05-11-2009, 09:39 AM
My personal favourite of all of the 'who was/were the real Arthur/s is Rodeny Castelden's "King Arthur-The Truth Behind the Legend" (despite the horrible title), not because I agree with the conclusions reached but because it's well written, well argued and, out of all the one's I've read (over 100, and thought it not to many :wink: ), he's one of the few who never loses sight of the fact that it's all speculation and that there is no way that anyone can prove conclusively that there ever was an Arthur, let alone prove where he lived or what he did.
After examining the usual heaps of contentious evidence, Castledon makes the very valid point that if all of the legend and unsubstantiated ‘history’ is stripped away we may not be left with any proof of Arthurs existence, but what we do have is an Arthur shaped hole in a fascinating period in Britains history.
One of the few books on the subject that hasn't been shouted at or thrown across the room.
After examining the usual heaps of contentious evidence, Castledon makes the very valid point that if all of the legend and unsubstantiated ‘history’ is stripped away we may not be left with any proof of Arthurs existence, but what we do have is an Arthur shaped hole in a fascinating period in Britains history.
One of the few books on the subject that hasn't been shouted at or thrown across the room.
"Medicus" Matt Bunker
[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
[size=150:1m4mc8o1]WURSTWASSER![/size]
