The man's a mystery, probably on purpose

If there's one theme to be taken away from the few readings that we've had so far, it's that, in all the texts presented before us, history has revered Arthur for the ideas he represents more than the reality of his existence. Each of the texts presented and analyzed in chapter one presents the same basic story framework: right as the Britons were on the verge of annihilation, a great military leader of Roman descent rose up, fought off the Saxons and delivered countless victories for the Britons until his death, at which time the Saxons took back over.

This was one of the few artistic re-creations of Arthur I've found to be, at least, partly realistic. i still feel he's too heavily armored, but at least the soldiers around him are more realistic than the band of Renaissance-era knights he's usually shown with. Photo credit and ownership goes to Alamy images.

Having attended Catholic school, I can't help but draw parallels between the legends of Arthur and the stories of Jesus presented in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Like the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth, William of Malmesbury, and Gildas, they align on the major events of his life and teachings, but are not wholly the same. It feels to me that Arthur was created to be a new-world messiah. What would be better for the christians remaining in a land that Rome abandoned than having a central, prophetic figure right in their backyard? Having this leader live by the ideal christian truths and be a soldier for god would provide them the right foothold for spreading their religion in a "godless land." At that point, having his myths align in a similar narrative fashion to Jesus' would be the cherry on top. All the reading we have done so far have led me to the theory that Arthur was most likely an actual military figure, who's accomplishments and abilities were hyperbolized by his people in order to spread the religion and add legitimacy to their claim for rule over the British Isles.