Did King Arthur really fall asleep in a cave for thousands of years, to be awakened in his time of need? Or did he even exist to fall asleep in the first place? To this date, the question of his existence remains a largely controversial subject. His tales and exploits are rooted in larger-than-life legends which passed on through word of mouth for centuries, causing large doubt as to the validity of the story's foundation. What makes his story true, and more than the result of an inventive mind? Besides there being no other name associated to a ruler during England's late fifth century, there exists reasonable proof of Arthur's person to prove that he was an English king at the time. Such proof includes: the interpretation of currently known facts concerning medieval England, primary supporting evidence from the period, and weak points in the opposing argument of skeptical medieval scholars. Despite any related factors of uncertainty, there exists sufficient evidence of Arthur's person and deeds to prove that he was an actual king.
At first glance, the medieval ages (being subject to a largely illiterate population) offered little foundation to build any reliable records. Comparably few texts and manuscripts have survived that apply to Arthur's suspected reign, which ran through the late fifth and early sixth centuries (Higham 11). Even so, Arthur is discernibly something more than a bedtime story: "none of [Arthur's tale] was fictional literary material, none of it being invented by Malory or his sources or theirs, but rather it was part of the traditional lore of Britain" (Senior 11). Unfortunately, "traditional lore" is obviously not substantial enough to prove anything. Thus, the question one should immediately ask is: "What proof exists at all?" In fact, there is evidence which proves that an Arthur existed: "The original Arthuras Messrs. R. G. Collingwood and Geoffrey Ashe have since proved beyond reasonable doubt, was a heroic British cavalry general named Artorius" (Graves xii).
