King Arthur and Merlin: Fact or Fiction?Many people have enjoyed the legendary tales of King Arthur through numerous writings and movies. With so many people reading, listening, and watching the tales of King Arthur come to life the question has been posed, "Was Arthur in fact truly real?" Although there is no conclusive evidence that King Arthur and the characters in the tales are real, there are faint hints that can answer the question. Due to the fact that there are no conclusive pieces of evidence, people are required to develop their own opinion about whether Arthur was truly real.Several books have been written by researchers solely on the question of whether Arthur was actually real. These researchers have all faced the problem of determining whether older sources are reliable. Despite the inaccuracies that oral tradition causes, it became the basis of proof of King Arthur's existence. But, excluding the fact that nothing can be proven, people have come to the conclusion that Arthur was in fact a person named Arthur the Dux Bellorum. According to De Excidio Britorum, which was written by the British priest Gildas, a man named Artorius acquired the title Dux Bellorum after leading his side to victory in the Battle of Badon Hill. Artorius the Dux Bellorum is said to be the basis of the legendary character King Arthur and through him and word of mouth sprung the tales of King Arthur.The conclusion that King Arthur was in fact Artorius the Dux Bellorum leads us to ask "Who was Artorius the Dux Bellorum?" The story of Artorius the Dux Bellorum is compiled from many pieces of historical documentation. Through the help of many books, such as De Excidio Britorum, Historia Brittonum, and The Annales Cambriae, the adventures of Artorius were compiled. In De Excidio Britorum, Gildas does not directly state Arthur as the leader of the Britons although he confirms the Britons' win at the Battle of Badon Hill. It is only interpreted that Arthur is in fact this heroic leader. As stated by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman, Nennius' Historia Brittonum tells of Arthur's dozens of battles, one of which was the Battle of Badon Hill, and refers to Arthur not as a king, but simply as a 'warrior' who was merely a 'leader of battles'. They also stated that in The Annales Cambriae the victory of Arthur at Badon Hill is also confirmed. Through these works it is shown that the authors are in fact talking about the same person and since there is only one named mentioned, Artorius, it is accepted that he was in fact Arthur. In his book, David Day goes into further depth on the subject of who Artorius truly was. He states that he was a commander of an elite British cavalry and led them to many victories. Artorius' kingdom is said to be called the Gododdin, which was the most northerly kingdom of the Britons, and in turn must be the basis for Camelot. The people of the Gododdin were ruled by "Twelve Kings of the North" and thus the basis for the Knights of the Round...
