Was King Arthur and the K.otR.T. based more on myth/legend or real people?

Answer 1

Arthurian legend may be tenuously based on an actual Roman soldier who fought the Saxons. But I think it's fair to say that 99.9% of what we know of the King Arthur story is fiction.

The principal source for the Lancelot-Guinevere story is a French writer named Chretien du Troyes. A lot of the pseudo-Historical and military material came from an older British source, Geoffrey of Monmouth, and before that from highly suspect 8th and 9th century "histories." And the mystical stuff (like Merlin, Avalon, and the Lady of the Lake) is straight out of Celtic mythology.

Sir Thomas Malory assembed his Le Morte D'Arthur from these sources and pronounced them as the Actual History of an Actual Man Actually Named Arthur who ruled a Kingdom Actually Called Camelot.

Nonsense. But Le Morte D'Arthur is the principal source of all the well-known renditions and adaptations that followed, Idylls of the King, The Once and Future King, the musical Camelot, Mists of Avalon, etc. And what a great story it is, regardless of its historical accuracy.

Answer 2

mostly myth. The story of Lancelot and Guinevere is also a revision of the story of Tristan and Isolde. Mainly King Arthur and his knights were based on legends, but there have been attempts in recent years to try to uncover solid historical evidence that Camelot, Arthur, and his knights all actually existed. The findings have been in some cases significant, but overall they haven't yeilded much true evidence. The commonly accepted idea is that the character of Arthur was created in the image of an old roman general Artavius (not sure of the spelling there, sorry) but most likely the character of Arthur was created out of a hodgepodge of several historical figures and legendary actual events. It's kind of like the character and story of Leatherface in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (if you'll excuse the crude pop culture allusion), Leatherface was part Charles Manson, I believe, and several other real life killers along with a true murder case involving a chainsaw in Texas. It's the same idea. I'd keep an eye out for documentaries on the History Channel if I were you, they pop up every now and then.

Answer 3

Yes, and no. There is some evidence he existed, although exactly who can claim to be the real King Arthur is still disputed, most of the legends are just that, legends and myths

Answer 4

a myth is defined as something without any basis of truth, made up & bogus. legend, on the other hand, means that the 'thing' just might be true, loosely based on fact, allbeit small & tenuous, but just culd've been real at one time. legend is a real event or person but lots of exagerations & fabrications tied to it. king arthur? the round table? why not. i also believe merlin was one very smart person who just knew lots of things & stuff. any time you have a person who knows a lot about something, like einstein, we call them genius. perhaps in days over 1200 years ago, he would've been called a wizard. after all, a wizard is synonamous with very smart, right? tales from long ago seem to not have been plucked out of thin air & most likely had kernals of truth. over the years and after being told over & over, the stories got bigger, better, longer and more daring-do. it didn't mean he & they weren't real but in fact were real people. maybe, however, not as noble as we've come to think of them. was robin hood that noble? heck no! he most likely stole from the rich & poor. rich, however, were better targets & yielded more. want a point of interest to ponder? unless it is absolutely necessary for you to know, why persue it? some things are not meant to be solved. you don't ask a rose how come it smells so good, would you?

Answer 5

Mostly myth. There was never a "king" of England named Arthur. And knighthood did no exist in11th Century England when the real Arthur was supposed to have lived.

Answer 6

Myth/legend - the legend portrays a King & kingdom with magic, romance, hope and good vs evil. Seems more entertaining than the bloody crusades.

Answer 7

both arthur was a real person the knights of the real table were legend

Answer 8

A tiny bit of reality and an extensive literary tradition, such as Mallory's "Le Mort D' Arthur."

Answer 9

it's based on the legend of real people

Answer 10

real