Customer Reviews

King Arthur : The True Story

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I am a sceptic at heart, and have been disappointed in the past by fantastical works on Arthur and similar themes, so I approached this book with trepidation. My faith in the genre is restored, however. This book is authoritative, accurate in its sources, and assumptions and theories made by the authors are clearly identified as such. Of course this book attracts the epithet 'flawed' - every Arthur fan has his or her own theory that this book will contradict in some way but it is unfair to say that Phillips and Keatman's interpretation of thousand year-old texts in dead languages is less valid than that of any other author, particularly when they go to great lengths (a) to show how they derive their own interpretation, and (b) to present conflicting interpretations that have been made by others but which they have discarded. Above all, this book is scientific - the authors seem to have set out with no theory to justify, just with a genuine desire to follow threads of research as they arise, and they present their findings clearly and stylishly, and without the 'this is the only answer' approach that so many other writers take to the subject.

Myths and legends span around the life of King Arthur and what the truth really is is hard to tell. Phillips and Keatman did a marvelous job compiling the scarce information available and let the reader participate in how the data was compiled and put in order.

Of all the books I read on the historical King Arthur this is by far the best. If there are errors in their reasoning it might attribute to the fact that not many reliable sources on the subject are out there but so far this is the most convincing attempt at getting the most out of it.

This book makes a clever interpretation of the "Dream of Rhonabwy" story, one of several Arthurian stories in the collection of early Welsh tales called the Mabinogion. The tale is highly critical of the state of Wales in the time in which it was written (circa A.D. 1200); the leaders and warriors of Wales are said to be puny compared to their ancestors of Arthuršs time. The high point of "Dream of Rhonabwy" occurs when Arthur and Owein of Rheged (modern Cumbria) play a board game - essentially a Celtic form of chess. Owein was a much celebrated warrior in early Welsh poetry for his many victories over the Anglo-Saxons of northern England in the late Sixth Century - about two generations after Arthuršs time. He thus is a "second Arthur" - another great and victorious Briton warlord. While Owein and Arthur play their game, their warbands fight each other, for no apparent reason. At first, Arthuršs warband is winning, and Arthur ignores Oweinšs requests that he stop the fighting. Then the situation is reversed, and Owein ignores Arthuršs requests. (Oweinšs warband, by the way, are referred to as "crows" - after their flag emblem.) The two leaders finally agree to halt the fighting, but by then both warbands are so depleted that they have to call off the Battle of Badon Hill. "Dream of Rhonabwy" is obviously a warning against fraternal warfare: unless the Welsh princes put aside their petty rivalries, then Welsh will never again enjoy a great victory like that of Badon Hill. Phillips and Keatman have correctly seen "Dream of Rhonabwy" as a criticism of Welsh civil wars, but they read too much into it. First, they claim that the Owein of the story is not Owein of Rheged (as stated in the story), but really another Owein who ruled Viroconium (modern Wroxeter) in Arthuršs time. They also claim that the symbolism of the story is to show Arthur fighting against himself, and therefore that Arthur is thus really Owein of Viroconium: a person about whom almost nothing is known. The quest for the historical Arthur should eschew a pointless search for a "secret identity," and focus instead upon the documentary and archaeological evidence in order to understand the historical period in which he lived.

This is an informative and interesting book with many intriguing theories. It has useful maps and other beautiful and educational illustrations. However, I did spot many flaws in the text. It is worth reading if you are interested in this subject, but it is neither the best book out there on the historical origins of the Arthurian legends, nor are its theories (plausible and thought-provoking as they are) by any means "proven." Like many authors writing on this poorly documented period of British history, Phillips and Keatman will take the few scraps of vague and disjointed evidence available, and offer one or two of a half-dozen or dozen plausible interpretations of that evidence, and then congradulate themselves on having "proven" some belief of theirs. Their approach to identifying a historical Arthur is of the type where one identifies Arthur with someone who is already on record under a different name, as opposed to placing Arthur into history as distinct from every other figure on record. There are other theories out there that work this way, some of which are strong or at least plausible, and others which are preposterous or at least weak. The best theory out there is found in _The Discovery of King Arthur_ by Geofrey Ashe. Ashe identifies Arthur with the fifth century King of the Britons called Riothamus (which seems to be a title, as it means "royalest"). Keatman and Phillips identify Arthur with Owain Ddantgwn from the royal house of Powys. I wonder if Owain and Riothamus could be the same person; more research may be called for on the matter. My main criticism of the book is that it was published after Ashe's book, but the authors neglect to properly address Ashe's case in making theirs. Why should they? Because Ashe is probably the world's formost expert on the subject and his Arthur-as-Riothamus theory is so well constructed and argued, and while it may not be proven beyond all doubt, is supported not by a little, but a sheer preponderance of circumstantial evidence, which is then interpreted in a sensible, straight forward manner. Phillips and Keatmman should have either shown why their theory is preferable to Ashe's, or shown why the two are compatable, but they should not have ignored it. They also downplay another strong and important theory: the Cadbury-as-Camelot theory. This is distinct from the Riothamus theory, but harmonizes with it extremely well, and while it is also not absolutely proven, it too is supported by a preponderance of circumstantial evidence. Phillips and Keatman claim that Cadbury is not a special site because there were other ancient British hillforts reoccupied in the fifth century; instead they favor Viroconium as a historic original or equivalent for Camelot. Firstly, Cadbury is special in terms of the huge scale, complex use of materials, and high-quality workmanship of its refortification; whoever reoccupied it in the fifth century was apparently the richest and most powerful British leader of his day. Secondly, Cadbury and Viroconium need not be mutually exclusive; if Arthur's power and responsibilities spanned the breadth of Roman Britain, he may have had several important sites as bases. I could go on, but instead I will conclude by saying that this book is best used by the history buff in conjunction with other good books on the subject to get a rounded understanding of the subject.

The main problem with quests into the Arthurian myth is that most scholars ignore the evidence contained in the Welsh texts. A quest into Welsh history (or British history in the truest sense of the word) should logically encapsulate these resources. Consequently, all books (by using only Geoffeory of Monmouth's dubious translation of Welsh place names) get their geography wrong. A simple, but profound mistake. Researchers constantly assume that references to Britan encapsulate the entire island; i.e. modern geography forced onto historical writings and situations. When the Cymru referred to Ynys Prydein the refer to Wales and (approx.) its three border counties. So, when references are made to the saxons landing in south east Britain... it's not Kent BUT Gwent. Look in the right place, use the correct geography and use the Welsh texts... many answers are waiting.

King Arthur: The True Story is the best book on the market about the true Arthur, his life, and his kingdom. Phillips and Keatman spin a dectective-like web of history and legend, then use Sherlock Holmes's deductive method to sweep aside the myths and exaggerations and discover the real King Arthur, the fifth-century king of Powys, Owain Ddantgwyn. An interesting fact to note is that Owain's family married into the house of Wessex, which would make today's English royalty descended from him. Owain was a true British national hero, saving, however temporarily, his beloved land from the clutches of the Saxons. King Arthur: The True Story is an enthralling journey into the real "Camelot" that I didn't want to end

I haven't seen the Arthurian legends the same since reading this book. Forget all that floofy stuff about fighting dragons, finding grails, or winning the heart of a lady--this book takes you into the rough-and-tumble world of Dark Age Britain where the natives fought for their land and their identity against the encroaching Saxons. Here you won't find knights in shining armor tilting with lances--rusty chainmail and Roman short swords were the tools of the trade.

The first thing the authors do is strip away the things that weren't part of the original Arthur story--the knights, for instance, represented other, unrelated legends that were tacked on later. Guinevere, Excalibur (originally appearing as Caliburn), and even Merlin were likewise later additions--though Merlin may be the earliest, perhaps a memory of the Welsh bard Merddyn, who may have recounted some of the very early legends. And so we're left with Arthur himself, and perhaps some beginnings of Camelot and the origins of the sword in the stone and lady of the lake legends.

Next they have a look at the early Welsh tales of Arthur, which aren't much help. They look at the old genealogies of Welsh princes, and of course there is no Arthur listed. They review what's known of the early history following the departure of the Romans, and follow Vortigern and so on. And they describe the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons and the beginnings of the conflict between them and the native Britons. And then they go to look for Arthur.

Any search for a historical King Arthur will be limited by the assumptions it necessarily starts out with, and this book is no exception. Arthur might have been a war leader (rather than a prince) who helped the Britons in their struggle, as some of the sources imply. Or he may have been a compilation of heroes merged into a single heroic figure, or he may even have been made up entirely. The authors of this book set out specifically to find a "King Arthur" (i.e., a historical ruler of the period who used the name Arthur in some form), and it's no surprise when they find him.

When they do reveal the man they think was the historical King Arthur, the reader's first thought is "Who?", and with good reason. The prince they identify is entirely obscure, just a name in the annals, and nothing about him was recorded. That, they suggest, is precisely what makes him a good candidate--a man with no historical record can be into a hero to suit any legend. Perhaps they're right--I'd like to think so personally, and their reasoning is plausible enough, but realistically there's just no way to know. There's so much uncertainty in the historical record that too many assumptions have to be made about what might have happened. In the end, while I like to think they've got it pinned down, I have to remind myself that a lot of other possibilities exist. But I can still remain disdainful of over-the-top romanticizations such as Excalibur.

The glitz and baubles of Arthurian mythology are stripped away as a real person, in a murderous time, is pulled out of the scraps of documentation and the lore of the Brittons in the fifth century. A solid piece of work!

Read Barber & Pykitt's book, JOURNEY TO AVALON, and read their criticisms of this one. And read it because those two have done a bit more work (i.e., a hell of a lot more work) than this fantasy.

Remember: Geoffrey of Monmouth might have been making it all up! There is NO WAY we can know!

Nennius' compilation or "heap" is regarded by most historians as UNRELIABLE, as are the Welsh annals (Annales Cambriae)!

Where does that leave us? With a few lines of pseudohistory from which the entire body of work regarding the "historical" Arthur emanates.

We should all be reading the works of FICTION, literature, regarding Arthur, which are more beautifully written beyond comparison to this book, the so-called "truth".

This book is utter nonsense!