WAS kING arthur real?

Question

for THAT mATTER WAS robin OF sHERWOOD rEAL??

Answer 1

Arthur and Robin Hood are legendary characters. The subject of legend.

Were there real characters behind them?

We don't know, because we have no historical documents from their supposed eras that mention them and later documents that mention them contain obviously legendary material, that is material earlier applied to other characters or obviously invention. Accordingly the reader should assume that material that is not obvious invention or obvious taken from other stories is also likely to not be historically true.

How can you prove anything when you have no evidence either way?

It is likely enough that there was a 12th century highwayman named Robin Hood. But it is also likely enough that some story teller put together a good yarn about an outlaw that he named Robin Hood, that it was popular and audiences asked for more of the same. In late plays the yeoman of the 14th century ballads is turned into a nobleman, the Earl of Huntingdon, an good example of how legendary characters can change as their tradition develops.

It is likely enough that there was a 5th/6th century warrior named Arthur. But it is also likely enough that someone invented a warrior chieftain named Arthur in a story, and again, that the yarn was good enough that he and others used the character in other stories.

Lord Bearclaw provides an answer that attempts to show what Arthur might have been like, if there was an historical original for Arthur. But that skips over the question of whether there was an historical original. Then comes supposition. Merlin was a title, not a name. Yes, that is possible, but there is no evidence of it. His Arthur was a supporter of the pagan religion. That is possible of course, but again there is no evidence of it in surviving texts. What this does reveal is that Lord Bearclaw is sympathetic to pagans. Such hypotheses often reveal more about the hypothesizer than what is being hypothesized about.

One can find book after book that claims to deal with the historic Arthur but in fact contain mostly suppositions by the authors. Arthur is a crank-magnet. There are thousands of tales that might fit the historical Arthur, but no proof that any of them are true. Nine-nine people know that such theories prove nothing, and so don't publish their own theories. The 100th person is less self-critical, and so publishes hypotheses, which still remain hypotheses, unproven.

“Merlin” is a title? That is possible of course, but there is no evidence of this. It is unsupported supposition. Arthur was a supporter of pagans. That is possible of course, but there is no evidence in any of the surviving legends (and that wouldn’t prove anything anyway). When any author uses the word “doubtless”, look very closely at what is being claimed. In this case, all that is indicated, is that Lord Bearclaw is sympathetic to pagans and so creates his Arthur in that image. The reference to “calibur” is probably intended to remind the reader that Arthur’s sword was named Excalibur. But that is a late version of the name. In the earliest surviving Latin and French tales it is named Caliburn. In Welsh texts it is named Caledfwlch, which is etymologically identical with the name Caladbolg, the name of a sword or of two swords owned by two Irish kings named Fergus.

What can we do with this historically? Maybe the historical Arthur named his sword after Fergus’ sword. Maybe it was a common sword name at the time. Maybe Arthur didn’t have such a sword. Make it up as you wish. Better still, admit you don't know.

I am inclined to believe that both the legendary Arthur and the legendary Robin Hood were based on historical figures, but would not be inordinately surprised if new discoveries were to indicate this almost certainly wasn’t true. And I also realize that while you can create good novels from supposition, you can’t created history from supposition.

Generally speaking we usually don’t also have a real history for legendary characters. True history tends to drive out legends. But Dietrich von Berne, the King Arthur of the Germans, is an exception, a legendary character derived from Theodoric the Goth. You can find a good discussion of this character at http://home.ix.netcom.com/~kyamazak/myth... . But if all our information about the original Theodoric were wiped out, we would never be able to reconstruct the original Theodoric. How would you get an Ostrogoth who conquered all Italy from later talers about an hereditary, petty King of Verona, who was a killer of giants, who was exiled by his evil uncle Ernanaric, who lived with Attila the Hun for a time, and then returned to this kingdom, and reigned.

You can use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood as a basic beginning to study these characters.  But don’t accept everything said in these articles either.

Question everything.

Answer 2

King Arthur was not real. It is an excellent book by

Lord Alfred  Tennyson ( You can find sources in WIkipedia

http://www.britannia.com/history/h12.ht



Lord Tennyson wrote many wonder books about medieval Engaland the the adventures pf the Knights

King Arthus and the Kights. and Queen Gunevere

Many of us only know of Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere, but there were many other characters that were cornerstones to the legends and stories surrounding Camelot, the Round Table, and the Holy Grail.What was the significance of the Lady of the Lake, King Mark, Merlin, Sir Mordred, and Morgan Le Fay? Take a few moments and browse through the site. We offer something for all interests.

It is an excellent book . He worte many books about knights and ladies and life in the Holy Grail by Alfred Lord Tennyson [Paperback] | Target Official Site

Shop for Holy Grail by Alfred Lord Tennyson at Target. Choose from a wide range of Books. Expect More, Pay Less at Target.com

www.target.com/Holy-Grail-Alfred-Lord-...

Arturius. A Quest for Camelot

http://www.legendofkingarthur.com/

Good King Arthur was a lengendary King was would be a Great Ruler Today.. Intereting Facts

http://www.timelessmyths.com/arthurian/a...

Robin Hood ( Mythical Legent  Figurure of Sherwood Fores

Robin with his merry band of men robbed fromt the rich and tgave to the Poor ( Robin loved Maid Marion and His Soul COnfessso was  Tuck who helped him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood

ROBIN HOOD.

http://www.robinhood-game.com/

Robin Hood

http://www.benturner.com/robinhood/

Robin Hood

http://www.benturner.com/robinhood/

http://www.boldoutlaw.com/

Answer 3

Arthur is based on a real person. Robin Hood was a myth created by a group to promote themselves.

Answer 4

Not sure about Arthur, but Historians have debated over the existance of Robin Hood for a long time. He appeared many times over the centuries. Personally I think he was real, but started as a story and then when things got tough and taxes too high, someone would take on his mantle and act as Robin hood. So yes I think he was real but I also think there were many of them over the centuries

Answer 5

During the Sixth Century AD there was a period of peace lasting roughly thirty years in which southern Brittania was kept free from invasion and the native tribes were united. This could only have been brought about by a single, strong, leader, regardless of his name. He would have been a Romanized Celtic leader, ruling from southwestern England during the sixth century A.D (the usually accepted date is around 510 - 520) after the removal of Rome's legions. The SW position would have been important because it would have made use of Wales to defend his rear, Hadrian's Wall manned by loyal lords to defend his left (north) flank, and the Atlantic coast to defend his right (south) flank. Mainland invaders would have normally crossed the English Channel (as William the Conqueror did centuries later) and beached on the eastern shore. Using horse calvary and relay signal fires Arthur could have raced up and down the old Roman roads at speed, swiftly engaging any invaders on or near the shore, driving them back into the sea, and burning their ships. He would have been armed with Roman weapons, such as the gladius and spatha, and his weapons would have made use of the innovation of Damascus pattern welding using a springy iron core with a harder steel edge tack welded to it. Such weapons bend instead of breaking, are springy enough to flex and return to true, and hold excellent edges, being of "excellent caliber" indeed. They would be vastly superior to the bearded axes, scramasaxs, and single -heat forged weapons so prevalent among poorer tribes. His armor would have been Roman lorica segmentata, made of springy iron hoops circling the torso over a chainmail hauberk, but being a calvary soldier he would probably have used an oval center boss shield instead of the classic Roman scutum, which is an infantryman's shield.

His fortress would have been a wooden breastwork affair, probably built on a hill that had been terraced with several concentric palisades going up the hill with the buildings on the top. Each successive palisade gate would have been on the other side of each circle, causing any invader to have to walk around the hill several times in order to progress up thru the walls, and all the while taking fire from over the next wall up and meeting heavy resistance. He would doubtless have had support from the practitioners of the Old Religion of Druidism, who would have backed the strongest candidate in order to keep southern Britain united and free (and themselves in place as the power behind the throne - i.e. the Merlin, a title not a name.) They would have kept a man in Arthur's court at all times to advise him and further their own interests, and this position was probably filled by many men over the years. Regardless, a period of peace did occur in the mid sixth century, lasting around thirty years which started with Mons Badonicus, the battle of Badon hill, and seems to have ended with a beach battle at a place called Camlann. Camlann is generally agreed to be on the southwestern shore, a landing site deliberately chosen to try to skirt Arthur's southern flank. The two forces wiped each other out, and various places have been claimed as Arthur's tomb over the years, but as the land has changed so much in the fourteen centuries it is difficult to even begin an informed search. In all realistic likelihood the bodies were buried in mass graves by the local peasants who would have stripped the bodies for items of value and which have been covered with centuries of sediment and will never be found.

Robin Hood, on the other hand, first showed up in the written work, Piers Ploughman, but was probably an amalgamation of earlier legends based on actual bandits living in Sherwood. Again the earlier tales were romanticized, turning an obvious wolf's head into a likeable, dashing hero that the common folk could identify with and look up to. In contrast with Arthur, there is absolutely no evidence of any Crusader-era noble taking up such a life in Sherwood while still being loyal to King Richard.

Edit: In reponse to Jallan, Yes I am a Pagan. Good guess. And that is significant how again? If you want "Best Answer" so bad as to try to use my religion against me, I pity you. There are documents BTW, Nennius for example, that provide evidence of a thirty year or so peace in southern Brittania during that time. And regardless of any other hypothesis, such a peace could only have been brought about by a single, strong leader with the military might to back him up. And the surviving Old Religion WOULD have backed him, in order to provide the "legitimacy" of religious destiny to his claim and thus ensure his ascendancy. And any such group would have been naive fools if they DIDN'T place a man in his court - and that position would have likely been filled by many over the years, giving rise to the legend about "Merlin" never aging. Arthur's sword WOULD have been a pattern-welded spatha - again that is logical supposition based on facts - what would you have him swinging, a katana? I never claimed to know what that sword was named, if named at all, and my play on words was pointed out by my use of quotes. All I am supposing is that his weaponry was far superior to anything the northern barbaric tribes or supply-starved invaders had at the time. This is called "logical supposition" - without the benefit of a time machine no one can ever truly know the truth, but I am making an EDUCATED GUESS. You seem to be here only to cast doubt on every other opinion, while truly having none of your own _ all your "answer" is is a big "Question everything".

Answer 6

I think he was, just parts of his tale were exaggerated.  Maybe Avalon represented an underground city or something and excalibur represented the might of King Arthur?idk.

Answer 7

i refuse to provide any information on this as you can not type like an adult.