Was King Arthur a King?
Of course, he was! Why would
I even ask such a stupid question?
Let’s backtrack a little.
Where does it say Arthur was a king? Do we take the works of Monmouth and
Malory as factual, when they are clearly a work of fiction? That’s the problem
with folklore and legends; things are not always what they seem.
The first ‘documented’ work
about Arthur was by a 9th Century monk called Nennuis. His name has come up
once or twice on this blog because it would be pretty hard to ignore Nennuis when
searching for Arthur. In his work The History of the Britons, we get the
first glimpse of what could be the actual Arthur.
However, not once does
Nennuis refer to Arthur as a king. He praised his warrior abilities, but he
says nothing about kingdoms and Round Tables.
Was King Arthur a Hero?
Of course he was!
Nennuis praise for Arthur
cannot be dismissed even if it is bordering on the realms of impossibility for a
mere mortal man. He lists the 12 battles that Arthur fought in, and throughout
Arthur is brave and courageous and almost supernatural in his abilities to
bring the enemy army down to their knees. It reminds me a little of that scene
in Braveheart. Where Wallace rides up to the army at Falkirk and the warriors,
do not believe him when he says who he is, because they have believed the, I
guess you could call it, propaganda. Perhaps Arthur could inspire men to follow him the same way Wallace did.
Here’s a clip of that said
moment in Braveheart, in case you might have missed it.
Braveheart (1995) - Best scene - William Wallace's speech (HD)
I do believe this is what has
happened to Arthur. After all, the more
elaborate the story, the more enchanted
the listener.
Is King Arthur just a story?
No.
I do not believe
that Arthur is just a legend, or a made up story to entertain the
masses. I think there is some truth in it. Maybe it isn't the truth that
we know, but I would like to think that he was real and that he did
inspire his men.
What do you think? Was Arthur real or simply a myth?
