What do you think?
Rate this book
The Age of Arthur: A History of the British Isles from 350 to 650
It's a past hitherto hidden in myth and mystery, and one so exciting to lovers of literature and history. Yet Arthur himself, both the last Roman emperor and the first medieval king, represented a form of continuity...and pointed the way to future English history. "...Morris has created more than the most devoted of Arthurian enthusiasts could ever have hoped for...in a style of great elegance..."--Times Literary Supplement.
665 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1973
12 people are currently reading
725 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 - 26 of 26 reviews
September 22, 2017
I've long been interested in the history of Roman Britain as well as in the 'Matter of Britain', Arthurian literature and Grail legends, but I've done little previous study of the history of the islands between the years of change covered in this lengthy tome. Although mentioning Arthur in the title, very little is actually detailed about this legendary king. Although author Morris believes his existence incontrovertible, his treatment of the man is as a symbol of the end of the old British/Roman culture and the beginning of what became the English (the various Saxons), Welsh (what the British became) and Irish cultures. Lacking much original documentary evidence for this transitional period, the author relies heavily on archaeology and sophisticated critical exegesis of later texts. For me, so ignorant of the period, reading this book was slow and often difficult. I'd not recommend it to others with a similarly weak background. Specialists, however, should be quite impressed.
August 1, 2013
The sixties and early seventies were an exciting time for those interested in that transitional period between the removal of Roman troops from Britain and the lowland’s transformation into England, the ‘land of the Angles’ (and Saxons, of course). Long disparaged as the ‘Dark Ages’ or the ‘lost centuries’, this Cinderella period was then becoming more acceptable to scholars to study under alternative, less romantic labels: post-Roman, Early Medieval, Late Celtic, Early Christian, Late Antiquity or Anglo-Saxon, depending on your point of view or your specialisation.
The sixties also saw the rise of popular interest in archaeology, and Leslie Alcock, director of excavations at sites such as South Cadbury in Somerset, was one of many discovering clear evidence for major activity during this period in Wales and the West, not least at South Cadbury itself, dubbed Camelot because of its ‘Arthurian’ finds. Alcock also published an archaeological and historical overview of the period called, significantly, Arthur’s Britain (1971), in which he made a tentative case for the existence of a Dark Age warlord called Arthur. The legendary figure was lending his aura to the current zeitgeist, appealing to a range of opinions from highbrow through middlebrow to lowbrow, from students through Romantics to New Agers.
In the wake of this Dr John Morris, a senior lecturer at UCL, published his monumental The Age of Arthur, the synthesis of years of study in Late Antiquity – as the closing centuries of the Later Roman Empire were often described – and its aftermath. His wide interests, learning and experience (which ranged from army service to socialism, from academic work in India to pacifism) made him an interesting candidate to attempt a syncretised survey of Late Antiquity in the British Isles, which incidentally for him included Ireland and Brittany. Marshalling a huge mass of documents and references to material culture he put together an unprecedentedly detailed history of Britain over three centuries, exactly that timescale that had traditionally been called the Dark Ages. Unfortunately he entitled his tome The Age of Arthur.
Alcock had received some criticism for the title of his book, which appeared two years before Morris’, but at least he tried to argue from the evidence he presented. Morris didn’t. His approach was in many ways similar to the popular histories of an earlier time where much was erected on sometimes flimsy evidence, dubiously interpreted and stated with no uncertain authority. Quite apart from extraordinary new narratives – such as a complex military campaign across South Wales which nobody else has ever detailed, before or since – he continually referenced his own Arthurian Sources which had yet to be published and which thus made it impossible for the general reader to validate his claims. His colleagues, however, were not so easily hoodwinked, and he was critically crucified for it. The core of his narrative was the reconstructed career of the unquestionably historical Arthur, an undertaking which in many ways was the counterpart of an earlier counterfactual history from eight centuries before, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s notorious History of the Kings of Britain. And like that earlier historical fabricator from disparate sources Morris was laughed out of court.
John Morris survived just four years after the publication of The Age of Arthur in 1973, sadly long enough to see his reputation crumble amongst his peers following the appearance of this work. Much of the evidence for his arguments was to appear in his Arthurian Sources series, but he died long before these were ready for publication. What was eventually published was barely the ghost of what he must have intended, but even so enough survives to show that his methodology – using his undoubted scholarship to plaster over the cracks of diverse and often uncertain evidence to suggest a sound structure – was ultimately flawed.
The Age of Arthur, if read at all for enlightenment, should be used with caution and with some prior knowledge and understanding of the limitations of the available evidence. Four decades of archaeological and other research mean that many of his ex cathedra statements have regretfully to be disregarded. Sadly that hasn’t stopped some enthusiastic disciples, such as Rodney Castleden, from claiming his throne, alas with rather less erudition.
http://wp.me/s2oNj1-age
The sixties also saw the rise of popular interest in archaeology, and Leslie Alcock, director of excavations at sites such as South Cadbury in Somerset, was one of many discovering clear evidence for major activity during this period in Wales and the West, not least at South Cadbury itself, dubbed Camelot because of its ‘Arthurian’ finds. Alcock also published an archaeological and historical overview of the period called, significantly, Arthur’s Britain (1971), in which he made a tentative case for the existence of a Dark Age warlord called Arthur. The legendary figure was lending his aura to the current zeitgeist, appealing to a range of opinions from highbrow through middlebrow to lowbrow, from students through Romantics to New Agers.
In the wake of this Dr John Morris, a senior lecturer at UCL, published his monumental The Age of Arthur, the synthesis of years of study in Late Antiquity – as the closing centuries of the Later Roman Empire were often described – and its aftermath. His wide interests, learning and experience (which ranged from army service to socialism, from academic work in India to pacifism) made him an interesting candidate to attempt a syncretised survey of Late Antiquity in the British Isles, which incidentally for him included Ireland and Brittany. Marshalling a huge mass of documents and references to material culture he put together an unprecedentedly detailed history of Britain over three centuries, exactly that timescale that had traditionally been called the Dark Ages. Unfortunately he entitled his tome The Age of Arthur.
Alcock had received some criticism for the title of his book, which appeared two years before Morris’, but at least he tried to argue from the evidence he presented. Morris didn’t. His approach was in many ways similar to the popular histories of an earlier time where much was erected on sometimes flimsy evidence, dubiously interpreted and stated with no uncertain authority. Quite apart from extraordinary new narratives – such as a complex military campaign across South Wales which nobody else has ever detailed, before or since – he continually referenced his own Arthurian Sources which had yet to be published and which thus made it impossible for the general reader to validate his claims. His colleagues, however, were not so easily hoodwinked, and he was critically crucified for it. The core of his narrative was the reconstructed career of the unquestionably historical Arthur, an undertaking which in many ways was the counterpart of an earlier counterfactual history from eight centuries before, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s notorious History of the Kings of Britain. And like that earlier historical fabricator from disparate sources Morris was laughed out of court.
John Morris survived just four years after the publication of The Age of Arthur in 1973, sadly long enough to see his reputation crumble amongst his peers following the appearance of this work. Much of the evidence for his arguments was to appear in his Arthurian Sources series, but he died long before these were ready for publication. What was eventually published was barely the ghost of what he must have intended, but even so enough survives to show that his methodology – using his undoubted scholarship to plaster over the cracks of diverse and often uncertain evidence to suggest a sound structure – was ultimately flawed.
The Age of Arthur, if read at all for enlightenment, should be used with caution and with some prior knowledge and understanding of the limitations of the available evidence. Four decades of archaeological and other research mean that many of his ex cathedra statements have regretfully to be disregarded. Sadly that hasn’t stopped some enthusiastic disciples, such as Rodney Castleden, from claiming his throne, alas with rather less erudition.
http://wp.me/s2oNj1-age
March 16, 2015
I well remember the excitement with which I ordered my copy of John Morris' "The Age of Arthur" as soon as it was published in 1973. But it has taken me over 40 years finally to read this tome from cover to cover and I now realise why. John Morris' heroic attempt to reconstruct in detail the history of the British Isles and Brittany in the centuries following the collapse of Roman rule was based on his analysis of all the extant evidence. But his arcane and complicated reference system relied on his "Arthurian Sources", which he claimed had been published separately by Phillimore also in 1973, but which in reality were not made available until 1978 and 1995, following the author's untimely death. As a result, for many years it was not possible to check John Morris' historical narrative against his sources, so that his account had to be taken on trust and its weaknesses were hidden. Nevertheless, though some of his narrative may now have been discredited, this magisterial and comprehensive history remains a valuable compilation of all the available evidence for three centuries that have often been dismissed as a Dark Age. I found it a wonderful evocation of an age which, whether it is identified with King Arthur or not, was seminal in the creation of our modern nations. "The Age of Arthur" is highly readable and a rich resource of information and hypotheses about this fascinating period in our history.
December 19, 2021
Micro Review:
This author portends to deliver the true Arthur whom I have been in search of for years then proceeds to dance around with a bunch of talk rather than simply marshalling all the available quotes and dates clearly. He skips masses of more obscure but very pertinent early data.
He does pass through a few interesting matters, however, that put one on the right track (but then foolishly discounts them having not thoroughly examined them himself). I would advise looking more into Scottish and English chronologers and historians of the 1500’s, who still yet had more data than we now do on Arthur, and getting all quotes from them that they make on yet earlier sources than even medieval (for such sources are mentioned).
Macro Review:
Before I say what these matters are that this author passes over too quickly though, I wish to say, the chronologers I come across from before Medieval Times, and even long before our little “Geoffrey of Monomouth,” speak of Arthur as a factual King at the point of Rome's full demise (which was not the Roman's fault then! except Aetius…), and as being born during the Kingship of Emperor Marcian or Anastasius and late flourishing in the early reign of Emperor Maurice (582-602 AD perhaps minus diocletians reign of 22 years bringing such earlier). So we are looking at a range of 475-555 AD for Arthur (others living then: Vortigern, Vitalian, Righa, Kentigern, MyrD’dn as Merlin was more accurately called, and very last of the corrupt Constantine line dissolving in the NW of Europe while Justinian I was letting in all the Huns in the West even further than Aetius, around the 520’s AD)
Arthur was for certain during the latter reign of Emperor Anastasius per these chronologers (and the “Edessan Bees” then…note when Gurdjieff says Sarmoung had to go underground in exact date - exactly this time in question here and he connects them to the Edessan Bees - and also note their relation to Alans and Goths in the North, especially the Toulousites, hunted by Huns in Emperor Justin’s time too right after Anastasius - Justin allowed them in and they and the Justinian Plague ravaged the earth and Briton and made it desolate. Anastasius tried to stop them and their Isaurian kindred).
I once found in an obscure female researcher of Charlemagne even the source for a pre-Fredegarius chronologer (see my review on F. for hints on a his lineage after these times) who said Arthur’s offspring a century and a half later fled in the latter part of the Era of Emperor Heraclius to the Court of Mohammed’s descendants and these two families intermarried.
Very, very interesting, given who Muhammed’s grandson fled to also (The last of the Hyrcanian Kings Northeast of Iran, and their Alanian (Farsi speaking) roots and tie in to the late cum French Herulian Toulousite Goths, the Alans who came to Northern France (Alano Goths are recorded as speaking Farsi)), and Gurdjieff’s “Toulousites who founded a real western Catholicism higher for a moment even than Orthodoxy Initiatically” he says. Yes Prester John was later a referent to them spread all throughout the North in fading vestiges then.
These Toulousite Heruli Goths belonged in my opinion to a sept of more archaic Alani who also dwelt in Iceland and which Arthur was descended from as were some Welsh and those of the Highlands in Scotland. Aleph they called themselves per Scottish and Irish annals. And this sept was allowed, per King Theodoric in Cassius Varie/letters, to pass West by all their related Germanic tribes, “Freely.”
Ironically, or Caledonically (Celladonia) “Golden-like,” the “Toulousites” (Heruli Alano Goths from the East) were long ago before more Northern not Southern French as they are today..but this is a more antiquated matter and brings us even far above France or even England too to speak of such times before Arthur in question here.
King Theodoric of such foundlings is sometimes wrongly placed a bit too early in chronologies, as is Atilla the Hun his nemesis (who took apart Rome through subverting its war chiefs, ending Rome effectively). Fortunately this author mentions this error in chronologies but then discounts it without study. I believe Arthur was an infant when Theodoric and Atilla were at war and Arthur was loosely kin to those warring against Itzel Mundak (Atilla).
These two at war are mentioned both in the Waltherius Saga on these times, especially interesting in it is the Battle of “Orleans.” Very important to get a hold of the full and not partial scholarly habadashery redactions of this Saga and see its relation to those cycles Wagner, Nietzsche’s friend, used for his cycles!
In any case (and by the way, see my review on Horapollo who lived during this time of “Anastasius and the last Edessans,” teaching many mysteries that later “re-a-rose” in French Masonry and the Tarot - see also my Martinist review on Jefferson’s friend De Gebelin), the tid bit I find this book being reviewed as the most valuable hint is the theory that Henghist and Horsa who overtook Briton in Vortigerns reign thereabouts through a “dissolute son” is none other than Atilla’s grandson’s mentioned by near identical names and described as heading up into Briton in other Chronologies, to subvert the British Isles. And this “dissolute son” they came in through then, in english accounts we have of these Henghist and Horsa (sometimes called Hunza), being actually Mordred or one related to such politically, I find this credible chronologically and historically. The sweep up of Hun dominance in the west occured really after Atilla. The best accounts of Maurice show he was actually aligned with the Sassanids of better persuasion, married to their princess even, and combatting all such Avars and other Huns with them.
The Author of this book here mentions disorganized snatches of this, and of the Golden Horde that was often named such because they were the only sept then globally that still wore golden colored armor into battle at this time…as Mordred is depicted doing with his invading army appearing out of nowhere against Arthur in the old accounts…hmmm…hmmm. So maybe we see what side he was on? Yes, at least this author mentions this too conspicuous correlation.
Now, we have recently found the horde of a king related to Arthur’s mentioned tribes (per Historians of today) and with some gold in it too, yet they were not of such Golden Horde descent. I speak of Sutton Hoo of late and its Egyptian hieroglyphs on this cache’s insignia! In any case it is interesting Ptolemy places the “RoxAlani” (whom Alexander married into as the highest king line on earth of man) living next to the Khunnoi their nemesis from of age old times - perhaps a metallurgic similarity here then.
See my review on the Irish chronologer Vallancey and his mention of the Amazri for further hints on what I am getting at as to similarity, but one mimicking the other (and Tacitus on the Sauromatae Bastarnae being very different from other more original Russian and Germania septs such as the Heruli Goths).
Earliest texts on Merlin describe Arthur’s tribe as the oldest of far North Pole tribes even above the Hebrides and the Snowdonian Welsh. I see no difference in this and the RoxAlani, or in the first founders of the “Long Haired Kings” of England before even Aetheric. We are speaking of a proto-Trojan tribe of real Sarmoung Bronze Age who hadn’t yet been fully hijacked by the Sauromatae imposters (perhaps his line came from Faeroé Isle).
Artorius means “Northern” and Icelandic sagas speak of they as a people’s being founded (much earlier than modernity thinks) by certain black robed Druidic folk sometimes associated with the ThuAtha De Danaan, practicers of Sorcery. I subscribe to the theory these are the Toulousite Heruli Alano-Goths of Germanic or more Northern descent.
I could go on but my main gist is that in my estimation Arthur lived during the demise of Rome and Briton by late Hunnish overlords and was against them, a last bastion then, alongside Theodoric’s Goth-Alan, anti-Avar, late families staving off the destruction too then fully ensuing (and that these same Goths were in Gothland and Norway doing the same against the Dane Avar Hunnoi one need not even mention - see Johannes Magnus), leaving all desolate per the chronologers (who speak of these Dane Avars making everywhere in-roads in, Northwest, up the Avar river and beyond). Aetius let in these false Alans and Mother Earth worshippers who ruined Rome and Briton soon after, not being sated enough.
All of this was not far after the time of Saint Patrick who came in the desolation the Irish annalists say, just after being enslaved by such types against his will as a child and taken to Northern France where he escaped and was taught by Initiates in Magic (the first Gothic Cathedral making Christians I am here speaking of as did Gurdjieff - see also his words on Mont St Michael Church).
Arthur was part of a movement to stop the Huns from getting into Briton and replacing it (as they had done the century before in Norway from the coinage found there and per forgotten chronologies I have come across).
I’ll let you all find what Gothic chronologer mentions these two “grandson’s” (actually sons of Atilla’s brother he says - one’s he personally met when at the court of Atilla) who go by names so eerily similar to Henghist and Horsa (and who in earliest english chronicles are not described as actual Norse but usurpers of Norse called the Dane Avar Fie/Faux Kings). This Annalist even speaks of their plan to come up into Briton and overtake it.
The author of this book here in review mostly just skips over all this data just mentioning it in passing.
The early annals that show Arthur’s more immediate next generation kin fleeing to Northern France too, specifically more Firesian “Broceliand to Adtanatos” isles after he parted this earth, they are also of some significant import for tracing who he was and what and who all he was representing (though again, this is a more antiquated patriarchal matter). It also helps us consolidate them with the Heruli Alano-Goths who founded Catholicism more correctly then there in Northern (and later Southern) France.
Hopefully this helps anyone searching for the Historic Arthur. When I go back through my notes one day I may have time to add in here all the source facts and figures I obtained all this data from, which this author, Morris, mostly just skips past without putting anything together.
This author portends to deliver the true Arthur whom I have been in search of for years then proceeds to dance around with a bunch of talk rather than simply marshalling all the available quotes and dates clearly. He skips masses of more obscure but very pertinent early data.
He does pass through a few interesting matters, however, that put one on the right track (but then foolishly discounts them having not thoroughly examined them himself). I would advise looking more into Scottish and English chronologers and historians of the 1500’s, who still yet had more data than we now do on Arthur, and getting all quotes from them that they make on yet earlier sources than even medieval (for such sources are mentioned).
Macro Review:
Before I say what these matters are that this author passes over too quickly though, I wish to say, the chronologers I come across from before Medieval Times, and even long before our little “Geoffrey of Monomouth,” speak of Arthur as a factual King at the point of Rome's full demise (which was not the Roman's fault then! except Aetius…), and as being born during the Kingship of Emperor Marcian or Anastasius and late flourishing in the early reign of Emperor Maurice (582-602 AD perhaps minus diocletians reign of 22 years bringing such earlier). So we are looking at a range of 475-555 AD for Arthur (others living then: Vortigern, Vitalian, Righa, Kentigern, MyrD’dn as Merlin was more accurately called, and very last of the corrupt Constantine line dissolving in the NW of Europe while Justinian I was letting in all the Huns in the West even further than Aetius, around the 520’s AD)
Arthur was for certain during the latter reign of Emperor Anastasius per these chronologers (and the “Edessan Bees” then…note when Gurdjieff says Sarmoung had to go underground in exact date - exactly this time in question here and he connects them to the Edessan Bees - and also note their relation to Alans and Goths in the North, especially the Toulousites, hunted by Huns in Emperor Justin’s time too right after Anastasius - Justin allowed them in and they and the Justinian Plague ravaged the earth and Briton and made it desolate. Anastasius tried to stop them and their Isaurian kindred).
I once found in an obscure female researcher of Charlemagne even the source for a pre-Fredegarius chronologer (see my review on F. for hints on a his lineage after these times) who said Arthur’s offspring a century and a half later fled in the latter part of the Era of Emperor Heraclius to the Court of Mohammed’s descendants and these two families intermarried.
Very, very interesting, given who Muhammed’s grandson fled to also (The last of the Hyrcanian Kings Northeast of Iran, and their Alanian (Farsi speaking) roots and tie in to the late cum French Herulian Toulousite Goths, the Alans who came to Northern France (Alano Goths are recorded as speaking Farsi)), and Gurdjieff’s “Toulousites who founded a real western Catholicism higher for a moment even than Orthodoxy Initiatically” he says. Yes Prester John was later a referent to them spread all throughout the North in fading vestiges then.
These Toulousite Heruli Goths belonged in my opinion to a sept of more archaic Alani who also dwelt in Iceland and which Arthur was descended from as were some Welsh and those of the Highlands in Scotland. Aleph they called themselves per Scottish and Irish annals. And this sept was allowed, per King Theodoric in Cassius Varie/letters, to pass West by all their related Germanic tribes, “Freely.”
Ironically, or Caledonically (Celladonia) “Golden-like,” the “Toulousites” (Heruli Alano Goths from the East) were long ago before more Northern not Southern French as they are today..but this is a more antiquated matter and brings us even far above France or even England too to speak of such times before Arthur in question here.
King Theodoric of such foundlings is sometimes wrongly placed a bit too early in chronologies, as is Atilla the Hun his nemesis (who took apart Rome through subverting its war chiefs, ending Rome effectively). Fortunately this author mentions this error in chronologies but then discounts it without study. I believe Arthur was an infant when Theodoric and Atilla were at war and Arthur was loosely kin to those warring against Itzel Mundak (Atilla).
These two at war are mentioned both in the Waltherius Saga on these times, especially interesting in it is the Battle of “Orleans.” Very important to get a hold of the full and not partial scholarly habadashery redactions of this Saga and see its relation to those cycles Wagner, Nietzsche’s friend, used for his cycles!
In any case (and by the way, see my review on Horapollo who lived during this time of “Anastasius and the last Edessans,” teaching many mysteries that later “re-a-rose” in French Masonry and the Tarot - see also my Martinist review on Jefferson’s friend De Gebelin), the tid bit I find this book being reviewed as the most valuable hint is the theory that Henghist and Horsa who overtook Briton in Vortigerns reign thereabouts through a “dissolute son” is none other than Atilla’s grandson’s mentioned by near identical names and described as heading up into Briton in other Chronologies, to subvert the British Isles. And this “dissolute son” they came in through then, in english accounts we have of these Henghist and Horsa (sometimes called Hunza), being actually Mordred or one related to such politically, I find this credible chronologically and historically. The sweep up of Hun dominance in the west occured really after Atilla. The best accounts of Maurice show he was actually aligned with the Sassanids of better persuasion, married to their princess even, and combatting all such Avars and other Huns with them.
The Author of this book here mentions disorganized snatches of this, and of the Golden Horde that was often named such because they were the only sept then globally that still wore golden colored armor into battle at this time…as Mordred is depicted doing with his invading army appearing out of nowhere against Arthur in the old accounts…hmmm…hmmm. So maybe we see what side he was on? Yes, at least this author mentions this too conspicuous correlation.
Now, we have recently found the horde of a king related to Arthur’s mentioned tribes (per Historians of today) and with some gold in it too, yet they were not of such Golden Horde descent. I speak of Sutton Hoo of late and its Egyptian hieroglyphs on this cache’s insignia! In any case it is interesting Ptolemy places the “RoxAlani” (whom Alexander married into as the highest king line on earth of man) living next to the Khunnoi their nemesis from of age old times - perhaps a metallurgic similarity here then.
See my review on the Irish chronologer Vallancey and his mention of the Amazri for further hints on what I am getting at as to similarity, but one mimicking the other (and Tacitus on the Sauromatae Bastarnae being very different from other more original Russian and Germania septs such as the Heruli Goths).
Earliest texts on Merlin describe Arthur’s tribe as the oldest of far North Pole tribes even above the Hebrides and the Snowdonian Welsh. I see no difference in this and the RoxAlani, or in the first founders of the “Long Haired Kings” of England before even Aetheric. We are speaking of a proto-Trojan tribe of real Sarmoung Bronze Age who hadn’t yet been fully hijacked by the Sauromatae imposters (perhaps his line came from Faeroé Isle).
Artorius means “Northern” and Icelandic sagas speak of they as a people’s being founded (much earlier than modernity thinks) by certain black robed Druidic folk sometimes associated with the ThuAtha De Danaan, practicers of Sorcery. I subscribe to the theory these are the Toulousite Heruli Alano-Goths of Germanic or more Northern descent.
I could go on but my main gist is that in my estimation Arthur lived during the demise of Rome and Briton by late Hunnish overlords and was against them, a last bastion then, alongside Theodoric’s Goth-Alan, anti-Avar, late families staving off the destruction too then fully ensuing (and that these same Goths were in Gothland and Norway doing the same against the Dane Avar Hunnoi one need not even mention - see Johannes Magnus), leaving all desolate per the chronologers (who speak of these Dane Avars making everywhere in-roads in, Northwest, up the Avar river and beyond). Aetius let in these false Alans and Mother Earth worshippers who ruined Rome and Briton soon after, not being sated enough.
All of this was not far after the time of Saint Patrick who came in the desolation the Irish annalists say, just after being enslaved by such types against his will as a child and taken to Northern France where he escaped and was taught by Initiates in Magic (the first Gothic Cathedral making Christians I am here speaking of as did Gurdjieff - see also his words on Mont St Michael Church).
Arthur was part of a movement to stop the Huns from getting into Briton and replacing it (as they had done the century before in Norway from the coinage found there and per forgotten chronologies I have come across).
I’ll let you all find what Gothic chronologer mentions these two “grandson’s” (actually sons of Atilla’s brother he says - one’s he personally met when at the court of Atilla) who go by names so eerily similar to Henghist and Horsa (and who in earliest english chronicles are not described as actual Norse but usurpers of Norse called the Dane Avar Fie/Faux Kings). This Annalist even speaks of their plan to come up into Briton and overtake it.
The author of this book here in review mostly just skips over all this data just mentioning it in passing.
The early annals that show Arthur’s more immediate next generation kin fleeing to Northern France too, specifically more Firesian “Broceliand to Adtanatos” isles after he parted this earth, they are also of some significant import for tracing who he was and what and who all he was representing (though again, this is a more antiquated patriarchal matter). It also helps us consolidate them with the Heruli Alano-Goths who founded Catholicism more correctly then there in Northern (and later Southern) France.
Hopefully this helps anyone searching for the Historic Arthur. When I go back through my notes one day I may have time to add in here all the source facts and figures I obtained all this data from, which this author, Morris, mostly just skips past without putting anything together.
January 12, 2018
The virtues of this book far outweigh its defects. Those defects include a readiness to jump to keenly desired conclusions (e.g. the existence of an "Empire of Arthur"), a propensity to ground much later historical developments in much earlier situations without considering the intervening history, and the common British historian's trick of substituting a dismissive remark for an argument. The virtues include the clearest exposition of the history of the period that I have ever read, an unusually deep knowledge of the Roman, Saxon and Celtic background, and a transparency when it comes to bringing his sources before the reader. (Though the end notes are hard to follow, due to Mr. Morris' death before he had a chance to complete them.) Morris' allied project of publishing his primary sources (the Arthurian Period Sources series) is a really splendid gift to any reader or amateur historian interested in Arthuriana or early Britain in general.
June 2, 2013
There are thousands of sources for the British period 400 through 650, mostly saints' lives. The unfortunate thing is that these biographies are full of fancy, both in the miracles attributed to their subjects and in the persons they are connected to. On the surface, it makes for a stable chronology. The reality is that most of them are entirely erroneous. John Morris pooled together a remarkable amount of information from a barrage of legal, historical, and literary sources in presenting his view of the Arthurian world. However the chronology, having made uncritical use of so many sources, is entirely inaccurate, as are most of the associations and events he tries to put in context. An entertaining read, but with no bearing on post-Roman Britain.
April 11, 2021
I gave up on this less than half way through in part because I started Kearney’s The British Isles and saw that clarity was not impossible. It mostly covers later times but the overlap was enough to see how genuinely confusing the Morris was. It was a mishmash of peoples and places with little effort at creating clarity. It was a confusing time, no question, but it could have been made clearer for the reader.
February 6, 2009
Men went to Catraeth, shouting for battle, a squadron of horse.
Blue their armour and their shields, lances uplifted and sharp, mail and sword glinting...though they were slain, they slew. None to his home returned...short their lives, long the grief among their kin.
Seven times their number, the English they slew. Many the women they widowed and many the mothers who wept...after the wine and after the mead they left us, armoured in mail. I know the sorrow of their death.
Thet were slain, they never grew grey...from the army of Mynydawc, grief unbounded, of three hundred men, but one returned.
Blue their armour and their shields, lances uplifted and sharp, mail and sword glinting...though they were slain, they slew. None to his home returned...short their lives, long the grief among their kin.
Seven times their number, the English they slew. Many the women they widowed and many the mothers who wept...after the wine and after the mead they left us, armoured in mail. I know the sorrow of their death.
Thet were slain, they never grew grey...from the army of Mynydawc, grief unbounded, of three hundred men, but one returned.
December 25, 2012
Reading the Age of Arthur is only for the serious student of early British history. One can expect to wade through quite a few details. In doing so, you'll find evidence, though much criticized, for a real Arthur.
August 25, 2010
I'm not sure what to make of this book. Some great historical sketches of Ancient Britton - laced with nutcase theories. A historian locked away in his office too long perhaps.
December 30, 2018
I love this book. Despite the scathing criticism of David Dumville, Morris presents a rich examination of Dark Age Britain and a very plausible case for the existence of an historical Arthur.
December 7, 2023
King Arthur the king of the Britons was the last Roman king of Britain after Rome left the island is 410. Born around the 450s, his dream and vision of what Britain was like and his brief empire on the island shaped how present England turned out and in turn shaped a huge part of Europe as a whole. His empire failed in the end to the English but shaped how the English were to rule. That is essentially the central argument of this book and I mean it’s super convincing and I am inclined to agree with it.
Arthur wasn’t a fiction, but a real man. He likely never had knights of a round table made up of kings from Europe and Britain who lived centuries after or before him, but he was the ruler of the Brits for a time in the 5th and 6th centuries. He preserved a Roman ideal of the island but in the end he failed but gave hope to people of the island and shaped their ideals of how to run it.
I like how the author explained the differences of the Britons/welsh, the Scott’s and the Irish, the picts and the angles, the west saxons, etc. It helped to highlight the differences in the regions of the islands and how all groups played a part. Today a lot of people just would lump groups together but in reality they were distinct entities and each had their own traditions and ways of life that differed. I liked the maps provided in this book and how they were easy to understand and sprinkled throughout the book. The format of the book was near perfect as it described the history of the island from 350-650 and included some stuff before and after those dates to give more context to the history. It also included the role of the church and each king who played a part in shaping the land. The church and Ireland sending monks all over Europe to influence Europe and shape how it is even to this day was also cool to learn about. There were sections of the book to describe each; history, culture, land, religion, kinship, kings, ways of life, etc. The book was amazing at weaving them together but making each stand out as well.
The book was written in the 70s so I don’t know all the specifics of what has changed regarding what we know about the history but I assume a lot is still decently true and maybe some stuff here and there has changed as our understanding has gotten better. That is why it just barely isn’t 5 stars because I am not sure if it still is correct in every aspect, though I assume a decent amount of it still is correct.
King Arthur was real and shaped how we live to this day in some regards. I recommend this book to anyone who likes the history of Britain, the welsh, the Scotish, Irish, English, etc. It’s a long dense read but I think very worth it!
4.5/5
Arthur wasn’t a fiction, but a real man. He likely never had knights of a round table made up of kings from Europe and Britain who lived centuries after or before him, but he was the ruler of the Brits for a time in the 5th and 6th centuries. He preserved a Roman ideal of the island but in the end he failed but gave hope to people of the island and shaped their ideals of how to run it.
I like how the author explained the differences of the Britons/welsh, the Scott’s and the Irish, the picts and the angles, the west saxons, etc. It helped to highlight the differences in the regions of the islands and how all groups played a part. Today a lot of people just would lump groups together but in reality they were distinct entities and each had their own traditions and ways of life that differed. I liked the maps provided in this book and how they were easy to understand and sprinkled throughout the book. The format of the book was near perfect as it described the history of the island from 350-650 and included some stuff before and after those dates to give more context to the history. It also included the role of the church and each king who played a part in shaping the land. The church and Ireland sending monks all over Europe to influence Europe and shape how it is even to this day was also cool to learn about. There were sections of the book to describe each; history, culture, land, religion, kinship, kings, ways of life, etc. The book was amazing at weaving them together but making each stand out as well.
The book was written in the 70s so I don’t know all the specifics of what has changed regarding what we know about the history but I assume a lot is still decently true and maybe some stuff here and there has changed as our understanding has gotten better. That is why it just barely isn’t 5 stars because I am not sure if it still is correct in every aspect, though I assume a decent amount of it still is correct.
King Arthur was real and shaped how we live to this day in some regards. I recommend this book to anyone who likes the history of Britain, the welsh, the Scotish, Irish, English, etc. It’s a long dense read but I think very worth it!
4.5/5
Read
March 20, 2022As an Irishman, and his first foray into the history of our neighbours in that period, I was rewarded by the Authors efforts to portray effectively to object of proper historical analysis, backed by physical evidence and common sense. I had no idea I would come away with a profound understanding of the difference between the terms British and English. Even more, was the realisation that most English men I talked to about this book were unaware of the distinction either. King Arthur defines that distinction, and Morris does an admirable service to that end. What shone through to me was:
1. That the island of England was almost paganized again after the Romans left, through waves of Angle, and other continental forces of invasion (evidenced by burial rituals).
2. That the collapse of Roman imperial rule left not only a power vacuum, but an industrial collapse (evidenced by pottery industries almost folding within a few short years).
3. That the remnants of Roman civil administration were left in the hands of colonized natives who were not it's originators, and understanding the benefits conferred to all, was preferable to the marauding bands now making inroads to the east.
4. That Arthur made use of what was left of the colonizers
legacy to forge Britain, now constrained to the west.
5. That those who say King Arthur was only a myth do not realize the significant number of children named after him is evidence enough of his existence, which became tradition in the England of later years.
I have had to interpolate the reasons why King Arthur is not as recognized as he should be and one might reason it is because of the communion with Celtic Ireland (who were well settled in the coastal areas of Wales), his Celtic blood, and the antipathy for later Monarchs for their smaller neighbours.
Well worth the read, if only to get a fuller understanding of what it means to be British or English. A rich history, and a solid attempt by Morris to ground it in demonstrable facts.
1. That the island of England was almost paganized again after the Romans left, through waves of Angle, and other continental forces of invasion (evidenced by burial rituals).
2. That the collapse of Roman imperial rule left not only a power vacuum, but an industrial collapse (evidenced by pottery industries almost folding within a few short years).
3. That the remnants of Roman civil administration were left in the hands of colonized natives who were not it's originators, and understanding the benefits conferred to all, was preferable to the marauding bands now making inroads to the east.
4. That Arthur made use of what was left of the colonizers
legacy to forge Britain, now constrained to the west.
5. That those who say King Arthur was only a myth do not realize the significant number of children named after him is evidence enough of his existence, which became tradition in the England of later years.
I have had to interpolate the reasons why King Arthur is not as recognized as he should be and one might reason it is because of the communion with Celtic Ireland (who were well settled in the coastal areas of Wales), his Celtic blood, and the antipathy for later Monarchs for their smaller neighbours.
Well worth the read, if only to get a fuller understanding of what it means to be British or English. A rich history, and a solid attempt by Morris to ground it in demonstrable facts.
April 14, 2021
I found it difficult to get through this book due to its rather dry style of presenting academic information. I did learn new info about a period of history that greatly interests me, however the title “The Age of Arthur” is a bit misleading as King Arthur is only the focus of one or two chapters. (By far the most riveting chapters for me.) All in all, a well researched narrative but too dull for my taste.
November 26, 2019
Excellent research material
December 14, 2012
Very interesting but he seemed to have trouble with the actual composition of the book. For instance, he'd say something like, "The British and the Irish differed in three ways..." and then the paragraph would end and he'd start something new, leaving us to wonder what the three ways were. I found myself often thinking things like, "Martin? Who's Martin? He never mentioned him before" (I'm an American so I wouldn't automatically know who Martin is, as he seemed to assume the reader would). Not particularly well written, but fascinating once you can figure out what he's saying.
September 22, 2012
An interesting marshalling of information from the era. For me, the author's linking of the Old Welsh ''Lament for Geraint'' with the mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of killing a ''very noble'' Briton in a beach skirmish, was masterly. I think it quite possible that the Welsh and Saxon were describing the same happening.
July 21, 2014
In depth look at the history behind the myth of Arthur, though mostly focusing on the 'age' of the mythical king, and not the origins of the myth itself. The book is dry in parts, but well worth reading if you're interested in penetrating the mists of Britain's history.
June 18, 2008
While his theories on the historicity of King Arthur are not widely accepted these days, this is still a fascinating read.
August 19, 2012
This book helped to begin and define my career as scholar, historian, teacher, techie, and modern pagan.
May 17, 2014
A slog, but a worthy one. Excellent source for those wishing to expand their knowledge of British History.
November 25, 2014
A good history of an age where sources are scant and what does exist is often ambiguous and misleading.
April 7, 2015
Good. More scientific than I'm used to reading. Deeper, too.
Read
January 9, 2016An unmatched historical survey to the time of its publication of the known events of Dark Ages Britain by region and ethnic community.
June 3, 2016
This book set me off on a trail to identify the origins of King Arthur. Although a little dated now it is packed with information on Dark Age Britain
May 14, 2018
I think Morris did a creditable job in trying to create a synthetic historical narrative of the post Roman or Brittonic Period. I know it was trashed by Minimalist historians such as Prof. Dumville soon after it came out, but their own contributions to the study of the Arthurian period is decidedly of mixed results. Their claim that "close linguistic analysis" would solve many historical problems so far has not come to pass in the view of other scholars not of that school; more importantly their methodology of "guilty until proven innocent" in regard to texts of the period has come under fire from Arthurian scholars such as Professor Koch. Moreover, leading archaeologists are more and more distancing themselves from the chronological assumptions made by Dumbille and the Minimalists. In fairness, however, some aspects of Morris's synthesis were irritating, such as citing unpublished tomes (eg Source A, Source B, etc) in his endnotes, although many of those supplementary volumes have subsequently come out. Moreover, there has been a great deal of archaeological field work since the 1970's, so much of his text is out of date in this regard as well. Nevertheless, I found the book overall a valuable addition to the study of post Roman Britain and while it has its deficiencies, the pluses far outweigh the minuses. I recommend it for anyone interested in the historical reality behind the myths and legends.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews