What do you think?
Rate this book
King Arthur's Country: One Land, Two Kings and Two Centuries that Changed Britain Forever
England today is a rich, complex mix of identities, cultures, and heritages. However, in the decades after Roman Britain collapsed in the fifth century, the cultures of the Angles and of the Saxons, with significant degrees of homogeneity, spread rapidly westwards across much of eastern, southern and central England. Then it stopped. Or was stopped. For the area then still beyond Anglo-Saxon reach is characterized by a network of military and economic links across the island. Perhaps significantly, this includes parts of Britain traditionally associated with King Arthur. Later, the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural kingdom of Mercia, in alliance with British kingdoms in Wales, spread from the Midlands across England under the mysterious King Penda, dominating the earlier Anglo-Saxon kingdoms with its wealth and military power. The region that gave birth to Mercia is also a region that was a most likely base for the elusive figure of King Arthur. The authors use historical and archaeological evidence, much of it new, to explore the link between Arthur’s kingdom and the rise of Penda’s Mercia. They seek to locate lost Arthurian battlefields and understand what happened there, with exciting, new results. This is the story of one region, two kings and two centuries that changed England forever.
224 pages, Hardcover
Published December 30, 2024
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 9, 2025
_King Arthur’s Country: One Land, Two Kings and Two Centuries that Changed Britain Forever_ is a first-time collaboration between two popular historians of early British history, Stuart Laycock and Christopher Gidlow. Laycock is known for his books on British history from the 1st century BCE to the 7th century CE, concentrating on interpreting the archaeology. Gidlow’s books (including now a novel) specialise on the period of the “historical Arthur” (c.500 AD). This new book is mainly concerned with Arthur and his predecessors, but in the last chapters jumps to the rise of Mercia in the first half of the 7th century. Thus, it is Penda of Mercia who is the second of the “Two Kings”, and the “Two Centuries” I guess is c.450 - c.650. As to the “One Land”, see a few paragraphs below.
For those who don’t know much about the historical Arthur, this book covers all the basics — especially the written sources of Gildas, the Historia Brittonum (HB), and the Annales Cambriae (AC) — with clarity, although not in as much detail as Gidlow’s earlier book _The Reign of Arthur_. What sets it apart from that is its attention to archaeological and other non-textual evidence. This includes the usual brooches, buckles, and coins, which are plotted in maps, illustrated in sketches, and shown in black and white plates. The authors also present archaeological evidence for building and economic activity, and plenty of place-name analysis. For the last of these, I would rather have seen more done with maps and Appendices, rather than having all the potential locations for Arthurian sites (e.g. more than 10 for Camlann) analysed in the text, which for me caused the flow of the book to slow.
Most intriguingly to me (though sadly not illustrated in the book, presumably for copyright reasons) is an analysis of the depictions of clothing in the so-called Vergilius Romanus. This is a book, quite probably, created in 5th century Britain, of Vergil’s Aeneid with numerous colour illustrations. The authors’ sharp examination of these illustrations allow them to make a plausible case that its likeliest place of composition was not just Britain, but the south-western midlands.
From all of the evidence, Laycock and Gidlow identify the heart of Brittonic (ie. native, not Anglo-Saxon) power in post-Roman Britain as being the country of the Dobunni. This was a pre-Roman tribe, a Roman Civitas (i.e. one of the local government areas of Roman Britain, each comparable in size to Yorkshire), and arguably a post-Roman kingdom. It was located around the lower Severn valley, and including the cities of Gloucester and Cirencester. This is the “One Land” of the title.
The central thesis of the book is that
1) the Dobunnic country was the core territory of the 5th century British leaders (in particular Vortigern, then Ambrosius Aurelianus, then Arthur)
2) it was also the core territory of the early-mid 7th century Mercian leaders (in particular Penda).
3) Penda can be thought of as Arthur’s political successor.
The authors do a good job of making (1) plausible, though not proven. For example, the authors amass a lot of evidence in support of their conclusion that Arthur’s predecessor, Ambrosius Aurelianus (AA) “based his power on the civitas of the Dobunni”. But they don’t really weigh it against the evidence that points in a different direction: the association of the name Aurelius with the Hoxne horde in Suffolk; the fact that, in the HB and elsewhere, Vortigern’s family is strongly associated with Dobunnia and Cornovia but Ambrosius seems to be their enemy; the fact that, in the HB, it is in Gwynedd that AA takes over a stronghold (his first) from Vortigern; and the prevalence of Amber- place-names all over lowland southern Britain. I’d have liked to see a map of all these Amber- place names, rather than those chosen *because* they are in or near Dobunnia.
I’m less convinced of (2), especially because of the land of the Hwicce, as recorded as a sub-kingdom of Mercia (probably) in the Tribal Hidage. The boundaries of this sub-kingdom lie within the Dobunnic country, so it seems probable to me that it (Hwicce) was conquered all at once, rather than piecemeal. It is often assumed that this is what happened, with the conquest being by the West Saxons in 577 (or thereabouts). By contrast, the authors suggest that only southern Hwicce was conquered then, while the northern part somehow became the core territory of Mercia as it emerged as a kingdom in the early 7th century. Then, they say, Hwicce was reunited as a single territory, under Mercian hegemony, in 628. I think that if this were how events had unfolded, the southern part would, after two generations, already have a separate identity, and would not have been reunified with the northern part. If the counter-argument is “no, it was reunited because its Dobunnic identity was so strong”, then why was this tribal name not preserved? Other Brittonic tribal names were preserved as English county names (Kent, Dorset, Devon).
Regarding (3), the authors make the case for Penda’s name having a British origin, and point out (as is well known) his alliances with Welsh kings. But my biggest problem with claim (3), as well as what follows from my skepticism about (2), is Penda’s paganism. Yes, he seems to have been religiously tolerant and (at least some of) the Christian kings of Wales allied with him. But Christianity is at the core of Arthur’s identity in both the HB and the AC. I would also question the statement by Laycock and Gidlow that the “huge Anglo-Saxon advances pretty much stop [after c.617] Why? Because of Penda.” Surely a more straight-forward answer is “Because, by then, almost all of lowland Britain had already been conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, including the Mercians.”
I’ll finish with a few other minor criticisms (because I’m an academic, I can’t help myself)
1. Perhaps because it is co-authored, this book doesn’t seem as coherent as either author’s earlier books, especially _Britannia the Failed State_ by Laycock, and _The Reign of Arthur_ by Gidlow. For example, this statement “There seems to be a rough geographical order in how Gildas lists the five rulers.” is made three times in _King Arthur’s Country_, with different wording, each time as if new.
2. The authors bemoan (rightly) the mainstream academic dismissal of Arthur as a potentially historical figure, in vogue since it was put forth by Dumville in the 1970s, in reaction to the work of Morris in particular. But they also use an elaborate version of a Welsh folk-tale (Culhwch and Olwen), perhaps written down c.1100, and a Welsh work of fantastic fiction (The Dream of Rhonabwy), perhaps written in c.1400, as sources for 5th/6th century history. This is exactly the approach to history by Morris which prompted Dumville’s attack. These sources are not central to their thesis, but their use at all will surely open the authors to academic criticism.
3. The authors never give a suggested timeline for post-Roman Britain. That’s fine, as it is not essential to their thesis. But then it leads to claims that don’t really make sense, like the claim that the father of AA was perhaps transferred to Kent with the Legio II Augusta. This is generally thought to have happened c.402 at the latest, which is hardly compatible with this father’s being killed in a revolt that the authors seem to place well into the second half of the 5th century.
4. The data presented in the maps do not, to my eye, always support the conclusions the authors draw from them. For example, the Quoit Brooch Style belt fittings map looks to me to be a pretty weak match with what one would expect for a coastal defence force.
5. Many of their claims are dubious or overly bold. To choose an interesting example, the authors say that Penda (unlike Offa) did not fight against Welsh kingdoms. But we don’t know this -- it is only supposition from the absence of any sure record of such campaigns, and records in this period are far from complete. Moreover, according to the AC, during Penda’s reign there occurred “the hammering of Dyfed, where the monastery of Saint David was burnt”, and also “the slaughter of Gwent”, and we don’t know who was responsible for these actions. It is notable that only the northern Welsh kingdoms (Gwynedd, Powys, and Pengwern) are recorded as allying with Penda.
For those who don’t know much about the historical Arthur, this book covers all the basics — especially the written sources of Gildas, the Historia Brittonum (HB), and the Annales Cambriae (AC) — with clarity, although not in as much detail as Gidlow’s earlier book _The Reign of Arthur_. What sets it apart from that is its attention to archaeological and other non-textual evidence. This includes the usual brooches, buckles, and coins, which are plotted in maps, illustrated in sketches, and shown in black and white plates. The authors also present archaeological evidence for building and economic activity, and plenty of place-name analysis. For the last of these, I would rather have seen more done with maps and Appendices, rather than having all the potential locations for Arthurian sites (e.g. more than 10 for Camlann) analysed in the text, which for me caused the flow of the book to slow.
Most intriguingly to me (though sadly not illustrated in the book, presumably for copyright reasons) is an analysis of the depictions of clothing in the so-called Vergilius Romanus. This is a book, quite probably, created in 5th century Britain, of Vergil’s Aeneid with numerous colour illustrations. The authors’ sharp examination of these illustrations allow them to make a plausible case that its likeliest place of composition was not just Britain, but the south-western midlands.
From all of the evidence, Laycock and Gidlow identify the heart of Brittonic (ie. native, not Anglo-Saxon) power in post-Roman Britain as being the country of the Dobunni. This was a pre-Roman tribe, a Roman Civitas (i.e. one of the local government areas of Roman Britain, each comparable in size to Yorkshire), and arguably a post-Roman kingdom. It was located around the lower Severn valley, and including the cities of Gloucester and Cirencester. This is the “One Land” of the title.
The central thesis of the book is that
1) the Dobunnic country was the core territory of the 5th century British leaders (in particular Vortigern, then Ambrosius Aurelianus, then Arthur)
2) it was also the core territory of the early-mid 7th century Mercian leaders (in particular Penda).
3) Penda can be thought of as Arthur’s political successor.
The authors do a good job of making (1) plausible, though not proven. For example, the authors amass a lot of evidence in support of their conclusion that Arthur’s predecessor, Ambrosius Aurelianus (AA) “based his power on the civitas of the Dobunni”. But they don’t really weigh it against the evidence that points in a different direction: the association of the name Aurelius with the Hoxne horde in Suffolk; the fact that, in the HB and elsewhere, Vortigern’s family is strongly associated with Dobunnia and Cornovia but Ambrosius seems to be their enemy; the fact that, in the HB, it is in Gwynedd that AA takes over a stronghold (his first) from Vortigern; and the prevalence of Amber- place-names all over lowland southern Britain. I’d have liked to see a map of all these Amber- place names, rather than those chosen *because* they are in or near Dobunnia.
I’m less convinced of (2), especially because of the land of the Hwicce, as recorded as a sub-kingdom of Mercia (probably) in the Tribal Hidage. The boundaries of this sub-kingdom lie within the Dobunnic country, so it seems probable to me that it (Hwicce) was conquered all at once, rather than piecemeal. It is often assumed that this is what happened, with the conquest being by the West Saxons in 577 (or thereabouts). By contrast, the authors suggest that only southern Hwicce was conquered then, while the northern part somehow became the core territory of Mercia as it emerged as a kingdom in the early 7th century. Then, they say, Hwicce was reunited as a single territory, under Mercian hegemony, in 628. I think that if this were how events had unfolded, the southern part would, after two generations, already have a separate identity, and would not have been reunified with the northern part. If the counter-argument is “no, it was reunited because its Dobunnic identity was so strong”, then why was this tribal name not preserved? Other Brittonic tribal names were preserved as English county names (Kent, Dorset, Devon).
Regarding (3), the authors make the case for Penda’s name having a British origin, and point out (as is well known) his alliances with Welsh kings. But my biggest problem with claim (3), as well as what follows from my skepticism about (2), is Penda’s paganism. Yes, he seems to have been religiously tolerant and (at least some of) the Christian kings of Wales allied with him. But Christianity is at the core of Arthur’s identity in both the HB and the AC. I would also question the statement by Laycock and Gidlow that the “huge Anglo-Saxon advances pretty much stop [after c.617] Why? Because of Penda.” Surely a more straight-forward answer is “Because, by then, almost all of lowland Britain had already been conquered by the Anglo-Saxons, including the Mercians.”
I’ll finish with a few other minor criticisms (because I’m an academic, I can’t help myself)
1. Perhaps because it is co-authored, this book doesn’t seem as coherent as either author’s earlier books, especially _Britannia the Failed State_ by Laycock, and _The Reign of Arthur_ by Gidlow. For example, this statement “There seems to be a rough geographical order in how Gildas lists the five rulers.” is made three times in _King Arthur’s Country_, with different wording, each time as if new.
2. The authors bemoan (rightly) the mainstream academic dismissal of Arthur as a potentially historical figure, in vogue since it was put forth by Dumville in the 1970s, in reaction to the work of Morris in particular. But they also use an elaborate version of a Welsh folk-tale (Culhwch and Olwen), perhaps written down c.1100, and a Welsh work of fantastic fiction (The Dream of Rhonabwy), perhaps written in c.1400, as sources for 5th/6th century history. This is exactly the approach to history by Morris which prompted Dumville’s attack. These sources are not central to their thesis, but their use at all will surely open the authors to academic criticism.
3. The authors never give a suggested timeline for post-Roman Britain. That’s fine, as it is not essential to their thesis. But then it leads to claims that don’t really make sense, like the claim that the father of AA was perhaps transferred to Kent with the Legio II Augusta. This is generally thought to have happened c.402 at the latest, which is hardly compatible with this father’s being killed in a revolt that the authors seem to place well into the second half of the 5th century.
4. The data presented in the maps do not, to my eye, always support the conclusions the authors draw from them. For example, the Quoit Brooch Style belt fittings map looks to me to be a pretty weak match with what one would expect for a coastal defence force.
5. Many of their claims are dubious or overly bold. To choose an interesting example, the authors say that Penda (unlike Offa) did not fight against Welsh kingdoms. But we don’t know this -- it is only supposition from the absence of any sure record of such campaigns, and records in this period are far from complete. Moreover, according to the AC, during Penda’s reign there occurred “the hammering of Dyfed, where the monastery of Saint David was burnt”, and also “the slaughter of Gwent”, and we don’t know who was responsible for these actions. It is notable that only the northern Welsh kingdoms (Gwynedd, Powys, and Pengwern) are recorded as allying with Penda.
Displaying 1 of 1 review