What do you think?
Rate this book
King Arthur: The True Story
The truth behind the romance and legends of King Arthur, Excalibur, the Holy Grail and the site of the real Avalon.
For fifteen hundred years, King Arthur has remained a mystery. For the first time, King Arthur: The True Story discovers the historical King Arthur, his Camelot and his final resting place. The authors uncover vital evidence for Arthur's historical existence. Centuries of myth are peeled away to reveal the truth behind the romance, and the Grail and Excalibur legends. The search for Arthur's Camelot leads to ancient ruins in the heart of Britain: a Dark Age city recently unearthed by archaeologists. A medieval manuscript in Oxford's Bodleian Library finally identifies King Arthur's burial site: the real Avalon.
For fifteen hundred years, King Arthur has remained a mystery. For the first time, King Arthur: The True Story discovers the historical King Arthur, his Camelot and his final resting place. The authors uncover vital evidence for Arthur's historical existence. Centuries of myth are peeled away to reveal the truth behind the romance, and the Grail and Excalibur legends. The search for Arthur's Camelot leads to ancient ruins in the heart of Britain: a Dark Age city recently unearthed by archaeologists. A medieval manuscript in Oxford's Bodleian Library finally identifies King Arthur's burial site: the real Avalon.
196 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1992
4 people are currently reading
181 people want to read
About the author
Graham Phillips
31 books74 followersGraham Phillips is a British author.
Phillips has a background working as a reporter for BBC radio and as a magazine editor.
Wikipedia - Graham Phillips
Phillips has a background working as a reporter for BBC radio and as a magazine editor.
Wikipedia - Graham Phillips
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews
May 27, 2018
Excellent book. Unlike other books that drag the reader through the dust throwing out names of authors ad infinitum until you can't see straight much remember who is who or who wrote what, Phillips keeps things fairly simple and straight forward though he does tend to tease and reiterate his points from chapter to chapter. I think this bio mystery makes sense. Unlike Geoffrey Ashe, Graham Phillips confines his search to the island of Britain. And tries to limit his investigations to the parts of the legend known to be seminal and completely British without a whiff of the later French cooking. Why should the real Arthur be concerned with wars and troubles in France? He had plenty to worry about with the Saxons and squabbles among the native British tribes. Graham identifies the important places and people in Arthur's story and leads you step-by-step to his conclusions. I am satisfied that Arthur has been found at last!
September 22, 2019
The early chapters give a fair summing up of early Arthurian literature, and of cross-pollination between Romantic, Celtic and Welsh literature (one way or the other - Avalon = Annwn, etc). A first pricking of my thumb, however, when it does identify Guinevere as Gwenhyfar, but fails to see that the name has the same origin as Ganhumara.
The further you go in the book, the more assumption is built on speculation, supported by guesswork, and it becomes a fragile structure indeed.
The truth about King Arthur is: if you strip away everything from the legend that we don't know, we remain only with the fact that there once was a warlord called Arthur. Maybe.
The further you go in the book, the more assumption is built on speculation, supported by guesswork, and it becomes a fragile structure indeed.
The truth about King Arthur is: if you strip away everything from the legend that we don't know, we remain only with the fact that there once was a warlord called Arthur. Maybe.
February 9, 2025
A thoroughly researched look into early British history, as the authors present a theory of who the 'real' King Arthur was. Their arguments are persuasive and, because we'll probably never know the truth, it's as good a truth as any. Some of the lineages did become a bit hard to follow, but on the whole they managed to convey everything in a clear, concise and entertaining manner. The summaries at the end of each chapter were a bit annoying - but handy to go back to if you needed to check some fact back.
Well worth the read.
Well worth the read.
August 21, 2021
King Arthur is a well-known figure in European romantic literature, but the historical character he is based on is vague and elusive. The authors of this book believe they have identified him as Owain Ddanngwyn, ruler of Powys in west-central Britain from about AD 488-520. "Arthur", they say, was not his actual name, but an epithet or nom de guerre meaning "The Bear", being a combination of the Brythonic "arth" and the Latin "ursus", both of which mean "bear".
I am in no position to evaluate the accuracy of their claims, because I am not sufficiently versed in the history of that period, which many historians have referred to as "the Dark Ages" because so little written history has survived from then, and so historians of the period are left feeling their way in the dark.
What I will say of the book is that it starts off with a good summary of the Arthurian literature, and how the legends of Arthur were popularised (and in many instances created) in the 12th century by Geoffrey of Monmouth and subsequent writers. So I found the first few chapters very good as an account of how the Arthurian legend developed, and its early sources.
The further one goes into the book, however the more tenuous and speculative the story becomes, and the less convincing becomes the sub-title, "The True Story". The authors don't pretend otherwise. Their prose in the later chapters is extremely conditional, "if x happened, then y could have followed", "It is conceivable that...".
Much of the knowledge of the period comes from archaeology, which can tell us something of what life was like in a particular period, and what kind of people lived where, but it tells us very little of the actual events that led to those conditions. Pottery fragments can tell us whether the people who lived in a place were Angles or Saxons or British, but does not tell us their names, and whether they were ruled or led by someone called Arthur.
So it is difficult to rate the book. I give the earlier chapters 5 stars; the last ones, with all their might have beens, 3 stars; and the middle chapters 4 stars.
I am in no position to evaluate the accuracy of their claims, because I am not sufficiently versed in the history of that period, which many historians have referred to as "the Dark Ages" because so little written history has survived from then, and so historians of the period are left feeling their way in the dark.
What I will say of the book is that it starts off with a good summary of the Arthurian literature, and how the legends of Arthur were popularised (and in many instances created) in the 12th century by Geoffrey of Monmouth and subsequent writers. So I found the first few chapters very good as an account of how the Arthurian legend developed, and its early sources.
The further one goes into the book, however the more tenuous and speculative the story becomes, and the less convincing becomes the sub-title, "The True Story". The authors don't pretend otherwise. Their prose in the later chapters is extremely conditional, "if x happened, then y could have followed", "It is conceivable that...".
Much of the knowledge of the period comes from archaeology, which can tell us something of what life was like in a particular period, and what kind of people lived where, but it tells us very little of the actual events that led to those conditions. Pottery fragments can tell us whether the people who lived in a place were Angles or Saxons or British, but does not tell us their names, and whether they were ruled or led by someone called Arthur.
So it is difficult to rate the book. I give the earlier chapters 5 stars; the last ones, with all their might have beens, 3 stars; and the middle chapters 4 stars.
May 6, 2020
I read this one long back when I was on holiday in Cornwall and visited sites like the current ruins of Tintagel and Merlin's cave etc. The theory about the "true identity" of Arthur is interesting but based on a very flimsy foundation. Whether Owain Ddantgwyn is or is not the person who used to be called "Arthur" and who gave rise to all the legends is absolutely uncertain, just as much after reading this book as before, alas. Other scholars have disputed Mr. Phillips' view on the matter.
The notion that Arhur might just be a fictonal person based on legends seems to escape the author.
The notion that Arhur might just be a fictonal person based on legends seems to escape the author.
September 9, 2023
Gents, I found it fascinating!
I’ve recently found myself sucked into an Arthurian rabbit hole and as a consequence have found you work very enjoyable.
I’m a appreciative of the summary sections at the end of each chapter and as well as that, I do like how you rather than continually provide asterisks simply mention sources in the text as part of the main narrative.
I suspect, like you guys I find the period from Roman decline in Britain to the dominance of Anglo-Saxon dynasties absolutely fascinating, particularly as we have so little contemporary evidence both archaeological and written.
Anyway, loved your work and I’m sourcing anything you’ve put out in the last 10-15 years. Keep up the good work, we should all be interested in where we came from!!!
I’ve recently found myself sucked into an Arthurian rabbit hole and as a consequence have found you work very enjoyable.
I’m a appreciative of the summary sections at the end of each chapter and as well as that, I do like how you rather than continually provide asterisks simply mention sources in the text as part of the main narrative.
I suspect, like you guys I find the period from Roman decline in Britain to the dominance of Anglo-Saxon dynasties absolutely fascinating, particularly as we have so little contemporary evidence both archaeological and written.
Anyway, loved your work and I’m sourcing anything you’ve put out in the last 10-15 years. Keep up the good work, we should all be interested in where we came from!!!
March 30, 2020
I enjoyed the book. The research was well done and presented in a very easy to follow chain. My only complaint would be that the order of the writing should have been reversed. The authors went through the a long history building their case for their pick as the true King Arthur which by the point it was revealed was kind of a let down. I would rather they named their their choice as Arthur and then built their case from that point on.
November 13, 2020
A fantastic and all encompassing examination of the mythology and reality behind KING ARTHUR.
Phenomenal research has led these historians to almost conclusively pinpoint the real Arthur. Far removed from the romantic medieval imagery we have today, the real Arthur was more inspirational dark age warlord than king ...
With brilliant organised chapters and brief summaries after each one, this book stands as without doubt THE essential book on the topic.
Phenomenal research has led these historians to almost conclusively pinpoint the real Arthur. Far removed from the romantic medieval imagery we have today, the real Arthur was more inspirational dark age warlord than king ...
With brilliant organised chapters and brief summaries after each one, this book stands as without doubt THE essential book on the topic.
January 24, 2022
A marvellous book, though I have reason to be biased !
Graham Phillips argues that the Arthurian legend originates in the north of England, but the tale was later carried west into Wales by those who fled from the Saxon invaders.
I say I am biased because this is a theory I have always supported and it is gratifying to see that someone else has done the research.
Graham Phillips argues that the Arthurian legend originates in the north of England, but the tale was later carried west into Wales by those who fled from the Saxon invaders.
I say I am biased because this is a theory I have always supported and it is gratifying to see that someone else has done the research.
August 4, 2022
Whilst I read this book in the same way I’d read Chariots of the Gods, taking much of what is claimed with a rather heroic sized pinch of salt, that does not mean they are any less entertaining… just don’t expect a revelation that will change known history and enjoy them for what they are … a bit of fun, spurious speculation
November 7, 2023
I’ve seen the author on various archeological mystery docs and I decided to check out his book. It was well-reasoned and compelling. I am no archeologist but this did not read like some amateur finding zebras where there are merely horses. I look forward to reading his 2016 book about the Historical Arthur’s grave.
June 21, 2024
Given as a gift years ago. Not sure what I was expecting, also willing to bet the gifter had no idea what the book was. Reads well but is largely a historical supposition piece. I'd be interested in a peer review. Everything in it makes sense, but then most "historical" things make sense internally but fall apart in the light of day.
November 22, 2024
3.5 rounded up to 4. This book was fascinating!!! It is a nonfiction full of research so the going is a little slow but the conclusions are so cool. We are taken on a journey to the real Arthurian time period to discovery who was king Arthur and how he came to be. Anyone who is a fan of Arthurian legends so read this because sometimes the history is even more fascinating than the legends.
December 5, 2020
This was like if Sherlock Holmes wrote out a very thorough and sometimes tedious deduction of who the real King Arthur was. Not thrilling or anything....but informative and still enjoyable (to me, at least)
December 31, 2022
An enthralling detective's work. The way in which things are explained and pieced together for the final reveal is exceptional and very convincing.
May 26, 2024
Didnt expect it to be so historical, it was a little overwhelming for someone with 0 knowledge about Britain's History 🙈 but it was a really good experience
October 7, 2021
In this book we are invited first to look at the traditional evidence for the existence of King Arthur. And what a ragbag it is, as any researcher knows. At the centre is a yawning black hole, sucking in the unwary. A sensible approach therefore to the historical problem of who Arthur might have been is to fix, by logical deduction, the time and place in which he might have flourished.
The time suggested is the late 5th/early 6th century. This seems uncontroversial, so no Brythonic god, first-century Roman, Sutton Hoo warrior or Atlantean avatar here, it would seem. The first half of the book sifts through Romantic preconceptions through to the ghost chronology dimly perceived from the difficult documentary evidence we possess. Thus far, there is little to quibble about.
But now the authors make a leap into the dark, and the 'possible', the 'probable', the 'could be' and the 'surely' all rear their several heads. It is 'possible' that Arthur came from the ruling family of Gwynedd; it is 'probable' that he was the 'Bear' who ruled Powys before the 6th-century Cuneglasus; Viriconium, the Roman predecessor of Wroxeter, 'could be' Arthur's capital, Camelot if you like; and so 'surely' the likely candidate for Arthur is the father of Cuneglasus, Owain Ddantgwyn ('Whitetooth').
But, but, but, but! Owain Ddantgwyn (or Owein Danwyn in an alternative reading) is only known from one 10th-century document. This is a very slender thread on which to hang an identification. Nor would many scholars agree with the assertion that, despite its present archaeological status, Viriconium in the early 5th century became 'the most important city in Britain'. And, attractive as the theory may be, there is no way of proving that Arthur is the 'Bear' mentioned by the 6th-century monk Gildas. And it is merely rampant speculation to suggest that Arthur, if he really existed, was related to a ruling family; he may equally not have been.
One problem with this book is that there are no differentiated weightings given to the various possibilities raised by the authors. For them, all considerations are valid provided they support the thesis. For example, they suggest that the name Arthur derives from a combination of Brythonic 'arth' and Latin 'ursus', both meaning bear, thereby somehow symbolising a conscious espousal of both nationistic and imperialist causes. On linguistic ground this is, frankly, unlikely; it is merely clutching at straws. They also resurrect Beram Saklatvala's discredited theory that Arthur's drawing of the sword from the stone was based on a confusion between 'ex saxo' (from a stone) and 'ex saxone' (out of a Saxon). They even seem to propose that the 'name affix Cun-' is peculiar to the descendants of Cunedda (news perhaps to dwellers further afield in Lowland Roman Britain such as Cunobelinus, Cunospectus, Cunoarda, Cunobarrus and Cunomaglos).
Simple solecisms like this do not bode well. And yet possible circumstantial evidence for their hypothesis seems to have been disregarded. Would not Geoffrey Ashe's identification of Riothamus as Arthur (back in 1985) taken together with the tales of the giant Retho on Snowdon have been good ammunition for their arguments on North Walian locations? And what about the supposed son of Maximus, Owen, who had a missile fight with a giant near Dinas Emrys, also in Gwynedd? There are also the theories that the growth of Arthurian tales in Cornwall are the result of relocated Cornovians from the Welsh Marches taking their folklore with them to the southwest of the island. Phillips and Keatman seem to be unaware of these admittedly equally speculative theories, showing a very limited familiarity with Arthurian Studies in their widest sense.
It's worth pointing out here that both authors are also known as "psychic archaeologists", that is, investigators who use non-scientific methods to validate their conclusions, and this speculative modus operandi effectively underpins their approach in this book. Personally, I instinctively mistrust any book which includes the word "true" or "truth" in the title.
The authors seem to have tried their best with some very intractable material, but they are not comfortably at home with the various disciplines--archaeology, linguistics, history, literature, placenames and so on--needed to sort the wheat from the chaff. In particular, their attempt not only to identify an Arthur-type figure but a whole host of contemporaries is both over-ambitious and unsuccessful. And the final section of their "Research Update" is a blatant attempt at commercialisation. This is really a book only for the completist. Or the gullible.
The time suggested is the late 5th/early 6th century. This seems uncontroversial, so no Brythonic god, first-century Roman, Sutton Hoo warrior or Atlantean avatar here, it would seem. The first half of the book sifts through Romantic preconceptions through to the ghost chronology dimly perceived from the difficult documentary evidence we possess. Thus far, there is little to quibble about.
But now the authors make a leap into the dark, and the 'possible', the 'probable', the 'could be' and the 'surely' all rear their several heads. It is 'possible' that Arthur came from the ruling family of Gwynedd; it is 'probable' that he was the 'Bear' who ruled Powys before the 6th-century Cuneglasus; Viriconium, the Roman predecessor of Wroxeter, 'could be' Arthur's capital, Camelot if you like; and so 'surely' the likely candidate for Arthur is the father of Cuneglasus, Owain Ddantgwyn ('Whitetooth').
But, but, but, but! Owain Ddantgwyn (or Owein Danwyn in an alternative reading) is only known from one 10th-century document. This is a very slender thread on which to hang an identification. Nor would many scholars agree with the assertion that, despite its present archaeological status, Viriconium in the early 5th century became 'the most important city in Britain'. And, attractive as the theory may be, there is no way of proving that Arthur is the 'Bear' mentioned by the 6th-century monk Gildas. And it is merely rampant speculation to suggest that Arthur, if he really existed, was related to a ruling family; he may equally not have been.
One problem with this book is that there are no differentiated weightings given to the various possibilities raised by the authors. For them, all considerations are valid provided they support the thesis. For example, they suggest that the name Arthur derives from a combination of Brythonic 'arth' and Latin 'ursus', both meaning bear, thereby somehow symbolising a conscious espousal of both nationistic and imperialist causes. On linguistic ground this is, frankly, unlikely; it is merely clutching at straws. They also resurrect Beram Saklatvala's discredited theory that Arthur's drawing of the sword from the stone was based on a confusion between 'ex saxo' (from a stone) and 'ex saxone' (out of a Saxon). They even seem to propose that the 'name affix Cun-' is peculiar to the descendants of Cunedda (news perhaps to dwellers further afield in Lowland Roman Britain such as Cunobelinus, Cunospectus, Cunoarda, Cunobarrus and Cunomaglos).
Simple solecisms like this do not bode well. And yet possible circumstantial evidence for their hypothesis seems to have been disregarded. Would not Geoffrey Ashe's identification of Riothamus as Arthur (back in 1985) taken together with the tales of the giant Retho on Snowdon have been good ammunition for their arguments on North Walian locations? And what about the supposed son of Maximus, Owen, who had a missile fight with a giant near Dinas Emrys, also in Gwynedd? There are also the theories that the growth of Arthurian tales in Cornwall are the result of relocated Cornovians from the Welsh Marches taking their folklore with them to the southwest of the island. Phillips and Keatman seem to be unaware of these admittedly equally speculative theories, showing a very limited familiarity with Arthurian Studies in their widest sense.
It's worth pointing out here that both authors are also known as "psychic archaeologists", that is, investigators who use non-scientific methods to validate their conclusions, and this speculative modus operandi effectively underpins their approach in this book. Personally, I instinctively mistrust any book which includes the word "true" or "truth" in the title.
The authors seem to have tried their best with some very intractable material, but they are not comfortably at home with the various disciplines--archaeology, linguistics, history, literature, placenames and so on--needed to sort the wheat from the chaff. In particular, their attempt not only to identify an Arthur-type figure but a whole host of contemporaries is both over-ambitious and unsuccessful. And the final section of their "Research Update" is a blatant attempt at commercialisation. This is really a book only for the completist. Or the gullible.
November 14, 2015
I liked the book because I liked the author's writing style and that each chapter ended with a summary, enabling me to skip bits without losing the thread of the argument. I was hooked by the first chapter, where the author provided interesting summaries of early Arthurian literature.
The book read a little like a novel with little cliff-hangers included at the end of chapters to entice you into reading the next, but I didn't mind that.
I can't say that I was left feeling that King Arthur had been identified as a living, breathing man; but if the author achieved anything at all, it was to pique my interest in all things Arthur.
The book read a little like a novel with little cliff-hangers included at the end of chapters to entice you into reading the next, but I didn't mind that.
I can't say that I was left feeling that King Arthur had been identified as a living, breathing man; but if the author achieved anything at all, it was to pique my interest in all things Arthur.
December 1, 2009
I like knowing how little about the legend is true, but I was dissatisfied with how little is known about the man behind the legend. I also felt like the author could have been more concise and sometimes withheld pertinent information in one chapter to make another chapter more exciting and to keep me reading. I don't mind it in fiction, but I disliked it in this book. Luckily, there was a summary at the end of each chapter so I skipped a couple.
January 26, 2022
Very enjoyable and fairly persuasive.
The overall arguments were strong, credible and in keeping with some of my own pre-existing opinions. Later in the book there were some sections which could be open to argument, but we all know that we are dealing with an attempt to solve a mystery so there are bound to be peieces were the fit isn't perfect.
I definitely recommend it to all Arthur enthusiasts.
The overall arguments were strong, credible and in keeping with some of my own pre-existing opinions. Later in the book there were some sections which could be open to argument, but we all know that we are dealing with an attempt to solve a mystery so there are bound to be peieces were the fit isn't perfect.
I definitely recommend it to all Arthur enthusiasts.
July 16, 2012
Interesting examination of the Arthurian legends.
Read
September 15, 2012I recently read Elizabeth Jenning's
Displaying 1 - 22 of 22 reviews