A Brief History Of King Arthur

by Mike Ashley

Who was the real King Arthur? What do the historical documents tell us about the Knight of the Round Temple? It is just a chivalric fantasy?

The story of Arthur has been handed down to us by Medieval poets and legends - but what if he actually existed and was in fact a great king in the early years of Britain's story. Mike Ashley visits the source material and uncovers unexpected new insights into the legend: there is clear evidence that the Arthurian legends arose from the exploits of not just one man, but at least three originating in Wales, Scotland and Brittany. The true historical Arthur really existed and is distantly related to the present royal family.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Arthurian, British Literature

385 pages, Kindle Edition

First published April 29, 2010

About the author

Michael Raymond Donald Ashley is the author and editor of over sixty books that in total have sold over a million copies worldwide. He lives in Chatham, Kent.

Reviews

[Nicky · Rating 3 out of 5]

You'd think reading non-fiction about King Arthur would be right up my street. I've recently got really into reading non-fiction, especially history about the medieval period and Roman rule and so on, and I've always loved and adored King Arthur. But something about non-fiction about him trying to find the "real" King Arthur misses the point, for me. The point of Arthur to me is that he is a dream and an ideal, a symbol, so I have very little patience with people who want to pin him down.

Personal impatience aside, this book covers a lot of options and goes thoroughly into the research. If you are interested in an account of the historical sources of King Arthur, this covers a lot of the different theories -- which made it an easier read for me, since there are little of the whole "I know who the real King Arthur was"; it's more like Mike Ashley offers options which you may believe or not depending on your gut feeling about it or how it slots in with what you already know.

I think that anyone who claims to be sure of who the "real" Arthur was is deluded, but speculation can be interesting. I give the last word to one of the Welsh triads: 'Not wise the thought, a grave for Arthur'.

[Jackie Trexler · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read this book if:

- You are familiar with British geography
- You are familiar with British history
- You like British history
- You can remember names, dates, and locations
- You have a lot of time to devote to this book

Don't read this book if:
- You're American and have practically no idea where anything is in the British Isles except where Scotland, Ireland, and Wales are
- You're expecting a more romantic view or Arthur
- You can't deal with a whole lot of analytical writing
- You can't remember or tolerate pages upon pages of names, dates, and locations
- You're looking for a quick read


This book really wasn't that bad, I just don't think I was the right audience for it. I read A Brief History of Robin Hood and loved the narration of the quirky legendary hero, but this was different. It was a lot more in depth, and wasn't really a story so much as it was an extensive and intensive research project. Being what it was, I admire Ashley for his research and apparent dedication to the topic, but the writing was way over my head for a 17-year-old on summer vacation. Furthermore, I had no idea where anything was that Ashley was talking about. Never been to Britain, never studied its geography... that was certainly a challenge. The etymology stuff was pretty cool, but most of the time I found myself skimming. Sorry, Ashley, I wish I had been better prepared...

[Leslie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Mike Ashley's take on King Arthur's place in history was a good read. A little overwhelming when it comes to names, places and dates, I found, however, that once I started reading I wanted to know more. Ashley's main argument was that there might have been ten men who could have been Arthur. He starts out with a very broad picture including information on the occupation of Britain by the Romans and then narrows down his search for Arthur with data from Nennius, Gildas, Bede, the Welsh tales and other sources. Ashley even utilizes recent research and books by other authors. (His bibliography at the end of the book is a long one).

The two things I did not like particularly was that there was no pronunciation guide for the Welsh and Saxon names and the maps were not especially good and lacked detail. Also a modern map would have helped (I think that since Ashley lives in Britain and the book was published for a primarily British audience first the editors saw no need to include a modern map that would help others who are not familiar with Britain's geography to orient themselves).

All in all, I think that the Brief History of King Arthur is a solid read for those interested in the search for King Arthur in history. The question of his historicity may never be completely answered, but the journey to finding the answer is challenging which then makes it endlessly fascinating.

Recommended.

[Robin · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars

http://historicalreadings.blogspot.co...

This is called A Brief History because it's basically half of the larger volume "The Mammoth Book of King Arthur" by the same author. It essentially analyzes the historical basis for King Arthur whereas "Mammoth" also explores possible identities of other major characters from the Arthurian legend as well. It is only "brief" in comparison to "Mammoth" because trust me, there is nothing truly brief about this. It is a very detailed, very in depth look at the time period in which Arthur must have existed (if he did) and all the possible individuals who may have been the inspiration for Arthur, which may have been one or a combination of historical leaders.

It essentially defines Arthur as the victor of the Battle of Badon and then goes about narrowing down the likely date for Badon and analyzing which historical figures lived during this time period and might have contributed to the legend of Arthur.

It's very interesting and worth reading but the nature of the subject matter makes it not very easy to follow if you're not already familiar with the historical sources, events, and figures from this time period. Don’t take this on lightly but do take it on if you're interested in the historical basis for the legend of King Arthur.

[Mersini]

Giving this one up because it's time for me to return it to the library again, and I can't be bothered renewing it. It's well researched, but honestly a bit dry, with the names and dates going way over my head. I care less about the historical accuracy - which there isn't a lot of, let's be real - than how the story came about. To be fair, maybe I didn't get far enough into this book to reach that part, but I still don't feel it's worth renewing.

[Tom Fordham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whilst it is depth and dense, there is plenty of food for thought here. As someone who has been immersed in Arthurian legend since I was young, getting to know the more historical aspects of the legend has been an absolute delight. Whilst it did heavily test my geography of Britain, it was sufficient enough to get an understanding of what Mike Ashley was explaining. The period of 410-640 is an immensely fascinating time in British history, and getting to know the people that owned this landscape at that time has been incredible. Mike collates the evidence in a well research and an effective way, even though the book was confusing at times having to keep track of names and dates, the ideas and theories that Mike puts forward are open to your own interpretation which is something I really enjoy. I believe that Arthur is the blurring of history, the events of several people credited to one immortal legend, as names and places become easily confused you can see why the Arthur legend has developed the way it has. I will definitely be taking time to ponder what I have read in this book, it has fired the imagination and has me wanting to look further into this period before Saxon domination. I would only recommend this book if you have a good understanding of Saxon and early Welsh/Brythonic history otherwise some of the concepts will go over your head.

[Ronald · Rating 3 out of 5]

First, Mike Ashley fibs. Despite the title, this was not a brief history on the topic of the real King Arthur! This was a particularly dense read into the origins of the legendary King Arthur. By the author's own admission, he drops over a thousand names that contribute in ways major and minor to the foundation of Arthurian legend (the French contributions are not explored in this book, though I suppose he has another related to that topic). After going through the mountain of original sources and their contributions, as well as teasing out facts from the more legendary ones, we are led to the author's ultimate conclusion. The real King Arthur is... an amalgamation of various historical figures over a period of four hundred years, rolled into a piece of damned good propaganda for the Norman Kings and their successors the Plantagenets. After going through the entire thing, and taking notes to keep track of the complicated interaction of so many figures (a number of whom were quite obscure!) the ultimate conclusion was a bit of a letdown. I expected him to turn the last chapter into a finalized history, a sort of decisive conclusion as to which of the potential Arthur candidates best fit the role, but alas, it was not to be. The book is still quite worth it for those who are big Arthurian buffs and for those who love finding the fact behind the legend.

[Tyler Brooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very well-written book, but also a very hard read. Having some tertiary knowledge of a few of the source materials, The Mabinogion in particular, I had a basic grasp on the pronounciations of the more obscure place-names and historical figures. However, I've never lived in the british isles so the geography involved became very confusing overtime.

To a less experienced reader of this kind of material, it is quite daunting with the amount of dates and names referenced, and for that reason I wouldn't really reccomend it to a person less learned in british history. Nonetheless, the writing here flows so eloquently and carries a scholarly tone that rarely feels dry and essay-like. If you can read Welsh and Anglo-Saxon at least a little bit then this is a wonderful choi e in my opinion, but to the average North-American reader, it may be an impossible read.

There's a lot of quality and value here, but it definitely isn't for everyone. If you're new to Authurian lore or ancient british history in general, maybe start with something more basic and accessible.

[Evan Þ. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ashley presents his search into the historical background behind King Arthur, digging into the different records and then presenting and defending his theory that the Arthur mythos is a blend of stories about different kings. The first "Arthur" who defeated the Saxons at Badon and brought a generation of peace, he argues, had taken that as a title meaning "High King"; later Arthurs including several who added to the legend were named after him and the growing legend.

I was surprised by several of the sources Ashley used; I hadn't heard the fifth- and sixth-century king lists of the British kingdoms were reliable enough to use here. I'm also surprised by his arguing there's some historical basis behind Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History". Even so, I'm not totally convinced by his argument that the Arthur of Badon must appear in the king lists, which is at the core of his thesis - though it's definitely very defensible.

[Tony DeHaan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really like this book, it's quite informative. The author doesn't want to make a point and claim Arthur existed or not, but gives an overview of ancient texts, trying to piece it together, and gives his own ideas. Mike Ashley, however, is possessed by dates, which can be quite exhausting to read (and remember...). There are, admittingly, pitfalls in dating. For example, does "year zero" start with the birth of Jesus? His baptism? His death? At the end of the book the author gives an overview of 20 possible candidates who might have been Arthur, or who might have been the basis for "an" Arthur, ranging from Lucius Artorius Castus to Athrwys ap Meurig. Between these two there is a time scale of about 500 years...
Nice touch at the end as Ashley asks us, the readers, what our conclusions are.

[Iñaki Tofiño · Rating 2 out of 5]

Only for diehard Arthurian fans, because unless you are really interested in reading a new hypothesis about who could the real king Arthur have been (in case he was a single person and not a character created from different life stories) this is not the book for you. Extremely tedious telling of Roman, Briton, Irish, Welsh, and other genealogies which make the work quite boring and difficult to read. It is a good piece of scholarship, but not the right book if one just wants some introduction to the Arthurian myth and its origins.

[Doug Adamson · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are wanting to write about King Arthur--this may not be the book for you. If you are interested in reading about aspects of British/English history in the period from 400-700 this may be a great book for you. That said, I enjoyed the book.

[Norm Keillor · Rating 3 out of 5]

Quite dry reading despite my love of the topic

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting summary of the many theories and slender literary evidence for the existence of a real, historical Arthur.

[Matt Simpson · Rating 2 out of 5]

Too many lists & dates for an audiobook

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent survey of historical sources and potential aggregated figures

[Lily · Rating 3 out of 5]

Extremely interesting if one wants to find out more information about the origins of Arthur and its legend. The difficulty with this book is following the locations and the spelling of the people and places. I had to bookmark the pages where the maps were so that I could go back again and again and again. More detailed maps would have been a plus.
Otherwise a very thorough review of the possible candidates for Arthur. Was Arthur a real person or not? well the author tries very hard to answer this question and in my view, does a good job at it. it was a very interesting read.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was pretty reader-friendly. Mike Ashley does a great job of sifting through the people and places, while providing information on the changes that took place with their names over time. It was fairly easy to follow even though the history for that time period and its people are sketchy at best. I feel much more familiar with that era of English history and with the background of King Arthur now. I may even be ready to tackle another book of this genre soon.

[Sarah Fournier · Rating 2 out of 5]

If your not already aware of English and Arthurian history you will find this book really confusing. Mike Ashley uses alot alot alot of names and dates and its really hard to follow. The fact that names were mutated over time into a different Welsh form or a Welsh to Latin form makes it even harder to follow.

So, its a good book if your already educated on this topic and know all the names and historical context already. However, if you don't, I wouldn't recommend this book to start with.

[Holly Culbertson · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn't get through this mess! I am not a fan at all. His writing style is elementary and he jumps around so much you need a pen and paper to make his dates and theories add up. I am an experienced reader and prefer very intelligently written books. This was a bunch of notes compiled into a book. Very disappointing.

[Les Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an excellent book, but a little bit too detailed to be called "A GOOD READ". However if you are interested in the Historical facts concerning him; then this is a must for your book self. I have given it 4* instead of 5* simply because I do not think you can just sit down and read it.

[Mairéad (is roaming the Undying Lands) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for University.

[Al Lock · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting look at the various tales and documentation (potential) available to track down "Who was King Arthur?". Not conclusive by any means, but solidly written.