The Real History Behind The Legendary King Arthur | History Hit Originals | All Out History

Arthur, the King of England is one of history's most famous legendary figures. Where did this legend begin and did he actually exist? Join some of the world's leading historians as they delve into the real history behind king Arthur.
If you're a history fan who loves binge-watching, this is the channel for you! From the pyramids of Ancient Egypt to the Trenches of WW1, we'll be publishing the best history documentary series for you to sink your teeth into.
:european_castle: Discover the past on History Hit, with ad-free exclusive podcasts and documentaries released weekly and presented by world-renowned historians Dan Snow, Suzannah Lipscomb, Matt Lewis and more. Get 50% off your first 3 months with code 'ALLOUTHISTORY': historyhit.com/subscription

[@user-ok9ft1iv4x]

If the legend of King Arthur is real undoubtedly he is one of humanities greatest hero's!

[@miketierney7510]

Arthur the once and future King will live again!

[@oessh9611]

Arthur to me, is like the Troy and when Greek fought that they’re saying Troy never existed but now they might’ve actually found it

[@MaryamofShomal]

They did find it, it’s in Anatolia 🫶🏽

[@Davidf8L]

Thanks for your work and time ❤❤❤

[@BenSHammonds]

very good program, well presented and enjoyable

[@wesb26]

39:25 correction: the holy grail is the holy grail for historians

[@Andy_Babb]

Matt Lewis is awesome

[@SilverScribe85]

Of all the heroes in human civilization, none inspire me more than two of the UK's greatest champions; Arthur Pendragon and Robin of Locksley. Although they are mere "legends" in the eyes of our modern society, they embody what being TRUE heroes is about...which is something we've lost in our "sophisticated" modern world

[@PatriciaHain-uw8vx]

Well said. 🤗

[@SilverScribe85]

@@PatriciaHain-uw8vx In this age of tyranical world leaders and greedy billionaires running the world, we could definitely use someone like Robin Hood defending us

[@user-pq4fc1mc7q]

They are two completely different figures. Robin Hood was a yeoman who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. He has a prankster, carefree personality and lives outside of society. Arthur was a king who conquered lands and collected a group of warriors who were good at helping him conquer lands. How can you be inspired by both.

[@SilverScribe85]

@@user-pq4fc1mc7q Arthur didn't conquer anybody...at least, not in any of the versions of his stories that I'VE read. As for how both of them inspired me...Arthur inspires me because he was able to turn many of his enemies into allies, something our presidents have continued to fail at for over a hundred years. Heck, thanks to Trump, half the world hates us. As for Robin Hood, he stood up for the little guy and took on corrupt authority. Anytime someone in our modern era tries to do the same, they're thrown IMMEDIATELY into prison; regardless of the reason behind their actions. Besides, much like Prince John; the rich of today's world continue to grow richer while the rest of us barely get by

[@user-pq4fc1mc7q]

@@SilverScribe85 ...What versions did the you read? That's the whole reason Arthur was celebrated, and any ancient hero for that matter, because they fight good. How did his enemies turn into his allies a nice tea party xD In fact the original cause of the fall of Camelot was because Arthur left Mordred in charge while he left to conquer Rome.

[@Andy_Babb]

Why did you add a second show from 20 years ago

[@tysonclark5974]

Theres a seed of truth in most mystic figures in history. Usually romantize in medieval and later histories. Imagine the stories we've never heard. I bielive the minions was the seed of Atlantis. Doggeerland the great flood. Fishermen found the new world a century or two. Maybe I'm wrong.

[@oessh9611]

Mythology may be true. We do not know. I hate when they say oh, it’s a mythology they don’t know.

[@user-pq4fc1mc7q]

I can only bear to read the medieval texts, because they're the ONLY stories that aren't non stop fawning over Arthur and actually give him some agency in the fall of his own kingdom, because back then these writers worshipped divine powers and not monarchs. No one seems to notice the high amount of propaganda in this legend, which there was a reason it fell heavily out of favour during the Renaissance only to be revived in Victorian England. There's a reason everyone is so obsessed with the "historical Arthur" and only Arthur despite it being an absolute fact that there was never a historical figure with any of the attributes of the legendary one. There's a reason Arthur is pushed into the foreground and given his knight's plots (grail questing, forbidden romance with Guinevere, baby trapped by woman disguised as Guinevere, jousting incognito in a tournament, killing the dragon, rescuing the maiden from the tower, marrying the loathly lady, beheading the green knight). There's a reason his triumphant rise with focus on his divine right to rule is told again and again even though the canon text is called "The Death of Arthur" On a related note it is also very sexist the way the women of the legend are erased, neutered, or villianized and triumphantly killed off. Look at the uncritical "burn the witch" treatment of Morgan, or Guinevere's romance censored all the time not because it's a bad story or doesn't make sense, but because it weakens Arthur and we can't have that. The Lady of the Lake being reduced to a disembodied hand and Isolde to "and Isolde" are two other obvious examples

[@gonein1982]

Why have they hidden him👀

[@brucebedlam]

In the legend - Merlin build Stonehenge? No one has explained Arthur 500AD and Merlin 2000BC? Why the difference in time?

[@oessh9611]

I just watched the documentary and it said they just found a pendant and some bodies but I didn’t hear nothing about sword

[@DillonDaVillain222]

That's the same thing I say! Troy was a myth until they found it. I believe Arthur and Robin Hood actually existed at some point.

[@johnvaughan8239]

It’s amazing how many people believe King Arthur is just a legend despite the overwhelming archaeological evidence that both he and Camelot were real. When will people finally accept the truth?

[@oessh9611]

I agree it makes no sense, but that’s the problem with mainstream history. Is they make of how they want it’s like the pyramids were for Dead Egyptian rulers, but none of them were ever found in.

[@djquinn11]

Uh huh. And Robin Hood was a real historical figure too I suppose.

[@johnvaughan8239]

@@djquinn11 haha I was obviously being sarcastic. I thought most people would see through it but maybe not lol.

[@user-ok9ft1iv4x]

Concerning Robin Hood; I suppose there was no King Richard The Lionhearted or Sherwood Forest or Holy Wars either.

[@helenamcginty4920]

​@@oessh9611The above comment was sarcastic. See below. Trouble is mainstream history goes with evidence. There are vague hints of a 6th century war lord but Camelot etc was actually invented by a French troubador as a medieval courtly romance. He invented Lancelot and the Grail story.

[@judithparker4608]

SO MANY OF YOU HAVE KNOWN ALL THIS ALREADY !!

[@frankknudsen842]

60 some ppl we're kings or queens ran Britons, and none were named Arthur. Thanks ever much

[@jenniferholden9397]

Believe it or not the now King Charles the III wanted to use his third name of Arthur when he became king. Is he really in touch with with reality? Thank god he was talked out of it, he’s no King Arthur to me.

[@user-ok9ft1iv4x]

I believe continued patient historical research and archaeology will undoubtedly reveal the truth as more evidence is being uncovered. It's absolutely fascinating and such a beautiful story. I believe if they do one day find the evidence it should be made into a Christian Shrine and highly protected from thieves and vandals!

[@kubhlaikhan2015]

Camelot is NOT Cadbury - which doesn't even date to the right period. Camelot is (pretty obviously) Camulo Dunum, modern day Colchester, which was the original ROMAN capital of Britain - the one sacked and burned by Boadicea. This fact clearly points to the critical context of the original legend (not the Geoffrey of Monmouth fiction), it was the attempted restoration of the Pax Romana in Britain. It is clearly related to what was happening in the Kingdon of Soissons just across the Channel at the very same time. Arthur's authority was not based on any "Celtic" tribal domain but on Roman imperial tradition. He is REX but not a mere "king". When you frame it in these Roman terms and documented historical facts it makes sense, otherwise it is meaningless garbage - which is all the Tintagel/Glastonbury/Cadbury nonsense amounts to.

[@suemcgregor9248]

Arthur probably existed but l doubt he was a king, maybe the illegitimate son of Uther Pendragon but Britain now retaining some Roman Laws, he may not have been able to inherit

[@robkarnis7020]

Mislabeled.

[@andipandi9685]

Not unlike all the other English takes on the History of Britain. Pity.

[@saammahakala]

Charlemagne's life was converted into "King Arthur" by limited, unoriginal minds!

[@user-on3zi9fo2g]

It was proven he was based on a real life African king.

[@Garbeaux.]

Don’t be Ray Cyst.

[@andsowot]

Africa has never produced leaders to rival men like ours 😂🤦

[@taylorkiwis5332]

Lol 😆