Too Good to be True

King Arthur, in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s tale, seems to be realistic until assessing the text further and rereading the introduction. Arthur's realness or falseness is something that this class debates. Following the reading, I am now confirmed to think and believe Arthur is fake after not knowing prior to this course. The evidence lies in Geoffrey of Monmouth, and his work, History of the Kings of Britain, on the great king. It seems as though Geoffrey has created this text for a sole purpose of giving the Normans justification for invading Britain and taking over the Saxons. Also, Arthur fought valiantly against the Saxons; whereas now, the Normans are “fighting” for the native Britons as Arthur did before. Another point that Geoffrey puts in his work is when Arthur fights the giant and wins. It seems unlikely that Arthur could have single-handedly killed a giant, due to the fact that giants are not real. It hints that he has dramatized his work, and even other historians of Geoffrey’s time have dismissed his tale of Arthur (Loomis 58). Finally, Geoffrey makes Arthur too good at everything. Arthur, throughout the text, is presented as the ideal, true leader of Britain. He wins every battle with the exception of his final battle. Geoffrey also has created Arthur with the valor and command to be the best king possible at the ripe-old age of fifteen. Overall, I think the text does not tell the full truth of King Arthur, if there is one.