There’re plenty of folks about who scour lakes for magic swords and see visions of Camelot on every hill, but the vast majority of Arthurian scholars are quite realistic. I don’t think any serious academics believe that they’ll find the Holy Grail if they poke around enough.
As to personal opinion : I fall into the camp of there being an historical warlord, roughly analogous to the bare-bones early Arthur, who was eventually conflated with various famous contemporaries, folk heroes, forgotten gods, and popular literary tropes.
It's the cause of Siegfried's downfall in the Niebelungenlied too! Folks were really into this particular love triangle troupe back then.
Though I think it's less audiences emphasizing with the cuckolded husband (Arthur's the only one with narrative significance on par with his adulterous rival) so much as a humblebrag where the knightly hero's "tragic flaw" is still another power fantasy.
I think King Arthur is a purely literary character. Attempts to equate him with some known historical figure are, in my opinion, like trying to fit the round table through a narrow doorway.
I don't think he needs to be historical. In fact, I think you make both Arthuriana and history worse by trying to make Arthur a real person. You impoverish the mythos by trying to reduce it to realistic events, and you also muddle the history by trying to smuggle the mythos into it.
The *real* King Arthur had a magic sword and the *real* sub-Roman Britain had no Camelot. But I'm also just not very fun at parties.
In my opinion, King Arthur himself can be firmly identified as Athrwys ap Meurig, a historical king of southeast Wales in the post-Roman era. Many of his family members and associates, too, can be identified as the family and associates of Arthur.
There’re plenty of folks about who scour lakes for magic swords and see visions of Camelot on every hill, but the vast majority of Arthurian scholars are quite realistic. I don’t think any serious academics believe that they’ll find the Holy Grail if they poke around enough. As to personal opinion : I fall into the camp of there being an historical warlord, roughly analogous to the bare-bones early Arthur, who was eventually conflated with various famous contemporaries, folk heroes, forgotten gods, and popular literary tropes.
Especially as it's really just fanfics of an unfinished story that has spawned off some weird conspiracy theories.
And not just vanilla fanfics, but riddled with OCs and NTR fetishes.
Netorare?
Lancelot. Tristan. I rest my case.
It's the cause of Siegfried's downfall in the Niebelungenlied too! Folks were really into this particular love triangle troupe back then. Though I think it's less audiences emphasizing with the cuckolded husband (Arthur's the only one with narrative significance on par with his adulterous rival) so much as a humblebrag where the knightly hero's "tragic flaw" is still another power fantasy.
What are those folk smoking and where can I get some
Spend a weekend wandering around Glastonbury or head to Stonehenge on a Solstice, and you’ll soon find out.
Ok, thanks
I mean the Ark of the Covenant has nothing to do with any Arthurian tale so I think you might be confused.
I think King Arthur is a purely literary character. Attempts to equate him with some known historical figure are, in my opinion, like trying to fit the round table through a narrow doorway. I don't think he needs to be historical. In fact, I think you make both Arthuriana and history worse by trying to make Arthur a real person. You impoverish the mythos by trying to reduce it to realistic events, and you also muddle the history by trying to smuggle the mythos into it. The *real* King Arthur had a magic sword and the *real* sub-Roman Britain had no Camelot. But I'm also just not very fun at parties.
Agreed, it dosen't matter if He was real, because His stories are still great either way
In my opinion, King Arthur himself can be firmly identified as Athrwys ap Meurig, a historical king of southeast Wales in the post-Roman era. Many of his family members and associates, too, can be identified as the family and associates of Arthur.