King Arthur and his knights of the round table?

Question

Iv always been facinated by the tales of King Arthur from a very young age. People say that he may not have existed..i belive he did...do you? and was there a Merlin?

Answer 1

I think he existed, but not as like a king, but rather as a military leader. If you look up in history of England, u'll find references to Merlin, and his supposed 'avalon'.
There are so many signs that Arthur existed, but its still very controversial. Some of it is obviously myth though.

Answer 2

King Arthur did not exist as portrayed in the myths -
in shining armour with knights similarly dressed. That was an invention of the early middle ages who took an existing myth and, as it were, dressed it up to reflect their own times. There was no sword in the stone. What there probably was, although the evidence is very, very slight mentioned in passing in writings by the monks Gildas and Nennius, repeated by Bede in his Chronicles, was a warlord who fought against invaders in protection of the remaining Roman-British population after the departure of the legions. There is talk in these chronicles of a decisive Battle of Badon (Hill) where Arthur may have been killed, but the site of this battle has never been satisfactorily located. There was no Camelot in the sense of a large castle - they didn't come until the Norman Conquest in 1066. Avalon may have been the Isles of Scilly. Merlin? Not as a wizard, they are mere fiction. Possibly, however, as a folk memory of a wise man or shaman or priest who advised the mythical Arthur.

Answer 3

I’ve always loved that legend.
Most cultures have their myths and legends. The Greeks have their Achilles and Troy, the Romans their Hercules and whatever, and the English have their King Arthur. I believe that King Arthur and his knights did exist, but without magic. I believe that the Quest for the Holy Grail must have existed, for it still carries on today. Merlin was most likely Arthur’s Wiseman, Soothsayer, Seer, or Advisor or something.
Avalon may have been a made-up part of it, like movies based on true stories add in romance and drama to captivate the audience.

Answer 4

'Reviewing a new edition of Malory's 'Morte d'Arthur' some years ago Robert Graves very pertinently remarked that:

"...in this book Arthur is described as King of the Britons, leader of a group of knights fighting in fifteenth century armour and sworn to the eleventh century Provencal code of chivalry. Arthur's chief strongholds are Camelot [which Malory - and apparently Graves - took to be Winchester] and Carleon-upon- Usk."

Nothing can be more obvious than that this Arthur at least is not historical. In her book 'The Realms of Arthur' Helen Hill Miller expands the point:

"The realms of Arthur are many, and they differ from time to time and place to place. Merlin, the skillful shape-changer, never contrived a more striking transformation than that of Arthur, rough and ready military commander in Celtic Britain, into king of a medieval court in Never-Never land, known throughout all Christendom as the model of knightly courtesy. It is indeed strange that a fifth century British warrior, leader of semi-civilised Britons against semi- civilised Saxons, emerged as such a king..."

The truth is this: Arthur had long been converted into a counter Christ, with the twelve knights of the Round Table to suggest the twelve Apostles, and with a Second Coming.'

Arthur is almost certainly mythological. Almost all of the canon of tales surrounding him are inventions of French mediaeval poets.

Only one solitary entry in the Welsh Easter Annals comes anywhere close to resembling a historical fact, and even this is suspect:

'anno XCIII, gwieth camlann, in qua artur et medroit moruerunt.

'Year 93, the battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medroit were laid low.'

(Easter Annals were dated from events in the Church calendar, and are not given as years AD. This would be a date in the sixth century, in a manuscript dating from the tenth century.)

As the late Terence Tiller put it: "the Road to Camelot lies through the field of Camlann, and that is in the wilderness, ten leagues beyond the Wide World's End. He who would find it must mount on Tom o'Bedlam's horse of Air."

Answer 5

Read 'Sword at Sunset' by Rosemary Sutcliff. It is arguably the best book describing what and who Arthur was, or may have been. Yes he probably did exist, but not as Hollywood portray him. As to Merlin - probably a Druid.

Answer 6

I believe that he did exist as a sixth century Briton Warlord. There may have been a Merlin, but evidence for him is more scetchy.

Answer 7

Most tales and legends have some basis in fact. It is my opinion that if you think Arthur lived and is in the crystal cave, that is simply fine by me, so he lived.