show how true this is. But who exactly was King Arthur, and did he really exist? Various historians have debated over this, and there are many contradictory theories. Geoffrey of Monmouth presents him as a High King of Britain, son of Uther Pendragon and nephew to King Ambrosious. He is said to be born around 465 (Britannia web page). Geoffrey Ash however insists that he is Riothamus, a historical king in Brittany. The problem with this theory is that it pushes King Arthur back fifty years back from his traditional period at the beginning of the sixth century (David Nash Ford web page). Some say he was dated incorrectly and that he was really Caractus, the first century leader of British resistance to Rome, or Lucius Artorious Castus, a Roman commander in the second century (this is the first appearance of the name, Artorious, in history -Britannia website). There are also theories that he was a Welsh king, a Scottish prince, a Northern British king, or even a Roman emperor. When it comes this far, it is impossible to choose the most reliable theory. How can one say he was a British king fighting against the Romans, and a Roman emperor at the same time? Because of this, there is the view that Arthur was probably not originally a historical figure but rather a folkloric, heroic one (Thomas Green web page). However, as you can tell from the fact that even a real British king - Edward I - claimed to be his successor, everyone wants to be part of that magical and mysterious legend that is King Arthur. It is because he is so shrouded in myth that so many conflicting theories can be founded, and we all feel so drawn to him. He is a myth and as long as he stays a myth, we can all continue speculating and expanding upon our dreams about the legend. It doesn't really matter who he really was, or even if he existed at all. It is enough that he exists as a legend and continues to inspire us. What of the legend itself, then? ...
