King Arthur Research Paper

The Medieval Times May 30, 2014

King Arthur: Man or Myth? Everyone is familiar with the story of King Arthur— or at least, a version of the story. The truth is, there is no one “official” tale. Since he was first mentioned in Nennius’s History of the Britons in the early 9th century, Arthurian lore has grown exponentially, beginning almost simultaneously throughout medieval Europe, and spreading all throughout the world today. Most people regard him as being strictly mythical, but is it possible this legendary king actually existed? Historians today are still debating this phenomenon, uncovering new evidence to support both sides of the argument everyday. Since no indisputable evidence has been

�1King Arthur: Man or Myth?

Table of Contents

• King Arthur: Man or Myth?

• The “Story”

• The Supporting Argument

• The Opposing Argument

• The Verdict?

• Important Characters in Arthurian Literature

• Queen Guinevere

• Merlin

• Mordred

• Citations

MEDIEVAL TIMES Alexis Soto | Period 1


found at this point, whether or not King Arthur was a real man or just another fictional hero has become a matter of opinion, rather than fact. In this article, both sides of the argument will be examined in the hope of uncovering the truth.

The “Story”

Before we can determine whether or not Arthur existed, we must first have an understanding of his story. As I mentioned earlier, there is no “official” legend of this romanticized king, but there are commonalities between many of the tales that can give a fairly good overview of who this man was (or was thought to be).

Today, Arthur’s legend is extremely elaborate. He has always been portrayed as a valiant king, but rather than there being just one simple tale, there are hundreds, involving everything from warlocks to adulterous wives. Though the amount of contradictory information between stories can be overwhelming, the similarities seen throughout can provide a general outline of an typical Arthurian tale.


Important Characters in Arthurian Literature

!Queen Guinevere

Queen Guinevere is the surpassingly beautiful and

desirable wife of King Arthur. Her role in early Arthurian literature was small, acting

merely as Arthur’s love interest. In the late 12th century,

Chrétien de Troyes introduced the first story with an

extramarital relationship between her and Lancelot, one

of the king’s most trusted knights. In some stories,

Guinevere is also involved in Morded’s treachery to Arthur,

though more often than not it is not out of her own free will.

Guinevere is killed by her lover, Lancelot, in many stories, who finds out about her role in the treachery against Arthur and slays her out of vengeance.

King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table


Arthur is almost always portrayed as a kind, thoughtful ruler who is more than capable in battle. In fact, his sword itself has a name: Excalibur. (Excalibur plays an important role in many of Arthur’s adventures, including one of the most well known Arthurian legends, the Sword in the Stone.) The noble king presides in his kingdom of Camelot, where he gathers his great army of knights, the most elite of which are given positions at his famed Round Table. These knights were Arthur’s most trusted, and he considered himself their equal. (The Round Table was made in its distinct circular shape in order to create this sense of equality, since there was no head to the table.) Arthur is married to the beautiful Guinevere. In more modern tales, Guinevere is also involved in an adulterous relationship with Lancelot, one of the king’s most trusted knights.

Overall, Arthur’s story is one of honor, bravery, and compassion. While details and plot points may vary by origin or author, the above aspects create a sense of unity that is the foundation for Arthurian literature. It is also these commonalities that create a back bone for several arguments supporting the possible existence of King Arthur.

The Supporting Argument While the idea that King Arthur existed is not very popular, the points brought up by historians who back this theory are equally as thought-provoking as those of the opposing side of the argument . Be l ievers have wr i t ten numerous books trying to prove the

existence of this famed medieval ruler, and continue to hunt for conclusive evidence to further support their theory. Unfortunately, since the majority of historians (and people in general) believe that Arthur is nothing more than a myth, the arguments made by this group are often overlooked. Nonetheless, they should not be ignored.

! The main argument made by this group pertains to the first official mention of Arthur. The History of the Britons, written by the Welsh monk Nennius, was written with the intent of accurately recording the history of the Welsh (the Britons) up until that point. The book goes into great detail on the Saxon invasion of Britain, which is where Arthur comes into play. He is described as a dux bellorum, which means military leader, or miles, which means warrior or soldier, rather than a king. While this is different than how we traditionally think of Arthur, it is possible that his status increased in later on tellings of the tale.


Artwork from the The History of the Britons


This information suggests that King Arthur could have existed for several reasons. First, it seems unlikely that Nennius would have been writing to preserve history, and then add in a man who did not exist. At this time, monks were the only people trying to hold on to the knowledge of the past, since the rest of the world was more focused on trying to stay alive in the harsh times that were the Middle Ages, so altering the information would not have been beneficial to their cause. Another reason this text supports the theory that Arthur was a real man is that it correlates with another piece of medieval text, The Annals of Wales. This collection of dates documents important events from the mid-5th century to mid-10th century includes two of the battles mention in Nennius’s work, the Battle of Badon and the Battle of Camlann. They state:

“516 - The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders and the Britons were the victors.

537 - The battle of Camlann, in which Arthur and Medraut fell: and there was plague in Britain and Ireland.”



Merlin In early Arthurian literature,

Merlin began as a mere prophet, but over time, his role in King

Arthur’s story grew. Today he is not only known as a prophet, but

as a magician and advisor to Arthur as well. Born with the

name Emrys, he was originally supposed to be the

counterweight to Jesus Christ, but decided instead to use his

powers for good. He is involved in Arthur’s life from the very

beginning, when he helps Uther (Arthur’s father) win over Ygerna (Arthur’s mother). When Arthur

was a young boy, Merlin tutored him, and created the sword in the stone to ensure that he would be king. Merlin received this sword, Excalibur, from the Lady of the Lake, whom he persuaded to

give the sword to Arthur. While doing this, however, he fell in

love with her. He taught the Lady of the everything he knew, but

eventually she grew more powerful than he, and captured

him. According to the stories, this is why Merlin was unable to save Arthur at the Battle of Camlann.

The Annals of the Wales


Th e s e re f e re n c e s t o A r t h u r, combined with those in the The History of the Britons, make it seem highly likely that there was at some point a real Arthur. Believers in this theory continue to search for conclusive evidence everyday, and someday, we may eventually know the truth.

The Opposing Argument As previously mentioned, this side of the debate is far more popular than the side of those who believe in the existence of Arthur. One of the main reasons for this is because there is simply a lack of credible historical evidence. While The Annals of Wales and The History of the Britons are fairly convincing, they also contain many errors, so most historians do not believe them to be a reliable source. Not only are these two texts inconsistent in their accuracy, but they are the only two of their time period to mention him in a historical context. Other stories and tales of Arthur began introducing elements of magic and the supernatural, making them clearly myth.

Many of the historical texts written around the time period in which Arthur should have existed also raise questions about whether or not he truly existed. Gildas, a historian who would have been alive around the same time as the legendary king, wrote a polemic titled On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain that actually mentioned the Battle of Badon. However, his account of the event did not include any mention of anyone named Arthur. He is also absent from many other early post-Roman sources, such as the Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which also mentions Mount Badon.

Many of these skeptics have agreed on a theory of how Arthur came to be associated with history. They believe that at some point in time, long before Nennius’s time, King Arthur was originally a hero of folklore, or possibly even a Celtic deity, who was all but forgotten over time. When historians then later began to recall the events of the past, these legends were confused for fact and added into their historical records by mistake.


Arthur pulling the sword for the stone

Present day Mount Badon


Believe it or not, skepticism was not always as common as it is today. Actually, this attitude towards Arthur is relatively recent. Not too long ago, more people used to believe that the king was a historical figure, rather than strictly a man of myth. This level of belief began to decrease, however, when people began wanting more solid evidence to support their belief, and found themselves struggling to find any.

!!!�6King Arthur: Man or Myth?


Mordred Mordred is another character

whose role changed drastically over time. In early Welsh tales,

Mordred is portrayed as a hero, but today, Mordred is the main antagonist in most of Arthur’s

stories. In most stories, Mordred is usually of close relation to

Arthur, and becomes a member of the Round Table. Then, when

Arthur goes off on his Roman Campaign, Mordred seizes the throne and Queen Guinevere,

whom he forces to be his bride. In attempt to regain his throne, Arthur fought Mordred at the

Battle of Camlann, where Mordred killed Arthur. Some versions of the story say that

Arthur dealt him a deadly blow as well, and they both died at each other’s hands, while others say

that Mordred survived the battle, only to be slain by Lancelot after

the fact Merlin, a recent television series based off of Arthurian myths and

legends


The Verdict? Based on the evidence we have discovered thus far, it is impossible to say whether or not King Arthur ever existed. When you look at each school of thought individually, it seems almost common sense that what they are saying must be correct, but when you look at the two together, it is hard to judge which side’s argument hold more water.

Whether Arthur was real or not, he remains an important part of Medieval culture, as well as modern culture. Maybe this is the reason the debate of his existence remains so popular to this day. Historian Nowell Myres once said "No figure on the borderline of history and mythology has wasted more of the historian's time,” and it is true. But with King Arthur’s influence continuing to remain so prevalent in the world around us, even after over a millennium, is not it

!understandable that we would want to know as much as we can about how this figure came to be? If there is even a possibility that this man could have lived, it is not surprising that it will continue to be investigated until the truth is uncovered.

So what is the verdict? Were the stories of the brave King Arthur that I was told every night before bed really nothing more than stories? Or were they more than that… legends based on a great man who existed in a time entirely different then our own? The truth is, we may never know. All we can do is hope that one day, the debate will be over. There will be no more “sides”, only cold, hard, indisputable facts, evidence that reveals the truth about the real (or mythical) King Arthur. Until then, the last page of Arthur’s story will remain blank, waiting to be filled with answers.


What Camelot may have looked like


Citations


Documents

King Arthur Research Paper