Steve Blake (1)

Any kind of research that involves delving back into a past not exactly bulging with meticulous written references to historical events and people must be nothing short of arduous. Arthur - man, myth, legend, king - has possibly had more written about him than any other character in history. It has taken a while for Arthur's true origins to be revealed and accepted: the fact that he would not have been a medieval king in shining armour, but more than likely a Celtic warlord, struggling against invading foreign forces. Arthur is important to us because he appears as the ideal of kingship during both peace and war, representing all that is good and true in a leader.

Alas, writers of the Middle Ages, notably Geoffrey of Monmouth, sensing a good story when they heard one, tended towards using ancient myths and legends in a context of their own era of knighthood and chivalry. Arthur became a medieval symbol of just sovereignty. However, the problem with historians of yesteryear is they did not base their interpretation of history and recording of events on actual facts: they would often 'adjust' historical fact for one reason or another, so modern historians cannot completely rely on the medieval transcriber of events. They would also sometimes report something as a factual event, even if it did not actually happen. Or else they might place a story in a context familiar to listeners or readers, thus causing much confusion. Names of places, people, battle sites and rivers would also change according to an era. Modern research is thus fraught with contextual problems.

A number of identifiable historical figures have been suggested as having been the 'real Arthur' but since the name occurs from the 7th century AD onwards, it's more likely that these individuals were named in his honour. The real Arthur was one of the last native British leaders to make a successful stand against barbarian forces during the 5th and 6th century AD. He is thought to have come from the Celtic area of Britain, an area then called the Kingdom of Powys (now West Midlands and central Wales). Most likely a nobleman of British-Roman ancestry, Arthur was believed to have had extensive knowledge of Roman military strategies and warfare which he used successfully in repelling the Saxon attacks.

How does one separate fact from fiction, teasing out legend from actual events? Not an easy task when so many magical elements seem to hamper history. A mysterious island called Avalon, a sleeping king who will arise, a splendid kingdom called Camelot, an enchanted sword called Excalibur? How can a modern historian make sense of all this? Authors Steve Blake and Scott Lloyd have traced original key documents (long neglected by researchers) in their search for the truth about Arthur. They also prove how history has been previously moulded to suit political purpose - is not history written by the victors? A fascinating book, but not an easy read. This is a book of painstaking investigation so don't expect an historical mystery with Clive Owen emerging as Arthur at the end. Detailed but fascinating!… (mehr)