Review of Historical Fiction set in Arthurian Britain (c.440-c.550)

Below I rate some historical Arthurian fiction I have read (at least partly). I then give detailed reviews of some of the better novels (as I judge them). Finally, I discuss the choice of chronologies that authors have to make, and why they make the choices they do. Note that I have not included novels (e.g. those by Mary Stewart and Diana Paxson) in which the fantastical or anti-historical elements are so strong that they would be better classified as historical fantasy rather than historical fiction.

Ratings of the Novels

Author                     
Novel(s)                                                        
Year
Setting (i)
 Writing  Style
 Plot and Characters Historical Contextulization Historical Realism Absence of Fantasy Subjective
Rating (/10)










Baxter, Steven
 Coalescent (parts thereof)
 2003
 AE-
 ***
 ** **
 **
 ***
 6
Canning, Victor
 The Crimson Chalice Trilogy
 1976-78
 C
 ***
 **
 *
 **
 *
 5
Cornwell, Bernard
 The Warlord Chronicles 1995-97
C
 **** *** * *** * 9
Frankland, Edward Arthur, the Bear of Britain 1944
 L
 * * ** ** ** 4
Finkel, George
 Twilight Province (Y)
 1967
 VL
 ***
 **
 **
 ***
 ***
 7
Fisk, Alan The Summer Stars 2000
 C(ii)
 ** ** ** ** *** 5
Gloag, John
 Artorius Rex
 1977
 L
 **
 *
 **
 **
 ***
 4
Godwin, Parke
 Firelord
 1980
 C
 ***
 **
 **
 **
 *
 6
Lees, Frederick The Arthuriad of Catumandus  1996
 C
 ** ** *** * ** 7
Hollick, Helen The Pendragon's Banner Trilogy 1994-97
 E
 * * ** ** ** 5
McCormack, Patrick The Albion Trilogy 1997-(iii)
 C
 *** ** *** *** * 8
Manfredi, Valerio
 The Last Legion (translation) 2003
 AE+
 *
* *** * ** 3
O'Meara, Walter
 The Duke of War (Y)
 1966
 C
 ***
 **
 **
 ***
 ***
 5
Reeve, Phillip
 Here Lies Arthur (Y)
 2007
 AC+
 ***
 **
 **
 ***
 ***
 6
Rice, Robert The Last Pendragon 1991
 L
 ** ** ** ** *** 6
Sutcliff, Rosemary The Lantern Bearers (Y) & Sword at Sunset 1959-63
 C
 *** ** ** ** ** 8
Whyte, Jack The Camulod Chronicles & Golden Eagles
 1993-2005
 VE
 * * * * ** 2
Wolf, Joan
 The Road to Avalon
 1988
 E
 ***
 **
 **
 *
 *
 5

Notes:
(Y) indicates a book aimed at younger readers.
(i) For the letters in the column "Setting", see below for an explanation.
(ii) Fisk is inconsistent in his setting - in the first paragraph the narrator (Taliesin) says the battle of Badon was in 515, but several times later he implies it was c.495.
(iii) The third book in the Albion trilogy, The Lame Dancer, is unpublished, and was provided to me in private communication by the author, Patrick McCormack, in 2007. Click the name to dowload a print-ready pdf file I have put up on my site.


Detailed Reviews

The Arthuriad of Catumandus by Frederick Lees.

Summary
This novel puports to be a history written by one Catumandus (Cadfan), an ex-patriot Britain living in the Eastern Roman Empire, in about 535 A.D. Lees goes so far as to invent a story as to how he (Lees) obtained the papyrus manuscript by Cadfan. As its title suggests, it is primarily about Arthur, and Cadfan is in fact Arthur's illegitimate son, conceived in the dying days of the Roman Empire in Gaul. Over the course of the novel we find out about events going back to the invitation of the Saxons by Vortigern. The main narrative begins when Cadfan arrives in Britain, as an Imperial envoy, not long before the battle of Badon. In this respect it is more in the tradition of Arthurian romances (as begun by Geoffrey of Monmouth), where the decisive defeat of the Saxons was only the start of the tale. The story follows the fate of the Britons up to the battle of Camlann, after which Cadfan returns to the East.

Likes
1. Lees puts Arthur's Britain in the wider historical context of the Roman Empire. The death throws of the Western Empire and the revival of the Eastern play important parts, and no historical facts are contradicted.
2. He uses the oldest Welsh and Anglo-Saxon traditions for creating the characters and politics of Britain. For example, the Welsh genealogies are the source for the kings of the petty British kingdoms.
3. Lees has a strict chronological framework and he sticks to it. There are no obvious inconsistencies in the work.
4. He manages to tell the story in one moderately sized novel.

Dislikes
1. Lees incorporates too much of the Arthur of the Romances in a literal way, which was not convincing to me. To give just a few examples: the holy grail, the Fisher king, the siege perilous, the incest with Morgan. Lees tries to make them fit into his strict dark-age context but they just don't belong.
2. The relations between Gwenwhyfar and Cadfan, and her past relationship with Lasanleawg (Lancelot)  I found rather tedious. The same goes for Cadfan's sex life.
3. Myrddin (Merlin) I also found rather tedious. He is another anachronistic character (he actually belongs a few generations after Arthur). This wouldn't matter except that Lees knows that Myrddin is out of place so he has to arrange for him to have a grandson, also called Myrddin, to be around at the right time. This is another example of Lees trying too hard to reconcile the authentic history and the Romances.
 4. The descriptions of battle are poetic rather than realistic: blood-soaked ground, shining blades etc. I guess this might just be Cadfan, but I found it lost my interest.

Timeline
428        Hengest is invited to Britain.
452        Arthur born.
460-75   Ambrosius is sureme ruler of Britain.
497        Battle of Badon.
517        Battle of Camlann.


The Warlord Chronicles by Bernard Cornwell

Summary
Like The Arthuriad, Cornwell's trilogy (The Winter King, Enemy of God, Excalibur) also puports to be a written narrative by one of Arthur's younger contemporaries (but unlike Lees, Cornwell does not pretend to be the owner of Derfel's vellum manuscript). Derfel is one of Arthur's warriors who becomes a monk, and is based on a character in Welsh hagiography who was said to have fought with Arthur at Camlann. Derfel tells the tale, almost all from first-hand knowledge, of how Arthur rose to power in Dumnonia, forced the Britons into a sort of unity, was betrayed, recovered, thrashed the Saxons at Badon and finally met his end at Camlann. Also intertwined are some traditional Welsh themes, including Tristan and Iseult and the hunt for the 13 treasures of Britain.

Likes
1. This novel for me captures the spirit of the British Dark Ages politics better than any other. The level of organisation, the civil wars between the British states, the struggle for succession on the death of a king, the importance of dynastic marriages, and the negotiations between Briton and Saxon are all convincingly portrayed.
2. The description of battle is detailed, engrossing, and, from what I've read elsewhere, realistic. 
3. There is some humour. Merlin in particular is quite a character.
4. There is no feeling of inevitability about the plot. Partly this is because Cornwell has invented new story lines rather than selecting from the old ones. But also one feels the characters to be free agents, not being guided by the hand of fate which hovers ponderously in some novels.
5. Arthur, Derfel, and many other characters are likeable and believable, but also people the reader could look up to. I guess I am just old fashioned, but it pleases me to have characters like this. Other characters are too villanous to be believable, but this is because they are Derfel's personal enemies so we can't expect an unbiassed portrait.
6. Mordred is not Arthur's son. He is Arthur's half-nephew, and is the rightful heir to the throne of Dumnonia. This is more in line with the old Welsh traditions and also made for a better plot I thought.

Dislikes
 1. There is a supernatural element which had an ambiguous status (i.e. it was not clear whether it was real or not). This I did not mind except that in the last book it becomes too overt for my liking (and almost took the novel into the realm of historical fantasy).
2. Paganism (druids, human sacrifice etc.) is unrealistically prevalent. The one thing Gildas (writing probably at most a generation after Arthur) did not criticize the rulers of his day for was paganism.
3. Cornwell does not make use of the known (or at least traditional) history and genealogies of the time.  He makes no mention of Ambrosius or Vortigern, who are surely the most important Britons of the time preceding Arthur (although he does mention Cunedda in passing). There is no mention of the Roman Syagrius in Gaul, even though he would have been in power at the time Arthur was supposed to have been there.
4. The geographical extent of the British kingdoms do not correspond to what we know. There is no way that Gwent would have once extended into the middle of Britain, or Dumnonia as far as Sussex.
5. Cornwell is slightly inconsistent in his chronology in various places. The worst is that, at least to my reading, Derfel starts off about 10 years younger than Arthur, but ends up close to him in age.

Timeline
 
455        Arthur born.
497        Battle of Badon.
504        Battle of Camlann.


The Lantern Bearers and Sword at Sunset by Rosemary Sutcliff

Summary
Sutcliff's children's novel The Lantern Bearers, and its adult sequel Sword at Sunset  are the most influential historical Arthurian novels of the last century. They tell the history of Britain from its final abandonment by the Roman army (which Sutcliff puts in c.447) to the death of Arthur. Strictly, Arthur is only mortally wounded at the end of Sword at Sunset, as he is its narrator. The earlier novel is narrated by Aquila, a Roman soldier. Sutcliff's story follows fairly closely the narrative of Geoffrey of Monmouth, except that she ignore's Arthur's fictional career as conquerer of Western Europe. But she also weaves in bits from the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, Welsh legends, French Romances, and even archaeology.

Likes
1. There is no fantasy in these novels - they are straightforward, realistic, and powerful.
2. The historical context is strong, with references to events in the Roman Empire and back to the late 4th century.
 
Dislikes
1. The story is too predictable. This comes from following Geoffrey of Monmouth I suppose.
2.  Sutcliff also has severe problems of internal inconsistency. There seems to be about a ten year dislocation at the boundary of the two books, but there is also a discrepancy of at least seven years in the opposite direction (regarding the birth date of Cerdic, son of Vortigern and Rowena) and other miscellaneous discrepancies of up to four years.
3. Although there is no fantasy, the hand of fate was annoyingly present.
4. The political context, and the way battles are conducted were less realistic to me than in Cornwell's novels.

Timeline (as best I could make out)
445        Arthur born.
460-491 Ambrosius is ruler of Britain.
491        Battle of Badon.
512        Battle of Camlann.



Twilight Provice by George Finkel

Summary
The only book in my list by an Australian, Finkel's Twilight Province is aimed at younger readers. It is told by Bedwyr, prince of the eponymous Province in northern Britain, looking back on the life of Arthur. Many of the traditional Arthurian characters are here, although sometimes in surprising form – Lancelot become Olans, a Gothic warrior. The story is not tied to any Arthurian tradition, but follows a typical line, with Badon being towards the end of the book.

Likes
1. This is definitely an historical novel – no fantasy or hand of fate here.
2. It places 6th century Britain in a firm historical context, through Bedwyr's two voyages to Constantinople.
3. The size of armies was realistic, and battles were described well if not as thrilingly as by Cornwell.
4. It has some nice line drawings. I particularly like that in the final chapter showing a middle-aged Bedwyr looking out over Constantinople.
5. Like Cornwell, Lees avoids the incest motif. He does include a quest for the holy grail, but in a charming way.

Dislikes
1. The relationships were sanitized, I guess becauses this is for younger readers.
2. The lack of contact between the British states (prior to Arthur's becoming Dux Bellorum) is unrealistic. So is the peacefulness of Bedwyr's province for generations prior to c.520.
3. The peaceful transition of the population of Bedwyr's province from mainly British-speaking to mainly Saxon-speaking population is at odds with both nation's traditions. Finkel's Britons are clearly the mid-20th century English in disguise, so Finkel wants them to be linked culturally and by descent.
4. Little use is made of the information in Gildas. Vortigern is not mentioned, and Ambrosius plays a very small role.
5. Some of the line drawings are anachronistic, showing rectangular or kite-shaped shields, horned helmets, and stirrups.

Timeline
c.504       Arthur born.
524-535   Arthur's victories.
538          Arthur's death.  



The Albion Trilogy by Patrick McCormack

Summary
Unlike the other books reviewed in detail here, The Albion trilogy (The Last Companion, The White Phantom, and The Lame Dancer) is told in third person, from the point of view of many different characters. The two most important are Bedwyr and his much younger companion Nai. The story takes place around 520, thirty years after the battle of Badon, and ten years after Camlann, but through flashbacks and narrations by various characters, details of the past are revealed. These episodes are concentrated in the periods 475-78 and 493-497, before and after Arthur's great battles. The story centres around the Chalice of Sovereignty, a cup held by a clan of the Attecotti (a tribe of western Scotland) supposedly since the Britons lost sovereignty to the Romans. In mysterious circumstances Arthur leads a naval expedition to reclaim the chalice in 493, and he is acclaimed the Amherawdyr (Emperor) of Britain. Now, ten years after his death, various kinglets seek to gain the chalice for themselves, while Nai and Bedwyr try to prevent this from happening.

Likes
1. McCormack has researched the history and Welsh legends of these times very thoroughly, and has woven them together expertly. He almost completley avoids the influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth or the Romances.
2. His descriptions of life are full of detail and completely convincing, especially life in the decaying towns of the Britons.
3. Like The Arthuriad, the story has a consistent internal time-frame.
4. The characters are complex and flawed, but there is much to admire in some of them.
 
Dislikes
1. There are strong elements of fantasy in the ability of characters to foretell the future, and in the way legends of the past are repeated in the present.
2. Sometimes the narration of past events by certain characters goes on for an implausibly long time given the setting in which they are supposed to be telling the story.
3. The novels have many plot threads, which is fine, except that there seem to be a few loose ends.
4. There are few descriptions of full-scale battles --- most of the fights are between a handful of warriors on each side.

Timeline (personal communication from the author)
425-   Vitolinus = Vortigern is high-king of Britain.
452    Arthur born. (Bedwyr a few years later.)
460    Ambrosius becomes Magister Militum.
475    Arthur and Gwenwhyfar wed.
480    Arhur becomes Magister Militum.
490    Battle of Badon.
493    Arthur gains the Chalice of Sovereignty.
510    Battle of Camlann.

Comments on the Timelines

    Of the five books or series reviewed in detail above, all but one (Twilight Province) agree remarkably in their timeline: Arthur is born in 445x455, Badon is fought in 490x497, and Camlann is fought in 504x517. Since the battle of Badon is the only one of these events which is surely historical, it is arguably the crucial event as regards the setting of any historical novel in Arthurian Britain. Of the 17 novels or series tabled above, 8 (almost half) follow a similar timeline to that just outlined, including in particular:

C   Arthur leads the Britons to victory at Badon in 490x500

Here C stands for consensus, or conventional, or customary. However, some novels or series in the above have an Early or Late setting for Badon:

E    Arthur leads the Britons to victory at Badon in 465x480
L    Arthur leads the Britons to victory at Badon in 515x525

There are a few examples of Very Early and Very Late settings:

VE   Arthur leads the Britons to victory at Badon before 460
VL   Arthur leads the Britons to victory at Badon after 530

Finally, there are a few Anomalous settings

AX-    Arthur is a war-leader in Britain before Ambrosius' victory at Badon, with that battle dated as in the X time-frame
AX+   Arthur is a war-leader in Britain after Ambrosius' victory at Badon, with that battle dated as in the X time-frame


    It is interesting to consider the historical or pseudohistorical material which leads different authors to choose different settings. The basis for choosing an Anomalous setting is that Gildas, the only reliable source for Badon, mentions Ambrosius but does not mention Arthur at all. (It should be noted however that Gildas only names Ambrosius as the British leader in a battle a long time before Badon, perhaps as many as 44 years before --- see my article.) The AX+ case is expected because Nennius mentions Arthur after Ambrosius. The sole AX- setting comes from wishing to identify Arthur with Riothamus, the King of the Britons who was defeated in Gaul in c.470.

    The identification of Arthur with Riothamus is also probably the chief motivation for those authors (Hollick, Wolf) who choose the Early settings. I don't think it is worth speculating about Whyte's motivation for choosing a Very Early setting.  Finkel's motivation for a Very Late setting is, I suspect, merely because he wanted Arthur's victories to depend upon help from Justinian (527-65). The remaining cases are more involved.

    The Late setting for Badon, which is the one I have adopted in my reconstruction, is best justified by the following:
The significance of the latter point is that this period should include the considerable time after Badon in which "foreign wars have ceased" according to Gildas.

    The Concensus view probably owes much to the influence of John Morris' The Age of Arthur (1973), which is explicity acknowledged by the novelists Godwin and Paxson among others. It is best justified by the following:
The relevance of the last two points is that these dates are roughly 15 years earlier than the dates in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for the Briton's first appeal to the Angles (443) and for the revolt of Hengest (455). If this correction (or, as Morris argues, a 20 year correction) is made to the subsequent dates in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle, for the next eighty years, then the period of peace mentioned above would begin in 494 (or 489 respectively). This would agree roughly with Bede's dating of Badon. It should be pointed out, however, that Bede's date for Badon is almost certainly based on adding the infamous Gildasian 44 years to his date for the English advent, 445x449, while the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle almost certainly follows Bede in its dating for the English advent (443 or 449). Thus if all the early dates in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle are moved earlier by 15 or 20 years, then Bede's date for the English advent must move as well, and Bede's date for Badon would presumably also move to c. 473.


Return to The Ruin and Conquest of Britain main page