Truth Behind King Arthur

King Arthur was a man of legend, who lived around the 5th and 6th Centuries. With the guidance of Merlin and the help of a magical sword, Excalibur, Arthur saved damsels, killed wild beasts and saved England from the invasion of the Saxons and eventually disappeared after his final battle, his body never was to be found. Arthur was first mentioned in the works of Nennius, a monk who lived in the 9th century and then was written about in the book 'the History of the Kings of Britain' by Geoffrey Monmouth. This legend the continued to captivate and intrigue many, including historians and scholars; many believe that he is just a legend, while others such as Geoffrey Ashe and Graham Phillips, both famous historians have had their mindset on proving Arthur existed and who he truly was. There have been many theories of who is the real historical figure is behind that of Arthur and even discovery of archaeological artefacts, of places that were believed to be where the Legend of Arthur took place, including the Tintagel Castle; the birthing place of Arthur, Cadbury Hill Fort; which is linked to the Knights of the Round Table and Glastonbury Tor and Abbey; the alleged location of Arthur's grave and the potential literal basis for the creation of the Island of Avalon. Some of these theories include, Arthur being Riothamus; one of Britons Kings who fought against the Saxons. Other theories include Owain Ddantgwn; the leader of the most prominent part of England in 550 AD and Ambrosius Aurelius; a Romain army leader. Each of these theories has a set of evidence both confirming and opposing the theory. Each of these theories could very well be the 'True Arthur', but it is quite possible that each one of the concepts could have contributed to the Legend that is Arthur.

Riothamus, the "King of the Britons", who was sent by Leo I in 467 to retrieve the British Isles from Saxon invasions, is one of the many possibilities of the historical Arthur. The theory of Riothamus is consistent with Arthurian literature and the chronological time he would have had to occupy. Riothamus' story has many similarities with that of Arthur. The main similarities included, Riothamus leading an army of Britons into Gaul and he was the only British King who did; King Arthur also did this according to the legends. Also Riothamus was betrayed by a deputy ruler who cooperated with barbarian enemies; King Arthur was also betrayed by Modred, a deputy leader and finally Riothamus disappeared after a fatal battle without any recorded death. His departing also shows that he was going to a town called Avallon; Arthur also disappeared after a fatal battle at Camlann and his body was never found. It is also said that he also was sent to Avalon after his final battle.

There are however a few problems with the theory. His name, Riothamus is the first issue, due to the fact that his name isn't Arthur. It is however possible that he may have had two names, which at the time it was common to have both a Romain and a Britain name. The name Riothamus can be Latinised into the fifth-century British style name, 'Rigotamos', meaning "King-most" or supreme King. It was possible that his baptismal name was Artorius; Artorius is where the name Arthur has been derived from.

The other discrepancy is the date. According to the time scale of Nennius; this was a rough timeline of the events in King Arthur's life. Riothamus died in the year 470 and Arthur's reign was at the end of the 5th century. Geoffrey Ashe; a renowned historian, lecturer and author, however can prove that Arthur's reign was before 470 by constructing a timescale according to names that Geoffrey Monmouth; a welsh man from around 1100, had used in his tales, this timeline places Arthur's expedition to Gaul at the end of Riothamus' lifetime. This could be correct due to Riothamus disappearing after his final battle in Gaul, which then led him to go to Avallon, which also counterparts with Arthur's story. A Cistercian monk also can prove using French information can also place Arthur's reign from 459 to 470, matching with Riothamus' reign. In the Latin story "Goeznovius", written by a man named William, it tells about the same names and events as in 'the History of Kings of Britain's', this story also mentions that the Saxons returned to Britain after Arthur's death and according to historical sources about the Saxons this was in the late 460's, around the death of Riothamus. Another discrepancy however is the enemy that Arthur faced, Arthur fought against the Romans whereas Riothamus and the Romans were allies. There is a lot of evidence that King Arthur may be Riothamus and he is one of the largest and most historical based contenders for being the real Arthur, although there are several inconsistencies with the Legend so it is most probable that Riothamus had some influence on the legend of Arthur and may have been intertwined with other historical figures to create the legend of Arthur.

In the Arthurian legends, Arthur is Britain's one true King, although according to Nennius however, it is more likely he is the leader of an alliance of British Kings, it is also most likely that Arthur would have ruled from the country's mightiest stronghold. In 550 AD; this was presumably when Arthur ruled, Britain