ntless myths and poems which abound in Wales and elsewhere. None can be regarded as evidence as they almost certainly all originate after the 12th century AD.Which brings us to the man himself, Arthur. Little is known about Arthur besides what has been passed down by word of mouth and inscribed in annals. Although fables present Arthur as a king, historians argue that he was, in fact, only the commander of an army. According to Alcock, [Arthur] was not a kingHe was instead the leader of the combined forced of the small kingdoms into which sub-Roman Britain had dissolved (359). Arthur was not as king, as was previously thought, but a commander of an army whose legends and fame grew out of real battles and deeds. Wood supports the theory, saying, yet through myth shadows modern historians think they have distinguished a remote war leader, a real-life British herowhose fame, it is thought, grew from successful battles (40). Wood goes on to say, Reluctantantly we must conclude that there is no definite evidence that Arthur ever existed (60). However, if we are to consider these facts as an argument that Arthur existed from Leslie Alcocks point of view, we must also consider the fact that history points to the fact that there was an Vortigern, probably the same one who exists in Geoffrey of Monmouths account of Britain. According to Alcock, Vortigern ruled with a group of consiliarii like a Roman or for that matter, a Visigothic provincial governor (357). If there was a Vortigern, it is possible to imagine that there may be a chance that Arthur was a king - after all, he was related to Vortigern, and Vortigern was, by Alcocks definition, royalty. Who was King Arthur? Most people would tell of a great King; however, historians and archaeologists, especially Leslie Alcock, point to shadowy evidence of a man who is not a king, but a commander of an army. By looking at the context in which the stories of King Arthur survived, and the eviden...
