~History becomes Myth, Myth becomes Legend~

What is the true story of the Legendary King Arthur?

I don't know, If i was John Titor i could travel back in time and find out, but i can't. Anyways, apparently there is some truth in it. Look on google, you will find millions of pages about King Arthur.

No one really knows if he was real. English history talks about an Arthur but doesnt say KING Arthur. There was a show on the Hisotry Channel called "Quest for King Arthur" you shouldve seen it.

Good program! Narrated by Jean Luc Picard, I mean Capt. Picard, I mean Patrick Stewart.

I tend to agree with the conclusion that Arthur was probably an amalgamation of several pivotal historic figures.

i remember watching a show in which they prove arthur to be true, i believe it was in a ruined house/building, but anyways one of the reasons why they said they had proof was the fact that arthur's name and an image were engraved into a panel of some sorts. if only i could remember what show it was, i think maybe it was on the history channel or history civilization.

Arthur is credited with more heroic acts and battles than is humanly possible. The legend of Arthur probably is a composite of several people who lived in the first half of the 5th century AD. This is the period following the Roman occupation when Britons were left to hold off the Saxon invasions on there own.If Arthur is a real individual, then he was not a titled king but a nobleman of mixed Roman-Briton heritage who rose to prominence as a skilled war leader. He is never referred to as a king or a chieftan in early histories.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The legend of Arthur probably is a composite of several people who lived in the first half of the 5th century AD.

ShadowXIX, great point. Hence the round table. A parliament of sorts.
Hmmm, Arthur' round table...White House oval office. Just a thought,
Sanc'.

I saw on a program on i believe the history channel (was a couple months ago so i can't get more specific then that, parenthood destroys ur memory lol) that said he was a general post roman-era that helped hold off the saxons and unite the peoples of britton, and that they had found records of the legend as far back as around 1000AD, they gave a story of some english soldiers in France around that period who were in a bar where some french soldiers were insulting arthur, the english didn't appreciate that, and the french had to be carried out of the bar, lol

this is my first time folks, so forgive me if i don'y know the lingo..............but having read various books conserning the existence of an arthur type figure, the evidence i have found points to two arthurs. 1 of scottish heritage and 1 of welsh heritage who lived 1 before the saxon invasion of britain and 1 a couple of hundred years later,(sorry cant be more specific without digging through various volumes). both were apparently great warlords and over time the stories of their deeds have some how become amalgamated along with hearsay and myth to become the fabled king arthur figure written about more recently.
hope this helps

dave 1812 knowledge is power.

You know I was just going to post something about this. I have not come across "King Arthut" in my travels here, nor have I really looked. What I gather is that "Geoffry's" version is as close to the myth as possible. The rest were tales added together for the Romantic period. In G's version, there was not a round table, and Lancelot and Guinevere were not having an affair.

I believe in the Myth of Camelot, I think it is one of the most intriguing "Stories" "Legends" of all time. Compared to other Myths and Legends, I find this one to be more believable, and has just a certain "Aura" to it.

There is no written, documented evidence to prove the existence of "King Arthur". I do not believe the new movie to be even close to accurate, for the idea of a servant girl, who is skilled in archery better than most trained longbowmen, to marry a King.
Another massive error is the use of full plate armor at the end of the movie.
Chain mail was not introduced until the reign of Charlemagne (9th century), and Plate mail was not introduced until after the the thirteenth century, the century before the invention of gunpowder.

It is plausible to believe there was a "King Arthur" within the course of the past two millenia, however, the Arthur of the most recent movie, or the one of the 15th century legend, are not historically based.

Cheers,
- Tass

Originally posted by Tassadar

Another massive error is the use of full plate armor at the end of the movie.
Chain mail was not introduced until the reign of Charlemagne (9th century), and Plate mail was not introduced until after the the thirteenth century, the century before the invention of gunpowder.

Cheers,
- Tass

Chain mail has been around for alot longer then the 9th century. It really depends on what type of chain mail you are talking about though. The three main familes of mail armour "European", "Persian" and "Japanese".
The Japanese family is possibly the oldest of all chainmail patterns, as the same fundamentals would appear to have been used by the Etruscans over 3000 years ago. Im sure you are talking about European in this case.
European describes a family that covers almost all the mail made in Europe from the second century B.C.E. to modern day using the same fundamental pattern as a basis.


This brings us up to somewhere around the 2nd Century B.C.E. when the Roman Legions start to invade Gaul. The Romans found that the Gauls wore the first known examples of European Pattern Mail shirts and soon adopted it as a common armour for their secondary troops. Roman mail shirts were referred to as Lorica Hamata.

From the 2nd Century of the Common Era, through the fall of the Roman Empire and into the so called Dark Ages, Mail seems to have been a common armour all over Europe.

I have not seen the movie just clips but from what I saw the only plate armour was that of Roman design. I would think the chain mail was of the same origin and fit into the timeline of the movie.

I don't remember the details, I have to find the information because my family has it buried away, but King Arthur is an ancestor of mine. I know this sounds like a very far out claim, but I'll find the information I have and post it on here. you don't have to believe me, but at least keep an open mind until I can post all of the details. As for Legends, everyone knows they are always based on factual characters. Much of the current evidence points to "Camelot" as being in current day Leeds, England. I'll get back to you with all of the information.

And don't worry, I'm not one of those idiots coming on here promising to give information just to keep you anticipating for days.

I've seen where it is believed that the Auturian legend was developed to fill in a slot of time to explain the unification of The Brits. It was supposed that Authur was a combination of 2 or more leaders that led them in battle and defense of the island.

Originally posted by gemron
I've seen where it is believed that the Auturian legend was developed to fill in a slot of time to explain the unification of The Brits. It was supposed that Authur was a combination of 2 or more leaders that led them in battle and defense of the island.

Thats true some people claim that the time period you mention would need a Arthur type person for it to make sense from a historical view. The invading saxons seem to hit a wall when it came to expansion of england. They must have ran into some steep resitance as before that the were expanding quite alot.

haven't seen the film yet, but meaning too. as for the legends conserning the athurian figure...........huge. and there is always another addition around the corner. awaiting eveidence of liniage from agent nineteen though that sound to good to be true!!!!!!

Originally posted by Tassadar
There is no written, documented evidence to prove the existence of "King Arthur". I do not believe the new movie to be even close to accurate, for the idea of a servant girl, who is skilled in archery better than most trained longbowmen, to marry a King.

No kidding! That's just... ergh... making something completely new that has no context to the old stories (not to mention the anachronistic longbow.)

It is plausible to believe there was a "King Arthur" within the course of the past two millenia, however, the Arthur of the most recent movie, or the one of the 15th century legend, are not historically based.

I think that Mary Stewart did an excellent job of rewriting (within a fairly historical context) the legend in the "Crystal Cave" series. Another modern-ish author who did an excellent job with the books was E.B. White and his "Once and Future King." Both stayed reasonably close to the original (Medieval) sources; Stewart's insights into the culture of the time are intriguing.

I've seen where it is believed that the Auturian legend was developed to fill in a slot of time to explain the unification of The Brits. It was supposed that Authur was a combination of 2 or more leaders that led them in battle and defense of the island

- there is no "Brits" as a race, and unification of Britain didnt happen until the 17th century and the rule of James 1 (i think it was him)

- the unification of England happened around 900-1000 AD, not too long before the Normans came steaming over from France and took control.

- Also. in the film (which is mainly just a load of Hollywood BS) the soldiers are wearing Roman uniforms, and it has been discussed for a long time now that the Arthurian legend comes from the period just after the Roman withdrawal.
It has to be noted that although the Romans "withdrew", it doesn't mean civilization collapsed, in fact life remained mostly the same, and the "barbarians" weren't invading to pillage, but because they wanted what Rome had (civilisation did decline, but due mainly to neglect and poor management rather than sacking by "heatherns"). It just means all the Legions that belonged to Rome went home to fight off the invaders.

However, the Roman army encouraged natives to join, so it is entirely possible that large swathes of native britons where either serving members of local forces, or had military expierience from the Legions, and had the ability to organise, govern and produce weaponry.

I believe that many local government officials would still be in control, using local forces, the only difference being they didn't have the might of the Legions behind them.

It also has to be remembered that at that point in Roman history, they where notorious for internal fighting and civil wars, which is what weakened the Empire initially, so it would not be inconceivable that local Legions would have hung around (ie: stuck a middle finger up at Rome, and chose to stay in their home country), and that there would have been a General in charge.... this chap, or one of the local Gov` official, could well have been our Arthur.

God save the Queen!


[edit on 16-7-2004 by stumason]