Many readers, even hundred of years ago, did not take the tale of King Arthur as "pure fiction" (15) and Ashe asserts that these readers were "more right than wrong" (15) in their assumptions. It is likely the story is true in some respects. In many ways, the man was a hero larger than life, which makes many skeptics call into question his existence. Ashe states that many even believed Arthur was a god, "euhemerized as a human warrior" (Ashe Origins). Many scholars believe a king by the name of Arthur actually did exist but they also acknowledge that many of the grandiose stories attached to him are romanticized. However, there seems to be enough factual history to satisfy most scholars that Arthur did exist. In regard to the mythical Arthur, Ashe notes that because the figure has been romanticized, does not mean the figure cannot exist. He points to the American legend Davy Crockett who is noted for "fantastic feats" (Ashe) that are clearly not true yet the man did exist. When broken down in its simplest form, Arthur is a Roman name, a variation of the name Artorious. His mention in the Historia Brittonum gives credibility to him as an authentic historical person. Another text supporting the case for this man to exist is the Annales Cambriae. These texts are historical documents, not pieces of fiction and there mention of King Arthur supports the fact that a man by this name did exist. Sheila Brynjulfson writes that even with all of this, the identity of the man is "elusive" (Brynjulfson). Blaenau Gwent Borough reports the many instances in which a real Arthur is mentioned. These include works from Edward Lhuyd, a custodian for the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford. In his extensive research, he found several places that support the existence of a real King Arthur. Many of his findings reveal places that have been named after the king, such as Maes Arthur and Ti Arthur...

Numerous ancient texts also mention battles associated with Arthur. These texts include the Book of Taliessin and De Excidio. However, his characteristics are another matter. While the man did exist, writers have embellished him for centuries, creating a mythical hero that is by no stretch of the imagination, larger than life. As Ashe points out, humanity has a tendency to romanticize and build up those it admires. Like superstars of today, heroes of yesterday are given magnificent qualities that set them apart from the average man. In this form, they will be remembered and their stories will live on for generations. The question of who King Arthur actually was is the question we should be asking, not if he existed. The man was real but the myths are not and therein lay the problem. The notion of King Arthur has grown to such an extent that a normal account of his life would be nothing less than disappointing. We know he was a man but we should also know that he was human, which strips him of any Herculean qualities that make for great novels and movies.
Works Cited

Ashe, Geoffery. The Discovery of King Arthur. New York: Anchor Press. 1985.

-. "The Origins of the Arthurian Legend." Arthuriana: The Origins of the Arthurian Legend." February 7, 2011. Web. http://www.arthuriana.org/

Brynjulfson, Sheila. "Questing for the Historical Arthur, King of Britons." February 7, 2011.

Web. http://www.vortigernstudies.org.uk/artgue/guestsheila2.htm

"Arthurian Gwent ." Blaenau Gwent Borough Online. February 7, 2011. Web.

http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/8035.asp

Wood, Michael. "King Arthur, Once and Future King." British Broadcast Corporation Online.

February 7, 2011. Web. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/anglo_saxons/arthur_01.shtml