If you register for free, you will be able to post threads, vote on polls and lots more. If you have problems with the registration or logging in, please contact the administrator.
It's extremely difficult to ascertain whether he actually existed. He is linked with a British leader who supposedly repelled the Anglo-Saxons in the 5th Century. Even though that leader is believed to have existed - there is no actual contemporary evidence or sources to substantiate it - and even if we could find some, his identity is almost impossible to determine.
His existence is much like that of Robin Hood and like Hood, it's possible he's an almagamation of a number of people about whom tales were told and passed on (for example, many tales about Robin Hood were very similar to those told about Hereward the Wake an post-conquest Anglo-Saxon hero/outlaw).
The King Arthur movie was rubbish, but probably the best attempt to place Arthur in a correct context (a Romano British leader fighting invading Saxons). Excalibur was based purely on the Medieval Myth of Arthur which had no basis in reality.
Originally posted by Big Geordie:
I think the fact little is known about him, leaves plenty license to tell the story.
Well, not really. The myth of Arthur (the one portrayed in Excalibur) is fairly well-established since Thomas Mallory's version (which itself was based on earlier stories) in the 15th century.
But essentially people can take liberties with any story. Mentioning no particular films of course.
Nah, the whole Arthur thing was made up by someone, at some point as a children's story about a hero because people needed someone to believe in or just to fill a void in history.
I would prefer to believe the first part, because no one believes in heroes anymore.
What is your name? - King Arthur of the Britons
What is your quest? - I seek the holy grail.
What is the speed of the height velocity of a swallow? - What do you mean? An African or European Swallow?
What? I don't know that!! AHHH!
Linear Mode
