What do we know about King Arthur

[Umbran]

The whole roman background bit is a fairly recent invention/plot device (last 10-15 yrs I think)

Older than that by a decade, at least. Parke Godwin published his post-Roman Arthurian retelling (titled "Firelord") back in 1980.

So they go back a bit further to a time period for which there is little surviving evidence/records and "speculate" that he might have been a left behind roman/roman influenced chieftan.

Yes, but before we dismiss it, we should note that there's at least some logic to it. Assume for a moment that some person existed that became the first basis for the Arthurian legends. We have no record for such a person. Thus, said person is likely to have existed in a time for which we have few records. Britain after the departure of the Romans, after the rule of Vortigern, fits that bill rather nicely.

As I understand the actual history as it is now known, the island did break down to rule by a bunch of warlords. That makes it about ripe for a mythic figure who has the basic portfolio of bringing unity, peace, and prosperity. All you need then is for one of these warlords, at one point, to have done rather well for a while and voila, we have the beginings of an Arthur.

As for departure from the "Arthurian standard". It's a myth. Not only the story, but the standard itself Variations upon retelling are not only regular, but largely expected.

 

[Wombat]

Older than that by a decade, at least. Parke Godwin published his post-Roman Arthurian retelling (titled "Firelord") back in 1980.


Actually goes back much further than that. It was a very popular Victorian view (Arthur, The Last Roman) prior to the pro-Celtic craze of the later 19th and into 20th century.

Then there is the whole Sarmatian angle, but I find that more strained...