"King Arthur himself is unusual among legendary heroes in having a biography produced by a single writer, Geoffrey of Monmouth" (Lacy et al 1997: 1)

It is Geoffrey of Monmouth to which the majority of the ‘Arthur story’ is accredited. However, Arthur was mentioned before Geoffrey’s historical account by other writers such as William of Malmesbury, in his De Rebus Gestis Regum Anglorum of 1125, and Henry of Huntingdon in his account of the coming of the Saxons to Britain. They saw Arthur, however, as no more than a warrior. It was only when Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Brittaniae was published that people began to believe Arthur was a king. His work was the first to mention occurrences such as Arthur’s ‘conception’ at Tintagel, Merlin’s magic and the betrayal by Mordred. Even after Geoffrey’s account other writers were then to pick up on this story and add characters. (To read more about historical documents mentioning Arthur go to Historical texts.

The actual question ‘Did Arthur Exist?’ is multi-faceted and not as straightforward as one might first assume. The best explanation of what I mean can be found in ‘The Arthurian Handbook’. Forgive the large quotation:

"If we ask the obvious question "Did King Arthur exist?" it is clear that the Matter of Britain is more mysterious than the other two matters. With Charlemagne, or a classical hero like Alexander, the question can be given a straight answer: ‘Yes’. The hero existed and can easily be discerned behind all fantasies about him. Historical records, older than the fantasies are sufficient to prove it. With King Arthur, the case is otherwise. ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are both misleading.

We must therefore look at the facts. It is more likely that Arthur did exist but that he was not the Arthur of Romantic fiction such as that of Geoffrey of Monmouth. If we agree that Arthur did at some point exist, as many historians would agree, the question arises "When did he live?" As Barber (1961) remarks:

"We cannot even say with certainty in which century Arthur lived, for the records of his historical activity, genuine or otherwise, take us back to the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries AD, the obscure period when the institutions created by Roman rule were in decay and the new structure of society had not yet emerged." (Page 1)

We do know, however, that his reign lies within a time span. Geoffrey of Monmouth put it between 455-475AD. Elsewhere, Arthur’s quest for the Grail is said to have been in the 480s, with the Battle of Badon being in 500. There are inconsistencies but it roughly places him between 450-550. There are few facts available from the time die to wars and plague.

None of this has answered the question of his existence however. Perhaps this is because it is so difficult to answer. It is likely that Geoffrey of Monmouth used a large amount of creative writing in his account of Arthur drawing from both real and fictitious places and sources. We seem to know more about who the mythical or literary figure of Arthur was than the actual historical man. However, somewhere, it seems there may have once been a real Arthur who inspired the myths and general aura surrounding him.

The earliest known reference to a historical Arthur is indirect dating to immediately after 410AD. In a poem written around 603AD named Gododdin, Aneurin, a Welsh bard, describes a battle between the Britons and the invaders. In this poem, the name Arthur was identified with courage. For example, Aneurin describes one particular British hero by saying he was of remarkable valour but:

"he was no Arthur." (Hibbert 1969:15)

Also, a century before Gododdin was written, the name Arthur was virtually unheard of but in the late sixth century it was common and the name can be traced even though there aren’t many records. Hibbert suggests that:

"It is difficult to account for this sudden popularity of the name unless a real Arthur existed at this time, or shortly before, whose exploits had so excited the admiration of his contemporaries that several British leaders named their sons in his honour" (Hibbert 1969:15)

This could suggest that a historical Arthur was living around the sixth century but there are no sources that mention him directly.

In the end it is just as difficult to prove that Arthur did exist as to prove that he didn’t. There are some ideas as to who, if he did exist, this man Arthur was.