Does anyone belive in King Arthur??

Question

I dont no what to belive i mean there is no proof that he did or didnt exist will some1 tell me what they think.

Answer 1

During the Sixth Century AD there was a period of peace lasting roughly thirty years in which southern Brittania was kept free from invasion and the native tribes were united. This could only have been brought about by a single, strong, leader, regardless of his name. He would have been a Romanized Celtic leader, ruling from southwestern England during the sixth century A.D (the usually accepted date is around 510 - 520) after the removal of Rome's legions. The SW position would have been important because it would have made use of Wales to defend his rear, Hadrian's Wall manned by loyal lords to defend his left (north) flank, and the Atlantic coast to defend his right (south) flank. Mainland invaders would have normally crossed the English Channel (as William the Conqueror did centuries later) and beached on the eastern shore. Using horse calvary and relay signal fires Arthur could have raced up and down the old Roman roads at speed, swiftly engaging any invaders on or near the shore, driving them back into the sea, and burning their ships. He would have been armed with Roman weapons, such as the gladius and spatha, and his weapons would have made use of the innovation of Damascus pattern welding using a springy iron core with a harder steel edge tack welded to it. Such weapons bend instead of breaking, are springy enough to flex and return to true, and hold excellent edges, being of "excellent caliber" indeed. They would be vastly superior to the bearded axes, scramasaxs, and single -heat forged weapons so prevalent among poorer tribes. His armor would have been Roman lorica segmentata, made of springy iron hoops circling the torso, but being a calvary soldier he would probably have used an oval center boss shield instead of the classic Roman scutum, which is an infantryman's shield.
His fortress would have been a wooden breastwork affair, probably built on a hill that had been terraced with several concentric palisades going up the hill with the buildings on the top. Each successive palisade gate would have been on the other side of each circle, causing any invader to have to walk around the hill several times in order to progress up thru the walls, and all the while taking fire from over the next wall up and meeting heavy resistance. He would doubtless have had support from the practitioners of the Old Religion of Druidism, who would have backed the strongest candidate in order to keep southern Britain united and free (and themselves in place as the power behind the throne - i.e. the Merlin, a title not a name.) They would have kept a man in Arthur's court at all times to advise him and further their own interests, and this position was probably filled by many men over the years. Regardless, a period of peace did occur in the mid sixth century, lasting around thirty years which started with Mons Badonicus, the battle of Badon hill, and seems to have ended with a beach battle at a place called Camlann. Camlann is generally agreed to be on the southwestern shore, a landing site deliberately chosen to try to skirt Arthur's southern flank. The two forces wiped each other out, and various places have been claimed as Arthur's tomb over the years, but as the land has changed so much in the fourteen centuries it is difficult to even begin an informed search. In all realistic likelihood the bodies were buried in mass graves which have been covered with centuries of sediment and will never be found.

Answer 2

This is a fantastic question I will star it after I write this: Yes I believe he existed but as everyone has said, not in the way that books and any authors have portrayed him. I love the King Arthur stories so thats probably why I am so adamant someone existed that was him or like him. I believe it in the same way that atheists would see jesus I guess, I believe that there is definitely something that set all the myths off- perhaps he was not a king, or perhaps he wasnt as fantastic or brave as everyone writes about, but I think such a famous legend would have to be have based on something. From what I've read he was a famous war-chief at least, and I think he must have done something great for his stories to live on into our age. :)

In answer to your question if there is any proof- there is certainly proof (i cant give you any sources but I've read alot about him that does state that theres proof) to ascertain that there is some truth to the legends. Read some of the non-fictional work that speaks about inscriptions and primary sources. Its nice to believe :)

Answer 3

there are at least three historical bases for Arthur.

1st was Gaius Arturos Castos, a Roman commander who served in what is today northern England around the 200s; he was the basis of the Clive Owen movie of a couple years back (although they moved him into the mid 400s).

Next was Ambrosius, the last Roman governor of Britain, around the mid-400s. He was the last definitive cohesive ruler of the southern part of the island of Britain, and seemsto have held off a percentage of Saxon invasions in his day (although some arrived in southeastern Britain anyway). Ambrosius' life is semi-mythologized over the next few centuries; it's hard to gage the fact from the fiction. He was later incorporated into Arthurian lore as Arthur's uncle.

The keystone event of Arthurian lore was the defeat of a Saxon invasion at a place called Mt. Badon or Badon Hill (a place never definitively found) somewhere between 498 and 520 (512 is a commonly chosen year). There was some sort of war chief (if not a king) at that time; the extent of his actual successes are unknown (as is his name).

After these three, the Arthur lore was preserved by the Bretons displaced by the advancing Saxons (and Angles), especially by the Welsh. There is a strong likelihood that some of the Welsh kings of the next few centuries were also blended into Arthurian lore.

Answer 4

the genuine King Arthur the genuine King Arthur did not pass with the aid of the favored call linked with the fictional Arthurian Romances. El Penguino have been given it suited! 'Arthur' become probable the Powysian King or well-known, Owain Ddantwyn - who fought against the invading Saxons. The Arthurian legends incorporate many Christian symbols, hidden under the floor. The sword ought to confer with the legend of a holy relic, the sword that John the Baptist become beheaded with. that's barely between the various hidden meanings of the sword image. And particular, this is achieveable, or perhaps traditionally precise to declare that throughout the 5th century, Owain Ddantwyn might have worn the armor of a Roman Legionnaire – and not that of an English Knight! the reason of that's – in the 5th century Britain become the final stronghold of the Roman Empire that become not yet invaded with the aid of the Barbarians. Owain Ddantwyn become genuine. The legends aren’t.

Answer 5

The legend of King Arthur is actually a conglomeration of stories about several different Roman and Romanized-Celtic generals and cheiftains who existed from the days when Rome was about to withdraw from Britain, to the time of the Saxon invasion (a span of at least 100 years). Arthur was not a single individual, but rather a composite creation where all the deeds of several great men were combined into the life of one mythical king. I would say, however, that the man who probably best fits the description of Arthur was a warlord who was known as Riothamus. He was the very last leader who still led a unified Britain before they broke up into individual tribes and were swallowed up by the Saxons. He was also betrayed by one of his own allies to his enemy, which is similar to how Arthur was betrayed by Mordred. After losing his final battle, Riothamus even retreated to a town named "Avalon" on the European continent (which is eerily similar to how King Arthur was ferried to the Isle of Avalon in the legends). Check out the links:

Riothamus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riothamus

RIOTHAMUS - http://www.uidaho.edu/student_orgs/arthurian_legend/origins/riothamu.html

KING ARTHUR’S FRENCH ODYSSEY - http://www.burgundytoday.com/historic-places/myths-legends/arthur-riothamus.htm

Answer 6

King Arthur did exist, however, not in the facet that we see in movies. He was a Chieftan from a tribe in the northern part of England who defended his people from the Saxons invading England from the north. There are many other theories regarding King Arthur. It is actually a very interesting topic of discussion. By the way, did a college paper on this topic, hence the theory I have after months of research.

Answer 7

King Arthur existed he is in history watch the History channel Look under King Arthur : History & Legend

Answer 8

I enjoyed reading about him when I was a boy, and I still enjoy the stories. I doubt that he really lived, just as I doubt that Achilles, Jesus, Heracles, Roland, etc. ever existed. in some cases, a hero of legends may be based upon a real person, but his deeds were exaggerated and often merged with those of several men. If Arthur lived, he certainly was not exactly like the man in the tales.

Answer 9

King Arthur in the story books did not exist. there might have been a king arthur but not the same one in the book

Answer 10

When I took English Lit way back when, we were told that King Arthur was based on an actual Celtic king.