Arthur appears to've been a real person, born around 475 AD. When his story was first told in detail in 1135 by a Welsh cleric named Geoffrey of Monmouth, it caught on like wildfire. It picked up trappings of medieval chivalry which were unknown in Arthur's day. But other elements of the story show up in the scanty written record of the truly Dark Ages: Guinevere, Lancelot, Morgan, Merlin, Modred -- Camelot, the sword, the grail. Historical detective work places Arthur in northern England. We're still divided on many issues (like the location of Camelot). Camelot, by the way, seems to've meant "Castle of the Hammerer." Arthur (the Hammerer) was born not long after the Romans abandoned Hadrian's Wall and the Antonine Wall. Those two fortifications, 80 miles apart, had been meant to keep out the Picts, Vikings, and Saxons. A disorganized England had to regroup to survive after the Romans left, and the young prince Arthur emerged. Arthur was a shrewd, cruel, warlord who fought off the northern invaders and destroyed a Viking fleet. When he was crowned King of England, he created a period of political stability. He died in 519 or 542, depending on whom you read. His wife, Guinevere, beautiful and tough as nails, may've been the daughter of a Pict warlord. And she was trained in the arts of war herself. One plausible account said she had her enemies' heads cut off and embalmed so she could carry them around. She figured significantly in Arthur's rule. Her adultery with Arthur's field commander, Lancelot, was simply tacked on by medieval writers. The real Arthur lived in a primitive world. He never rode with stirrups, wielded a lance, or lived in a stone castle. A hammer may well've been his weapon of choice. Yet it's easy to see how medieval Europe was caught up in Arthur's story. The real life of this brutal king had just enough mythical elements to attract other myths to it. Pulling a sword from a stone or an anvil, for example, goes back to the story of Theseus in ancient Athens. This was as much info that I could find, I hope this helps a little.

It was commong during the medieval ages to depict historical figures in a contemporary light. This basically means that depictions of heroes that lived hundreds of years early, would be drawn in a medieval light, with modernized names, clothing, etc. This is also another reason why depictons of saints, and the holy family are painted in medieval clothing and with european features. Glastobury Tor is a hill in Somerset, England. During the dark ages, the whole area surrounding Glastonbury Tor would flood, hence making it into an island. during the 12th century two graves were found in the area related to king arthur and queen guineviere. It has been said that Glastonbury Tor, is also the Isle of Avalon. There has been enough archeological evidence to show that King Arthur was a real person who lived centuries before the stories around him became famous in the medieval ages. The 2005 movie "King Arthur" hints that King Arthur and his knights were descended from Samartians. The Samartians were a new group of people caused by the intermarriage of Scythian men and Amazon women. The amazons absolutely refused to become housewives and the men had to leave all behind and come join them. They started a new group: "Samartians". So basically, King Arthur was also descended from Scythians and Amazons.

King Arthur is mentioned in writing first in the 12th Century by medieval Welsh writers, who tended to copy each other. They say he fought against the Anglo-Saxons during the 6th Century as well as other notable deeds. However, there is evidence they were writing about a real person. In the late 6th and early 7th Centuries there are a number of people al named "Arthur", probably in honour of this man. A papal delegation to Cornwall in the 10th Century (before the name Arthur was written in later manuscripts) records that they were told they were in the land of the "once and future king, Arthur". When they said he was dead, they provoked a riot. In 1191 a body was exhumed in Glastonbury buried some fifteen feet down. The method of the burial suggests this was the body of a 6th Century warlord fitting the description of Arthur. A lead cross exhumed with the body said that it was the body of King Arthur in Avalon. This body was reburied and hidden by the monks during the dissolution of the monasteries in 1536. A certain Arthur PROBABLY existed. He was probably a man from a family that maintained Roman military traditions. He probably worked for Ambrosius Aurelianus ( a man of Roman blood and ruler of Britain, c.500AD). Arthur probably won a number of important battles against the Anglo-Saxons. He was probably betrayed by men on his own side and murdered. He was probably buried at the Celtic monastic settlement at Glastonbury. That is probably all we can ever know.