Arthur and the Kings of Britain: The Historical Truth Behind the Myths

by Miles Russell

Written in 1136 by Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) purported to chronicle the British monarchy from the arrival of the Trojan Brutus, grandson of Aeneas, through to the seventh century AD when the Anglo-Saxons had taken control of the land. The Historia was a medieval bestseller, and copies spread across the whole of western Europe. It went on to influence great works of art and literature, being the first to outline the story of King Arthur as well as laying the foundations for King Lear and Cymbeline, both later immortalised by Shakespeare.Although it claimed to be history, the Historia has long been dismissed as an unreliable piece of medieval propaganda and national mythmaking. A new examination of the text, however, shows that it is very much more than that. In this ground-breaking new book, Miles Russell explains how individual elements of the Historia can be traced back to the first century BC, a time when Britain was making first contact with Rome. Geoffrey of Monmouth’s skill was to weave these early traditions together with folklore and material culled from post-Roman sources, in order to create a national epic. In doing so, he also created King Arthur, a composite character whose real origins and context are explained here.This important new work establishes Geoffrey of Monmouth as no mere peddler of historical fiction, but as the man who preserved the earliest foundation myths of Britain. It is time to re-evaluate the Historia Regum Britanniae and shine a new light into the so-called ‘Dark Ages’.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Historical

336 pages, Hardcover

Published June 1, 2017

Reviews

[Howard Wiseman · Rating 1 out of 5]

(I read this as a google-play e-book.) Russell is an archaeologist. I quite liked his earlier book "Bloodline", a somewhat revisionist history about the first 150 years of relations between Romans and Britons (c.50 BCE - 100 CE), based on the contemporary histories, and archaeological finds. This book obviously grew out of his interest in that same period, but is far less satisfactory. The bulk of the book is a reëxamination of the 12th Century Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) by Geoffrey of Monmouth, which covers the period c.1200 BCE to c.700 CE. That book is widely regarded as almost entirely fiction, composed by Geoffrey himself. But Russell claims that most of it is actually based on lost British sources from the period mentioned above, c.50 BCE - 100 CE. This is an extraordinary claim, as there is no hint of any such records(*) and nor do native legends of this type survive from any of the illiterate tribes that Rome conquered anywhere in Europe, as far as I'm aware.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Unfortunately, the evidence Russell provides is extraordinary only for its flimsiness, given his academic background. His methodology is that of the pseudo-historian, or, one might even say, that of the conspiracy theorist:
* Far too often, ideas that begin as "Could it be that ..." questions in one chapter become facts by the next chapter.
* Every mention of Cornwall (to take an example) by Geoffrey becomes, for Russell, a mention of the Catuvellauni from the area north of London. There is no justification for this other than it fits his preconceived hypothesis. The same sorts of claims are made of other place names.
* King Cunobelinus (to take an example), according to Russell, appears with multiple different names in multiple different centuries in Geoffrey's narrative. Similar claims are made for just about every important Briton in the historical record in Russell's period of interest, c.50 BCE - 100 CE. I am no linguist, but I know enough to tell that Russell is no linguist either, as he gives no scholarly analysis of how each of these numerous name transformations could occur.
* No rigorous argument (involving postulated specific texts with transmission histories) is given to explain how Geoffrey could have ended up with so many distorted versions of genuine legends from more than 1000 years earlier.

Russell also makes claims beyond that early period e.g. that the Saxon Aelle was actually the Romano-Briton Ambrosius Aurelianus, and that Arthur "cannot have existed". These are equally baseless. For the reader looking for an introduction to Geoffrey of Monmouth's pseudohistory, and its relation to real history, I suggest Geoffrey Ashe's "Kings and Queens of Early Britain". It is not only better written and more entertaining; it is also a far better guide to the actual value of Geoffrey of Monmouth's work as history. For the reader interested in the period when Rome came to rule Britain, stick to Russell's earlier book. In both cases, steer clear of this one.

(*) A few similar legends do appear in the 9th Century Historia Brittonum, but this is not surprising since Geoffrey almost certainly did use this as one of his sources.

[Tony Riches · Rating 4 out of 5]

I've always had a fascination with the 'Dark Ages' and look out for new discoveries, so was keen to read this book from Dr Miles Russell. I don't suppose we'll ever know how much of the Arthurian legends are based on fact, although there is some analysis here about the Historia Regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain), which places King Arthur's possible origins in context and suggests we should at least keep an open mind.

The subtitle is The Historical Truth Behind the Myths, and Miles Russell prefaces his book with a thought-provoking quote from Michael Wood:

"The continued retelling of the story in the folk tradition has produced its own narrative, accumulating fabulous detail over many centuries, ending up far more wonderful than historical fact, but in some mysterious way reflecting a kind of crystallised essence of the original story."

I was intrigued with the theory that the British monarchy might owe more than we expect to the Trojan Brutus, and there are some interesting ideas about the origins of London which I've not seen before.

This book also adds weight to the works of Geoffrey of Monmouth as and the re-evaluation of what has previously been dismissed as myth and legend. Recommended for anyone who'd like a better understanding of the early kings of Britain.

Tony Riches

[Kerry Hennigan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Miles Russell has written a scholarly examination of the traditional histories of the kings of Britain that is rather exhaustive in its examination of the earliest sources. The inclusion of Arthur in the title is enticing, but also rather misleading, as his reputed place in history comes late in the narrative that Russell is examining. Going back to the works of Gildas, Bede, Geoffrey of Monmouth, Nennius, the accounts of Classical Roman and Greek writers, and the Anglo Saxon Chronicles, and taking into account local myths and legends, Russell searches for any truth in often conflicting frequently implausible stories. Finally, we get to some familiar names, including Arthur and his father Uther, who step up to defend the land in the wake of Rome’s official departure and the rising prominence of the Germanic tribes, i.e. the Saxons, who would ultimately hold sway in parts of the island that would become England.

“Arthur and the Kings of Britain: the Historical Truth Behind the Myths” is, for the lay reader of history, a rather exhaustive dissection of the source material; and is perhaps more useful to students of the subject matter than to casual readers. It comes complete with extensive Notes and a Bibliography.

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found the title misleading. After listening to a podcast with the author I thought this book would focus on Arthur but by the time we got to Arthur (the book was mostly a long list of kings from pre-Roman Britain to the dark ages) I was over it and found the analysis of Arthur brief. It seems a cheap ploy to get people to buy the book on Arthur’s popularity.

This title should have reflected that the book is really a reanalysis of Geoffrey of Monmouth much maligned book historia regum britanniae. Although most of the suggestions as to what Geoffrey ‘could’ have meant was massaged, a lot, and at times became repetitive- it is an interesting topic in and of itself.

I would have preferred the book to focus on the analysis of the book and use Bede and Nennius more to support / contradict rather than examine each authors contribution to the list of kings.

I think it would have been worthwhile to put some context in - why Geoffrey might have favoured some kings stories and why his book may have been so popular in the time.

The analysis of Arthur and what Geoffrey actually wrote could have been so much more.

For lovers of dark age British history I recommend the British History Podcast by Jamie Jeffers.

[джаймс X · Rating 2 out of 5]

I gave this two stars for thoroughness, but I really struggled as I did not enjoy this at all.

My biggest problem with this is it does not do what it says on the tin. Arthur only appears at the very end of the book and the entire focus and trajectory of the preceding density is brought into focus as the author's theory is made clear. I think the thesis should have just been set out from the beginning. And for a figure to have such high billing in the title to barely appear in the book feels like clickbait.

Also, "the truth behind the myths" is a bit misleading as there is a lot of supposition and theorising.

[Charles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great insights to the likely real King Arthur, the origins of the legend and the times. One for all king Arthur fans to read

[Annie · Rating 4 out of 5]

The begats in the Bible have nothing on the confusion of names here.
But, it is the names that help clear the fog of confusion, as layers of retelling, folk memories, political statements, are added to possible events and people.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a compelling read and a vital addition to the Arthurian Legend debate. Historian Russell has clearly invested much time in poring over source material in dusty libraries in search of the keys to unlocking a new understanding of the incredible (and some might say fanciful) works of both Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth - the ninth and twelfth century writers who gave us the earliest accounts of King Arthur.
He asserts that both writers (note: 'Nennius' may have been a group effort) collated a wide range of source material, most of which is known to our contemporary historians - but there is the tantalising possibility of lost texts, most notably of accounts of the Roman invasions and occupation, and of tribal conflicts, from the perspective of Briton tribes.
Russell draws comparisons between Nennius and Monmouth, trying to identify common threads, and attempting to make sense of, or decode, their narratives. The garbled nature of written oral tales, name and time confusions, presented both authors with problems and editorial decisions to be made. Russell is of the view that whilst Nennius was inclined to identify contradictions where they occurred, Monmouth had a tendency to 'massage the information and smooth out inconsistencies in order to create a single grand narrative'. This, in a nutshell, is why Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain's has been dismissed by historians as a wildly inaccurate and fanciful work of fiction.
Russell is more forgiving. His interpretation of the 'fantastic' achievements of King Arthur in Monmouth's Historia is that it is a composite of the achievements of earlier heroes and kings, most notably of Ambrosius Aurelianus, a more believable 'real' mid-fifth century king. The romantic in me wants to cling to the notion that perhaps there was also a military leader called Arthur or Artorius, upon whose shoulders Monmouth has added much weight. In fact, the key to understanding Monmouth, according to Russell, is in his confusion over source material that results in the repetition and almost random placing of snippets of tales of bravery, treachery and stiff resistance to invaders dating back to the shock of the Julius Caesar landings in 55 and 54 BC. King Arthur, he asserts, never existed in the heroic form we have come to know. In Monmouth's Historia he is a composite character made up of the achievements and actions of others who came before.
I have marked this engaging book down from five to four stars because of the lengthy academia of early chapters that must be waded through, and the feeling of being left unfulfilled, as if there is a lot more to this subject matter than is contained in this book. Could Russell have gone further in straightening out Monmouth's twisted narrative? Otherwise, an interesting and worthy read for those interested in the origins of myths that have come to occupy the black hole in our early history.

[Liam Guilar · Rating 1 out of 5]

An Archeologist does source analysis using texts in translation?