The Reign of Arthur: From History to Legend

by Christopher Gidlow

Did King Arthur really exist? The Reign of Arthur takes a fresh look at the early sources describing Arthur's career and compares them to the reality of Britain in the fifth and sixth centuries. It presents, for the first time, both the most up to date scholarship and a convincing case for the existence of a real sixth-century British general called Arthur. Where others speculate wildly or else avoid the issue, Gidlow, remaining faithful to the sources, deals directly with the central issue of interest to the general does the Arthur that we read of in the ninth-century sources have any link to a real leader of the fifth or sixth century? Was Arthur a powerful king or a Dark Age general co-cordinating the British resistance to Saxon invaders? Detailed analysis of the key Arthurian sources, contemporary testimony and archaeology reveals the reality of fragmented British kingdoms uniting under a single military command to defeat the Saxons. There is plausible and convincing evidence for the existence of their war-leader, and, in this challenging and provocative work, Gidlow concludes that the Dark Age hypothesis of Arthur, War-leader of the Kings of the Britons, not only fits the facts, it is the only way of making sense of them.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Arthurian

288 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[J. Ellyne · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the best of several books I read as part of the research I was doing for the fourth novel of my series, the Fair and Fey. It's true history but, unlike most history books, is written more like a novel and is a real page turner, quite exciting. The suspense of its plot is to discover from evidence whether or not King Arthur was a real person or just a made up myth. Certainly some of his legendary feats sound mythical but there was a well known warrior king named Arthur and he did lead the united small kingdoms of the British to defeat the Saxons in a sequence of 12 battles, culminating with a final and complete victory at Mount Badon. Before he began this amazing campaign, The Saxons held most of the country they had named Anglesland (England). Arthur pushed them back to a small holding in the southeast, claiming most of the island for the British. Of course history tells us this was only temporary. The Reign of Arthur also tells us the Arthur really did have as son (Mordred) born out of an incestuous affair with his sister Anna. It's also true that Arthur had a wife called Guinevere.

The book uses facts to take a departure from the Arthurian romances based on Sir Thomas Mallory's Morte de Arthur. There was no Lancelot. It was Arthur's son, Mordred, who had an affair with Guinevere. It happened while Arthur was away with most of his army on a military campaign in Gaul on the mainland. Mordred was left in charge of Arthur's united kingdoms in Brittania and, after claiming Guinevere as his wife, although she was Catholic and could not divorce Arthur, Mordred claimed the crown as well. News of this got to Arthur and he returned home to set things right. His armies and Mordred's clashed at the (real) battle of Camlan where Mordred killed Arthur in hand to hand combat. Gidlow weaves historical fact with well written dramatic description of these events that make for excellent reading. I recommend this book even if your not into history books. I will use the facts contained in it as the basis for my fourth novel, The Elves of Avalon, wherein I will continue the story of the Elves interwoven with the story of Arthur and the British, both of them Fair and Fey.

[Reading Through the Lists · Rating 4 out of 5]

I start with a confession: I did not completely finish this book. This was not my fault, but rather due to the fact that it was borrowed from the professor I wrote the term paper for. And once the paper was finished...well it might have negatively influenced my grade to have kept it.
*Ahem*
Of the 10 to 15 books I read for my term papers this semester (both Arthurian in nature) this was one of the three most helpful. Gidlow's main position is that there is ample literary evidence for the existence of a historical Arthur, a man with a similar name living in the 5th-6th century who was indeed the victor of Mt. Badon. This is not the Arthur of Malory or Geoffrey of Monmouth but a real British (or possibly Scottish) warrior of his time, an Arthur who gained so much fame that he would eventually be remembered in legend.
Gidlow's work read plausibly and convincingly. His greatest strength, I believe, is the respect he has for literary sources. Instead of treating them as the fanciful wish-fulfillments of lonely Welsh monks, he actually treats them as works that deserve, if not complete trust, than at least respectful consideration. Just because something is old does not mean it is all made up. This is not, unfortunately, the universal view of other Arthurian scholars. Cough, cough. Now I will admit that Gidlow's arguments seemed particularly convincing to me because my professor is a firm believer in a historical Arthur and I am easily influenced. And I love Arthur. What can I say?
So if you feel that Gidlow doesn't do a fair job, and perhaps gives too much credit to literary sources, than as a counter, I recommend Worlds of Arthur by Guy Halsell, which takes the opposite stance on just about every issue. Read both and then decide which better addresses the question. But either way if you have even the least bit of interest in Arthur do not fail to read this or other credible works; nothing can make you appreciate both Dark Age history and Arthurian literature more.

[Ben · Rating 3 out of 5]

A book of two halves for me. Loved the first half, thought it made a good case for the historical Arthur as a real war leader who took the battle against the Saxons to Badon and then died at Camlann. Second half explored the more fanciful later historical texts, but not knowing these in detail myself, it was harder to follow the discussion and I was left a little unengaged.

[Bettie]

Description: In this work, Christopher Gidlow takes look at the early sources describing Arthur's career and compares them to the reality of fifth and sixth-century life in Britain, presenting a case for the existence of Arthur.

Medieval legends of Arthur abound and, until recently, were thought to preserve historical evidence from the Arthurian age. Modern research has overturned that idea but the resulting backlash against the dark-age sources is, as Gidlow shows, an overreaction.

Working from history to legend, he compares the earliest references to Arthur - a late sixth-century comparison between him and a slain northern warrior and a detailed account of Arthur's career in the Historia Brittonum three centuries later - with contemporary testimony, archaeological discoveries and Arthurian legends. The picture which emerges - the only one to fit all the facts - is that of a dark-age general who united the Kings of the Britons and led them to fight against the invading Saxons. There is evidence for the existence of this war-leader, and no other name for him but Arthur.

The Reign of Arthur includes a new setting for Arthur's greatest battle, a likely place for his last battle and fresh suggestions about his tomb at Glastonbury. It also identifies an areas of operations in the region of Hay-on-Wye. Based on the latest research, this book is a addition to our knowledge of the elusive Arthur.

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every legend has to start somewhere. Storytellers will take a small kernel of truth and expand upon it and then the story grows with each telling and each generation. So goes the legend of King Arthur. Did he actually exist? I do not know if this book will answer the question, but it might pose some plausible ideas towards that possibility.

Update: Gidlow is very methodical in his approach in trying to answer - "Did the King Arthur of legend exist?" He carefully navigates several texts that scholars have used over the years and deduces much from them.

Gidlow's writing style is very readable and accessible. He presents ideas in a way that can be understood by anyone interested in the Arthurian legend...not just those with medieval literature degrees.

[Carla Nayland]

A clear and scholarly survey of the historical source material about King Arthur and its later development into legend. Review: http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/r...

[Prue · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was OK. There were some chapters that were really good and others that were a bit dry. I did find that Gidlow would pick and choose pieces of legend from sources that could be plausible, despite there being faults that glaringly undermined the authenticity of his sources (e.g. Geoffrey of Monmouth).

I do think Gidlow did a very impressive amount of research, and there were times when the overwhelming number of Names and Places, as well as their numerous varied spellings, did become confusing. A glossary for readers who know less about this period may have been beneficial, but I can't say it hugely detracted from Gidlow's research.

Overall, this is a thoughtful book with a lot of dedicated research and it was an interesting read, if not a little confusing at times.

[Lady and the Cat · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was a really interesting read and I felt it offered a non-biased analysis of who Arthur could have been and why there are so many conflicting versions of him.

However, I did feel that this book is aimed at readers who already have an academic understanding of Arthur in both a "historical" and mythical sense. Unfortunately that isn't me, so I did find this book difficult to follow as it covers a lot of detailed ground with reference to multiple secondary sources of which I was not familiar and struggled to contextualize. Someone more knowledgeable on the subject matter and time periods referred to probably wouldn't find it as difficult to digest as I did.

[Pinko Palest · Rating 4 out of 5]

very lucid, and discusses its main points well. It might be just a bit taxing for the casual reader, and is also a little repetitive, but it is a very useful and at times enjoyable read, which makes a good case for some sort of historical Arthur having existed around 520 AD

[Sam Bartrum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Does a good job at arguing for a historical figure without pushing an outlandish theory as too his identity.

[Elentarri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Gidlow provides a comprehensive, scholarly analysis of ancient texts with a comparison of what is known of 5th and 6th century British life in an effort to determine if the fabled Arthur is a real person. Gidlow also examines how a 5th/6th century warrior became the "King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table". Interesting, but after a while all the picking apart of old texts and the "could have been", "might have been", "it is plausible" just got tedious. A bit more archaeological evidence would have been useful. Arthur fanatics will find the book interesting.