What do you think?
Rate this book
King Arthur's Wars: The Anglo-Saxon Conquest of England
The story of an era shrouded in mystery, and the gradual changing of a nation's cultural identity.
We speak English today, because the Anglo-Saxons took over most of post-Roman Britain. How did that happen? There is little not much archaeology, and even less written history. There is, however, a huge amount of speculation. King Arthur's Wars brings an entirely new approach to the subject--the answers are out there, in the British countryside, waiting to be found.
Months of field work and map study allow us to understand, for the first time, how the Anglo-Saxons conquered England, county by county and decade by decade.
King Arthur's Wars exposes what the landscape and the place names tell us. As a result, we can now know far more about this "Dark Age." What is so special about Essex? Why is Buckinghamshire an odd shape? Why is the legend of King Arthur so special to us? Why don't Cumbrian farmers use English numbers when they count sheep? Why don't we know where Camelot was? Why did the Romano-British stop eating oysters? This book provides a new level of understanding of the centuries preceding the Norman Conquest.
We speak English today, because the Anglo-Saxons took over most of post-Roman Britain. How did that happen? There is little not much archaeology, and even less written history. There is, however, a huge amount of speculation. King Arthur's Wars brings an entirely new approach to the subject--the answers are out there, in the British countryside, waiting to be found.
Months of field work and map study allow us to understand, for the first time, how the Anglo-Saxons conquered England, county by county and decade by decade.
King Arthur's Wars exposes what the landscape and the place names tell us. As a result, we can now know far more about this "Dark Age." What is so special about Essex? Why is Buckinghamshire an odd shape? Why is the legend of King Arthur so special to us? Why don't Cumbrian farmers use English numbers when they count sheep? Why don't we know where Camelot was? Why did the Romano-British stop eating oysters? This book provides a new level of understanding of the centuries preceding the Norman Conquest.
302 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 20, 2016
173 people are currently reading
187 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 - 29 of 29 reviews
March 31, 2017
This book is totally misnamed as being anything to do with "King" Arthur.
It is more to do with earthworks in post-Roman Britain with a great deal of supposition concerning the historical events of the period.
A more fitting title would be Dykes of the Dark Ages; that would have attracted a much different readership who would have been equally disappointed.
It is more to do with earthworks in post-Roman Britain with a great deal of supposition concerning the historical events of the period.
A more fitting title would be Dykes of the Dark Ages; that would have attracted a much different readership who would have been equally disappointed.
November 29, 2018
The first thing that needs to be said about this book is that it is not about King Arthur. Arthur is touched upon, but far from central. The second thing that needs to be said is that this book needed another pass by the proof-reader; sentence structure and other errors abound. Instead it is about the Anglo-Saxon wars both between their own kingdoms (i.e. Mercia vs. Wessex) and between the Anglo-Saxons and the native British/Welsh. It's also not a typical history book in that it doesn't always follow on chronicles and documents of the period, but instead treats man-made geographical features, such as ditches and dykes, as a "primary source" from which to interpret the sequence of events or upon which to speculate. As the author has experience as an infantryman and therefore experience of land warfare, he's in a good position to interpret how these earthworks were built and used and why. The reading is a little dry, but I definitely learned a great deal about medieval land warfare that I've never seen discussed in any of the other histories of this period that I have read.
January 5, 2020
Dykes and ditches of the dark ages. That’s pretty much what this book is. Oh, and the author frequently interjecting how other people’s work on the subject is shite.
You’ll learn something about the earthworks of Dark Age England, so it’s not a total loss ... but it’s close.
You’ll learn something about the earthworks of Dark Age England, so it’s not a total loss ... but it’s close.
December 4, 2017
It's a shame that the title trivialises the enormous scope of this work - which is magnificent.
In fact it is a personal survey by an infantry soldier of the earthworks left over from the Dark Ages, after the Romans left, and the Anglo-Saxons were invading.
He explains why we have Grim's ditches, Offa's Dyke, Bokerly ditch and may others. He has personally walked a vast number of miles from East Anglia to the West Country, and for the first time explained so much of the unknown that is plainly visible.
The experience of the army in the first war digging trenches tells us something about the manpower required to dig these earthworks, but I should have liked to see more space set aside for this.
A great book.
In fact it is a personal survey by an infantry soldier of the earthworks left over from the Dark Ages, after the Romans left, and the Anglo-Saxons were invading.
He explains why we have Grim's ditches, Offa's Dyke, Bokerly ditch and may others. He has personally walked a vast number of miles from East Anglia to the West Country, and for the first time explained so much of the unknown that is plainly visible.
The experience of the army in the first war digging trenches tells us something about the manpower required to dig these earthworks, but I should have liked to see more space set aside for this.
A great book.
August 6, 2018
If you like dykes you will like this book. This is not an "Arthur" book.
November 6, 2018
Speculation
An interesting book but not rigorous or historical. The author relies on sources for the migration period which are discredited by historians: for example, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles pre Seventh Century are relied on extensively and without much reflection. The majority of historians have for many years concluded that the Chronicles are probably ninth century invention up until c.600 to c.650 and pretty unreliable thereafter. The major theme of the book is that extensive dyke works reflect different stages of an ongoing struggle between Anglo Saxon and Romano- British political entities lasting for centuries. However many of these dykes may have pre-dated the events in question. They may also have been constructed for different purposes ie in relation to warfare between different (and pre-migration) Romano-British entities or between different Anglo-Saxon entities. Too many statements are made without supporting evidence - for example the East Saxons are stated definitively as having been settled by ‘Arthur’ in Essex as a defence against Anglians in Suffolk and Norfolk and that they fulfilled that role. Is there is any evidence to support this or to show that the East Saxons were not also uninvited migrants or rebellious foederati? A further concern is that the vision of the book pre-supposes that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ migrants were hell bent on conquering Britain but were held in check by an organised Romano-British polity. The reality is likely to have involved much less strategic intent. The original migrants / rebelling foederati were almost certainly interested in land and settlement rather than conquest. Where they successfully established themselves in different locations they would have been more interested in subsistence than warfare against numerically stronger neighbouring populations. Early migrant communities were not ruled by kings initially and it took 100 or more years for the concept of kingship and strong political centres to develop amongst them. The earliest recorded king is Aethelbert of Kent and it is very likely that he was emulating Frankish development across the channel with whom he had close links. Other communities only developed strong political organisation much later so it is unsurprising that these communities also took time to expand from their starting points. As they did develop strong political centres they came into increasing conflict with their neighbours - whether Romano-British communities or other Anglo -Saxon communities. There is however no real evidence of an overall ‘Anglo-Saxon’ versus ‘Romano-British’ struggle across four centuries as this book implies. ‘Wars’ in the fifth- sixth centuries were likely much more localised dynastic disputes and the fact that the nascent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were able to expand westward (despite their predilection for fighting each other) suggests much less organisation within Romano-British communities across Eastern Britain than this book suggests. Overall some interesting points are lost in attempting to create an overarching vision that isn’t really supported by the evidence.
An interesting book but not rigorous or historical. The author relies on sources for the migration period which are discredited by historians: for example, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles pre Seventh Century are relied on extensively and without much reflection. The majority of historians have for many years concluded that the Chronicles are probably ninth century invention up until c.600 to c.650 and pretty unreliable thereafter. The major theme of the book is that extensive dyke works reflect different stages of an ongoing struggle between Anglo Saxon and Romano- British political entities lasting for centuries. However many of these dykes may have pre-dated the events in question. They may also have been constructed for different purposes ie in relation to warfare between different (and pre-migration) Romano-British entities or between different Anglo-Saxon entities. Too many statements are made without supporting evidence - for example the East Saxons are stated definitively as having been settled by ‘Arthur’ in Essex as a defence against Anglians in Suffolk and Norfolk and that they fulfilled that role. Is there is any evidence to support this or to show that the East Saxons were not also uninvited migrants or rebellious foederati? A further concern is that the vision of the book pre-supposes that ‘Anglo-Saxon’ migrants were hell bent on conquering Britain but were held in check by an organised Romano-British polity. The reality is likely to have involved much less strategic intent. The original migrants / rebelling foederati were almost certainly interested in land and settlement rather than conquest. Where they successfully established themselves in different locations they would have been more interested in subsistence than warfare against numerically stronger neighbouring populations. Early migrant communities were not ruled by kings initially and it took 100 or more years for the concept of kingship and strong political centres to develop amongst them. The earliest recorded king is Aethelbert of Kent and it is very likely that he was emulating Frankish development across the channel with whom he had close links. Other communities only developed strong political organisation much later so it is unsurprising that these communities also took time to expand from their starting points. As they did develop strong political centres they came into increasing conflict with their neighbours - whether Romano-British communities or other Anglo -Saxon communities. There is however no real evidence of an overall ‘Anglo-Saxon’ versus ‘Romano-British’ struggle across four centuries as this book implies. ‘Wars’ in the fifth- sixth centuries were likely much more localised dynastic disputes and the fact that the nascent Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were able to expand westward (despite their predilection for fighting each other) suggests much less organisation within Romano-British communities across Eastern Britain than this book suggests. Overall some interesting points are lost in attempting to create an overarching vision that isn’t really supported by the evidence.
December 28, 2023
Makes complete sense and you must view the evidence with an unbiased eye
I found the whole treatment of the period by the author to be fresh and relevant. He uses his military expertise to analyse the available information most of which is still there to view, namely the dykes of Britain.
I have given it 5 stars purely on the strength of the coherent timeline and explanation given by the author. It hangs together very well. He has mostly also avoided the pitfall of other authors who use the "must have" style of writing. He has preferred to use Occham's Razor instead which is a very simple and logical use of reasoning.
The only downside is that I wish the author had presented more "operational" maps throughout the book to stitch together his narrative better. There is only one of these and it's on the appendix section. Non military readers can get lost in the description of what he proposes and so illustrations depicting the sequence of events would be invaluable. Maybe one for a future revision.
Well worth the read
I found the whole treatment of the period by the author to be fresh and relevant. He uses his military expertise to analyse the available information most of which is still there to view, namely the dykes of Britain.
I have given it 5 stars purely on the strength of the coherent timeline and explanation given by the author. It hangs together very well. He has mostly also avoided the pitfall of other authors who use the "must have" style of writing. He has preferred to use Occham's Razor instead which is a very simple and logical use of reasoning.
The only downside is that I wish the author had presented more "operational" maps throughout the book to stitch together his narrative better. There is only one of these and it's on the appendix section. Non military readers can get lost in the description of what he proposes and so illustrations depicting the sequence of events would be invaluable. Maybe one for a future revision.
Well worth the read
February 2, 2018
What I found most interesting and very well researched was the expansive information about the dykes and the place name analysis and tracking, but I also have a couple of gripes. First, the book title. Since this book contains little discussion on the King Arthur figure or his wars, it's poorly and misleadingly named. Not sure if the author intended to appeal to Arthur enthusiasts by including it in the title, but it's an error of judgement. Also, the first part of the book contains a fair amount of criticism of other scholars work. Nothing wrong with having a different view, but the way the author phrases his criticism is poorly communicated and comes across as unnecessarily harsh. Be different and being nice about it would have worked better.
May 14, 2020
It’s true that this book isn’t about King Arthur, but that’s not why it’s bad. In fact, for what it is, he mentions Arthur far too often. It’s really a landscape history of Britain from the Roman occupation to the development of the early English kingdoms. But it’s not very good history. His method was to pore over ordnance survey maps using his military training to look for evidence of dykes and then use “Occam’s razor” to brush aside academic, especially archaeological, research to come to “common sense” conclusions about how wars between the Romano-British and Saxons were fought. A much better history of this period is Robin Fleming’s Britain after Rome.
May 22, 2023
A very detailed look at how the Angles, Saxons and Jutes conquered England, making our language English, not Celtic. I don't know enough about the subject to know how much his conclusions differ from the 'accepted version' and I can't tell if his arguments have force. They seem to, the author has a very precise view of the landscape and is able to picture and show how the British defended themselves from the proto-English.
Unfortunate title for the book, not really about Arthur, the post colon title should have been the main title.
If you really like English history and are interested in the Dark Ages (400-700) this book would be interesting.
Unfortunate title for the book, not really about Arthur, the post colon title should have been the main title.
If you really like English history and are interested in the Dark Ages (400-700) this book would be interesting.
April 21, 2023
The title is misleading, but a quick internet search later I found that it was later reissued as The Anglo Saxon Conquest of England, which is more in line with the actual content of the book.
It's a bit hard te follow at times, but mainly has to do with me not being completely familiar with the geography of England.
But it's an interesting take on history: what can the land tell us that the chronicles don't
It's a bit hard te follow at times, but mainly has to do with me not being completely familiar with the geography of England.
But it's an interesting take on history: what can the land tell us that the chronicles don't
December 15, 2019
An In-depth study of Post-Roman Brittain
Storr takes us through an in-depth study of the all the evidence he can find relating to the "dark ages" (400-800 AD) of post-Roman Brittain. The result is a new (to this untrained eye, at least), well-researched narrative of the likely history of that era.
Storr takes us through an in-depth study of the all the evidence he can find relating to the "dark ages" (400-800 AD) of post-Roman Brittain. The result is a new (to this untrained eye, at least), well-researched narrative of the likely history of that era.
October 5, 2017
Brilliant new hypothesis concerning the Dark Ages.
A solid new method (look at those dykes 9n the countryside!) yields interesting results. Reading this book is per force a bit difficult as it makes extensive use of detailed maps but it is well worth it.
Truly creative.
A solid new method (look at those dykes 9n the countryside!) yields interesting results. Reading this book is per force a bit difficult as it makes extensive use of detailed maps but it is well worth it.
Truly creative.
December 26, 2020
This is a more scholarly book about the Arthur legend. It uncovers the likely suspect of King Arthur in history and gives a compelling academic supported argument for Arthur's existence and his background.
June 17, 2023
An excellent book that takes the previously unexplored post Roman dykes oppression and we've them into a compelling and believable history of the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. If Jim Storr is correct, we need to re-evaluate early mediaeval or dark age warfare in Britain completely.
March 2, 2017
Longer review in preparation, but this book is very highly recommended.
December 11, 2017
This could have been very good, but unfortunately the kindle version is corrupted and missing pages really dampens my enjoyment of a book.
January 21, 2019
May or may not be accurate
But fascinating nonetheless. It really needs to be read with a stack of maps close to hand for constant checking back. And a Roman road map too.
But fascinating nonetheless. It really needs to be read with a stack of maps close to hand for constant checking back. And a Roman road map too.
March 18, 2019
Outstanding historical investigation of the role of fortifications in the Saxon conquest of England.
August 13, 2019
Definitely going to need a couple of rereads, but this was a fascinating look at a period of history that is rather neglected.
October 8, 2020
Interesting book.
November 1, 2020
Quite fascinating.
March 16, 2021
Would make a better video or slide show. Skips around England describing earthworks and dikes. Not easy to follow.
December 2, 2022
Tons of stuff working against this author. First being he constantly refers to the period as the Dark Ages. I thought we were over that? Considering the fact that Ireland alone fucking saved western civilization in this time period, let’s just go with Middle Ages.
The second thing is that the author is incredibly pompous and everyone else’s work on the subject is garbage. I actually liked his take on the importance of what he covered and the way he looked at that era. But his delivery was absolutely ridiculous. His view is correct and that’s it.
Thirdly, the back of the book describes the author as “the British Army‘s most prolific writer and thinker“. Who decides that? And who them describes themself that way?
The title makes sense to me, because of the author’s view that there is no Arthur as has come down to us in myth and legend; instead, he is referring to that time period where Arthur may have lived as “King Arthur’s Wars”, with the conquering of Roman Britain by the Anglo-Saxons. He explains this very early on so people complaining about this are a bit ridiculous.
The second thing is that the author is incredibly pompous and everyone else’s work on the subject is garbage. I actually liked his take on the importance of what he covered and the way he looked at that era. But his delivery was absolutely ridiculous. His view is correct and that’s it.
Thirdly, the back of the book describes the author as “the British Army‘s most prolific writer and thinker“. Who decides that? And who them describes themself that way?
The title makes sense to me, because of the author’s view that there is no Arthur as has come down to us in myth and legend; instead, he is referring to that time period where Arthur may have lived as “King Arthur’s Wars”, with the conquering of Roman Britain by the Anglo-Saxons. He explains this very early on so people complaining about this are a bit ridiculous.
January 10, 2023
Looks at historical records, archeological findings, and man-made changes to the landscape with a military eye: fascinating!
March 4, 2023
This was an interesting read, but it wasn’t really about King Arthur at all.
May 19, 2024
Should have shelved it in Fantasy. Author dismisses any previous historian 'this guy wrote 150 years
February 14, 2023
I have thoroughly enjoyed this book written by a former infantry commander who analyzes the remains of earthworks to be found all across England, shows why they were raised, their purpose in war, and the likely role they played in the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. The scale of some of these engineering projects is absolutely mind boggling.
Most of the negative reviews on here have to do with the disappointment of those who wanted to read about Excalibur and Morgan le (la?) Fey, and this is clearly not a book for them; but the book casts its own magic: right there, under your nose there are ditches and dykes which look like not much ("some dykes") but in which you can read a lot of incredible history, if you only look. A great work for those who love history and archeology. I am not sure what lesson to take regarding the title, except that if your title creates unforeseen expectations, your book will get knocked in reviews.
The audiobook version is excellent, too.
Most of the negative reviews on here have to do with the disappointment of those who wanted to read about Excalibur and Morgan le (la?) Fey, and this is clearly not a book for them; but the book casts its own magic: right there, under your nose there are ditches and dykes which look like not much ("some dykes") but in which you can read a lot of incredible history, if you only look. A great work for those who love history and archeology. I am not sure what lesson to take regarding the title, except that if your title creates unforeseen expectations, your book will get knocked in reviews.
The audiobook version is excellent, too.
October 4, 2023
I thought I would learn about King Arthur's Wars. I was disappointed. I learned very little about King Arthur or the wars. Maybe you will feel differently. Enjoy!
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews