Do you believe King Arthur was a real person?

Question

I know a lot about the history of King Arthur as a character, and the literature that includes him. I believe I know when he might have lived. I'm interested in whether you believe he was a real person, a fiction, some combination, etc. Thanks.

Answer 1

Its believed that he was a Celtic Chieftain before the time of the Roman invasion. Yes, he was a real person. The question is "how much of his story is real and how much of it is false".

Answer 2

King Arthur existed. He was a Celtic chieftain that lived in the 5th C. after the Romans abandoned Britain. He won several battles against the Saxons who were invading Britain. Thus he brought peace for awhile. The word "king" most likely meant "chieftain" but has been bumped up in later times. His court was most likely pagan as Britain was not Christianized yet. But the "King Arthur" we know is mostly from legend and literature. And most of that literature is from medieval France. For instance the writings of Cretian de Troyes. Many writers like Sir Thomas Mallory, Tennyson and T.H. White have added to it. Over time his court has been Christianized and romanicized as in the search for the "Holy Grail"

Answer 3

There is disagreement about whether Arthur, or a model for him, ever actually existed. In the earliest mentions and in Welsh texts, he is never given the title 'King'. An early text refers to him as a dux bellorum ('war leader'), and medieval Welsh texts often call him ameraudur ("emperor"; the word is borrowed from the Latin imperator, which could also mean "war leader").

The historicity of the Arthur of legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought believes that Arthur had no historical existence. 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 (Proto-Celtic artos) 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 real. Though some theories suggest he was a Roman Britain 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.[citation needed] 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.

Some people have noticed a pattern in Arthur's story that is echoed by historical kings, such as Alfred the Great. Both Arthur and Alfred are characterized as benevolent leaders who protect their local people from multiple invasions, similar to the way in which a sea wall resists a wave. The common idea, popularized by twentieth-century novelist Susan Cooper, is to the effect that invasions came one after another, to be beaten back by "Dukes of Battle" (Dux Bellorum) who could rally the people behind them.

A number of identifiable historical figures have been suggested as the historical basis for Arthur, ranging from Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer who served in Britain in the 2nd century; Roman usurper emperors like Magnus Maximus; and sub-Roman British rulers like Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Owain Ddantgwyn and Athrwys ap Meurig.

Answer 4

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 (Proto-Celtic artos) as the precedent for the legend, but these particular deities are known to have been worshipped by the continental Celts, not the Britons.

Answer 5

Art imitates life. Life imitates art. D.F. Carroll's King Arthur existed, however surly not under that exact same circumstances. There was a king in the late 7th century by that name. That's a fact. I bet he was an interesting if not great king who was ahead of his time. I think many of the precedents described in the literature persist into modern culture. That could very well mean Arthur set some enduring standards.

Answer 6

The historicity of the Arthur of legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought believes that Arthur had no historical existence. 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 (Proto-Celtic artos) 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 real. Though some theories suggest he was a Roman Britain 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.[citation needed] 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.

Some people have noticed a pattern in Arthur's story that is echoed by historical kings, such as Alfred the Great. Both Arthur and Alfred are characterized as benevolent leaders who protect their local people from multiple invasions, similar to the way in which a sea wall resists a wave. The common idea, popularized by twentieth-century novelist Susan Cooper, is to the effect that invasions came one after another, to be beaten back by "Dukes of Battle" (Dux Bellorum) who could rally the people behind them.

A number of identifiable historical figures have been suggested as the historical basis for Arthur, ranging from Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer who served in Britain in the 2nd century; Roman usurper emperors like Magnus Maximus; and sub-Roman British rulers like Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus, Owain Ddantgwyn and Athrwys ap Meurig.

Answer 7

I believe it was a combination thereof. I think that there was a person like Arthur who became the legend that is Arthur. Kind of like the movie - the recent one. That could be close to the Arthur legend/story.

I like the movie Excalibur - but I don't believe that story was close.

Answer 8

He was real. As real as me or you.

But the reason a lot pf people might not believe in him, is because the true story of Arthur has been so twisted and trilled so that England would have a greater history. More mystical, bla, bla, bla...

Just media hype, ancient, but still media hype.

Answer 9

No 2 writers agree so which you would be able to take a wild wager and be a precise because of fact the subsequent individual. there replaced right into a real fellow named Ambrosius who lived on the time of the Romans leaving Britain who controlled to unite the Celts of england against the invading Saxons. when you consider that each thing fell aside after his loss of life, he replaced into remembered fondly later on and many older legends have been related to his tale. He must be the historic kernel of the King Arthur memories. yet he wasn't a king and his call wasn't Arthur. That call is a lot older and belonged to a god who the two replaced right into a bear or each so often took this style of a bear. that's related to the Continental goddess call Artio, the Latin word for bear Arcturuc (which replaced into additionally a constellation). The early Germans had warriors who wore bearskin shirts and grew to alter into frenzied -- the berserkers. This all is going back to the Proto-Indo-Europeans who in all probability seen the bear a totemistic ancestor of a few of their warriors. interior the sub-field of anthropology referred to as folkloristics, there's a concept referred to as the Goliath result. that's the place you hit upon that any time memories are instructed approximately something, they have a tendency to be remembered as being related to the main well-liked something interior the sector. So, in recent times, if something weird and wonderful happens at a fried fowl place, human beings will remember it as having got here approximately at Kentucky Fried fowl, when you consider that's the main well-liked fried fowl place -- whether the progression truly happened at mom and dad's fried fowl palace. See what I advise? that's what reasons memories to accrue to a well-liked individual's memory, whilst those issues did no longer truly take place to HIM. that's what got here approximately with Ambrosius after his loss of life. ultimately, Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote a medieval romance approximately Arthur, putting in all varieties of what replaced into then topical element, with romance and jousting and such, that would allure to his readers. that's the version that maximum individuals know, with the sword interior the stone, the girl of the Lake, Queen Guinevere's romance, the around table, etc. yet that replaced into numerous hundred years after the genuine Ambrosius lived and Geoffrey did no longer additionally know related to the genuine deal with the help of that factor.

Answer 10

I researched him once for a 10 page paper in high school. I found it hard to find much real data on him at all, so much of it had been shrouded in legends of dragons and wizards and such. I believe such a person did exist, and he must have been an influential leader in order to have stemmed such legends, but obviously most of the tales told of him would have to be false.