In What Ways Did The Arthurian Legend Differ From Known Facts?
In which fundamental ways did the Arthurian legend differ from known facts?
The place occupied by the King Arthur story seems to be midway between myth and reality. While early indications of his legend dating back to the sixth century, which correspond to the so-called Dark Ages of Britain, it has suffered such infinite variation to date that is virtually impossible to disentangle reality from fantasy.
The myth is situated in the 6th century, in Sub-Roman Britain, when the romans left the territory and the Saxons invade Great Britain. There is no historical data to contrast whether King Arthur existed or not, but the legend says he existed in the advanced Middle Ages but that is impossible because if he did existed it would have to have been a lot earlier. It was the authors of the medieval age, minstrels and troubadours that founded the myth attractive and transferred it to their time.
Due to the decline that England suffered following the abandonment of Roman Empire and the entry of the Saxon orders, any historical data that allows us to think that King Arthur existed disappeared, but what happens is that the authors of the Middle Age idealized the character. …show more content…
If we believe the historians who have tried to discover the man behind the legend, the legend is located at the time when the Romans left England and the Saxons entered the territory.
This figure of King Arthur could be of a king or a brilliant strategist trained in Rome and hired by the British kings to defend themselves against the invasion of the Saxons. This figure of king Arthur unified the British. This union ensures that there was peace in Britain; this peace was very close to convert for the first time Great Britain in a nation. With the disappearance of this "Arthur ", disappears the union and enter again into the black
period.
After his death, all the future royalties wanted to have his name and present themselves as successors of this great figure and this is how the legend started.
When the invasions began again, the Celts begin to forge the myth of King Arthur and say that he will return to defend them. The new kings who still belong to the Celtic culture want to belong to that figure and defended them.
Certainly, the fabulous King Arthur has long pushed the boundaries of English history to establish itself as a universal myth. His legend lives up to historically certified characters as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. The massification of the Arthurian myth has practically liquidated its Celtic roots and has transformed it into a knightly figure and, to some extent, childlike European court. In return, Arthur endorses the universal archetype of the hero, condensing in his legend macrocosm of human history.
After all, if Arthur existed or not, in my opinion, does not matter. True greatness lies in Arthurian myth eternity he founded and inspired rivers of literature.
The place occupied by the King Arthur story seems to be midway between myth and reality. While early indications of his legend dating back to the sixth century, which correspond to the so-called Dark Ages of Britain, it has suffered such infinite variation to date that is virtually impossible to disentangle reality from fantasy.
The myth is situated in the 6th century, in Sub-Roman Britain, when the romans left the territory and the Saxons invade Great Britain. There is no historical data to contrast whether King Arthur existed or not, but the legend says he existed in the advanced Middle Ages but that is impossible because if he did existed it would have to have been a lot earlier. It was the authors of the medieval age, minstrels and troubadours that founded the myth attractive and transferred it to their time.
Due to the decline that England suffered following the abandonment of Roman Empire and the entry of the Saxon orders, any historical data that allows us to think that King Arthur existed disappeared, but what happens is that the authors of the Middle Age idealized the character. …show more content…
If we believe the historians who have tried to discover the man behind the legend, the legend is located at the time when the Romans left England and the Saxons entered the territory.
This figure of King Arthur could be of a king or a brilliant strategist trained in Rome and hired by the British kings to defend themselves against the invasion of the Saxons. This figure of king Arthur unified the British. This union ensures that there was peace in Britain; this peace was very close to convert for the first time Great Britain in a nation. With the disappearance of this "Arthur ", disappears the union and enter again into the black
period.
After his death, all the future royalties wanted to have his name and present themselves as successors of this great figure and this is how the legend started.
When the invasions began again, the Celts begin to forge the myth of King Arthur and say that he will return to defend them. The new kings who still belong to the Celtic culture want to belong to that figure and defended them.
Certainly, the fabulous King Arthur has long pushed the boundaries of English history to establish itself as a universal myth. His legend lives up to historically certified characters as Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great. The massification of the Arthurian myth has practically liquidated its Celtic roots and has transformed it into a knightly figure and, to some extent, childlike European court. In return, Arthur endorses the universal archetype of the hero, condensing in his legend macrocosm of human history.
After all, if Arthur existed or not, in my opinion, does not matter. True greatness lies in Arthurian myth eternity he founded and inspired rivers of literature.