King Arthur's armor was typically described as being made of chain mail or plate armor, often adorned with symbols of his rank and position. It would have been designed to protect him in battle and reflect his prestigious status as a king and leader. The specifics of his armor varied depending on the legend or depiction.
He finds it cumbersome and uncomfortable. More significantly it has no chimney for the smoke from his pipe.
There is some evidence for a historical King Arthur, but he was not a king of all Britain, did not have knights in armour (armour as we usually think of it was long after Arthur's time), and certainly never had a Sir Lancelot in his menyie. (Lancelot seems originally to have been a different story from Arthur, the two got mixed in together sometime in the middle ages). So the story of King Arthur is fictional, though it may have a very slight basis in fact. The same is true of the legend of Wyatt Earp when you look into it. Wyatt Earp was a real person, and really was involved in a gunfight at the OK Corrall - but most of the Wyatt Earp story apart from that is pure hokum.
armour is best to portect the knight and king in battle.
King Arthur is a legendary king and did not exist.
King Arthur was king of Britain
king arthur was nice and overprotective
king arthur
No. There are no records of a King Arthur in England, certainly not in Anglo-Saxon England.
king Arthur's not real
Sir Kay is King Arthur's foster father's son and King Arthur's knight.
King Arthur die in the Battle of the Saxon's
The legends say that King Arthur was killed.