Historical Basis For King Arthur

Historical Basis For King Arthur

The historical basis of King Arthur is a source of considerable debate among historians. Due to the poverty of British records in the period 450-550CE, historian Thomas Charles-Edwards noted that "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him". Historian David Dumville summed up his position by saying, "I think we can dispose of him quite briefly. He owes his place in our history books to a 'no smoke without fire' school of thought ... The fact of the matter is that there is no historical evidence about Arthur; we must reject him from our histories and, above all, from the titles of our books."

Some have suggested that Arthur was a mythological or folklore figure, that other mythological figures also may have become historicised: one suggestion is that Hengest and Horsa were originally Kentish totemic horse-gods, ascribed a historical role by Bede. There is, however, no more early trace of this fictional Arthur than there is of a historical one.

Arthur appears in a historical context as a British soldier (miles in the original Latin) fighting alongside British kings against the invading Saxons in a Latin text of the 9th century, more than three centuries after his supposed floruit in 5th-6th century Sub-Roman Britain. The legendary king of the Britons of Arthurian legend develops from the 12th century after Geoffrey of Monmouth's influential Historia Regum Britanniae.