Did King Arthur exist?

Question

What do you know about King Arthur? Are there any evidences that he existed'

Answer 1

Rome pulled her last soldiers out of Britain during the Fifth century, and the native Celtic tribes had to fend off foreign invaders as well as each other in efforts to dominate southern Britain. What we do know is that during the Sixth century there was a forty year or so stretch of relative peace, with the southern tribes united to repel invaders. This could only have been done under one strong leader. This leader is obviously the basis for Arthur. He would have been a Romanized Celt, slowly reverting back to native Celtic ways with the removal of mainland Roman influence.
His armor and weapons would doubtless have been of Roman design, the Gladius and Lorica Segmentata (or Hamata; chainmail, or Squamata; scale armor.) He would have had to have been a master of calvary, with his forces able to move along the coast and the old Roman roads at speed in order to repel invaders (which doubtless is the source of the Camlann legend - that Arthurs' final battle was on the southern coast, where a large scale invasion would not have been suspected). His north flank would have been protected somewhat by Hadrian's Wall, manned by lords loyal to Arthur, and his western flank protected by the hill country of Welsh Gwynedd.
His fortress of Camelot was doubtless a wooden hillfort of Roman design, and likely featured a palisade and defensive trenches. It was probably situated in the west, towards Wales, where it was well-protected by the hill country and also by the fact that most invaders beached on the eastern shore. During these "Dark Ages" Britain was constantly under attack from countless foriegn tribes looking for slaves, wealth, and new land to conquer. Any leader able to keep southern Britain free for forty years would doubtless become a figure of exaggerated myth and legend long after his death.

Answer 2

There is evidence to suugest that an Arthur, Arturs, etc. existed and that he managed to defeat anglo-saxon invaders.
That is just about all we know, Arthur might not even be his actual name, I've heard that it may refer to his battle field standard which featured a bear.

I'd suggest "Battles of the Dark Ages". It has a chapter discussing Arthur. If you are really interested in the time period you could read the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it should have something about the real Arthur in there; although even this account is likely full of legend because it was written several hundred years after Arthur's death.

Answer 3

While the mythology of King Arthur and Merlin is certain attractive, they are just myths. However, there is historical evidence that both characters were based upon, albeit obscure, real figures.

If you are really interested, the link below is an excellent discussion by many in the fields of history, literature, archeology and other disciplines.

Answer 4

While the mythology of King Arthur and Merlin is certain attractive, they are just myths. However, there is historical evidence that both characters were based upon, albeit obscure, real figures.

Answer 5

No one is really sure. There are hints of a warlord who might fit the mold, but his name wasn't Arthur, so it's a guess at best.

But it doesn't really matter, because what Arthur represents is hope, and that's a good thing. Real or not he's brought comfort to many, and that's worth a lot more then simply being real.

Answer 6

While there was a King Arthur, he was not the story book king. Arthurian Legend was a way to help the pagan polytheists and naturalists accept Christianity. The Arthurian Legends have direct parallels to the bible.

Answer 7

King Arhtur was a very brave soldier, he was a legendary brave young man. There is evidence that he did exist. One person on the enternet that said he was there when he was there also....... just kidding I have no freaking Idea

Answer 8

Yes he existed. He was a chief of a little celt group, made a lot of invasions and won battles. What we don't know is wheter he was a king or not. The rest, as for me, is pure fiction.

Answer 9

there is archaeological and linguistic evidence found to support the existance of king arthur.

Answer 10

Yes, there's evidence in old books that make historians believe he was a great army leader around year 500 who succesfully kicked anglosaxian butt many a times and therefor never really was forgotten.