Late Roman Britain Book

[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.