The Discovery of King Arthur

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating look into myth and reality
Review: As a King Arthur enthusiast, I read this book both with awe, and admiration for the author, Geoffrey Ashe. His insight and passion, and vast historical knowledge, into finding out the facts behind the legend of King Arthur make "The Discovery of King Arthur" a powerful read indeed. Ashe unravels the tangled myths to reveal the facts behind the legend, and pinpoints Arthur to one individual who, more than any other man, fits the description of "Arthur". Ashe makes a very provocative, and eloquent, case for his existance; and bases his argument on facts, rather than hearsay, or personal opinion. We may never know whether or not King Arthur actually existed; however, Ashe treats us to a well written and fascinating look into myth and reality, as well as giving us a history lesson we cannot possibly fall asleep reading.

Rating:
Summary: The most brilliant and important thesis on this subject.
Review: I've read this book 5 times now, and it still impresses and amazes me. To be perfectly honest, I did not realize its brilliance and importance until the second time I read it. When this book was first published in the mid 80s, I was already a fan of Ashe, having read other books by him about reconstructing a historical Arthur figure and culture. The first time I read it, I thought that it was weak and conflicted with theories put forth by him in his previous books -- theories which I felt were fine and did not need to be improved on. A couple of years ago, someone convinced me to read it a second time, and it absolutely blew my mind! So I recomend that anyone who is not impressed with it give it another chance. Yes, it shifts Arthur chronologically back a generation or so, but many Arthurian events are being shifted back several years in light of the most up-to-date scholoarship. What Ashe does is he lines up the legend of Arthur, as told by Geoffrey of Monmouth, side by side with the history of the fifth century British king, Riothamus, and points out not just a few, but a whole slew of parallels. There are many theories out there trying to reconstruct a historical King Arthur (e.g. see my review of _King Arthur: The True Story_ by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman), many of which try to identify Arthur with someone on record under a different name; most such theories are weak at best and often quite preposterous, being based on the vaguest scraps of evidence and the most tenuous conicidences. Ashe's theory, on the other hand, is a startlingly strong case made up of a preponderance of circumstantial evidence; one may point to any one thing and say that it is only a coincidence, but when you get layer upon layer of these and couple it with archaeological evidence, one can no longer dismiss the similarities between Riothamus and Arthur as mere coincidence. Take it from a guy who has read a lot of books and articles on this subject: this is not just another among the myriad of historical Arthur theories; this deserves to be far and away the preeminent reconstruction of a historical Arthur. Ashe is a genius!

Rating:
Summary: A Must Have For Arthurian Enthusiasts
Review: I've skimmed this book several times (for the pictures) before I gave it a real chance when college professors pointed out the thesis of Ashe's work: there are remarkable parallels between the "legendary" King Arthur of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Riothamus, an actual 5th century British King.

Ashe brilliantly leads up to his thesis by presenting the facts, the legends, and previous attempts to discovery the "real" Arthur ("The Old Welsh Trail"). By doing so, Ashe gives the readers the proper context to fit his thesis into.

There are excellent pictures of late Roman/early Saxon Britain artifacts and most interesting of all: an artist's conception of an "Arthurian Knight".

Ashe's book is far more legitimate than King Arthur: The True Story, written by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman. Although well-written, Phillips and Keatman's book tries to link a petty Welsh King of the early 6th century (Owain Ddantgwyn of the Annales Cambriae) with Nennius's King Arthur merely because "he was in the right place at the right time", his nephew Maglocunus could have been Mordred, and because he is mentioned as the "Bear", which means Arthur or something.

This is no criticism of Ashe's believable and accurate work but I must say that I can't believe that Riothamus is the ONLY Arthur. No one can deny that Geoffrey of Monmouth based a good of Arthur's continental campaigns on Riothamus but what about Nennius and the other Welsh Dark Age manuscripts? What about Ambrosius Aurelianus's successor, the Romano-British Warlord/King who slaughtered the Saxons at Mount Badon, a battle that Gildas reported? Riothamus fought in the 460s and 470s, a period atleast 20 years before the battle at Mount Badon. I think there were two special men, the warlord of Badon, and Riothamus, who captured the imagination of the Welsh, and Geoffrey of Monmouth incorporated the two into one man.

Rating:
Summary: A Must Have For Arthurian Enthusiasts
Review: I've skimmed this book several times (for the pictures) before I gave it a real chance when college professors pointed out the thesis of Ashe's work: there are remarkable parallels between the "legendary" King Arthur of Geoffrey of Monmouth and Riothamus, an actual 5th century British King.

Ashe brilliantly leads up to his thesis by presenting the facts, the legends, and previous attempts to discovery the "real" Arthur ("The Old Welsh Trail"). By doing so, Ashe gives the readers the proper context to fit his thesis into.

There are excellent pictures of late Roman/early Saxon Britain artifacts and most interesting of all: an artist's conception of an "Arthurian Knight".

Ashe's book is far more legitimate than King Arthur: The True Story, written by Graham Phillips and Martin Keatman. Although well-written, Phillips and Keatman's book tries to link a petty Welsh King of the early 6th century (Owain Ddantgwyn of the Annales Cambriae) with Nennius's King Arthur merely because "he was in the right place at the right time", his nephew Maglocunus could have been Mordred, and because he is mentioned as the "Bear", which means Arthur or something.

This is no criticism of Ashe's believable and accurate work but I must say that I can't believe that Riothamus is the ONLY Arthur. No one can deny that Geoffrey of Monmouth based a good of Arthur's continental campaigns on Riothamus but what about Nennius and the other Welsh Dark Age manuscripts? What about Ambrosius Aurelianus's successor, the Romano-British Warlord/King who slaughtered the Saxons at Mount Badon, a battle that Gildas reported? Riothamus fought in the 460s and 470s, a period atleast 20 years before the battle at Mount Badon. I think there were two special men, the warlord of Badon, and Riothamus, who captured the imagination of the Welsh, and Geoffrey of Monmouth incorporated the two into one man.

Rating:
Summary: Everything but the 'legend" of King Arthur
Review: One of the greatest English myths is of King Arthur, Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table; the legend says if England is in dire trouble, Arthur and his knights will ride once again to their rescue.

Unfortunately, this book mostly ignores the legend and limits itself to bare facts. Without giving away the plot, the book concludes that either Arthur really existed even if no one is sure of what all he accomplished, or else someone with the same name did it all. In other words, it's good investigative history with a poor understanding of King Arthur.

Although it may not be apparent to an Englishman, King Arthur embodies the finest of the English spirit and attitudes. He was a great warrior who successfully defended his land against almost impossible odds (to be specific, the Saxon invaders from Germany). He was the architect of English fair play, justice, equality and democracy -- why else have a "round table" at which all are equal?

It was the Normans who imposed an absolute monarchy; the English, in the Magna Carta, told them that no one in England has the right of absolute rule. The legend warns of the perfidious French in the person of Lancelot, who seduces the Queen. In today's England, the legend of King Arthur says "this is who we would like to be."

Ashe provides a cornucopia of facts about the possibilities or likelihood of the real King Arthur, including a tantalizing suggestion the origins of the legend may date back to the beginnings of Stonehenge some 4,000 years ago. Granted, this may be a latter day addition to the legend, in effect claiming "we've always been like this." Or, it may indicate the stubborn English individuality may date much further back than anyone suspects.

It's a pity Ashe didn't examine the legend and it's modern meanings -- even in the recent American form with Richard Burton in Camelot -- and how this grew out of the facts he has compiled. The legends of Beowulf, der Ring des Nibelungen, Gitchee Manitou, the Good Soldier Schweik and others tell a lot about people. Someday, in a far distant time and place, "legends" of Battle of Britain pilots may merge with Camelot; think of Squadron Leader Arthur, his Spitfire knights gathering around a table in some pub after battling the Saxons.

Impossible? In America, legendary stories of George Washington began to arise within a few decades of his death. Today, true believers swear by such stories. Such modern legends express the best of America. It's what legends mean.

History is more than facts -- it is also meaning.

This book is a rich trove of facts, well worth reading. Whatever one thinks of King Arthur, this book provides a solid foundation for further analysis. I'd have preferred more, in the line of "here's what the legend means." Even limited as it is, it's well worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: Everything but the 'legend" of King Arthur
Review: One of the greatest English myths is of King Arthur, Camelot and the Knights of the Round Table; the legend says if England is in dire trouble, Arthur and his knights will ride once again to their rescue.

Unfortunately, this book mostly ignores the legend and limits itself to bare facts. Without giving away the plot, the book concludes that either Arthur really existed even if no one is sure of what all he accomplished, or else someone with the same name did it all. In other words, it's good investigative history with a poor understanding of King Arthur.

Although it may not be apparent to an Englishman, King Arthur embodies the finest of the English spirit and attitudes. He was a great warrior who successfully defended his land against almost impossible odds (to be specific, the Saxon invaders from Germany). He was the architect of English fair play, justice, equality and democracy -- why else have a "round table" at which all are equal?

It was the Normans who imposed an absolute monarchy; the English, in the Magna Carta, told them that no one in England has the right of absolute rule. The legend warns of the perfidious French in the person of Lancelot, who seduces the Queen. In today's England, the legend of King Arthur says "this is who we would like to be."

Ashe provides a cornucopia of facts about the possibilities or likelihood of the real King Arthur, including a tantalizing suggestion the origins of the legend may date back to the beginnings of Stonehenge some 4,000 years ago. Granted, this may be a latter day addition to the legend, in effect claiming "we've always been like this." Or, it may indicate the stubborn English individuality may date much further back than anyone suspects.

It's a pity Ashe didn't examine the legend and it's modern meanings -- even in the recent American form with Richard Burton in Camelot -- and how this grew out of the facts he has compiled. The legends of Beowulf, der Ring des Nibelungen, Gitchee Manitou, the Good Soldier Schweik and others tell a lot about people. Someday, in a far distant time and place, "legends" of Battle of Britain pilots may merge with Camelot; think of Squadron Leader Arthur, his Spitfire knights gathering around a table in some pub after battling the Saxons.

Impossible? In America, legendary stories of George Washington began to arise within a few decades of his death. Today, true believers swear by such stories. Such modern legends express the best of America. It's what legends mean.

History is more than facts -- it is also meaning.

This book is a rich trove of facts, well worth reading. Whatever one thinks of King Arthur, this book provides a solid foundation for further analysis. I'd have preferred more, in the line of "here's what the legend means." Even limited as it is, it's well worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: Indispensible Reading for Arthurian Enthusiasts
Review: This book represents the culmination of a lifetime of research by a leading scholar. Geoffrey Ashe should be commended for the great advances he has made in uncovering the history underlying the legend of King Arthur. Even if one finally decides to reject (as I do) the equation of the historical Arthur with Riothamus, one must nonetheless come to share Ashe's appreciation that the history of Britain in this period cannot be properly understood apart from events transpiring elswehere in the Roman Empire, especially Gaul.