Arthurian legends, Arthurian fallacies. True, not true, or a combination of both?

I have several ';ideas'; already. He was a minor clan leader, but if so minor, why the extent of legends? He is a collection of many tales of many leaders, but if so, why collect them into one? He is pure mythology, designed to get Brits through hard times, but if so, why have so many reputable scholars proven (attempted to prove) his existence?


Please don't wikipedia me, I'm not a huge fan of that. I would, however, like some ideas of books or articles to find, preferably easy to find (ha ha) in the States.


Thanks!Arthurian legends, Arthurian fallacies. True, not true, or a combination of both?
The most important thing about King Arthur is that the version we know today was largely the invention of writers who were generating political propaganda: namely, the heirs of William the Conquerer. Their purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of the Anglo-Saxon kings by giving out the notion that, in fact, the Celts and their royal lines were the true and rightful heirs to the throne. This was a classic divide-and-conquer ploy, wherein the differences between the Saxons and the Celts were exploited.





I don't have time to look for references, but, in terms of historical analysis, this is the conventional wisdom among the vanguard of scholars who deal with subjects like this.





Here is a page that does have some interesting excerpts from writings of the period (and before that and afterwards, also). The ones written in the 1100's are the defining writings in establishing this myth on the basis that the Normans wished to see it framed: http://www.britannia.com/history/arthur/鈥?/a>Arthurian legends, Arthurian fallacies. True, not true, or a combination of both?
Most likely it was probably an amalgamation of tales of several other famous people of the time and Chaucer probably just chose the name Arthur in his Canterbury tales. You have to remember that books and stories were the only form of entertainment availible back then and were a very rare treat. While there was an actual King named Arthur I doubt his real life was anything like King Arthur of the stories.
There were more then several ';Arthur's'; of that time period and, a castle seemingly to prove the stories is being looked upon but, there just isn't the evidence to support it.





It's a beautiful story and I for one love it, I hope they don't find anything, leave the mystery grow it make a stupendous tale.
I just took a look at this a couple of weeks ago when I was watching the movie King Arthur. The information that you will find just back tracks over each other. what one article says another says that it is wrong. But it was interesting reading. Here is a couple of interesting sites.





http://www.kingarthursknights.com/





http://www.public.iastate.edu/~camelot/a鈥?/a>
The facts about Arthur are minimal and the few historical references to him are contradictory and based on hearsay.





The ancient legends of all areas of Britain claim Arthur as a native son. He was a Welshman, a Pict, a Briton of Roman ancestry. He was a king, a duke, a battle leader.





It has been claimed that he came from Gaul or Brittany and may have been of the theorized bloodline of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene.





some say he lived around the time the Roman Empire fell, others that he lived a hundred or two hundred years later.





Sir Thomas Malory's work The Morte d'Arthur really established Arthur as a hero but as far as anyone knows this work was an allegory.





You could browse your library and bookshops and see what you can find. I've studied history for over 50 years and I'm not sure I know any more about him now than I did when I first heard of him when I was five years old.
There are elements of fact and fiction in the legend of Arthur. The earliest references to him are (ironically for a supposedly ';English'; hero) in Welsh legends dating to between the 12th and 14th centuries. You're best reference is Lady Charlotte Guest's translation- ';The Mabinogion';, it features several tales which feature Arthur.


Frank Delaneys ';The Legends of the Celts'; is worth a look as it also contains the Irish tales ';The Tain'; too. The Mabinogion dispenses with the ';Normanisation'; of the Legend, (no ';Lancelot';).