What are the differences between the mythic and the historic King Arthur?

Question

I'm doing a 4 page research paper on the mythical king arthur and the historic king arthur. Do any of you guys know the similarities and the differences between the mythic and historic king arthur?

Answer 1

What an interesting question.

Mythical

The story of King Arthur as we know it developed in the Middle Ages beginning with Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain" in 1135 in which Arthur is born at Tintagel Castle, is defeated & mortally wounded at Camlann and is taken to Avalon. From 1150s onwards this story became the theme of many romantic stories including:

1. Wace (1155) - Introduced the Round Table
2. Chretien de Troyes (1170) - Introduced chivalry, courtly romance, Lancelot (& many of the knights) and Camelot
3. Robert de Boron (1190s) - Introduced the Holy Grail
4. Layamon (circa 1200) - Introduced the immortality of Arthur on Avalon - The Once & Future King
5. Sir Thomas Malory (1470) - Collated all the Arthurian stories in the first printed book - "Le Morte Darthur" with which is the version most people are familiar.

By 1470 Arthur had been transformed from a Celtic warrior of the 5th or 6th century AD into a feudal king living in a castle with many knights in shining armour. The latter reflected medieval society and royalty.

The Round Table at Winchester was built in medieval times probably to reflect the popular theme of the era. As for the bones of Arthur & Guenivere being discovered at Glastonbury in 1191. This was later revealed as a hoax devised by monks to raise funds for the abbey.

Historic Arthur

This is very difficult to determine as it depends on whose theory/evidence you follow. All place Arthur in post-roman Britain.

Three historical artefacts you could refer to are Gesta "Regum Anglorum" (William of Malmesbury - 1125) in which Arthur is mentioned, the " Annales Cambriae" (Annuals of Wales - early 1100s) which states Arthur won the Battle of Badon in 518AD then killedin 539AD by Medraut at Camlann and the "Historica Brittonum" (History of the Britons - early 1100s) which lists Arthur's battles.

Without going into great detail, it appears as though Arthur was a Briton, lived in or near Wales, was probably a battle leader/king/high king, defeated the Saxons decivisely at the Battle of Badon (Badon Hill) and lived anywhere between 439AD and 539AD.

Two theories even name him firstly as Owain Ddantgwyn who ruled Gwynedd & Powys in the last decade of the 5th century. The name Arthur is derived from his battle name of Bear (arturus) and secondly as Riothamus who ruled from 454 AD - 470AD in the Somerset/Dumnonia of SW England. The latter was wounded in France and died as his army retreated to Avallon.

Good luck with your paper!

Answer 2

I'm enjoying everyone's answers. Another difference would be that the historical Arthur, whoever he was, would not have worn plate armor, or even chain mail ... he was from a time before chain mail. And there wouldn't have been any orderly "jousts" that early in British history. Oh, and someone may have mentioned this, but no Lancelot. Lancelot doesn't show up until the courtly love take on the whole Arthurian legend in the 12th century.

Per the graves and abbey, referenced above--that's Glastonbury Abbey where Henry II (?) supposedly found graves of Arthur and Guinivere, but most historians think that was a hoax to gain power for the Normans by showing the previous peoples' hero as being mortal.

Answer 3

I think that arthur was probably a war leader, the latest king arthur film brings into the equation the fact that the romans imported cavalry from eastern europe, now some of this cavalry were the heviest armoured in that era evidence of them has been found in britain, that would explain why in the legends the knights wore heavy armour that just was not worn by the celts and saxons etc at the time people believe arthur actually existed.
these horsemen probably were dismissed by rome when it left britain, chances are they then worked as mercenries for the celts against the saxons, the best warriors and horsemen led by the most able general, with victory he would be more popular than any king, the celtish kings maybe pooled their armies and appointed arthur as overall commander so he became known as king of britain leading an army of united people, also an interesting fiction book along these lines a trilogy infact was written by Bernard Cornwell, a very good read with some facts and fancies thrown into the mix about lancelot and merlin etc.

Answer 4

I've heard that king arthur might have been a real historical person, like a military leader. it's possible. but of course the main difference is the magic. and excalibur and the lady of the lake and all that good stuff. I've read tons of books on king arthur and I love that legend

Answer 5

If King Arthur was a real person, which is a debate (jury's still out on that one in my head...), then the mythical Arthur has just been glorified.

Answer 6

I don't think there is anything historic about the legend of King Arthur, other than the fact that it must have been created during the middle ages.

Answer 7

One is the round table. It actually existed. In fact it is in Winchester Cathedral if I remember correctly. The only thing about it, when Henry the VIII split from the Church he had King Arthur's face painted over with his face.

Two his wife was named Genvieve. They were buried together. I can't remember the name of the Abby they were buried at. But when Henry VIII (him again) broke with the church he their graves dug up and if I remember right the Abby destroyed so no one knows where they are buried now.

Three: he was fighting the Anglo Saxons who were Germanic mercenaries to reunite England. The Anglo Saxons had been hired by Mordred (misspelled) in his attempt to unite England under him as King. But they had stayed claiming the lands they had taken from the English.

Arthur himself was Welsh which meant that he was Celtic descended from the Irish which settled in Wales to trade with the Romans after the Romans had slaughtered the Druids during to period that Rome ruled England.

The trade continued up until the remains of the Roman Empire fell completely apart between 500 and 600 BC. Caused by what many historians believe was the plague. It is also believed by many historians that the plague was carried to the British isles namely Wales by Rome ships infecting the Welsh with the plague causing great numbers of them to die and weaking them to the extent they could not fight off the invading Anglo Saxons.

Answer 8

Find a book called "Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms" by Alistair Moffat. He deals with this subject specifically.

Answer 9

There's some question as to the reality of the "historic" Arthur.

http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/england/arch/

Answer 10

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_arthur