Arthur and the lost kingdoms
by
"Historians have failed to show convincingly that King Arthur existed, for a good reason: they have been looking in the wrong place, in Wales or the West of England. The real Arthur, Alistair Moffat argues, was not a king but …
- ● 98% match for you
- ● art & photography, history
the long version
"Historians have failed to show convincingly that King Arthur existed, for a good reason: they have been looking in the wrong place, in Wales or the West of England. The real Arthur, Alistair Moffat argues, was not a king but a cavalry general, a prince of a Welsh-speaking southern Scottish tribe known as the Votadini by the Romans and the Gododdin by themselves. In a brilliant campaign, fought mostly in Scotland, Arthur defeated the Picts to the north and the Angles to the south. He halted the tide of invasion for a generation and gave Celtic Britain a breathing space to regroup and for parts of it to survive." "Alistair Moffat's conclusions are based not only on archaeology and documents but also on an analysis of the ancient place-names of the rivers, hills and settlements of southern Scotland. The author's search leads him in the final chapters to Arthur's headquarters - his Camelot - now truly a lost city where not one stone remains standing upon another." "Despite Germanic, Norse and other invasions, Britain has remained in essence a Celtic country. Arthur and the Lost Kingdoms will restore what our Anglo-Saxon history has hidden from us, a lost sense of our Celtic selves."--BOOK JACKET.
Margaret's verdict
""Historians have failed to show convincingly that King Arthur existed, for a good reason: they have been looking in the wrong place, in Wales or the West of England. The …"
highlights
what readers held onto
No highlights yet. Be the first.
discussion
what readers said
No reviews yet. Finish it; tell us what you found.