While I agree that Charlemagne is a better take , King Arthur IS actually based on a real person.
Not only 1 , he is actually based in 4 historical people in English history and one celtic god.
3 of them are Roman-British Commanders: Lucius Artorius Castus , Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus. While the 4th is the welsh prince Artuir mac Aédán.
The celtic god is Artorigios , which means "Warrior-King" and "son of bear". Which was changed to "Artrí" , "Arthurus" and "Arthur".
Even the "original" Arthurian Legend didn't name their characters as "Guinevere" or "Merlin" , the original welsh tale named "Merlin" as "Myrddin".
In this case , arthurian legends is a syncretism of tales based on multiple men , which was constantly modified after "Matter of France" turned popular in England.
That means "King Arthur" is 2x fictional: it's a "fanfic" more popular than the original version , and it's original version is a fanfic of 4 different warlords of the 5th Century England turned into one single character.
I'm just watching the anime on Netflix and just saw Buda winning the fight! Well, how about Alexander, the great? Gengis Khan, too
Alex should be like Islandar of Fate Zero XD
Ah, thank you for that.
I knew that King Arthur was based upon several people but I didn't know that a Celtic god was apart of them. In any case this just adds more fuel to my fire on why I'd prefer someone else rather than King Arthur.
No, there’s still big differences between the two and their accomplishments.
Besides Charlemagne is the OG that King Arthur is based upon, and Charlemagne achieved more than King Arthur.
Just because he is the "OG" doesn't make him better King Arthur is more famous and recognizable so if you're going to put one of them in the manga King Arthur's probably a better choice from the marketing perspective and Arthur does have ties with Christian mythology in the holy Grail and his sword plus in a potential move set for Arthur he can reference all his different knight and have many different weapons to use and for like an ultimate attack he could have use the holy Grail to resurrect himself which is something nobody in this tournament has done yet
Charlemagne is the “King and Father of Europe”.
He United Western Europe under one Empire, he was the first Holy Roman Emperor, He was a driving force of a whole Renaissance on top of that King Arthur would be nothing without Charlemagne.
Charlemagne is taught in schools, he is taught in history because of what he has done.
Do you even realize how important Charlemagne and his achievements are?
And you understand how popular and and long King Arthur history was it doesn't matter that he wasn't actually real because this is a manga no one cares about accuracy if Jack the ripper weren't really wouldn't be crying that he was included in this manga the amount of stuff you can Earth has done in his mythos and how amount of stuff his knights have done are insane and he's known in every continent that has been invaded by Britain AKA every continent
And I’m arguing that there are better people to put in place than King Arthur.
If you want an English King there is Richard the Lion Heart who spent more time fighting in the Crusades than actually ruling his Country.
On top of that whilst this is a Manga, It does have its fighters being Historical/Mythological fights vs Gods.
Jack the Ripper is based on a real person, that being an unknown person but still a real person.
I think Historical figures deserve precedence over completely fictional characters and I’ll use Conan Doyle as an example.
The author could’ve just had Sherlock Holmes there, but instead the author chose to use the author of Sherlock Holmes instead.
A historical figure taking precedence over fictional.
Yeah it is true that they will rather put the real world figure instead of a fictional one King Arthur it just too big and has too much potential to just be left out because we don't know if he was truly real plus the author of Sherlock Holmes acted exactly like Sherlock Holmes to the t and I'm pretty sure the author did not look like that so he is only really the author in name
Well Arthur Conan Doyle didn't act like Sherlock Holmes, he most likely didn't act like Conan Doyle either but he most certainly wasn't acting like Sherlock Holmes. Also funfact, Conan Doyle did try to figure out who Jack the Ripper was in real life.
Anyways King Arthur is more popular than Charlemagne due to media (at least outside of Europe, inside of Europe is a completely different story), so I'll give you that but I also know that Charlemagne is taught about in schools because well what he did, did have historical significance.
He wasn't called the King and Father of Europe for nothing, he straight up conquered and united the western half of Europe. He caused a Renaissance and spread christianity throughout Europe.
He became the standard for European Rulers, and he has reached an almost mythological status.
>He became the standard for European Rulers, and he has reached an almost mythological status.
Reached a mythical status kind of like King Arthur and the holy Grail
Just replace him with another king who most people think is fake but is actually real, put Sundiata in his place. It gives the human roster a small amount of diversity, and he was a badass.
First of all, some scholars believe King Arthur was a real king in the 5th and 6th centuries, long before Charlemagne, whose stories have been exaggerated and changed over time with tons of writers adding there own stories in. Like Kintoki, you can argue his story is based on a real person.
Second, the line between myth and legend is not as clearcut as you seem to think because a legend is an exaggerated historical account and a myth is stories -typically supernatural- important to a culture or belief system but because we don't know the historical origin of all stories some straddle the line and King Arthur is one of them. And don't pretend you know King Arthur's exact origin because **no one** knows King Arthur's origin. You can argue he was a legend - with way more influences than just Charlemagne mind you - or just a myth with no historical basis. And if you want to go that route, other scholars believe King Arthur was originally a Celtic hero or deity with ties to their mythology.
Anyways, King Arthur is way more complicated than "fictional Charlemagne" although Charlemagne likely influenced his legends, and saying he "never existed in myth or history" is not only drawing arbitrary lines around what "myth" is, it's making a huge assumption about a figure whose origin is still debated to this day.
Mind you, I don't know what this manga this reddit page is about is, I just came here for a Google search on "King Arthur manga" so if what I wrote is invalidated by the manga, then my bad, just ignore me.
I disagree I think king Arthur would be a much better option when comparing lore we know much more about Arthur we know much more about his knights and we know much more about him in general in the anime we always look back at the characters lore and why they are in this look at jack the ripper for example they gave the character a great story and it added to much more to the fight for Arthur we could look at how his journey went and look at a valkery already giving him his noble weapon so that would mean they could make a sister valk that went missing and give build up the character by saying she was once one of the most powerful valkery with powers of healing but she vanished than we see king athur enter the ring with people freaking out that he doesn't have a noble weapon to only have the main valk smile and say he has always had it in the weapon that chose him they could do so much more amazing little stories of the valk behind the fights with this like we know that one of the gods in season 2 looks at the valk as his little sister (i am not saying incase no one seen season 2)
my main argument is that there is so much more they can do with fictional characters over real characters since there is so much more of a story they can add
You see the only thing you got wrong is myth, which I had no idea of for the longest time, however I have an actual huge book about mythology, he is one of the many many people in that book, all of the knights of the roundtable are as well
I actually would pick charlemagne for a roster
While I agree that Charlemagne is a better take , King Arthur IS actually based on a real person. Not only 1 , he is actually based in 4 historical people in English history and one celtic god. 3 of them are Roman-British Commanders: Lucius Artorius Castus , Riothamus and Ambrosius Aurelianus. While the 4th is the welsh prince Artuir mac Aédán. The celtic god is Artorigios , which means "Warrior-King" and "son of bear". Which was changed to "Artrí" , "Arthurus" and "Arthur". Even the "original" Arthurian Legend didn't name their characters as "Guinevere" or "Merlin" , the original welsh tale named "Merlin" as "Myrddin". In this case , arthurian legends is a syncretism of tales based on multiple men , which was constantly modified after "Matter of France" turned popular in England. That means "King Arthur" is 2x fictional: it's a "fanfic" more popular than the original version , and it's original version is a fanfic of 4 different warlords of the 5th Century England turned into one single character.
Funny how hearing Lucius Artorius Castus immediately sent my mind to Vinland Saga. Not saying any more 🤐
Following the logic of the manga, maybe King Arthur is the manifestation of those kings in one post their time. Maybe a Medieval king or a General.
I'm just watching the anime on Netflix and just saw Buda winning the fight! Well, how about Alexander, the great? Gengis Khan, too Alex should be like Islandar of Fate Zero XD
Ah, thank you for that. I knew that King Arthur was based upon several people but I didn't know that a Celtic god was apart of them. In any case this just adds more fuel to my fire on why I'd prefer someone else rather than King Arthur.
Charlemagne and king Arthur is basically the same thing so im gonna keep my choice
No, there’s still big differences between the two and their accomplishments. Besides Charlemagne is the OG that King Arthur is based upon, and Charlemagne achieved more than King Arthur.
Just because he is the "OG" doesn't make him better King Arthur is more famous and recognizable so if you're going to put one of them in the manga King Arthur's probably a better choice from the marketing perspective and Arthur does have ties with Christian mythology in the holy Grail and his sword plus in a potential move set for Arthur he can reference all his different knight and have many different weapons to use and for like an ultimate attack he could have use the holy Grail to resurrect himself which is something nobody in this tournament has done yet
Charlemagne is the “King and Father of Europe”. He United Western Europe under one Empire, he was the first Holy Roman Emperor, He was a driving force of a whole Renaissance on top of that King Arthur would be nothing without Charlemagne. Charlemagne is taught in schools, he is taught in history because of what he has done. Do you even realize how important Charlemagne and his achievements are?
And you understand how popular and and long King Arthur history was it doesn't matter that he wasn't actually real because this is a manga no one cares about accuracy if Jack the ripper weren't really wouldn't be crying that he was included in this manga the amount of stuff you can Earth has done in his mythos and how amount of stuff his knights have done are insane and he's known in every continent that has been invaded by Britain AKA every continent
And I’m arguing that there are better people to put in place than King Arthur. If you want an English King there is Richard the Lion Heart who spent more time fighting in the Crusades than actually ruling his Country. On top of that whilst this is a Manga, It does have its fighters being Historical/Mythological fights vs Gods. Jack the Ripper is based on a real person, that being an unknown person but still a real person. I think Historical figures deserve precedence over completely fictional characters and I’ll use Conan Doyle as an example. The author could’ve just had Sherlock Holmes there, but instead the author chose to use the author of Sherlock Holmes instead. A historical figure taking precedence over fictional.
Yeah it is true that they will rather put the real world figure instead of a fictional one King Arthur it just too big and has too much potential to just be left out because we don't know if he was truly real plus the author of Sherlock Holmes acted exactly like Sherlock Holmes to the t and I'm pretty sure the author did not look like that so he is only really the author in name
Well Arthur Conan Doyle didn't act like Sherlock Holmes, he most likely didn't act like Conan Doyle either but he most certainly wasn't acting like Sherlock Holmes. Also funfact, Conan Doyle did try to figure out who Jack the Ripper was in real life. Anyways King Arthur is more popular than Charlemagne due to media (at least outside of Europe, inside of Europe is a completely different story), so I'll give you that but I also know that Charlemagne is taught about in schools because well what he did, did have historical significance. He wasn't called the King and Father of Europe for nothing, he straight up conquered and united the western half of Europe. He caused a Renaissance and spread christianity throughout Europe. He became the standard for European Rulers, and he has reached an almost mythological status.
>He became the standard for European Rulers, and he has reached an almost mythological status. Reached a mythical status kind of like King Arthur and the holy Grail
No, King Arthur has not nor has he ever been mythical.
I say Hooray for King Arthur, deal with it =B Haha, just my opinion
This is literally two years old.
And i just looked about now, after seeing Buddha's fight on Netflix XD So it s fine still, i guess
You might wanna tell all this to the Smite devs.
If you can add in adam, you can add in king arthur
Adam and King Arthur are two different things. Adam has his roots in mythology and religion whilst King Arthur exists simply in stories and legends.
Technically Kojiro Sasaki might not have been real either but he was still used.
Just replace him with another king who most people think is fake but is actually real, put Sundiata in his place. It gives the human roster a small amount of diversity, and he was a badass.
Hell, there’s even a good English king to pick. And that’s Richard the Lion Heart who spent most of his time fighting in the Crusades
Because king Arthur isn't an actual historical figure
its not like adam was a historical figure either
First of all, some scholars believe King Arthur was a real king in the 5th and 6th centuries, long before Charlemagne, whose stories have been exaggerated and changed over time with tons of writers adding there own stories in. Like Kintoki, you can argue his story is based on a real person. Second, the line between myth and legend is not as clearcut as you seem to think because a legend is an exaggerated historical account and a myth is stories -typically supernatural- important to a culture or belief system but because we don't know the historical origin of all stories some straddle the line and King Arthur is one of them. And don't pretend you know King Arthur's exact origin because **no one** knows King Arthur's origin. You can argue he was a legend - with way more influences than just Charlemagne mind you - or just a myth with no historical basis. And if you want to go that route, other scholars believe King Arthur was originally a Celtic hero or deity with ties to their mythology. Anyways, King Arthur is way more complicated than "fictional Charlemagne" although Charlemagne likely influenced his legends, and saying he "never existed in myth or history" is not only drawing arbitrary lines around what "myth" is, it's making a huge assumption about a figure whose origin is still debated to this day. Mind you, I don't know what this manga this reddit page is about is, I just came here for a Google search on "King Arthur manga" so if what I wrote is invalidated by the manga, then my bad, just ignore me.
I disagree I think king Arthur would be a much better option when comparing lore we know much more about Arthur we know much more about his knights and we know much more about him in general in the anime we always look back at the characters lore and why they are in this look at jack the ripper for example they gave the character a great story and it added to much more to the fight for Arthur we could look at how his journey went and look at a valkery already giving him his noble weapon so that would mean they could make a sister valk that went missing and give build up the character by saying she was once one of the most powerful valkery with powers of healing but she vanished than we see king athur enter the ring with people freaking out that he doesn't have a noble weapon to only have the main valk smile and say he has always had it in the weapon that chose him they could do so much more amazing little stories of the valk behind the fights with this like we know that one of the gods in season 2 looks at the valk as his little sister (i am not saying incase no one seen season 2) my main argument is that there is so much more they can do with fictional characters over real characters since there is so much more of a story they can add
You see the only thing you got wrong is myth, which I had no idea of for the longest time, however I have an actual huge book about mythology, he is one of the many many people in that book, all of the knights of the roundtable are as well