King Arthur A Hero

Who was King Arthur? Most people would tell of a great King; a devoted circle of heroic knights; mighty castles and mightier deeds; a time of chivalry and courtly love; of Lancelot and Guinevere; of triumph and death. Historians and archaeologists, especially Leslie Alcock, point to shadowy evidence of a man who is not a king, but a commander of an army, who lived during the late fifth to early sixth century who may perhaps be the basis for Arthur. By looking at the context in which the stories of King Arthur survived, and the evidence pertaining to his castle Camelot and the Battle of Badon Hill, we can begin to see that Arthur is probably not a king as the legend holds.

The events that have been described in the tale of King Arthur are not linked to any authentic historical events. For example, in the myth of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, when they were searching for the Holy Grail, it was described that they found the Grail but, in reality, the Grail was nowhere to be found. It is quite extreme to believe that the King himself and his

The Arthurian legends are well known in today's society. However, very few people know of the "real" Arthur -- who he was and what his accomplishments were. This paper will establish a difference between legend and truth, show evidence to support and explain who the real Arthur was, and shed some light on the sometimes confusing Arthurian legends.

The legend of King Arthur is undoubtedly one of the most famous stories of all time. People from all walks of life know the tales of his courage and loyalty, his knights and the search for the Holy Grail. But, the big question is, was King Arthur a real person? In 540 CE, Gildas, a Welsh Historian, reported that near the turn of the century there was a great warrior named Ambrosius who stopped the Anglo-Saxons from taking over the western part of Britain. Gildas never directly said he was a commander of the army but did imply he was responsible for the victory at the Battle of Badon. He also never mentions if Ambrosius was a king. This was the most solid evidence found that would lead to the conclusion that Arthur was real. There are other

Oral tradition is not to be ignored” (Castledon 33). The last sentence is perhaps the strongest piece of pro-Arthur evidence in existence and it, like the magic of watching the old cartoon hero story on a Saturday morning, will not be forgotten. Based on the likely dates of Arthur’s service as a soldier, Arthur would have been 41 at Badon and 62 at Camlann, credible ages (Castledon 108). There is proof that suggests, “there was a mighty British ruler around the time of the early invasions by land-hungry tribes” (Berthold 2). Dumnonian pedigrees cannot be used to prove or disprove Arthur’s existence because they were often faulty and excluded many important figures (Castledon 108). During the period following Arthur’s supposed death, a vast crop of new princes named Arthur sprung up (Castledon 121). Castledon writes that the number of kings naming their sons after Arthur must have been a “tribute to the great Arthur” who died in 537 at Camlann (121). Many anti-Arthurian authors argue that Arthur’s story is too romanticized to be much good. However, this romance may actually defend pro-Arthurian authors’ points. Geoffrey of Monmouth created Historia “in which he elaborated on the feats of King Arthur whom he represented as the conqueror of

Many have heard the stories of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table or even Camelot, but who really was he? Arthur was said to be born in the United Kingdom around Tintagel.

King Arthur was a tale told long ago, there had always been a mystery if he was a real king or not. There had been beliefs that he may have been a Roman-affiliated military leader who successfully staved off a Saxon invasion during the 5th to 6th centuries. There also were beliefs that the Knights of the Round Table were real knights that had quests to Camelot. Lancelot was the most well-known knight. He had multiple quests that were in the king’s name, and fighting many challengers.

King Arthur, when he wasn’t saving others, was on the quest for the Grail and he was determined to find it and have the powers of the cup. Many believe that he was running in circles and on a quest for nothing but King Arthur knew he would find it. Even though he never did. He was known as the strongest knight in the land and it was known that only the most powerful knight could handle the Holy Grail.

King Arthur is placed into two categories amongst historians. The first is a legend of King Arthur but it’s nothing more than a myth. The second is historical Arthur, which believes that he did exist. Arthur is a prominent figure in history regardless of the debate over his existence. Historians and archeologists have spent a great amount of time trying to prove who Arthur is and many of these researches have different objectives and ideologies to this monumental figure in history. Arthur has supporters but also has critics in the issue of his existence. R.G. Collingwood, Geoffrey Ashe, and Leslie Alcock are all advocates of Arthur, but they have different arguments, methodologies and writing styles for the “historical” Arthur. Collingwood

We have all read the stories about the legendary King Arthur. Even though he supposedly ruled thousands of years ago, there are still many opinions today about his existence. Some people truly believe he was a real person, or based off of a real person, while others say he was just a myth. Let’s take a look at the most recent opinions.

For many centuries now, historians haven't been able to figure out whether King Arthur really existed or not. Many people have said he's just an old wives tales, but recent information is stating that he was real. According to The Independent, "the legendary British figure of the fifth and sixth century did exist but was a general rather than a monarch." Despite Arthur being a monarch was a myth, according to the source he did still fight in a copious amount of battles. Which makes sense given that a general would go into many battles rather than a king. Although theres still more to these new findings, the source that contrary to whats been said before, "he fought all his battles in southern Scotland and Northumberland and lived most of his

The Arthurian Legends were an effect of the Romantic Era and resulted in abstract thinking, as well as the arts including music, painting, poetry, and writing. The birth of the Arthurian Legends came from Celtic mythology and medieval romance, while the existence of magic confirms the conception of artistic intellect. Whether or not King Arthur truly existed, his influence dramatically changed the English society and English Literature to its current form (Arthurian Legends Vol. 1).

Although King Arthur is one of the most well-known figures in the world, his true identity remains a mystery. Attempts to identify the historical Arthur have been unsuccessful, since he is largely a product of fiction. Most historians, though, agree that the real Arthur was probably a battle leader of the Britons against the Anglo-Saxons in the sixthth century. In literature, King Arthur's character is unique and ever changing, taking on a different face in every work. There is never a clearly definitive picture that identifies Arthur's character. It is therefore necessary to look at a few different sources to get better insight into the character of Arthur, the once and future king.

If we say "yes," that would imply that this magnificent medieval monarch existed and reigned, at some time or other, in his glorified medieval court as described as by Malory, Tennyson and the romances. Of course, he didn't. There is no such person as King Arthur, in that sense; it's quite an impossible idea. So we cannot say "yes," directly, but to say "no" is also misleading because that implies that he is completely fictitious, that he was all made up in the middle ages when these stories were first told, and that there is no sort of background or original person behind the stories, at all. That, too, is misleading. This is a puzzle, a very difficult question.

Many know of the epic hero Arthur, but don’t know what it is that makes him so. Though there isn’t one solid story, like Beowulf, there are multiple stories that agree on the same things, such as Arthur’s allegiance to the Knights of the Round table, his companion Merlin, his relationships with his fellow knights, family, and close friends, and the legendary sword Excalibur. When all aforementioned qualities are explained and put together, it can truthfully define Arthur as an epic hero.