King Arthur Research Paper

One thing that is unique about the Arthurian legend is that it has a story to set

Since very few individuals could write, stories of Arthur were mainly told by word of mouth. Oral stories did not get written down until later; Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote down the stories as one of the first written manuscript of Arthurian legend in 1139. Word of mouth was the way in which Arthur's story is passed down through the years, and it is safe to assume that during that time, the story transformed and evolved. Stories are embellished and added to, depending on the audience, in order to make it more exciting. As discussed before in this paper, local tradition had placed Camelot in an area that was proven

There are countless versions of the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. Most English versions are based on Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, but where did these tales originate, and what different interpretations are there today? This essay seeks to examine the roots and different renditions of the various legends circulating today. The first section deals with the origins of the legend. The second section speculates on who the "real" King Arthur could have been. A comparison of several different versions, and suggestions of why they differ are given in the third section, and the conclusion presents an analysis on the ambiguity of the legend.

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.

King Arthur is a legend with a mix of possible and impossible. Obviously wizards and spells are not real. However, we can't prove or disprove that Arthur lived. On the other hand it could be possible. Though one would think a sword that was stuck a stone for a long time would harm the blade. It is half plausible and half not plausible. The Goddodin is a Welsh poem which resoureces say was written about 1600AD. Aruthur is mentioned in this poem. The document 'The Annals of Wales" gives support to the battle between Aruthur and Modred. But there are no records in British history of a King

Therein lies the “cornerstone” for this whole legend. The prophesies of this all knowing man named Merlin continue to be a very important part of giving Arthur his supernatural heir that allows people to look at him as though he is more than just a man throughout Arthur’s whole life. Other things such as magic, ancient (magical) artifacts, and other occult practices being used by those who surround him also play a role in giving Arthur his reputation of being more than a man. A few of these artifacts are extremely well known.

For years there has been a debate over the fact if King Arthur was either a real person or if he was a legendary myth. Many articles, books, and papers have been written about King Arthur. For centuries, no hard evidence has been found to prove the existence of Arthur and the Knights at the Round Table. His existence can not be proven, because back then they did not keep records of who was born and when they died. They did not have the technology that we have today. “No one is certain that King Arthur is dead.”(Malory). Even if King Arthur existed he would not be alive in 2017. If he existed in the late 5th century, and early 6th century there is no possible way he would still be alive. The average human lifespan is only 79 years of age. Then again, back in that time they did not have the medicine that we have today. Most of the citizens were dying from diseases. The point here is that there is no way that King Arthur would be alive, he would be thousands years old.

When directly looking at King Arthur stories, one can see a theme of redemption which makes these legends so enjoyable. The idea that a peasant boy with next to nothing can rise up in status and become a king of an entire nation is what makes this legend so appealing. After Sir Kay failed to pull out the sword Arthur, "put out his right hand softly and drew it out as gently as from a scabbard"

What role did the great King Arthur play in the way English Literature is perceived? Did King Arthur honestly exist? “Whether King Arthur existed or not is doubtful. However if King Arthur did exist, then he would have lived sometime between 400 AD and 600 AD, a time of turmoil in Britain following the Roman withdrawl. And a time when written literature did not exist, therefore events during this period are only known about from folklore passed down several generations before being written down, or from modern archeology giving insights from excavations of sites. If there was ever a true King Arthur in history, he would probably be Romano-British warleader, probably named Artorius, which is a Roman name for Arthur. Though the Roman

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.

In this paper will be discussed the myths behind King Arthur. King Arthur was a British legend and over time the stories became a collection of stories written by different authors.

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.

King Arthur isn’t a strong leader! Everyone believes that King Arthur had a perfect kingdom and that he was a strong and brave leader and could face any danger and come back alive. In King Arthur and His Knights of the Round Table by Roger Lancelyn Green, King Arthur has trouble making crucial decisions in the story and lets his emotions get the best of him during drastic times, during the trial of Guinevere he let Lancelot escape with her even though he knew Lancelot would show up, he let his emotions get the best of him when he heard the rumors of Lancelot and Guinevere being together because he was scared of the truth of them actually being together, he doesn’t listen to the warnings of Merlin when he says that Guinevere would bring the end to his kingdom. King Arthur is a weak Leader!