Getting into the legend
 
Warning:  Initializing nerd mode....  :p
 
After seeing "King Arthur" with Peter yesterday and getting my interest piqued by the title card that said the story was based on recent archeological evidence, I decided I must find out just what that evidence is.  Come on, this is me.  In nerd mode.  Say the word "archeology" and I will definitely sit up and listen.  =)  I went a-hunting around the web, and this is what I found.
 
Apparently, there are several historical figures who serve as candidates for the real Arthur.  A man named Riothamus (whose baptismal name was said to be Artorius), and another named Lucius Artorius Castus, whose story, the "King Arthur" movie was based on (although critics say, naturally, Hollywood has already embellished history).
 
History puts Artorius' "reign" sometime in the 2nd century.  He was a commander of a detachment of Sarmatian conscripts stationed in Britain and led his troops to Gaul to quell a rebellion.   The Sarmatians were said to have carried dragon windsocks as cavalry standards, and this probably gave Arthur the title of "The Dragon King".  (interestingly, Artorius crossed paths with a character named Severus.  =) )  But according to another source:  In recent years though, an alternative argument in favour of Lucius Artorius Castus has emerged -- Littleton and Malcor (1994) have argued that in post-Galfridian Romance a number of features can be discerned in the legend which could be Scythian in origins, and the only evidence of Scythians in Britain comes from the 2nd century, when a group of Sarmatians were brought over to northern Britain as Roman cavalry by one Lucius Artorius Castus. Essentially the authors argue that the 'most important' of Arthurian figures and themes (which include, according to Littleton and Malcor, the sword in the stone, the Holy Grail and the return of Arthur's sword to the lake), on the basis of the parallels they observe, originated in the culture of the nomadic horse-riding peoples who inhabited the Eurasian steppes, an area known as Scythia to the Romans and Greeks, and that they were imported into western Europe by two of these tribes, the Sarmatians and the Alans -- in their eyes Arthur is simply a different name attached to the the legend of Batraz, the hero of the Scythian Narts tales (Lancelot is seen in almost identical terms, with 'Arthur' being the insular British development of this Batraz, via the Sarmatians, and Lancelot the continental development, via the Alans).  Lancelot and Arthur are possibly historically the same?  Now that's something I haven't heard before.  =)  Further discussions here.
 
Although Artorius was a historically sound character, and is thus, a probable candidate for the historical king, Riothamus' life, it is said, is supported by archeological evidence found in more traditional Arthurian settings such as Tintagel Castle (where Arthur was said to have been born) and Glastonbury Abbey (where he is said to have been buried).  More info here.   However, academics argue that this character actually does not have much in common with Arthurian traditions, and therefore, may not be considered as the prototype from which the story of Arthur was based.  More info here.

Fine, now I'm confused.  :p  Who is the most likely candidate?!?!
 
But although these characters and their exploits are supported by history, I still kind of prefer King Arthur's more mythical story, with his Knights going on quests for the Holy Grail, with Merlin being a wizard, where Arthur was "The Once and Future King".  It makes it so much easier to believe that the Pendragon will once again return to save his beloved nation in its darkest hour.  =)
 
I'm such a hopeless romantic.  :p

.:chronicled by senator skywalker at 9:07:00 AM:.
.: | :.

...