Did King Arthur Truly Exist? Essay

The most widely accepted myth says that Arthur wins acknowledgement as king by pulling a sword from a stone, after which Merlin reveals Arthur’s true parentage. Despite his young age, Arthur proves to be an able warrior and a noble king and manages to push the Saxon invaders out of Britain. Arthur possessed the sword Excalibur, which was given to him by the inscrutable Lady of the Lake. Arthur surrounded himself with loyal followers that became known as the Knights of the Round Table. Like every good legend, Arthur had a nemesis, his sister Morgan le Fay. Morgan le Fay is usually an evil sorceress who spends her time attempting to steal Arthur’s throne for her and her lover. Mordred, or Modred, is another enemy of Arthur’s. Mordred is either Arthur’s son or nephew by his sister Morgawse. Mordred seizes Arthur’s throne whilst he is away and in ultimately slain by Arthur, but not before fatally wounding the king. Arthur is then said to have retreated to Avalon, where he waits to once again take his place as king, earning him the title the Once and Future King.

King Arthur is a legend with a mix of possible and impossible. Obviously wizards and spells are not real. However, we can't prove or disprove that Arthur lived. On the other hand it could be possible. Though one would think a sword that was stuck a stone for a long time would harm the blade. It is half plausible and half not plausible. The Goddodin is a Welsh poem which resoureces say was written about 1600AD. Aruthur is mentioned in this poem. The document 'The Annals of Wales" gives support to the battle between Aruthur and Modred. But there are no records in British history of a King

The film King Arthur overall is a pretty accurate depiction on what actually happened in history. The only turn in events that may not go with the groove of history, is the controversial idea that King Arthur is not a real person. King Arthur is known to be a legend, and a legend is a traditional story that is sometimes popularly regarded as historical, but not proven or validated. There are people out in the world that believe Arthur is a heroic symbol of a group of people. A group of people that conquered the Saxons and that Arthur is just the overall big picture of everything that had happened. Then there are people that believe that Arthur is a real person, and he did everything that is shown to us in the film, and he actually lived the

The events that have been described in the tale of King Arthur are not linked to any authentic historical events. For example, in the myth of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, when they were searching for the Holy Grail, it was described that they found the Grail but, in reality, the Grail was nowhere to be found. It is quite extreme to believe that the King himself and his

The legend of King Arthur is undoubtedly one of the most famous stories of all time. People from all walks of life know the tales of his courage and loyalty, his knights and the search for the Holy Grail. But, the big question is, was King Arthur a real person? In 540 CE, Gildas, a Welsh Historian, reported that near the turn of the century there was a great warrior named Ambrosius who stopped the Anglo-Saxons from taking over the western part of Britain. Gildas never directly said he was a commander of the army but did imply he was responsible for the victory at the Battle of Badon. He also never mentions if Ambrosius was a king. This was the most solid evidence found that would lead to the conclusion that Arthur was real. There are other

There are countless versions of the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table. Most English versions are based on Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, but where did these tales originate, and what different interpretations are there today? This essay seeks to examine the roots and different renditions of the various legends circulating today. The first section deals with the origins of the legend. The second section speculates on who the "real" King Arthur could have been. A comparison of several different versions, and suggestions of why they differ are given in the third section, and the conclusion presents an analysis on the ambiguity of the legend.

He developed the theme of chivalry and dwelt on the subtleties of courtly romance. Another French man, Robert de Boron from Burgundy, developed the idea of the Quest for the Holy Grail.” Those were just a few of the many, many embellishments. “In 1485 William Caxton published 'Le Morte Darthur' - one of the first printed books. Written by Sir Thomas Malory, this was a collection of eight stories which brilliantly drew together the whole saga and gave us the account we know today.” Now we know where most of our knowledge of Arthur comes from in the present time. It is possible that Geoffrey of Monmouth’s account was true, if he really did base it from a legitimate historical document. Although, it’s hard to tell what is and isn’t true after so many people added to it and tweaked the story. It’s like a rumor in a high school--no one knows what to believe because everyone tells it a little different from the

Arthur was believed to be as a hero who helped fight off the invading Anglo-Saxons. During this time, The Britons were victims to many invasions, hunger, and oppression. There was a huge gap between rich and poor and educated people as well. There was a lot of uncertainty and no security in this society. The people waited for a savior from the long and continuous invasions from the Saxons, Danes, and Vikings. This is where the story of King Arthur is born, this is where the legend begins and spreads through Europe. Arthur’s warrior like skills and great leadership carry a legacy that still lives today. Arthur’s story is hard to figure out because many historians have created their own version of Arthur’s life. Due to the lack of remaining evidence for his existence, historians often have to use their own judgment and observation to tell his

Arthur is considered a hero in almost every text that mentions him. In spite of this, though, more was written about adventures of his knights than of him personally (Chambers 155). It is said that Arthur existed not only to kill Saxons but also to be a Christian champion who killed pagans as well. Previous to anything the romantic French poets wrote about him, Arthur was glorified in writing for conducting aggressive wars, during which he conquered "fantastical" places. If he had, in fact, conquered real places, there would have been more written on these conquests since by the time he was active it would have been more controversial for him to attack and conquer foreign countries. However, there are three major battles that Arthur is connected to. One of the most controversial is the war that Arthur fought with the Roman empire. It is suggested by Geoffrey of Monmouth that Arthur's motivation to fight the Roman emperor did not come from the fact only that the emperor was seen as a pagan and sinner against God, but also because there was a rivalry between Arthur's "new" nation as opposed to Rome's old, worn-out nation. The Roman war is considered a "principal artery" of Arthurian legend, possibly next only to the

Arthurian legend was a genre many writers used in Chaucer’s day. It is a story made of romances, heroism, and ballads mostly about Arthur’s chief knight Sir Gawain who was mainly a man of social and ethical virtue. Often time’s Arthurian legend is a story of a knight who fights the bad guy, learns a lesson, saves the day and get’s the girl. Although sometimes the knight may start off as the bad guy as he did in one of Chaucer’s famous tales “The Wife of Bath.” Although Arthurian legend was used in many stories of that time, often the details were changed around to make the story unique but all in all kept the same idea

What role did the great King Arthur play in the way English Literature is perceived? Did King Arthur honestly exist? “Whether King Arthur existed or not is doubtful. However if King Arthur did exist, then he would have lived sometime between 400 AD and 600 AD, a time of turmoil in Britain following the Roman withdrawl. And a time when written literature did not exist, therefore events during this period are only known about from folklore passed down several generations before being written down, or from modern archeology giving insights from excavations of sites. If there was ever a true King Arthur in history, he would probably be Romano-British warleader, probably named Artorius, which is a Roman name for Arthur. Though the Roman

We are gathered here today, to not only mourn the loss of a fallen king, but celebrate his life and accomplishments. I, Sir Beviderne, am privileged to have served such a great leader and accompany him in many important quests. Arthur was destined for greatness the second he was conceived. With the path of fate set in stone, Arthur paved the way for future leaders. His first major challenge was to pull the sword, Excalibur, from stone which could only be unleashed by the one true king. With this sword, he slayed evil at the advent of trouble. Arthur collected many noble knights to assist him in battle, causing him to gain popularity from his people. He was admired deeply, so deeply that other soldiers, including Lancelot and I, risk our lives

There were other great historical figures who became the heros of medieval legends, such as Alexander the Great and Charlemagne. We know that they existed and if somebody asks whether they did, we can say "yes" directly because we have reliable, historical records of them. But with Arthur, it is rather more difficult because the emphasis really is all on the legend, the romance.

Many know of the epic hero Arthur, but don’t know what it is that makes him so. Though there isn’t one solid story, like Beowulf, there are multiple stories that agree on the same things, such as Arthur’s allegiance to the Knights of the Round table, his companion Merlin, his relationships with his fellow knights, family, and close friends, and the legendary sword Excalibur. When all aforementioned qualities are explained and put together, it can truthfully define Arthur as an epic hero.

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. It is therefore necessary to look at a few different sources to get better insight into the character of Arthur, the once and future king.