Was King Arthur Real?

Yes

-500 AD

-5th Century Britain

-Britons

-Anglo-Saxons

-Romans in England

-Romans left in 410 AD

-Tintagel

-Reothalmus

-Latin Script

-Few could write

-Palace

-5th Century Harbor

-Swords in lakes

-Eastern Britain

-Cadbury Hill

-Pots found

-Warrior's bones

-The pit on Cadbury Hill

-Boat in a pit

-Archaeological site

-Hill fort

-Written about by Geoffrey of Monmouth

-Flooding

-Artos Viros

-Body never found

-Mystery

No

-Merlin

-Monastery

-Lady of the Lake

-Excalibur

-Type of lifestyle

-Camelot

-Knights of the Round Table

-Knights in Shining Armour

-Credited with 12 battles

Maybe

-Parent's marriage in jeopardy

-Born in Cornwall

-Large supplies

-Port for trading goods

-King

-Sword

-Sword moulded

-Sword made of bronze

-Warrior

-Post holes

-Glasses found

-Dressed like a Roman

-Short hair and beard

-Long hair and beard

-Leather armour

-Looked Welsh or Irish

-Killed by his nephew

-Died in Avalon

-Avalon

-Cadbury Hill is Avalon

-Merlin-like figure

-Written about in Medieval Times (during the 1100s or 12th century)

Essay

Though the legend of King Arthur is pure fiction, King Arthur was a real person because elements of King Arthur’s story are believable, evidence has been found to support King Arthur’s existence and historians and archaeologists have found artifacts that can support that King Arthur was a real person.

King Arthur was a real person because elements of King his story are believable like the fact that he was a warrior and he was fighting off the Anglo-Saxons. King Arthur lived in 5th Century Britain and the Anglo-Saxons were in Britain at the time and they were attacking the Britons. The Britons needed a strong warrior chief to lead them. According to legend, he was credited with twelve battles but, that has never been proven. No historical evidence in existence supports these claims.

King Arthur was a real person because evidence to support his existence has been found. People have found the remains of a palace that they think may have belonged to King Arthur. They have found a harbour or the remains of one that was used at the time of King Arthur’s life. They have also found warrior bones and a body of a warrior in a boat in Cadbury Hill. They have never found King Arthur’s body.

Historians and archaeologists have found artifacts that can support that King Arthur was a real person. Pots have been found and the type of pots that were only used by people who had some money, royalty perhaps. Drinking glasses have also been found that proved people like King Arthur liked to drink alcohol. Swords in lakes have been found. In King Arthur’s time, putting swords in lakes was a right of passage. There is also a hill fort on Cadbury Hill that may have been from King Arthur.

Despite the fact that King Arthur appears to be real, elements seem of his story appear to be unprovable. There is no evidence to support a Merlin-like figure. There is no evidence of Excalibur or the Knights of the Round Table. There is also no known evidence of Camelot. Avalon, possibly yes, but Camelot, no.

In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, King Arthur was a real person because there is more evidence supporting that he was a real person than there is supporting that he wasn’t a real person.

Sources

The Real King Arthur. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2016, from http://www.history.co.uk/shows/king-arthurs-round-table-revealed/articles/the-real-king-arthur

The Real King Arthur. (n.d.). Retrieved March 01, 2016, from http://www.history.co.uk/shows/king-arthurs-round-table-revealed/articles/the-real-king-arthur