Who was King Arthur and did he really exist?

Question

So if he did exist but not as the legends protrayed him, what of Lancelot, Knights of the Round Table, Camelot, etc., and all the other elements of Arthurian legend? None true?

Answer 1

Ask Robin Hood (myth), a real one Saladin! ( Islamic History)....

Answer 2

yes he did

Answer 3

No one knows whether Arthur really existed.

And there is a lot of nonsensical false-pseudo-scholarship clouding the issue.

Arthur was a Silurian as one answerer here claims? There is no source for that in any authentic text.

Morgan le Fay was invented by Malory as another claims? Another falsehood. Morgain le Fay first appeared in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Merlin, dated to 1150, and appears or is mentioned in numerous Arthurian romances: from Chrétien’s Yvain up to the prose Lancelot cycle, the Prose Tristan, the post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle and the Perceforest, all written long before Malory was born. She was likely known about long before she appeared in written works.

Arthur is a magnet for crackpots, and theory after contradictory theory appears to fill the vacuum of almost no information until Arthur suddenly became a major hero of French written literature in the 12th century. Almost none of these theories agree with one another, mostly inventions from theorists about what could have happened.

But there are thousands upon thousands of things that could have happened. Such theories are  easily created.

The uncritical or very credulous read comes across one of these accounts and uncritically believes the account. Perhaps the reader is ready to believe anything that strikes the reader as possibly true.

Pseudo-scholars sometimes claim that Arthur was really someone else, perhaps Adam or Thor, or Arcturus, or the British chieftain Caratacus, or Lucius Artorius Castus, or Riothamus, or Caradoc (who appears on legend as Arthur’s contemporary, or a Scottish chieftain named Arthur, or Owain Dantgwyn, or Athrwys the King of Glywysing and Gwent.

But he can­­­­­­­­­’t be all of these or even a few of these can’t be true, without Arthur being at least partly  non-person.

Or they admit that Arthur was a separate charater and invent what he might have been by selecting material they believe might have some truth in it from later legend mixed with their own inventions. Again they don’t agree with one another, because they are making it up. Almost everyone has his or her own interpretation of where Arthur’s twelve battles were really fought, or whether some of them or all of them were really even Arthur’s battles.

For early texts concerning Arthur or his period see the sources provided below. These texts are almost all we know, and we don’t know to what extent they are historically accurate. The first of these is from Gildas a writer who lived in the traditional Arthurian period, but does not mention Arthur (but then he mentions very few names.)

In the other sources, search for the first mention of Arthur and start reading. You can also check out the writings in Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for some of the non-Arthurian material in some of these sources.

I myself suspect an Arthur did exist in the late 5th / early 6th century in Britain who was the real person at the core of the legendary Arthur. But I am well aware that this cannot be proved. And I would not be horribly surprised if eventually it was disproved.

Answer 4

It's believed that the legend started with a Roman governor named Arcturus around the time of Hadrian, possibly earlier.

Answer 5

He may have existed as a chieftain or war lord, but almost certainly not as the legends portray him.

Answer 6

Although there is no direct evidence that King Arthur existed at any time in history, few stories in folklore have no truth to them. The best bet is that any actual record of King Arthur was wiped out in the early days by Sveyn Forkbeard's lot, because Arthur is said to have existed far before then. Arthur would also have been a king of western England (not quite to Wales), and this would have put his kingdom firmly in the area of Stonehenge.

Camelot itself would have been a large kingdom, and might have spanned from the Midlands area to the southern coast, and from Wales nearly to Kent at its largest.

However, there's no actual evidence to support anything in the Arthur stories. And the whole thing with Morgan LaFay, that was all invented in the 14th century by the man who wrote "Morte d'Arthur". This was also a likely source for Maid Miriam in the Robin Hood legends (which I'm sure is another question altogether).

This isn't to say he didn't exist, but rather that no evidence remains, and so it can't be known whether or not he existed.

Answer 7

A King, and yes!

Answer 8

he look a like a man!!!!

Answer 9

Here are the facts about the historical Arthur. With manuscript citations and the original Latin text included.

The historical Arthur was a Christian Breton (Welsh, Sillurian) and died in 538 AD.

His existence is documented by two entries in ancient Latin Easter Annals (Harley 3859, folio 190a and 190b) which say:

518 AD: "Bellum badonis in quo arthur portavit crucem domini nostri jesu christi tribus et tribus noctibus in humeros suos et brittones victores fuerunt."

"The Battle of Badon in which Arthur bore the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ on his shoulder for three days and three nights and the Bretons were the victors."

Note that bearing the Cross on his shoulder is likely a reference to a leather shoulder guard.

539 AD: "Gueith camlann in qua Arthur et medraut corruerunt."

"A Strife(?) at Camlan, in which Arthur and Medraut (Mordred?) died."

In Harley 3859, folio 187a there is a quote from a different source that details Arthur’s 12 battles ending with Badon (as mentioned in the Easter Annals )

The text (which is from a Latin source with some information in welsh) describes Arthur’s military ranking:

"Tunc Arthur pugnabat contra illos in illis diebus con regibus brittonum sed ipsi dux erat bellorum."

"Then Arthur fought against them the [Saxons], in those days, together with the kings (regibus) of the Bretons. But he was himself Duke of Battles (dux erat bellorum)."

Note that Arthur was not one of the Breton Kings.

Then the manuscript lists his 12 battles (note that 4 battles were at Dubglas in Linnuis)

Glein. Dubglas in Linnuis (x4). Bassas. Caledonian Forest (Scotland?). Fort Gunnion. Caer Leon (Wales). Tribruit. Mount Agned. Badon.

A late 6th century porm called Y Gododdin describes a war hero and states "But he was no Arthur."

Also at the end of the 6th century, right around 600, several royal famility named sons Arthur, whereas before Badon, the name Arthur is unknown.

That is about all the documentary evidence of an historical Arthur.

There is a highly suspicious exhumation of Arthur at Glastonbury in 1191, adds interesting information. One is that a wife Guinevere (Welsh for White Shadow) is mentioned.

The Mythology of Arthur explodes in the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth (c.1100–1155), and Gerald of Wales (c.1146–1223), more than 600 years after his death. Afterward, French Writers who added even more fanciful detail.