Late Roman Britain Book

[Conal]

I thought I wild post here as this is where the guys in the know hang out; I have some Amazon Tokens to spend and have a wants list (as below), I will be able to buy 4 or 5 books and would like recommendations/comments/additions please?

I have quite a few books around this subject but they keep writing them :roll: ;

(1) Bloodline: The Celtic Kings of Roman Britain – Miles Russell
(2) Unroman Britain – Miles Russell
(3) Arthur And The Lost Kingdoms – Alistair Moffat
(4) Revealing King Arthur: Swords, Stones and Digging for Camelot – Christopher Gidlow
(5) Barbarians and Romans, A.D. 418-584: The Techniques of Accommodation – Walter A Goffart
(6) The King Arthur Conspiracy: Arthur, America, and the Comet – Grant Berkley
(7) Artorius Rex Discovered: Authentic Discovery of King Arthur – A T Blackett
(8) King Arthur, II King of Glamorgan and Gwent – Alan Wilson and Anthony Thomas Blackett
(9) Arthur and the Fall of Roman Britain: A Narrative History for Fifth Century Britain – Edwin Pace
(10) King Arthur: Hero and Legend – Richard Barber
(11) The End of Roman Britain – Michael E Jones
(12) Decline and Fall of Roman Britain – Neil Faulkner
(13) The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century – Nick Higham
(14) Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons - Nick Higham
(15) Defying Rome: The Rebels of Roman Britain – Guy de la Bedoyere
(16) Sub-Roman Britain (AD 400-600): A Gazetteer of Sites (BAR International) – Christopher A Snyder
(17) The History of Gaul: Celtic, Roman and Frankish Rule – Frantz Funck-Brantano
(18) The Origins of the English (Duckworth Debates in Archaeology) – Catherine Hills

[authun]

Decline and Fall of Roman Britain – Neil Faulkner is good and has been described to me as 'very good but wrong in one or two places' by a leading archaeologist who belongs to the critical analysis school. They don't like any speculation at all and really sieve out everything that involves it. In fact some get quite angry at any hint of conjecture.

Consequently it is a 'view' of what happened and an informed view at that. It is very readable and contains a great deal of information.

best
authun

[Robert Vermaat]

Decline and Fall of Roman Britain – Neil Faulkner is good and has been described to me as 'very good but wrong in one or two places' by a leading archaeologist who belongs to the critical analysis school. They don't like any speculation at all and really sieve out everything that involves it. In fact some get quite angry at any hint of conjecture.
Consequently it is a 'view' of what happened and an informed view at that. It is very readable and contains a great deal of information.

Faulkner is indeed a good book, but it's also an 'extremist' view, in the sense that Faulkner sees class struggle everywhere. He's in a leage with Michael Jones, who is a minimalist: he sees Roman Britain almost gone during the 3rd century. If you read this, best counterbalance it with an archaeologist such as Ken Dark, with perhaps a historical view like the one of Christopher Snyder mixed inbetween.

Dark, Kenneth R. (2000): Britain and the End of the Roman Empire, (Tempus, Stroud).
Faulkner, Neil (2000): The Decline and Fall of Roman Britain, (Tempus).
Jones, Michael E. (1996): The End of Roman Britain, (Cornell).
Snyder, Christopher A. (1998): An Age of Tyrants, Britain and Britons AD 400-600, (Stroud).

Conal, apart from a few authors (Goffart, Jones, Faulkner & Snyder), the books on your list are in the 'fringe' of history. Some are even outright fantasy.

[Conal]

Thanks for the replies.

I have Ken Dark and also his Civitas to Kingdom and a couple of Snyder.

I will try Goffart, Jones, Faulkner and take a punt on one of the fringe books as I like a bit of extreme perspective 8)

[Medicus matt]

Conal, apart from a few authors (Goffart, Jones, Faulkner & Snyder), the books on your list are in the 'fringe' of history. Some are even outright fantasy.

You're not putting Nick Higham in that 'fringe' category are you? :?

Even Neil thinks that his 'Decline and Fall' is in need of revision but, given the abhorance he's developed for the Empire (it must be nice to be able to work yourself up into a frothing indignant Socialist rage from the comfort of a nice house in St Albans), it's probably best if he leaves it.

Like Robert, I've read most of Conal's wish list. They're all worth reading, although mostly just for pure entertainment value (some of them were the subject of my 'Distance thrown' rating system when I reviewed books online).

Russel's Bloodline had some interesting bits in it but failed to convince. His UnRoman Britain was better, probably becasue it was co-authored with Stu Laycock.
Moffat writes well but (like most 'Arthur' writers) bends what little evidence there is to fit a preconcieved notion of Arthurian identity.
The new Gidlow wasn't as horrible as I thought it was going to be and it made some very valid points about the use of the 'A' word by the UK heritage industry.
Pace's book was given to me by the author so I can't be too horrible. It's reasonably written, takes an interesting approach to the evidence and comes up with ...well, a fairly unique conclusion.
Anything with Wilson and/or Blackett's name on it should be read just for the sheer, jaw-droppingly awsome awfulness of it. Grant Berkley is their sock-puppet.

If I had to go for just one then it'd be Higham's 'Rome, Britain and the Anglo Saxons' but only if read in conjunction with Dark to get a balanced view.

That's the trick really. Read everything, question everything and come up with your own conclusions.

P.S. Castleden's 'King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend'. Terrible title but rather a good book. Very well written, excellent synthesis of the sources and modern theories of Arthur and lots of interesting stuff on landscape archaeology. His final conclusion doesn't convince but it's one of the few books on the subject that is so well balanced and well written that it doesn't annoy.

[Robert Vermaat]

You're not putting Nick Higham in that 'fringe' category are you? :?

There's light fringe and deep fringe.

Higham and Hills would be light fringe, some conclusions are a bit off the mark. I like some of Higham's books, but that Arthurian one was not on the good side of the line. :wink:
Bedoyere and Goffart are of course on the good side, forgort to mention them. :oops:
Funck-Brantano I don't know.

Barber, Gidlow and Moffat are al 'Arthurian dreamers', with varying success. Moffat's Votadinian Arthur failed to convince me.
I need to read Russel's latest book, but the way Laycock was going makes me fear for this one. Seems like some authors start with a good idea, but begin bending reality in oprder to prove that one point.. In this case it 'needed'to be proven that later Roman Britain could fall back into tribal warfare, 'because it was never really Roman'.

I discussed with Pace before he published, as far as I'm concerend his case is fantasy, because he refused to accept certain source criticism, and insisted on making trivial events in some sources very important, in order to.. fit his theory. Fringe.

'Deep fringe' are of course Wilsom Blackett & disciples...

[ArtoriusRex(Nicholas)]

Christopher Gidlow's "Revealing King Arthur" is actually very good. The title is actually a bit of a misnomer, he simply discusses the archaeology of the late fifth century in Britain and what that means for an "Arthur" type figure.

PS: Hello Vortigern Glad you made the migration! However my old email was trashed a while ago so now I'm stuck with a totally new profile ):

Glad to see people still have an interest in the Sub-Roman Era.

ArtoriusRex, formerly ArthuroftheBritons

[Robert Vermaat]

What year was Gidlow's book published? Ah, so much to read, so little time... I have actually 4 unread books before me... Sighhhh.

[Medicus matt]

What year was Gidlow's book published? Ah, so much to read, so little time... I have actually 4 unread books before me... Sighhhh.

May 2010. Most interesting thing about it is that it draws attention to the fact that the British heritage industry now avoids Arthurian references if it wants to be taken seriously (a backlash from the Artognu slate fiasco) but doesn't exercise the same caution with other barely substantiated early medieval figures (like Tristan/Drustan, King Mark etc).

[Robert Vermaat]

Most interesting thing about it is that it draws attention to the fact that the British heritage industry now avoids Arthurian references if it wants to be taken seriously (a backlash from the Artognu slate fiasco) but doesn't exercise the same caution with other barely substantiated early medieval figures (like Tristan/Drustan, King Mark etc).

'
They should switch to Vortigern instead.:-D

[Ron Andrea]

I also bought and read Gidlow's Revealing King Arthur. Not bad.

[Alan J. Campbell]

Although Snyder's Tyrants is not on your reading list, it's worth a read. Conservative and avoids the inflammable subject of Arthur.

Best,
the former Aquilifer-- Alanus-- who lost his status due to a change in email address.
Still a composite bow archery instructor although almost 70.

[ArtoriusRex(Nicholas)]

I've read "Age of Tyrants", and I'll second the recommendation. Nice to see you back Alan! Would you like to pick up our discussions again?

[Alanus]

Hello Nick & All,

Thanks to Jasper:-D :-D I have my old account and status again!
Yes, we'll start discussions again. But on the current subject, please tell me which Britain-related book you were reading that mentioned the "grooved" Alanic sword. I might mention that current Chi-bi swords have a dragon and peal on the hilt-- shades of the Equites Taifali.

I am so glad to be back, and JASPER is absolutely great!

[Conal]

Although Snyder's Tyrants is not on your reading list, it's worth a read. Conservative and avoids the inflammable subject of Arthur.

Best,
the former Aquilifer-- Alanus-- who lost his status due to a change in email address.
Still a composite bow archery instructor although almost 70.

Yup, got that one. He does not seem to have an agenda and comes across as very fair minded.