What do you think?
Rate this book
The Long War for Britannia 367–664: Arthur and the History of Post-Roman Britain
The Long War for Britannia is unique. It recounts some two centuries of 'lost' British history, while providing decisive proof that the early records for this period are the very opposite of 'fake news'. The book shows that the discrepancies in dates claimed by many scholars are illusory. Every early source originally recorded the same events in the same year. It is only the transition to Anno Domini dating centuries afterward that distorts our perceptions.
Of equal significance, the book demonstrates that King Arthur and Uther Pendragon are the very opposite of medieval fantasy. Current scholarly doubts arose from the fact that different British regions had very different memories of post-Roman British rulers. Some remembered Arthur as the 'Proud Tyrant', a monarch who plunged the island into civil war. Others recalled him as the British general who saved Britain when all seemed lost. The deeds of Uther Pendragon replicate the victories of the dread Mercian king Penda. These authentic--yet radically different--narratives distort history to this very day.
Of equal significance, the book demonstrates that King Arthur and Uther Pendragon are the very opposite of medieval fantasy. Current scholarly doubts arose from the fact that different British regions had very different memories of post-Roman British rulers. Some remembered Arthur as the 'Proud Tyrant', a monarch who plunged the island into civil war. Others recalled him as the British general who saved Britain when all seemed lost. The deeds of Uther Pendragon replicate the victories of the dread Mercian king Penda. These authentic--yet radically different--narratives distort history to this very day.
388 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 8, 2021
115 people are currently reading
90 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 - 11 of 11 reviews
January 28, 2022
History is difficult without sources. For the two centuries between the Romans leaving in 410 and the mission of St Augustine, who arrived in Kent in 597, we have the barest handful of contemporary documents. It might not matter, if not for the fact that these centuries were the foundation of everything that happened afterwards in Britain: the Romano-Celtic Britannia that slipped out of history at the start of the 5th century reappeared in the 7th century as a country divided, with Anglo-Saxon kingdoms controlling what would become England, Welsh-speaking princedoms in Wales, and Scotland split between Pictish and Irish kingdoms.
Later historians, starting with Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and going on to medieval writers, told the history of these missing centuries, recounting how the pagan Anglo-Saxons had arrived in Britain and displaced the native Britons. But these were histories written centuries after the events they described, and over the last half century historians and archaeologists have grown increasingly sceptical about the value of these accounts. In particular, the findings of archaeologists have served to cast doubt on the one-off departure of the Romans and the ethnic cleansing narrative of the Anglo-Saxon conquest.
However, on its own, archaeology provides snapshots: it struggles to construct a narrative. Abandoning the ancient sources has left us in an ahistorical darkness, with almost no named actors. In The Long War for Britannia, Edwin Pace has stepped bravely into the dark, mounting a thoroughgoing examination and defence of the ancient sources.
His argument is based in large part upon systematising the differences between the various accounts of the time. Pace argues that many of the discrepancies that have caused historians to discredit writers such as the 9th-century Nennius were caused by mistakes the medieval authors made in trying to fit dates originally calculated by the Roman consular calendar and insular regnal dating into the Anno Domini system adopted by the Venerable Bede. Pace also argues that the key contemporary writer, Gildas, who wrote his On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain around AD 530 by Pace’s reckoning, can be understood by placing his work into the theological framework of the monk. Working off these arguments, Pace concludes that there really was a King Arthur and that he can be identified as the Proud Tyrant of Gildas’ polemic - an unusual but fascinating conclusion.
Pace goes on to identify other people from legend as real historical characters, most notably arguing the Uther Pendragon was actually the 7th-century Mercian King Penda, the last great pagan Anglo-Saxon king. With his mastery of the written and archaeological sources, Edwin Pace has mounted a thoroughgoing and compelling argument for elements from the ancient authors as being worthy of the attention of serious historians. Many historians and archaeologists will disagree with Pace’s conclusions but, together with Miles Russell’s recent book Arthur and the Kings of Britain, there is now a serious, if not necessarily convincing, argument for looking at the ancient chroniclers afresh. Highly recommended for anyone with a deep interest in the roots of England.
Later historians, starting with Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and going on to medieval writers, told the history of these missing centuries, recounting how the pagan Anglo-Saxons had arrived in Britain and displaced the native Britons. But these were histories written centuries after the events they described, and over the last half century historians and archaeologists have grown increasingly sceptical about the value of these accounts. In particular, the findings of archaeologists have served to cast doubt on the one-off departure of the Romans and the ethnic cleansing narrative of the Anglo-Saxon conquest.
However, on its own, archaeology provides snapshots: it struggles to construct a narrative. Abandoning the ancient sources has left us in an ahistorical darkness, with almost no named actors. In The Long War for Britannia, Edwin Pace has stepped bravely into the dark, mounting a thoroughgoing examination and defence of the ancient sources.
His argument is based in large part upon systematising the differences between the various accounts of the time. Pace argues that many of the discrepancies that have caused historians to discredit writers such as the 9th-century Nennius were caused by mistakes the medieval authors made in trying to fit dates originally calculated by the Roman consular calendar and insular regnal dating into the Anno Domini system adopted by the Venerable Bede. Pace also argues that the key contemporary writer, Gildas, who wrote his On the Ruin and Conquest of Britain around AD 530 by Pace’s reckoning, can be understood by placing his work into the theological framework of the monk. Working off these arguments, Pace concludes that there really was a King Arthur and that he can be identified as the Proud Tyrant of Gildas’ polemic - an unusual but fascinating conclusion.
Pace goes on to identify other people from legend as real historical characters, most notably arguing the Uther Pendragon was actually the 7th-century Mercian King Penda, the last great pagan Anglo-Saxon king. With his mastery of the written and archaeological sources, Edwin Pace has mounted a thoroughgoing and compelling argument for elements from the ancient authors as being worthy of the attention of serious historians. Many historians and archaeologists will disagree with Pace’s conclusions but, together with Miles Russell’s recent book Arthur and the Kings of Britain, there is now a serious, if not necessarily convincing, argument for looking at the ancient chroniclers afresh. Highly recommended for anyone with a deep interest in the roots of England.
June 23, 2024
The Long War for Britannia – 367-664 Arthur and the history of Post-Roman Britain, Edwin Pace, 2021, 338 pages plus endnotes,
Sometimes books come with red flags. Other times they have more red flags than the old May Day celebrations in the Soviet Union. When a book purports to:
Tell a new history.
Is about King Arthur.
Has been written by someone who isn't a professional historian of the period.
Is published by Pen and Sword.
These are all are causes for concern when taken individually. Collectively, in the one book, it's enough to make one shudder.
A 'new history' requires extraordinary evidence, and whilst there are talented amateurs and enthusiasts out there, anything controversial or courageous is best dealt with by an expert who has spent a long time working in that area. Pace's three decades of work at GCHQ is nice, but not exactly the equivalent of three decades being learned enough to teach the topic at a top uni. King Arthur is a topic that seems to attract dubious pseudo histories and Pen and Sword have a reputation for publishing any old thing without much of a peer review system, unlike OUP, etc.
All of this explains why I was a touch doubtful about this book. This wasn't assuaged in any way by the fact that there isn't a bibliography – instead the books are referenced in the end notes, which means that you can't tell at a glance whether he has gone more John Morris than Guy Halsall.
The first thing that strikes you about the prose is the sheer amount of casual unsupported supposition it contains. This book is absolutely full of it. One paragraph contains:
'By the 4th century most Roman Britons were not happy with the empire',
'had good reason to envy the rest of the empire: the Gauls ruled over them...'
'people in out of the way fly over country might resent elites,'
All, some or none of this may be true, but it isn't evidenced in any way and this casual presentation of opinion as fact becomes grating incredibly quickly. Pace uses modern comparisons that are wildly inappropriate for the age and ludicrous analogies, such as if we only knew that there was a French king in 1789 and another one in 1848 we'd reject the idea of an emperor taking a French army to Moscow in 1812 – this episode is supported by every piece of evidence imaginable. It's not some 5th or 6th century event with no evidence at all. The use of the phrase, 'Free Britain' is tonally off, too, as are the short segments of fiction that appear in some chapters. Fiction, or reimagining, has no place in a serious history book. Here it comes off as him projecting his opinion and thoughts onto events and is obviously without any evidential foundation.
When it comes to historically methodology, Pace dumps anything that doesn't support his opinion. He cherry picks approaches that support any aspect of his thoughts and then obviously ignores this methodology later on when it doesn't support another of his flights of fancy. It is the same with the opinions of expert historians. They're all wrong, unless they agree with him. His accusation that they cry 'fake news' at anything they disagree with does him little honour.
There are some fantastic examples of mental acrobatics being employed to get the answers that Pace has already decided are correct. He sees Aesc of Kent as living for 80 years and being the equivalent of a drummer boy when mentioned in connection with a battle in 458. He goes on to claim that Aesc received a Roman education and was the force behind a now lost Kentish Chronicle (composed by tame literate Britons living within Kent) – this supposed chronicle is the source of the early ASC dates and so prove they are accurate, rather than a much later chronicler working back from Bede/Gildas and making a series of best guesses. He uses this notion to claim a clear line of transmission for the earliest entries within the chronicle and so 'proving' he is correct. This is a house of cards with foundations of sand.
A further example of making the sources support his ideas is his conflation of people. Gildas' Superbus Tyranus, the Dux Bellorum of other sources, Riothamus of yet another source and Arthur (of no prima facie evidence) are all actually the same person in his reckoning. If you're going to decide that the sources say exactly what you want them to, then it's very easy to get the answers you want. As well as Arthur being 3 other people, it turns out that Uther Pendragon was actually Penda.
By taking a lot of late sources, looking for similarities, finding surprising ways in which additional stuff could fit, it's no surprise that Pace manages to convince himself that Uther Pendragon really was Uther. It's basically the same process involved in looking up any illness online and finding that you've got all of the symptoms – if you have an answer, then it's incredibly easy to make the facts fit it, whether or not they truly do.
Pace regards the sources as being largely independent of each other and thus more likely to be genuine separate records of the events they record. It has been shown that they are not. Halsall has gone into this in some depth, demonstrating so. Pace takes an almost literalist approach regarding the sources, despite the fact that a lot of excellent and extremely convincing work has been done showing that they require nuance and extremely careful handling. This isn't just limited to the well known sources, but also includes poetry and the Harleian chronicle, etc, in which he places far more credence and literalness than more learned folk. Despite there being much debate about the dating of Y Gododdin, and it being likely that it wasn't all composed at the same time, Pace takes it as having been created very soon after the events and naturally sees it as good quality evidence.
Pace believes that at the core of a story is truth. He cites things such as War and Peace, Moby Dick and Shakespeare as examples. Whilst there is some truth in some fiction being based on real events, it doesn't necessarily make it so in the instances he wants to believe, and to use it as evidence without extremely good supporting facts is ludicrous. There is a good reason no one asked Alistair McLean who the real Broadsword was and if he ever got fed up of trying to contact Danny Boy.
Pace makes a big thing about how if the various dating systems used by the chroniclers are calculated in a different way, then they support his interpretations. The dating systems are flawed, however, using his method in the way he does has serious problems. One, it smacks of choosing your answer and then altering the sources/evidence to fit it. Two, a revision of this kind, one that has not been accepted through a few centuries of study by acknowledged experts, would be extraordinary and so would require extraordinary supporting evidence. It all feels rather confused and special pleading. Pace fails to convince with this.
One of the biggest ramifications of just how terrible a history this book is, is that even if Pace is correct with a couple of his assertions (possibly in much the same way that a defective clock is still right twice a day), then I'd not believe it unless I saw it corroborated elsewhere.
Publishing stuff like this really does Pen and Sword no favours if they wish to be taken seriously.
As history, this book is all but worthless.
A far from exhaustive list of questionable elements:
The idea that Rome reoccupied the province from 418-421 – the evidence for his is shaky at best.
The Notitia Dignitatum archaic terminology and missing bits are used in support of this, when simpler explanations, such as it being a list of how things should be are to be preferred.
'After 595 the pagan world made by the Saxons is remade almost overnight into Christian England' – poppycock. Any reading of Bede would suggest that this took a couple of generations and the provision of churches and parochial guidance considerably longer.
Following the withdrawal of Rome 'there were still large numbers of people who had been educated in the classical tradition'. Cobblers – a good classical education was for the elite, not the many.
His reading of the mission of St Germanus takes a maximalist view of the Romanitas he encountered in Britain. However, the terminology and descriptions used were those that were 'correct' for the audience, rather than what may have been encountered on the ground. This can also be seen in the fact that he confronted the Saxons and the Picts. It's highly unlikely that the Picts were active in central southern England, but were a 'correct' group of raiders for any learned Roman.
The Saxons called the citizens of the Empire Wealas. A new one on me.
The towns of Eastern England being abandoned one by one. This sees the Anglo-Saxon advance as a moving front, whereas the situation appears to be much more nuanced.
Sees the Annona as grain being requisitioned from farmers, whereas it was a tax in kind.
Compares failed states and civil wars of our era, such as Bosnia, South Sudan, Yemen to Sub-Roman Britain. These aren't valid or even remotely good comparisons.
Totally disagrees with what he calls the 'year zero' scenario, by which he means that post-Roman Britain was on its posterior. However, the case for this, as demonstrated by Fleming is incontrovertible.
Claims that the Wansdyke was constructed for use against the upper Thames Saxons. However, it appears to have been begun in Somerset, where its defences are the strongest and it is at its most weak and unfinished the further east you go, which suggests a threat from the civitate to the north, rather than Saxons to the north east.
Speaks of Britain being on a 'war footing' in the 5th century, using second world war examples, which is totally inappropriate and not supported by the evidence.
Accuses Gildas of being purposefully vague in ascribing victory in battle to God and not naming the victorious general. This totally fails to understand the basics of the early medieval religious mindset – ONLY god could bestow victory in battle, as this came about through divine judgement and not through the acts of men and so the identity of the general was pretty much immaterial.
Credits a find of coins dated to 460 as a sign of a revival of trade with Europe. There are many ways in which this could have found its way there.
Disputes Halsall's reading of Gildas on the basis of his reading of the Latin being incorrect. It is possible that Halsall has misconstrued it, but my money would be on the professional who does it for a living being right.
Equates the Saxons that threatened the upper Thames with the Micel Here, which is unsupported by evidence and seems to wildly overstate their significance.
Has the Proud Tyrant reactivating a few forts of the Saxon Shore – no real evidence that this was done at their command and that these weren't warbands or the like squatting in a defensible structure.
Equates the proud tyrant – Vortigern – Riothamus – Vortimer as all being the same person and that the different sources that mention them in reality mean the same person. Ludicrous special pleading making the sources fit around his fancy. FFS, now he's got Arthur as his personal name.
Sees the tale of Riothamus taking 12,000 soldiers to the continent to fight for Rome as real. The archaeological evidence for Britain being able to support this many soldiers through agricultural surpluses and industrial production is totally lacking and indeed, points in the other direction.
Has Vortigern defeating Ambrosius in Kent with the aid of Saxon mercenaries. Odds bodkins!
When it comes to the tale of Arthur 'carrying the cross of our lord on his shoulder for three days' he sees this as being a crossbow brooch as depicted on the carving of Stilicho and the separately recorded virgin Mary on his shoulder as being a depiction of her on his shield. Possibly ingenious, but more likely post hoc reasoning.
Regards British settlements in Brittany and Spain as being deliberately seeded enclaves set up by the civitates to facilitate trade with the East. Huge if true.
Has Hengest and Aelle working in cahoots, as it gave Hengest 'plausible deniability' of Aelle's actions. This goes so far beyond any actual evidence that it has probably torn the space-time continuum.
Uses the chronological gap between the Bretwaldas as recounted by Bede to insert Maglocunus inas having hegemony over the island
Sees a date of composition for Gildas as 520 – arguable and one of the least out there of his assertions. Personally, I favour a much earlier date.
Has Maglocunus and Cerdic manoeuvring for imperium. Not backed up by any sources.
Geoffrey of Monmouth being supported by a lost Breton chronicle feels like straws being clutched.
Cynric being able to muster only a few thousand warriors at best – no evidence and seems wildly askance from every other bit of evidence.
Sees a long reign for Æthelberht of Kent, rather quaint. Also his notion that this was the first time the Anglo-Saxons had fought against each other seems unlikely, just as much as it is unprovable. His use of the word 'taboo' wildly inappropriate.
Rejects the view that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms started off small on the grounds that they'd have been swatted by the powerful British polities. Sees the building blocks idea of the Tribal Hidage as doubtful.
States that the East Angles may have appealed to Scandinavia for a king to unite the various 'clans' in East Anglia. Possible, but a bit sweeping.
Discusses the use of Ceaster as a place-name without any reference to Campbell's superb essay on – a very perilous undertaking.
States that Mercia and Northumbria were the results of frontiersmen seeking new lands. No evidence.
Sees the presence of Hadrian's and the Antonine wall as evidence that conflict was the norm in northern Roman Britain. I'd argue that the presence of these kept the levels of violence to a minimum beyond the odd specific campaign or great raid.
Has cavalry warfare as the norm in the north. No one would deny a mounted element, especially amongst the elite, but to see it as THE northern way of warfare to the exclusion of all else requires substantiation.
Instead of giving 597 as the date for Augustine landing in Kent, Pace goes with 595, with no explanation. In September of 595 there is a letter from Gregory to Candidus the rector of papal estates in Gaul, requesting he buy Anglian slaves and place them in monasteries to assist with the later mission.
Pace tries to get around the battle of Chester being attested outside the age of Arthur by claiming that there were two battles here. No evidence, obviously, but highly convenient for his purposes.
Explains Æthelfrith's victory at Degestan as him possibly, 'using weapons and tactics borrowed from the Gododdin, or simply got lucky.' Yet again, no evidence, but in this instance it feels highly partisan.
Has Raedwald sending messages to 'all the ealdormen' – the use of this term in East Anglia at this early date is unsecure at best.
States that Oswald was attacking the Welsh during the Maserfeld campaign. No evidence given for this.
Etc, etc, and continued on page 94 as Private Eye would put it.
Sometimes books come with red flags. Other times they have more red flags than the old May Day celebrations in the Soviet Union. When a book purports to:
Tell a new history.
Is about King Arthur.
Has been written by someone who isn't a professional historian of the period.
Is published by Pen and Sword.
These are all are causes for concern when taken individually. Collectively, in the one book, it's enough to make one shudder.
A 'new history' requires extraordinary evidence, and whilst there are talented amateurs and enthusiasts out there, anything controversial or courageous is best dealt with by an expert who has spent a long time working in that area. Pace's three decades of work at GCHQ is nice, but not exactly the equivalent of three decades being learned enough to teach the topic at a top uni. King Arthur is a topic that seems to attract dubious pseudo histories and Pen and Sword have a reputation for publishing any old thing without much of a peer review system, unlike OUP, etc.
All of this explains why I was a touch doubtful about this book. This wasn't assuaged in any way by the fact that there isn't a bibliography – instead the books are referenced in the end notes, which means that you can't tell at a glance whether he has gone more John Morris than Guy Halsall.
The first thing that strikes you about the prose is the sheer amount of casual unsupported supposition it contains. This book is absolutely full of it. One paragraph contains:
'By the 4th century most Roman Britons were not happy with the empire',
'had good reason to envy the rest of the empire: the Gauls ruled over them...'
'people in out of the way fly over country might resent elites,'
All, some or none of this may be true, but it isn't evidenced in any way and this casual presentation of opinion as fact becomes grating incredibly quickly. Pace uses modern comparisons that are wildly inappropriate for the age and ludicrous analogies, such as if we only knew that there was a French king in 1789 and another one in 1848 we'd reject the idea of an emperor taking a French army to Moscow in 1812 – this episode is supported by every piece of evidence imaginable. It's not some 5th or 6th century event with no evidence at all. The use of the phrase, 'Free Britain' is tonally off, too, as are the short segments of fiction that appear in some chapters. Fiction, or reimagining, has no place in a serious history book. Here it comes off as him projecting his opinion and thoughts onto events and is obviously without any evidential foundation.
When it comes to historically methodology, Pace dumps anything that doesn't support his opinion. He cherry picks approaches that support any aspect of his thoughts and then obviously ignores this methodology later on when it doesn't support another of his flights of fancy. It is the same with the opinions of expert historians. They're all wrong, unless they agree with him. His accusation that they cry 'fake news' at anything they disagree with does him little honour.
There are some fantastic examples of mental acrobatics being employed to get the answers that Pace has already decided are correct. He sees Aesc of Kent as living for 80 years and being the equivalent of a drummer boy when mentioned in connection with a battle in 458. He goes on to claim that Aesc received a Roman education and was the force behind a now lost Kentish Chronicle (composed by tame literate Britons living within Kent) – this supposed chronicle is the source of the early ASC dates and so prove they are accurate, rather than a much later chronicler working back from Bede/Gildas and making a series of best guesses. He uses this notion to claim a clear line of transmission for the earliest entries within the chronicle and so 'proving' he is correct. This is a house of cards with foundations of sand.
A further example of making the sources support his ideas is his conflation of people. Gildas' Superbus Tyranus, the Dux Bellorum of other sources, Riothamus of yet another source and Arthur (of no prima facie evidence) are all actually the same person in his reckoning. If you're going to decide that the sources say exactly what you want them to, then it's very easy to get the answers you want. As well as Arthur being 3 other people, it turns out that Uther Pendragon was actually Penda.
By taking a lot of late sources, looking for similarities, finding surprising ways in which additional stuff could fit, it's no surprise that Pace manages to convince himself that Uther Pendragon really was Uther. It's basically the same process involved in looking up any illness online and finding that you've got all of the symptoms – if you have an answer, then it's incredibly easy to make the facts fit it, whether or not they truly do.
Pace regards the sources as being largely independent of each other and thus more likely to be genuine separate records of the events they record. It has been shown that they are not. Halsall has gone into this in some depth, demonstrating so. Pace takes an almost literalist approach regarding the sources, despite the fact that a lot of excellent and extremely convincing work has been done showing that they require nuance and extremely careful handling. This isn't just limited to the well known sources, but also includes poetry and the Harleian chronicle, etc, in which he places far more credence and literalness than more learned folk. Despite there being much debate about the dating of Y Gododdin, and it being likely that it wasn't all composed at the same time, Pace takes it as having been created very soon after the events and naturally sees it as good quality evidence.
Pace believes that at the core of a story is truth. He cites things such as War and Peace, Moby Dick and Shakespeare as examples. Whilst there is some truth in some fiction being based on real events, it doesn't necessarily make it so in the instances he wants to believe, and to use it as evidence without extremely good supporting facts is ludicrous. There is a good reason no one asked Alistair McLean who the real Broadsword was and if he ever got fed up of trying to contact Danny Boy.
Pace makes a big thing about how if the various dating systems used by the chroniclers are calculated in a different way, then they support his interpretations. The dating systems are flawed, however, using his method in the way he does has serious problems. One, it smacks of choosing your answer and then altering the sources/evidence to fit it. Two, a revision of this kind, one that has not been accepted through a few centuries of study by acknowledged experts, would be extraordinary and so would require extraordinary supporting evidence. It all feels rather confused and special pleading. Pace fails to convince with this.
One of the biggest ramifications of just how terrible a history this book is, is that even if Pace is correct with a couple of his assertions (possibly in much the same way that a defective clock is still right twice a day), then I'd not believe it unless I saw it corroborated elsewhere.
Publishing stuff like this really does Pen and Sword no favours if they wish to be taken seriously.
As history, this book is all but worthless.
A far from exhaustive list of questionable elements:
The idea that Rome reoccupied the province from 418-421 – the evidence for his is shaky at best.
The Notitia Dignitatum archaic terminology and missing bits are used in support of this, when simpler explanations, such as it being a list of how things should be are to be preferred.
'After 595 the pagan world made by the Saxons is remade almost overnight into Christian England' – poppycock. Any reading of Bede would suggest that this took a couple of generations and the provision of churches and parochial guidance considerably longer.
Following the withdrawal of Rome 'there were still large numbers of people who had been educated in the classical tradition'. Cobblers – a good classical education was for the elite, not the many.
His reading of the mission of St Germanus takes a maximalist view of the Romanitas he encountered in Britain. However, the terminology and descriptions used were those that were 'correct' for the audience, rather than what may have been encountered on the ground. This can also be seen in the fact that he confronted the Saxons and the Picts. It's highly unlikely that the Picts were active in central southern England, but were a 'correct' group of raiders for any learned Roman.
The Saxons called the citizens of the Empire Wealas. A new one on me.
The towns of Eastern England being abandoned one by one. This sees the Anglo-Saxon advance as a moving front, whereas the situation appears to be much more nuanced.
Sees the Annona as grain being requisitioned from farmers, whereas it was a tax in kind.
Compares failed states and civil wars of our era, such as Bosnia, South Sudan, Yemen to Sub-Roman Britain. These aren't valid or even remotely good comparisons.
Totally disagrees with what he calls the 'year zero' scenario, by which he means that post-Roman Britain was on its posterior. However, the case for this, as demonstrated by Fleming is incontrovertible.
Claims that the Wansdyke was constructed for use against the upper Thames Saxons. However, it appears to have been begun in Somerset, where its defences are the strongest and it is at its most weak and unfinished the further east you go, which suggests a threat from the civitate to the north, rather than Saxons to the north east.
Speaks of Britain being on a 'war footing' in the 5th century, using second world war examples, which is totally inappropriate and not supported by the evidence.
Accuses Gildas of being purposefully vague in ascribing victory in battle to God and not naming the victorious general. This totally fails to understand the basics of the early medieval religious mindset – ONLY god could bestow victory in battle, as this came about through divine judgement and not through the acts of men and so the identity of the general was pretty much immaterial.
Credits a find of coins dated to 460 as a sign of a revival of trade with Europe. There are many ways in which this could have found its way there.
Disputes Halsall's reading of Gildas on the basis of his reading of the Latin being incorrect. It is possible that Halsall has misconstrued it, but my money would be on the professional who does it for a living being right.
Equates the Saxons that threatened the upper Thames with the Micel Here, which is unsupported by evidence and seems to wildly overstate their significance.
Has the Proud Tyrant reactivating a few forts of the Saxon Shore – no real evidence that this was done at their command and that these weren't warbands or the like squatting in a defensible structure.
Equates the proud tyrant – Vortigern – Riothamus – Vortimer as all being the same person and that the different sources that mention them in reality mean the same person. Ludicrous special pleading making the sources fit around his fancy. FFS, now he's got Arthur as his personal name.
Sees the tale of Riothamus taking 12,000 soldiers to the continent to fight for Rome as real. The archaeological evidence for Britain being able to support this many soldiers through agricultural surpluses and industrial production is totally lacking and indeed, points in the other direction.
Has Vortigern defeating Ambrosius in Kent with the aid of Saxon mercenaries. Odds bodkins!
When it comes to the tale of Arthur 'carrying the cross of our lord on his shoulder for three days' he sees this as being a crossbow brooch as depicted on the carving of Stilicho and the separately recorded virgin Mary on his shoulder as being a depiction of her on his shield. Possibly ingenious, but more likely post hoc reasoning.
Regards British settlements in Brittany and Spain as being deliberately seeded enclaves set up by the civitates to facilitate trade with the East. Huge if true.
Has Hengest and Aelle working in cahoots, as it gave Hengest 'plausible deniability' of Aelle's actions. This goes so far beyond any actual evidence that it has probably torn the space-time continuum.
Uses the chronological gap between the Bretwaldas as recounted by Bede to insert Maglocunus inas having hegemony over the island
Sees a date of composition for Gildas as 520 – arguable and one of the least out there of his assertions. Personally, I favour a much earlier date.
Has Maglocunus and Cerdic manoeuvring for imperium. Not backed up by any sources.
Geoffrey of Monmouth being supported by a lost Breton chronicle feels like straws being clutched.
Cynric being able to muster only a few thousand warriors at best – no evidence and seems wildly askance from every other bit of evidence.
Sees a long reign for Æthelberht of Kent, rather quaint. Also his notion that this was the first time the Anglo-Saxons had fought against each other seems unlikely, just as much as it is unprovable. His use of the word 'taboo' wildly inappropriate.
Rejects the view that the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms started off small on the grounds that they'd have been swatted by the powerful British polities. Sees the building blocks idea of the Tribal Hidage as doubtful.
States that the East Angles may have appealed to Scandinavia for a king to unite the various 'clans' in East Anglia. Possible, but a bit sweeping.
Discusses the use of Ceaster as a place-name without any reference to Campbell's superb essay on – a very perilous undertaking.
States that Mercia and Northumbria were the results of frontiersmen seeking new lands. No evidence.
Sees the presence of Hadrian's and the Antonine wall as evidence that conflict was the norm in northern Roman Britain. I'd argue that the presence of these kept the levels of violence to a minimum beyond the odd specific campaign or great raid.
Has cavalry warfare as the norm in the north. No one would deny a mounted element, especially amongst the elite, but to see it as THE northern way of warfare to the exclusion of all else requires substantiation.
Instead of giving 597 as the date for Augustine landing in Kent, Pace goes with 595, with no explanation. In September of 595 there is a letter from Gregory to Candidus the rector of papal estates in Gaul, requesting he buy Anglian slaves and place them in monasteries to assist with the later mission.
Pace tries to get around the battle of Chester being attested outside the age of Arthur by claiming that there were two battles here. No evidence, obviously, but highly convenient for his purposes.
Explains Æthelfrith's victory at Degestan as him possibly, 'using weapons and tactics borrowed from the Gododdin, or simply got lucky.' Yet again, no evidence, but in this instance it feels highly partisan.
Has Raedwald sending messages to 'all the ealdormen' – the use of this term in East Anglia at this early date is unsecure at best.
States that Oswald was attacking the Welsh during the Maserfeld campaign. No evidence given for this.
Etc, etc, and continued on page 94 as Private Eye would put it.
April 21, 2025
Very well written and takes a slightly different look at this controversial and difficult period in our British history.
I will admit right off that I was biased as this author took an identical if controversial and unpopular view to me on the historian Geoffrey of Monmouth. I have always felt that Geoffrey has been unfairly treated over the years. Given the world in which he lived he would have been highly unlikely to have told everyone that his monumental "History of the Kings of Britain" was based on an old Breton book leant to him by Walter of Oxford if in fact he had made it all up. Walter was an important man who would have objected loudly to having his name taken in vain in this way. Much more likely that Geoffrey started with an old book from Walter, added in bits form other old book and invented linking passages to get from one figure to the next.
Anyway, having realised that this author agreed with on Geoffrey I was clearly biased and both liked and enjoyed the work.
That said, I don't agree with all of the deductions that he makes. I thought his conclusion that Vortigern and Arthur were the same man was well argued but, ultimately, failed to convince.
Nevertheless, this book is ambitious in its scope and scale. It makes a good attempt at covering 300 of the most controversial and obscure years in British history. He is particularly good at explaining the issues and difficulties in this period.
A great book. Buy it.
I will admit right off that I was biased as this author took an identical if controversial and unpopular view to me on the historian Geoffrey of Monmouth. I have always felt that Geoffrey has been unfairly treated over the years. Given the world in which he lived he would have been highly unlikely to have told everyone that his monumental "History of the Kings of Britain" was based on an old Breton book leant to him by Walter of Oxford if in fact he had made it all up. Walter was an important man who would have objected loudly to having his name taken in vain in this way. Much more likely that Geoffrey started with an old book from Walter, added in bits form other old book and invented linking passages to get from one figure to the next.
Anyway, having realised that this author agreed with on Geoffrey I was clearly biased and both liked and enjoyed the work.
That said, I don't agree with all of the deductions that he makes. I thought his conclusion that Vortigern and Arthur were the same man was well argued but, ultimately, failed to convince.
Nevertheless, this book is ambitious in its scope and scale. It makes a good attempt at covering 300 of the most controversial and obscure years in British history. He is particularly good at explaining the issues and difficulties in this period.
A great book. Buy it.
November 13, 2025
A very in depth analysis of all the ancient sources and their origins.
June 20, 2022
A strange book. The author is clearly very well read and knows a lot about the period in question. I do not doubt the broad sweep of his scholarship. I especially liked his discussion of Geoffrey of Monmouth in which he concludes "Historia Brittonum" it is more than a work of fiction by said cleric.
However, the main thrust of the work is that Arthur and Vortigern were the same person. For a work which claims to reveal the true Arthur this amazing thesis is very lightly touched on. And given the totally different reputations of the men in Welsh sources I would say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I did contact the author via his advert for clarification but have not as yet received a reply.
However, the main thrust of the work is that Arthur and Vortigern were the same person. For a work which claims to reveal the true Arthur this amazing thesis is very lightly touched on. And given the totally different reputations of the men in Welsh sources I would say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I did contact the author via his advert for clarification but have not as yet received a reply.
May 26, 2023
The author clearly spent a large amount of time sifting through some ancient writings to try and compile a history of Britain after the Roman exit in 410.
The story is, at times, difficult to follow. In the end the author is able to tie things together and make sense out of the discrepancies in the old historical writings.
I would suggest taking your time to work through the book. Myself, I finally decided I like what I was reading
The story is, at times, difficult to follow. In the end the author is able to tie things together and make sense out of the discrepancies in the old historical writings.
I would suggest taking your time to work through the book. Myself, I finally decided I like what I was reading
September 26, 2025
I'm an avid fan of Sub-Roman Britain, its one of my favorite historical periods, and I was so enthralled by this book. It takes a new look at the chronology and sources present for the period, challenging past assumptions on the period. I could not put down this book until it was done and I highly recommend it to any fan of Arthur and this period.
March 26, 2025
Hard to read and difficult to keep a Solid structure in mind, need to reread it several times.
The author did a very good job bringing all sources available from that blurred times making an excellent approach to the truth.
The author did a very good job bringing all sources available from that blurred times making an excellent approach to the truth.
February 4, 2022
While I disagree with some of the author's hypotheses, this is an interesting book that gives much food for thought.
January 24, 2026
Some of this book went over my head—especially the part about dates. But the hypothesis is interesting and logical. Well-researched and well-thought out.
January 29, 2023
A serious attempt to bring light to the dark ages, I certainly gained a lot of insight into the era, having said that in the end I still came out confused and ended up losing the chronology. It was a bit like reading Tolkiens unfinished tales - some great stuff but some how lacking cohesion.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews