Believe

[naovaxe.livejournal.com]

Does anyone believe in the concept that Arthur was a real person? New evidence suggests that such a King Arthur did exist, back in ancient times. They also found remnants of a round table and symbols that suggested Arthur did in fact have a man named Merlin who was a wizard. What do you think?

Comments

[maidenus.livejournal.com]

I think it's plausible; perhaps "Arthur" wasn't his real name or whatever, but there's plenty of evidence to state that there was a king which the legends were based off of.

Some of them obviously deviate from history, but for the most part, I think that there is a historical basis.

[shadefell.livejournal.com]

I think there's as much a historical basis for "Arthur" as there is for "Jesus," that both bodies of work have an origin in real people who did real things, and after time passed, the oral history and tradition was written, rewritten, translated, edited, etc.

[adalia-jean.livejournal.com]

Actually, Jesus was a very real person. He is in history books all over, and not just a "legend" like King Author. In fact one of the founders of Harvard Law School, Simon Greenleaf, also the man that helped to develop the modern-day method by which all evidence is received in court, set to the task of trying to disprove that the resurrection of Jesus ever happened. He reviewed the Bible and 500 other documented accounts of people from that time period that saw Jesus after his death. After studying all the evidence, he declared that there is enough evidence to say that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is as much an established event as any other. And that man became a believer. See his testimony and writings here (http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html)
Also, here (http://www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html) is an accumulation (sp?) of some actual historical proof that Jesus really existed (aside from the Bible)... And yet another is this here (http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html)- which talks about just some of the aechologiacl evidence supporting the Bible. It's all a lot of reading, but...

As for Arthur, some sources suggest that he was based on a Welsh general, but I don't know... there are so many theories...

[cat-o-wen.livejournal.com]

In my heart I truly believe that Arthur lived. All those tales and legends had to have sprung up from some bit of truth. I think there are a few perfectly plausible shreds of evidence found in recent years to support that he did indeed exist.

[geckoman.livejournal.com]

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt...I mean, there's plenty of evidence that Luke Skywalker existed...I mean, I have figurines of him, some books that mention him AND his lightsaber...
Seriously, about 25 years ago, we had a guy come to our college who was the head of the Search for the Historical Arthur foundation (or an organization with a similar name...it HAS been a while) and he stated that they had found the most likely site for Camalot (an old mead-hall on a hill) and there was evidence of there being an Arthur, but he was most likely just some clan leader...with most legends, things tend to get amplified over the years and the retellings.

Oh, he did say that the most accurate King Arthur movie was 'Monty Python and The Holy Grail'...but that's not saying alot.

[minstrel-ivare.livejournal.com]

I'm willing to believe in an historical Arthur--but I imagine he must have been more like the warlord Arthur in Culhwch and Olwen than the Arthur of the French romances. So maybe no Merlin... but I'd love to see more details on the recent discovery.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I believe that the evidence suggests that he did exist, though without a Merlin, and definitely without a Round Table or knights or Grails or the like.

Arthur is mentioned in enough early sources, written not too long after his time. I like the argument Christopher Gidlow gives in his book, "The reign of Arthur: from history to legend." He argues that certain other Dark Age war leaders - e.g. Maelgwyn Gwynedd - are mentioned in sources far less than Arthur is, but every historian takes it for granted that they existed. However, with Arthur, they dismiss all the contemporary or near-contemporary sources. Because Arthur later became such a figure of romance and legend, they are determined to dismiss even the earlier historical references to Arthur the war leader.

So I think there was an Arthur, and he did some good things in war, which meant that a lot of people had heard of him - enough for the author of the Goddodin (manuscript written in the 9th century, but poem in the 6th) to write of someone that, although he was a good fighter, "he was no Arthur." Because he was well-known, legends started to rise up about him. A bard telling a story would say, "I will now tell a tale of King Arthur" because his audience would have heard of him. So tales were told around him, keeping his name alive, and gradually changing him out of all recognition and turning him into a king of chivalry and courtly romance.

[ellehollinger.livejournal.com]

I took a literature course about King Arthur in college and we talked about these issues a lot. According the the written material, there likely was a man named Arthur. The first mentionings of him say he was a warrior and leader, but not a king. Only later did his title get changed to king and other elements of the story got added on. The oldest stories of Arthur say nothing of a Merlin or an unfaithful bride or reincarnation or Morgan le Fey-- these were all added on by a number of different storytellers in the last few hundred years.

With that said, just because those elements are not original parts of the story doesn't make them any less interesting. One of the reasons the King Arthur legends are so appealing is because of their flexibility and adaptablility, which allows them to reflect on the culture perpetuating the current myth.

Hope my thoughts are helpful.
:)

[nellisir.livejournal.com]

Same as everyone else. I think the legends were inspired by a real Arthur. The association with Merlin, the Round Table, and 90% of everything else came later.

[lodessa.livejournal.com]

Evidence points that there was a warlord that Arthur is based on. Merlin being an actual wizard seems to be stretching it, although there could have been some sort of mystic in his court.

[witchylatina.livejournal.com]

I my heart I believe an Arthur existed. I believe the History Channel televised a program about King Arthur. Basically, (from what I remember)historians agree that "Arthur" and his legend is more of a portrait of various warlords that were combined into one. They also named a Britain born Roman citizen that fit the bill to be the King Arthur of our legends.

Morgan Le Fay (my favorite character)was first introduced into Arthurian legend by Geoffrey of Monmouth in the Vita Merlini (c. 1150) but her true origin, as with many Arthurian characters, leads back into Celtic mythology and inevitably develops with each new rendition of the tale. Morgan Le Fay's character is interesting enough, but so is her name. Possibly the early Welsh Tales?

[theswordmaiden.livejournal.com]

My heart aside, it's my understanding that the stories are based on a real person, but we all know that stories grow an extra leg whenever they're told. So I'm more inclined to believe that the earliest tales are closer than the French romances.

[black-hgwtspimp.livejournal.com]

I agree, like most of the other people who've answered in this post. I agree 100% that Arthur did in fact exist. However, because he likely existed and did the deeds he became known for before the age when writing was common, any stories of this actions were told by bards or the like. And in order to attract an audience to each telling, the truth would be stretched bit by bit to make the story more exciting. As the stories were heard by others and spread the details were altered or made up, until eventually through years of telling and retelling, as well as translation Arthur went from the leader of a clan in Celtic times, to a romanitic hero in the French romances.

[knightsarmatia.livejournal.com]

I happen to believe that there was an Arthur : )

[bandersnatch42.livejournal.com]

I read somewhere that there was a surge of people named Arthur around the time he's supposed to have existed, so they think there was some kind of warlord/freedom-fighter that people liked enough to name their children after.

I think all the legends are based around an actual historical figures, but he's so well wrapped in the shroud of fiction that I doubt we'll ever uncover who he really was.

[stevierocks.livejournal.com]

I do believe there was a real king Arthur--maybe even more than one kings that were named Arthur.
Different bits of historical information came to light, and interesting facts were learned.

The story of King Arthur as we know it grew about by tying all these factual bits and pieces together. The mythology grew out of real facts, so yes I do belive that there was a real King Arthur and a lot of what was written about him is true.

[celticbloodnigh.livejournal.com]

It's not known if the King's name was Arthur, but the tales spring up from the first Celtic High King (aka warlord that united all the clans). All the clans were fighting amongst themselves while a foreign country attacked (I want to say it was Rome...?), and King "Arthur" united all the clans of Britain against the foreign enemy, won the battles - but more importantly - established peace in the Celtic lands that had been war torn because of feuding clans.

[forceiswithyou.livejournal.com]

In my heart of hearts I believe in Arthur...I think historical evidence proves to an ancient Celtic warlord, or something like that, that was the last thing I heard. But if I was going by my heart alone, I would pretty much beleive in Arthur just as medieval romance has presented him. The study of the "historical" Arthur is fascinating, but there is another, emotional level in me which completely accepts him as the Once and Future King that mythology and literature presents us with. And once a story is told, I think it has its own reality, if you understand...it becomes just as real as history, though in a different sense, you could say. So yes. I believe in Arthur.