Does excalibur ever brake?

Question

I am into the medieval literature and I heard that the powerful sword of Arthur breaks in a battle.Its that true?And how did Arthur die?

Answer 1

In the medieval legends there is no account of Excalibur/Escalibor/Caliburn/Caledfwch breaking.



The Post-Vulgate Arthurian Cycle, followed by Sir Thomas Malory in his “Le Morte d’Arthur”, relates that Arthur’s sword (unnamed) broke in a single battle between King Arthur and King Pellinor. Thereupon Merlin obtained a new sword for Artthur from a lake. See http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mart/mart022.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mart/mart023.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mart/mart024.htm for Malory’s version. The new sword is named Excalibur at http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mart/mart029.htm .



According to another account, that of the “Vulgate Merlin'', Excalibur was the same sword that the young Arthur pulled from the sword before he was made king. One might try to reconcile the discrepant accounts by saying that both swords were named Excalibur and that Excalibur from the stone was the sword which broke when Arthur fought King Pellinor. That seems rather forced to me. Malory includes both stories, but this inconsistency is only one of many inconsistencies in Malory.



The “Vulgate Merlin'' and the “Post-Vulgate Merlin” are both accounts of the early reign of Arthur but disagree on many points besides the origin of Arthur's sword.



In John Boorman’s film “Excalibur”, the sword Excalibur is the sword in the stone which breaks when King Arthur fights Lancelot. The sword is then reforged by the Lady of the Lake. John Boorman has combined the two medieval accounts and introduced Lancelot. But this is just modern invention (as opposed to medieval invention). The first meeting of Lancelot and Arthur is described quite differently in two (discrepant) medieval accounts. In neither of them is there a single combat between Arthur and Lancelot.



Arthur didn’t die, according to many tales. But for information on Arthur’s last battle see http://kingarthur.wikia.com/wiki/Modred and read the material on “Mordred’s Rebellion and Death”.



See also Malory’s text at http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mart/book20.htm and the “Didot-Perceval'' at http://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/mort3.html for two of many similar medieval accounts.

Answer 2

It in all probability in no way existed. on a similar time as there is in all probability a real person in the back of the King Arthur legends, there is very much extra it is definitely made up. E.g., he replace into no king, and not at everywhere in the English - he fought against the English! He replace into in all probability a Romano-Celtic "dux belloram" or conflict chief. type of like the accepted of troops below a king. he's extensive-unfold to have been powerful, scuffling with against the Anglo-Saxon invaders, by using his use of heavy cavalry. he's asserted to have been in all probability from someplace in south-west England (besides the undeniable fact that different places are pronounced). He fought 13 battles, and alter into killed interior the final one. it is approximately all it is extensive-unfold for particular, or maybe it is iffy. He replace into not a medieval knight, in a fortress, and all that. those issues did not exist yet. So, no fancy swords with names, nor armour, and so on. yet.... those legends purely won't bypass away. some us the call Excalibur as a clue to region. E.g., ex cali bur capacity "from the river Cali," which will teach the place he replace into honestly from. yet, countless what all of us be conscious of comes from Mallory's "la Morte d'Artur," that's a medieval romance (or journey tale), it is basically a historic novel written approximately 800 years after Arthur's time, and whilst there have been castles, and knights, and so on.

Answer 3

yes...when arthur strikes lancelot...because arthur's motive for fighting was impure and one may not use excalibur for impure motives...



killed by mordred