The Discovery of King Arthur.

by Geoffrey Ashe, Illlustrated (Illustrator)

Attempts to find the truth about the man (if any) behind the legend of King Arthur have been going on for some years. The search has disclosed interesting facts, and it has also led to sharp disagreements. By the early 1980s, among professional scholars, it seemed to have reached a dead end. I believe I have been lucky enough to find a way through, and press on to a fruitful outcome. It not only gives Arthur a firmer status in history, it makes him more interesting-more like his legend-than appeared probable a few years ago. It reveals why he became the kind of figure he did, what shaped the image which had so strange a rebirth in a President. It also reveals how he embodied a more general hope, familiar in the world where he reigned, and not wholly unfamiliar today. The long delay in running Arthur to earth has been due to the nature of the problem he poses. Medieval authors who gave him his literary grandeur fitted him, loosely, into what they claimed was the history of Britain some centuries earlier. Not much of this history as they tell it stands up in the light of present knowledge. It is mostly legend, as Arthur himself is. So the few historians who have looked for him have swept the medieval accounts aside, and searched in other and older records. But that search can take us only so far. A convincing answer calls for a different approach. Arthur's legend itself must be brought back into the investigation and taken seriously. It must be sifted for clues. The right questions to ask are not the direct ones Who was Arthur? or Did he exist? but Where did the legend come from? and What facts is it rooted in? If we line up the legend side by side with history, as we know it today, the problem can be solved. It almost solves itself. [from the Introduction]

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Arthurian, Mythology, Medieval, Historical, European History

226 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1985

About the author

Geoffrey Thomas Leslie Ashe is a British cultural historian, a writer of non-fiction books and novels.

Reviews

[Terence · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this short work, Geoffrey Ashe attempts to answer the question, Is there a historical figure who can serve as the basis for the legends and myths that have grown around “King Arthur,” and his answer is, Yes. Though who it is may surprise some. He was a Breton who flourished CE 450-470 in Armorica (aka Brittany) and western Gaul during a brief period of Celtic resurgence when German encroachments in Britain and Gaul were slowed and in some cases reversed for a generation. His name was Riothamus and (unlike Arthur) is attested to in contemporary histories, and whose activities mirror many of the things the earliest tales of Arthur attribute to that “king.” (Note: “Riothamus” may not have been a personal name since it means, roughly, “high king” or “most kingly,” and could have been a title; the man to whom it refers may indeed have been an “Artorius.”)

Ashe recognizes that his conclusions are purely speculative though they may come closer to the reality than others’ arguments, and I like it. If you’re interested in the Matter of Britain and the question of the historicity of King Arthur, then you may enjoy this concise assessment of the evidence, and I’d recommend it.

Aside: My favorite adaptations of the legend are Thomas Berger’s Arthur Rex and A.A. Attanasio’s Arthor series, starting with The Dragon and the Unicorn. Berger retells Le Morte d'Arthur: King Arthur and the Legends of the Round Table for a modern audience, and I fell in love with it the first time I read it in high school. Attanasio’s version is a far different animal and is difficult to describe short of another essay but is well worth the read.

[Sherry Sharpnack · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a thoroughly scholarly look at the legend(s) of King Arthur. OK, it’s not an examination of the LEGEND but of the origins of the legends, and hopefully, a clue as to the actual identity of Arthur: Celtic “king” or military leader. Celtic or Roman warlord? Breton? British? Pictish? Whew.

The author appears to come to a conclusion as to Arthur’s identity and century in which he lived. But boy, did I have a rough time following him there! Perhaps it was just a bit TOO scholarly for me. The book also expects one to be familiar w/ the major authors and those stories. Fortunately, I have read most of the stories. But…Rounded up to 3 stars.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The question of the reality of King Arthur has been answered in various ways and Geoffrey Ashe gives his answer in “The Discovery of King Arthur”. One of the most preeminent Arthurian scholars in the world, Ashe’s thesis brought the possibility of a real Arthur to the public by guiding them through the layers of myth and legend.

Ashe begins his presentation by establishing how the Arthur we have come to know in was first widely distributed, through Geoffrey of Monmouth’s “Histories of the Kings of Britain”. Ashe begins dissecting Geoffrey’s account through the lens of various sources during the supposed time of Arthur’s career as well as giving context to the nature of medieval literary work thus gleaming clues to the real events that Geoffrey based his writing on. Ashe’s analysis of several sources from Roman Gaul, sources from Britain closer to Arthur’s time, and history of the last Western Roman Empire together with clues from Geoffrey’s histories help Ashe narrow in on the individual who was the starting point of the Arthur mythos, the Briton High King named Riothamus.

After naming this candidate whose career inspired the Arthur legend, Ashe then details how over the centuries to Geoffrey of Monmouth and afterwards the embellished and fantasies were created about an individual who seemingly revived Roman Briton’s fortunes and was seen on the Continent as someone to help restore the civilization—as the Roman was viewed. Yet, while this information is intriguing in seeing how the mythos was created and expanded Ashe’s somewhat dry writing style makes the last half of the book somewhat less of an engaging read as compared to the first half when Ashe “discovers” the man behind the legend.

This is my first time reading this book in almost 20 years and frankly this book is not how I remember it, frankly I remembered the information Ashe put in the first half of the book in making his case and willing forgot the second half of the book when he discussed the legend building. This can be put down to Ashe converting a scholarly paper into a book for mass consumption, which is telling as it would be expected that the writing style would be more lively for book for public consumption while a more scholarly work would have a different tone. But that doesn’t mean this is not an overall good book, it is but it does have some drawbacks that potential readers should be aware of before cracking it open.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite appearances and some real effort to appeal to a general public, this is a scholarly book dealing with the historicity of Arthur. Those without background in what's commonly referred to as 'the matter of Britain' (or 'the matter of France' in this instance) will find this hard going. I've some background myself, having long favored literary treatments of Arthur and the grail dating back to Chretian, and I found this hard going, not knowing enough to be able to critically evaluate Ashe's contentions.

[Owlseyes]

https://europeanconservative.com/arti...

[Jim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Brief summary: Interesting, but also a bit annoying. Details follow.

Ashe is a well-known scholar of the "historical Arthur" (or, perhaps to be more accurate, on the historical events on which the Arthur legends may be based.) My understanding is that "The Discovery of King Arthur," which is directed at a popular audience rather than a scholarly one, is one of his most important publications.

Ashe's main argument here is that the historical Arthur was the same person as Riothamus, a late 5th century Romano-British military leader (whose name may actually be a title meaning 'high king') who is reported in various sources to have led British troops across the channel to fight against the Goths in Gaul and Burgundy in the 470s, as an ally of one of the last Western Roman Emperors. This thesis is largely based on Ashe's innovative reading of Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Kings of Britain" (the first medieval work to present a fully detailed account of the Arthur legend within a historical-- or at least quasi-historical background). Specifically, Ashe takes seriously Geoffrey's claim to have based his work on a prior book (possibly of Breton origin), and takes even more seriously Geoffrey's lengthy account of Arthur's activities outside of Britain-- most notably, his account of Arthur's expeditions to the continent where he fought (among others) the crumbling Western Roman Empire itself. Ashe bolsters this with corroborative work from earlier medieval chronicles, from archaeology, and from toponymy-- and makes a reasonable effort to counter objections, contradictions, and other possible explanations.

Now, I'm certainly not a scholar on this subject, but I know a bit about it-- and I find Ashe's identification of Arthur and Riothamus to be a creative, compelling, and plausible suggestion. (I don't think he's closed the case on the subject, but I think he's made a very interesting argument about it.)

That said, I can't say that I really enjoyed this book (thus the 2-star rating). Even though Ashe offers an interesting interpretation and supports it with reasonable evidence, there's a lot about "The Discovery of King Arthur" that was frustrating.

Part of my frustration stemmed from the book's organization, which seemed muddled. Ashe begins by summarizing Geoffrey's account of Arthur, then jumps back to late Roman and post-Roman Britain to provide general context, then spends some time talking about Welsh medieval chroniclers who mention Arthur. It's not until halfway through the book that he actually reveals what his thesis actually is, and starts arguing for it. The last third of the book then consists of a discussion of subsequent legend-building about Arthur, that doesn't really do much (IMHO) to expand on or clarify his thesis.

Also, I find that Ashe seems a bit too convinced of his own conclusions. It seems pretty clear that he thinks he has "discovered" the historical basis for King Arthur once and for all, rather than simply having proposed a compelling theory. (This is evident not just from the title, but also from chapter titles like "New Discoveries," which really are not so much about "discoveries"-- but rather his speculations and attempts to prove them.) I would have preferred a bit more skepticism and tentativeness on his part as to his conclusions.

Finally, on the 'things that I didn't like' list, there's Ashe's style, which often slips into an intrusive first-person narration. The text is filled with phrases like "This brought me back to the claim..." "Maybe I could detect traces of an unrecognized source...," "I guessed therefore...", "I had established two facts...", "As I reflected further..." "Based on these facts, I judged..." At times, it seemed like Ashe was writing an autobiographical account of his own quest for the historical Arthur, as much as a book about Arthur himself.

Ultimately, this book offered some interesting ideas, but I'm not sure that I would necessarily recommend it to others.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Discovery of King Arthur lays out author Geoffrey Ashe’s argument that there was a real documented historical king upon which the King Arthur legend is based.

Geoffrey of Monmouth was the first person to write a detailed account of the King Arthur legend in his History of the Kings of Britain published in 1136. While much of Geoffrey’s Arthur story is fictional, it correctly, according to Ashe, establishes King Arthur as a 5th century ruler between the end of Roman rule in Britain in 410 CE and the end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE. So King Arthur is more appropriately a product of British Roman culture rather than the Medieval culture he is associated with through Geoffrey of Monmouth and authors since.

Ashe reviews the known history of British independence from Rome and its subsequent conflicts and fluctuating fortunes against Picts (from Scotland) and Saxons (raiders and settlers from northern Germany), who would often join forces to raid Britons. He also details the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Ashe argues that previous scholars have failed to correctly identify the historical King Arthur because they’ve focused solely on Arthur’s story in Britain based primarily on Celtic Welsh sources that predate Geoffrey of Monmouth. However, Geoffrey of Monmouth also tells of King Arthur leading a military campaign in Gaul (France) and if one focuses on that part of the story we can identify King Arthur as a real British king from historical records named Riothamus.

Riothamus reigned beginning in 454 CE and died from battle wounds in 470 CE while fighting Goths and Saxons in Gaul at the request of Western Roman Emperor Leo. Riothamus is believed to have successfully (but temporarily) defeated Saxons in Britain and his fighting prowess caused Roman Emperor Leo to seek his assistance in Gaul, something unprecedented for a British king that would have made him a legend in his own time.

Ashe explains that the difference between the names Riothamus vs. Arthur may result from Riothamus being an honorific name meaning “High King,” whereas Arthur was the king’s original Roman name of Artorius (being that King Arthur would have been descendant from the previous Roman ruling elite).

Ashe further explains that future battles in the 6th century where King Arthur is incorrectly said to have fought are due to a mistranslation of references to “Arthur’s men” in which his men went on to fight battles in Britain after his death.

Having identified the historical King Arthur, Ashe traces the development of the Arthur legend over the following centuries and shows that many aspects of Arthur’s legend (such as Merlin and Arthur’s mysterious death) are derived from ancient Celtic pagan myths of Gods that predate both Arthur and Roman rule in Britain.

Ashe concludes by showing how the current British royal family could plausibly be descendant from the historical King Arthur.

Ashe’s theory is by no means widely supported by scholars of history. Some scholars believe King Arthur is entirely fictional and has no historical basis, whereas others believe the historical Arthur was in fact (among other possible candidates) a regional military leader of southwest England named Ambrosius Aurelianus (who Ashe believes was Riothamus’ military general). Ashe makes a compelling case, but whether his theory is true or not, it was a fun and interesting read.

[Mark Freckleton · Rating 4 out of 5]

I will admit that I was a little skeptical before I read this, but is a very pleasant read. Geoffrey Ashe is not an academic (i.e., no Ph.D., professorship, etc.), but he does his homework. The legends of Arthur are evidently somewhat of an obsession, but he is very careful in his analysis of his sources and the facts available - including early Medieval documents. For anyone who wants to know what the actual origins of the Arthur legends were (was he a real person, if so, when and where), this is probably the best current information source.

[Karolinde (Kari) · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a must read for anyone interested in the historical Arthur. Ashe makes a very convincing case for the identity of the original Arthur used to create the legend through the use of multiple sources. Even more interesting is Ashe's attention to what the legend of Arthury meant to the people of medieval Britian and how it outstripped the man it was based around so easily.

[Stephen Tuck · Rating 3 out of 5]

A little dry and technical. Makes a good case for the historical figure known to us as Arthur. The book itself, though, suggests that centuries of myth-making may have rendered the historical Arthur unrecoverable.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Humans make history, and histories about individual humans are particularly fascinating if not always fashionable among scholars. Occasionally popular and scholarly tastes overlap, as we have seen in the case of the discovery of Richard III’s body under a car park in Leicester. But if anybody’s hoping in similar fashion to discover the body of King Arthur they might just be whistling in the dark.

Why? Well, frankly the historical documentation for Arthur is, to put it mildly, very sparse, some might say non-existent.

There are scraps contained in The History of the Britons (from the 9th century and attributed to Nennius), along with the vestiges of a handful of folktales; and there are the entries for the ‘Arthurian’ battles of Badon and Camlann in the 10th-century Welsh Annals. The folklore – Arthur chasing a giant boar, the strange mystery of his son’s grave – throws more light on human psychology than hard history, however, and the Annals are rather too late (by half a millennium) to be reliable.

There are Dark Age individuals called Arthur – such as one from western Scotland, another from Dyfed in Wales, a semi-mythical figure from Northern Britain in an Old Welsh poem called Y Gododdin -- but they all flourish up to a century after the legendary Arthur. All rigorous scholars of the period have been troubled by the apparent lack of contemporary allusion to a recognisable Arthur in documents or inscriptions: in a relatively literate age a man of his supposed stature and pedigree has somehow escaped notice.

Geoffrey Ashe’s The Discovery of King Arthur (1985, revised 2003) argues that Arthurian scholarship in Britain is too insular. If it wasn’t it would have taken more account of the Gaulish episodes contained in the 12th-century pseudo-historical History of the Kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth, Ashe maintains.

King Arthur’s warlike forays on the continent, which form a significant part of this narrative, are now usually regarded as unhistorical and an embarrassment. But, unlike Geoffrey’s so-called history, later continental chronicles place Arthur firmly in the late 5th century rather the early 6th favoured by Geoffrey and, before him, the compilers of the Annals and, rather more vaguely, The History of the Britons. Geoffrey’s own dates for Arthur are irreconcilable: his Arthur dies in 542 but flourishes in the time of Pope Leo, who actually died in 461. Ashe suggests that continental Europeans thought of Arthur’s heyday as in the 460s. In the 1980s a radical rethink of the Arthurian question was clearly called for to help sort out this chronological mess.

Ashe’s theory of Arthur’s real identity first surfaced in the Speculum---the Journal of the Medieval Academy of America---well over three decades ago. Arthur, by these continental accounts, matches up with Riotimus or Riothamus, a king of the Britons whose existence is in no doubt. With twelve thousand troops shipped into Gaul Riothamus is reported in 468 to have fought Saxons successfully in the Loire valley before being betrayed by the imperial prefect of Gaul to Visigoths attacking from the south. Riothamus and the remnants of his Britons fled east to Burgundy before vanishing from history in the area around Avallon, in 470.

Does this sound familiar? A King of the Britons, defeating the Saxons, is betrayed by the Emperor’s deputy while fighting in Gaul, then mysteriously disappears near Avallon? It’s suspiciously like the continental campaigns of Arthur described by Geoffrey of Monmouth, taking up half of the story of Arthur’s reign in Geoffrey’s History. Geoffrey even quotes these lines in his Prophecies of Merlin (included in his History):

The Boar of Cornwall shall lord it over the forests of Gaul. The House of Romulus shall dread his savagery and his end will be shrouded in mystery.

Ashe argues strongly for the equation that Arthur ('the Boar of Cornwall' in the Prophecies) is really Riothamus, who is abandoned by imperial forces ('the House of Romulus') to meet an uncertain end. This is an attractive hypothesis, refined and expanded since “A Certain Ancient Book” first argued the case in the Speculum.* It answers many questions and appears to solve many problems of chronology. But there are, of course, difficulties. There are always difficulties.

1. The name is different. Riothamus is never specifically identified with Arthur by any of the contemporary or near-contemporary sources: Cassiodorus (c 531), Jordanes' Gothic History (c 551), Gregory of Tours' History of the Franks (c 591) and especially Sidonius Apollinaris, who actually wrote to Riothamus by name. Ashe argues, against the opinions of some philologists, that Riothamus is not a name ('very kingly') but a title (meaning something like 'High or Supreme King') which Arthur assumed, rather like the cognomen or nickname by which Romans such as Caligula or Augustus were better known.

These are interesting analogies but for Arthur Riothamus no more than that. The two separate bodies of lore about Arthur in Britain and Riothamus in Gaul prior to the 11th and 12th centuries is more troubling, though if we were resorting to analogies we would note the more recognisable correspondences between the native Macsen legend and the continental history of Magnus Maximus.

2. The dates are different. Riothamus disappears in 470, Geoffrey's Arthur in 542. Where did Geoffrey get 542? In his Speculum article Ashe argues that Geoffrey saw a date 442 for the disappearance of Arthur and couldn't square it with a post-500 date for a victory against the Saxons at Badon, which both Nennius' History and the Annals credit to Arthur. Ashe postulates that the 442 date was calculated from the Passion, not the Incarnation as now, and though the computations were incorrectly devised (we should get a date of 470 for the disappearance of Arthur-as-Riothamus, not 475) Geoffrey bypassed the problem by changing it to 542 -- just as a later Arthurian writer, Wace, was to adjust this further to 642!

Fun though it is to play with numbers though, this kind of speculation is not proof.

3. Nowhere in earlier references is Arthur mentioned as being in Gaul. None of the insular texts take Arthur beyond the confines of Britain. However, one of Ashe's star witnesses is a Latin Legend of St Goeznovius, dated to 1019 and given third-hand in a 15th-century MS formerly at Nantes in Brittany.

Vortigern, to buttress the defence of the kingdom of Great Britain which he unrighteously held, summoned warlike men from the land of Saxony and made them his allies in the kingdom. Since they were pagans and of devilish character, lusting by their nature to shed human blood, they drew many evils upon the Britons.

Presently their pride was checked for a while through the great Arthur, king of the Britons. They were largely cleared from the island and reduced to subjection. But when this same Arthur, after many victories which he won gloriously in Britain and in Gaul, was summoned at last from human activity, the way was open for the Saxons to go again into the island, and there was great oppression of the Britons, destruction of churches and persecution of saints...

In those days, many holy men gave themselves up to martyrdom; others ... left the greater Britain which is now the Saxon's homeland, and sailed across to the lesser Britain (Brittany).

Note, however, that there is no sense of Arthur being "summoned from human activity" consequent on his many Gaulish victories; he is just as likely to have returned to Britain and enjoyed many years of peace as to die in Gaul (which is never explicitly stated, and may not even be implicit).

The Legend gives a historical context for Arthur, between the rule of Vortigern and the subsequent migration of pious Britons to Armorica, which was re-named Brittany on account of the influx. Crucially, by placing Arthur fighting in Gaul -- a good century before Geoffrey of Monmouth did -- the Legend of Goeznovious not only predates the growth of the Arthurian legend in Continental writing but could have been a (or even the) source book for Geoffrey; and moreover may have a basis in historic fact.

Much of Ashe's argument depends on that 1019 date (anno ab Incarnatione Domini M nono decimo: "one thousand nine plus ten years from the Incarnation of the Lord") for the Legend which the author gives -- is it trustworthy or is it spurious? A major problem is that it only survives quoted in a later manuscript, a 15th-century copy of the 14th-century Chronique de Saint Brieuc, which makes it hard to authenticate. Only scholars from relevant disciplines are in a position to validate this, and unfortunately that excludes me, but without other later nearly contemporary copies to compare (as has happened with so many other texts, including Geoffrey's Historia) reliance on a source given at third hand is fraught with difficulties.

Then there are the coincidences of three narrative themes in a specific order -- victory, betrayal and mysterious disappearance -- which Ashe adduces as supporting evidence. But are these enough to nail the identification? After all, these themes are individually found in many culture heroes, from Roland (victory and betrayal) to The King ('Elvis lives!'), and in combination in, famously, the story of Christ (teaching and miracles followed by betrayal and mysterious disappearance).

This review was first published in the Journal of the Pendragon Society in 1985, posted here now in a revised form. I've previously published an expanded version of this review incorporating my review of Ashe's original Speculum article
* Geoffrey Ashe (1981) “A Certain Very Ancient Book: Traces of an Arthurian Source in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s History” Speculum 56: 301-323
-- -- (1996) 'Arthur, Origins of Legend', 'Goeznovii, Legenda Sancti', 'Riothamus' in Norris J Lacy (1996) The New Arthurian Encyclopedia (Garland Publishing)
-- -- (2003) The Discovery of King Arthur (revised edition, Sutton Publishing)

[Brandon Dalo]

Recently, I've been getting more and more interested in the ancient history of the UK and I thought that a book exploring the possibility of truths in the infamous legend of King Arthur would be fascinating. I discovered this book during my research. I bought a used copy and discovered that the author had actually signed this book, which was cool. I dived in, expecting to be transported to an ancient place; to hear of the magic of Merlin and all the amazing elements of the legend.

After about 70 pages, having heard very little specifically about Arthur himself, I started to get a little irritated. I flipped 10, 20, 30 pages and didn't see much of anything about him specifically. I think the author was trying to set up what it was like in the couple of hundred years surrounding the time that Arthur was said to have lived. I found myself really desiring a detailed laying out of the popular legend of Arthur, and then a breakdown of different parts of that legend, piece by piece.

I could also totally understand organizing the first part of the book to set up the history before Arthur was said to arrive, but there are so many tangents of seemingly only slightly related information in there that I just couldn't keep going. In reading the other reviews, it appears that eventually the author does get around to his theories, and I'm sure the information is sound, but this was unfortunately just not what I was expecting/hoping for. This is why I am just shelving it under "lost interest" and not rating the book a low rating, as I don't want to penalize the author. I should have researched a bit more perhaps when I was looking for the right book. So, if you're interested in these sorts of topics, I can't say I'd recommend this, but you may find it much more interesting than me.

[Michael Joosten · Rating 5 out of 5]

Several things converge to make this book like catnip for me: the "Matter of Britain," 5th century history, Romanitas, Tolkien-like historical reconstruction, and all packaged in what is among the easier to read footnoted-and-researched history books I've encountered. So, yes, I loved it--but bear in mind who read it in assessing my review. I'm the Tolkien fan who thinks Finn and Hengest is one of his most underrated pieces.

That said, I found Ashe's argument convincing, and I think if it hasn't gained traction more generally, that has to be as much because the scholars don't WANT to have found Arthur. My mind is jumbled with a podcast's worth--not that I have a podcast!--of thoughts about history and assessing its arguments as a non-historian and a comparison to Biblical scholarship.

A good history book has an argument and admits where the historian has offered conjecture, accounts for multiple things and proposes easy solutions. Ashe does all of that. Nonetheless, I am sure there must be those who disagree, and I know that I am predisposed to his soaked-in-Romanitas-and-the-text-has-truth conclusion. I would probably enjoy reading the rejoinder, if only because this is a subject and time period I quite enjoy. But I do wonder, knowing what Ashe is arguing against, if they would convince me.

[Kim Nolan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Don’t pick this pick up expecting to read about the romantic Arthurian lore and myths. You have to have a true and keen interest in the subject of “Was King Arthur a real king?” To get through this scholarly book. Expect to read A LOT about battles and medieval British history versus Guinevere having sex (or not) with Lancelot. The entire book reads more like a dissertation on why the author believes Arthur was a real king, just going by a different name. There was a little bit about Arthurian legends thrown in, just enough to keep it interesting. I enjoyed the book because I love history and I’m an Anglophile. When I’ve read scholarly works like this in the past, I’ve found the best way to read them is quickly and with my phone handy to do a lot of Google searches when I’ve forgotten who a person is (and they are numerous) and how to pronounce Welsh names and words. Not for the reader who’s looking for a fun beach read. I found it informative and interesting in most parts, even though medieval battle strategy really isn’t my thing, and like many books of its type it dragged in places.

[Nathan Miller · Rating 4 out of 5]

It seems as though whenever one puts three experts on King Arthur into a room, we wind up with five opinions. We even see this in novels and movies. Which is no surprise, considering the cloud of uncertainty surrounding the figure of King Arthur. In this fascinating book, although somewhat dated and perhaps rendered obsolete by recent developments, the author combs through the historical record and teases apart Medieval fiction in search of a real person who might have been Arthur, or at least on whom the figure of Arthur might have been based. And he succeeds, even if the text is a little dry.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Begins as an inquiry into the historical Arthur, zeroing in on the historically-attested Riothamus (i.e. "high king"), whom Ashe suggests is Lucius Artorius Castus. But far from being content with that, Ashe proceeds to account for the literary development of the Arthurian legend by ingeniously tracing multiple mythologies, traditions, and legendaria. Ashe does all this all with a skeptic's distaste for the fanciful and ahistorical, while also being fair-minded and looking for evidence in unexpected places.

I've hardly ever read anything like this, outside of Christian scholarship for "the historical Jesus". Well done.

[Sean Poage · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating and thorough book that explores the most likely origin for King Arthur of all the theories I've seen. The nature of history from this era requires a great deal of speculation, and any argument for or against any particular theory pretty much depends on what you choose to accept or discard based on your own favorite image of Arthur. Mr. Ashe points out many correlations that support his thesis, while not claiming infallibility as some academics tend to.

[Harley · Rating 3 out of 5]

I've always been much more of a Robin Hood girl but I really do need to read up more on King Arthur

[Derrick Lapp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ashe makes a convincing argument for Riothamus as inspiration for Arthur.

[Gavin Livingstone]

I wanted to buy that book please ship king authur Geoffrey ashes peerge white book to PO box 1528 bend or 97703 thank you Gavin l.

[Tab Williams · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty detailed look at Arthur and his legend. Way too mundane and boring for my liking. A far better skim than an actual read.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had fun reading this book and thinking about Arthur as a real person in history and not just as the basis for stories.

[K. Counihan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good Story

This story had a good pace that pushed you thru to the end. This book clears up some of the misconceptions about King Arthur. I liked this book.

[Sam Bartrum · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well written and not badly argued.
I just don't buy it.

There's nothing pointing to this figure being the basis of a historical Arthur.

[Ewa Hammer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascinating but tough read

This is a fascinating and scholarly exploration of the many aspects of the Arthurian legend. Recommended for serious readers only.

[M Taylor · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book presents an amazing case for who the historical King Arthur may well have been. No other theories have dislodged this one in my mind about the shadowy real man whom we pin so many tales, legends, and romances upon.

Geoffrey Ashe demonstrates the validity of each and every assertion or conclusion with scholarly care but makes the read so very entertaining and enjoyable. It is very much like solving a mystery, one with all kinds of unexpected possibilities.

Ashe also was a key figure behind the "Arthur of the Britons" series in the 1970's in the UK. GREAT storytelling and historical accuracy. I was so excited by that version (clearly based on his research in The Discovery of King Arthur among other books)that I haunted every library and expert I could find to follow up on the exact historical details that were portrayed. It was magic to me to see what the real Arthur could have been like and how his actions and persona could have served as the basis for wonderful stories that grew over time into the legends we sometimes cannot see beyond. Possibilities are, to me, always more exciting than conventionally accepted "boxed sets" of knowledge or literature.

"Discovery" is a challenging book, definitely not a quick read, but it is so very, very worthwhile! I highly recommend it!

[Rachel · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ashe's argues that the Arthur legend is based on a Romanized battle lord named Riothamus. His "evidence" consists of ignoring what doesn't fit with his theory and blindly accepting what does fit. He manages to argue that a date recorded as 642 AD (or is it CE now?), could have really been 470 AD. I found that I slogged through this book because I started it and wanted to get if off my currently-reading list before the New Year. I didn't enjoy any of it, and don't feel that it adds anything the the Arthur legend. I really don't care who the legend is based on. It doesn't matter, or at least not to me.

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, THIS explained a lot about the history of the British Isles of which I was unaware. The Welsh are actually more "British" while the English -- Anglo Saxons -- are more from the continent. And of course, there was the Norman invasion so all in all, the people of the British Isles are as much mongrels as Americans are, just much further back in time. The book makes a good case for an historical Arthur. Too bad the best parts of the legend are later fabrications with embellishments drawn from Gaelic mythology, but still it is nice to think that there was ever an Arthur at all. He was a 5th century king, which revises my mental pictures since the Medieval trappings were yet to come.

[Philippa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I very rarely delve into nonfiction reading, but being a bit of a geek when it comes to Arthuriana this was a welcome exception.

Ashe makes a calm and convincing argument for the identification of Riothamus as Arthur. He looks at history, literature, myth and archaeology, and it gives him an excellent base to make this claim from. His writing is straightforward and approachable, and meant I whizzed through the second half of this in one afternoon, hardly noticing the time pass.

An enjoyable, interesting and informative read. I shall be keeping my eye out for his other similar titles.

[Georgene · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some insist that King Arthur of Britain is a legend, some insist that he was a real man, a king living in the time after Rome abandoned Britain. Geoffrey Ashe is of the second opinion. After reading this book, I intend to agree.

Delving into very early medieval literature and explaining how Arthur became such a legend in the 1200's in Europe, Ashe furthers his search into early historical documents and archaeology to develop his premise for a real king who lived in the mid-5th century in Britain.

Interesting and worth reading.