Arthurian stuff

[Conal]

Hi guys

Book (1) can anyone recommend this?

Book (2) ... heads up for April publication.

(1)
Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain (Paperback)# Paperback: 252 pages
# Publisher: AuthorHouse (March 24, 2005)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 1418472077
# ISBN-13: 978-1418472078

(2)
Warlords: The Struggle for Power in Post-Roman Britain (Paperback)
by Stuart Laycock (Author) # Paperback: 192 pages
# Publisher: Tempus Publishing Ltd (1 April 2009)
# Language English
# ISBN-10: 0752447963
# ISBN-13: 978-0752447964


Thanks

[Robert Vermaat]

Book (1) can anyone recommend this?

It's by Edwin Pace, don't know it (yet).

Book (2) ... heads up for April publication.

By then it will (if it goes according to plan) have the face of yrs truly of the front cover. :roll:

[Arturus Uriconium]

Hi Conal, just read Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain and would recommend it, even though I may not agree with it and in many places it annoyed me.

The basic premise is Vortigern=Arthur=Riothamus (and another character actually, but I'll let you find out who that is for yourself) and to get there it takes enormous leaps of faith IMHO. However, it is an interesting attempt at a narrative of the 5th century and the whole Saxon question and covers many aspects of a thread I started here on that very subject. It is certainly a new take on the Arthurian question but should really be called Vortigern and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain, but that probably wouldn't sell as well, except to those who know who Vortigern is.

What he does do well is try to tie in what was happening on the Continent with what might have been going on in Britain, and I learned a lot more about the the late Western Empire and its military organization and methods. Of course, not being an expert on the subject I'll have to leave it to others to tell me whether or not he is accurate.

My biggest beef with it is that because it is a high street book having to appeal to the general public it gives very few references or even acknowledgment or mention to other theories that might counter his (or even a hat tip to those who have equated Arthur with Riothamus before him). He does give notes and a good Appendices it has to be said- which he himself advises more knowledgeable and scholarly readers to read first - but many of these will not be followed up by the general public and would be better mentioned during the text I feel. When other theories aren't clearly stated in a book like this the newcomer to the subject is going to take some of the author's as facts. (There are many other 'beefs' but I don't want to give too much away).

I won't say any more as I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on it, and to see a review from Robert.

[Robert Vermaat]

The basic premise is Vortigern=Arthur=Riothamus

Impossible. Arthur and Riothamus have been equated before, and even Vortimer and Riothamus. But Arthur and Vortigern both have legends and a set of tales attached to each of them - the differences are enormous, you'd have to assume that the one guy went into hiding and lived another life incognito. I discussed this with someone before, the implications are too unbelievable to even say that it would be hypothetically possible... :evil:

but should really be called Vortigern and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain, but that probably wouldn't sell as well, except to those who know who Vortigern is.

Well, I must read it then. :wink:

[Arturus Uriconium]

I did say there was much about it that annoyed me Robert and you've hit the nail on the head. I was going to go into more detail but wanted others to have a look before discussing or dismissing out of hand. Apart from what you mentioned you'd also wonder why, if Vortigern is Arthur, Elisig's Pillar didn't mention it, just at a time when Arthur was being pronounced a hero. But you should read it, even if it's through clenched teeth.

[Robert Vermaat]

It's something very common with modern discussions: 'this guy is this guys is really this giu'. I'm currently 'in discussion' on Arthurnet with someone who says that Vortigern was a title, that the man really was named 'superbus': Gildas' 'proud usurper', superbus tyrannus used as a common name! That name was subsequently 'translated' all of a sudden to Deroc, an early king of Brittany, who in a very late document is made son of a Guitolinus (hence the connection to Vortigern son of Guitolinus). the name Deroc would then mean 'haughty' and 'therefore' be the same as Superbus ('proud').

You're still with me?

Well, Deroc had a son, Riwal, who then would 'have to be' Vortimer, who indeed miraculously did not die as all the sources claim, but became a king in Brittany uinder a different name, as his father Vortigern did not die in Wales as all the sources claim, but became king Deroc. Vortimer's brothers Pascent and Catigern also 'must have had' Roman names, but this time of course without any reasoning behind it. And of course no explanation why the sources were so very wrong and why these men all had double careers and double lives.. hey wait a minute, maybe they were different people! :mrgreen:

Sigh..

[Arturus Uriconium]

Mm... come across many similar occurrences myself and this book does go that way at times. Mr Pace does have an internet site, which I haven't looked at myself yet, but here's the URL:

http://www.arthurandthefall.co.uk

I'll check it out later.

[Agraes]

It's something very common with modern discussions: 'this guy is this guys is really this giu'. I'm currently 'in discussion' on Arthurnet with someone who says that Vortigern was a title, that the man really was named 'superbus': Gildas' 'proud usurper', superbus tyrannus used as a common name! That name was subsequently 'translated' all of a sudden to Deroc, an early king of Brittany, who in a very late document is made son of a Guitolinus (hence the connection to Vortigern son of Guitolinus). the name Deroc would then mean 'haughty' and 'therefore' be the same as Superbus ('proud').

You're still with me?

Well, Deroc had a son, Riwal, who then would 'have to be' Vortimer, who indeed miraculously did not die as all the sources claim, but became a king in Brittany uinder a different name, as his father Vortigern did not die in Wales as all the sources claim, but became king Deroc. Vortimer's brothers Pascent and Catigern also 'must have had' Roman names, but this time of course without any reasoning behind it. And of course no explanation why the sources were so very wrong and why these men all had double careers and double lives.. hey wait a minute, maybe they were different people! :mrgreen:

Sigh..

I think I did had an e-mail discussion with the same guy

[Mark Fellows]

Hi all,

I’m new to RAT, and noticed that you were discussing books by two authors that I’d recently read, Laycock and Pace. (Laycock's book was his earlier Britannia: the Failed State) Both give a lot of information I wasn’t aware of. But frankly, I had problems with both, although for different reasons. The problem I had with Laycock's Britannia was that his very good information about British belt buckles being used by British 'militias' seemed to make his other idea (that every early British king was hiring Saxon mercenaries) that much less believable. If you already have British military units, why use barbarians, especially barbarians who don’t seem to have been very keen fighters? My main interest has been continental Romans, and all the evidence I’m aware of shows Saxons as more adept at running away than putting up a fight like Visigoths or Vandals. But is there evidence for Saxons fighting Saxons at this time, and at the behest of British kings? All Laycock’s examples seem pretty circumstantial.

I would agree that Pace is really giving a history of the proud tyrant, not Arthur. I’d also say that his style is way too breezy for my taste. But a good friend was very excited about it, not because of the dramatic history part, but because he said that the appendices refuted the ideas of someone called David Dumville. Pace supposedly overturns a lot of the doubt that has been raised about the British evidence. I’ve actually read Appendix III, and superficially Pace seems to make a better case than Dumville. But that raises the question, what other cases have been made?

Thanks in advance for any ideas on this. Both books have whetted my appetite for finding out more about this period.

"Marcus"

[Agraes]

Hello Mark and welcome here!

The problem I had with Laycock's Britannia was that his very good information about British belt buckles being used by British 'militias' seemed to make his other idea (that every early British king was hiring Saxon mercenaries) that much less believable. If you already have British military units, why use barbarians, especially barbarians who don’t seem to have been very keen fighters? My main interest has been continental Romans, and all the evidence I’m aware of shows Saxons as more adept at running away than putting up a fight like Visigoths or Vandals. But is there evidence for Saxons fighting Saxons at this time, and at the behest of British kings? All Laycock’s examples seem pretty circumstantial.

Even then, extra manpower would have been really welcome. Tribal wars explains the Roman conquest aswell, and by then every british kingdom probably had a lot of warriors. There is countless exemples like this throughout history.
Why going for Saxons? I quite disagree with them not beeing good fighters, warriors from this area were praised for their war skills, althought they lacked the organisation of the Goths and other which were in direct contact with Rome for centuries. And of course, British probably had some easier contact with continental Saxons, Angles, Jutes or Frisians than with Wisigoths or Vandals. Then there is the case of the Franks, but they seem to have been active at least in Kent. There wasn't a single "anglo-saxon" identity yet however, not 'till much later, and that explains it was probably easy to use one tribe against another, especially tribes that may had some grieves against each other when they were still settled on the continent.

[Conal]

(1)
Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain (Paperback)# Paperback: 252 pages
# Publisher: AuthorHouse (March 24, 2005)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 1418472077
# ISBN-13: 978-1418472078

Bought it :?

Also bought ;

The Historic King Arthur: Authenticating the Celtic Hero of Post-Roman Britain (Paperback)
by Frank D. Reno (Author)
# ISBN-10: 0786430257
# ISBN-13: 978-0786430253

and

Historic Figures of the Arthurian Era: Authenticating the Enemies and Allies of Britain's Post-Roman King (Library Binding)
by Frank D. Reno (Author)
# ISBN-10: 0786406488
# ISBN-13: 978-0786406487

Book allowance blown big time.... but at least I will know who King Arthur was :roll:

My current favourite is Owain Ddantgwyn :wink:

[Agraes]

Book allowance blown big time.... but at least I will know who King Arthur was :roll:

Im brittonic, I wield a spatha and bear a helmet, can I pretend to be Arthur?

Please?

[Arturus Uriconium]

My current favourite is Owain Ddantgwyn :wink:

Is that based on Philips and Keatman? The people who say Owein was a king of Powys when he wasn't?

[Conal]

My current favourite is Owain Ddantgwyn :wink:

Is that based on Philips and Keatman? The people who say Owein was a king of Powys when he wasn't?

Don't tell me that ... who was?

I like the idea that the Votadini came south and via Cunedda, Enniaun Girt ...Owain Ddantgwyn became the Dux Bellorum ... known as the Bear. I prefer a view that he was not a King but a war leader ... in a manner similar to Vorcingetorix ... for the duration of hostilities you Mr Whitetooth are in charge 8)

[Conal]

Book allowance blown big time.... but at least I will know who King Arthur was :roll:

Im brittonic, I wield a spatha and bear a helmet, can I pretend to be Arthur?

Please?

It's all very well looking the part but can you prove you have slain many Saxons ????