@coluber2001,
I'm 99% certain that he is a myth. There was a post-Roman history of Britain written in the mid-sixth century by a monk named Gildas. He was in a monastery in Brittany, but he said he was born a Briton, not a Breton. He also said he was born in the year of the battle of Badon Hill (the putative Arthur's greatest victory in the later accounts), which helps to tie down the date to circa 493-497 CE. He is one of the best attested historians of a period when written records were sparse. He is quoted by nearly all of his successors, including Bede, Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth (the latter being one of history's monumental liars). Gildas tells us about the great victories of Ambrosius Aurelianus, and then tells us about the great victory of the British over the Saxons at Badon Hill (or Mount Badon--
mons Badonicus in his Latin text), but doesn't tell us who the war leader was. He says that there were two generations of peace thereafter, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles do not mention the battle, but that's not surprising if the Saxons got their collective butt kicked. They also don't mention any Saxon victories or expansion for a period of 44 years.
Gildas never mentions anyone named Arthur, and certainly does not mention any "King Arthur." As the most important and most uniformly reliable record of post-Roman Britain, that is conclusive evidence to my mind. Britain was littered with people named Arthur in that period, but they were all Irish, or of Irish descent, and almost none of them were active in the period of the battle of Badon Hill.