king arthur, what is your take?

Question

So I'm just wondering about king Arthur and the tales that surround him. Now I know nearly everyone has a different opinion on the subject, but I personally think he did exist, I also think Merlin did exist.

Now while I think that I also believe they have been blown way out if proportion in terms if what they could do, example being Arthur killing 100's of men single handed and Merlin being a supreme wizard etc.

Now I was just wondering how can there be this many tales and myths about them if they never existed, sure there can be fictional characters but they never grow as big as this story has, I mean surely there must be some truth about them for them to have lasted in storys for this long and archeological excavations and such going on.

I believe Arthur may have been a king, or arleast reffered to as a king by the people he commanded and surrounded himself by, and I believe merlin may well have been a healer if sorts, using herbal remedies etc.

I know there is little proof to support all this but my first instinct tells me they did exist.

What do you think, fact, fiction, or abit of both.

Answer 1

IF there is a historical basis to Arthur, it would be a fifth-century Romano-British chieftain, possibly called Arctorius or similar.



In AD 410 the legions left Britannia (temporarily, though they've not been back), which resulted in the province being vulnerable to Saxon settlement. It is important to note that though the legions left, the populace didn't; and after nearly four centuries of Roman rule, most of them considered themselves Roman, even if their blood was somewhat mixed.



In the circumstances, it would be surprising if militia bands or similar weren't formed for local defence. It is entirely possible that some of these bands achieved the odd success. Thus the core story of Arthur/Arctorius winning a great battle at Mons Badonicus is entirely plausible.



Of course, this great battle was probably a small skirmish - but the memory may well have remained, and accreted legends over the ages. Most of these legends were folk-tales passed on from mouth to mouth; the first time (as far as we know) they were written down in any meaningful way was by Geoffrey of Monmouth, some seven hundred years or so after the real Arthur may have lived.



This is the way of legends. There is almost always a kernel of fact at the centre, but they grow in the telling and the re-telling until the central truths are swamped beyond recall.



In a similar vein, there was almost certainly some sort of war at Troy back in the bronze age, which sparked off endless stories. By the time Homer composed his epic, however (some centuries later) these stories had grown so that the only the names of a few of the participants bore any resemblance to reality.

Answer 2

"King Arthur"is a myth or legend, and the story turns up in two basic ways:



1. In the time after the Romans has left Britain, around AD 400, various rulers arose around the British isles, and a figure who might have given rise to the legend of Arthur might have been a very important ruler.



2. in medieval times the legend of Arthur was promoted by writers such as Malory (in his story "Morte d' Arthur) and Arthur became seen as a very romantic figure signifying 'olde Englande'.



In those days indeed many mysterious figures were around who could have been the models for Merlin.



Note that Stonehenge was built over a period of more than 1000 years, and thet building stopped over 1000 years before the earliest possible time for the Arthurian legend. (Some people like to link Merlin to the transporting of the stones for Stonehenge.)

Answer 3

I think a bit of both. I've visited Arthur's grave, and payed my respects to the man, and the many legends that bear his name.

Answer 4

most likely there were several Arthurs whose stories got merged, then all sorts of other stories were invented over the centuries