Some historians defend that King Artur never existed and there are no substantial proofs that can confirm he really existed. They say it's more ancient folklore. I would like to know what do you think about this. Best Regards,
Luís Miguel Rodrigues
Mentioning King Arthur to historians is rather like telling doctors about the healing powers of crystals. No, there isn't any primary evidence for his existence, and perhaps there never will be. But we do know that there was a prominent British warlord who defeated the Saxons at the Battle of Mount Badon (no one denies that occurrence, though no one knows where Mount Badon is or even the exact year it took place), and there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that a great British warlord who came to be called Arthur existed . . . and my belief is that those two are one and the same man. Can I prove it? No. Can anyone disprove it? No, not unless some exciting new primary evidence turns up (most likely an inscribed stone). Arthur, of course, long lost touch with his beginnings . . .rather like the 4th Century Saint Nicholas who has mysteriously transmuted into Father Christmas! But I do believe there was a real man who gave rise to all the stories; we don't know his real name, or even when he lived precisely, but I'm convinced there was a British warlord who did great things and was transmuted into Arthur!