It depends on which Arthurian legend you follow. Most like the 5th Century, but others go for the 6th because a British leader named Arthur was killed fighting the Saxons in 573. (He may be the source of the legend; a legend which, like Troy, probably has some root in reality)
Now for the important part: T.H. White's "Once and Future King" was drawn from Mallory so you will find a lot of the same stuff. But the significance of the work (a three volume "trilogy" written in 1938, 1939 and 1940) are the issues it raises, those of "might versus right" and (after Plato) "what is justice?" (The latter is the "question" at the core of all political philosophy.)
White produced his work in evil times, in the face of Hitler when it appeared that he would win. (Like Plato writing in the Athens of the Forty Tyrants.) He was expressing the eternal hope that "good" would triumph over "evil."
2007-02-16 14:56:22
·
answer #1
·
answered by James@hbpl 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The problem with Arthurian legends is that they've been gradually built up over the years. There's a lot of Celtic mythology in there, some later Christian stuff, the context of the Saxon invasions, the medieval knights....
The most popular theory is that Arthur was a Romano-British leader who fought against the Saxons after the withdrawal of the Roman army from Britain (he is often given the title 'dux bellorum' - leader of war). This would have been sometime around 5th-6th century AD.
On the other hand, later versions of the story of Arthur have brought him forward into the Medieval period of knights in plate armour competing in tournaments and going on quests. In a way, this would also be accurate. It really depends on the type of image you want to give people of the story.
2007-02-16 18:58:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wouldn't worry too much about the accuracy part. The figure of Arthur is shrouded in mystery, and nobody really knows for sure if he existed or not. Even if he did exist, none of the more fantastic elements, which make him such an interesting literary figure, are true. Just pick a time period, Mallory's time or some other, and stay consistent with the fashion of that time.
2007-02-16 18:57:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by Underground Man 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
He was said to be born in the 5th century, according to Wikipedia. Many people think that it is a legend, and that Arthur is not real, in which case, the timeline is a little less easy to figure. But I'd say 5th century (400's) would be the best choice to go with.
2007-02-16 18:53:34
·
answer #4
·
answered by Mr. B 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
According to the only official record of Arthur, he won the battle of Mount Badon against the Anglo-Saxon army circa 490AD.
Some legends place Arthur up to 100 years previously, in conjunction with the Roman withdrawal from Britain circa 400AD.
2007-02-16 18:44:33
·
answer #5
·
answered by Fergi the Great 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes - the correct period for Arthur, if he existed, would be the 5th century.
The Pre-Raphaelite painters made the Arthurian characters look a lot nicer than they probably would have done in reality - you might be better following their lead !
See the attached link for some ideas for you.
2007-02-16 18:54:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by the_lipsiot 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
5th century
2007-02-16 18:54:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by redunicorn 7
·
0⤊
0⤋