Did King Aurthur really exist
Did King Arthur Truly Exist and if so who was King Arthur? Most people would tell of a great King, a devoted circle of heroic knights, mighty castles and mightier deeds, a time of chivalry and courtly love, of Lancelot and Guinevere, of triumph and death. Historians and archaeologists, especially Leslie Alcock, point to shadowy evidence of a man who was not a king, but a commander of an army, who lived during the late fifth to early sixth century who may perhaps be the basis for Arthur. By looking at the context in which the stories of King Arthur survived, and the evidence pertaining to his castle Camelot and the Battle of Badon Hill, we can begin to see that Arthur is probably not a king as the legend holds. While stories about the places that Arthur has lived, visited, and fought at are numerous, attempts at pinpointing many of these sites have been futile.Arthur's most famous battle, the Battle of Badon Hill, cannot be ascribed as a location. Depending on the historian, the Battle of Badon Hill could have been located at many different places: According to Alcock, the battle at Mount Badon took place on a hill near Bath; while Wood attempts to pin the battle at Liddington castle. If we are unable to be sure of a locati
Since very few individuals could write, stories of Arthur were mainly told by word of mouth. Stories are embellished and added to, depending on the audience, in order to make it more exciting. However, if we are to consider these facts as an argument that Arthur existed from Leslie Alcock's point of view, we must also consider the fact that history points to the fact that there was an Vortigern, probably the same one who exists in Geoffrey of Monmouth's account of Britain. So it is reasonable to believe that this is a very late and unreliable entry indeed. By looking at the context in which the stories of King Arthur survived, and the evidence pertaining to his castle Camelot and the Battle of Badon Hill, we can begin to see that Arthur is probably not a king as the legend holds. Arthurian history is vague to say the least, and written records are not always entirely factual. Although fables present Arthur as a king, historians argue that he was, in fact, only the commander of an army. " Arthur was not a king, as was previously thought, but a commander of an army whose legends and fame grew out of real battles and deeds. This brings us to the man himself, Arthur. It has proved to be nearly impossible to find one of the grandest courts in all of England. Oral stories did not get written down until later; Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote down the stories as one of the first written manuscript of Arthurian legend in 1139. As discussed before in this paper, local tradition had placed Camelot in an area that was proven not to be Camelot. According to Alcock, Vortigern "ruled with a group of consiliarii like a Roman - or for that matter, a Visigothic - provincial governor" (357). Except where one can find the few references to real contemporary historical figures in the legends, as evidence they are worthless. The brief Annals of Wales tells two things of Arthur: he fought at Badon, and he was killed at Camlann in the same battle.
Common topics in this essay:
King Arthur,
Alcock Arthur,
Caliburn Monmouth's,
Badon Hill,
Bath Wood,
Medraut Modred,
Geoffrey Monmouth,
Leslie Alcock,
Annals Wales,
Alcock Vortigern,
king arthur,
badon hill,
battle badon,
commander army,
battle badon hill,
arthur king,
according alcock,
word mouth,
local tradition,
alcock shadowy evidence,
arthur survived,
context stories,
leslie alcock shadowy,
shadowy evidence king,
evidence king commander,
|
Acceptance Essays
