No. There may have been a king that he was based on for the legend, but there was no Camelot.
it organizes long periods of time into eras based on their similiar characteristic
There is no physical proof of Arthur. Most historians believe that the legends concerning Arthur are based around a real person, although generally he is considered not to have been a "king" but more of a general or battle leader. Arthur is first mentioned by name in several 7th Century Welsh manuscripts. Later in the 12th Century certain Breton scholars (Welsh and Cornish exiles living in Britanny) began embellishing these tales and the legends surrounding "King Arthur" which we are familiar with today were created. These Breton scholars may well have been referring to ancient documents that have since been lost. The same 7th Century Welsh documents that assert the existence of Arthur also name other characters from Dark Age Britain which we know did exist. This supports the theory that Arthur was a real person and accordingly most historians consider him to have lived in the late 5th Century and early 6th Century AD. The body of a man said to be that of Arthur was exhumed at Glastonbury Abbey by the monks in 1193. This body was kept at the abbey until the abbey was destroyed in 1541. No one knows where that body is now.
Camelot is the name of Arthur's court. It is also the title of a Broadyway musical and of the movie based on the stageplay.
The only one that I know of that is entirely about Arthur as a boy is the wonderful Disney animated feature "The Sword in the Stone", based on the book by T.H. White. The very excellent "Excaliber" has an extensive sequence dealing with Arthur's birth and his accession to the throne as a teenager.
There is no conclusive historical evidence to prove if King Arthur was a real historical figure or a legendary character. The stories of King Arthur and his knights are primarily found in medieval folklore and literature. Some historians believe that King Arthur may have been based on a real person or amalgamation of multiple historical figures, but this remains a subject of debate and speculation.
King Arthur of Camelot is a major part of Medieval History. Historians have been unable to accurately verify if King Arthur actually existed. Records regarding the Knights of the Round Table and King Arthur’s coronation have varied drastically.
i once red a biography on king Arthur and it sees that king Arthur is based on a British war lord called Art which means bair
King Arthur is a legendary figure, he never actually existed. His story may be based in part on one or more actual Post-Roman British kings, but most of his legend is pure fiction.
"2001: a space odyssey", a legendary 1968 science fiction film directed by Stanley Kubrick and based on a story by Arthur C. Clarke.
There is limited historical evidence to prove the existence of King Arthur as a historical figure. Much of what is known about him comes from medieval legends and folklore rather than concrete historical records. Some historians believe that King Arthur was a composite figure or that his story is based on legends of multiple historical figures.
subject - Arthur Conan Doyle verb - based (past tense of base)
Arthur Spiderwick is a fictional character created by Tony DiTerlizzi and Holly Black in their book series "The Spiderwick Chronicles" and is not based on a real person.
Based on raw stats the birds would be better than the dogs.
Salamence is not a legendary Pokemon, but it is a powerful dragon-flying type. Along with Dragonite, Salamence is considered a pseudo-legendary by fans based on their high base stats.
by Remus and Romulus ++ That's the legend. I doubt historians believe it!
no it is not ****** The Highwayman, a poem by Alfred Noyes, is not based on a particular legendary story. But it is loosely based on all the stories, tales, and facts relating to the activities of highwayman - common thieves that preyed on travellers and coaches on the highways of England.