Do you believe that King Arthur was real or just a fictional character?

Question

Please add why you think so.

Answer 1

There was never a king of England named Arthur or a place named Camelot. The King Arthur legend was created by monks based on the stories of several local heroes.

Answer 2

I believe Arthur was a real historical personage. Not the King of the Britains, more likely the leader (or Pendragon) of a group of mounted warriors, who fought some successful battles against the encroaching Saxons during the 400s; probably of mixed Celtic/Roman heritage, possibly the subject of a British king. His likely real name might have been Arturus. The legends grew up around his defiance of the invaders, eventually made him a heroic king, and finally wrapped him and his followers in a cloak of myth. Even the oldest of legends about Arthur link him with Mordred, or Medraught, who is supposed to have defeated him, with Merlinus, a sage or magician, with a queen, Guinevere, and with his attempts to hold back the darkness of invasion and chaos, as well as the promise that in need, he will return.

Answer 3

King Arthur is real alright. He is a model king of Camelot and revered by the world and especially Britain. It is say that his tomb is buried in a secret place, where is placed in an eternal sleep. When Britain is in danger he will awake and save Britain again.

King Arthur gives people pride and honor to be his descendants and that makes him real enough.

Answer 4

I believe that "King" Arthur (probably just a minor tribal chieftan) was real, but much of the mythology surrounding him (Knights of the Round Table, Merlin, Lady of the Lake) was not. Most of this was created to give the Anglo-Saxons in Britain a cultural hero, and reinforce their allegiance to the land.

Answer 5

I believe that he was real. He gave his sword to the Lady of the Lake who passed it on to me for safe keeping. I put in the room I keep the Holy Grail in.