BARBARIAN!

...by 500 AD, not only had the Glorious Rome Nero knew been split in half, but the Western half was gone

Alternatively, another option for the historical Arthur is one of the Romano-British war leaders who declared themselves the heirs of Macsen Wledig AKA Western Roman Emperor Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus.

Nero said:

BARBARIAN!

Probably not a good idea to taunt her, given your own problems with a certain Celtic queen.

PraiseVectron said:

Alternatively, another option for the historical Arthur is one of the Romano-British war leaders who declared themselves the heirs of Macsen Wledig AKA Western Roman Emperor Flavius Magnus Maximus Augustus.

But mostly it's rather more likely that Arthur is just straight up fictional and about as real as Sherlock Holmes or at best an embellished homogenization of the acts of so many difference people of the era as to be unrecognizable as any one of them and basically fictional.

Tk3997 said:

But mostly it's rather more likely that Arthur is just straight up fictional and about as real as Sherlock Holmes or at best an embellished homogenization of the acts of so many difference people of the era as to be unrecognizable as any one of them and basically fictional.

Well, the two earliest references to Arthur are the Historia Brittonum and the Annales Cambriae, both of which claim the House of Brutus of Troy* was the first dynasty to rule over Britain. So these historians clearly don't let facts get in the way of truths.

*Yes, that Troy.

Except Lucius Artorius Castus is one of the leading historical figures for the real King Arthur. If you can't tell from the name, he was a Roman prefect who commanded two legions based in Britain, had a unit of cataphracts under his command, and lead his legions in putting down rebellions in Gaul.