Lancelot. The Old French could have been L'Ancelot, or the Ancelot. The translation from Old French to Latin would have been Anguselsus, or the Celtic Angus. If he were THE Angus, or L'Ancelot, it would have meant he was the leader of his clan.

The Old French also looked down on the Celts, so whenever possible they translated words into slightly different meanings. The Celtic word for "table," as in "round table," also translates into "building," and there were many round buildings, so Arthur could have met with his warriors in a round building. Also, the French stories said Guinevere got up from a bloody "bed" together. The word also means "altar," and the Picts of England had warrier priestesses, so she could have have been that, and Lancelot could have been a fellow worshipper at a bloody altar (yes, they did that kind of thing back then). In a Christian court, this would have been pretty shocking, but not as bad as if Guinevere really were cheating on Arthur.
There is a series of scholarly books out tracing the possible origins of Arthur, Merlin, Guinevere, and Lancelot

Answer 4

Was there an actual king named Arthur? No actual historical evidence has been found in that area. However, there was actual wars between the Romanised Britons and the Celtic Picts(portrayed as simply the woads in the King Arthur film) By the way Celtic warriors who painted themselves blue with woad dye before battle were called woad raiders. The term did not apply to Celts as a whole. After the Roman Empire abandoned Britain the Britons appealed to the Anglo, Saxon and Jute cheiftains to help them maintain ordrer thinking they would simply send mercanaries. However, since the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes were being pressured by other tribes as well as a lack of farmable land they took advantage of the opportunity and made a wholesale immigration to Britain. The resulting wars between the Britons, Anglos, Saxons, Jutes and Picts probably gave rise to the legend of King Arthur. Contrary to the story the Britons didn't win. The resulting five feudal kingdoms were: Wessex and Sussex(Saxons) North Umbria and East Angilia(Anglos or Angles) and Kent(Jutes). The Britons and Picts were actually absorbed and their language mixed with the germanic dialects the invaders spoke.

Answer 5

king Arthur extremely did exist, yet he replaced into no longer something like the character this is portrayed in cutting-element television / books. he replaced into greater or much less a barbarian, and lived someplace down close to Cornwall hundreds of years in the past. the fashionable seen King Aurthur got here into being after a medieval french author - Chretien de Troyes wrote 5 memories approximately king Arthur. there have been countless different books written approximately King Arthur, so over the years those countless memories have become blended together to kind the fashionable king Arthur memories that all of us understand immediately. enormously particular that Excalibur and Merlin are myths, and characteristic little or no foundation extremely. wish this helps.

Answer 6

I think King Arthur was a real person, but as everyone else has said most of the stories about him are just myths and legends to entertain children and adults alike.

Answer 7

There might have been an early King, much like King Arthur, but not as we know him. The stories we have were filtered through the French courts aroun 1300AD, I think, so the popular tales have been heavily by the French style of that time.

Answer 8

There was an actual Celto-Roman general by the name of Arcturus, who was also known as Arthur. If you read the Grail legends you see that Arthur's lsat name is Pendragon.
Dragon is Welsh for Commander and Pendragon is Welsh for Chief Commander, that is general. Whether he had anything to do with the Holy Grail is most unlikely.

Answer 9

He might have existed a long time ago as a real figure but I think stories were made up with this guy as time went on and the legend of him exist immortal where the real person existed. Have you ever since the 2004 movie King Arther: The True Story?

Answer 10

I just had to say this - MALLORY DID NOT PRODUCE 'EXTANT HISTORICAL WRITINGS'!! If you study Mallory (as I did at University) you will discover that he is a storyteller, along the lines of Chaucer. Sir Thomas Mallory was imprisoned during the Wars of the Roses for rape and pillage and wrote the Morte D'Arthur - it is a story, not in any way a historical text.

Mallory's favourite trick in the Morte D'Arthur is to say 'as the french book says' to give his story credence and depth. The thing is, there is no french book. Mallory made most of this up (there were some Arthurian tales pre-Mallory, mainly in France, which is where Mallory takes his influence from). Mallory uses 'as the french book says' to give his story depth and as a reference - this is traditional in medieaval literature and does not mean that the author didn't make it up, as Mallory did.

Having said that, because I'd hate you to be misinformed, I would love for the King Arthur saga to be historical fact!