Disclaimer: This posting is highly speculative, biased, and skeptical. No, I'm not convinced there was an historical Arthur, but if he did exist, I side with the Southern school, and in particular a guy arguing from a mix of Roman documents, Cornish, Welsh, and Breton lays. Yes, I'm biased. Most of the Northern School Historians I've read have weaker evidence than most of the Southern Folks. Both sides have plenty of crack pots. I also tend to side with the immediately post-Roman folks, since they make a better argument than the later date folks, who are apt to ignore historical record issues, and archeology problems.
The best argument I've seen for an historical Arthur places him about a generation or two after the Romans pulled out of Britain. No trebuchets. Dirt forts and small stone fortifications, maybe-yes. (Depends on where you argue Arther was from.)
View User's Journal
A Touch of History
This will mostly contain history stuff.
Community Member
Was there an historic Arthur? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. Finding a person in history to point at and say, "Yes, this was Arthur," just isn't as important to me as digging out his mythological roots.