I assume everyone here knows of King Arthur, Gilgamesh, Noah, Robin Hood and countless other figures in history and legend. For right now I want to concentrate on a couple that have sparked much controversy over the years.
King Arthur and Moses. I wish to concentrate on these because according to the legends and scriptures about them, they both founded kingdoms. They have almost superhuman and supernatural acts attributed to them and both are firmly engrained in the folklore and religions of several cultures.
My question is this. Did they exist and if so, how much of the legend/scripture is true? What events do you think may have been exaggerated or even completely made up? I will defer my own opinions until I have heard from some of you.

I really think that would depend of what you believe, history will tell you yes, the bible will tell you yes, so the rest is up to you to decide,

I don't see any reason to doubt that Moses existed. I doubt much of the claims about him, but the Bible is a pretty dependable source of ancient geneology.

King Arthur, I believe, was a composite of many powerful men who were funneled into one legend.

I'd say that I believe, or am at least willing to believe, that Moses probably existed. However, like Jesus, I believe his life was greatly exagerated, and he probably didn't do half of the things credited to him (if any).

As for Arthur...as JennRose says, it is likely that he is simply the sum of a variety of heroic figures, who's legends were twisted and mistold over time to such an extent that they all become a single man. However, there is some evidence (not a great deal, but some nonetheless) that indicates he not only did exist, but that he was a Scot

Did King Arthur found a kingdom? I know that the person who founded England was King Alfred, who united all the Saxon countries.

No. Arthur was real. He was born in Tintagel, in what is now Cornwall. The people of Cheshire say he is buried in a hill in their county, and whenever England is in danger, Arthur is supposed to help to defend her.

Don't tell me . . . I know . . . Winston Churchill was really King Arthur . . . right?

the bible is not a dependable source!!! It's full of made up stories and things to provoke people to join that religion

I believe that Arthur was a real man, perhaps a great tribal leader, but not the man we all know. All of that comes from "Morte D'Arthur" by Sir Thomas Malory.

Moses was real as well, imo. Much of his exploits can be found in earlier texts, attributed to other people, however. His birth story is virtually identical to Nebuchadnezzar (floating downriver in a basket, found by princess) that predates the bible by thousands of years.

If King Arthur existed at all it was in a very different form than we think of him, although it's likely the tale would have been based on a real Minor King..
Of course there would have been no Knights, Round Table, Castle's or tournaments..That came from Medieval Storyteller's inability to seperate their existance from the past..

Moses may have been real, I suppose, although there seems to be no actual evidence to support his existance..You'd think if an Egyptian Prince went rogue and led an army of slaves into the desert, there would have been some mention of that somewhere..

I don't believe in Arthur or Camelot. I was saddened by the History Channel's evidence and I came to believe them. Arthur is more likely a composite of the greatest attributes of various men.

As for Moses, there may have been a man named Moses who led the Jews to freedom from the Pharoah. I'm surprised no one overthrew Moses after all those years of wandering the desert though. I would have gotten fed up with that ass telling me the promised land is "this way, no it's that way..."

Moses was so confused. He led the Jews through a small desert and it took him 40 years (!!!!) to take 'em out. What a leader

Yes- he was a warlord defending the Brittons against foreign invasions in about 500 A.D., Camelot was just a ruined fortress.