King Arthur authenticity

In the 12th century the servants of a visiting French noble in England denied King Arthur's departure to Avalon to await his return. This lead to riots among the population culminating in violence.

Shows the fanaticism towards Arthur even back then.

>it's not a legitimate historical document because i say so

Great argument there buddy! Totally wowed me.

Basically half of the Bible is history you dumbass.

Chances are he was a Roman Britannic general who staved off many Germanic attacks from Saxons, Angles, etc. and that formed the basis of King Arthur.

The only evidence we have to merely suggest Jesus' existence is a report saying he was crucified. Everything else about him is tale and legend.

I've always liked that theory.

>denial of the legitimacy of King Arthur is as equally heretical as denying the resurrection of Christ.

Literally only for anglos

i don't see the problem, both are local cultural heroes

>anglo
>jesus
>local
>tfw the essence of being European is worshipping a Palestinian semite

Riothamus, the weak "R" and Roman suffix "mus" were likely dropped as the tale was passed down orally, turning into Iotha then Arthur.

King of the Brittani (most likely Britanny not Britain)
Ally of Rome
Fought Visigoths with initial success
Apparently a benevolent ruler who freed slaves, annoying Roman landowners. Maybe a more realistic explanation is that commoners fled to Brittany as refugees.
Arvandus, a prefect of Anthemius, betrayed his position to the Visigoths and he was defeated
Died at Avallon

Damn this is a good theory.

Riothamus was probably a title (that may have referred to Ambrosius Aureleanus), but yeah, he's the one person who fits Arthur the best. If Arthur is based on a single person, it's probably him, whoever he was.

Perkele! :DDDDDD

A German is hardly committing heresy by saying that Arthur didn't exist. It has no bearing for him.

So Josephus is not a viable source?

He was likely based upon an actual king, though much of his tale is probably myth.

More than 1 source or from an already established historian of the time. If I wrote in my diary desu that I fought a dinosaur would you believe it?

josephus makes no mention of jesus

>Roman Britannic
Wihsful thinking. He was a Sarmatian merc that came with Romans.

I suppose you're right they're not committing heresy by denying Arthur, they're simply foolish.

True, because he never died, because he never lived.

You are an adult. Stop believing in fairy tails.

You need less biased sources for stuff like this. Any source from anybody other than Christ's cultists? I mean, L.Ron Hubbard did a lot of supernatural stuff according to Scientologists, but you wouldn't trust them, would you?

That was a fantasy movie.

Arthur was britton-roman in the movie. The knights were sarmatians.

>Artorigos
>Sarmatian

Who also happened to be a cute girl, right?

So did Mohammed exist?
Did King David exist?
Did Buddha exist?

Because they and shit load of other people history aren't really accounted for outside of their perspective texts. Did these religions just spontaneously happen and no one was egotistical enough to be the center of the religion? Because I find that bullshit. Not saying Jesus was an actual miracle maker but to think there wasn't an actual person is retarded.

>Frogs trying to steal King Arthur
Never satisfied huh.