How much is accurately known about King Arthur? Is everything that's known about him myth?

Answer 1

Arthur's correct time period is around 600 - 650 A.D. after the Roman legions had pulled out of Britain. We do know a native Celto-Roman chieftain unified southern Britain against the invading Pictish tribes and won a decisive battle at Badon. A peace ensued that lasted thirty years, give or take, before the native forces were wiped out in a Pyrrhic victory at Cammlann on the southern shore of England, fighting against invading tribes that were the forerunners of the later Saxon peoples. As for the legend, very little is true. No Guinevere/Lancelot affair, no immortal wizard (although the remnants of the Druidic order, the Merlins, would have definitely had something to gain by placing a native on the throne), and no magic sword (although a Damascus pattern spatha with a springy iron core and tackwelded steel edge would have been vastly superior to any average weapon).

Answer 2

The myth of the "Once and Future King" is a common one in folklore and legend. Many believe that King Arthur is just another incarnation of this theme. Most would agree that Arthur did not really exist, so, in essence, everything we know about him is myth!

Answer 3

arthur himself may not existed because there is no record of him, but many historians believe that he was based on a king or duke or what not and i guess you could say elaborated upon in folk tales that people told, if you pick up a book on mythology that covers the United Kingdom, it will most likely tell you.
I have a book called World Mythology, it gives you one version of the tales of Arthur and it gives a historical background on the stories before hand.

Answer 4

Very little is known about truth or fiction but it's believed that arthur was a celtic cheiftain before the Romans invaded Briton.

You might like to google it before you let uninformed and illeducated people tell you that its all fiction. There's more fact to it than you know and I'm able to post on here because it would take hours of typing I'm not willing to do.

Answer 5

There is very little hard core historical proof. Most historians believe if Arthur had been real he won't have been king, more like a 4th century Celtic Chieftain.

Answer 6

It still is speculation, more legend than myth and we have not been kind to it, so a lot is muddled

Answer 7

You may be interested in this site:
http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/

Answer 8

It's just a story.