Page "King Arthur" Paragraph 8

This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of sub-Roman Britain.

In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, " at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur ... the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him ".

These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend ; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical.

Historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur ( 1973 ).

Even so, he found little to say about a historical Arthur.