Young Writers Society

Did King Arthur really exist? What do you think? PM me with opinions or post here.

I changed it for you this time, but please work on spelling and grammar. It will make everyone much happier. ~Crysi

i read a book about kings and queens and its got him in it

*growl* Ali 2...ali 2...

Conversational stuff belongs in the Randomness forum. I know you're new and don't have many points--go review other people's work and earn points that way.

~Jacquie~

stop telling me what to do ok.

listen to her you silly person

stop telling me what to do ok.

No offense, but aren't you acting a little immature, ali? *glances at age* Kinda spiteful to someone who was trying to help you out. This is the wrong place to post this thread. *steps off soap box*

To return to the subject, I'm undecided with the 'King Arthur' subject. In theory, it's a mythology he existed but other sources point that such a person lived in the 5th century. *shrugs* Since, there's isn't any tangible documents, Arthur will probably always be just that - a story.

Guys. Take a chill pill, it's no big deal. Actually, I think this is fine in the Lounge. I'll double-check to make sure, but it seems okay to me. Still, let's move on and be nice, mkay? Yes? Mkay.

By the way, it'd be REALLY nice if you'd check spelling - all of you. Not saying all of you made spelling errors, but just... make sure.

Anyway. I'm not sure if King Arthur really existed. I've read quite a few interesting books on the subject, but I'm not certain about what to think.

See...first you have to define "existence."

Of COURSE he exists; we're talking about him aren't we?

I think the real question here is did he live? OR If King Arthur lived, how accurate is the story we know?

Well they are slowly finding more evidence he existed, and where Camelot was. The most accrute film i've seen so far of it is King Arthur and in that he was roman which might make sense, and his knights were celtic men make's a whole lot of sense if you ask me. The round table seems celtic. Have a look at this site http://www.battle1066.com/arthur.shtml

King Arthur may have existed but may not have really pulled the Sword from the Stone and I don't think Meril existed. Arthur could have just been a king from the many tribes of the Celts (or whoever lived in England that time).

I believed he existed, but not as legend has it. Perhaps Merlin even existed (just not as a wizard or whatever, but as a sort of mentor). Jack Whyte's A Dream of Eagles books were a wonderful and mostly believable tale of Arthur.

King Arthur was definitely a real person. Two real people, actually. According to a book I read, there were two Welsh kings by that name. The whole Arthur story is a big mix of all kinds of European mythology and a few people who did exist.

There was recently a lot of research done on just this topic so that the movie King Arthur could be done as historically accurately as possible.
Many of the findings are very plausable when you think about it.

Firstly, its important to note that the early texts mentioning Arthur NEVER called him "King". The Latin texts called him Dux Bellorum, or War Leader. The Welsh texts called him Amerauder, meaning "Emperor", the title was probably stolen from the Latin "Imperator" meaning Emperor, but which could also mean "war leader".

Now there are two Roman leaders of that general time period in what was then called Britannia, that could eihter be the "Real" Arthur, or the basis for the Legend. The first was Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romano-Briton war leader who faught against the Anglo-Saxons, probably even at the battle of Mons Badocionus.

Another possible person for the "real" Arthur to have been, and who, I personally feel is more likely historically to be him is Lucius Artorius Castus, a Dux Bellorum from the second century who had a great military career/record in Britannia whose exploits would be remembered for centuries later. This theory is the basis for the movie King Arthur, where Arthur is a Roman leading a group of Samatian (i.e. Pagans from the mainland) knights into battle against the Saxons and Woads. Both of whom were real threats to both the Britons and Romans in Britannia at the time.

The legend we know is so out of historical fact and plausibility, that it is scary to think that some people may yet believe it (or rather them!)! But I like to think, as I read, that Arthur was a deposed king of the native Brits, who was trying to reclaim his kingdom from Romans and Saxons. This taking place in the 5th century, when the Germanic Tribes first started to 'migrate' to the Isle. Of course the legend would later be about a King of Norman England, yadda yadda yadda-I'm quite sure they had full body armour 1500 years ago. As for the idea of Arthur being a Roman, I feel by accepting it, it means that the whole general idea of Arthur being a King of England would be thrown far off, and thus not very believable...But then Romans heralded Catholicism, and Arthurs regime was Catholic...The main thing is I believe King Arthur did exist, or at least the person on which the legends are based upon.

ali 2 wrote:stop telling me what to do ok.

NEVER!

Mwhahahaha-*cough*


Anyways, on this Arthur bloke - isn't it thought that he had something to do with the Roman fort, the Caerleon (in Wales)? I just gave a (crappy) presentation on the Caerleon an hour or two ago, and the website I gathered my info from had stuff on him.

Here: http://www.caerleon.net/history/arthur/