Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In Mythical History, there was a young boy named arther. He found a magical sword as instructed by a great wizard Merlin. After doing so, Arther became King. He was the king of englang until his death.

But in real History, Arther was a simple knight, known as the black Knight. This is true stuff. The Black Knight was the strongest of all knights, until he suddenly dissapeared into a cave never to be seen again. Some say he is still in that cave with his horse.

People Say he will oneday return when the worl dis in peril. But, the fact of the matter is, he was the strongest, and more than likely is still around in spirit, waiting for the return of Merlin, of whom was actually a simple alchamist. a Science man. He lived on Science, working it. Some say he found the holy grail, giving him eternal life.

I beleive this is true, what do you all think?

hope this is a good place to put this in... this is after all history....

King Arthur is a myth...Nothing more then that. IMO, atleast. He's like Beowulf.

King Arthur is a myth, a great myth that's well known.

Arthur is a LEGEND. I believe somehow based in fact, espoecially as the DARK AGES are so shrouded in mystery...

Originally posted by HellMaster93
Arthur is a LEGEND. I believe somehow based in fact, espoecially as the DARK AGES are so shrouded in mystery...

Got any hard facts?

There's a good chance Arthur never existed in the first place. His stories and legends were told / sung / collected centuries after he was born... so I think we can take most of it with a grain of salt.

Make that two grains.

My professor Medieval History (university) was convinced there was a historical figure behind the Arthurian legends. Not a king but a leader, fighting against the invading Saxons, who won important battles.

Originally posted by Storm
My professor Medieval History (university) was convinced there was a historical figure behind the Arthurian legends. Not a king but a leader, fighting against the invading Saxons, who won important battles.
Too bad he can't prove it

Of coiurse he can prove it. The bases of the Arhturian legend are actually quite traceable in historical study... in an incredibly vague sort of way.

Take Camlann, the final battle on the Legend where both Mordred and Arthur die.

Now, historically speaking, we know there was a battle of Camlann, and we know that the figures that Arthur and Mordred were based upon were there, and we know it was against the Saxons.

Now, admittedly, we only have a hazy idea of where Camlann was.

And exactly when it was.

And who won it.

And... err... even which side 'Arthur' and 'Mordred' were on.


Yup, pretty vague. But there is at least something to it all.

Of course, Arthurian Legend was the X-Men of its day. Lancelot, for example, was a seperate legend that got wound in later, crossover style.

Didn't the Royals confirm that there was truth in the story of Arthur at one point recenly? I shall investigate and tell you more!

Err, it's not as if they are privy to any secret knowledge. It isn't the same fmaily or anything.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of coiurse he can prove it. The bases of the Arhturian legend are actually quite traceable in historical study... in an incredibly vague sort of way.

Take Camlann, the final battle on the Legend where both Mordred and Arthur die.

Now, historically speaking, we know there was a battle of Camlann, and we know that the figures that Arthur and Mordred were based upon were there, and we know it was against the Saxons.

Now, admittedly, we only have a hazy idea of where Camlann was.

And exactly when it was.

And who won it.

And... err... even which side 'Arthur' and 'Mordred' were on.


Yup, pretty vague. But there is at least something to it all.

Of course, Arthurian Legend was the X-Men of its day. Lancelot, for example, was a seperate legend that got wound in later, crossover style.
You realize how incredibly vague this all sounds ?

Originally posted by who?-kid
You realize how incredibly vague this all sounds ?

Good Pointsorcerer

I think the movie a kid in king Arthur's court will explain if it was really was true or not.

Originally posted by Ushgarak



And... err... even which side 'Arthur' and 'Mordred' were on.

Classic line right there.

I'm sure Arthur is based on a warrior, but as we know it, none of it's true...IMO at least.

I think you have to look at Arthur (And Robin Hood) as 'If there's no factual base for these guys, then where did the stories come from?'

The story of Arthur takes so many different paths. Some say he was a boy who pulled a sword from a stone and Merlin was a powerful Wizard, others that Arthur was a half-Roman military commander who earned the trust, loyalty and friendship of his Sarmatian knights and that Merlin was a Celtic shaman. There's other forms of the story, like the black knight one and others. Obviously whatever the truth, the stories exagerate in some way, but for me there's no doubt he existed.

Considering the lack of first-hand evidence kept by the Saxons who ruled Britain for several centuries in the dark age, and bearing in mind that Britain was seperated into many kingdoms throughout that era, it's difficult if not impossible to put a date on Arthur's time, but location wise, most stories suggest he was in the south-west.

I remember a few years ago some evidence was allegedly found to suggest that Arthur held his court at what is now the village of West Camel in Somerset. Geographically the location fits: In the south west, on a hill, near a river (Two important defenses for a castle) and the name kind of fits too.

Couldn't it even be possible that the stories of King Arthur are actually stories of many different great leaders/warriors that people just started telling under one man's name?

Originally posted by Marxman
Couldn't it even be possible that the stories of King Arthur are actually stories of many different great leaders/warriors that people just started telling under one man's name?
That's indeed possible.

All legends pick up elements of other things- that's how lancelot got in there.

But the point remains that large parts of the Arthurian legend are based on fact. For all the vagueness, Camlann is a genuine battle of which we have historical record. other such tidbits also exist.

A legendary figure like King Arthur doesn't come out of nowhere

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But the point remains that large parts of the Arthurian legend are based on fact.
Probably one of the biggest exaggerations I've read.

There is nothing to make us believe King Arthur existed. Nothing. Not a shred of evidence.

We don't know what, where, why, how and still people think he really existed. It's because they want to believe he did. And because it's a beautiful legend.

Good God you are entirely wrong! Hahahaha!

We have reasonable evidence to conclude 'Arthur' existed.
We have reasonable evidence to conclude 'Mordred' existed
We have reasonable evidence to conclude battles such as Badon Hill and Camlann existed.

So I will repeat, large parts of it are based on fact. That is not supposition, it is truth.

It's the Dark Ages, so you are not going to get a darn video record. But this isn't rand imterpretation of some Renaissance minstrel. We have historical sources giving us clues and information about these events dating back to the sixth century. We have easily as much information- or more- about these things than we have about anicent events that we take for granted as happening.

So you have "reasonable" evidence that, once upon a time, there was a guy called Arthur, a guy called Mordred and that there were two battles.

That's it ? Pretty meagre, isn't it ?

So is all history from more than a few centuries ago. I mean, what is our entire record for the Battle of Hastings? The Bayeaux Tapestry. But people treat that as 100% solid established stuff, and then want to dismiss the very similar evidence we have about Arthurian stuff.

We have reasonable evidence to show that he was indeed a Romano-British overlord fighting against Saxon invaders who set up a court to help focus on that very goal; his feats of those and his immediate comrades were great and passed into history. It's not just those two battles, and it is fairly contemptuous of you to infer that from what I said. I used two prominent battles as examples; clearly your knowledge of this area is pretty much zero.

Junk the stone castles and the metal armour. Lancelot is a separate French legend who got added in later. Excalibur is based on Celtic legends about swords. Like all big legends, the Arthurian story picked up elements of others. But the very source of it, the British warlord who represented the last great effort of the genuine British people against the foreign invaders... history supports that.

So I will repeat- large parts of the Arthurian legend are based on fact. Not exaggeration- solid history. You, of course, rushed to an ignorant conclusion about that statement, because you have some vision of historians, instead of doing the very genuine historical and archaeological work they have done on this area, are instead just trying to falsify and lie because they are seduced by visions of Holy Grails, trying to live up to the legend. Feeble- and very, very far from the truth.

It does not matter that Camelot was a tent and not a castle. It doesn't mattter that there were no such thing as Knights at the time- or, for that matter, Kings, at least in Britain. It does not matter that Arthur predates the ideas of chivalry by centuries. because none of this stops the point under debate being true- that the Arthurian legend is not a totally fictional story, but that it is based on fact.

Whereas your statement:

"There is nothing to make us believe King Arthur existed. Nothing. Not a shred of evidence."

... is either an outright lie or an outright demonstration of ignorance. It is simply and absolutely not true. There is simply no other way to put it; there is evidence that makes people believe the basis for the King Arthur legend existed.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
So is all history from more than a few centuries ago.
Not true at all.

It's more than we know of King Arthur.

Similar evidence ? So what, did they dug up Excalibur ? Or did they found a piece of the Round Table. There is NO evidence.

He could have been an overlord.

Were great ? Geez, where do you get that information ?

Sigh... those are not prominent battles.

Too bad you can't prove it. What kind of archaeological evidence you have to back that up ? A name in some old book ? That's it ?

Wrong. What are these "large parts" you keep talking about ?

Last time I checked, the only thing that has been decided more or less, is the fact that there was a guy who fought against foreign invaders. That's about it.

We don't know if he was a king, we don't know a thing about his background, his date of birth, his death, his wife, his children.

We know nothing about his brothers in arms, about his battles, about his beliefs, his motivation.

You have to learn to read. I clearly wrote "King" Arthur. I didn't argue about the fact that there has existed some military guy who fought the foreign invaders, and who did apparently pretty well.

Good for him. But still no reason whatsoever to assume that "King Arthur" really existed.

Of course King Arthur like we know him in the story's did not exist, the story's even today can't even agree on who or what Arthur was. But that makes no real difference, the person of King Arthur is obviously based on story's of other people. Rumors legends myths and all of that crap.

That doesn't mean that there is no truth, if you want an Arthur like in the movies or in the books then you are right that person never existed, that doesn't mean however that there is no person Arthur was based on. In more then a thousand of years of people re telling the story it's never going to be perfect and 100% true, thinking it will is just dumb

arthur is a story. cool

i would wish MY name was arthur

or merlin

but sadly, my name is just michael angelo...!

i am dead. sad

O...K offtopic hypocrite

Originally posted by miss_swann
OK I'm putting in the penny's worth as I study all this stuff at school to do with the factual side of "King Arthur"
There is no factual side of King Arthur.

Speculation.

No there isn't.

Again speculation.

I posted here yesterday... where'd my post go?

Erm, it's still here you know.

I'll buy into the idea that there was an Arthur leader of a clan and that there was a Merlin who was a Alchemist.

Yeah, it kind sucks when you take out the myth out of them.

Originally posted by Strangelove
A legendary figure like King Arthur doesn't come out of nowhere

Indeed. Many legends, if not all were based on some truth and/or person.


Also, on another note. Excalibur and the sword in the stone are two different swords. Just for information purposes.

Kurdy, you were talking crap before annd you are talking crap now.

My first statement on all history from more than a few centuries ago is absolutely true. it is all based on hearsay, biased record and archaeological evidence.

We actually know as much about King Arthur as we do about the Battle of Hastings, so you were wrong there as well. All we know about Hastings is that the Normans won. Everything else about it which you assume to be true is based on no more, or even less, than the things we know about Arthur.

There is aactually a considerable amount of archaeological evidence about the Arthurian vibe.

There is no 'could' about him being an overlord. He definitely was and was probably known by a word that would now translate to 'King'.

And I get this information from decent historians, not clueless fools like you.

And we DO know about hist battles, in fact.

You are a complete ignorant in this area. Don't wade into something you clearly know nothing about; just makes you look like an idiot.

The fact of the matter is we have absolute evidence of things like the existence of the Overlord who held back Saxon expansion which is the basis for the Arhtur myth, and battles he fought in like Badon Hill. We have direct record of the time of battles like Camlann directly mentioning Arthur by name. There is lots and lots of stuff like that and you simply cannot just close your eyes and ears and pretend it does not exist.

Can we all accept a man called Arthur who was a warrior existed and a man called Merlin who was an alchamist existed and that they were notable figures and the myth is simply that a myth.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Kurdy, you were talking crap before annd you are talking crap now.

My first statement on all history from more than a few centuries ago is absolutely true. it is all based on hearsay, biased record and archaeological evidence.

We actually know as much about King Arthur as we do about the Battle of Hastings, so you were wrong there as well. All we know about Hastings is that the Normans won. Everything else about it which you assume to be true is based on no more, or even less, than the things we know about Arthur.

There is aactually a considerable amount of archaeological evidence about the Arthurian vibe.

There is no 'could' about him being an overlord. He definitely was and was probably known by a word that would now translate to 'King'.

And I get this information from decent historians, not clueless fools like you.

And we DO know about hist battles, in fact.

You are a complete ignorant in this area. Don't wade into something you clearly know nothing about; just makes you look like an idiot.

The fact of the matter is we have absolute evidence of things like the existence of the Overlord who held back Saxon expansion which is the basis for the Arhtur myth, and battles he fought in like Badon Hill. We have direct record of the time of battles like Camlann directly mentioning Arthur by name. There is lots and lots of stuff like that and you simply cannot just close your eyes and ears and pretend it does not exist.
You're wrong, but I'm not gonna repeat myself for the twentieth time.

But if you are so sure, why don't you give me some evidence ? Unlike you, I'm not an unreasonable person, I can accept evidence.

But you have to see evidence, before you can accept it. And until now, you have brought nothing new to the table.

Oh I forgot, you got your information from, I quote, "decent historians."

Was that in England or France