King Arthur?

Question

Do you belive in the tale that king Arthur pulled the sword out of the stone. Or was he a Roman in charge of the samartian calvary. I personaly belive that he was a roman. what do you think?

Answer 1

The historicity of the Arthur of legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought believes that Arthur had no historical existence. [1] Some hold that he originally was a half-forgotten Celtic deity that devolved into a personage (citing sometimes a supposed change of the sea-god Lir into King Lear). Supporters of this theory often link it to the Welsh etymology of Arthur's name as derived from 'bear', proposing bear gods named Artos or Artio as the precedent for the legend, but these particular deities are known to have been worshipped by the continental Celts, not the Britons.

Another view holds that Arthur was a real person. Though some theories suggest he was a Roman or pre-Roman character, by most theories, and in line with the traditional cycle of legends, he was a Romano-British leader fighting against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th century to early 6th century. The late historian John Morris made the alleged reign of Arthur at the turn of the 5th century the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland under the rubric The Age of Arthur: A History of the British Isles from 350–650' (1973), even though he found little to say of an historic Arthur, save as an example of the idea of kingship, one among such contemporaries as Vortigern and Cunedda, Hengest and Coel. Recent archaeological studies show that during Arthur's alleged lifetime, the Anglo-Saxon expansions were halted until the next generation. If he existed, his power base would probably have been in the Celtic areas of Wales, Cornwall and the West Country, or the Brythonic 'Old North' which covered modern Northern England and Southern Scotland. However, controversy over the centre of his supposed power and the extent and kind of power he would have wielded continues to this day.

Answer 2

The Real King Arthur

The real King Arthur did not go by the popular name associated with the fictitious Arthurian Romances. El Penguino got it right! 'Arthur' was probably the Powysian King or General, Owain Ddantwyn - who fought against the invading Saxons.

The Arthurian legends contain many Christian symbols, hidden below the surface. The sword could refer to the legend of a holy relic, the sword that John the Baptist was beheaded with. This is only one of many hidden meanings of the sword symbol.

And yes, it is believable, and even historically accurate to say that in the 5th century, Owain Ddantwyn would have worn the armor of a Roman Legionnaire – and not that of an English Knight! The reason for this is – in the 5th century Britain was the last stronghold of the Roman Empire that was not yet invaded by the Barbarians. Owain Ddantwyn was real. The legends aren’t.

Answer 3

well... king arthur is 1 of the oldest & most famous myths & legends that old tales wrote about...

his justice, the mighty "camilot", the round table were all r as 1 (no differences)...

then, a recent movie came along with the same name & showed us that he was a roman commander in charge of the samartian calvary...

their might b a true story in that movie, but with a different unkown character that the director, producer, & the writer put the legendary "king arthur" instead... due to the huge look-alike between the 2...

but in my own opinion... i believe the old stories about him... & think of him as a myth or legendary tale (told by the old ones & written in books & stories to show a need for a great & strong & justice kingdom)...

Answer 4

There is no actual proof that King Arthur ever lived...strange when almost every other king in English history can be traced..;There is a small village in Pays de la loire...France..;which is called St. Frambeau de Lassay..;there is evidence that this was the birthplace of Lancelot , (who was supposedly buried in the church walls when he died), and also in another village about 20 kilometres from there, is another village called Couptrain..;all Knights of that period were trained there, including Lancelot..;There is however nothing to say he ever visited England...The legend of King Arthur and the knights of the round table (also nothing to prove that ever existed either), will always remain a mystery...some of the characters are real, but the stories have probably been a mix of exagerrated tales, and invented stories...

Answer 5

"There is some historical evidence for an actual Arthur, who was most likely a Romanized Celt. According to annals, a Celtic leader named Artorius, for a brief period in the fifth century A. D., enjoyed some success against invading Anglo-Saxons, Germanic tribes who ultimately displaced the Celts of England. A sixth-century monk named Gildas, in his On the Ruin of Britain, and the Venerable Bede in his eighth-century Ecclesiastical History, describe the fate of the Celts. Gildas and Bede both mention Badon Hill, a battle site later associated with Arthur, but neither make explicit reference to Arthur. It is not until the ninth century that Nennius, who dubbed himself "historiographer of the Britons," first mentions Arthur. Already the stuff of legend, Nennius’s Arthur is credited with single-handedly slaying 940 Saxons at Badon Hill. Such exaggerations are common in medieval histories, which were more concerned with implicit truths than facts. So, from the earliest accounts, Arthur is attributed with larger-than-life heroic qualities. Because the Celts and the early Anglo-Saxons were oral cultures, stories about Arthur spread quickly and acquired new meaning with new generations. And so the actual Arthur, if he ever existed, is dwarfed by the legend, which became the vogue about 700 years after the "real" Arthur would have lived.

In the twelfth-century, historian Geoffrey of Monmouth recorded, some say invented, the legend of Arthur as it has been subsequently handed down. Among his sources were Bede, Gildas, Nennius, and, primarily, "a very ancient book" which has never been recovered and which some doubt ever existed. Geoffrey is the first to mention Merlin, Uther, Ygraine, Tintagel, and Avalon. Geoffrey’s work is filled with flight and fancy, sprinkled with fights involving giants and numerous magical occurrences. Geoffrey’s Arthur is so powerful, so exaggerated, that he comes close to defeating the Roman Empire itself. Although the History was not criticized in Geoffey’s life, it came under attack in 1198 by William of Newburgh, who called it a "fable" and a "fiction." Nonetheless, Geoffrey’s work was influential on subsequent chronicles. But the Arthur in these works is displaced by time, rendering his actual existence impossible to determine definitively.

Archeologists have joined in attempts to prove Arthur’s existence by locating Camelot and by unearthing the king’s tomb. Cadbury Hill, obviously the site of a large fortress, would have been occupied during the approximate years of the historical Arthur’s reign and is sometimes identified as Canterbury. At Glastonbury Abbey, a stone slab with an inscription that read "Arthur" was unearthed in the twelfth century and a body was exhumed. In the fourteenth century, this body was again exhumed and, in the process, badly damaged and subsequently lost. Could this be our Arthur? Again, there is no substantial evidence.

Perhaps Arthur’s historical existence is, in the end, a moot point. Regardless of his actual existence, his literary presence in twelfth-century Europe was profound."

Answer 6

As with almost all the elements of Arthurian legend, the sword-in-the-stone reflects traditions of Celtic culture. This part of the legend refers specifically to coronation, that of the king who is to become the Arthur. A stone was often struck with an iron sword, symbolizing the king's empowerment & testing the strength of his arm and sword, to prove it in ritual. Also, inscribed swords & battle axes are found on the Stonehenge megaliths, denoting a tradition of coronation at the site marked by the inscription itself. There was no actual sword magically cast in a stone, it is an archetype referring to the two principal elements of sovereign ritual, being a sacred stone of kingship (eg. Stone of Scone, the Londonstone of Brutus (Brythos)) & a sword of initiation. Arthur was the High King, of whom there were several in Ancient Britain.

Answer 7

I think the Arthur legend is really a mix of old Celtic myths and legends with more (relatively) recent stories of post-Roman Britain. Arthur, I think, is a composite figure made from bits and pieces of Celtic, Roman, Briton, and Saxon folklore. You have to remember that Malory (who wrote La Morte D'artur) was writing to a medieval audience, and would have taken things from several sources to fit what he knew would appeal to that audience.

Answer 8

King Arthur can be perceived in many ways. Some say he is yet another Christ legend. Others honor him for being the first to understand the civilizing effect of the Rule of Law.

Answer 9

I think the pulling the sword out of the stone is probably metaphor, but the one explanation I have for that is that sometimes swords were buried with their owner, and he pulled it out of the tomb (stone tomb) of his father.

As to the Roman theory, it is plausible. My personal preference is the Celtic theory.

Answer 10

I believe that he pulled the sword out of the stone.