The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Could Merlin have been a real person?

In thinking about the whole King Arthur legend if Merlin were real what would be his motivation for being involved as written? The Sword in the stone is reportedly how the young boy became the King, how could this have happened unless magic was involved? I’ve never been clear on it but was Merlin the one responsible for the sword being there to begin with?

If this was true then what about the Lady of the Lake? Were she and Merlin both druids leading their land’s future leader in an attempt to return to power? Would being Druids account for their abilities or was it simply a magical element added to make it seem more risqué at a time of strong Christian influence?

King Arthur himself was he real or a combination of the best characteristics desired in a leader compiled and written of as a single person? Why do you think the legend has survived to this day?
Is it that we want to believe honor and chivalry could exist to such a degree or
do you think it ever existed, such as written?

I think Merlin created a portal he was part of an order of Arcane Dimensional Order and his "Tales "are a temporal hint to a presence that needs to be cloaked to avoid unskilled tampering.

I think Where there is smoke there is fire....so...in this I believe there were tooo many legends/stories about Merlin and King Arthur for there not to have been someone on whom the stories were based.

Besides...they live for me......if only in my dreams. Why? Because I think that it is just a GREAT story and the chivalry of the time has been lost in today's world.

I will not claim to be an expert but this is my understanding:
Merlin and King Arthur are both based on real individuals from that aproximate time period although neither was exactly as they are spoken of in the tales. Merlin was a magician/wizard who's practice was mostly druidic and astrology but Arthur was not officially a boy made king as the story goes. I know not the exactness of the Lady of the Lake and how that specifically plays into history.

they were both based on real individuals but history got lost in myth and the two became romanticized

oh something I am interested in and know a bit about lol

It is 2am here in the UK but I will reveisit tomorrow :-)

I've read a book that made the postulation that the tales of Merlin and Arthur are in fact druid lessons in magic and lore passed down as stories since the written word was forbidden for such subjects.

Merlin was said to of been born to a human mother and a demon. As a boy he told prophecies, the magic part was added later as part of a story. There is no known historical text that says Arthur actually pulled the sword from a stone. The Lady of the Lake also has no historical basis and is thought to have been based on lake fairies in Welsh stories.

Both King Arthur and Merlin have their basis in history. As time went by new things were added to the legend, Arturus changes from a warlord defending the last vestiges of Roman influence in Britain, to King Arthur. The figure of Merlin, changes from a Druid mystic, to a full fledged magician, that in some of the stories, actually ages backwards. Other aspects were added to the story, the Round Table, meaning equality among the knights, the search for the Holy Grail

Merlin it is thought selected Author to put in position because he knew through Arcane study that the world needed a figure to bring it through difficult times,he read the stars and the study of others that read stars suggested rifts in this world between "fantasy"and reality cause wonderful phenomena in society I wish we still had practicing Druids to suggest things to heal this current rift. The tomes are somewhere I wish they could be found and decyphired

Merlin was the creation of Geoffrey of Monmouth who in his 12th century book History of the Kings of Britain combined a welsh story about a bard named Myrddin with the story from a chronicler from the ninth century Nennius. Note the word "creation".

some say the created merlin was to be a character in a series of books called Merlin of Hogsworth.

I watched an interesting show on tv a while back about the legend of Arthur, and I have to say that the shows objection must have been to kill the myth for those who watched LOL

They pretty much said that Arthur's legend was ntohing but a fairy tale, created by story tellers to help keep the spirits of the people alive.

Even though I watched that show, I still believe that the legend of Arthur and Merlin is in some ways true even if some guy on a tv show says it's not :-)

as a story teller I can see how a tale told for even a decade could be "hijacked"by a writer to be a structure for injected agendas,thankfully they kept merlin intact truth be known it was that very character that lead me to the arcane and dimensional studies I continue to do even now.There is another time tested tale of a grand wizard as well anybody care to guess?

do i think they were once real yes do i think the stoeys are correct no there is real prof that arthur was once a knight for rome and that is all they can prove

Hmmm... It's a very interesting topic, I have put quite a bit thought into this subject. I believe Merlin was real and his abilities in that story have been slightly exaggerated. For example, the dragons below the castle thing when Merlin was young, I think is a slight misconception, because there are no such thing as a "dragon" I think their might have been a cave underneath, making structurally impossible to build, but no dragon.

SoulShroude had posted on here earlier that Merlin and Arthur were based on people who actually lived, and he was right. The stories were embellished and woven together in a fanciful way to become the Arthurian legends we know and love today. However, if memory serves me right, if you read and pay close attention to detail, there is actually incest involved in the legend. I keep thinking Arthur and Mordred, though it's been almost 30 years since I've read the legends. The legends are really not as entirely pure and light as most people think they are because of the versions that are available in schools and such.

Yes a legend which is described as; a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.

I feel certain that both King Arthur and merlin were both real. Not only because of my own beliefs but because even my history teacher said that they were both real people.

I do believe that the stories were just based off of these people.

I think the reason it story survived is that we want to believe in those things. Don't we all want leaders that have vision and can do things that normal folks can't.

I would like to believe they were real..but who's to say they weren't? There's no real proof either way..King Arthur is a legend as well as Merlin. It's a myth that will be debated for yrs to come.

well have always liked to believe it to be true .. cause anything is possible until proven unreal.. in my mind

To clear a few details up...The only reason Merlo (Merlin) was so encircled around Artur (Arthur), was the fact that when Merlo and Nimue (Lady of the lake) had a relationship when Merlo and herself lived under the lake for a couple of years.

Now the story goes, Nimue cast a spell on Merlo and led him to the lake, then seduced him...Either way, Artur was born...And yes, was Merlo's son. The man born of the dragon. Anywho, Merlo's whole story was to guide Artur to an honourable and virtueous life.

At the end of the story, Merlo was supposedly imprisoned within a crystal on the Isle of Avalon by Morgan Lefay (Morgana). As to whether or not Merlo was a traveler of the dimensions is still speculated, but he was in fact an Arcadian. Real or not, this is for society to speculate and for storytellers like myself to make truth out of the embelishments of the past.

The story all took place apprently in the area where i live (in Wales), I'm reseaching the full facts now, hopefully i should post the results of my research in the weekend. All i can say right now, that there is a historical figure Arthur was based on, all will be revealed in time:)

Merlin and King Arthur were real people and throughout history it has been romanticize much like Robin Hood and Zorro aka Joaquin Murietta.

I'm sure the story and characters were cleaned up or down as the writer chose in later versions of their story. I think Merlin was a Druid and Arthur an exceptionally intelligent man for his time. Together they acomplished more that most believed possible in their time. This gave rise to their legend and the future story tellers took it from there. People want to believe that chivalry & honor once existed somewhere so they can hope to experience it for real sometime.

I believe in my opinion its just a work of fiction based on people from that time period.

If that is the case to tend to wonder about other stories such as the Epic of Gilgamesh and Noah's Ark. How bout Moses crossing the Dead Sea with Ramses the 2nd following behind him. Ramses was a true character but would have been too old at the time to be chasing Moses at the time the Bible states. Same goes with Merlin and Arthur. Maybe the legend is based on real live characters with a romanticized or an exaggerated truth.

I think that with most stories, this one is based on some facts. And over time the tales grew to be what they are today.

I believe this story is based on actual events. Sure there are some details that maybe a little out there but as a whole I believe it to be true.

This is a great topic I'm finding out details that I was not aware of. It has been awhile since I studied this, thank you for the great information.

yeah totally i like everyones thoughts on legends like Merlin :)

The stories of king Arthur cant be proved or disproved.

This is not an attack on a religion just bare facts to get my point across.

Basically with the Christianization of the population the church had a powerful tool called the press, bless their cotton sock.
They rewrote history and also preserved history in there own words and ways.
Before this druids kept knowledge in there heads and verbal passed it on.

The stories was of a great leader and the sword of the land, with such power why would you chase after the Christians holy grail?
It was to show they have something more powerful, so much so that he let the land go and his rights to it …. And so should they and follow the new faith.

Iv been to the castle and marlins cave lots.
One psychedelic adventure there we saw Merlin… we walked up to him and he had an American accent lol (some guy dressed up doing what we were only in a costume).
The castle was built in parts starting in the 6th century and by 14th century after the black prince passed away it fell into decline and was used as a prison for a bit.

Interesting and fascinating.

History channel had the story of Arthur on. He was belived to be real also Merlin. Of course the stories got better w/time. lol

I believe most fables/fairytales were true at one point but were stretched and added upon over the years

I beleive the truest story that has surfaced about King Arthur and Merlin would have to be the flick that cam out a few years back with Clive Owen entitled "King Arthur". It portrayed them in a "mere mortal sense", merlin didn't have special powers but he still was feared as a wizzard, due to hearsay of the time.

Yes, this was a hollywood made movie, but even those have good stories behind them sometimes. Stories that a writer has researched and spent many years writing.

I guess it is possible that Merlin was a real personality, with all the powers, and abillities. I personaly think that the whole story about Merlin and his magical influence and help on the young king, is just a folk lore.

I believe that most legends have some basis on some thread of truth.
In the case of Merlin and King Arthur, I believe, as many other have said, that they are based on real people. There have been plenty of history channel documentations of the search for King Arthurs home and they have recoved items to show that there was such a place as Camelot and were knights and such to have served him. So I have no doubt that there was a King Arthur. And why wouldn't he have had a sorcerer at his side to read the stars for him and guide him on when the best times to go to battle would be....
I am sure some things have been glamourized for story telling. But all in all
why wouldn't they be real men?
Thats just my two cents

Like religions legends inspire, give hope and present us with something to believe in greater than ourselves. They fill a vital role in all cultures.

The elements and characters in the Arthurian Legends mirror the types of individuals that have actually existed in history Druids, Knights, Kings and reflect the conflict between the clashing of the cultures and religions of the times.

There are different versions of the main tale of King Arthur and of the history of the British Isles with a 12th century French poet being one of the more popular.

These legends and tales where written by poets, not historians.

i truly think this tale is a wonderfull inspriation for fate and destiny and it's existance,i think it is plausable that some of the story is true,but i also feel that some elements were added to keep the legend alive,but then agian reality in nature is sometimes stranger than fiction.

merlin and arthur where certianly reall though there is little evidence that they evan met.gerald of wales includes merlins prophesies in his book,the history of the kings of england,which is based on a welsh book called the brut now lost..st gildas wrote an account of the 12 victories of king arthur and he knew arthur personaly.arthur was not actually a king but a leader of a war band descended from sarmatian cavalry.you can see a grave of a sarmatian leader called artorius.ive got translations of wace and also cretien of troys books.i think wace got arthur mixed up with constantine and also with maximus,who tried for the purple and lost.the only contempory accounts which exist are by st gildas and st nennius.also there is the mabigondon which is a celtic miscalleny including some arthurian legends.

Both Merlin and Arthur may very well have been real however, I believe when you say it's all 'a magical element added to make it seem more risqué at a time of strong Christian influence'. I believe there are some truths in every story, fairy tale, etc but magical parts have been added to pretty the story up. I do believe in magic from within ones self, I do not believe in waving a wand and *poof* things happen.

did you just say poof lol,well of course i feel magick may have been a part of the stories existance but in it's entirely i feel not all is how it was written,you got to know that stories to change over time,the more poeple hear 'em the more they change but the basics of the tale i feel is legit and hey if it's not real it still makes you think don't it and wonder.

I will say this much for a store to be made there is always some truth in it.
Now about king Author I would say he is a character that is based of charlemagne because he did all most all the things king author did.
As to chivarly I believe that the samurai where better off in honor because they would die & never retreat as the knights did.
For merlin I would have to agree with soulshroude on that.

as with most legends this one is based on fact and actual people. (like the legendary stories of Alexander the Great)

it just that over time theimagination of the storytellers have molded it into what it is now.

merlin was a great druid there area actualy document refering to him that date tothe early dark-ages.
arthur, im not to sure about. some historians are still researching weather or not he was even a real king. i dont know if he was completly fictional or if the name was just given as a cover for another king whos name has been changed or forgoten. that subject is up for grabs.

there are others historians that beleive merlin and arthur lived in completly diferant time frames and the two names and there actions were combined to form the legend.

and im clueless about were the lady of the lake came from probably like posted above....lake fairy tales

I say again arthor is probably Charlemagne.

It could be said that the legendary history of Britain was created in part to form a body of patriotic myth for the island. Several agendas thus can be seen in this body of literature.

Various Celtic deities have been identified with characters from Arthurian literature: Morgan le Fay was often thought to have originally been the Irish goddess Mórrígan. Many of these identifications come from the speculative comparative religion of the late 19th century, and have been questioned in more recent years.

Early authors also drew from the early Arthurian and pseudo-historical sources of the Matter of Britain. The Scots, for instance, formulated a mythical history in the Picts and the Dál Riata royal lines. While they do eventually become factual lines, unlike those of Geoffrey, their origins are vague and often incorporate both aspects of mythical British history and mythical Irish history. The story of Gabhran especially incorporates elements of both those histories.

entry from wikpedia growing up in the Uk with English and Welsh friends i have heard several different theorys on where the legend came from. Most agree that there was a king arthur was based on however the legend has been changed and re written several times to reflect the political and religous times

Lore you have really brought out some great points and it makes sense too.

Wolfkiller, I would disagree about the Samurai having more honor than the knights of the round table. While they did have strong moral values they had little concern for their fellow man unless it directly affected them or their masters.

Thank you everyone I'm really enjoying seeing the different points of view.

I think Merlin, King Arthur and Avalon were all real depletion of belief is what killed it all

To me there are too many stories and facts(which I don't have anymore, old high school essay) to not believe that they existed. Whether or not all the aspects of these stories are true that can be left for speculation.

I though it was a fivctional story, too bad we can't find some info on how the author of the story came up with the ideal?

Bulfinch's Mythology says Arthur's father was Ambrosius, and earlier name for Merlin. the myth and legend shows many revisions, and generally suggest no human king, but a sort of Celtic Zeus. "He may have been incarnate in one of several warrior kings for brief periods, but his basic story is mythic rather than historical " per Walker.

i believe merlin was real the whole thing of camerlot was magical and very real

In medieval falconry, a merlin was a kind of hawk tht could be flown only by a fairy queen. Merlin was associated with Druidic fairy-religion. Notation in Walker that says the Round Table was a symbol of the pagan lunar calendar, and that the first tally of its knights made up the moon's number, 28.

Fun stuff.

what they say is all true but we as a race as lost touch in that apart of our self. one day that will one day come back.

Arthur and Merlin were probaly based on real people. Merlin in particular may have been based on a combination of more than one person.

Many think the bard, Taliesin, was the real Merlin. You can read some of his poetry here:

http://www.ancienttexts.org/library/celtic/ctexts/tindex.html

The name Merlin may have been a title for the Chief Bard of Britain. This is alluded to in the book, The Mists of Avalons.

There is some scholarly research into this area. There is often a lot of discussion on this topic on the message boards on druidry.org.

The Arthurian Legend is important is because it is the myth which unites one Britain - pagan/Christian, real/magic, Celt/Saxon - all after the departure of the Romans.

I think they were real people that just got powerful and almighty in the stories

I believe there is truth behind this particular myth. If you've seen the Clive Owen version of King Arthur, you'll get a more realistic version of this tale. Merlin was portrayed as more a Shaman character- what native pagans would have been like. There was no glitter or flowing gowns in this movie. It gave a new face to the stories, and I appreciated it.

I agree, Lagniappe. They took out the typical Hollywood glitz and made it more down to earth and realistic.

Pepper: The Arthurian Legend is important is because it is the myth which unites one Britain - pagan/Christian, real/magic, Celt/Saxon - all after the departure of the Romans.

This really speaks to me. What was the time period? What was happening feudally, religiously? I might even have an History 101 around here. The durants. Any history recommendations?

The history doesn't dismiss the magic because it's built into the spiritual consciousness of that time. Their beliefs are more important than ours.

But if you ahve studied samurai nightgame all would gladly give there lives to defend there country & emporour.
The knights on the other hand would retreat if found to be against opposition to great.
And it would cost a city for them when they did but it did not matter to them.
The samurai would never surrender & die to the last man.

Not sure what this has to do with Vampires but ok.

Merlin and King Arthur may not have actually existed but the idea of them must have come from someplace. It is my belief that writers take an idea surrounding someone they know or have experienced or read and expand on it in the case of tales such as this one here.

Looks like the Legend of King Arthur and Merlin is much like the Tootsie pop.... The world will never know...(if they were real or not) It does give a comforting feeling tho that there is a great possibility that such a man and wizzard existed dont ya think. It taps into history, culture, beliefs and poltics of the era in which the legend took place.. That in itself is a valueable asset to historically speaking,

Oh yeah Sean Connery makes a good King Arthur

I believe The Arthurian Legend had a bit of Templar origins unto it. And Templars had something to do with Alchemy...I guess the story utilizes a lot of Alchemical Symbolism...As to being based on actual historical figures, well it probably is. Most legends combine real historical figures with supernatural or mystic qualities to create an air of magic.

i agree with you bloodmaquis


just to show u that the legend can be based on real characters .

I like to think they lived long ago. Alot of things might have been added to make them seem more then they were. But if they are just fiction..It makes for a great movie to watch.

Arthur is famous in the UK for defending Britain against the Saxons & the Roman Empire

st nennius knew king arthur personaly and wrote the 12 victorys of arthur .st gildas also knew him but did not like him,but st gildas was bitchy.
merlin was a druid rank so we dont really know who he was.in the mabigondon htere was a bishop who a close friend of arthur and he could be merlin as the druids became bishops in the celtic church.

Bloodmother: The period of the real King Arthur and Taliesin or Merlin is right after the Romans left - in the late 5th century AD.

The Romans just left Britain for the last time. The various Celtic tribes were beginning to gel into a unified Britain and the Saxons were coming. Christianity was beginning its ascendency over paganism in Europe.

It's said they are real. It's also said Arthur was an immortal. But there are many stories of him and Merlin so who knows whats true.

Merlin (the merlin)

Was not his actual name, but The Merlin was the highest of the Druid seers, a powerful magician who put Arthur on the throne and finally crumbled under the Christians, leaving only Morgan to remember and uphold Avalon. He taught the legendary Arthur all he could of kingcroft and all he knew of nature and the linking of all things. Arthur was wise, much because of The Merlin's teachings.

Got you all stumped on that one now. Please, someone research more on this.

Druid this, temporal nexus that...All speculation until someone pokes an eye out in my opinion.

I also believe that Arthur and Merlin were historical figures that changed over time to mythological status.
And isn't Merlin a title, not a name? I heard that from somewhere, but I can't remember from where.

I believe that the characters were based on real individuals, but as time went on the stories about them were exaggerated.

i have to agree with my sister

Wasnt anybody who just a bit different to all the rest concided a witch a wizard or something else back then even if they didnt hold a special power it was because they where different

Princessmommy727 -



What do you mean by exaggerated?

You know ~Distortion~, exaggerated as in misconstrude...Making them appear to the reader as more than what they actually were.

I feal the same as princessmommy

I had read thru some of my history book that their wasd a roman soldier that was named arthur and his alchemist named merlin i do belive they exsist

there was a king arthur---but the rest of it maybe pure myth

Arthur and Merlin both existed. This has already been proven. The rest is hollywood.

I believe that Merlin and Arthur did exist, whether or not they had the powers that they did is a whole other thing. Excalibur, the Lady in the Lake, Morgan Le Fay, Modred, or Mordred and other such characters (and objects) are very interesting, to study as well. Recent adaption to the story including Merlin's youth, and death are very interesting as well.

Arturus, is believed to have been a Roman Centurion, stayed in Britain when the Roman legions left, he tried to maintain law, a compassionate treatment of the peasants, protecting people, that in itself at a time when all rules are being broken, when abuse reigned, was seen as magical by those around, when people in other parts of Britain heard about what was going on legends grew, Arturus became larger than life. Merlin is though to be a Druic priest who befriended Arturus and advised him, again, the legends grew, simple earth lore became great feats of magic.

And of course a search had to be added to the story, the search for an object that would simbolize purity, faith, love, devotion.

so many do not believe that they may of existed yet, I feel that theydid and we just do not really know the whole story or history of it. just what has been told only..

I do believe both existed in history, though, not as depicted in The "Legends" of King Arthur.

Although myths are not based on objective truth, they reflect both universal worries and the worries of specific cultures.

Legends, however, are stories about real people who are famous for doing something brave or extraordinary. Every time the story was told, it became more exaggerated and so it is now difficult to tell how much of the story is really true.

Interesting Reading:

Britannia History

I do believe that Merlin and King Arthur did exist. But like most stories they were made more interesting by adding things to it. And over the years these stories were embellished.

any story that was passed down through time and many mouths and ears it does become distorted, i do agree

we will never know the real story for many if not all things history

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up SoulShroude. ;]

on the subject of aurelius ambroisabus bede says he was born of the purple and defended britian against the saxon invaders.hes also in the celtic histories which says he was the unckle of arthur.he founded legion forts on the frontier of celtic britain and ahistorian looked up villages and towns with his name and traced the frontier.also they found an inscription in tintagel saying arthur caused this place to be built.arthurs broach ring and sword was party of the british crown jewells till the 12 centuary.richard cruer de lione gave excalibar away(year right)to the king of sicily and the broach and knfe was lost in a shipwreck in the Wash.one day it will be found.pendulam anybody?excalibar has been widely reported to be still in britain.its original name is caliburn.tristam and isoldes tonb is in cornwall.you can visit it.arthur and guineveres tomb is in glastonbury and you can go there too.

i do believe that merlin could have been a real person,i am just not so sure about all the magical things he could have done.

'The once and future king" I do believe he existed and Merlin as well.Although historian and writers love to make him more of a god than warriror and king. I believe he existed in a time (6th century, led a defence against the Saxon invaders)where the people needed a leader and as time went on the his victories in battle and the like were added upon.

As far a Merlin goes, I think he may have existed but I doubt very much he was any sort of mentor to Arthur.Perhaps more of a healer or apothecary.
Below is some history of Merlin, but then nobody will ever know, as none of this can be proved.

Merlin is best known as the wizard featured in Arthurian legend. The standard depiction of the character first appears in Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, and is based on an amalgamation of previous historical and legendary figures. Geoffrey combined existing stories of Myrddin Wyllt (Merlinus Caledonensis), a northern madman with no connection to King Arthur, with tales of Aurelius Ambrosius to form the composite figure he called Merlin Ambr.

http://www.britannia.com/history/h12.html

this story seems to be as old as time.as for the sword in the stone how else could it get there without magic?

Alas, I knew them well. Both of them were cheap bastards ! Merlin still owes me a dozen cows for a bet he lost.

You know, there are a lot of tales about these two, and while I'm inclined to agree with the theroy that there are too many storys to deny their existance, I wonder if thats just child-like hope that childhood heros really exist?

It seems improbible that actual evidence of their existance would not exist with all these tales here if they were real, but then, much of the worlds history is missing.. Soo.. I'm going to say yes! Yay merlin!

the sword in the stone is a referance to a celtic kingmaking rituall.

That a series of events such as the Arthurian legends are clouded in mystery, with no clear historical basis should not surprise us. Events that occured less than 200 years ago are changed, enlarged, become myths, in case the defenders of the Alamo, fighting for slavery, and they become the heroes in the legends and myths, how can we be surprised then that Arthur and Merlin are shrouded in mystery

Me... I believe they lived in one form or another, all tales get embellished on over centuries...

I believe they were real..Maybe not in the way history has made them. I'm sure alot of things has been added over the years to make them seem more then they really were.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.