King Arthur?

Question

Is there any truth behind any aspects of the King Arthur story i.e any of the Knights of the round table,or any search for the Holy Grail? Is there any link with the Knights Templar?

Answer 1

i could give you a whole term apaer on that topic and never give you an even answer! the answer is yes...and no. historians commonly agree on the fact that if arthur were a real person, he would have lived during the fall of the roman empire, about 500 ad. so no, there is no connection to the templars, who were not founded until several hundred years later during the first crusade. however, any mention of arthur isn't written down until a couple of hundred years after his supposed living time, and then it is not sure what his name would be. the most common theory is that his name would have been Artorius Rex. archaeologist believe they have found sites such as camelot and tintagel, as well as Avalon, but they are very different from the sites in the tales, and also, they can only guess as to who lived there. the closest to finding arthur was a grave found at an abbey, however, the grave turned out to be a hoax to attract more visitors to the abbey. it had been marked by a lead cross that said here lies Arthur king of britain in latin, but the cross and body disappeared before anyone could test them. also, many of the arthurian tales were not created until medieval times, about 1000 ad. this is when the romantic portrayal of arthur as a knight came from, as well as the knights of the round table. strictly speaking, they did not exist, at least not as the chivalrous knight s we know them to be from tales.

sorry to babble on! if you want to learn more, try reading these books and check out these sites:
A quest for Arthur's Britain by Geoffrey Ashe,
“A Conversation with Geoffrey Ashe.” Britannia. 1 Dec 2006.

“Arthurian Legend.” The Columbia Encyclopedia Sixth Edition. 2006. 3 Apr. 2007. .
Castledon, Rodney. King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend. London: Routledge.
2000.
"King Arthur." Castles. 1 May 2007 .
Lacy, Norris J, Geoffrey Ashe. The Arthurian Handbook. New York: Garland Publishing Inc. 1988.
Makkay, János. "The Sarmatian Connection." Hungarian Quarterly Vol. XXXVII No. 144. 1996 .
Markale, Jean. King of the Celts. Rochester: Inner Traditions, 1994.
Ogden-Korus, Erin. "An Archaeological Quest for the 'Real' King Arthur". 1 Dec 2006
.

sorry they're in MLA format, i copied them from one of my papers...;)

Answer 2

The Knights of the Round Table probably didn't exist, although some historians have pointed to various natural formations and/or ancient relics as possible origins for the tale of the Round Table. The fact is that such little information has survived from this time, that it's generally impossible for historians to know whether some claim was based on some ancient knowledge, or was purely made up.

There is indication that a powerful warlord lived in Britain in the fifth or sixth centuries, and that he did a considerable job at repelling invading Saxons, which is what the earliest records say Arthur did. There is also some indication that the people of Britain may even have prospered under his rule, although that may be a bit of a stretch.

Other than that, nothing about the legends of King Arthur were factual, so far as anyone knows. There's always the possibility that some part of the legends was based on some remembered knowledge, but that's purely conjecture until we have evidence.

Answer 3

There is no truth in the stories of the Knights of the Round Table or the search for the Holy Grail. there is certainly no link with the Knights Templar. All these were medieval. If there was a King Arthur, he is more likely to have lived 800 years earlier, at the time the Roman legions left Britannia. He might have been a British warlord or even possibly a Roman aristocrat who remained and tried to maintain some semblance of order in a society which was breaking down. He may have had his own followers but they would not have dressed in medieval armour and followed the rules od medieval chivalry

Answer 4

There are several competing theories. One theory that I tend to believe is that King Arthur was actually Artorius, the Roman commander of a Sarmation Auxiliary that remained in Britain after its withdrawl in the early 5th century, ,and helped defend the britons against invading Saxons. The Britons never made use of cavalry, they used woad infantry supported by chariots. It was the heavily armored Sarmatian auxilia that first introduced into Britain the concept of heavily armored cavalry "knights".

If Arthur was Artorius, then his knights of the round table would have been his bucellarii, the personal retainers of the commander. In the late empire, the state was too poor to provide adequate military resources, so rich lords turned to providing their own. Although private armies were illegal in the Empire, in truth there was really no way to enforce it. A lords bucellarii typically rode into battle with him, and usually as heavy cavalry. They increasingly did more and more of the fighting, as the infantry degraded to little more than conscript hordes. So that the knights of the round table were revered fighters fits perfectly with the idea that most warriors were peasant conscripts and the bucellarii were elite heavy cavalry.

Answer 5

Arthur. he's have been given greater beneficial armor (fairly in case you look at how little Leonidas wore interior the action picture!) additionally, Arthur become reputed to be an astonishing grappler and hurley participant on an identical time as the Leonidas of the action picture become disregarded interior the chilly at an early age to be bothered by malnutrition. helpful, he fought a brilliant wolf, yet this is honestly not something to the boars of Arthur's age (now extinct, i could upload.) 3 hundred become a advantageous action picture, yet Arthur's guaranteed to have yet another solid action picture approximately him pop out sometime quickly. you won't manage to easily circulate via the musical Camelot and get in touch with Arthur a pansy because of the fact of that. Sheesh human beings.

Answer 6

There is a great book series by Jack Whyte on King Arthur called the Camulod Chronicles. In it Whyte gives plausible explanations for the Arthur legends. I think there are seeds of truth in the fables.

Answer 7

Hmm. Just speaking out loud here....

Le Mort D'Arthur, of course...

"I'll be back" he vowed. "Whenever Britain is threatened by the forces of darkness, I will return and lead her to safety... I'll be back!"

Those were King Arthur's supposed "last words". The Saxons quickly moved in and took over England, but Arthur remained dead. Then came the Norman invasions, yet still he refused to stir. But surely, when the Spanish armada sailed against England he would wake? But Arthur slept on.

But in 1803, Napoleon began his rampage across Europe. He might have been successful in taking the continent if it weren't for winter; and one man...

On the 18th of June, 1815, the world helds its breath as the famous British General took on Napoleon and his imperial guard; the same imperial guard who were famed to never have lost a battle.

As you all know, it was a stunning British victory. In one fell swoop, the British routed the French and defeated Napoleon.

We know the British General to be the famed Duke of Wellington. But what is is actual name?

You might be surprised to know that the Duke of Wellington's name is, indeed...

Arthur.

Answer 8

The oldest written manuscript found in England is a story brought from Denmark, Beowulf. The science fiction writer Pol Anderson put together from fragments the story of King Hrolf Krakki of Denmark and told it in modern terms. It reads very much like a pre-christian version of King Author with only one of his major knights being wholly human.

Answer 9

who cares, i dont understand why this crap matters