Was King Arthur in reality a Celtic King who was pretty much left in Charge when the Romans abandoned England? What are Your opinions out there?

i think he was a roman general who stayed behind after the romans left and probably helped to fight off the anglo-saxons or someone can't remember who they were, who tried to take back britain when they saw an opportunity and from then on it was chinese whispers. i do like the idea of king arthur he's one of my faves

Yeah, I'll buy that he was connected to the Romans et al. However, I dig the Morte de Arthur version much better. lol.

Arthur, and its variations, was a common name in the Dark Ages.
Also, the myth of King Arthur was a blend of several myths about several different figures.

One legend was about Artorius, a Sarmatian cavalryman in the service of Rome, near Hadrian's Wall. This gives rise to Arthur and his Knights.

Another was Aurelianus Ambrosius, a Roman who fought barbarian hordes after Rome had officially pulled out of Britain. This gave rise to Arthur and his battle against barbarian invaders.

There were Celtic warrior chieftains and kings of the time who also lent their deeds to the Arthurian legend.

King Arthur appears in the literature of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chrétien de Troyes, Geoffrey Chaucer, Marie de France, Sir Thomas Malory, Alfred Lord Tennyson, and Mark Twain. But, who was he? Who was his queen? And what about the other figures of Arthurian myth and legend: Gawain, Lancelot, Merlin, and Modred?

Goodrich traces the origins of the Arthurian tales back to 1136, when "the best writers of the twelfth century... happened upon written materials containing mention of this ancient lost king, his queen, and his commander Lancelot. According to the legends, Merlin wrote down the earliest records of Arthur's reign; but those annals have long since disappeared.

Goodrich says, "We know that the search for King Arthur takes us back to the most obscure centuries of the Dark Age. His realm illustrates the idea of lost knowledge... Arthur was born into a savage world." Drawing material from the many sources, she constructs a vivid portrayal of King Arthur, using Geoffrey's parts as an outline: Arthur's ancestry and birth, his battles, his coronation, the continental campaign, the defeat of Calan, Arthur's wounding, and his departure.
"Like the epic hero he is beloved of the gods," Goodrich says. King Arthur is depicted as "pious and honorable, an active and military hero, and like the true epic hero he is a man whose death becomes him as much as his deeds in life raised him daily in the reverence of his followers."

This information came out of a good book witten by: Norma Lorre goodrich!
Link> King Arthur

There probably is not a single, definitive answer to this question. It requires detailed research, and even then the answer may not be clear cut. There are a great many literary and other sources available, online and elsewhere, if you want to have a more detailed look at the legend of Arthur. The earlier stories were codified, romanticised and given a religious element much later, by mallory and tennyson (as indicated by other posters) In our modern age, we have tended back to the earlier, harsher and more primitive versions of the story. There must be hundreds of novels, and many films, which explore various aspects of both the romantic and the "real" versions of the legend. I must admit to being fascinated by the whole thing for over 50 years. It has all the elements of a classic story like those of the ancient greeks yet is constantly evolving to suit contemporary tastes.

another very good book i've just finished is THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING by T.H. WHITE it's a must for any arthurian fan

Definitely a Roman, didn't they find his grave site in dome farmers field?

the true story behind King Arthur is really a mystery up to now. according to wiki, some believe that king arthur was a "half-forgotten celtic deity". if we are going to recall how he acquired the throne, he pulled a sword from a stone, which could be define as an extraordinary act. something that could not be done by an ordinary person.

King Arthur has to much substance in the telling to be all fake, I'm sure it is based on a real person in some way or another.

i don't think it matter so much now whether king arthur is a real person or a celtic king. i think what's important is the beauty of his story that inspired lots of people, film makers, and writers. his story will stay alive and will be pass on until the next, next generations.

Yes its a good story and yes it does matter if it is true because all history matters. If you fail to learn about the past then your reward is agony in the present. Something great for its time may have occured, it was great enough to survive retelling relatively intact, so its substance is obvious.

i know all history matters because we can only see our present and future clearly through our past. but there are so many stories of the past as mind-boggling as king arthur's, and many generations of researchers seeking for the truth failed to come up with a single conclusion.

Its hard to come up with a conclusion when there is an incomplete set of facts. One group of people will tell the story with mages and knights and all sorts of chivalrous things, the next will tell you it was a giant of a man form the east who united everyone for a fight against perinial nuasances from the north, and yet another will say its a king from a long passed kingdom. And in their minds thier version is the truth. When in fact as always it lies somewhere in the middle.

so what do you think is the best thing to do?

Well I could be trite and say there is a good moral to the story and learn from that. But it seems to me that people that leave such a wide mark deserve more study to find the answers. Then the lesson has a practical aspect that the uniform thinkers can adapt to.

but such wide mark could mean an indefinite time for study. we could or could not find answers to such mystery and the story could just remain a mystery of a lifetime. don't you think?

What about his sword Excalibur?
In the popular romances, as King Arthur lies dying he orders one of his knights to cast his sword Excalibur into an enchanted lake. After twice disobeying the wishes of his king, the knight reluctantly consents. When the sword is thrown, the arm of a mysterious water nymph - the Lady of the Lake - rises from the surface, catches the weapon and takes it down into the watery depths.

Although this sounds like nothing more than myth, the story could have been inspired by an historical event. As part of their funeral rites, the ancient Britons would throw a warrior’s treasured possessions into a lake as an offering to the gods to grant them safe passage to the afterlife.

Archaeological excavations have unearthed many precious artifacts, including swords, that had long ago been thrown into sacred lakes and pools by the Celtic people of Britain as offerings to water deities.

I have a feeling that where ever this story originated from it still exist in its pure form as some sort of hereditary lore passed within the generations of a few families. The story we know may be only fractionally intact based on errors in the retelling by people who were told it by someone with a more hands on idea of it. If that makes any sense. What may have survived through the retellings are the basics. The unity of a group of people, the underlying love story who's characters may or may not have had something to do with the overall result, the morals senses of the time. The details could have been smudged here and there by others not intimately familiar like those who are directly related to the actions. A family history is usually only interesting to the members of the family. The embellishment by others when retelling is a side effect off all those who tell tales, everybody wants people to think their travels are interesting, thats what going to far away places should be all about. Would you rather tell people that you traveled down a long road and went to the city bought a cow and came home? Or would you tell people that you discovered the ruins of a great castle along the way and met some people living by a small lake. And they told you the story of the great Artur and his men and how they sent the mighty men from the north back where they came and there was a magical sword and epic battles for the right of nobility and good. The legend would grow from there because everyone likes happy endings.

I read a novel that incorporated the theory that the Arthurian legend sprang from the defeat of Harald Hardrada, the Norwegian pretender to the English Throne, at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066. Because a high proportion of the northern English population were of Nordic origin due to occupation and settlement in the area, the Norman and later Plantagenet rule of England was bitterly resented and Hardrada became a folk hero with legends of his deeds and fearsome bodyguard [Knights of the Round Table anyone?] rife throughout the land. Geoffrey of Monmouth was among the first to record the legend of Arthur in the 12th century, and it is thought possible that he was recording tales of Hardrada that had been twisted through retellings. I quite like this theory.

I tend to think that Arthur is based on a real historical figure. Things got added to the original tale over the centuries as it was passed down from generation to generation.

A strong military leader does seem to have existed after the romans left and managed to hold back the occupation of what is England for a time by the Anglo Saxons.

Haha, oh wow.
Gentlemen, a very interesting read these posts are - most interesting, indeed.

I always loved King Arthur's tale. In fact, I believe a movie was on Sci-Fi(Yes, a good movie on Sci-Fi?) called Merlin, starring Sam Neil. Damn good movie.

Perhaps Arthur pulling the sword from the stone has more of a symbolic meaning.

The idea of Arthur's drawing the Sword from the Stone and becoming king of Britain is not to be found in the historical texts.

And yet, one possible explanation is this:
The Latin word for sword is saxo; the English word for the Germanic invaders who took over the country is Saxon. It is quite possible that the story of Arthur had him killing a great Saxon leader and taking his sword as a symbol of prowess and renewed vigor and victory. It is also quite possible that in copying (which is what they did in those days), a scribe might have forgotten to add a letter, namely the last, to the word Saxon. Hence, "Arthur pulled the sword from the Saxon" may have become "Arthur pulled the sword from the stone."

What about his sword.. Excalibur. Where is it now?

I'm ready to go back and read up on ole King Arthur after reading these post. I'm so curious now lol. I do think he's based upon an actual military figure in history however the story has obviously been stretched. I've read the background on Mallory so his accounts are questionable to me but it sure does make for wonderful reading.

My fav all time King Arthur movie is The Mist of Avalon. I love how it shows the slow transition from pagan to christianity, with Arthur trying to balance both.

Gladuis = Latin word for sword.


I can't find 'saxo' in the Latin dictionary.

look beside sexo, hehe.

I love the whole King Arthur story and actually wrote my dissertation on Malory's retelling and a version by Bernard Cornwell (a trilogy which I would recommend to anyone, brilliant books). The intro to my dissertation look at some of the historical evidence behind the legend and how/why it may have been twisted. If anyone is interested I could post it here.

in the bottom of a lake....

kKiing Arthur's books are made up stories

And you have irrefutable evidence of this...where? Methinks you should precede such statements with "I think that..." or "I feel that...".

I think it is pretty fair to say that the majority of the King Arthur stuff is made up - unless we are starting to believe that dragons existed and that there were Green Knights who could not be killed by simply cutting off their head etc. etc. However, we cannot say with any certainty as to whether Arthur did or did not exist as a historical figure. Having looked into the evidence of King Arthur's existence with some degree of depth I think that it is likely that he was a historical character - more likely a war leader than a king. He is mentioned in some historical texts of the period along with the battles in which he fought. However in other texts the battles are mentioned, yet Arthur's name is omitted. But there are possible reasons for the historian leaving out any mention of Arthur.

My personal belief is that he did exist as a historical character, was a war leader and did to some extent halt the Saxon and Pict invasion for at least a short period. I think that it is possible that after his exploits many people named their children after a great man and these children grew up to try and emulate their namesake wining their own victories. Over time their exploits were merged into one and this is how we are left with the stories/legends of Arthur's many deeds than span over hundreds of years and many different counties and even countries.

I don't understand. Are you saying saxo is Latin for sword or stone?

Like BigDaddy_GFS, I can't find 'saxo' in the Latin dictionary either. Closest I could find is saxosus which means full of rocks, or rocky. Maybe that's what you meant, Dagaz. Arthur pulled the sword from the saxo/n (rock/stone). That does make sense.

An interesting side to that: the root of the word Saxon means knife, short sword or dagger. There is some kind of connection between this and what Dagaz was trying to say. But the origins of this word are Germanic, not English. In fact, variations of the word Saxon are used by Celtic (Gaelic) speakers to mean an Englishman. British Celts were invaded by Anglo-Saxons from the mainland circa fifth century C.E. and renamed the island Angle-Land, which became England.

And Tommy K, I agree wholeheartedly. The Bernard Cornwell trilogy about Arthur is absolutely brilliant. But I am a huge Cornwell fan...

THEY ARE MADE UP, DEAL WITH IT MAN!!!

I wonder if Tristan existed too....for what I've heard, he was a hottie!

that's funny, in Italian stone is SASSO. So perhaps it is true saxo is a latin word, but just a less known one. In the italian vocabulary there are also lot of ancient germanic words....I have to do some research.

*sigh*

Again, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. YOU should prove that there is evidence of his existence. (And a story doesn't count).

Shouting doesnt make you right. Most of the stories are made up, but it is likely that Arthur did exist and that he halted the Saxon and Pict invasion for at least a generation. Try doing a little reading.

It is hard to prove the legends of King Arthur because it is hard to seperate the truth from the myth. Which is the same reasons it is hard to prove Atlantis, Jesus, Aliens, etc.

Remeber that everyone thought that Troy was just a story too...

I think King Arthur was a real person. Probably a roman war hero of some sort. Probably one of great successes, which would account for the many exaggerations and fabrications of his life and feats.

I can see where you are coming from, MVxK, and maybe I was a little condescending when I replied to metalkannibal. However I am not making any claim, I am on the fence, listening to the opinions of others. I believe it is not right for people to make unequivocal statements like metalkannibal did.

And metalkannibal, for sure, a lot of the material we have about Arthur is in fictional form, but many myths and legends have their roots in fact. Come on, dream a little.

King Auther is a fictional story. The closest thing to the Knights of the Round Table are The Knights Templar. And those people actually Existed. As for those stories THEY ARE MADE UP, DEAL WITH IT MAN!!!

I'm sure you have some constructive critism to contribute?

Every story has its roots in some truth.

Cadetak47 you can't be a sceptic AND a believer. also my contructive critism, the is a round church not a round table go to http://www.druidic.org/camchurch/churches/camsepulch.htm to see what I'm talk about (round church) owned by a group simillar to the Templars

Okay, the churches are round...so what? I don't see the connection. Are you saying that in the last 900 years or so the "made up" legends of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table were actually spawned from the Templar Knights and some Round Churches? Or have I totally missed the point?

I'm only half skeptic and half believer...and my mommy said I can be whatever I want to be!

Forget King Arthur, I want to learn more about Vlad the Impaler.

In another thread at a different time maybe you will get to learn about Vlad the Impaler.

I found some info on wikipedia about camarthen which is near where I live in south wales that seems to say that merlin was born around there, I have no idea if its true or not but thought you all might be interested anyway.

link1

link2

Also here is a picture of 'merlin's oak' which used to stand in camarthen but I think it's gone now which is why the picture is so damn old I guess.