In the sense that King Arthur was the supreme military leader he was a warlord , but because he like most feudal kings ruled ligitamately by having the support of peasants whom the king and his knights protected in return for control of land. Medieval kings had far less power than later European Monarchs and actually had to uphold the interests of the people. As a knight he was a warrior and, the interpretation of Arthur varies depending on wheather you analyze the Arthur of myth or legend. I wouldn't consider Arthur a warlord because of his ligitamcy as king in both legitamatly coming to power and ligitamately ruling, not simply using his military to control and supress the people under him.
Well, since he led a nation, I don't think he CAN be a warlord. He fought in wars though, so he would be a warrior. So warrior it is.
Alright, thanks for your answers. I thought he was a Warrior aswell. I am doing a SOSE project on him
