[quote="yorkmike"] (SNIP) Now the druids were a nature people and also believed in equality of the sexes, therefore many of their women were also priests and warriors.

In all my studies of nature religions I have not found one shred of evidence to support this. In fact most of the evidence points to the fact that druids were exclusively male. and tho some tribes let women fight most were just as or more chauvinistic than the romans.

I think the most important thing to remember about Arthur and his knights, rather they were real or not, is the ideas they represent and the feelings they invoke in those who believe in them. As someone already pointed out, people in the middle ages lived a bleak existence. Life was hard and short. But to them, and many people today, the stories represent hope. It could be paralleled to stories of a savior or a messiah who comes when the world needs them most. Many people (back then and today) want to believe that when things get too dreadful, someone will come along and wash away the fear and the pain.

That being said, if there was a historical Arthur, things were probably a bit different than how we think of them nowadays. As has been pointed out, plate mail fell into disuse after Rome fell (which was the beginning of the Dark Ages -- when King Arthur was said to have lived), and was not used again until the 1300's. However, there was chain mail (which the Romans noting being in heavy use by the Celts of the main land and possibly even Britannia). And before what we traditionally think of as "knights" which arose around the time of Charlemagne, there were warriors who rode into battle on horseback.

We have to think of the language and the knowledge of those who were telling the stories in the Middle Ages. They weren't necessarily history buffs. They may not have known the history of plate mail, which was common by that point. And they may not have known when the name "knight" (I believe it was originally spelled as "cnight") came into being. So, if the tales were passed down to the orally, they would have naturally added their own embellishments which we now know are anachronistic, but did not bother those who lived in the middle ages. After all, during the time, they were often wont to anachronisms (if you've ever seen a picture of a Biblical figure dressed in c. 1400's Italian clothing you'll know what I'm saying).

But again, at the very base of it, it's all about Arthur and what his story means to the people of the day (being yesterday, today, or tomorrow). Though he is dead (even if he's mythical) he embodies the hope everyone desperately wants.

Now, is he real? I definitely think it's possible there was a historical King Arthur. And if he's real, does that mean he has all of the magical attributes appropriated to him in the stories? Well, I dunno. But what science tells us is that everything that can happen -- everything a human being can imagine -- can happen, whether it be in our present universe or another.

And that's all I can really say on the subject. But I think it'd be nice if he did exist.

Perhaps if arthur was listening to an ipod and not sleeping then he would not be rested enough to save the world in it's time of need.

The book 'Holy blood, holy grail' using investigative journalism has linked some of the characters in the arthurian romances with historical personages. It could have been a secret societies ploy at conferring dignity one people it wished to put in power or at least use to influence the masses. The romances are rife with violence much the same as holly wood movies which are also used to influence the masses.

Of course bits of true inspiration crept in and a hopeful message can be found. The idea of a hero showing up just when the world needs it most is fitting with hindu mythology which holds that the deities would incarnate in different ages to help humanity and in darker times the deities would have greater powers in order to be able to over come the worlds ills.

quote from holy blood holy grail, I also found the book online
http://www.scribd.com/doc/882898/Holy-Blood-Holy-Grail-Conspiracy-of-Knights-Templar
it can be a rather tedious read as a lot of research went into writing it, and ti doesn't give conclusions just lays out the evidence found and suggest ways the pieces could fit together and what it could mean.

"Another connection is the legends of King Arthur, who appears to have lived in the late fifth and/or early sixth century -- corresponding to the peak of Merovingian ascendancy in Gaul.  In fact, the term Ursus -- "bear" -- applied to the Merovingian royal line, may have been borrowed in an attempt to confer a special dignity on a British chieftain, i.e. Arthur (whose name also means "bear").  The implication is that the Grail itself, the "blood royal", refers to the blood royal of the Merovingian dynasty -- a blood that was deemed to be sacred and invested with magical or miraculous properties.          

Only it is not quite that simple..."  

I prefer thinking of it as myth and a symbolic way of looking at things.