does /his/ think that King Arthur was a real historic figure

I'm guessing he was based on a real person/real people but Arthur himself is more legend than man.

>>50172
/thread

He was probably just some goofy duke that didn't actually do anything all that significant.

>>50128
a real historical figure:
basically a briton that established some sort of petty kingdom after the romans left, and that had some modicum of success in fighting of the angle and saxon scum

File: 944.jpg (825KB, 1590x1978px) Image search: [Google]

825KB, 1590x1978px

>>50172
This would be my guess as well. I'd add that the Ossetian connection is also quite interesting.

Its funny how people can be idolized for the weirdest reasons i bet that a 100 years from now Elvis will be worshipped as a mesiah and people will swear he actually performed miracles on stage. Reports of his drug abuse will probably be considered apocriphal

>general English history
Can we all agree that from 1066 onward things were all downhill.

>>50336
Nah, I think someone like David Koresh would probably be more apt to be distorted into a strange messianic figure like a hundred years from now. The Waco siege provides a pretty good platform and conclusion for a tragic narrative of persecution and social subversion that could be rediscovered and outrageously reinvented a long time from now.

>>50128
Fake. Nice story though. Most kingdoms do not start because they find a sword, but plus side it's probably where the story of the sword and the stone came from.

The ideology of the round table also indicates it's fake.

Yet the Balloon Princess might be real. It's rare you see people make up english Kings that don't exist.

Legends about him started way too far after he supposedly reigned. A prominent British warlord having the name in the sub-roman period is possible (although all the details that got filled in 400 years later are clearly fiction) but a mythical figure becoming historicized seems a more likely explanation.

There were similar and older myths from native peoples. After Rome left and Britain was invaded those stories were updated and adapted to a small number of successful kings or generals. For whatever reason a few of them had names like Art, Artus, etc. After a while all of the previous stories and the actual historical figures got mixed together, embellished, and retold until we got the Arthurian tales.

>>50336
Have you ever played Fallout: New Vegas? A gang of thugs find a school for Elvis impersonators and vague records of who he was and decide that he was some kind of great hero/king/deity who was worshiped in Las Vegas.

I think there's too much access to information around now for people start thinking Hitler had goat-legs or that Elvis summoned angels with his singing anytime soon. The only way I see it happening is in the distant future so much information will have accumulated that things that seem like common sense to us will be lost in a tide of trivia to massive for a layman to sift through. Historians of the future will have their work cut out for them.

King Arthur was real and he already came back.

He returned as Nominoe and freed his people from their German oppressors.

>King Arthur
>English

File: 1361626821178.jpg (220KB, 500x707px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 500x707px

The legend of King Arthur is obviously a myth, but like people have mentioned before, he was an amalgamation of various tales around the time after the fall of Rome and the Anglo-Saxon invasions, mostly from the remnants of the original British, which is why you'll find older versions of the tales from Wales.

Arthur is probably a lot like Moses.

He's probably the personification of Post Roman Celtic resistance of the Anglo-Saxons.

While the man himself may not have lived, his legend serves as a face for a movement.

>>51864
He was Romano-British, right?

>>52087
Or mostly based upon someone like that, yes

Stories are cool and he was probably based on someone real, but Arthur himself is probably just legend. Besides, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.

>>51277
The Kings were bro as fuck.

>>52123
>strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
Are you implying there's a better way?

>>50128
King Arthur started out as a legend for Welsh STRONK, and later was just a propaganda tale used by the Kings of England to promote the idea of a united England.

If he did exist he was just some minor Welsh King living in a mud hut.

>>52178
More like a Welsh general. Although at that time, the Welsh were more British/Roman/Celtic and weren't distinctly Welsh yet

>>50366
Had Harold won the battle of hastings, how much of a difference to the world would it have made. Maybe there should be an alt history thread but as an idea what do you think. The entire royal line would have been different, we would never have had the war of the roses, or the hundred years war. Perhaps parliament would never have formed. The british empire would never have been a thing. etc

>>52178
The ones who promoted the King Arthur legend were the Normans, actually, because he fought Anglo-Saxons.

>>52365
No, the Plantagenet Kings promoted King Arthur to quell the Welsh. They built a fake tomb and fully immersed themselves in Arthuriana in order to completely crush any hopes of Welsh sovereignty.

Reposting from >>43336

>What's your favorite Arthurian romance?
>What's your favorite historical analysis of King Arthur?
>Does your country have a cultural counterpart(s) to King Arthur?
>Favorite piece of modern (20th-21st century) Arthurian media?


>>51980
My sovereign can't be this cute!

>>50366
I don't know, man, some of the greatest and most lasting cultural achievements, primarily literary, were made in the centuries after 1066.