I think King Arthur had the last word on this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ZUibOUX28
He was the Joel Spolsky of the Middle Ages, I'm telling you.
He was the Joel Spolsky of the Middle Ages, I'm telling you.
Ignoring the accuracy of a tale told more than five hundred years after the event, if Arthur was real and such an important figure, why did the Venerable Bede fail to mention Arthur at all during his remarkable (for the 'dark ages') history of Britain in the ninth century? /nitpick
To the extent that Arthur could have been real, he likely would have been a warrior-leader, rather than a king, fighting against the spreading Anglo-Saxon invaders.
But yes, point taken. :)