King Arthur

Arthur was born into a world of chaos and disorder, full of love and tragedy. Nowadays, many of the scholars continue to argue whether or not King Arthur was a real person or just a mythological figure. Based on facts however, many believe that Arthur was not a real person; just a legendary British leader in the 5th and 6th centuries. According to history, there wasn't anyone named King Arthur in the late 5th and the early 6th centuries of Britain. As well the actions of King Arthur don’t correspond with the typical actions of a king at the time.

King Arthur Character Analysis Although King Arthur is one of the most well-known figures in the world, his true identity remains a mystery. Attempts to identify the historical Arthur have been unsuccessful, since he is largely a product of fiction. Most historians, though, agree that the real Arthur was probably a battle leader of the Britons against the Anglo-Saxons in the sixthth century. In literature, King Arthur's character is unique and ever changing, taking on a different face in every work. There is never a clearly definitive picture that identifies Arthur's character.

King Arthur in Literature and History King Arthur is the greatest of British literary heroes, although little is known about the real person. Little real historical information is left, only texts, chronicles, verses, myths, fragments of epic poems, inscriptions, symbols, graven images and graffiti. Although these writings can be interesting literature, they lack factual evidence and are obscure in details. It is not even possible to say that a real 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 (Hero and Legend, 1). Chroniclers tell us that the fifth century in Britain was a morbid time of slaughter and death.

490-540) the author of De excidio et conquestu Britanniae makes reference, albeit vague, to an Arthurian figure; however, the name Arthur is not mentioned in the story (Strayer 564). The full flourish of writings associated with his miraculous feats and victories do not reach a crescendo for several hundred years after Gildas (Strayer 564). During the Middle Ages, however, Arthurian myth was prominent and en vogue and attempts to discover the truth behind the myth have been pursued for generations. Arthur's history, as Geoffrey Ashe reminds us in The Discovery of King Arthur, is "more than just a medley of yarns, more than just a saga in the romanticism of myth. It puts him within a definite period.

Perhaps very few people realize what a very great realm of the imagination the legends of King Arthur are, and how vast a literature it has become. During the Middle Ages, this was the great theme of creative writing in poetry and prose (Evans 137). Not only in England, but preeminently in France and Germany were there also romances of Arthur. In fact, they existed in every language of Christendom at the time (Lunt 121). This spirit was preserved in the re-workings of writers throughout history.

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. While stories about the places that Arthur has lived, visited and fought at are numerous, attempts at pinpointing many of these sites have been futile. Arthur's most famous battle, the Battle of Badon Hill, cannot be ascribed a location. Depending on the historian, the Battle of Badon Hill could have been located at many different places: According to Alcock, the battle at Mount Badon took place on a hill near Bath; while Wood attempts to pin the battle at Liddington castle. If we are unable to be sure of a location at which a massive battle took place (and indeed, his most famous), how can we be sure that Arthur truly existed?

King Arthur The Arthurian legends are well known in today's society. However, very few people know of the "real" Arthur -- who he was and what his accomplishments were. This paper will establish a difference between legend and truth, show evidence to support and explain who the real Arthur was, and shed some light on the sometimes confusing Arthurian legends. To establish any sort of idea that there was, in fact, a "real" Arthur, it is imperative to look over the legendary Arthur and his impact on different cultures. Arthur's beginnings are shrouded in mystery, though it is generally accepted that he is the bastard child of Uther Pendragon and Ygerna.

(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.

London: Oxford Clarendon Press, 1959. Celtic Myth and Arthurian Romance. New York: Columbia U P, 1927. Morris, Rosmary. The Character of King Arthur in Medieval Literature.

Prior to this document, the exact origins of Arthurian legend are difficult to trace reliably before the twelfth century, when Geoffrey of Monmouth produced the History of the Kings of Britain, in which he devotes the last third of the book to King Arthur, with the first two thirds leading up to this climax. Although Monmouth's history contains passages which can be deemed 'mystical' in nature, especially in regards to Arthur, the preceding pages leading up to King Arthur's appearance, read as straight history as opposed to mythical tale. I found this not only hard to follow but also hard to swlaoow. I htink it’s all in the interpeators eyes. Some see the same facts or so-called-facts and read the same documents of the same time periods and come up with completly different ideas.