What do you think?
Rate this book
Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain
358 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2008
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
January 30, 2020
One of the best historical investigations into the existence of an Arthur figure I've yet read, and I've read several.
The author takes a radically different approach than other investigators. Most start from the assumption that there was no real Arthur figure but maybe there was one or more local warlords whose exploits were remembered and exaggerated. This author starts from a different place entirely. Namely, what do period sources have to say and what if those sources are actually accurate?
Most scholars dismiss the sources as being inaccurate and thus not usable. One bit of evidence to support this, is that the sources contradict each other. The author demonstrates that this is actually not so and that information that can be directly compared to known archaeology is quite accurate and that apparent innacuracies in their respective narratives can be explained in two primary ways. First, the sources are biased. Their writers had agendas. But those agendas were not to produce a work of fiction but rather to take facts known to them and spin them in support of their position. Identifying those agendas makes it possible to seperate facts from spin. Second, the apparent inconsistancies in the timeline between sources can be reconciled in a way that lines all the timelines up with a narrative of an early 5th century figure that was no exaggerated minor warlord, but one of the most important individuals in Western Europe. Essentially, insistence on believing that any real Arthur must hail from the late 5th century made it hard to credit sources that kept pointing to the early 5th century.
The book walks compellingly step by step through each piece of evidence, clearly identifying the sequence of adjustments that must be accepted in order for the hypothesis to work. There's no slight of hand here. Readers are simply asked "which is more likely, that some of the brightest minds of their age were fools who got it all wrong? Or that they wrote the truth as they understood it in support of the agenda they were pursuing"?
If you think them fools who got it wrong, then you have to throw out everything and are left where we are... essentially having no idea what was actually going on in 5th century Britain. But if you instead allow that maybe they did know what they were talking about, the sources actually compile a very detailed and complete picture entirely consistent with both archaeology and what we know of the late Roman Empire.
I found it very compellingly reasoned that the central figure that Geoffrey named only as the Proud Tyrant, was none other than Arthur, unnamed and portrayed negatively because Geoffrey was an inheritor of the Roman civitates tradition; who were at odds with the Dux Bellorum who ignored their ancient position to wage his war and thus were not part of his fan club.
I found it equally compelling but rather disappointing that the figure referred to as Vortigern (a title not a name) was also identifiable as Arthur, portrayed as a villain after Arthur's eventual defeat. Disappointing because I rather liked Vortigern as a villainous predecessor. The stories conclude that his incompetence and cowardice caused him to mistakenly invite the Saxons into Britain resulting in disaster. But the author makes a good case for this strategy being entirely consistent with how the late Roman empire pitted barbarian against barbarian, and how the evidence suggests that it had worked extraordinarily well leading to decades of peace and stability. So well that the Battle of Badon Hill was far from being a victory of Britains against Saxons, but more likely a victory of Roman Britain's and their Saxon foederati against the Irish.
Even Modred makes an appearance as Ambrosius Aurelianus, portrayed as a heoric figure by Geoffrey due to his championing of the anti-arthur faction once the urban middle-class grew tired of paying for Arthur's army.
Is it true?
Hard to say. But it's certainly reasonably argued, and quite convincing.
And far more interesting than the alternative of a shrug followed by "we don't know"
The author takes a radically different approach than other investigators. Most start from the assumption that there was no real Arthur figure but maybe there was one or more local warlords whose exploits were remembered and exaggerated. This author starts from a different place entirely. Namely, what do period sources have to say and what if those sources are actually accurate?
Most scholars dismiss the sources as being inaccurate and thus not usable. One bit of evidence to support this, is that the sources contradict each other. The author demonstrates that this is actually not so and that information that can be directly compared to known archaeology is quite accurate and that apparent innacuracies in their respective narratives can be explained in two primary ways. First, the sources are biased. Their writers had agendas. But those agendas were not to produce a work of fiction but rather to take facts known to them and spin them in support of their position. Identifying those agendas makes it possible to seperate facts from spin. Second, the apparent inconsistancies in the timeline between sources can be reconciled in a way that lines all the timelines up with a narrative of an early 5th century figure that was no exaggerated minor warlord, but one of the most important individuals in Western Europe. Essentially, insistence on believing that any real Arthur must hail from the late 5th century made it hard to credit sources that kept pointing to the early 5th century.
The book walks compellingly step by step through each piece of evidence, clearly identifying the sequence of adjustments that must be accepted in order for the hypothesis to work. There's no slight of hand here. Readers are simply asked "which is more likely, that some of the brightest minds of their age were fools who got it all wrong? Or that they wrote the truth as they understood it in support of the agenda they were pursuing"?
If you think them fools who got it wrong, then you have to throw out everything and are left where we are... essentially having no idea what was actually going on in 5th century Britain. But if you instead allow that maybe they did know what they were talking about, the sources actually compile a very detailed and complete picture entirely consistent with both archaeology and what we know of the late Roman Empire.
I found it very compellingly reasoned that the central figure that Geoffrey named only as the Proud Tyrant, was none other than Arthur, unnamed and portrayed negatively because Geoffrey was an inheritor of the Roman civitates tradition; who were at odds with the Dux Bellorum who ignored their ancient position to wage his war and thus were not part of his fan club.
I found it equally compelling but rather disappointing that the figure referred to as Vortigern (a title not a name) was also identifiable as Arthur, portrayed as a villain after Arthur's eventual defeat. Disappointing because I rather liked Vortigern as a villainous predecessor. The stories conclude that his incompetence and cowardice caused him to mistakenly invite the Saxons into Britain resulting in disaster. But the author makes a good case for this strategy being entirely consistent with how the late Roman empire pitted barbarian against barbarian, and how the evidence suggests that it had worked extraordinarily well leading to decades of peace and stability. So well that the Battle of Badon Hill was far from being a victory of Britains against Saxons, but more likely a victory of Roman Britain's and their Saxon foederati against the Irish.
Even Modred makes an appearance as Ambrosius Aurelianus, portrayed as a heoric figure by Geoffrey due to his championing of the anti-arthur faction once the urban middle-class grew tired of paying for Arthur's army.
Is it true?
Hard to say. But it's certainly reasonably argued, and quite convincing.
And far more interesting than the alternative of a shrug followed by "we don't know"
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 15, 2025
This was a very interesting and entertaining read. The author uses an 'imagined' narrative history approach (not unlike that used by Dan Jones recently) to retell key moments of the story, combined with compelling analysis of the historical record in an attempt to untangle the murky history of fifth century Britain and put forward a case for the 'historical' Arthur.
The book reads smoothly, is easily digestible and expouses a compelling thesis for a powerful military leader 'Dux Bellorum' who for two decades in the fifth century brought security to Britain, and has gone down in history as the legendary 'King Arthur'.
If I have some hesitation about this work it is the conclusions the author draws from analysing the fragmentary primary record. Is he reading the history to fit the conclusions he wants? I feel this wouldn't be the book an institutionalised scholar writing for a university press would produce on this subject. Not being a scholar of the period myself I would not want to go as far as to claim any hint of pseudo history, but it is maybe telling this is an obscure book by an independent scholar publish by an small press.
The book reads smoothly, is easily digestible and expouses a compelling thesis for a powerful military leader 'Dux Bellorum' who for two decades in the fifth century brought security to Britain, and has gone down in history as the legendary 'King Arthur'.
If I have some hesitation about this work it is the conclusions the author draws from analysing the fragmentary primary record. Is he reading the history to fit the conclusions he wants? I feel this wouldn't be the book an institutionalised scholar writing for a university press would produce on this subject. Not being a scholar of the period myself I would not want to go as far as to claim any hint of pseudo history, but it is maybe telling this is an obscure book by an independent scholar publish by an small press.
January 4, 2014
3.5
Interesting take on the 5th/6th centuries with some creative interpretation of primary sources. Food for thought.
Interesting take on the 5th/6th centuries with some creative interpretation of primary sources. Food for thought.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews