The Great Captains

Celtic Tetralogy #4

by Henry Treece, Michael Moorcock (Introduction), James Cawthorn (Illustrator)

The Epic Romance of King Arthur

"This is the story of 'King' Arthur, as I think it might have happened," Henry Treece wrote about his novel. The Great Captains is about no romantic ghost but a man of the wild, forbidding world of ancient Britain.

Cover Illustration: Michael Heslop

Genres: Arthurian, Historical Fiction, Fiction, Fantasy

236 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1956

About the author

Henry Treece (1911-1966) was a British poet and writer, who also worked as a teacher and editor. He wrote a range of works but is mostly remembered as a writer of children's historical novels.

Reviews

[Arthurianmaiden · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am very surprised by this book and still a bit shocked by it and how it ended. I liked it, strangely, because I usually don't like too much historical arthurian retellings and I prefer the anachronistic world of Thomas Malory. Still, it was a very well written book and it narrated something that I've always wanted to read: the story of Arthur and Mordred as friends/rival, from Welsh tales and Annales Cambriae.
This is exactly what the book gave me. The historical setting was incredibly realistic without ending up in crude rapes and awful violence like sometimes books that claim to be "historical" needs to.
The characters felt real and contraddictory at the same time but I think it is quite believable because the author only gave us little pieces of introspection and mostly told us their actions.
From now on there will be spoilers.

I don't have many things I didn't like in the book, actually the only reason it's 4 stars and not 5 is the fact that it felt like the novel never get the main issue completed. I mean, Medrawt always oscillates between loyalty, affection, hate, rivalry, anger towards Artos and it was sad to miss an actual confrontation between the two characters (but it wasn't unrealistic, it just felt incomplete). Also I would have probably preferred to see more of the characters I love, more Guinevere, more Gawain/Gwalchmai etc. while instead the book had really only a few characters.
I greatly enjoyed some of the choices of the author: the three Guinevere, the idea of incest as a sin to punish Artos, Artos being not so good, the way Artos got the power and tricked often his rivals/enemies.
I usually don't like a cruel Artos but I kind of like this one who is both compassionate and egostically greedy, quick to anger the more he gets old.
Cei and Bedwyr were also very well done secondary characters and it was finally good to see a book where they appear and are so close. It is odd because in the Mabinogion they are very close but I can't recall any other novel that talks so much of their friendship.
There were only a few female characters, unfortunately we don't know a lot of Guinevere, but we know a lot of Lystra (the second Guinevere) who is the smartest character in the book. She is greedy, she wants power, she climbed towards Artos' side during her life because she started with nothing- her character was depicted without jugdment and I truly liked that.
Now Mordred/Medrawt. His character confused me, at the beginning. He too started from nothing, like Lystra, and he is very similar to her. He is chosen by the Count of Britain as heir only to teach some soldiers humility and the Count himself can feel the greediness in Medrawt's character. Medrawt wants the power, it's true, and is presented as a sneaky disloyal man, always plotting the Count's death (and he kills him later) so when Artos steals Caliburn from him, basically taking his right/wish to be Count of Britain, Medrawt becomes Artos' blood-brother but he is always ready to betray him. And yet, he is much more. He is the main character, he is a fair man, the soldiers love him, he has moments of cruelty where he slaughter children and women because Saxons, and moments of compassion and deep love for Artos.

Nor Artos nor Medrawt are good people, they are quick to anger, violent, greedy and truly deserve each others. I particularly liked how Medrawt wanted Artos’ power but also felt so many conflicting feelings for him. The relationship between Artos and Medrawt is so- strange.
Artos seems much quicker to compassion, at least at the beginning of the book, but he is very egoistical, he is extremely greedy and he steals Caliburn, ideating a way to get it righteously (taking it out from a log). After Guinevere and Anir accidentally dies he becomes crueler and he is soon tormented by Medrawt’s death too. The weirdest thing was that Artos always knew Medrawt wanted him gone to have the title of Count of Britain, but he wants Medrawt close because Medrawt seems sincere with him. Also, Medrawt wants to see Artos killed but when Artos is in danger he is the first to save his life, feeling himself confused.
I have no idea if the author meant to give us these subtle hints of attraction/bromance/romance between Arthur and Medrawt or not, because I remember two quotes where another man notices something between them and tells Bedwyr to leave "the two lovers alone" and in another scene Medrawt, who sleeps in Artos' tent, awakes and wants to ask him something and, well, he asks about battle while Artos expected something completely different.

By the end of the book, Artos takes Lystra as a lover while Guinevere is away with Anir (Artos can’t be with Guinevere because she is his half sister). Artos doesn’t love Lystra but is very posessive and he promises to punish her if she betrays him. Lystra and Medrawt are both in love with power and they sort of become sort of companion even if they distrust each others and they both want to get rid of each others as soon as they get what they want, yet when Lystra invites Medrawt to her room to sleep with her- he stops, feeling suddenly guilty and worried about Artos wondering if he is alive (he is away fighting).
Artos punishes Lystra, letting her get killed by a bull in the arena, and Medrawt who can't stand the scene, starts a rebellion against him but gets deadly wounded. Everyone thinks he is dead, but he is not.
Medrawt survives with great damages to his brain and now he can't even speak or remember who he is while Artos grow older and somehow weaker. When Cerdic gives the now found Medrawt to Artos there is a very touching scene where Artos cries and is so glad to see him again and Medrawt seems to remember him... or maybe he thinks he is the old Count of Britain who adopted him, this is not clear.

The last part, the epilogue, is called “Camlann”. We find out that Camlann is just a name for Camelot, where Artos now live. People discuss of how decadent is the ‘kingdom’ now, how Artos lost his manhood when he “took mad Medrawt back to his bosom” and only Bedwyr now follows old Artos.
Artos had also adopted an abandoned girl in a village because she reminded him of Guinevere. In the last scene, while Medrawt observes and barely understands, sitting near Artos, little Guinevere asks her uncle Artos to make her queen, just for playing and Artos looking at her says that one day people will remember that he had three Guinevere.
And while Artos uses a staff to ask God to protect Guinevere, Medrawt seems to recognize the old Caliburn. Medrawt attacks Artos, calling him Ambrosious (the name of the Old Count) and damning him, clearly meaning to kill him again. And that is how Artos dies and soon Medrawt dies too.

Without any doubt, the relationship between Artos and Medrawt was the reason I like the book most, also if I wouldn't have mind something more about them and well, some more introspection.

[Tony Tubb · Rating 5 out of 5]

The usual enjoyable Treece. I'm having a lot of fun going through his novels. An underrated writer for sure, though he's as good as Lloyd Alexander and his books are chockful of well-done research that really immerses you in these worlds he writes about. Here, he does away with the romaticism of the Arthur legend with a ruthlessness worthy of George RR Martin, Robert Holdstock, or Maurice Druon. This gives us back the historical characters as they might have lived in their time.

[Duncan Ireland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Treece is one of the only authors who captures convincingly, a pre-Christian mindset.

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A short but grim and gritty take on the Arthur myth "as it would have been". This means there are Roman ruins, vestiges of druidism, a sort of condominium between the Saxons and the Romano-Celts, a dancing girl from Constantinople as Guinevere and so on. But it is really all about the relationship between Artos and Medrawt, who have a love-hate, almost homoerotic thing going on. Of the works by Treece that I've read, this is the best. Rated MA for war violence, violence, adult themes and nudity (there is what I consider a really nice bum on the cover). 3.5/5

[Curtis Irion · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book stunk.
As a history guy, I am glad that the author actually wrote more about who the real "historical" Arthur may have been. But the plot is rough and the characterization is poorly plotted.
I would not suggest this to anyone. Worst ending ever

[Robin Tompkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, this is a reread for me. However, the first time I read it, was in 1970 something. It made a big impression on me then, as did Treece’s work generally. So, what do I think of it now, in 2022?

First things first. This is a retelling of the King Arthur myth. It was one of the first novels to ask the question, ‘If King Arthur was a real historical personality, what would he be like?’

Henry Treece thought of himself as a poet. However, like many writers before and since, he soon found that there was no money in poetry and so turned his hand to immaculately researched historical novels. That poetry though, is there in his descriptive, evocative prose. His writing totally immerses you in the past. Poetic, elegiac and lyrical yes but he turns these gifts not just to the beautiful but also to evoking the brutality of battle and the grim, harsh realities of life in the dark ages. The world Treece shows us, is a decaying dystopian shambles, as dirty, dark and dangerous, as any Sci-Fi post-apocalyptic future.

He was well known for his ability to get into a more archaic mindset. He does this successfully, so successfully in fact, that most of his characters are hard to connect with. Now here is something I never noticed back in the day. I do not like our lead character Artos the Bear, (King Arthur). I do not like him at all. But then, I don’t think Treece means him to be a hero, I don’t think that he wants or needs you to like him. I think he is simply saying, if King Arthur existed, this is who he would have been, like it or not.

If it was written nowadays, the book would likely be three times the size and cover Arthur’s entire reign. As it is, it concentrates mainly on the rise of Arthur. His later rule and some of his biggest battles, are quickly skimmed through, in a combination of narrator exposition and flashback, in an epilogue, just before his tragic, somewhat Shakespearean last moments.

So, how does it look now? Henry Treece is still an extraordinary writer and parts of this book are brilliant. Other elements I now found a little odd with a modern eye. I give five stars to the book of my memory and four stars to the real book. Perhaps an allegory for the Arthur of myth and the real Arthur?

[Pete · Rating 4 out of 5]

This gritty reimagining of King Arthur presages the grimdark fantasy that is popular today. Rome is failing, and Ambrosius, the Roman Count of Britain, watches from the cliffs as the last of the legionnaires leave Britain. The only one that remains is Medrawt (Mordred), whom Ambrosius, now an old man, has tentatively designated as his heir. They journey to the West seeking allies against the invading Saxons and Jutes. They encounter Uther Pendragon and his son Artos the Bear. Soon, Artos has tricked everyone claiming Caliburn (Excalibur), the sword of Ambrosious and the symbol of his power. Artos is crafty and brutal and he is soon the dux bellorum (leader of battles) for the Kings of the West with Medrawt at his side and Gwenhwyfar as his queen to be. Of course, there are many complications with Artos being betrayed by those he claims to love. While there are no overt fantasy elements, the tension between the old religion and Christianity imbue the setting and the characters with dark and violent beliefs. This is a far cry from The Once and Future King and Excalibur (the movie), but it is a far more believable version of the tale of Arthur.

[Otto]

A

[Fletcher Vredenburgh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Presently my favorite historical take on the Arthurian legends. Brutal, noble and hard characters. Excellent effort at recreating ancient pagan and early Christian mindset and a world where belief is concrete.