Leslie Alcock (1925–2006)
Autor(a) de Arthur's Britain
About the Author
Séries
Obras por Leslie Alcock
Associated Works
Crescent and Green: A miscellany of writings on Pakistan — Contribuidor — 1 exemplar
The bulletin of the board of celtic studies, volume XXVIII, part IV, May 1980 (1980) — Contribuidor — 1 exemplar
The bulletin of the board of celtic studies, volume XXVII, part III, November 1977 (1977) — Contribuidor — 1 exemplar
Etiquetado
Conhecimento Comum
- Nome canónico
- Alcock, Leslie
- Data de nascimento
- 1925-04-24
- Data de falecimento
- 2006-06-06
- Sexo
- male
- Nacionalidade
- UK
- País (no mapa)
- England, UK
- Local de nascimento
- Manchester, Lancashire, England, UK
- Local de falecimento
- Stevenage, Hertfordshire, England, UK
- Locais de residência
- Manchester, Lancashire, England, UK
Cardiff, Wales, UK
Glasgow, Scotland, UK - Educação
- University of Oxford (Brasenose College)
Manchester Grammar School - Ocupações
- archaeologist
Professor of Archaeology - Organizações
- Oxford Archaeology Society
University of Glasgow
Cardiff University - Prémios e menções honrosas
- OBE (1991)
Membros
Críticas
You May Also Like
Associated Authors
Estatísticas
- Obras
- 10
- Also by
- 7
- Membros
- 737
- Popularidade
- #34,456
- Avaliação
- 3.6
- Críticas
- 9
- ISBN
- 19
Beyond endorsing it scant attention is actually put into considering Arthurs historical existence.
You'd think after 300 pages of preamble the man could go into a little bit more depth in explaining why he thinks there is a basis.
For example in his discussion of military organization of the different groups for the period he goes into great detail explaining about how an 'army' would have been just 100-300 men citing various examples and interpreting the elliptical and heroic nature of the near-contemporary sources - but then in the conclusion where he gives his case for a historical Arthur he never explains why he attributes him to leading a force of a thousand men.
And I'd be willing to accept that figure when you look at how big Cadbury was compared to every other hill fort of the era, whoever was responsible for its reoccupation and refortification had to have a lot of men and resources on a scale unprecedented for the era. But I want to understand how such an unprecedented force and resources were assembled, and this work doesn't provide that.
So it is a good primer for the sub-Roman Britain period and even if you don't believe or care about the possibility of a historical Arthur it can be a good introduction to the era. But if you want an analysis of who or what a historical Arthur might have been it is actually very circumspect, maybe that is just professional caution because we simply do not have the sources or the archaeological record to make more detailed claims. But then why set out to make a book that stops halfway.
And that is a real disappointment because Alcock was the last historian to take Arthur seriously. Since the 1970s academia has taken a very reductionist view on the matter, "he isn't mentioned in Gildas or Bedes so he didn't exist" has become the prevailing attitude. Unless some startling new discovery shows up in a dig they will maintain he did not exist or is a composite.… (mais)