Although there is a plethora of heroes in the fictional pantheon, there is one who stands out above all the rest. King Arthur, a legendary character, has permeated literature and culture for centuries ever since his conception for his bravery, leadership, and possible existence. Arthur and his legend revolves around his adventures as King of Britain. He became king when he pulled the magical sword Excalibur out of a stone. He has his wife Guinevere, the wizard Merlin, and his trusted knights aid him in his journeys. Arthur usually has to fight Mordred, and many other enemies. Sometimes the plot of Arthur’s stories involve retrieving an item. An intrinsic element of Arthur’s myth is its roots in history. It is debated whether or not King Arthur …show more content…
More importantly, archaeological digs seem to have the key to Arthur’s alleged existence in history. Two very important discoveries are Tintagel Castle, an excavation there revealed a plaque with the name ‘Artognou’, and South Cadbury Castle, which is believed to be the castle ‘Camelot’. Still, it remains an ongoing quest for archaeologists and historians to find the ‘Holy Grail’ that is the final evidence needed to prove the king existed. Regardless of authentic, definitive evidence being found, the Arthurian legend has not lost popularity, and has been presented in various forms of media, but the interpretation of the story has also been changed. The films King Arthur (Director’s Cut) and First Knight are one such example, as the films offer contrasting, but also similar, views on Chivalry, character portrayals and themes of the Arthurian …show more content…
In First Knight Arthur and his knights seem to value faith, and believe in God. King Arthur is shown on two occasions to be praying in a church, and whenever he prays in front of his knights they also pray. The brave warriors of Camelot proudly wear cross emblems on their armor as well. Different from the chivalrous knights of First Knight, Arthur’s followers in King Arthur do not appear to have faith. The knights always seem to mock bishops for their faith, or make rude remarks about God. Despite the knight’s behavior, Arthur seems to have a little faith. Those are not the only things in which the films differ, as in each film Arthur is given a different background. In First Knight there Arthur’s backstory is not mentioned, but it is evident that he is British and has never been affiliated with any other kingdom or nation. Conversely, Arthur in King Arthur is Roman office and he is not king. This film is more akin to an origin story for Arthur while First Knight is an origin story for Lancelot. The films also differ in character deaths. In First Knight King Arthur dies, but in King Arthur Lancelot dies. There is also a variance on the theme of politics. In the movie King Arthur politics are not necessarily straight forward. There is insinuation of betrayals and conspiracy’s; bad guys
One link between the Legends of Arthur and the Catholic Church was Chivalry (the oaths of a knight). Arthur made all his knights take these oaths, which for the most part had to do with the teachings of the church. They were to remain loyal to the church and always obey its teachings and direction. A knight had a strong belief in Christ and other biblical figures. Some knight were even ordered to do a specific job for the church such as defend the church.
Even though it is argued widely throughout history that King Arthur is non-fictional, it is not true. To deem King Arthur a non-fictional person there should be written records that he was born and that he died. There are people farther back in history that have birth and death records. Just because people want him to be real they will depict anything with a tale of him and make it truth. According to the facts King Arthur was fictional. He was said to have fought very many battles; however, he could not have been attended all of the battles. (Wood). If King Arthur was apart of these wars as the legend suggests, he would be of the supernatural. Some of these battles were not written down in history, if the incident was not documented they must not have been factual. There are documents that show historical figures farther back in history, so why do we not have proof of King Arthur’s life or death? They are not there because he was not real. If Arthur was real he would have been buried in the ground, but he is not. In every story told of King Arthu...
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.
Sir Gawain is the nephew of the most famous King Arthur. Gawain being in line of the throne knew he must show his bravery and man up in front of his fellow knights. The Green Knight stormed into the king’s courts riding on a mystical horse. He taunted the men asking for the bravest knight in the kingdom to stand up and take his outrageous challenge. As the men sat quietly not knowing what to do, Sir Gawain decides t...
The Court of King Arthur in the Tales of Lanval and Sir Gawain the Green Knight
Malory, Thomas, and Keith Baines.Malory's Le morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the legends of the Round Table. 1962. Reprint, New York: New American Library, 2010.
"King Arthur in Legend: The Holy Grail." Britannia: British History and Travel. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Mar. 2011. .
This retelling of the Arthurian Legend is was designed for a younger audience. It is therefore not as heavily focused on the violent nature of the legend. It instead makes it more of a fairytale. It depicts Arthur as a king a kid would think of, not the one he truly was. The book does not focus on the time frame of the story and only shows the kid friendly part of the legend leaving out some of the important details that make the legend what it is like the battles and scandals. To downplay the violence the author makes it appear the knights do not know who they are fighting and make it seem intense for the younger audience. The legend is made simpler for the reader so it can be easily followed, but by doing so they again leave out some important events.
King Arthur was a very well known person and the story of his life has been told in many different ways. Two different versions of King Arthur's life were "The Passing of Arthur" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson and "The "Death of Arthur"" by Sir Thomas Malory. The two stories shared many similarities, but had no shortage of differences even though they were both about the same person.
The three heroes discussed here, Beowulf, Sir Gawain and King Arthur, are heroes for different reasons. Beowulf, our earliest hero, is brave but his motivation is different than then other two. To Sir Gawain personal honor and valor is what is important. King Arthur, Sir Gawain's uncle, is naturally the quintessential king of the medieval period. Though all men to a certain extent share the same qualities, some are more pronounced than in the others. It is important to see how these qualities are central to their respective stories and how it helps (or hinders) them in their journeys.
Stories of kings and queens have captivated readers for centuries, and arguably, the tales of King Arthur and Guinevere are among the most enchanting. Arthur ruled the kingdom of Camelot, and Guinevere was his queen. But were they real people or fictional characters? The debate has continued for centuries. Though many scholars have found evidence that the legendary Arthur was, at the very least, based on a real person who lived in Britain roughly between 450 and 1[Marker for question 1] 500 CE. They continue to search for the historical identity of Guinevere.
Ardrey, Adam. Finding Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend of the Once and Future King.
The Quest of the Holy Grail is an exciting tale that follows the adventures of King Arthur's knights as they scour the countryside for the legendary Holy Grail. Throughout their journeys, the knights engage in many exciting jousts and sword fights with a variety of enemies. The author of The Quest of the Holy Grail intends for the story to be more than just entertainment: the knights' search for the Holy Grail is analogous to the pursuit of morality and spiritual chivalry, showing success through asceticism, confession, chastity, and faith.
Two of the best things in the world, “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” and “Harry Potter,” have a good deal in common. Other than the vast amount of space reserved in my brain for storing quotes and random facts from these two stories, both tales share many similar objects, plot devices, character attributes, and themes. Even though Python's “Holy Grail” is an exact historical representation of the Arthurian Grail legend, some might argue that the “Harry Potter” story is more reflective of the actual ancient texts than the 1974 film.
Although these writings can be interesting literature, they lack the factual evidence and they are obscure in details. It is not even possible to say that a real King Arthur even existed, for the records of his existence go back to the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries AD, when the Welsh and English kingdoms which were to replace Roman government were only beginning (Green 1). Most of the stories involving King Arthur are primarily fiction; however, there remains the possibility that a character called Arthur may have actually existed. It would have been during the time when the islands of Britain were being threatened with invasion by the Saxons, following the collapse of the Roman Empire and the withdrawal of Roman Legions from Britain. Authors often embellish the tales of King Arthur to fit their own purposes.