Journey to Avalon: The Final Discovery of King Arthur Paperback – January 1, 2008

This is a book that generates strong mixed emotions. On the one hand, the authors display an extensive and detailed knowledge of early Welsh lore; on the other hand, they seem to draw upon little else in their effort to reconstruct the history of of Fifth and Sixth Century Britain. In particular, they seem to have little understanding of the institutions of the late Roman period (which influenced those of the succeeding period) and they disregard most of what we know about contemporary events on the Continent (which sometimes directly impacted post-Roman Britain and which often provide useful models for studying the transition from Roman imperial rule to local independence). Thus, the authors do not recognize Emperor Constantine III and his son (the Caesar Constans) when they appear in legendary guise; they do not realize that the "Republic of the Silures" ("res publica Silurum" in Latin) was not a special political arrangement, but a normal reference to a Civitas (local governmental unit) in Britain; they confuse Saint Germanus of Gaul with his Manx namesake; and, they posit unlikely interactions among the various realms and personalities of post-Roman Britain.The authors¹ identification of Arthur with Arthwys ap Meurig (Artvisius? son of Mauricius), a king of Gwent and Glamorgan in Seventh Century Wales, is questionable, because of the small realm and late date of this monarch. Such an identification is inconsistent with the island-wide reputation and the enormous impact of the historical Arthur, who won the epoch-defining Battle of Badon Hill around A.D. 493. It is not implausible, however, that incidents from the life of the similar-named king did influence the growth of the Arthurian legend.The book (or at least most of it) is nonetheless well worth reading. It delves very deeply into Welsh lore that is often ignored or disregarded, and it provides a number of interesting insights into the development of early Wales. I recommend buying the book, but skipping or skimming over pages 13 through 54 (where the authors¹ shortcomings are most manifest). The remaining 300 or so pages of the book provide a fascinating look into the dim world of long-age Britain.

This is one of quite a number of books who have identified the real, historical Arthur II. Despite the "experts" who have made a career in the last 3 centuries, or more,who have conspired to bury Arthur's identity, the word is out, Arthur lives.I have been studying my family history in South Wales for over 23 years and have seen how the latter day "experts" have systematically conspired to erase much of the true British and, with it, world history. Once again, they have been caught in their childish and churlish games. This work has an excellent bibliography and highly useful appendices in addition to the story within. This is a must for anyone studying the history and/or genealogy in S. Wales. It points out the plethora of "mistakes" made by the "experts" over the years quite well. It provides a synopsis of the Ancient Histories and how useful they are in the study of S. Wales, while pointing out how they have been misused and misinterpreted, as they surely have. If you read between the lines, you will see how the "parties" to the obfuscation conspiracy worked their theories into becoming "reality" and how it has been accepted by the unwashed. You should seek out this book and give it 3 readings. I purchased it online, used, through Amazon and was more than pleased. I do not know who "used" it but they must have had a quite light touch. It was new, not just "like new"

This is one of the "best" books I've read that tries to place the Arthurian legend into current day geography. It places most of the presumed battle sites in Wales, not Cornwall. A totally different way to look at these battles and their locales. My wife and I have travelled many of the Welch sites discussed in this book and the authors have done their homework (site work). I would recommend this book to anyone interested in a different option for the telling and retelling of the stories of Arthur. Buy and enjoy.

I would give this zero stars if I could. This is one of the few books I have ever actually thrown in the recycle bin. It is, how shall I say it, useless. It goes off on Geoffrey of Monmouth's dating of King Arthur to the 6th century, which disagrees with everything else Geoffrey says about the time period, which clearly places him in the 5th Century, and then tries to force an alignment with events and personages of the 6th Century that have absolutely nothing to do with King Arthur or anyone related to him. The author is either an idiot or he just has no regard for the facts of the matter. Spend your money on Geoffrey Ashe's study of Arthur. Not 100% accurate but at least useful and not recyclable . . .

Of all the many books written about the "legend" of King Arthur, this one really got through to me. The authors make a strong case for their theory that Arthur and Arthmael (or Armel) are one and the same person; that he was indeed the King, and that he was from South Wales. Sold me!

This is far too confused, although the appendices are well organised. If you are interested in this subject you really need to read - Holy Kingdom by Adrian Gilbert (with Alan Wilson/Baram Blackett) - an outstanding introductionOr, try Artorius Rex by Alan Wilson and Baram Blackett - a more detailed approach....Good luck

Chris Barber a prominent local historian in Monmouthshire and has put together a powerful case for identifying Arthfael as the mysterious Arthur of history. He is mentioned in connection with most major saints and yet the whole period is so wrapped in mystery, that his identity has never been discovered.Chris has painstakingly and authoritatively picked apart the evidence and assembled evidence pointing to his inevitable conclusion. Compelling reading.

Pages 201 to 211 reveal how the real King Arthur has been buried by academia not wishing to be embarrassed by the gaff of a leading historian. This is a good book well worth the money.

I made a comment through another review here as I started reading this book, and I wasn't too impressed by what I'd read so far. Having completed it I think there is a interesting argument given, but it is backed up by 'facts' that simply aren't; they are interpretations and theories.I was very unhappy when I read the following:"According to historians Gildas and Bede, the word Arthwys [the title of the prince they claim to be King Arthur... even though there's no evidence of it] was a title rather than a name. Any man given such a title was thus believed to be strong and powerful like a bear. It was bestowed by the Cymry upon Ambrosius [Aurelianus]..."One, Gildas and Bede said no such thing and the title does not translate as 'the Exalted Bear' as they say it does! Two, there is no historical source ANYWHERE that says the Britons bestowed this title on Ambrosius only some theorist who think it is he that was given the title 'Arthur'! Three, the correct name of the prince is Athrwys, which changes the argument somewhat. In fact the various pedigrees call him Atroys, Adroes, Athrawes and Athrwys everything but Arthwys! (There was an Arthwys, but he was from the north, and of the right time period unlike this Athrwys, although the authors have moved him almost a century earlier than generally accepted to make their theory work and to place him at the Battle of Badon).They tell the history leading up to Arthur as if it is known fact, with no mention that it's based purely on legend and, most importantly, Geoffrey of Monmouth's 12th Century pseudo-history. There are no questions raised about these so called 'facts', very few references given and if you knew nothing of the Arthurian subject you'd wonder why no one else had spotted what they have! There seems little doubt that many elements of Athrwys' life entered the Arthurian legend, but, to quote 'Y Gododdin', "he was not Arthur"! Meaning, of what we know of Athrwys, which is very little, he doesn't exactly fill the boots of the legendary king, in fact, there's no actual evidence that he became a king. To say he is one of the characters that made up the legendary Arthur is one one thing, to say he is THE King Arthur is another. If the scribes of Gwent knew Athrwys (or Arthmael) was Arthur, why on Earth wouldn't they make it plain for all to know? Having said that, someone put Arthur's name to the Llandaff Charters, a fact used by the authors. But again, there's no mention that this could have been done for political reasons and at a much later date.