is king arthur real?

Question

pls its my reaserch paper.......

Answer 1

There was no true King Arthur as mythology tells it. The closest thing I have seen to date that best explains any possible historical accuracy was the movie King Arthur that was in the cinemas a couple years ago.

It is said he was the son of a Roman Nobleman, but as many have said there is no physical evidence to support his life or even if he existed. The idea of King Arthur and his perfect court at Camelot as by written by Thomas Mallory was an attempt to tell fabled stories of heroic nights and their honorable deeds for Church, King, and Country. So the idea of King Arthur was very real in the 13th Century but other than a guessing from research books, he appears to have never really existed, or if he did, he was not even wearing shiny metal armor but was alive during the last days of the Roman Empire.

I have been to England and seen one of the TWO noted places of King Arthurs Castle. Tintangel by the sea. The other is Canterberry I think, I may have the name wrong on the second but there are two claimed sites. No archaelogical evidence exists, and I saw the History Channel as well has proven he exists, but the fable may have been modeled after a real Roman Arturius as he was named. Their was in fact a battle at Badon Hill that was a turing point in the History of Roman/English right to rule over the invading saxons. Rome was near its end and most places along Harians wall became permanant settlements to former Roman Generals now turned private merchant and landowner. It was a gradual decline of the empire in Britain but it was not Roman soldiers who fought at Badon hill though it was said Arturius led the charge.

PS Lord Bear, much of what you say is correct except your dates, the Roman Empire fell in the 5th Century AD roughly between 475-500 AD. Only the Eastern Empire continued to flourish and was known as the Byzantines. The rest of what you say is correct though.

Answer 2

King Arthur was created to be a virtuous character and a bastion of Christianity in England. The actual legend has both a French and English version (the French version introduces Lancelot). It was a typical depiction of the weak woman who destroyed her husband via temptation (parallels of Adam and Eve) and the only way Guinevere could redeem herself was to join a convent and repent. Morgan Le Fey was depicted as the witchy woman, godless and evil without any morals (and was seen as a symbol of paganism). She was often likened to Lilith in the bible as she was Arthur's half sister and peer rather than his subordinate, the same way Lilith was supposed to be.
They have linked a historical figure, Aurorealis (can't exactly remember but something like that) to the man they believed Arthur was based on however they found his remains and some of his artifacts past the Scottish border which would have made Arthur a Pict (he was supposed to have fought courageous battles against the Picts) and would have thrown the entire legend into disarray. There maybe some scientific basis to the beginning of the Arthurian legend but King Aurorealis (or whatever his name was) was a great warlord but certainly no peacemaker or uniter of Britain. The legend of Arthur serves as an historic moral tale.

Answer 3

Arthur's correct time period is 600 - 650 A.D. Most of the Roman Legions had been pulled out of Britain around two centuries earlier, predating the actual fall of the Empire because Rome was abandoning many of its peripheral states, but Roman traditions were a part of life in Arthur's Britain. Roman armor, weapons, dress, and names were still in use. An ancient breastwork hill fortress has been unearthed in southern England, in the general area of the legendary location of Camelot, but it was a predominantly wooden construction. We do know that someone unified the southern tribes into a unified force that repelled the invading northern Pictish clans at Badon Hill and established a tenuous border at Hadrians' Wall. Rome was falling apart, but still had the temerity to demand tribute from its satellites and outlying reaches of the Empire, and after Badon Hill the tribute from Britain was never sent. Britain was isolated, alone, and at peace for about thirty years. Any leader at that time had to have had the help of the remnants of the Druidic order in ensuring the contentment of the general public - PR people if you will, and this is where the Merlins come in. Merlin itself would be a Druidic title, not a name, so the fact that there was a Merlin before Arthur, during Arthur, and after Arthur would simply give rise to the superstition that it was the same man. They played the spin game to ensure the people accepted Arthur as King. Excalibur would, given its legendary sharpness and superior quality, probably have either been forged from an early form of steel or forged like a Roman blade with a soft iron core and a tackwelded steel edge. Either way it would have cleaved thru the softer iron weapons and leather armor most common at that time. This whole period came to end with a battle at Camlann on the southern Welsh shore between Arthurs' forces and invaders who were the beginnings of the Saxons. No true gravesite for any figure from this period has been proven authentic, even though the Glastonbury site was lauded for years as being the site of Arthurs' grave before being debunked. Ynis Avallonia - the Isle of Apples - was at Arthurs' time an offshore island. Since that time the Bay has filled with silt and covered most of the island, turning it into a tor. If the legend about Avalon is true, Arthur could be buried anywhere around that mound, and covered by centuries of silt and runoff. The upshot is that there was a native historical figure of Celto-Roman origin that the legend was built around, who ruled southern Britain with calvary and Roman discipline while creating a Celtic kingdom - the Anglo-Saxon fusion came much later. The stories grew up among the native peoples as they passed them down thru the oral tradition, embellishing as they went, until they were finally set down on paper, but even then went thru revision after revision.

Answer 4

There are a lot of people who may or may not have existed, King Arthur, Aesop, Moses, etc. The sad thing is that most people know a little about the story of King Arthur, but not enough to begin to understand it. They know about the shape of the table and a few names, but that's about all.

It's a morality story. The Knights of the Round Table glorified fighting and violence. They got to fighting each other and ended up with a big pile of dead bodies.

Answer 5

King Arthur is only a legendary king and the stories were written in the 1300s. THe man who wrote it was probably basing King Arthur off an Anglo-Saxon king.

Answer 6

According to the history channel, he was indeed a king of Britain. In fact, they actually showed the remains of what they believed to be his castle. Did you know that there are gravesites for both Arthur and Merlin in Wales? They are kept up by the Welsh Historical Society.

Answer 7

Probably. At least, there was an Arthur-like warrior prince at about the time specified. The literature is there. Enjoy the search. Oh, and one possibility is a Roman remnant. Did you know that he marched on Rome and threatened to take it if they didn't stop trying to tax him?

Answer 8

There is no historical evidence of the existance of a real person named King Arthur, no historical record of the events recorded in the medieval romance stories.

Answer 9

King Arthur was a myth, but it is believed he was based on a real person.

Answer 10

king arthur may have been real, but that is open to debate. Though the myth has been going on even before english literature