Hereword

Ever since John Boorman's fantastic (but often flawed) 'Excalibur' in 1981 I have loved history, and am still transfixed by the Romans in Britain and the later legend of King Arthur, whom we know is a fantasy figure based upon truth. But how much of the famous story is truth and how much is pure legend?

Arthur was already a semi-mythical hero of Welsh literature as early as the 9thC, as in Y Trioedd, Preiddeu Annwn and indirectly in Y Goddodin (a poem written between 800 and 100 about the Battle of Catterick between the Britons and the Angles fought c.600). Arthur also featured in early romances that would later become a medieval story, as in Culhwch a Olwen.

Historia Brittonum, a historical miscellany written c.830 and once incorrectly attributed to Welsh monk Nennius, mentions Arthur.

Annals Cambriae, written in Latin between 954 and 977, directly mention Arthur under two dates in the 6thC, in 516 and 537.

Arthur has been a figure of literature since the 12thC, in great novels by Geoffrey of Monmouth, later bishop of St.Asaph. He was a canon of an Augustinian house in Oxford when he wrote his Historia Regum Britanniae, finishing it in 1136.

However, Arthur was the subject of only c.20% of the whole work, the story elements of which were added and/or expanded by following writers.

Wace in 1155 wrote the Roman de Brut which added the Round Table.

Christien de Troyes, a French poet who is known as the author of five Arthurian romances: (Erec; Cligès; Lancelot, ou Le Chevalier à la charrette; Yvain, ou Le Chevalier au lion; and Perceval, ou Le Conte du Graal) in the 1160’s to 1180’s. The non-Arthurian tale Guillaume d’Angleterre, based on the legend of St. Eustace, may also have been written by Chrétien, adding Llancelot and the castle of Camelot.

Robert de Boron was a French poet of the late 12th and early 13th centuries who is most notable as the author of the poems Joseph d'Arimathe and Merlin. In the 1190’s added the quest for the Holy Grail.

Lazamon, English poet and priest, composed a poem of a version of Arthur’s story in English in the early 1200’s.

Sir Thomas Malory. He wrote Le Morte D’Arthur in 1470 (printed by Caxton in 1485), the legend version of Arthur that we know today

William of Malmesbury. Although he added nothing new in the early 1120’s, William was scathing about [then] current literary uses of Arthur. He wrote earlier than Geoffrey of Monmouth which shows that the latter was joining part of a wider Arthurian trend.

Is Arthur an elevated bystander in some Celtic yarns and/or desperate minds?

Milgod

How much is myth?

Pretty much all of it (if not everything), but it's still a damn fine myth at that.

Paulinus

I still believe he's sleeping under Alderly Edge with a 100 knights and their steeds waiting to save Britain in its hour of need. At least that's what Alan Garner implied in the Weirdstone of Brisingamen. This is the place:

The Legends of Alderley Edge

Vladd

Except with defence cuts it's just 50 Knights.

The Alani Dragon Rising

It's an Alani story with other Alani aspects mixed in. Still, the one we're used to reading is good.

CIowa

I think Historia Brittonum is the only record that anyone considers proof he existed.

Kevinmeath

And their armour is to be phased over a 10 year period

Salah

I'm fairly certain that he existed, but I'm not prepared to say anything about who and what he was. I'm not too fond of the theories that he had some intimate Roman connection.

The Alani Dragon Rising

The Roman theory is Alani too.

Salah

There's no proof that any historical Arthur had any connection with the Sarmatians, let alone any particular Sarmatian tribe.

The only evidence for Sarmatians in Britain at all is the 5500 Rhoxolani Marcus Aurelius supposedly sent there as foederati. I also recall reading of a couple of Romanized Iranian names found on 2nd-3rd Century inscriptions.

Two-three centuries would be plenty of them for them to be assimilated.