King Arther and Merlin

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.

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.

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?

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