Interesting.
However, as far as I can tell, these stories are mythical in nature rather than historical.
As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t dismiss myth as inherently untruthful, but I prefer to see it backed up with some genuine historical evidence from archaeology, etc. King Arthur is probably based on a historical figure, but the Camelot of the stories never really existed.
That's what moslems & more than a few moslem scholars also say about Jerusalem - that King Solomon's Temple never existed, it is a myth.
At the very least, I have FULL belief in Ferdowsi's Shah-Nameh (Book of Kings).
As I've said before, he wrote his book, after 30 (laborious) yrs, in the 10th century AD in Iran. Even though he does segment his book in to 3 sections, one being the "mythical" one, I doubt it is *entirely* mythical; he spoke the truth. I will tell you why, later. It is late at night here at my end right now.
Mean time, tell me why you think it is "mythical", in your opinion ??
For now, I can only tell you that Ferdowsi did his research (be it surreptitiously) as was required, for his time, extremely well.
I am largely familiar with the legend of King Arthur & Camelot - however, I can comfortably say: No comparison with Camelot and King Arthur, At All, in this case. The history & circumstances, in & for England, were completely different.