A Brief History of King Arthur

A Brief History of King Arthur
By Mike Ashley
Published in April 2010
384 Pages
Thibault’s Score: 3/5

Although I enjoyed this book, it is probably not for you.

This book is, for the most part, a very detailed discussion of the historiography surrounding the historicity of King Arthur.

The author assumes that the reader already has extensive knowledge of King Arthur, the time period, and the specific legends surrounding post-Roman Britain.

I have actually read several of the primary sources upon which the author draws - namely Gildas, Bede, and Nennius. I also have already extensively studied the time period. Finally, I also am very familiar with academic history. As a result, this book was comprehensible to me - even though at times I still struggled with some parts, especially when he discusses the calculation of dates and easter cycles.

The book isn’t a history per say. Instead, it is an in-depth discussion of the merits and dismerits of various sources.

I find historiography very interesting, and liked the book. The chapters concerning the dating methods relative to the various sources were the most interesting.

The writing style is good. A lot of the time academic writing is full of bullshit filler text. There is no thanking of professors, no arguing against imaginary opponents, and no use of unnecessarily technical or pseudo intellectual language. As far as academic histories go, this one had some of the best writing.

I probably do not recommend this book. If you are a professional historian who is already familiar with the legends, sources, and history, then reading this could be a nice way to go into depth and disentangle myth from fact. But if you are a casual student of history, this isn’t a book for you.