2007-09-22 14:50:07 · 3 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
The historical Arthur might have been a warlord in Cornwall named Artos, but 800 A.D. is still too late for him. They believed he lived around 300 A. D. and he was more Roman than knight.
The history channel had a program on him. The other characters in the Arthur legend are pure fiction, but it makes a really good tale.
2007-09-22 16:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
King Arthur is so far, a legend, an urban legend if you want. There is no facts so far to prove otherwise. There have been many "digs" around the areas in question but, so far nothing has been found to prove that a "King Arthur"lived around 800 in England. Maybe someday but, for now, isn't it nice to have the mysteries?
2007-09-22 22:58:39 · answer #2 · answered by cowboydoc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are a few movies that entail K Arthur, Gawain, Sir Lancelot, et al. A movie is a commercial venture and even history is shadowed and inclined to be biased by it's biographer. I suggest search engines to entitle your own bias and prejudice to come to fruition in knowledge and ignorance of facts by others
2007-09-22 22:30:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋