What do you think?
Rate this book
Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms
What began as a short history of Kelso, a small town in the Scottish borders, soon became a romantic search for the elusive Arthur. In a book which argues that previous scholars have been looking in the wrong place, Moffat identifies Arthur as a cavalry general of a Welsh-speaking southern Scottish tribe. Through archaeology, documentary and place-name evidence, Moffat weaves a history of this `truly British hero' and asks whether the real Camelot is to be found in the borders of Scotland.
282 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1999
185 people are currently reading
351 people want to read
About the author
Alistair Moffat
58 books211 followersAlistair Moffat is an award winning writer, historian and former Director of the Edinburgh Festival Fringe and Director of Programmes at Scottish Television.
Moffat was educated at the University of St Andrews, graduating in 1972 with a degree in Medieval History. He is the founder of the Borders Book Festival and Co-Chairman of The Great Tapestry of Scotland.
Moffat was educated at the University of St Andrews, graduating in 1972 with a degree in Medieval History. He is the founder of the Borders Book Festival and Co-Chairman of The Great Tapestry of Scotland.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews
September 15, 2012
Interesting to read, and I was quite willing to be convinced here -- I was already aware of the Strathclyde Welsh speakers, as they turn up in an Anglo-Saxon poem I translated. And it'd be much less annoying for Arthur to prove to be Scottish than English, and an argument I've seen elsewhere.
Moffat relies on place names and folk memories, though, which is dubious ground -- look at the proliferation of places that claim to have to do with Robin Hood, or indeed all the places in Wales and Cornwall that claim Arthur. It's possible he really was in all of those places, but Moffat doesn't convince me of a northern Camelot.
Moffat relies on place names and folk memories, though, which is dubious ground -- look at the proliferation of places that claim to have to do with Robin Hood, or indeed all the places in Wales and Cornwall that claim Arthur. It's possible he really was in all of those places, but Moffat doesn't convince me of a northern Camelot.
February 26, 2018
It has taken me longer to read this book than any other I have read. Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms has so much new information in it as well as a bibliography in the back. Which leads one to have several pieces of paper stuck in Moffat's book and a separate sheet of paper for notes on the other books. This book was amazing. I was dumbstruck in several places. Moffat shatters all existing assumptions about Britain’s most enigmatic hero. With reference to literary sources and historical documents, to archaeology and the ancient names of rivers, hills and forts, he strips away a thousand years of myth to unveil the real King Arthur. And in doing so he solves one of the greatest riddles of them all....the site of Camelot itself.
What first drew me in was the realization that Alistair Moffat has what unfortunately many authors of books of this kind tend to lack, honesty in his research. And refreshingly he is completely honest about his methods, and is the first to admit that they are not the conventional methods followed by most historians. He does think that his way of doing things is just as valid though, but he doesn’t try to convince you of that. He lets you decide for yourself. Reading the book, I began to respect him more and more. He doesn’t throw claims at the reader. When he speculates, he’s the first to say that he is doing so. What he does do is give you facts, solid and well-established ones, and he explains his reasoning, and lets you decide if you agree with his conclusions or not. Some I did and some I did not, but only slightly.
A lot of Moffat’s conclusions are drawn from toponymy, the study of place names. This is a topic that I find fascinating. I also learned a lot about old Celtic languages, archaeological finds of all sorts, Roman Britain, and the traditions and lore of the Scottish Borders. Alistair Moffat is obviously passionate about the subject he's writing about, and that too comes across. Above all, you realize that, Arthur or no Arthur, the land he is writing about is very old and very rich in traditions, and that is one of the main reason I loved this book so much.
As stated in the blurb, Moffat's theory is that the reason why historians have failed to find proof of Arthur’s existence is the fact that they have been looking in the wrong place. He says Arthur was a man of the north, a warrior, and the true site of Camelot was the Scottish Border country. Being Scottish and an Arthurian fanatic, and having read anything worth reading on the subject of Arthur and Camelot (some books were not worth reading if I am honest), I began this book hoping that all I had thought about Arthur and theories I had of mine own would find some validity. I was not disappointed and had several AH-HA moments as well as I-told-you-so moments and was well pleased with Moffat's theories and findings. I actually rushed out and bought a copy to go along with the copy I found on the free shelf at my library in which I had excitedly highlighted areas of the book. ( I am not ashamed I wrote in a book ! You will know why when you read it )
If you are a fan of Arthur or a fan of Scottish history, I strongly suggest you read this book, as well as some of the books Moffat listed in the back. It is an amazing journey into the past and has given the tales of Arthur something to reconsider. I am excited to read other books of Moffat's now and if they are as brilliant as this one I know they will not be disappointing.
Here are other books by him if you are interested;
Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times
Before Scotland: The Story of Scotland Before History
The Wall: Rome's Greatest Frontier
The Faded Map: The Story of the Lost Kingdoms of Scotland
And several more, consider this a starter list ;)
What first drew me in was the realization that Alistair Moffat has what unfortunately many authors of books of this kind tend to lack, honesty in his research. And refreshingly he is completely honest about his methods, and is the first to admit that they are not the conventional methods followed by most historians. He does think that his way of doing things is just as valid though, but he doesn’t try to convince you of that. He lets you decide for yourself. Reading the book, I began to respect him more and more. He doesn’t throw claims at the reader. When he speculates, he’s the first to say that he is doing so. What he does do is give you facts, solid and well-established ones, and he explains his reasoning, and lets you decide if you agree with his conclusions or not. Some I did and some I did not, but only slightly.
A lot of Moffat’s conclusions are drawn from toponymy, the study of place names. This is a topic that I find fascinating. I also learned a lot about old Celtic languages, archaeological finds of all sorts, Roman Britain, and the traditions and lore of the Scottish Borders. Alistair Moffat is obviously passionate about the subject he's writing about, and that too comes across. Above all, you realize that, Arthur or no Arthur, the land he is writing about is very old and very rich in traditions, and that is one of the main reason I loved this book so much.
As stated in the blurb, Moffat's theory is that the reason why historians have failed to find proof of Arthur’s existence is the fact that they have been looking in the wrong place. He says Arthur was a man of the north, a warrior, and the true site of Camelot was the Scottish Border country. Being Scottish and an Arthurian fanatic, and having read anything worth reading on the subject of Arthur and Camelot (some books were not worth reading if I am honest), I began this book hoping that all I had thought about Arthur and theories I had of mine own would find some validity. I was not disappointed and had several AH-HA moments as well as I-told-you-so moments and was well pleased with Moffat's theories and findings. I actually rushed out and bought a copy to go along with the copy I found on the free shelf at my library in which I had excitedly highlighted areas of the book. ( I am not ashamed I wrote in a book ! You will know why when you read it )
If you are a fan of Arthur or a fan of Scottish history, I strongly suggest you read this book, as well as some of the books Moffat listed in the back. It is an amazing journey into the past and has given the tales of Arthur something to reconsider. I am excited to read other books of Moffat's now and if they are as brilliant as this one I know they will not be disappointing.
Here are other books by him if you are interested;
Kelsae: A History of Kelso from Earliest Times
Before Scotland: The Story of Scotland Before History
The Wall: Rome's Greatest Frontier
The Faded Map: The Story of the Lost Kingdoms of Scotland
And several more, consider this a starter list ;)
April 16, 2015
Brilliant. Infuriating.
Early in the book, Moffat sets up a mystery: on a statue in the town of Hawick, in the Scottish Borders, there's an inscription which is said to be connected to the warcry of the men of the town during the Battle of Flodden. Teribus ye teri odin! Moffat suggests it is from Old Welsh and means the land of death, the land of Odin. Towards the end of the book, having made his point about Welsh as the original language of the Borders, he briefly returns to this phrase and points out how King Arthur and Odin are sometimes confused.
No sweat. No worries. I'm more than ok with all this. But I'm irritated beyond measure that Moffat's overlooked the most stunning question of all: 'What's Odin doing being proclaimed as the land ruler in, of all things, the Welsh language?' If he'd said Teribus ye teri odin! was from Old Norse, I'd feel there was nothing to explain. But the book doesn't answer the most significant question that it sets up at the beginning.
For all that, it's a brilliant foray into names in the landscape as a repository of past history. In particular, it looks at King Arthur as a Celtic hero, a descendant of British-born commanders from Roman legions, who lived in Southern Scotland. The random tapestry of detail wanders over so much territory that perhaps it's not surprising he forgot to tackle the question of why a Norse god should be extolled in a Welsh phrase. Though he does suggest Teribus ye teri odin! could mean Land of Death, Land of the Gododdin which might explain - at least to me - why Odin could indeed be in this phrase. I personally consider Gododdin to be equivalent to the Gadeni, mentioned by Ptolemy. And the most likely meaning of Gadeni in my opinion is men of battle. Hence why the war god Odin could slip in seamlessly in a later age.
The following are personal notes:
p 22 origin of the term gringos
p 23/24 names in Celtic understanding
p 28 origin of names for Jed and Ettrick
p 28 'minding your P's and Q's'
p 36 ghost fences
p 37 guising as the origin of trick or treat
p 39 Lammas and the washing of horses.
p 40 Lughnasa and St James
p 42 Medionemeton
p 45 Thomas the Rhymer's family name
p 46 Arthur sleeps under Eildon hill
p 47 Thomas confused with Arthur
p 48 Training of memory
p 67 meaning of forest
p 69 pren for tree
p 70 Goddeu and the name of the Firth of Forth
p 73 meaning of Scot and Alba (from Carthaginian)
p 75 Pretani
p 84 Samartians
p 87 dragoon
p 88 mother goddesses, horsemen secret societies, oneness
p 91 reasons for Hadrian's Wall
p 93 Genunia --> ?Gododdin
p 97 original name of Lindisfarne
p 99 words derived from Pict
p 100 Torwoodlee Broch near Galashiels
p 106 Patrick's name
p 109 survival of Elmet into sixth century
p 112 raiding, reiving, riding
p 114 meaning of Glasgow, meaning of Solway
p 121 mirth and Merlin
p 133 Arthur's charger
p 135 meaning of Arthur
p 139 red-leading steps
Early in the book, Moffat sets up a mystery: on a statue in the town of Hawick, in the Scottish Borders, there's an inscription which is said to be connected to the warcry of the men of the town during the Battle of Flodden. Teribus ye teri odin! Moffat suggests it is from Old Welsh and means the land of death, the land of Odin. Towards the end of the book, having made his point about Welsh as the original language of the Borders, he briefly returns to this phrase and points out how King Arthur and Odin are sometimes confused.
No sweat. No worries. I'm more than ok with all this. But I'm irritated beyond measure that Moffat's overlooked the most stunning question of all: 'What's Odin doing being proclaimed as the land ruler in, of all things, the Welsh language?' If he'd said Teribus ye teri odin! was from Old Norse, I'd feel there was nothing to explain. But the book doesn't answer the most significant question that it sets up at the beginning.
For all that, it's a brilliant foray into names in the landscape as a repository of past history. In particular, it looks at King Arthur as a Celtic hero, a descendant of British-born commanders from Roman legions, who lived in Southern Scotland. The random tapestry of detail wanders over so much territory that perhaps it's not surprising he forgot to tackle the question of why a Norse god should be extolled in a Welsh phrase. Though he does suggest Teribus ye teri odin! could mean Land of Death, Land of the Gododdin which might explain - at least to me - why Odin could indeed be in this phrase. I personally consider Gododdin to be equivalent to the Gadeni, mentioned by Ptolemy. And the most likely meaning of Gadeni in my opinion is men of battle. Hence why the war god Odin could slip in seamlessly in a later age.
The following are personal notes:
p 22 origin of the term gringos
p 23/24 names in Celtic understanding
p 28 origin of names for Jed and Ettrick
p 28 'minding your P's and Q's'
p 36 ghost fences
p 37 guising as the origin of trick or treat
p 39 Lammas and the washing of horses.
p 40 Lughnasa and St James
p 42 Medionemeton
p 45 Thomas the Rhymer's family name
p 46 Arthur sleeps under Eildon hill
p 47 Thomas confused with Arthur
p 48 Training of memory
p 67 meaning of forest
p 69 pren for tree
p 70 Goddeu and the name of the Firth of Forth
p 73 meaning of Scot and Alba (from Carthaginian)
p 75 Pretani
p 84 Samartians
p 87 dragoon
p 88 mother goddesses, horsemen secret societies, oneness
p 91 reasons for Hadrian's Wall
p 93 Genunia --> ?Gododdin
p 97 original name of Lindisfarne
p 99 words derived from Pict
p 100 Torwoodlee Broch near Galashiels
p 106 Patrick's name
p 109 survival of Elmet into sixth century
p 112 raiding, reiving, riding
p 114 meaning of Glasgow, meaning of Solway
p 121 mirth and Merlin
p 133 Arthur's charger
p 135 meaning of Arthur
p 139 red-leading steps
November 14, 2012
Thank goodness these "lost" kingdoms are not "holy" kingdoms, as is claimed by conspiracy theorists from southeast Wales! At least we don't have to suffer a rant about secret histories suppressed by the ignorant English and the arrogant establishment familiar from similar "histories", "true" stories and "final" discoveries.
Instead, the major part of this book is given over to a study of the area between the Walls, both Antonine and Hadrianic, before, during and after the Roman occupation of Britain. Moffat, a native of the Scottish Border country, sympathetically evokes the Celtic tribes (the Damnonii, Novantae, Selgovae and Votadini) who, squeezed between Gaelic, Pictish and Anglian peoples, forged successor kingdoms in the Dark Ages. He is clearly trying to restore a sense of forgotten history to the Lowland Scots and, several quibbles aside (such as projecting back late and post-medieval lore onto the Iron Age and early medieval period, and a lack of caution over placename evidence), I think he is largely successful.
It is, however, when we come to the association of Arthur with this area that the real problems start. Much is made of the reference to Arthur in the North British poem of The Gododdin, but the critical apparatus expected is mostly missing. Gildas, Nennius and The Welsh Annals are taken largely on trust, with no sense that there are major textual and contextual issues. Unexplained liberties are taken with the translations of these texts – for example, we are offered a version of the Badon Hill reference in the Annals ("in which Arthur destroyed 960 men in a single charge on one day, and no one rode down as he did by himself") without being told this is not a strictly literal translation but an interpretation bundled up in a paraphrase. Further liberties are taken with the traditional chronology (Arthur's death occurs "in AD 517"), again without critical discussion.
There are curious omission, too. Moffat talks a lot about Trimontium, the Roman site near the three Eildon Hills, but never appears to mention Sir Walter Scott's account of the legend of sleeping knights, who may or may not be Arthur's. There is much discussion about Roxburgh, but nowhere is there mention of Guillaume le Clerc's early 13th-century romance Fergus of Galloway, Knight of King Arthur, much of which is set in this precise region and which just might in part be accounted for by local traditions.
I remain to be convinced, on the basis of this work, that an early medieval warrior called Arthur was exclusively located in lowland Scotland, let alone Wales, Cornwall or any other area. If I was to take a position on the origin of the legends it would be as a pluralist, and, despite the author's undoubted passion, this book in no way shakes that viewpoint.
Instead, the major part of this book is given over to a study of the area between the Walls, both Antonine and Hadrianic, before, during and after the Roman occupation of Britain. Moffat, a native of the Scottish Border country, sympathetically evokes the Celtic tribes (the Damnonii, Novantae, Selgovae and Votadini) who, squeezed between Gaelic, Pictish and Anglian peoples, forged successor kingdoms in the Dark Ages. He is clearly trying to restore a sense of forgotten history to the Lowland Scots and, several quibbles aside (such as projecting back late and post-medieval lore onto the Iron Age and early medieval period, and a lack of caution over placename evidence), I think he is largely successful.
It is, however, when we come to the association of Arthur with this area that the real problems start. Much is made of the reference to Arthur in the North British poem of The Gododdin, but the critical apparatus expected is mostly missing. Gildas, Nennius and The Welsh Annals are taken largely on trust, with no sense that there are major textual and contextual issues. Unexplained liberties are taken with the translations of these texts – for example, we are offered a version of the Badon Hill reference in the Annals ("in which Arthur destroyed 960 men in a single charge on one day, and no one rode down as he did by himself") without being told this is not a strictly literal translation but an interpretation bundled up in a paraphrase. Further liberties are taken with the traditional chronology (Arthur's death occurs "in AD 517"), again without critical discussion.
There are curious omission, too. Moffat talks a lot about Trimontium, the Roman site near the three Eildon Hills, but never appears to mention Sir Walter Scott's account of the legend of sleeping knights, who may or may not be Arthur's. There is much discussion about Roxburgh, but nowhere is there mention of Guillaume le Clerc's early 13th-century romance Fergus of Galloway, Knight of King Arthur, much of which is set in this precise region and which just might in part be accounted for by local traditions.
I remain to be convinced, on the basis of this work, that an early medieval warrior called Arthur was exclusively located in lowland Scotland, let alone Wales, Cornwall or any other area. If I was to take a position on the origin of the legends it would be as a pluralist, and, despite the author's undoubted passion, this book in no way shakes that viewpoint.
August 14, 2023
Scottish histories often blast through the centuries prior to Kenneth I as that is when the lands first became somewhat united into one country.
The Roman account Calgacus speech is normally given a mention, as well as the tribes Votadini, Selgovai, Damnonii, Meatae etc. It normally takes little more than a few paragraphs
This book has helped flesh out these tribes, the Roman legacy, and Arthur as a leader of men but not a king, putting forward a convincing argument that places him firmly in the south of what is now Scotland
I haven't read any of the anglocentric histories of Arthur but even if you're taking the bits about Arthur and Merlin with a pinch of salt this works as a great insight into the roots of the culture and the people of of the Scottish Borders
The Roman account Calgacus speech is normally given a mention, as well as the tribes Votadini, Selgovai, Damnonii, Meatae etc. It normally takes little more than a few paragraphs
This book has helped flesh out these tribes, the Roman legacy, and Arthur as a leader of men but not a king, putting forward a convincing argument that places him firmly in the south of what is now Scotland
I haven't read any of the anglocentric histories of Arthur but even if you're taking the bits about Arthur and Merlin with a pinch of salt this works as a great insight into the roots of the culture and the people of of the Scottish Borders
August 25, 2023
I loved this book, which brought together so many threads that I have followed over the years. I may not have been totally convinced by Moffat's construct of Arthur's origins in the Borders because his reliance on folk memory can never be wholly confirmed, but I think he makes a strong case and one which is in accord with much of my other reading.
Moffat writes so engagingly, and with such a wealth of local knowledge, that I find my travels around the Borders greatly enriched.
Moffat writes so engagingly, and with such a wealth of local knowledge, that I find my travels around the Borders greatly enriched.
January 9, 2008
Fascinating dissection of place-names and language used to identify the person and history of Arthur. He argues (persuasively to me) that Arthur was not based in the south of England but along the Scottish border. He identifies the real "Camelot," even. Written by an educated layman instead of a specialist, and accessible if at times a bit dry.
November 21, 2012
I like everything Arthurian. This is a new theory that the real Authur may have belonged to northwestern Briton. His evidence is convincing. His theory seems pretty sound. Worth a look no matter your view.
February 4, 2016
Speculative, but interesting.
November 3, 2019
Overall, I found this unpersuasive and disappointing.
Moffat's approach is to slather fact upon fact, or assertion upon assertion, so that there is a sense of enormous erudition, and therefore of incontestability.
However, when the material information is isolated, it does not, in my view, lead unquestionably to Moffat's conclusion. I would suggest that his argument is of the "necessary but not sufficient" mode. It is plausible, and consistent with the evidence, that Arthur was a nobleman who operated in the Scots border areas some years after Roman departure; however, that assertion is not proven, not the only possible interpretation.
It is interesting to look at Moffat's coverage in Wikipedia: his use of evidence in other spheres has been called out.
Moffat's approach is to slather fact upon fact, or assertion upon assertion, so that there is a sense of enormous erudition, and therefore of incontestability.
However, when the material information is isolated, it does not, in my view, lead unquestionably to Moffat's conclusion. I would suggest that his argument is of the "necessary but not sufficient" mode. It is plausible, and consistent with the evidence, that Arthur was a nobleman who operated in the Scots border areas some years after Roman departure; however, that assertion is not proven, not the only possible interpretation.
It is interesting to look at Moffat's coverage in Wikipedia: his use of evidence in other spheres has been called out.
August 9, 2021
Alistair Moffat has produced a book which is both thought provoking and entertaining. He argues, forcefully, that the legendary King Arthur was neither Welsh, nor Cornish, but was based on the Scots borders where he commanded troops who carried on the legacy of the Roman cavalry units who had once held Hadrians Wall.
In general, I fully support his theories, except in one single matter, where I might question his choice of the location of Camelot. I would expect it to have been one of the forts on the wall, while Moffat argues for a different location.
An excellent read, and an ideal gift if you have any Welsh friends.
In general, I fully support his theories, except in one single matter, where I might question his choice of the location of Camelot. I would expect it to have been one of the forts on the wall, while Moffat argues for a different location.
An excellent read, and an ideal gift if you have any Welsh friends.
October 25, 2022
As an American, I found myself linguistically, culturally, and contextually ill-suited for this and obviously not the book's target audience. And, yes, from what I could glean from the book, most of the research in here was based heavily from oral tradition rather than scholarly research, which has its pluses as well as its minuses but, in the end, is speculation. I don't regret reading this but I also don't feel like I gained anything from it either.
October 23, 2024
You'll love this book if you have an interest in legend, folklore, dark age history or the etymology of place names. It is a very different but convincing take on the Arthur legend, placing Arthur, Camelot and the battles fought by this Dark Age warleader much further north than previously claimed. The suggestions made in this fascinating book are backed by meticulous research into the ancient place names and traditions of countless locations in the Scottish Borders and Northern England.
January 17, 2023
I’m not wholly convinced by Moffat’s suggestion that Arthur came from the Borders, although he does have a huge amount of “circumstantial” evidence. But Moffat takes great pride in this place, and so should we all. Perhaps Arthur’s lost kingdom was in the very fringes of Britannia, perhaps it wasn’t, but Moffat gives us the power to bring his legend to our own homes.
May 31, 2020
Tenuous, and not even that entertaining (which bad history should at least have the decency to be). Found it disappointing and embarrassing back when I read it. This review goes into more detail: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
March 27, 2023
audiobook
Well researched and interesting. I learned a lot about the possible origins of the legend of King Arthur from this audiobook. Recommended to anyone interested in Arthur or this period in history.
Well researched and interesting. I learned a lot about the possible origins of the legend of King Arthur from this audiobook. Recommended to anyone interested in Arthur or this period in history.
November 5, 2018
Interesting but difficult to follow, needs more maps
September 27, 2021
A bit too detailed to my taste. Halfway into the book, and stil its subject not even mentioned.
December 12, 2022
Fascinating dive into the historical roots of the Arthur legend. Moffat makes a compelling case for his theory.
May 12, 2023
Heady stuff! A great deep dive inti the Celts, the Scottish Borders, and the possibility of a great unifying General named Arthur. So good I will read it again and get the print version.
October 14, 2024
Interesting local history - and a whole heap of suppositions and conjecture assembled to construct an unconvincing connection with Arthurian myth.
December 27, 2025
Interesting speculative history of the brittonic celt kingdoms of the 5th and 6th century
March 19, 2023
Arthur and the Lost Kingdom has presented the argument that the legends of King Arthur and Merlin were based on Scottish Highland warlord and a Celtic shaman. Historians have long known that the Arthur legends are not based on fact, that if Arthur did live, he would have been alive during the dark ages and definitely not during the age of chivalry and knights. I've really enjoyed histories and historical fiction about Arthur and Moffat pulls together a plausible, if not provable proposal that he has rooted out the kernel of truth upon which the legends are based. If you love history, and are fairly familiar with Dark Ages Britain and the Isles, you'll enjoy this book.
March 28, 2015
Arthur and the last kingdom by Alistair Moffatt
I like this book because of the raw research done , its down to earth reality about the pictish-celts
What really happened and how in the war like society , recorded moment left on trees rocks etc
The ogham-alphabet. In Scottish Gaelic or Irish Gallic , the list of chippers so how true is that when we consider history , philosophy, religion, literature.
Other have said that some if the books in have reviewed the books have been hard to understand
The last one (love on the dole) 1936 was written by the author in his native dialect, he was self-taught and well-read so it was Hugh feat to write a book in the first place, but that was the charm of the book for those that want clear English all the time I pity you for you lose something every time you read you read
This book is rich in Celtic –lore, the raids for slaves , hostages , woman, goods, how a person survived day to day is beyond the present day readers imagination surly the fantasy is stripped away , no round table, no merlin, no Excalibur, but plenty of facts .
On the back of the book it states,…. So far historians have failed to show that “king-Arthur” relly did exist at all, for a good reason they have been looking in the wrong place …
Here is something that will get the tongues a wagging
( st Patrick)….. was not Irish, he was a pictish-celt called …”sucat” around 400. An Irish raider chieftain… named “milchu” beaching his ship of the Solway went in search of plunder hostages, but he later escaped, and joined a Cristian-community and took the name “patricius”
Hope that you enjoy the wood burning poem a good book for those that like history
OAK. Logs will warm you well that are old and dry
Logs of PINE. .will sweetly smell but the sparks will fly
BIRCH..logs will burn too fast CHESTNUT. .scarce at all
HAWTHORN…logs are good to last..
HOLLY logs will burn like wax you may burn them green
YEW..logs as well GREEN-ADLER..its a crime
For any man to sell
PEAR, logs & APPLE..logs will scent your room
CHERRY ..logs across the dogs
Smell like flowers of broom
ASH logs smooth and grey burn them green & old
Buy all of them that come you way
Worth their weight in gold
I like this book because of the raw research done , its down to earth reality about the pictish-celts
What really happened and how in the war like society , recorded moment left on trees rocks etc
The ogham-alphabet. In Scottish Gaelic or Irish Gallic , the list of chippers so how true is that when we consider history , philosophy, religion, literature.
Other have said that some if the books in have reviewed the books have been hard to understand
The last one (love on the dole) 1936 was written by the author in his native dialect, he was self-taught and well-read so it was Hugh feat to write a book in the first place, but that was the charm of the book for those that want clear English all the time I pity you for you lose something every time you read you read
This book is rich in Celtic –lore, the raids for slaves , hostages , woman, goods, how a person survived day to day is beyond the present day readers imagination surly the fantasy is stripped away , no round table, no merlin, no Excalibur, but plenty of facts .
On the back of the book it states,…. So far historians have failed to show that “king-Arthur” relly did exist at all, for a good reason they have been looking in the wrong place …
Here is something that will get the tongues a wagging
( st Patrick)….. was not Irish, he was a pictish-celt called …”sucat” around 400. An Irish raider chieftain… named “milchu” beaching his ship of the Solway went in search of plunder hostages, but he later escaped, and joined a Cristian-community and took the name “patricius”
Hope that you enjoy the wood burning poem a good book for those that like history
OAK. Logs will warm you well that are old and dry
Logs of PINE. .will sweetly smell but the sparks will fly
BIRCH..logs will burn too fast CHESTNUT. .scarce at all
HAWTHORN…logs are good to last..
HOLLY logs will burn like wax you may burn them green
YEW..logs as well GREEN-ADLER..its a crime
For any man to sell
PEAR, logs & APPLE..logs will scent your room
CHERRY ..logs across the dogs
Smell like flowers of broom
ASH logs smooth and grey burn them green & old
Buy all of them that come you way
Worth their weight in gold
April 6, 2017
Overview
This is an interesting book about the placement of Arthur within Britain. Although the legends and barely touched upon you do get a good sense of the world that Arthur has grown from. However, there were parts of this book while interesting didn't seem to have much to do with Arthur until later on in the book. Which is obviously the author's choice but at times it was slightly irritating.
It is nice to hear some of the history about Southern Scotland. I live and have grown up in the Highlands and our history is a lot stronger. Even without historians taking an interest in the Highlands, we have held onto a lit of history just from our seclusion. The borders did not have that luxury. That is my personal favourite this about this book, the little things that the mass of Britain has forgotten being shown and detailed.
As for the Arthurian sections I am not sure. I think placing "Camelot" is probably never going to happen. Reading different theories is eye opening and this one has its grounds but so do others.
This is an interesting book about the placement of Arthur within Britain. Although the legends and barely touched upon you do get a good sense of the world that Arthur has grown from. However, there were parts of this book while interesting didn't seem to have much to do with Arthur until later on in the book. Which is obviously the author's choice but at times it was slightly irritating.
It is nice to hear some of the history about Southern Scotland. I live and have grown up in the Highlands and our history is a lot stronger. Even without historians taking an interest in the Highlands, we have held onto a lit of history just from our seclusion. The borders did not have that luxury. That is my personal favourite this about this book, the little things that the mass of Britain has forgotten being shown and detailed.
As for the Arthurian sections I am not sure. I think placing "Camelot" is probably never going to happen. Reading different theories is eye opening and this one has its grounds but so do others.
February 6, 2013
This was a book that I really enjoyed. It deals with history that mainstream historians might ignore. Did Arthur really exist?
The authour looks at the history of England in a period that is difficult to study, the dark ages. There was nothing written down by the Celts. All we can go on is what the Romans tell us and what archeology tells us. The author takes it a step further by studying the place names and connecting them with Celtic origins. I found this to be a interesting approach. The author came from the area that he was trying to prove where Arthur came from.
The book might be hard to follow with all the place names and interpretion from either celtic or latin. There was not that much on Arthur. The book was more on the lost history of Sothern Scotland.
I enjoyed the book. I would recommend this book for those who are interested non-mainsteam history.
The authour looks at the history of England in a period that is difficult to study, the dark ages. There was nothing written down by the Celts. All we can go on is what the Romans tell us and what archeology tells us. The author takes it a step further by studying the place names and connecting them with Celtic origins. I found this to be a interesting approach. The author came from the area that he was trying to prove where Arthur came from.
The book might be hard to follow with all the place names and interpretion from either celtic or latin. There was not that much on Arthur. The book was more on the lost history of Sothern Scotland.
I enjoyed the book. I would recommend this book for those who are interested non-mainsteam history.
December 27, 2010
This book was fairly easy to read and told about more than just the legend of King Arthur. I learned many things about the names of places in Scotland and how those place names have changed over time and languages. This book also gave me much information about holiday traditions and their origins. I thought it was a bit more about places than Arthur, but it was very informative and enjoyable. There is so much rich history that comes from Scotland that I didn't even know about. This book shed light on many traditions.
Read
August 9, 2013An interesting read but somewhat academically unsound, as he relies on some disputed readings of Y Gododdin and other works which have been debated for years, as well as some dubious translations of placenames. I don't think he proves his case entirely but it does give some food for thought.
The background to the period makes for useful reading and it certainly increased my desire to find out more about the period. From that point of view, it was worthwhile.
The background to the period makes for useful reading and it certainly increased my desire to find out more about the period. From that point of view, it was worthwhile.
November 1, 2015
"King" Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table was a highly romanticized creation attached centuries later to an ancient British war leader. Moffat speculates entertainingly and plausibly about who the real Arthur was and what he did that caused him to be so long remembered and revered. Reliable written sources are almost non-existent, so the author explores placenames, and their history and meaning, as a means to discovery. Fascinating.
October 10, 2012
I liked this book it wasn't so much about king Arthur as I had expected but interesting non the less . It was more about the history of the Welsh people and the Scots and How they were intermingled along the borders having been driven by invaders to the woodlands . The writer shows prove of this by language similarities and old rites involving horses and burials
Displaying 1 - 30 of 31 reviews