¿Was king Arthur real?

¿Was king Arthur real?

Was King Arthas real?

Was Darth Vader real?

yes

no

King Arthur is a blend of various different legendary characters and stories, some of which are influenced by real events. So short answer is no.

Much of the story is pure fantasy, but the Round Table is real.

Sort of. There was a man who commanded an army c.490 AD near Aquae Sulis which defeated an invading army of Saxons, Angles, Jutes and Frisians and forestalled their advance for at least 70 years. The Sussex king-list goes completely dead around this time and Saxon grave goods become sparser in the temporarily conquered areas of central England. It is only with the rise of new warlords like Ceawlin of Wessex and Penda of the new kingdom of Mercia in the late-6th century that the Saxons began to go on the march again. Arthur is main character of a mythological legendarium, not a real figure. But there was a man who he was based on. Whether he was a Briton chieftain, a Roman fighter or a foreigner is and will forever be completely unknown. 5th century Britain is probably the least known about period of history anywhere in post-Roman Europe.

about as real as King David, so just barely

Get this degeneracy off my board.

longshank's table, pretty neato but it was completely vandalized in henry viii's time. repainted and that stupid tudor rose. i wish it was in original condition.

And also why do the English like him when he was famed for trying his damnedest to fight off the English hordes?

WE

WUZ

LEGEND KANGS

The same reason English vilified Harold Godwinson, by all accounts a capital fellow and the rightful king of England as chosen by the witan
And glorified the french usurper
English are fucking cucks is the answer

There has existed a historical king who probably was the inspiration.
But the vast majority of the story was written way later and is fiction

He's just become a national figure because of myths in the middle ages, none of the shit about the Round Table, lady in the lake or sword in the stone is from the 5th century A. He is still known as King of the Britons though, so that says something.

He probably wasn't even a king himself. Many have suggested that he was the chief lieutenant of a senator's son called Ambrosius Aurelianus.

That's just one suggestion among a bunch
All equally unprovable

There were like rebellions for 50 years after the conquest.
But also the concept of English was still very young in England at the time of the conquest, a unified England being about 80 years old, the north was culturally different to the south.

a legend written in the 12th century by Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien de Troyes
>a welsh monk and a french poet

There are much earlier references to him, including his appearance in Y Mabinogion and Y Gododdin.

No. Even if we accept historical accounts of Arthur as real, he was not a king.

Was Pelinal real?

Only if you want him to be real