The London Basilica The historical accounts of King Arthur present him as the leader of the kings of the Britons against the invasion of the Saxons. The medieval legends presented him as leading a combination of forces and magical displays (Gidlow). These are some of the evidence to the greatness of the King, and his position as a legend. The drawing of the sword from the stone outside the greatest church of London is one of the king’s most famous relics. (Kiernan) The seat of the Bishop of the largest Church in Roman London was at Tower Hill, and Christianity was an essential part of the British creed against the paganism of the Saxon. These again support the existence of the great Arthur. The third piece of evidence is the Silchester …show more content…
There are numerous places that people believe is the Camelot and Colchester is one of them. Nonetheless, the Iron Age hill fort of South Cadbury was identified by Henry VIII’S librarian, John Leland as the original Camelot (Gidlow). Also, excavations by Leslie Alcock in the 1960s shows that South Cadbury Castle is characterized by large-scale defensive work, these are probably the defenses that were made against the Saxons. The discovery of the huge and solid defense in these area supports the idea that it hosted the Kingdom of the Great Arthur. The same is supportive evidence in many ways, but one could still express doubt on the credibility of these findings since they lack scientific backing and the burden of proof lies with those who make such claim. Unfortunately no solid proof has been presented to the effect.
Wroxeter
Many scholars see Arthur as one of the last of the Romans, struggling to uphold values of civilization against the rise of the barbarian storm (Gidlow). Some have even asked if Arthur was a Celtic warrior. Some have even described him as a Roman general, and other even think of him as an emperor since dramatic evidence of sub-Roman culture was discovered by Barker in the 1960s at a place called Wroxeter. It is also interesting to note that this place too never became a Saxon town.
King Arthur’s burial at …show more content…
Nonetheless, there is no concrete or scientific to confirm the same, so it would be impossible to ascertain and confirm that the King truely existed. It will also be interesting to note that while many have come up with different theories and claims on the existence of King Arthur, none of these claims has been confirmed or supported with scientific facts and evidence. It is because of this that it can be argued that King Arthur was a myth and not real. It will take courage and strong will to maintain this notion because many people have formed opinion based on subjective argument that Arthur was real. The above-indicated evidence falls short of credibility; they cannot be proved beyond mere assertion. The evidence is also mythical in nature and is explanations created to explain or defend the existence of a myth and not something real (Kiernan). King Arthur is portrayed as a gallant hero, and the Knights of the Round Table and anyone can create a mythical story or argument to defend his existence. The much of this legend does not come from historical facts, and much of the information stems from storytellers and imagination. The position and existence of Arthur have always been questioned in medieval Britain. Some of the underlying questions are, was he a king and did he lead