What do you think?
Rate this book
King Arthur: The Making of the Legend
A prominent scholar explores King Arthur’s historical development, proposing that he began as a fictional character developed in the ninth century
According to legend, King Arthur saved Britain from the Saxons and reigned over it gloriously sometime around A.D. 500. Whether or not there was a “real” King Arthur has all too often been neglected by scholars; most period specialists today declare themselves agnostic on this important matter. In this erudite volume, Nick Higham sets out to solve the puzzle, drawing on his original research and expertise to determine precisely when, and why, the legend began.
Higham surveys all the major attempts to prove the origins of Arthur, weighing up and debunking hitherto claimed connections with classical Greece, Roman Dalmatia, Sarmatia, and the Caucasus. He then explores Arthur’s emergence in Wales—up to his rise to fame at the hands of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Certain to arouse heated debate among those committed to defending any particular Arthur, Higham’s book is an essential study for anyone seeking to understand how Arthur’s story began.
According to legend, King Arthur saved Britain from the Saxons and reigned over it gloriously sometime around A.D. 500. Whether or not there was a “real” King Arthur has all too often been neglected by scholars; most period specialists today declare themselves agnostic on this important matter. In this erudite volume, Nick Higham sets out to solve the puzzle, drawing on his original research and expertise to determine precisely when, and why, the legend began.
Higham surveys all the major attempts to prove the origins of Arthur, weighing up and debunking hitherto claimed connections with classical Greece, Roman Dalmatia, Sarmatia, and the Caucasus. He then explores Arthur’s emergence in Wales—up to his rise to fame at the hands of Geoffrey of Monmouth. Certain to arouse heated debate among those committed to defending any particular Arthur, Higham’s book is an essential study for anyone seeking to understand how Arthur’s story began.
400 pages, Paperback
First published October 23, 2018
66 people are currently reading
451 people want to read
About the author
Nicholas J. Higham
34 books25 followersLibrarian note: There are other authors with the same name.
Dr. Nicholas John Higham, aka N.J. Higham, is Professor in Early Medieval and Landscape History in the History Subject Area in the School of Arts, Histories and Cultures at the University of Manchester. His research interests focus on two interrelated areas: the History and Archaeology of the Early Middle Ages in Britain, and the Landscape and Settlement History of North West and North England in the Middle Ages. He has supervised many successful research students in both areas and is always interested in enquiries concerning future research.
Dr. Nicholas John Higham, aka N.J. Higham, is Professor in Early Medieval and Landscape History in the History Subject Area in the School of Arts, Histories and Cultures at the University of Manchester. His research interests focus on two interrelated areas: the History and Archaeology of the Early Middle Ages in Britain, and the Landscape and Settlement History of North West and North England in the Middle Ages. He has supervised many successful research students in both areas and is always interested in enquiries concerning future research.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
December 31, 2018
The author does a great job of analyzing all the contenders for a historical Arthur. I was quite saddened to have to agree with his conclusions because, like many, there is a power in believing in this dark age hero who stood out from all the other warriors, leaders, and kings who lived and died during that time. Despite the lack of real proof, I still have a lingering hope that further evidence is yet to be uncovered. I still find it difficult to fully believe that such an obscure name as Arthur was plucked out of nowhere and developed into such a savior, when there must have been many more well known characters to choose from? It can be argued that this is exactly the reason he was chosen, but it feels far too uncomfortable that one covered in such few surviving written accounts would be so elevated. Could it be an oral tradition which did indeed survive for centuries that caused his rise or was there indeed a written work, long disappeared? It still feels there is a work to be uncovered and given the early Norman focus on rising Arthur from virtually nothing to hero and king, perhaps there is a book waiting to be found tucked away in a Normandy library. This reader hopes so...
December 1, 2020
This is an attempt to demolish the idea that there is an identifiable historical figure who is the 'Real King Arthur'. It seems doomed to fail. Higham is not the first scholar to announce that the historical Arthur did not exist, Guy Halsall wrote a similar book in 2013.
It’s unlikely he’ll be the last.
Arthur has proven a hard idea to squash. Despite the critical mauling it received, John Morris’ ‘The Age of Arthur’ is still for sale, and if Goodreads is anything to do by, still convincing readers that there was a historical figure as a point of origin for the stories.
Higham’s book is an encyclopedic refutation of the varied and various arguments for an ‘Historical King Arthur’. He lines up the contenders: the Sarmatian Arthur, the Greek Arthur, the list of nominees with names sounding like Arthur or those whose names sound nothing at all like Arthur; the ‘if this, then this, and then that means we’ve found Arthur’ arguments, and one by one he knocks them over.
Higham’s conclusion is that
[…] we can now agree to discount King Arthur as a ‘real’ figure of the past, leaving him and his deeds to the ‘smoke’ and ‘highland mist’ of make-believe and wishful thinking; it is there that he properly belongs. (p. 279)
As much as I agree with him, I distrust that first person plural which Higham is fond of using. Reading the book is like being bludgeoned, very thoroughly and very carefully. It should settle the argument. But it won’t. Ironically, even the blurb on the cover hedges its bets. Max Adams, identified as the author if 'In the Land of the Giants', is quoted: ‘Riveting…brings the historical Arthur to what may be his last decisive battle’. ‘May be’ because, given the nature of the evidence, there is never going to be a final, irrefutable argument.
Higham has created his own trap. And it has two parts. The first is that early British/Post Roman/Early English history is a specialist’s field. There is little surviving evidence, and what there is has to be used carefully. The number of people on the planet who can evaluate the arguments about the dating of the ‘Arthur’ reference in The Gododdin is very very small. But as Guy Hallsal pointed out in a similar book, the experts have left the field.
Higham wants to re-enter the discussion. But how can he do that? The people who should read this book probably won’t. The cult of the self-appointed expert and the ability to confuse ‘looking stuff up’ and genuine research, which is not confined to Arthurian studies, means nothing will daunt those with the arrogance to think they can discover secrets the experts who spend their careers studying these things have missed. People want to believe; and those that don’t understand that belief has nothing to do with it, will not be deterred.
But I wonder if Higham really thinks that someone inspired by the Clive Owens’ 2004 film ‘King Arthur’ which was advertised as ‘The untold true story that inspired the legend’, is going to read his detailed, painstaking deconstruction of the argument that Lucius Artorius Castus was the original Arthur (pp 14-39)?
The other problem is that it’s almost impossible to prove a negative. We can prove King Alfred or Lady Godiva existed, but we can’t prove Arthur didn’t. This means the onus of proof should be on those making the claims. Higham quotes Bertrand Russell:
‘Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than the business of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.’ He illustrated the point by supposing the existence of a teapot in orbit around the sun that is too small to be visible through even the most powerful telescope. That this assertion cannot be disproved does not mean that it should be allowed to influence our thinking about the solar system. That way only chaos lies, for such speculations are infinite. (p. 271)
However as far as the Historical King Arthur goes, all the candidates are the equivalent of orbiting teapots. What can the expert do? Pronounce: I’m an expert, and that argument doesn’t work? Who listens to that? Sticking it to the experts is a trope of books and tv, especially if you can suggest there’s a cover up.
So if the expert wants to enter the field, he has to deal with the infinite speculations that litter it. The result feels self-defeating. Graham Phillips has made a career out of finding things Arthurian. He found the Grail. He found Camelot. He identified the ‘Real King Arthur’ as Owain Ddantgwyn using a chain of reasoning that was so circular it makes a spin cycle look linear. He has not let scholarly opposition stop him. Give the man his dues: he’s held his line. Recently he claims to have found Arthur’s grave. The idea that Arthur’s 5th century grave can be found by reading Sir Thomas Malory’s 15th century text has so little to recommend it that it shouldn’t require pages of detailed refutation. It is a fine example of Russell’s orbiting teapot.
And despite what Higham has written about not being obliged to disprove the existence of orbiting teapots, he’s put himself in the position where that’s exactly what he has to do. If the purpose of the book is to educate the history-reading public, then he has to engage with Phillips’ argument. Reading his three page explanation of the flaws in a portion of it (pp. 264-267) is like watching someone using a huge rock crushing machine to try and squash a highly mobile ant.
If the argument for an historical Arthur rests on the assumption that ‘there is no smoke without fire’ it’s time that inappropriate metaphor was thrown out. There may well be no smoke without fire, but stories are not smoke.
Higham does need to be applauded for his willingness to accept that medieval authors made stuff up. There’s a peculiar strand in medieval studies, both amongst professionals and enthusiastic amateurs, that works on the assumption that everything that interests them has a prior source. Printed like that it sounds ridiculous. But the unstated assumption is that fiction is a post-medieval invention. So, when Higham surveys the evidence and writes ‘Wace’s introduction of the Round Table to Arthurian literature was a practical solution to an imagined problem, which there is every likelihood he came up with himself’ (p. 143), it’s one of the best moments in the book.
Anyone interested in Arthurian studies, historical or literary, will benefit from reading the book. It’s an encyclopedic survey of the subject, written by an expert. It gathers together disparate information, and the Sarmatian, Nart and Greek chapters are a welcome summary of those diverse cases. It does feel repetitive and labored in places. Each chapter has a concluding summary and they are all revisited in the concluding chapter.
But if the book’s aim is to squash the argument about an historical King Arthur once and for all, it failed before it was published.
It’s unlikely he’ll be the last.
Arthur has proven a hard idea to squash. Despite the critical mauling it received, John Morris’ ‘The Age of Arthur’ is still for sale, and if Goodreads is anything to do by, still convincing readers that there was a historical figure as a point of origin for the stories.
Higham’s book is an encyclopedic refutation of the varied and various arguments for an ‘Historical King Arthur’. He lines up the contenders: the Sarmatian Arthur, the Greek Arthur, the list of nominees with names sounding like Arthur or those whose names sound nothing at all like Arthur; the ‘if this, then this, and then that means we’ve found Arthur’ arguments, and one by one he knocks them over.
Higham’s conclusion is that
[…] we can now agree to discount King Arthur as a ‘real’ figure of the past, leaving him and his deeds to the ‘smoke’ and ‘highland mist’ of make-believe and wishful thinking; it is there that he properly belongs. (p. 279)
As much as I agree with him, I distrust that first person plural which Higham is fond of using. Reading the book is like being bludgeoned, very thoroughly and very carefully. It should settle the argument. But it won’t. Ironically, even the blurb on the cover hedges its bets. Max Adams, identified as the author if 'In the Land of the Giants', is quoted: ‘Riveting…brings the historical Arthur to what may be his last decisive battle’. ‘May be’ because, given the nature of the evidence, there is never going to be a final, irrefutable argument.
Higham has created his own trap. And it has two parts. The first is that early British/Post Roman/Early English history is a specialist’s field. There is little surviving evidence, and what there is has to be used carefully. The number of people on the planet who can evaluate the arguments about the dating of the ‘Arthur’ reference in The Gododdin is very very small. But as Guy Hallsal pointed out in a similar book, the experts have left the field.
Higham wants to re-enter the discussion. But how can he do that? The people who should read this book probably won’t. The cult of the self-appointed expert and the ability to confuse ‘looking stuff up’ and genuine research, which is not confined to Arthurian studies, means nothing will daunt those with the arrogance to think they can discover secrets the experts who spend their careers studying these things have missed. People want to believe; and those that don’t understand that belief has nothing to do with it, will not be deterred.
But I wonder if Higham really thinks that someone inspired by the Clive Owens’ 2004 film ‘King Arthur’ which was advertised as ‘The untold true story that inspired the legend’, is going to read his detailed, painstaking deconstruction of the argument that Lucius Artorius Castus was the original Arthur (pp 14-39)?
The other problem is that it’s almost impossible to prove a negative. We can prove King Alfred or Lady Godiva existed, but we can’t prove Arthur didn’t. This means the onus of proof should be on those making the claims. Higham quotes Bertrand Russell:
‘Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than the business of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.’ He illustrated the point by supposing the existence of a teapot in orbit around the sun that is too small to be visible through even the most powerful telescope. That this assertion cannot be disproved does not mean that it should be allowed to influence our thinking about the solar system. That way only chaos lies, for such speculations are infinite. (p. 271)
However as far as the Historical King Arthur goes, all the candidates are the equivalent of orbiting teapots. What can the expert do? Pronounce: I’m an expert, and that argument doesn’t work? Who listens to that? Sticking it to the experts is a trope of books and tv, especially if you can suggest there’s a cover up.
So if the expert wants to enter the field, he has to deal with the infinite speculations that litter it. The result feels self-defeating. Graham Phillips has made a career out of finding things Arthurian. He found the Grail. He found Camelot. He identified the ‘Real King Arthur’ as Owain Ddantgwyn using a chain of reasoning that was so circular it makes a spin cycle look linear. He has not let scholarly opposition stop him. Give the man his dues: he’s held his line. Recently he claims to have found Arthur’s grave. The idea that Arthur’s 5th century grave can be found by reading Sir Thomas Malory’s 15th century text has so little to recommend it that it shouldn’t require pages of detailed refutation. It is a fine example of Russell’s orbiting teapot.
And despite what Higham has written about not being obliged to disprove the existence of orbiting teapots, he’s put himself in the position where that’s exactly what he has to do. If the purpose of the book is to educate the history-reading public, then he has to engage with Phillips’ argument. Reading his three page explanation of the flaws in a portion of it (pp. 264-267) is like watching someone using a huge rock crushing machine to try and squash a highly mobile ant.
If the argument for an historical Arthur rests on the assumption that ‘there is no smoke without fire’ it’s time that inappropriate metaphor was thrown out. There may well be no smoke without fire, but stories are not smoke.
Higham does need to be applauded for his willingness to accept that medieval authors made stuff up. There’s a peculiar strand in medieval studies, both amongst professionals and enthusiastic amateurs, that works on the assumption that everything that interests them has a prior source. Printed like that it sounds ridiculous. But the unstated assumption is that fiction is a post-medieval invention. So, when Higham surveys the evidence and writes ‘Wace’s introduction of the Round Table to Arthurian literature was a practical solution to an imagined problem, which there is every likelihood he came up with himself’ (p. 143), it’s one of the best moments in the book.
Anyone interested in Arthurian studies, historical or literary, will benefit from reading the book. It’s an encyclopedic survey of the subject, written by an expert. It gathers together disparate information, and the Sarmatian, Nart and Greek chapters are a welcome summary of those diverse cases. It does feel repetitive and labored in places. Each chapter has a concluding summary and they are all revisited in the concluding chapter.
But if the book’s aim is to squash the argument about an historical King Arthur once and for all, it failed before it was published.
September 19, 2022
We all know about King Arthur don't we? He was either a local king or an army commander who fought the invading Saxons after the Romans had left Britain / England, wasn't he? At the end of the 5th Century?
You should read this book to discover how true this is. This scholarly work brings the existence of the historical Arthur to a final definitive conclusion.
Professor Higham investigates the various theories about who King Arthur was. Could he have been a figure from pre-classical Greece or a Roman soldier buried in Dalmatia? Could his stories have been brought to Britain by Samartian horse soldiers stationed here in the 2nd Century AD? Do any of the local kings in any part of post-Roman Britain e.g Cornwall, Dal Riata, or the Vale of Glamorgan equate to Arthur in any way? These theories are investigated thoroughly.
I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the book, but ask yourself why a hero of 500AD would go largely unappreciated for 330 years until he's mentioned in a book called Historia Brittonum where his list of 12 victories against The Saxons is revealed?
After this, interest in King Arthur increases and hasn't stopped since.
You should read this book to discover how true this is. This scholarly work brings the existence of the historical Arthur to a final definitive conclusion.
Professor Higham investigates the various theories about who King Arthur was. Could he have been a figure from pre-classical Greece or a Roman soldier buried in Dalmatia? Could his stories have been brought to Britain by Samartian horse soldiers stationed here in the 2nd Century AD? Do any of the local kings in any part of post-Roman Britain e.g Cornwall, Dal Riata, or the Vale of Glamorgan equate to Arthur in any way? These theories are investigated thoroughly.
I don't want to spoil anyone's enjoyment of the book, but ask yourself why a hero of 500AD would go largely unappreciated for 330 years until he's mentioned in a book called Historia Brittonum where his list of 12 victories against The Saxons is revealed?
After this, interest in King Arthur increases and hasn't stopped since.
February 1, 2023
The author dissects the various theories as to who the historical figure that inspired the Arthur legends could be. Some specific people have been put forward whilst others have suggested they're stories from a certain culture. This was an interesting study with a well set out argument.
February 25, 2020
"King Arthur is a truth universally acknowledged..." This is how the book starts and it reveals it style: a playful but very precise dissection of historical sources used as points of origin of Arthurian legends. This is an excellent book. A wonderful research text that is in almost all details well presented to a general reader. The aim of the book is to asses if there ever was a historical person that we can associate with the legend of King Arthur, or if the legend is mythological in origin, or if we should simple acknowledge that there isn't anything at all. The book examines the cases for a non-British ('foreign') and British Arthurs put forward by various historians over the last two centuries. And then discards one by one, showing without a doubt that King Arthur is an invented hero, used then and now, for propaganda/political/social purposes and not a real historical person, nor an inherited myth. Note that the book is not about Arthurian romances or reception of the legends into the society, but only about the first text as historical material for the case of existence of Arthur and ideas how Arthur could have appeared in post Roman Britain culture. Chapters pertaining to the non-British claims are very well written, including a significant text explaining the background of the actual claims. The British sources are discussed without such an overview, and at parts get a bit repetitive. My impression is that they are a bit more written for an audience that knows what the material is, for an expert. Nevertheless, the writing style is always clear and engaging, with occasional ironic comments that spike the interest. One can learn a lot from this book, that is also a joy to read.
February 27, 2021
Some very good information about King Arthur and l like the conclusion: that the legend originated with (pseudo-)Nennius's Historia Brittonum, in the service of a Welsh kinglet.
At least, the West European form of the legend.
However the author fails in one vital duty: to explain how the legend spread from being a local piece of Welsh propaganda, to consuming Europe's and the world's passions.
This is a vital failure of the author.
Even worse, the most important failure of this book is that it b e a t s a r o u n d t h e b u s h s o m u c h .
It was torture reading this book. It even contains a photo of some "Sarmatian" beads found at Ribchester, and a photo of some feminist-looking dowdy archaeologist ladies. Wow, boring and irrelevant. The author should begin by stating his conclusions, and then showing his working out, and then recapitulating his conclusions.
Instead, he takes us down a long winding road to prove every point he makes and by the end of it, you forget everything because of the confusing mass of names, places, ideas that don't seem relevant at all, and so on. You forget what the chapter is about. You forget what the book is about. You forget why you are even here, how did you get here, how did you enter this life and so on. I'm not joking, it was really that tortuous.
The author could have made this book half as long and still been a tad longwinded.
Still, the author does have a LOT of good info in the book, and the author's use of language is impressive.
At least, the West European form of the legend.
However the author fails in one vital duty: to explain how the legend spread from being a local piece of Welsh propaganda, to consuming Europe's and the world's passions.
This is a vital failure of the author.
Even worse, the most important failure of this book is that it b e a t s a r o u n d t h e b u s h s o m u c h .
It was torture reading this book. It even contains a photo of some "Sarmatian" beads found at Ribchester, and a photo of some feminist-looking dowdy archaeologist ladies. Wow, boring and irrelevant. The author should begin by stating his conclusions, and then showing his working out, and then recapitulating his conclusions.
Instead, he takes us down a long winding road to prove every point he makes and by the end of it, you forget everything because of the confusing mass of names, places, ideas that don't seem relevant at all, and so on. You forget what the chapter is about. You forget what the book is about. You forget why you are even here, how did you get here, how did you enter this life and so on. I'm not joking, it was really that tortuous.
The author could have made this book half as long and still been a tad longwinded.
Still, the author does have a LOT of good info in the book, and the author's use of language is impressive.
February 6, 2019
It’s an exhaustive and indeed exhausting analysis of the Arthurian legends which concludes that there is no basis for them. The author ranges from the Caucuses and ancient Iran, through Greece, Hungary and Croatia before landing in France, England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland as well as Cornwall and Brittany. It’s quite hard going but he stitches in flashes of wit into the narrative. Like most readers, I did have an unjustified hope of a grain of truth in an historic Arthur but no. It’s fantasy. It is well worth reading for both the cool analysis and the deep learning of Welsh literature.
April 13, 2025
[20 Mar 2025] This book promised to be the most comprehensive and therefore the most definitive analysis of the subject of King Arthur and a reappraisal of the age-old conundrum -- was Arthur a real historical character or was he a myth, a legend or a story told so much and with such conviction that it has 'become real'. It is generally a very good read. It is an incredibly and meticulously researched book - it seemed to me an exceptional piece of detective work. Every relic, stone, manuscript and an analysis of the work of numerous previous authors from all over the world were minutely picked over and debated. The evidence for an historical person called Arthur and that against.
It requires maximum concentration and enormous energy to comprehend the forensic attempts to differentiate between fact and fiction. It is in places hard work. It is more academic than I was anticipating and less aimed at the general reader than I had hoped for, but nonetheless I stuck with it and I was glad I did. I found the detailed study of 'evidence' from abroad less absorbing than that from around the UK. The Cornish connection seemed to get very little attention. In particular the author makes some excellent points about history and historians being influenced by the political and social needs of their times and their culture and one wonders if the author reflected on this for himself. As the English versus the Britons tension never seems far away.
A thought provoking and exceptionally informative book and without spoilers I have to say, even with everything previously noted, I was left in little doubt at the end and was convinced by the author's deduction - so for me this book achieved what it promised and what I needed.
It requires maximum concentration and enormous energy to comprehend the forensic attempts to differentiate between fact and fiction. It is in places hard work. It is more academic than I was anticipating and less aimed at the general reader than I had hoped for, but nonetheless I stuck with it and I was glad I did. I found the detailed study of 'evidence' from abroad less absorbing than that from around the UK. The Cornish connection seemed to get very little attention. In particular the author makes some excellent points about history and historians being influenced by the political and social needs of their times and their culture and one wonders if the author reflected on this for himself. As the English versus the Britons tension never seems far away.
A thought provoking and exceptionally informative book and without spoilers I have to say, even with everything previously noted, I was left in little doubt at the end and was convinced by the author's deduction - so for me this book achieved what it promised and what I needed.
February 3, 2023
A rigorous examination of the evidence for an historical Arthur. Spoiler alert: the author says he’s fictional.
January 2, 2022
Clearly written, very interesting, thorough, excellent, and a bit annoying, mostly because it so totally refused to leave any window open for ~romance~ and ~possibility~. I also wanted slightly more of an exploration of the possibility of oral transmission of ideas - totally happy for this to be dismissed but wanted to know a bit more about why.
January 4, 2024
Read the middle 4 chapters for folklore class. I had heard some of the folklore behind the King Arthur legends on my study abroad in England (we stopped at Tintagel and Glastonbury Abbey on our travels), but other than that, I've never particularly dived into Arthur-lore. So for me, this book was like being thrown into the deep end of obscure arguments rather than watching the tide of the various accretions of lore over time. I have to agree with my folklore professor that I don't find the search for the origins or truth behind the Arthur myth to be particularly interesting. I'd rather focus on how people have used and added to the myth over time than have arguments about various names that might or might not have eventually transformed themselves into Arthur. But beyond that, I did think the book did a good job of laying out the various perspectives in a way that was comprehensive and comprehensible to a complete newbie in the topic.
October 5, 2022
I loved the concept of this book. I think Higham does a very good, detailed job in explaining every inch of clue that we have on Arthur and breaks it down to its core components to prove the historicity of the mythical character from all angles. It is comprehensive. The chapters are even organised into clear themes to make sense of the different theories. The details though are so many they make the reading hard to read or follow for those not already familiar with history or geography or the Classical world or the Saxon period, despite the presence of maps and plates. For me, it worked and I enjoyed every chapter save the last one which did not add much to the whole book (apart from finally sharing the author's quick conclusion) and could have been resized to provide more socio-historical background earlier in the book. The sheer volume of names, dates, quotes and legends listed is way too much and would have benefited from simpler access to maps and references. This is a read for hardcore fans and historians for sure.
December 7, 2022
This is a very thorough review of all the evidence for a historical Arthur and why there (almost certainly) was no such person. The author covers many different theories, that Arthur was a Romano-British hero boldly holding back the barbarous Saxons throughout his lifetime (nope), that he was a Celtic legend from the mist of ancient time (nope), and that he was a Roman officer from Sarmatia that brought the legends of the Black Sea to Britain (an interesting theory that I wasn't aware of before, but it's not true). For anyone wanting a good overview of the origins of the Arthur story and of the debates about its historical reliability this seemed to me very comprehensive.
I think the best thing about books like this is that by getting rid of the "historical Arthur" it reveals more clearly the real Arthur, the magical, fantastical, hero/lover/mystic/warrior, infinitely malleable, who has graced so many completely fictional, but no less worthy for that, stories, over all these centuries.
I think the best thing about books like this is that by getting rid of the "historical Arthur" it reveals more clearly the real Arthur, the magical, fantastical, hero/lover/mystic/warrior, infinitely malleable, who has graced so many completely fictional, but no less worthy for that, stories, over all these centuries.
February 20, 2020
So King Arthur: Tha Making of the Legend is a bit of an odd book for me to pick up, as I have major problems with academia and prefer to delve into fiction. What little experience I have with academic texts does tell me that this is well written and argued though.
It's an interesting takedown of anyone claiming dominance over influences of the legend, especially when it completely disassembles the theory of the Roman Lucius Artorius Castus being in any way an inspiration to the legend.
It's a good book for anyone really interested in the Arthurian legend, like me, but also a really heavy read for anyone who isn't into technical terminology and academic writing. Like me.
It's an interesting takedown of anyone claiming dominance over influences of the legend, especially when it completely disassembles the theory of the Roman Lucius Artorius Castus being in any way an inspiration to the legend.
It's a good book for anyone really interested in the Arthurian legend, like me, but also a really heavy read for anyone who isn't into technical terminology and academic writing. Like me.
March 20, 2021
I wouldn't really call this an enjoyable read. I'm not in the camp of 'believers' in a true historical Arthur but this book seemed like the most long-winded way to say Arthur was 100% fictitious. It didn't need to be 300+ pages long to make the argument; Higham could have gone over all of the sources and disputed them in a far more concise way.
If you want DETAILED dissections of nearly every Arthurian source (and why they're untrustworthy) then this is for you. If you want to learn about the world of Arthur in a digestible way, I'd say skip it. I only read this because it was recommended to me for my master's dissertation.
If you want DETAILED dissections of nearly every Arthurian source (and why they're untrustworthy) then this is for you. If you want to learn about the world of Arthur in a digestible way, I'd say skip it. I only read this because it was recommended to me for my master's dissertation.
January 30, 2023
This is an intriguing deep dive into several Arthurian theories, with the aim of concluding the age old mystery of the existence of Arthur. Higham explores a range of theories, giving consideration to context and response across centuries. At times the context can get a little heavy, and an intimate knowledge of the Middle Ages helps here, but is not necessary if you are willing to take it slowly and absorb the wealth of information. His assessment of each theory is rational, showing impartiality throughout to allow logic to take the lead. Overall, a highly enjoyable and throughly valuable book, and an important one in the field of Arthurian studies.
Read
December 4, 2019Not bad. A look at the historic cases for Arthur from the plausible sounding to the totally improbable. But the trouble was I realized I don't care that much about the possibility of a historic Arthur. I'm much more interested in a historic look at Arthurian literature. I'd like a more comprehensive family tree of the literature out there. This book only mentioned the theoretically non-fiction sources that might be about Arthur and only talked about the stories in passing (no Mabiginion, Mallory and Cretien get a few name drops).
January 6, 2022
The legend of King Arthur. No matter how romantic it may seem every legend needs something to stand on to see where it came from. The author investigates the legends and theories surronding the King to see just how they stand up to a deep analysis of their claims. Highly detailed, with meticulous notes and an entertaining style. The author smashes down the most popular theories of King Arthur's legend and just how historical he was. Along with an analysis of the sources we have about him the book makes a comfortable read about one of the most interesting legends out there.
never-finished
December 28, 2023This book traces the historical precedents for King Arthur in excruciating detail. Basically, there was probably a military leader named Artur (or several other things), but nothing like the king of Camelot we find in folkloric tales. I would have preferred to read about the various King Arthur tales instead of delving into the historical details, which to me, don't have a lot of relevance to the interpretation of King Arthur legends and stories.
November 27, 2021
A very thorough examination of the evidence
The conclusion was disappointing, but not unexpected. It is a great story, but the historic evidence is so thin. So few contemporary records.
The conclusion was disappointing, but not unexpected. It is a great story, but the historic evidence is so thin. So few contemporary records.
October 28, 2025
Gutted because it's a fantastic academic book for getting a general understanding of myths and legends but I felt it didn't focus enough on Arthur. There's entire pages that just chat about Roman and Eastern History which I never found to be relevant enough to the point of the book.
December 30, 2022
Must read for those who want a more sceptical view.
Destroys one or two popular theories about Roman centurions and Sarmatians.
Destroys one or two popular theories about Roman centurions and Sarmatians.
February 13, 2025
A really good review of the known literature.
September 23, 2020
For a while now I had wanted to read a book by a scholar that was completely immersed in both: Dark Ages' history and the bulk of Middle Ages' Arthuriana. I knew the resulting combination would be a fascinating read for someone, like me, interested in the origins of the legend.
Higham exceeded my expectations. He provides a very detailed exploration of even farfetched possible bases for elements of the myth. I was particularly grateful for the fact that he is very aware of the evolution of the legend in the early literary works of the Middle Ages.
And even though this book focuses mostly on the historicity of Arthur, Higham also gives a brief overview of the evolution of some of the principal elements of Arthurian legend (i.e., Excalibur, the Holy Grail, Camelot, etc.), generating an even more wholesome analysis.
Higham exceeded my expectations. He provides a very detailed exploration of even farfetched possible bases for elements of the myth. I was particularly grateful for the fact that he is very aware of the evolution of the legend in the early literary works of the Middle Ages.
And even though this book focuses mostly on the historicity of Arthur, Higham also gives a brief overview of the evolution of some of the principal elements of Arthurian legend (i.e., Excalibur, the Holy Grail, Camelot, etc.), generating an even more wholesome analysis.
September 7, 2023
The best thing about this book is the amount of detail the author includes. The worst thing about this book is the amount of detail the author includes. The author goes deep into the details of every section of the book, and it is very enlightening; however, in some cases, it becomes difficult to read and caused me to forget the subject that was being discussed. The bottom line is that the authors conclusions are well supported, and the reader will learn almost everything they want to know about the historicity of King Arthur.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews