Historicity of King Arthur
Debate about whether King Arthur was a historical person / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Historical basis for King Arthur?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
The historicity of King Arthur has been debated both by academics and popular writers. While there have been many claims that King Arthur was a real historical person, many specialists on the period consider him to be a mythological or folkloric figure.[1][2]
The first definite mention of Arthur appears circa 828 in the Historia Brittonum,[3] where he is presented as a military leader fighting against the invading Saxons in 5th- to 6th-century Sub-Roman Britain at the Battle of Badon, written more than three centuries after the events described. He develops into a legendary figure in the Matter of Britain from the 12th century, following Geoffrey of Monmouth's influential but largely fictional Historia Regum Britanniae.
Historians propose a variety of possible sources for the myth of Arthur, perhaps as a composite character. Historical figures involved in such theories include Artuir mac Áedán, a son of the 6th-century king of Dál Riata in modern Scotland; Ambrosius Aurelianus, who led a Romano-British resistance against the Saxons; Lucius Artorius Castus, a 2nd-century Roman commander of Sarmatian cavalry; and the British king Riothamus, who fought alongside the last Gallo-Roman commanders against the Visigoths in an expedition to Gaul in the 5th century. Others include the Welsh kings Owain Danwyn,[4] Enniaun Girt,[5] and Athrwys ap Meurig.[6] Others consider the later figure of King Arthur the result of multiple historical prototypes lying behind aspects of the tradition, alongside more purely fictitious ones, with prototypes including Arthwys ap Mar and Cadell ap Cateyrn in addition the aforementioned ones.[7]