A lot depends on what you refer to as the legend of King Arthur.
If you mean Guinevere and Merlin, then these are stories which link many earlier stories and are essentially just the Da Vinci code of there day, mixing well known stories with new story telling.
As for whether there was a real historical figure of King Arthur is another matter. There is no direct evidence of Arthur, just various reports of deeds attributed to him, battles fought by him and vague mentions in poems and annuls that have been copied from earlier sources.
Certainly around the turn of the 5th and 6th centuries there was clearly a Romano British military leader who defeated the Anglo Saxon invaders at the battle of Badon, where and exactly when this took place is uncertain but it seems that almost without doubt that Badon happened and that we gave the Anglo Saxons one helluva beating.
There is little more firm evidence for anything the supposed Arthur is supposed to have done. Various sources suggest he had 12 battles, did other assorted battles and triumphs but these sources are either hugely unreliable or are written 2 or 3 hundred years after the events are reported to have happened.
Other evidence into the name "Arthur" haven't added much in the way of an answer either.
As much as I personally would like to believe there was an historical Arthur, I cant without more evidence.
As for the films about Arthur, I always liked "Excalibur" but all the rest are just tosh of various degrees.
| 
Linear Mode
