Why Did King Arthur Really Exist?

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.

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.

King Arthur is an outstanding British leader of the 5th and the 6th centuries, son of Uther Pendragon and the Lady Igraine. Arthur is one of the greatest mythical heroes that the world has ever known. Arthur has had a great influence on other people and many of them looked up to him. The coming of Arthur was prophesied years before he was even born. Arthur was born into a world of chaos and disorder, full of love and tragedy. Nowadays, many of the scholars continue to argue whether or not King Arthur was a real person or just a mythological figure. Based on facts however, many believe that Arthur was not a real person; just a legendary British leader in the 5th and 6th centuries. According to history, there wasn't anyone named King Arthur

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

Ideally, a king has an old look, a great amount of power, and naturally rules his domain with an iron fist in literature. In the two works, Le Morte d'Arthur and First Knight see two different versions of how king Arthur is portrayed. Yet the honor and respect that a king should have remains undisturbed, much like how both are products of their time. First Knight is told as a modern retelling of the legend and Le Morte d'Arthur is a minorly altered, much older work. While the depictions of king Arthur are seen as the paramount backbone for arthurian times, these two works have also proven to exhibit differences and similarities, illustrate Arthur’s figure in character, and serve as preservation of the time period.

The film King Arthur overall is a pretty accurate depiction on what actually happened in history. The only turn in events that may not go with the groove of history, is the controversial idea that King Arthur is not a real person. King Arthur is known to be a legend, and a legend is a traditional story that is sometimes popularly regarded as historical, but not proven or validated. There are people out in the world that believe Arthur is a heroic symbol of a group of people. A group of people that conquered the Saxons and that Arthur is just the overall big picture of everything that had happened. Then there are people that believe that Arthur is a real person, and he did everything that is shown to us in the film, and he actually lived the

We are gathered here today, to not only mourn the loss of a fallen king, but celebrate his life and accomplishments. I, Sir Beviderne, am privileged to have served such a great leader and accompany him in many important quests. Arthur was destined for greatness the second he was conceived. With the path of fate set in stone, Arthur paved the way for future leaders. His first major challenge was to pull the sword, Excalibur, from stone which could only be unleashed by the one true king. With this sword, he slayed evil at the advent of trouble. Arthur collected many noble knights to assist him in battle, causing him to gain popularity from his people. He was admired deeply, so deeply that other soldiers, including Lancelot and I, risk our lives

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.

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.

There were other great historical figures who became the heros of medieval legends, such as Alexander the Great and Charlemagne. We know that they existed and if somebody asks whether they did, we can say "yes" directly because we have reliable, historical records of them. But with Arthur, it is rather more difficult because the emphasis really is all on the legend, the romance.

Yet another point to prove himself is his epic, as well as revolutionary, battles as a warrior. As one of the most capable knights in the kingdom, Arthur was always on the front line of major battles or smaller battles of great importance. His ability to quickly decide whether or not to kill his enemy or simply make them give up and restrain them was of his greatest qualities as a leader. This proved that he had morals that he kept and also proved that every decision he had made was for the greater good of his kingdom and the people residing within. His ability to work as a group showed that he was willing to work with others and that he believed in others as well as himself. What he fought for was also important. The little he did fight was only to protect his honor and country as well as the people he loved, proving that he only harmed when he needed to.