If you need help, please stop by in tutorial or email me. If you are emailing me, please know that I may not be able to respond immediately. Make sure to allow at least 24 hours.

   ***See my examples below!***

The question is, was Arthur real? Well, from what I was able to infer, Arthur’s first appearance was around 1,200 C.E. where a Welsh poet named Nennius accounted 12 battles the warrior king was supposedly in? While this isn’t much to go by, it is something. Further research concluded, that in an article by Joshua J. Mark, originally Excaliber was first named Caliburnus, which was wielded by the king we know and love. It was the sword of swords, unrivaled, and unbeatable. It was given to him by the Lady of the Lake, whereafter he died, was returned to her. 

This part of the legend is one of the few parts that has been kept and stayed unaltered through time. I hope this informed you of Excalibur’s origins. 

https://www.ancient.eu/Excalibur/ 

From this site, I learned that the sword was a sing of virtue and justice. The sword was also originally named Caliburnus but renamed Excalibur.

" If King Arthur is really an exist person, he would be one of the greatest king of British. As a result, everyone after it will call him " king Arthur", but not just Arthur. From the other side, if the poem was wrote in the time period Arthur was still alive, the author of Gododdin should put him into the poem as a character, rather than just put a name "Arthur".  Since King rules Knight, specially King Arthur is a person who will go fight with all the knights in the war. Somehow King Arthur will appear in the poem. " But whoever this Arthur was, he must've been the gold standard of warriors." says in TED-ED video. In my opinion, this explanation can fit better in the poem than Arthur is a real person.
2) Even though there might be a person who called King Arthur lived earlier, But through the time past, Geroffrey, Wace, Troyes, and Sir Thomas all add their own idea into the story. They made a normal person turn to a leader who never leads the army to failure, also add the magic swords, Merlin, Love stories, round table, and holy Grail. " his story has transformed over and over, to reflect the concern of his chroniclers and their audience." from TED-ED video also support my opinion. The story is more like a combination of chroniclers' thinking rather than just simply telling the life story of king Arthur.

2.
I did research on Medieval Knight for my independent research. I learned that to become a knight, it will takes a lot of times and efforts. Starting in very young, they have to learn how to use every weapons, how to fight on the horse, and more stuff than that. The most important thing knights have to learn is a knowledge of the rules of chivalry. But you cannot become a knight just with a good skill on fight, and enough knowledge on Chivalry, you have to have an aristocratic birth ( start in 13 century CE) , money for weapons, to become a knight. If everything is going very well, you can become a knight in age 21. What's more, Good looks, fine clothes, a striking coat of arms, and an ability to recite poetry and songs, are not necessary for becoming a knight, but it is necessary for rise to the very top of this elite level of medieval society.

https://www.ancient.eu/Medieval_Knight/

https://youtu.be/UBp26Q4gmYA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBsY88Lir-A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG0dMxybV_8

2. For my research topic, I chose the Medieval knights. I found out that young boys at the age of 8 get sent to the castle to train. Once he becomes 14 he becomes a squire. He learns to ride a horse, take care of armor, hunting, and more. At age 21 they become knights. Later, new weapons would be invented such as crossbows and gunpowder. Since these were invented, it made the knights useless, and that was the end of the Medieval knights. I think this topic will relate to the story we will be reading because many different medieval knights would be fighting in wars.

 

It seems to me, that King Arthur could have been real, but not in the way we would think of it. In multiple articles, it’s stated that Arthur was based on multiple leaders in England. Whether they might be a military commander, king, or a prince, I think that King Arthur is an amalgamation of many important figures. The first mention of Arthur was by a Welsh historian, Nennius, well over a hundred years after Arthur’s supposed lifetime. He claimed that the King fought in 12 battles, but the time span between each battle is so far apart, that it wouldn’t be possible for Arthur to have been one person this entire time. Leading me to believe that the famous warrior king, could be a result of a puzzle put together through many people as the pieces. He is real, but through multiple strong leaders, to form an amalgamate of this legendary man we know of today.

I chose to research the Anglo-Saxon Invasion, there really wasn’t much to go off of, it was all just the same things said over and over and over. What I can say is that there is mention of King Arthur, but all sources including Arthur say that he defeated the Anglo-Saxons, when it has been proven that England lost the battle. The conflicting evidence makes me question whether or not the topic is relevant to the novel, but then again, King Arthur could be based on one of the British’s famous military leaders that lead the battle to defend England’s territory. The invasion was in two waves, the Anglo-Saxon’s first attempt was unsuccessful because the British had the aid of the Romans to help defend their land. The Romans won against the Saxons, leading them to retreat. At the beginning of the 5th century, the Romans left England to their own devices and had not trained the British on how to defend themselves. Once the Romans left, the Saxons came back to invade England, and which they succeeded after many different tactical attacks over several years. 

Sources: http://myths.e2bn.org/about/info272-what-are-myths-legends-and-folktales.html