What Evidence Supports the Myth of King Arthur? Essay
“Some people believe that King Arthur is so inextricably tied up in Celtic Mythology that he must, in origin, have been, not a man at all, but a god.”
Arthur is claimed as the king of almost every Celtic kingdom known. The 6th century saw many men names Arthur born into the royal families of Britain but, even though, there were many attempts to identify the great man himself amongst them, there can be little doubt that most of these people were only named in his honor.
In the late 5th and early 6th centuries, a time known as the dark ages, British won a significant victory over the Saxon invaders of their country, so the Western Roman Empire had to shake off the dominion of the Germans. …show more content…
The native Britons did not fall into cultural and political darkness the moment Rome withdrew her legions. Independent Britain freed herself from Roman and Saxon. But her period of glory was brief. A resurgent Roman Empire destroyed the Arthurian Golden Age. It was Rome’s attempt to regain control of a lost province which turned Britain over to the Saxons. And the written record which has come down to us has passed through her hands.
Arthur was not invented to fill the gap in the British record. The gap was created to remove Arthur. But enough remains to prove his historical reality. Rome is regarded as a heresy.
In conclusion, there is no physical proof of arthur existing. Most historians believe that the legends concerning Arthur are based around a real person, although generally he is considered not to have been a king but more of a general or battle leader. it began by embellishing these tales and the legends surrounding "King Arthur" which we are familiar with today were created, that assert the existence of Arthur . This supports the theory that Arthur was a real person and accordingly most