King Arthur

[danrak]

Do you think he existed in real life? Some people think he may have existed and some early text refered to him as dux bellorum (war leader) or ameraudur (emperor), but never given the title of King.

Could the basis of the stories be about a real person who has been lost to history?

[DJDizzy1]

I think it's complety plausible. There is so much about history we don't know and a lot of what we claim to know gets proven wrong after a little time has passed. I think looking at the way hes been written about he had to be extremly popular and well liked, which is why they choose to immortalize him in writing.

[jak80]

I do think that King Arthur did exist. I think that he may not have done exerything that the tale of him discribes but I do think that he is a real person. I have seen some shows about evidence regarding his and Guenivere's remains having been located and I do think that those are probably their remains.

[doodlebug]

I think the tales were based on a real person, or perhaps a compilation of a number of people, but the stories themselves are definately fiction. That's part of the magic of them. It leaves us guessing where reality ends and fantasy takes over.

[vicki2]

Here's an interesting link on Arthur

http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/arthur.htm

It's a fun site to read through and gives some pretty good proof that it was all based on a real person.

[Melos]

I'm with doodlebug on this one. I have read numerous things that have put King Arthur as a compilation of several different people in history.

[LilOne1989]

I think there might have been a King Arthur at one time but I also think that just like Robin Hood his life may have been greatly exagerated (did I spell that right?). Guess that means I believe in Robin Hood too huh, too bad we don't have one of them around now :) .

[Plumley]

I think Doodlebug nailed it. It makes sense to me that there was someone, or several someones, whose real life activities contributed to the mythology. I would love to think that there once was a kingdom where magic played a very big part, along with honor, courage and integrity. It would be interesting if those values were important in government today.

[doodlebug]

Now there's an interesting thought, Plumley. It makes me wonder what kind of stories would be written about our government today and what people would think of them in a couple hundred years.

[Starlily]

"I would love to think that there once was a kingdom where magic played a very big part, along with honor, courage and integrity. It would be interesting if those values were important in government today."

Good point Plumley!!!


I love the legend of Arthur, and have read quite a few variations of the story...Jack Whyte and Zimmer Bradley come to mind immediately... I also believe the stories were based on a real leader, or compilation of leaders... and jazzed up a bit :cool:

[htmlmaster]

Well, "he" definitely existed. The thing is, his story was murdered and turned into legend, so it was super-exaggerated. Also, historians think that if he did exist, his name probably wasn't even Arthur.

[fiannawolf]

I'm sure a romano-breton, or even welsh war lord similar to authur existed. though I'm sure most of the other stuff added into his legend was taken from older sources.

[Laurel Tavington]

I have book called Pendragon, it is written by two historians who are trying to uncover the origins of the Arthurian Legends. They claim that Arthur was nothing more than a warlord from early Common Era Britannia; the aria is now Whales and Cornwall. They are not sure of the century but the know the first story written about Arthur is from the twelfth century, the author was Jeffory of Mammoth.

[AcadianSidhe]

I think he was real in the sense that most myths and legends start with a kernel of truth. I think the real story, however, would be very different from how we (or Jerry Bruckheimer) would imagine it.

[Laurel Tavington]

Yes most stories of myths and legends do have some truth in them. It is just a shame that the story of Arthur has been changed so much over time just so kings could claim a divine right to the throne of England. The same reason that we all grow up hearing gone of the variations of the legend.

[Swordmaster]

King Arthur, the legendary King of Camelot. Son of Uther Pendragon, promised to the 'magician' Merlin as the price of Uther's lustful nature towards Igraine, a lady of another high standing King/Lord. This child was raised partly under Merlin's wing and his adoptive family (who's names escape me at the moment). Then, one day, due to a series of 'fateful events' he brandishes the sword in the stone. The sword which was placed there by Uther and protected my Merlin's 'magic' which held it there firmly until Uther's true heir rose to the challenge.

This sword was proof of Arthur's kingship, though is mistaken with the godly sword of justice, Excalibur. Upon his succession and the completion of Camelot (with the help of the neighboring lords, marquess, dukes, duchesses and other such), he was given the hand of the princess he desire, the famed princess Guinevere. At their marriage, her father awarded Arthur with 'The Round Table'. This sense of equality was the base of Arthur's Kingdom.

Later on, he received the sword of heroes, Excalibur; supposedly it was able to cut using blades of air, not to mention it was 'unbreakable'. Also, the sheathe it was housed in provided near invincibility to the wearer. Truthfully, this would have been a true godliness among common people like us, sadly, these are mere legends, or so we say. Though, at some point during Arthur's tale, the sword was broken and require repair by means of which it was made, by The Lady of the Lake.

Going on in his years, he grew old like anyone else, and was soon challenged by his son and half-sister. For the record, his 'son', Modred, was also his half-sister's child, bluntly it was incest. In the end Arthur was mortally wounded while he slew his son with Excalibur in hand, but sheathe nowhere to be seen. Both his body and sword were sent with The Lady of the Lake the a mythical paradise which was said to be truly blissful.

Supposedly, he would return someday.


That was a brief summary of Arthur's tale.

The parts that I believe were exagerated are:

- Excalibur
- Merlin's magic
- Arthur's idealism
- Morgan's (Arthur's half sister and one-time lover) magic
- events and people like "The Lady of the Lake"

In any case, I'll end it at that.