Is it true that King Arthur was a real historical figure? That he had a profound influence on the actual history of England and the world? The evidence presented here comes from many reliable ancient sources that depict the world of Britain around the year A.D. 500, and, more important, from numerous modern historians who have developed methods of examining ancient records to uncover hidden kernels of historical truth. What is known about the history of the period is compared with intriguing details imbedded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and other legendary sources. The most valuable contribution is a careful study of major events in Gaul and Britain during the Arthurian era to show how a leader of Arthur's stature could have caused the known victories in battle and the known shifts in political power. Every major battle in which King Arthur is supposed to have engaged is treated as an actual happening, and each is described in meticulous detail, complete with maps and campaign charts. What a few years ago was thought be a futile quest now is being taken seriously: that only a historical person who led real battles and produced major victories could have inspired the centuries of stories and legends.
My Review:
If you are interested in more than just the romantic myth of King Arthur and his Knights then you should add this to your Arthurian collection. It covers the time period, the landscape and the events surrounding the speculated military career of Arthur. The author, Michael Holmes, (a physicist by trade), goes into surprising detail, pulling from primary historical sources and applying a healthy dose of reason and logic to his speculations. He sets the scene with events that took place before Arthur's birth, events that would have influenced his father and grandfather. He goes into the Celtic tribal mindset and the Roman military machine and how these two things would have played an important role in shaping the romano-celtic people including King Arthur.
Two of the main sources the author pulls from are Nennius's "History of the British" and the "Annales Cambriae." These sources reference Arthur (although there is some debate on his name being added long after the first arthurian myth developed). But if that's not the case then the points Holmes presents are really interesting. Towards the end of the book, he goes into an incredibly detailed and thoughtful account of King Arthur's campaign defending England from the Anglo-Saxons and the numerous battles leading up to the victorious Battle of Mount Badon and the betrayal of Medraut (Mordred).
All in all, even if what Holmes is suggesting can't be proven, it's an interesting book written by someone who obviously loves the legend of King Arthur. And there is enough honest history in it to please the history buff.
