When was King Arthur's reign?

Question

DOB? DOD?

Web sites, please.

Answer 1

King Arthur could be based on a Roman-British leader, or series of leaders, who fought against invading Anglo-Saxons in the fifth or 6th-century, or he may merely be a half-forgotten Celtic god that devolved into a person as the sea god Lir turned into King Lear.

A University of Idaho web site suggests that Riothamus, King of the Britons, is the most likely model for King Arthur.  However, part of the problem with determining if any basis for King Arthur existed is the lack of conclusive archaeological evidence for that time period (CE 367 to 734) .

Answer 2

Sorry, King Arthur was a mythical character and Camelot was a mythical kingdom.

Answer 3

Never.

Answer 4

Very very very early in the A.D. era. I can't be positive on DOB and DOD, but start at wikipedia or just google it.

Answer 5

The historicity of the King Arthur legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought, based on references in the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, would see Arthur as a shadowy historical figure, a Romano-British leader fighting against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century. The Historia Brittonum ("History of the Britons"), a 9th century Latin historical compilation attributed to the Welsh cleric Nennius, gives a list of twelve battles fought by Arthur, culminating in the Battle of Mons Badonicus, where he is said to have single-handedly killed 960 men. The 10th century Annales Cambriae ("Welsh Annals"), dates this battle to 516, and also mentions the Battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut were both killed, dated to 537. Neither text refers to Arthur as a king, although this may not be significant as they often name kings without mentioning their title. The Historia Brittonum calls him dux bellorum or "dux (commander) of battles". The late historian John Morris went so far as to make the putative reign of Arthur at the turn of the 5th century the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur. Even so, he found little to say of an historic Arthur, save as an example of the idea of kingship, one among such contemporaries as Vortigern, Cunedda, Hengest and Coel. Morris argues that Arthur's power base would have been in the Celtic areas of Wales, Cornwall and the West Country, or the Brythonic "Old North" which covered modern Northern England and Southern Scotland.

Another school of thought argues that Arthur had no historical existence. Nowell Myres was prompted by the publication of Morris's Age of Arthur to write "no figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time".Gildas' 6th century polemic De Excidio Britanniae ("On the Ruin of Britain"), written within living memory of the Battle of Mons Badonicus, mentions that battle but does not mention Arthur. Some argue that he was originally a half-forgotten Celtic deity that devolved into a personage, citing parallels with the supposed change of the sea-god Lir into King Lear, the Kentish totemic horse-gods Hengest and Horsa, who were historicised by the time of Bede's account and given an important role in the 5th century Anglo-Saxon conquest of eastern Britain, the founder-figure of Caer-fyrddin, Merlin (Welsh Myrddin), or the Norse demigod Sigurd or Siegfried, who was historicised in the Nibelungenlied by associating him with a famous historical 5th century battle between Huns and the Burgundians.Some cite a possible etymology of Arthur's name from Welsh arth, "bear", and propose the Gaulish bear god Artio as a precedent for the legend, although worship of Artio is not attested in Britain.[citation needed]

Historical documents for the period are scarce, so a definitive answer to this question is unlikely. Sites and places have been identified as "Arthurian" since the 12th century,[8] but archaeology can reveal names only through inscriptions. The so-called "Arthur stone" discovered in 1998 in securely dated 6th century contexts among the ruins at Tintagel Castle in Cornwall, a secular, high status settlement of Sub-Roman Britain, created a brief stir. There is no other archaeological evidence for Arthur.

A number of identifiable historical figures have been suggested as the historical basis for Arthur, ranging from Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman officer who served in Britain in the 2nd century; Roman usurper emperors like Magnus Maximus; and sub-Roman British rulers like Riothamus, Ambrosius Aurelianus,Owain Ddantgwynand Athrwys ap Meurig.

:)

Answer 6

If he ever existed -- some time between the Romans leaving Britain ( c 450 AD) and the Viking invasions (c 800 AD). There are no reliable written records from that period.

Answer 7

It's folklore, there was no King Arthur, Sword in the stone or round table.