What do you think?
Rate this book
King Arthur: A Military History
Applying scientific logic to the known facts to restore King Arthur to his true place in English history, this book starts with what is known of his life, and progresses through logic, commonsense and scientific probability. It provides analysis of his battle campaigns, and his role as author of "The King's English". It is claimed that the English language as spoken today is due mainly to the effectiveness of King Arthur's military tenacity. The author attempts to establish a place in history for Arthur from the known facts.
179 pages, Hardcover
First published December 12, 1981
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
May 28, 2017
I would say that this is an excellent introduction for anybody who is interested in Arthur as a historical figure. It gives a good overview of the historical sources and the political context of sub-Roman Britain.
Like other such books, it cannot show that Arthur existed. Instead, Holmes demonstrates an Arthur-shaped hole that his hopes can be poured into.
My only real criticism, is that because this book wants to be treated as Proper History rather than Popular History it does cling to the written sources and this gives the impression that these sources must be quite reliable. They are not reliable, they are just all there is. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles for example are simply not supported by archaeology. Historians do not like the term 'Dark Ages'. But the fact is that we are relatively ignorant about this period.
Like other such books, it cannot show that Arthur existed. Instead, Holmes demonstrates an Arthur-shaped hole that his hopes can be poured into.
My only real criticism, is that because this book wants to be treated as Proper History rather than Popular History it does cling to the written sources and this gives the impression that these sources must be quite reliable. They are not reliable, they are just all there is. The Anglo Saxon Chronicles for example are simply not supported by archaeology. Historians do not like the term 'Dark Ages'. But the fact is that we are relatively ignorant about this period.
April 11, 2018
In the book King Arthur:a military history by Michael Holmes (1996), the author attempts to lay out the potential role a hypothetical Arthur could have played in military events around the Romanized Britons attempted defense of Britain against the Anglo-Saxon invaders.
The book is divided into chapters focusing upon a number of topics. The author touches upon the question of the historical authenticity of King Arthur in the first chapter, then moves on to discuss what is known of the Roman and Celtic influences and writings about Arthur's alleged existence.
The next chapters are an attempt to define the state of the 5th century military situation in Britain, as the Anglo, Saxons, and Jutes pushed further into the island from the east. Holmes reviews the various primary sources of writing we have of this time, and tries to construct a logical, and likely pattern of events from the initial invasion from a potential Saxon mercenary army invited into the island by the the shadowy historical figure Vortimer, as part of an internal despite among the Roman Britons. Then he discusses the likely betrayal by the Saxons of their Celtic employers. This is followed by a speculative campaign by Ambrosius Aurelianus, the likely British High King, against the invaders.
Holmes then speculates that the niche where a historical Arthur would fill would be in conducting the field campaigns of unified Britons against the invaders after or during the late years of Ambrosius' reign. All of this is put together with deductive logic, scant primary sources, and a bit of speculation.
The author compares the Germanic conquest of Britain with the Germanic conquest of Gaul by the Franks. After the death of Flavius Aetius, the General of the West, Roman Gaul would stay an uneasy balance between Roman and early migrating Germanic tribes. In two generations the Frankish king Clovis would take power and quickly conquer most of what was left of the Roman province against the Goths and what was left of the Roman forces, within 30 years establishing a kingdom that spanned much of modern day France.
In Britain the Anglo-Saxon invasion would experience many more setbacks. By 500 A.C.E., the invaders controlled Kent, Lincoln shire, Norfolk, Suffolk, the Isle of Wight, and coastal areas in Northumberland and Yorkshire. The back and forth fighting between the Britons and invaders would depopulate cities and lay waste most of the farm steads between the conflicted territory.
Holmes is proposing that Arthur lead a serious of campaigns against the Saxons, climaxing in the Battle of Baden, and it was these hypothetical campaigns which checked the invaders for a several decades. Such battles are known to have existed, but the primary sources are very sparse on the details of when and where these clashes were conducted.
As a work of historical speculation it is a good read. Holmes has keep the work to about 180 pages, with proper notations of his sources. Then book is worthy a read for anyone interested in the historical authenticity of Arthur, or even the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain.
The book is divided into chapters focusing upon a number of topics. The author touches upon the question of the historical authenticity of King Arthur in the first chapter, then moves on to discuss what is known of the Roman and Celtic influences and writings about Arthur's alleged existence.
The next chapters are an attempt to define the state of the 5th century military situation in Britain, as the Anglo, Saxons, and Jutes pushed further into the island from the east. Holmes reviews the various primary sources of writing we have of this time, and tries to construct a logical, and likely pattern of events from the initial invasion from a potential Saxon mercenary army invited into the island by the the shadowy historical figure Vortimer, as part of an internal despite among the Roman Britons. Then he discusses the likely betrayal by the Saxons of their Celtic employers. This is followed by a speculative campaign by Ambrosius Aurelianus, the likely British High King, against the invaders.
Holmes then speculates that the niche where a historical Arthur would fill would be in conducting the field campaigns of unified Britons against the invaders after or during the late years of Ambrosius' reign. All of this is put together with deductive logic, scant primary sources, and a bit of speculation.
The author compares the Germanic conquest of Britain with the Germanic conquest of Gaul by the Franks. After the death of Flavius Aetius, the General of the West, Roman Gaul would stay an uneasy balance between Roman and early migrating Germanic tribes. In two generations the Frankish king Clovis would take power and quickly conquer most of what was left of the Roman province against the Goths and what was left of the Roman forces, within 30 years establishing a kingdom that spanned much of modern day France.
In Britain the Anglo-Saxon invasion would experience many more setbacks. By 500 A.C.E., the invaders controlled Kent, Lincoln shire, Norfolk, Suffolk, the Isle of Wight, and coastal areas in Northumberland and Yorkshire. The back and forth fighting between the Britons and invaders would depopulate cities and lay waste most of the farm steads between the conflicted territory.
Holmes is proposing that Arthur lead a serious of campaigns against the Saxons, climaxing in the Battle of Baden, and it was these hypothetical campaigns which checked the invaders for a several decades. Such battles are known to have existed, but the primary sources are very sparse on the details of when and where these clashes were conducted.
As a work of historical speculation it is a good read. Holmes has keep the work to about 180 pages, with proper notations of his sources. Then book is worthy a read for anyone interested in the historical authenticity of Arthur, or even the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain.
April 11, 2018
In the book King Arthur:a military history by Michael Holmes (1996), the author attempts to lay out the potential role a hypothetical Arthur could have played in military events around the Romanized Britons attempted defense of Britain against the Anglo-Saxon invaders.
The book is divided into chapters focusing upon a number of topics. The author touches upon the question of the historical authenticity of King Arthur in the first chapter, then moves on to discuss what is known of the Roman and Celtic influences and writings about Arthur's alleged existence.
The next chapters are an attempt to define the state of the 5th century military situation in Britain, as the Anglo, Saxons, and Jutes pushed further into the island from the east. Holmes reviews the various primary sources of writing we have of this time, and tries to construct a logical, and likely pattern of events from the initial invasion from a potential Saxon mercenary army invited into the island by the the shadowy historical figure Vortimer, as part of an internal despite among the Roman Britons. Then he discusses the likely betrayal by the Saxons of their Celtic employers. This is followed by a speculative campaign by Ambrosius Aurelianus, the likely British High King, against the invaders.
Holmes then speculates that the niche where a historical Arthur would fill would be in conducting the field campaigns of unified Britons against the invaders after or during the late years of Ambrosius' reign. All of this is put together with deductive logic, scant primary sources, and a bit of speculation.
The author compares the Germanic conquest of Britain with the Germanic conquest of Gaul by the Franks. After the death of Flavius Aetius, the General of the West, Roman Gaul would stay an uneasy balance between Roman and early migrating Germanic tribes. In two generations the Frankish king Clovis would take power and quickly conquer most of what was left of the Roman province against the Goths and what was left of the Roman forces, within 30 years establishing a kingdom that spanned much of modern day France.
In Britain the Anglo-Saxon invasion would experience many more setbacks. By 500 A.C.E., the invaders controlled Kent, Lincoln shire, Norfolk, Suffolk, the Isle of Wight, and coastal areas in Northumberland and Yorkshire. The back and forth fighting between the Britons and invaders would depopulate cities and lay waste most of the farm steads between the conflicted territory.
Holmes is proposing that Arthur lead a serious of campaigns against the Saxons, climaxing in the Battle of Baden, and it was these hypothetical campaigns which checked the invaders for a several decades. Such battles are known to have existed, but the primary sources are very sparse on the details of when and where these clashes were conducted.
As a work of historical speculation it is a good read. Holmes has keep the work to about 180 pages, with proper notations of his sources. Then book is worthy a read for anyone interested in the historical authenticity of Arthur, or even the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain.
The book is divided into chapters focusing upon a number of topics. The author touches upon the question of the historical authenticity of King Arthur in the first chapter, then moves on to discuss what is known of the Roman and Celtic influences and writings about Arthur's alleged existence.
The next chapters are an attempt to define the state of the 5th century military situation in Britain, as the Anglo, Saxons, and Jutes pushed further into the island from the east. Holmes reviews the various primary sources of writing we have of this time, and tries to construct a logical, and likely pattern of events from the initial invasion from a potential Saxon mercenary army invited into the island by the the shadowy historical figure Vortimer, as part of an internal despite among the Roman Britons. Then he discusses the likely betrayal by the Saxons of their Celtic employers. This is followed by a speculative campaign by Ambrosius Aurelianus, the likely British High King, against the invaders.
Holmes then speculates that the niche where a historical Arthur would fill would be in conducting the field campaigns of unified Britons against the invaders after or during the late years of Ambrosius' reign. All of this is put together with deductive logic, scant primary sources, and a bit of speculation.
The author compares the Germanic conquest of Britain with the Germanic conquest of Gaul by the Franks. After the death of Flavius Aetius, the General of the West, Roman Gaul would stay an uneasy balance between Roman and early migrating Germanic tribes. In two generations the Frankish king Clovis would take power and quickly conquer most of what was left of the Roman province against the Goths and what was left of the Roman forces, within 30 years establishing a kingdom that spanned much of modern day France.
In Britain the Anglo-Saxon invasion would experience many more setbacks. By 500 A.C.E., the invaders controlled Kent, Lincoln shire, Norfolk, Suffolk, the Isle of Wight, and coastal areas in Northumberland and Yorkshire. The back and forth fighting between the Britons and invaders would depopulate cities and lay waste most of the farm steads between the conflicted territory.
Holmes is proposing that Arthur lead a serious of campaigns against the Saxons, climaxing in the Battle of Baden, and it was these hypothetical campaigns which checked the invaders for a several decades. Such battles are known to have existed, but the primary sources are very sparse on the details of when and where these clashes were conducted.
As a work of historical speculation it is a good read. Holmes has keep the work to about 180 pages, with proper notations of his sources. Then book is worthy a read for anyone interested in the historical authenticity of Arthur, or even the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain.
March 3, 2024
Of all the most esteemable and worthy figures across Britain's history, there is perhaps no greater than the ancient Romano-Celtish King famed by the Medievals, his magic sword and round table of knights first penned by the cleric Geoffrey of Monmouth, none other but the great King Arthur himself.
This Arthur to whom we are acquainted is as great a man as he is a fiction. Certainly, the Arthur known to the Medievals was no more than a tremendous imagination (though certainly no less).
Whether there was such a King Arthur, and the nature of that Arthur's existence, are questioned altogether by layman and historian alike. Michael Holmes has compiled a voluminous argument in answer; a valiant attempt at a thoroughly Arthurian defence.
However, this text has no new revelation, no great discovery by which to illuminate the darkest of histories. "King Arthur: A Military History" is closer to the ramblings of a believer of conspiracies. Holmes attempts to unite a disparate web of miniscule historical records by which to demonstrate Arthur's existence and nature. Such a tangle he has woven I am certain French poet Chrétien de Troyes himself would be impressed by its dramatic result.
Simply put, the further one reads, the clearer that Holmes is attempting the impossible in this Arthurian dissertation. What he states is reasonable and calculated, but altogether too speculative to reveal the authentic Arthur.
All said, I would however like to believe in Holmes' Arthur. He seems a dashingly fine fellow, and I shall hold out hope that the histories may one day vindicate this wishful tome.
This Arthur to whom we are acquainted is as great a man as he is a fiction. Certainly, the Arthur known to the Medievals was no more than a tremendous imagination (though certainly no less).
Whether there was such a King Arthur, and the nature of that Arthur's existence, are questioned altogether by layman and historian alike. Michael Holmes has compiled a voluminous argument in answer; a valiant attempt at a thoroughly Arthurian defence.
However, this text has no new revelation, no great discovery by which to illuminate the darkest of histories. "King Arthur: A Military History" is closer to the ramblings of a believer of conspiracies. Holmes attempts to unite a disparate web of miniscule historical records by which to demonstrate Arthur's existence and nature. Such a tangle he has woven I am certain French poet Chrétien de Troyes himself would be impressed by its dramatic result.
Simply put, the further one reads, the clearer that Holmes is attempting the impossible in this Arthurian dissertation. What he states is reasonable and calculated, but altogether too speculative to reveal the authentic Arthur.
All said, I would however like to believe in Holmes' Arthur. He seems a dashingly fine fellow, and I shall hold out hope that the histories may one day vindicate this wishful tome.
August 30, 2022
Speculative history, though a fun read.
June 30, 2011
Easy read, though I was already familiar with lots of the primary sources used. Might have been harder to follow if you don't already know Gildas. Most of the arguments are pure conjecture, based on "what would a smart person do? Arthur was smart, therefore he must have done that." The author doesn't seem to take in to account the difference between his frame of reference and that of the generals and kings he is discussing.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews