What do you think?
Rate this book
King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend
King Arthur is often written off as a medieval fantasy, the dream of those yearning for an age of strong, just rulers and a contented kingdom. Those who accept his existence at all generally discard the stories that surround him. This exciting new investigation argues not only that Arthur did exist, as a Dark Age chieftain, but that many of the romantic tales - of Merlin, Camelot and Excalibur - are rooted in truth.
In his quest for the real King Arthur, Rodney Castleden uses up-to-date archaeological and documentary evidence to recreate the history and society of Dark Age Britain and its kings. He revives the possibility that Tintagel was an Arthurian legend, and proposes a radical new theory - that Arthur escaped alive from his final battle. A location is even suggested for perhaps the greatest mystery, the whereabouts of Arthur's grave.
King The Truth Behind the Legend offers a more complete picture of Arthur's Britain and his place in it than ever before. The book's bold approach and compelling arguments will be welcomed by all readers with an interest in Arthuriana.
In his quest for the real King Arthur, Rodney Castleden uses up-to-date archaeological and documentary evidence to recreate the history and society of Dark Age Britain and its kings. He revives the possibility that Tintagel was an Arthurian legend, and proposes a radical new theory - that Arthur escaped alive from his final battle. A location is even suggested for perhaps the greatest mystery, the whereabouts of Arthur's grave.
King The Truth Behind the Legend offers a more complete picture of Arthur's Britain and his place in it than ever before. The book's bold approach and compelling arguments will be welcomed by all readers with an interest in Arthuriana.
280 pages, Paperback
First published May 11, 1999
2 people are currently reading
88 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 - 9 of 9 reviews
June 20, 2012
Despite treading a lot of the same ground as Mike Ashley, Rodney Castleden's attempt to find the 'real' Arthur didn't irritate me nearly as much. He examines archaeological evidence along with the literary texts and the scraps of folklore remaining to try and identify a historical Arthur.
I think part of the thing that pleases me about this is that Castleden doesn't have a theory in mind that he works towards, but he works through the theories to arrive at what seems (at least to him) the inevitable conclusion. He's also quite sensitive to the fact that Arthur has a legitimate life as a cultural icon, and doesn't talk about how rubbish that whole idea is. A couple of times I was a little unpleased, but I'm unreasonably attached to a legendary Welsh Arthur.
I think I find Rodney Castleden more convincing than anything else I've read about the 'real' Arthur. Even though he tries to even name a burial site for Arthur, he seems well aware that all of his work can only be conjecture.
I think part of the thing that pleases me about this is that Castleden doesn't have a theory in mind that he works towards, but he works through the theories to arrive at what seems (at least to him) the inevitable conclusion. He's also quite sensitive to the fact that Arthur has a legitimate life as a cultural icon, and doesn't talk about how rubbish that whole idea is. A couple of times I was a little unpleased, but I'm unreasonably attached to a legendary Welsh Arthur.
I think I find Rodney Castleden more convincing than anything else I've read about the 'real' Arthur. Even though he tries to even name a burial site for Arthur, he seems well aware that all of his work can only be conjecture.
April 28, 2021
Zacznę od tego, że niezbyt mnie intrygowała kwestia, jak bardzo oparta na rzeczywistości jest legenda o królu Arturze. Wiadomo, że ktoś taki istniał, a potem umarł a sześćset czy siedemset lat później powstał na jego temat mit.
Autor książki mitami się nie zajmuje. To książka historyczna, opierająca się na źródłach historycznych, a tam gdzie autor spekuluje - wyraźnie to zaznacza zaś same spekulacje wychodzą od faktów i w ich obrębie pozostają. Spekulacje zatem starają się wypełnić luki między nimi, a proces myślowy autora jest jasny i zrozumiały.
Dla mnie najważniejszą zaletą tej książki jest to, że idąc tropem Artura, kreśli obraz Brytanii po odejściu Imperium Rzymskiego, a przed saskim podbojem. Wieki ciemne, bo pozbawione wielu źródeł historycznych, rozjaśnia archeologia, a nie tylko źródła pisane. I w trakcie lektury łapałem się - jak zawsze w przypadku historii Brytanii, czy innych krajów podbitych przez Imperium - na tym, jak wiele szczęścia przyniósł im tenże podbój. Chciałbym, aby polska historia miała problem z wyjaśnieniem białych plam w wieku VI n.e. My nie wiemy za dużo o naszym wieku X. Tymczasem Brytyjczycy znają rodowody swych władców anglosaskich od 786 r. A brytyjskich (z poszczególnych królestw) potrafią jako tako zrekonstruować od ok. 500 roku. No zazdrość.
Autor książki mitami się nie zajmuje. To książka historyczna, opierająca się na źródłach historycznych, a tam gdzie autor spekuluje - wyraźnie to zaznacza zaś same spekulacje wychodzą od faktów i w ich obrębie pozostają. Spekulacje zatem starają się wypełnić luki między nimi, a proces myślowy autora jest jasny i zrozumiały.
Dla mnie najważniejszą zaletą tej książki jest to, że idąc tropem Artura, kreśli obraz Brytanii po odejściu Imperium Rzymskiego, a przed saskim podbojem. Wieki ciemne, bo pozbawione wielu źródeł historycznych, rozjaśnia archeologia, a nie tylko źródła pisane. I w trakcie lektury łapałem się - jak zawsze w przypadku historii Brytanii, czy innych krajów podbitych przez Imperium - na tym, jak wiele szczęścia przyniósł im tenże podbój. Chciałbym, aby polska historia miała problem z wyjaśnieniem białych plam w wieku VI n.e. My nie wiemy za dużo o naszym wieku X. Tymczasem Brytyjczycy znają rodowody swych władców anglosaskich od 786 r. A brytyjskich (z poszczególnych królestw) potrafią jako tako zrekonstruować od ok. 500 roku. No zazdrość.
July 16, 2017
Legenda o królu Arturze nadal jest żywa i stanowi źródło niewyczerpanej inspiracji dla powieściopisarzy (rewelacyjna Trylogia Arturiańska Bernarda Cornwella) oraz twórców filmowych (na ekrany kin właśnie wchodzi kolejna wariacja na temat tej historii w reżyserii Guya Ritchiego). Warto jednak odrzucić aspekty baśniowe i mityczne, i zerknąć na opowieść o Arturze z punktu widzenia czystej historii, która jest równie fascynująca.
Cała opinia:
http://www.kacikzksiazka.pl/2017/06/k...
Cała opinia:
http://www.kacikzksiazka.pl/2017/06/k...
May 6, 2022
4 gwiazdki bo to była na pewno dobra książka i wymagała od autora dużo pracy. Jednak czytało się ją bardzo ciezko, tysiące nazw miast, imion itd. Interesuję się historią ale nawet dla mnie to było po prostu za dużo, gubiłam się, odbierało to przyjemność z czytania.
August 10, 2015
Because of the elaborate and fantastic folklore surrounding Arthur, many historians of the 20th century have been dismissing him as a mere legend similar to vampires.
Castleden shows, through rigorous research and examination of documents and archaeology, that there was a King Arthur and that much of the mythology developed because of rituals and beliefs which existed at that time and because of distortions which have developed over the years sometimes from miscopying text, but often because of medieval and contemporary reinterpretations and misinterpretations of the oral folklore.
At times this became quite tedious for me because this was one of those academic examinations which involved explanations involving language, pottery, archaeology, and so on.
He also discusses the culture of the times, although sometimes going into excessive details which seemed unrelated to Arthur.
Also discusses Merlin (that he existed and was probably a bard) and Camelot.
Was enlightening in many ways; I just had to skim from time to time.
Castleden shows, through rigorous research and examination of documents and archaeology, that there was a King Arthur and that much of the mythology developed because of rituals and beliefs which existed at that time and because of distortions which have developed over the years sometimes from miscopying text, but often because of medieval and contemporary reinterpretations and misinterpretations of the oral folklore.
At times this became quite tedious for me because this was one of those academic examinations which involved explanations involving language, pottery, archaeology, and so on.
He also discusses the culture of the times, although sometimes going into excessive details which seemed unrelated to Arthur.
Also discusses Merlin (that he existed and was probably a bard) and Camelot.
Was enlightening in many ways; I just had to skim from time to time.
January 16, 2016
Occasionally confusing to a non-historian/archeologist (i.e. no definitions of the classes of pottery etc), but still a fascinating read. It provides a jumping on point for all sorts of interesting tid bits of dark age history and celtic myth and legend. For example, I didn't realise that Taliesin was a real bard with actual real texts that you can read! I also suspect many people writing stories about Arthur have read this book, and it's interesting to see where they got their information from. Did it convince me that King Arthur was a real historical character? Maybe. The author is awfully scathing about the prior work of some historians (which is hilarious to read), but I feel he also makes some pretty sketchy jumps to form his conclusions! All I can say is, I'm not a historian. I don't know. Maybe.
July 1, 2015
First and foremost, any digging at this point to find Arthur will only result in conjecture. It's been too long and any evidence is almost certainly long gone. However, the author is convincing in that I'm now quite sure an Arthur did exist. Not as we think of Arthur in mythology now, the Once and Future King who will some day awaken and reclaim his throne, but a living, breathing warrior king who united his people (as best he could) against the invaders.
I found this a rather easy read and enjoyed it. I also enjoyed that the author didn't aim for one theory, ignore others, and make the evidence fit what he thinks. He explored several options, while naturally indicating which one makes the most sense to him. Nicely done.
I found this a rather easy read and enjoyed it. I also enjoyed that the author didn't aim for one theory, ignore others, and make the evidence fit what he thinks. He explored several options, while naturally indicating which one makes the most sense to him. Nicely done.
November 18, 2012
as a college textbook for a freshman, difficult, yet interesting. Takes some time to get through but with enough time one begins to learn the writing style & comprehend more of the facts.
August 18, 2016
I liked this book. It had an interesting argument for the existence of King Arthur that wasn't in your face. Love the Arthurian legend.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews