King Arthur Historical Evidence

Spurred on by a great deal of written secondary sources that supposedly provides proof of King Arthur's existence a few historians have confused maths and reality. By believing in the tales of valour that this British general was meant to have performed, these historians have romanticised the legacy of King Arthur and his court resulting in Arthur's story to be considered endured for centuries. However, technological advances provide strong evidence that the fearless ruler was in fact myth just as I believe.

Whilst analysing evidence it is of great importance to pinpoint the exact time of any given source and to understand the Historic context. The supposed grave of King Arthur in Glastonbury was ‘discovered’ by monks in 1191, the very same monks who were in great need of money. The oak coffin they uncovered drew in large crowds of excited tourists. Yet had the travelers known that english archeologist Ralegh Radford would soon
The welsh cleric may have intended his 1133 AD works to be considered historical documents yet the piece is considered an irresistible blend of myth and magic. Geoffrey claimed his work was an "ancient book in the British language that told in orderly fashion the deeds of all the kings of Britain." Historians have dismissed this words and instead believe that Geoffrey's novel was based on Historia Brittonum, Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, Gilda's 6th-century polemic De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, Bardic oral tradition, genealogical tracts, and embellished by Geoffrey's own imagination. All of which contain either no mention of King Arthur and his knight or are works of fiction.

In conclusion, all evidence to support the existence of King Arthur is ambiguous hence why many including myself believe Arthur is a mere myth.