King Arthur Research Paper

The Once and Future King, or King Arthur, is a legend that is, despite its age, known by all. Everyone has heard of King Arthur and his loyal knights that make up the Round Table, but the rest of the famous legend is less known. If asked about Arthur’s parentage or birthplace, most people would not know. How many people can name off Arthur’s knights? Everyone knows Arthur’s name, but the details are less defined. Arthurian legend has many parts, the first being how Arthur came into being, then the most well-known part of the legend, but there is also his famous knights, the possibility of a historical Arthur, and how the legend has evolved over the ages.

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.

King Arthur is remembered as a strong warrior with a gentle spirit. He is known to be loyal, as seen when he goes off against the odds to avenge his young knight, or when he forgives SIr Lancelot and Guinevere after their affair. He often

He was also the first to use the name "Camelot" for Arthur's headquarters, and it was he who first told us of the Grail, though he didn't associate any religious meaning to it (It was Robert de Boron who is responsible for transforming the grail into a holy symbol, in 1210). He was "the first to supply the literary form of the romance, to the transmission of the stories of Arthur." (Britannia web page)

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.

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.

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

King Arthur and the Church King Arthur could be known as a hero or a dashing prince in armor but no one ever thinks of him as a Savior. In many literature pieces there are multiple biblical allegories showing that King Arthur was the Savior of the Medieval Times referencing to Christ was the Savior for the Earth. There are also relationships between King Arthur’s literature and Christ’s story involving the Holy Grail even though the “powers” of the cup are different in these pieces. King Arthur’s literature has many metaphors relating to Christianity including the Savior element and the Holy Grail, which center around how people viewed Christianity in the Middle Ages and how Christ affected many people’s lives. Furthermore, King Arthur

The story of king arthur is spread widely throughout pop culture and though he lives on in the minds of many he like many others is

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

There are those who believe that King Arthur was just a part of Celtic Mythology. These historians and literary professionals rely on the hundreds of stories he has appeared in. For example, the first life story of King Arthur was written by Geoffrey of Monmouth. His story include

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.

The legend of the Knights of the Round Table is one of the utmost sources explaining Arthur’s heroic qualities. The Knights of the Round table was an organization that served the king directly but as equals, not soldiers. It was made up of the most strong