Arthur

Arthur was Welsh, not English. In fact, his entire life was spent fighting the Angles and Saxons who invaded his land and turned into Logres (the lost lands).

Hes just a shitty archetype.

French created Lancelot not Arthur, and Chrétien de Troyes lived during the 12th century

What part of my post made you think I thought Arthur was English? And no, he wasn't Welsh, he was a Latin speaking Romano-Briton who lived in Lloegyr, his legend was preserved by the Celtic speaking Cymry but that doesn't mean he was himself a Celtic speaker.

Also Lloegyr doesn't mean "lost lands", it probably meant something like "land of the [foreign] people" or "land beyond the border [of Wales]".

It depends on what you consider a "historical" King Arthur, but probably. At the very least, there were people who influenced stories about him, most notably Ambrosius Aurelianus and Riothamus (probably just a title and could have referred to Aurelianus, or another person). Riothamus in particular did most of the things that Arthur was said to have done. And the Battle of Mount Badon, which is what Arthur was originally tied to, probably happened; some argue that Aurelianus led the British troops, but Gildas is very vague, so it could have been a guy named Arthur.

The version of Arthur that most people know has been heavily influenced by French stories, some of which were influenced by Charlamagne, but there very well could be some real source of the earlier British stories. Either way, the historical figure wouldn't have resembled modern notions about him at all.

There's also Bran the Blessed, who was once a god but who has come down to us in Welsh mythology as a "giant", who is the first of the "sleeping kings" and from whom many of the romanticised aspects of Arthur come from. The "Enchantment of Britain", the "Once and Future King", the "sleeping king who will rise again to fight Britain's enemies" are all tropes that come from Bran's myths.

t. roman

He was a Sarmatian knight that looked like Clive Owen and fucked women that looked like Keira Knightley.

That 2004 movie made the mistake of putting a 2nd/3rd century AD Roman centurion/commander into the 5th century. The name of the earlier soldier, Lucius Artorius Castus, was tempting to use because of the similarity to Arthur, but they should have left it alone and just made the character based on Ambrosius Aurelianus or Riothamus (possibly the same person). The film had other areas with which to improve as well, though, not just the main character's misplaced, anachronistic identity off by centuries.

The Saxons are portrayed as literally Nazis. That film is trash.

>the main character's misplaced, anachronistic identity off by centuries.
IIRC, he wasn't supposed to be THE Lucius Artorius Castus, but one of his descendants. I think I remember someone mentioning that he's carrying on a family name.

In general, I agree, though. Castus was kind of a dumb point to start with a historical depiction of Arthur because he probably had nothing to do with the legend.

"Arthur" was the magnate Riothamus who presided over the Brythonic migration to Brittany and was allied with Rome against the Visigoths.

After the Anglo came and civilization crumbled the tale was mixed up with other tales of Roman and Sub-Roman Britain like that of the old capital Camulodonum (Camelot) and the later Battle of Badon.

>taking roman propaganda at face value

lel

paladins = knights of the round table

nah, nobody thinks that anymore

I always wondered why this mythical king? It's not like they needed a mythical warrior king.
The English did have warrior kings like Alfred, Henry II, Richard I and Henry V.
Why isn't Alfred better known than Arthur?

Arthur is Welsh.

Arthur was an aardvark

Was the Arthurian legend even a thing in England proper before the 19th-century romanticism? Isn't it more like Welsh/Brittonic/French thing?
It would be really strange of them to keep a legend about Brittonic king fighting against them. It's kinda ironic it's become "the" English legend.

Monarchs like to claim descent from mythological figures, even if said figure fought against their ancestors

Has anyone ever claimed descent from Arthur, genealogical or institutional?

The Tudors and Plantagenets

>i-it's just p-propaganda!
t. Mickey O'Potayto

Interesting, I didn't know.

Yes, Mort d'Arthur was written by an Anglo-Norman knight.

Henry was pretty autistic about it

Yeah it takes place in Brittany.

> Anglo-Norman knight.
Oh, right, the new ruling class would have had no problems with fighting against Anglo-Saxons.

The myth is made up by some church in Britain. The church was short on money and it needed renovating so they invented the myth to draw attention to the church and get donations from local people/monarchs.

What is this retarded faggotry? Arthur was not some Breton, he ruled from Camulodunum (Camelot) which is on the east coast of what is now England, he would have been a Latin-speaking Romano-Briton, and he lived a full century or more before the Dumnonian retreat to Brittany.

Why would he be a Latin speaker tho?

Did Arthur, the stereotypical 12th century feudal lord and his merry band of chivalrous knights and demure damsels exist? Fuck no, no chances whatsoever.
Could a briton or romano-celt 6th century warchief named something like Arthur have existed and been a relevant figure in the fight against the invading germs? Sure.

King Arthur was actually a BLACK king. He left egypt to colonize and uplift the disgusting and stupid white people of england. They whitewashed him like they always do to try and keep the truth about the REAL creators of civilization down.

Because he was a Romano-Briton, and Latin was the language they spoke, as proven by the many documents and personal letters found in Romano-British sites.

He spoke ancient nubian which was bastardized by the evil europeans. They hide the real history.

The why don't the Welsh and Bretons speak a Romance language? I agree with the idea that there was a bilingual elite who used Latin as their written language, but the speed with which Latin disappeared in England after 410 shows that Romanization hadn't gone that far.
You have to go back, m8.

Roman Britain wasn't Latinized linguistically at all that much except for londonium.

because the truth isn't edgy enough

Arthur isn't a filthy Saxon.