Worlds of Arthur

by Guy Halsall

King Arthur is probably the most famous and certainly the most legendary medieval king. From the early ninth century through the middle ages, to the Arthurian romances of Victorian times, the tales of this legendary figure have blossomed and multiplied. And in more recent times, there has been a continuous stream of books claiming to have discovered the 'facts' about, or to unlock the secret or truth behind, the 'once and future king'.

Broadly speaking, there are two Arthurs. On the one hand is the traditional 'historical' Arthur, waging a doomed struggle to save Roman civilization against the relentless Anglo-Saxon tide during the darkest years of the Dark Ages. On the other is the Arthur of myth and legend - accompanied by a host of equally legendary people, places, and stories: Lancelot, Guinevere, Galahad and Gawain, Merlin, Excalibur, the Lady in the Lake, the Sword in the Stone, Camelot, the Round Table.

The big problem with all this is that 'King Arthur' might well never have existed. And if he did exist, it is next to impossible to say anything at all about him. As this challenging new look at the Arthur legend makes clear, all books claiming to reveal 'the truth' behind King Arthur can safely be ignored. Not only the 'red herrings' in the abundant pseudo-historical accounts, even the 'historical' Arthur is largely a figment of the imagination: the evidence that we have - whether written or
archaeological - is simply incapable of telling us anything detailed about the Britain in which he is supposed to have lived, fought, and died. The truth, as Guy Halsall reveals in this fascinating investigation, is both radically different - and also a good deal more intriguing.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Arthurian, Medieval, Medieval History, British Literature, Historical

378 pages, Hardcover

First published February 2, 2013

About the author

Born 1964, Professor of History at York where he specialises in the late Roman and early medieval period with particular attention to the problems of the relationship between archaeology and documentary history.

Reviews

[Marissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is by far one of the best general knowledge works to treat this period in history (4th-7th century Britain), that I have read. Although it is not precisely an easy read--the organisation of the argument is not linear and the treatment of the evidence is sometimes detailed--it is far more accessible (and has much more to say!) than most attempts to render the period into a comprehensive framework. I would highly recommend it to anyone intrigued by the mysterious ways by which Roman Britain becomes England.

That said, I would not recommend it to anyone devoted to the idea of a historical Arthur. Guy Halsall argues the only tenable position--that if an Arthur existed, we can know almost nothing about him--and presents Arthur more as a guide around our many assumptions of the period rather than as an object of inquiry in his own right. True, there are not detailed footnotes to accompany his analysis, but he makes it very clear which of his arguments are his own speculations, and which are more generally held.

In short, then, if you want an academic historian's non-academic overview, this book is for you!

[Christy Woods · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am a huge, wait a minute-- HUGE (that’s better)-- King Arthur fan. So, when I saw this book, I had to have it. I have to thank the publisher, Oxford University Press, for trusting this book to a new blogger who has yet to blog about a non-fiction book.

The Quick & Dirty: Author Guy Halsall has an issue with all of the flawed (and hopeful) research out there trying to prove the unprovable. This is a comprehensive book about the known history of the Britain that is thought to be Arthur’s Britain; the research that has been done about Arthur; and the questions that need to be answered (among other things).

The Good: This book covers a lot of information. It thoroughly examines the existing research on the subject of King Arthur and his court. I was actually surprised by how much information was covered in a 384 page book. It’s clear that Halsall is more than knowledgable about the subject and he presents the material in a scholarly way, by giving us the scoop on the existing research and providing supporting evidence that either contradicts or illustrates how the researcher may have come to a false conclusion.


The Bad: I wouldn’t necessarily say it’s “bad”, but this book was by no means an easy read. I definitely felt like I was reading it for one of my college research papers. It was a little dry, as scholarly pieces tend to be.

I, also, found the author’s tone to be little...belligerent?... in regards to all of the information that supports the existence of Arthur. Clearly, this was because he is passionate about his own research. But, I’m not sure the tone was necessary. It was a little off-putting but, with the exception of the introduction, it was scarce.

Also, if you don’t have extensive knowledge about the “Arthur argument”, you probably won’t pick up what the author is putting down.

The Bottom Line: If you love all things King Arthur, are open to new opinions, and don’t mind a tedious read, this book will definitely tickle your fancy.

[Joshua Angun · Rating 4 out of 5]

Die erste Hälfte des Buchs beschränkt sich auf die Dekonstruktion des klassischen Arthur-narratives und zerpflückt dabei regelrecht die Authentizität der Geschichtsschreibung dieser dunklen Jahrhunderte, während schon vorläufige Andeutungen auf mögliche alterierende Interpretationen gegeben werden. Die zweite Hälfte des Buchs ist dann auch eben genau das- eine absolute Anhäufung von Thesen, welche versuchen, einen möglichen Verlauf der Geschehnisse unter anderen Gewichtspunkten zu rekonstruieren. Obwohl es zeitweise schwierig war, Halsall in diesen Thesen zu folgen, war es dennoch auch gleichzeitig faszinierend, seine Rückschlüsse nachvollziehen zu können und so über den Tellerrand hinaus zu denken. Ein wirklich faszinierendes Buch, das ich jedem empfehlen würde, der sich für die Arthur-Problematik, britische Geschichte, Archäologie und das Leben im Post-römischen Westen interessiert.

[Bandit · Rating 1 out of 5]

Non fiction is primarily meant to educate. This handsome edition and an exciting title hid a frighteningly boring book that barely educated at all. Guy Halsall is a professional educator and he might be very good at that, but he is no writer, this was written like the most dessicated of textbooks, laborious and tedious read for a minuscule reward of the dubious pleasure of the author stroking his evidently sizable ego. Halsall prefaces the book with telling his readers how much has been said on the subject of the legendary King Arthur and how all of it has been wrong and how now he, Guy Halsall, will tell you why that is, why King Arthur has never existed, how much King Arthur (2004 film) perverts history and just how one should think of the Dark Ages. The author then proceeds to expound in a relentlessly pedantic fashion devoid of any consideration for his readers (who may have dared to want an enjoyable education out of this)or semblance of humor on the subject of Dark Ages. He certainly is knowledgeable, but the information is so repetitive, textbookish, dense and is served in such an unpalatable manner as to more of less completely shut down even the more willing and capable of brains. Robots could probably write more personably, Halsall goes on and on reiterating the same things in his dull, droning contraction free (and that is creepy, for why check out infinitely more readable Prodigal Blues by Gary Braunbeck) pretentiousness. The main point of the book seems to be that yes, we don't know much about the dark ages, we might never know much about them, however of what we do know, Halsall is the smartest most correct and astute interpreter there is. The main point of this review is...it might be preferable to believe in an exciting grandiose albeit potentially historically inaccurate legend than to endure a ponderous egodriven piece of barely digestible insufficiently educational academese. You decide. Total waste of my time.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was fascinating and frustrating; fascinating, because its author Guy Halsall had done his homework, studying the sparse historical record -- and increasingly burgeoning archeological record -- of Britain roughly from the 4th through 7th centuries (of the common era) and frustrating because of the odd structure of the book and his style of writing. He is overly fond of the verb "to be" and of the passive construction.

That said, he provides an important window on what he suggests could be dubbed an "interhistoric" period, between the relatively well-documented era of Roman dominance of Britain and the decently documented concluding centuries of the first millennium (of the current era).

In the preface, this self-confessed "romantic Arthurian agnostic" acknowledges that he wishes King Arthur "had existed," but regrets "that there is no evidence--at any rate none admissible in any serious 'court of history'--that he ever did so." He also reminds his readers that it is "impossible to prove . . . that he didn't exist".

Halsall goes through the references Arthur, noting how few there are in the five centuries after the time when the celebrated king supposedly flourished. Only after Geoffrey of Monmouth published his celebrated Historia Regum Britanniae ("History of the Kings of Britain") in Twelfth Century did Arthurian romances become commonplace, that is, in the literature that survives today. (Who knows what stories the largely illiterate populations of Britain told as Germanic kingdoms dominated where once Rome ruled.)

After going through the basic version of Arthur's legend and supplying the "traditional" historical context--that Arthur rose to power rallying the indigenous British (i.e., the Celts who lived on the island before, during and immediately after the Roman occupation) population against the (Anglo-)Saxon invasions--Halsall considers the archeological record and offers an alternative view. He suggests that instead of a conflict Britons and Saxons in the "interhistoric" period, the situation was more complex in post-(Roman) imperial Britain. It wasn't as simple as a British king holding off the Saxons for a generation. Different realms had different degrees of influence in different eras, with even the Franks (possibly) holding sovereignty for a period of time.

Those expecting a book with much information about King Arthur (or considered speculation about his actual existence or reflection on the appeal of tales about him and his court) will be disappointed. Instead, Halsall spends the last two-thirds of the book studying the era in which the legendary king allegedly flourished (and all but ignoring the book's eponymous sovereign). And that is when he is at his best.

He studies the archeological record and dips into his knowledge about the better-documented Merovingian era in France, as Frankish invaders replaced Roman rulers in the one-time province of Gaul. And this particularly fascinated one who has considered the the historical background of Arthur and studied that of the Beowulf-poet.

Throughout, he is careful to make clear that he is offering his own reading. He doesn't presume to prove what, giving the surviving record, cannot be known. Nor does he dismiss those of us who love the legends.

Those legends of Arthur, like those of Troy, each fascinated an era roughly half a millennium after the king (supposedly) reigned and the ancient city (allegedly) fell. And we continue to read books, watch movies (and TV shows) about them. While archeological evidence suggests that there was a Troy and that a great battle was fought there, we will never be able to prove if that battle was the great epoch-defining conflict that Homer describes.

We have even less evidence to go on as we try to discover the truth about Arthur. But, in the end, that doesn't matter. The stories are good ones. And they continue to draw our attention.

Perhaps another writer will explore just why that is (if one has not done so already). But, until he (or she) does, let's just enjoy the stories, delighting in the characters, savoring the romance and appreciating the sorcery.

It's not just a history that makes a good story. The supernatural elements help the legends of King Arthur stand the test of time.

All the said, Halsall has written an important book about the era when that noble prince supposedly flourished. And gives us some insight into a turbulent time about which we know so little.

[Stephanie Wolf · Rating 4 out of 5]

Like many others, I am interested in the legend of King Arthur. Naturally, when I saw the opportunity to read another book about him, I was intrigued. Unfortunately, I was a bit disappointed.

As Guy Halsall writes, there is no evidence of the existence of King Arthur, but there is nothing to prove he did not exist. All in all, that is a valid argument. As the author sets out to break the book down into 4 sections, or “Worlds”, he states valid points from the traditional ideas. Great detail is written regarding the different civilizations, religions, customs, jewelry, pottery, immigration routes and other points. Arthur, on the other hand, has a few brief mentions throughout this lengthy read.

If you are interested in the history of this general time frame, while expanding out somewhat, then this is a good read for you. If you are looking to read about the legendary King, whether or not he existed, this is not what you are looking for.

While I did find this greatly educational, I was hoping for more. Reading this, I felt as if I was in a lecture hall in college, not that that is a bad thing. As I mentioned, it is very educational, and not in a boring way. Overall the book is very well written and researched.

[GONZA · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read a book about Arthur more or less every year, I so love his adventures and his knights. This one was good and even if a little bit of encyclopedic was worth all the pages.

Leggo un libro su Artù e i suoi cavalieri almeno una volta l'anno perchè mi piacciono tantissimo le loro avventure. Questo era carino anche se un po' enciclopedico e decisamente lungo.

THANKS TO NETGALLEY AND OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS FOR THE PREVIEW

[J. Ellyne · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's pretty dull unless, like me, you're doing research on the life and times of Arthur Pendragon for the purpose of writing alt history fantasy. Even then he pretends to know more than he admits is possible and is mostly in the cynics camp (believes there was no such person as King Arthur. Because the fourth book in my series has lots of Arthur content in it, I had to read this book or risk being called silly by English History scholars.

[Jeff Dailey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very very little about King Arthur at all. It meanders all over the place with a very thorough examination of post-Imperial Britain, but it never loops back to how it all applies to a potential historical Arthur.

[Sam Worby · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent, readable introduction to 'dark age' history and how historians really work. Thorough, funny and thought-provoking.

[Sean O'Hara · Rating 3 out of 5]

This would be a great book except for the fifty pages devoted to the minutiae of early Christian calendaring systems.

[Thirza · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book starts out with an introduction mocking the many books on the market with Arthur's name as selling point, written by men. However, that is exactly what this book is.

I am unsure of the target audience of this book. Although the title seems to suggest this book is aimed for the broader public, using "Arthur" and "dark ages" to catch the eye of non-academics, the actual contents seem to aim at some in-between audience that are half-academic. The information Halsall presents is interesting and well-founded, though dry. Some language suggests a more experienced reader, but this is confusing when considering the many things Halsall explains and seems to think his audience doesn't know.

This book is a good read if you are sincerely interested in the topic and would like to know more about the Roman occupation of Britain, and the Anglo-Saxon culture up until about 900. Although Halsall refers to Arthur regularly, after the first few chapters the mythological King seems to be more of a vessel or an excuse to give the reader the information rather than the central argument. That does not mean the book so bad: the information is clear and valuable.

[Linda Malcor · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book since several scholars I respect had told me it was good. Alas, the arguments tended to run "I'm not going to find this; look! I didn't find it." The scholarship is slipshod and uses materials that are completely out of date with respect to the presentation on Lucius Artorius Castus. The text is also contradictory, at one point saying that nothing can be made of the Arthurian battle list and then trying to make something out of it a few chapters later. It particularly annoyed me when Halsall seemed to refer to the 2004 movie King Arthur, for which I was the research, as if it were my researcher rather than a Hollywood film.

In short, there are a lot of books about King Arthur in the world. Don't waste your time on this one.

[Leo · Rating 3 out of 5]

A slightly frustrating read. This book sits far too tensely on the fence for my taste. It tries to be popular scientific but offers too dry and painstakingly presented research to have an appeal in that sense. It is too subjective and - especially in the latter half to third - too polemic to be academic in nature overall. I don't want to be misunderstood, I am glad that this book offers that kind of research and academic aspects because I read it as part of academic research myself, but the entire time it felt like the book did not really know what it wanted to be at the end of the day.

[Matthew · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you read one 'historical King Arthur book', make it this one. Halsall gives us the lay of the land, providing sophisticated analysis of what little documentary evidence exists for 'Arthur' as well as thorough discussions of the archaeology of late and post-Roman Britain. I admit that, since archaeology is not my strong suit, I do not always follow the arguments in that regard (in fact, sometimes I skim them by accident, which doesn't help), but when I could keep the details about the different types of artefacts in my mind, the archaeological portions seemed sound and plausible, even if not the only available solution.

That last sentence is why I doubt very few people of this book's target audience -- non-academic readers who like King Arthur -- will find this book satisfying. The history of post-Roman Britain is extremely poorly documented, and what few documents we do have (Gildas, Bede, welsh Annals, 'Nennius', the Life of Germanus of Auxerre) can provide different reconstructions of events. Archaeology, of course, is very much a matter of the most plausible vision of the given material. Those who want to sit down and read a book that tells the story of a Romano-British warlord fighting Anglo-Saxons will be sorely disappointed.

Instead, what Halsall gives us is actually more exciting and interesting. This whole book is, in fact, a good entry into the history and archaeology of late and post-Roman Britain through the sources themselves. Most of what is discussed is, properly speaking, historiography -- how we know (or don't know) what history says. First, Halsall gives us the traditional account of Arthur and post-Roman Britain as based upon our textual sources. I was pleased and interested to know that the 'Paschal chronicle' that Elizabeth Jenkins mentions in The Mystery of King Arthur is actually the Welsh Annals and not a paschal chronicle of any sort; Jenkins was working from older historiographical assumptions about the origins of chronicles that Burgess and Kulikowski have recently proven entirely false in Mosaics of Time Vol. 1. The Welsh Annals, with their mention of Mt Badon and Camlann are, thus, not a sixth-century paschal chronicle but eleventh-century, and any material they gain from earlier sources is likely to be ninth-century texts such as 'Nennius'.

After discussing the traditional narrative from textual sources, Halsall sets it out for us from archaeology. Then he goes into greater depth, applying the scrutiny of the professional historian to this evidence and asking how far we can trust it and whether it actually tells the story we think it tells. By the end of Part III, he has set out for the reader the current scholarly assessment of the evidence c. 2012. Along the way, he deals with many of the myths and falsehoods purveyed by 'pseudo-histories' and why we cannot trust them.

Part IV is Halsall's own reconstruction of post-Roman Britain, itself an interesting read. It is definitely plausible and well-argued, but my own acquaintance with many of the sources comes mostly from his own work, so I am not yet in a strong enough position to critique any of its weaknesses. What he does that I think is vital to post-Roman Britain, and something I hope other historians of the island and period begin to do as well, is make comparisons with the continent in the same period, thus adding nuance to the arguments and showing where the traditional narrative need not be the only approach.

One important aspect of his approach to material culture is something he discussed earlier in Barbarian Migrations and the Roman West, 376-568, which is the fact that a material cultural horizon need not mean that everyone within it is biologically related. People can change ethnicity, especially in the Roman and post-Roman worlds. 'Anglo-Saxon' artefacts need not always be evidence of newcomers from the continent. Another important reassessment he used in his earlier work and here applies to the British situation is the interpretation of furnished burials as evidence for local struggles for power, since such burials would be a way to reinforce the power of the deceased's family.

All in all, this is an excellent book. It could be used by the interested reader to learn the methods and tools of the professional historian, shedding light on how history is itself constructed and not simply the story we tell in the history books. It is also a refreshing corrective to many of the crazy King Arthur theories that are so confident about theories in which we can place no confidence.

[Peter Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Worlds of Arthur by Guy Halsall, 2013 and 307 pages

There is a heck of a lot to get your teeth into in this book. The title almost obscures the importance of this book to Anglo-Saxonists. To begin with, Halsall demolishes the case for King Arthur by a thorough examination of the original sources. However, and this is where it becomes totally fascinating, he then goes into the historical context in which an 'Arthur' would have existed. This means Halsall examines 5th and 6th century Britain.

The opening chapter discusses the textual evidence for Arthur and points out that we have 5 mentions before 1000 AD, none of which inspire confidence. He then goes on to tackle Geoffrey of Monmouth and John Morris's The Age of Arthur, smashing both. One example of the later textual work is where Halsall demonstrates that Nennius made a hash of his dating and cannot be relied on for even this aspect. He shows him getting confused when switching between anno domini and anno passionis (year of death of Jesus), sometimes recording a date using one system, sometimes another and often converting one to the other but incorrectly, even once deducting rather than adding 28 years and his confusion wasn't helped by the Roman practice of counting dates inclusively, hence 4-8 wouldn't be 4, but would be 5. This is all interesting, but we then get to the meat of the book.

Halsall is an expert on the late late Roman Empire and in particular migration and he is happy to allow for a certain amount of movement into and also out of Britain. He uses lots of continental parallels to give added depth to the portrayal of Britain in Western Europe during this period. There is a very good synopsis of the rise and fall of economic life in late Roman Britain, which sets the scene. Whilst some of his interpretations of 5th century political life in England are speculative, the information he bases this on reflects the most up to date research.

A fair amount of this book involves discussing the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons. He takes in archaeology, DNA, language, religion and above all cultural and political identities, making a lot of excellent points. If anyone is interested in this aspect of history, then you really are missing out if you don't read this book.

There is one error, but it's more a slip of the finger rather than anything else; Halsall records the bishops of Canterbury and Dorchester instead of Canterbury and Rochester attending a Frankish synod orchestrated by Clothar II.

[Reading Through the Lists · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the debate over a historical Arthur, Guy Halsall's 'Worlds of Arthur' comes in on the side of the "bad cops", those who believe that there is no proof that can support a claim for a historical 5th century king who rallied the Britons against invading Saxons. So if you are a firm believer in a historical Arthur you will probably be disappointed by Halsall's rather patronizing and sometimes nearly insufferable tone to those who hold faith in the legendary king.

His main argument against a historical Arthur is based on a belief that our surviving historical sources (such as Gildas, Y Gododdin, The Historia Brittonum, etc.) are either flatly inaccurate or at least cannot be relied on as an accurate picture of Dark Age Britain. His arguments are carefully laid out and many definitely sound plausible, but the idea that no one in 5th-8th century Britain knew anything at all about what they were talking about starts to smack a bit of chronological snobbery after a few chapters.

The part of the book I found most interesting is his reinterpretation of the Anglo-Saxon migration (migration, not invasion; an important distinction). In fact, after a while I started to wonder if the "Arthur" discussion wasn't just a bit of a cover for him to flesh out his real interest in post-imperial Britain at the time of the coming of the Saxons. In that case, he might as well have written a book on the Saxon migration and the debate on Arthur could have been just a pleasant and intriguing chapter in the middle.

Putting Arthur as the center of the book sets a lot of readers up for disappointment since, according to Halsall, no "Arthur" ever existed with any certainty and aren't Anglo-Saxons more interesting anyway? To some people yes, but to many no.

The bottom line: Read 'Worlds of Arthur' if you have a deep interest in Dark Age Britain (the 5th and 6th centuries) and with the idea of Anglo-Saxon migration in particular, but not if you are passionately in love with Arthur. You will go in with high hopes but find precious little of him here.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was such a poignant book for me. I love Arthurian legends, I have since I was a kid. In college I really dove into Welsh mythology in the Middle Ages, and learned so much about reality, fiction, and the real history of the time period. I have my own thoughts on the subject, mainly that Arthur was an ancient legendary hero or a god, who was remembered in the texts as a prince/king/symbol of British sovereignty. Many of the stories were re-written in the Late Middle Ages, and the stories reflect the contemporary ideals and issues. Guy Halsall takes the time to show the readers the early Middle Ages where the stories are supposed to have come from, allowing for us to really understand the power shifts and dynamics of the time period. The reader is able to reflect on the importance of critical thinking, understanding the events of the early Middle Ages in the context of place, and facts over fantasy. I think it is so important to understand that there are so many myths and legends that are not fact, but because they were good, important, relevant stories, that resonated with people in the time. Many of the stories, especially Geoffrey of Monmouth's, may be mostly made up by the author writing at the time, built from a hodge-podge of oral traditions. We don't know, and we can't know. The only thing we know for sure is that there is a tradition of stories that have evolved over the years to reflect the contemporary values. Halsall reminds us of the importance of separating discernable historical fact, and the use of literature to gage a culture's societal norms. Arthurian legend gives a great picture into what different cultures in the Middle Ages saw as important and exciting, but we must be careful not to confuse societal ideals and traditional stories with historical events.

[Adrian G Hilder · Rating 4 out of 5]

Review to follow.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

Considering that the book is a takedown of all the pseudo-historical theories about Arthur, I'm sure the author must be a bit embarrassed about the mystical cover art that suggests it's full of basically all the crap that usually features in Arthurian histories: magical swords, legendary lakes etc.

It's a good summary of what we know about Arthur from original sources (ie next to nothing) and whether any of it is actually factual (most likely not). It's a shame though that the writers style is a bit rambling and overbearing. It's a shambling lecture rather than a well presented argument, at least from this lay persons perspective. If I already knew the sources and the history well I think I'd have got more out of it, but the way the book is laid out there are many times when the author refers to a person or event that he mentioned once like 100 pages ago and you're supposed to remember it.

The final third or so of the book is dedicated to the author's own theory of the Anglo-Saxon migration which he describes as "controversial", and which has a bearing on the Arthur legend but feels like it's a bit of a reach and a pretty theory rather than something well attested to.

[Timothy Roberts · Rating 5 out of 5]

The fascinating thing about this book is that it offers a complete remaking of early British history that substitutes a long ranging civil war between various groups consisting of Anglo Saxons and native Britons fighting together against other similar groups for the traditional view of a war between groups composed exclusively of Anglo Saxons moving westward and defending Britons attempting to hold them back. Thus we have combined groups of Anglo Saxons and Britons fighting other groups of Anglo Saxons and Britons in fierce campaigns.

This is an entirely new presentation of rely British history that completely challenges the traditional view of Anglo Saxons fighting Britons.

It is a fascinating new construct that I do not yet accept, but demands further examination.

[Vibeke Hiatt · Rating 3 out of 5]

The title of this book is very misleading. I bought it hoping to read a book that analyzes the legend of King Arthur and its origins, but what I got was a book of theories and speculation about post-Roman Britain--a period for which no written records survive. Arthur was only mentioned sporadically. It was still interesting to read, just a little disappointing because it wasn't what I was expecting from the title and dust jacket. The writing style is a little too academic to appeal to a general audience and I found my mind wandering at times. The tone is actually very similar to The Inheritance of Rome, which I still haven't finished. Both books are more than just light reading.

[Mary · Rating 1 out of 5]

This feels like a history of early Medieval Britain, with Arthur thrown in solely for the name. The book had almost nothing to say about anything Arthurian, and in fact was largely negative (this theory is incorrect, this evidence is doubtful, that scholar is wrong, etc.). This means that it comes to no conclusions, managing to be very specific and very vague at the same time. Some of the historical analysis was very interesting, but Halsall's refusal to be sure of anything was frustrating.

[Amanda [Novel Addiction] · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very little Arthur in this book. Mostly this book is about early British history, which I quite enjoyed. And what little there is of Arthur, the author was proving that indeed, we have no proof of his existence. I started to think the author just used the Arthurian legend as a selling point for his history book, which I find wrong... but I enjoyed the book nonetheless.

[Diane · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book talks about the politics and culture of Britain in the late Roman period and slightly thereafter; the time of the legendary King Arthur. I found the book to be a bit too academic, and the author tends to stray from his main subject quite a bit. He is more focused on debunking other books about King Arthur than he is on developing his own argument.

[Mark K.Astley · Rating 2 out of 5]

Considering its target reader of The Arthurian enthusiast, this was a missed opportunity. Despite the use of populist language in some parts, it was just another academic paper that fails to engage.. It was a relief to discover that the reference section accounts for 25% of my e-book edition and so, it suddenly came to an end and was all the better for it!

[Liam Guilar · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a pity he didn't write the book he claims he set out to write. But he can't be the first Historian to realise "My personal slightly dodgy theory about Dark Age Migration" wasn't going to make the book stands, and shoe horned his pet theory into the covers with 'Arthur' on the title.

[Doc · Rating 3 out of 5]

At first the author seems intent on debunking the work of historian John Morris, but eventually he lays out his own notions of North Sea migration during the Post-Imperial days. While his theories are plausible, the evidence upon which they rest is no less flimsy then that of Morris.

[JMR · Rating 2 out of 5]

Don't be fooled by the title. This is very dry historiography that has little to do with the legend of King Arthur.

[Pete daPixie · Rating 4 out of 5]

I confess that I found this book quite a heavy read. I would not recommend Guy Halsall's 'Worlds of Arthur' for any casual reader of this subject matter. Although it is some decades back in time, I have been familiar with the 'dark age' Anglo-Saxon world, but from what I recall we have come a long way from Sir Frank Stenton.
The learned Professor Halsall does much more than swipe away the silly Arthur of Camelot with his medieval knights in armour, he puts question marks on most of my previous understandings of post Roman Britannia and the Saxon migration. After the intellectual explorations of Gildas, Bede, Nennius, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles and Aneirin all the way to Geoffrey of Monmouth, the reader will be confronted by the real 'dark ages' with the absence of a Merlin figure coming down the tunnel shining any kind of light.
However, with perseverance through the complex facts and fictions, and maybe some strong coffee, the quest for the grail is still on.