The legend of King Arthur: truth or fiction?

Abstract. The article is devoted to the study of the cycle of legends about King Arthur, comparing the facts set forth in the legend with the facts found in historians. The problem of historical reality of the events of the legend of king Arthur is considered. This article can be useful for everyone, who studies the history of medieval England.

Keywords: history, history of the Middle ages, history of England, England, king Arthur, the Saxons, the knights of the Round table, Excalibur, the legend of king Arthur.

Surely, everyone has heard of the legend of King Arthur at least once in their life. This legend tells the story of the king's birth, how Arthur became king, the time of his reign, and his death. It seems that all this is historical facts that are described in detail, but why is this story called a legend? The fact is that many researchers question the very existence of King Arthur as a historical figure. They tend to think that Arthur as a separate person didn’t exist, and the name of Arthur was attributed to some real person known in traditional history by another name.

So what is true about the legend of King Arthur and what is fiction? Let's try to figure it out.

According to the legend, Arthur was the son of Uther Pendragon, king of Britain. This fact is also confirmed by other sources of the time: for example: the chronicle of Tysilio, "Histories of the kings of Britain" by G. Monmouth, "Chronicle of the kings of England" by W. Malmesbury, etc. However, modern historians question the events described in these works, because they were written on the basis of a legend that had no clear evidence. At the same time, W. of Malmesbury did not doubt the existence of King Arthur, but in the "Chronicle of the kings of England" refers to his personality very carefully.

Most likely, Arthur, as a historical figure, was the "dux bellorum" - the leader of the Celtic tribe of Britons who inhabited present-day England and Wales. He lived, presumably, in the VI century. At the end of the fifth century, Celtic Britain experienced attacks from the Saxons, which eventually ended with the destruction of British culture and the conquest of the southern part of the island by the Saxons. However, at the beginning of the sixth century, the Saxon advance to the West was stopped. This, according to many researchers, serves as proof of the existence of King Arthur, or, on the other hand, served to create the image of King Arthur, who was credited with this achievement.

According to the legend, Arthur became king by removing the sword Excalibur from the stone. It is noteworthy that the sword is a real thing; it exists now and is kept in a chapel in Italy. Thus, the existence of the sword is beyond doubt. However, this is not proof of the existence of King Arthur.

The legend says that Arthur made the city of Camelot his capital and gathered the best knights of the Earth at one table. So that there would be no quarrels between them over high and low places, Merlin gave the king a Round Table. As for Camelot, historians believe it may have been built somewhere in Wales. Perhaps the prototype of the legendary king Arthur was born there. Archaeologists have used various methods to search for this place. Tintagel castle in Cornwall attracted their greatest interest. However, all attempts to find traces of King Arthur's presence there remained in vain.

The most famous in Camelot was the Round Table where the king and the knights discussed current Affairs. Around the table were chairs with the names of knights engraved on them. Some evidence of the existence of the Round Table was found at Windsor castle. There is archaeological evidence of this, discovered during excavations in the castle. The stone slabs themselves were not found, but rubble was preserved in the place where they were located. This was the most significant archaeological find of recent times, testifying to the reality of the Knights of the Round Table.

The basis of Arthur's policy was the struggle for the independence of the Britons, who were constantly attacked by the Saxons. According to the legend, King Arthur spent a lot of time on military campaigns with his loyal knights. Probably, this fact really finds a place in history. Some researchers believe that Arthur took part in these battles, but not as a king, but as a leader of the cavalry, others are of the opinion that he was a simple warrior. However, there is no consensus on whether Arthur took part in the battles described in the legends and who he was.

It is believed that Arthur died at the hands of his nephew Medrod, who seized the throne of his uncle. Arthur, having learned of this, went with his army against Medrod, as a result of which he killed Him, but he himself received a mortal wound. The endings of the legend differ: one of the options is that Arthur was taken to Avalon for healing, the second option is that Arthur died immediately.

After a long time, the grave of King Arthur was found, in which they found a man and a woman, the man was in armour, which was carved with a coat of arms with a bear and the signature "Arthur". The grave was restored and a marble pedestal was made. It was later discovered that it was not the grave of King Arthur, but of someone else. However, the grave was left, and it is still considered the place of his burial.

Thus, in conclusion, we can say that some points from the cycle of legends about King Arthur really find confirmation, therefore, it really existed: for example it is the names of some of the knights of the Round table scientists even managed to find out and their reality is not in doubt. However, the authenticity of the existence of Arthur as a separate historical person has not yet been proven. We can only say that at present, most historians are inclined to believe that either the real prototype of Arthur had a different name, or it is a collective image of several prototypes.