"Arthur was an English medieval king."
"Arthur was neither English, nor medieval, nor a king."

Both of these statements are true, depending on your perspective - literary or historical. Even then, the debate can still go on. While the literary enthusiasts can argue Arthur's authenticity, the historians can point out that Arthur's literary debut (Geoffrey) places him squarely in late antiquity, NOT the Middle Ages, as the later romances do. And despite any sensible debate, we are left with a movie legacy which includes Camelot, Excalibur, First Knight, & Merlin!

However, discussing Tolkien's world is slightly less ambiguous because we KNOW it was unreal, and because (so far) it has not been severely *corrupted* into popular imagination. Furthermore, as we all know, Tolkien placed his 'world' (including LotR) essentially in pre-history.

Having said all this, I think there are conclusions that we all agree on...
1) Medieval history was a very long and transitional period, which has its origins & parameters defined by things which have NOTHING to do with Middle-Earth at all (ie. the Roman Church, Germanic kingdoms, feudalism, "life is nasty, brutish & short", etc.)
2) Tolkien's works, beginning with the Hobbit, introduce some elements which are COMMON with some dominating themes in Medieval literature (ie. the Quest, Good vs. Evil, monsters & magic, etc.)
3) Tolkien was first & foremost a philologist, concerned with the fluid development of languages, and loathed artificial 'blocks' of history (ie. 'Norman Keeps' in the Notion Club Papers Pt2.)
4) NOBODY wants a re-make of 'Excalibur'.

Heorrenda