I have always thought of the Duke of Wellington as the Hero of Waterloo, but little else. In "Wellington, A Personal History" I learned that he was much more.

This book is, as the title indicates, a personal history of the man, rather than a history of his times. The reader learns little of the details of Waterloo, nor does he learn much about the impact of his career on the wider world.

Wellington's story is an interesting one. Born the younger son of lower nobility, his dukedom was earned, rather than inherited. His career was diverse. He fought for the Crown in India before his first encounter with Napoleon's armies in Portugal and Spain during the Peninsular War. The possibility of service in America during the American Revolution was mentioned, but did not occur. The glory which he won at Waterloo was merely a stepping stone to higher service.

After the banishment of Napoleon, Wellington entered the diplomatic service in France. This, coupled with his membership in the House of Lords, led to service as Foreign Minister and Prime Minister, among many other appointments. In office, Wellington was, generally, a supporter of privilege and order. Despite his dominant conservatism, Wellington was flexible enough to adjust to prevailing necessities. Although initially opposed to Catholic Emancipation, he supported Emancipation after concluding that the defeat of Emancipation would have led to more social unrest than the issue was worth. He then not only had to persuade opinion among the Lords and Commons, but also had to overcome the strong opposition of the King in order to get Emancipation passed. This is of particular interest to me, as family legend has it that we are descendants of Daniel O'Connell, whose election to the House of Commons forced the issue. Jews, whose potential for disorder was presumably less than that of Irish Catholics, did not enjoy his support when Emancipation for them was suggested.

During his political career, Wellington endured wide swings in popularity. At times he faced the threats of the mob as a result of his policies. He was forced to turn his home into a fortress and to carry pistols while traveling about London. Even when his popularity was at its nadir, his prestige and personal presence were sufficient to insure his safety.

Wellington's relations with his monarchs make interesting reading. Although he held George IV and William IV in low esteem, his relationship with Victoria was warm and close. He became an intimate and trusted advisor on whom Victoria and other politicians relied as an intermediatory.

Wellington's marriage was unhappy and distant and he became a widower at a fairly young age. These facts caused him to seek and enjoy the companionship of many women through his lifetime. These relationships and their effects on Wellington account for a large portion of this book.

As is common among heroes, Wellington's popularity grew as his vigor and involvement in public affairs diminished. Living to an advanced age, Wellington was revered as Britain's greatest hero.

I often gauge a book by how it makes me think beyond the covers. I compared him to American political generals. His political career was more impressive than Grant's, and of longer duration than Eisenhower's. The closest comparison may be with Washington, both as his country's greatest hero and the man to whom his country repeatedly turned in crises.

My only disappointment in this book, as minor as it is, is that it is so personal that one gets a sense of his times only indirectly. Overall it is a good study of this major historical figure.

Author Christopher Hibbert concentrates on the personal aspects of Wellington's career, such as his relationships with family and close friends, and skirts over any lengthy analyses of the Duke's many campaigns. The Battle of Waterloo, for instance, is covered in only a few pages and the entire Peninsula War is given short shrift. Wellington's later years as a Tory politician, however, and his subsequent fall from grace with the populace is presented in detail and makes for quite an interesting read. Portraits of Wellington's brothers and other associates are also abundant in this volume and I was surprised as to how many I've never seen before. Hibbert himself is not totally enamored with his subject and portrays him as a very reticent and reserved aristocrat with little tolerance for fools and even less sympathy for the common folk. In this regard, I don't believe Hibbert has been able to lift the mask of command off Wellington and given us the definite look into his character. Wellington was certainly a man of many contradictions and Hibbert merely presents one side of him---the cold and aloof one. Still it's a worthy book with some scattered information not found in other sources. For the best read on this man, it's probably better for one to start with Elizabeth Longford's "Wellington: Years of the Sword". Hibbert's biography would certainly be a most interesting companion piece alongside it.

'Wellington: A Personal History,' is a wonderful look at the hero of Waterloo. While at times the narrative tends to quickly move over some points in the Duke's life that could do with a bit more analyzation, (the Duke's Indian and Spanish campaigns,) and perhaps relies a little too heavily on reporting court gossip of the time, 'Wellington' nevertheless is a wonderful introduction to the Duke's life written in an entertaining and easy to read style. Where Hibbert's work really succeeds is in it's portrait of the Duke in his years after Waterloo. The look into the Duke as Prime Minister and confedential advisor to George IV, William IV, and Queen Victoria never fail to hold interest and passages reguarding Wellington with his family and children in general are extremly illuminating. The Duke of Wellngton was indeed one of Britain's greatest figures and Hibbert's biography will testify with a great voice to the truth of that.

This was a rather intense read about classical apologetics. I would highly recommend it to those that have an interest or prior knowledge and understanding of apologetics. The book is divided into three sections:

--Classical Natural Theology, an overview of problem and method --Classical apologetics, the theistic proofs, the deity of Christ, and the infallibility of scripture --Classical critique of presuppositional apologetics

The first section seemed very wordy to me, and I had a hard time getting through it. The second was very interesting, and providing a great summary of different arguments, including the ontological, cosmological and teleological arguments for God. This chapter also has chapters dealing with the Spirit and Word of God.

The third section is probably the best section (although it still lacked brevity). Chapter 11 is the best chapter in the book; it has great summaries of Luther, Calvin, and Augustine's views on reason as it relates to faith. All should check out this chapter.

This is without a doubt the foremost book on classical apologetics, and the first attempt ever to give a comprehensive critique of presuppositionalism. It summarizes both natural apologetics (the theistic arguments) and supernatural apologetics (the historical evidence for Scripture). Van Til is the main focus of the criticism, but other presuppositional writers like Clark, Dooyeweerd, Frame, and Knudsen are included. There is also a key chapter giving great detail to the evidence that Augustine, Luther, and Calvin were all evidentialists, despite popular charges that that they were not. This book is a must for anyone trying to understand apologetics and the issue involved between the two vastly different types of apologetics!

Sproul rightly critiques Van Til's contradictions about whether non-Christians have "true" knowledge of God. Sproul argues that they do in accordance with Romans Chapter One and shows that Van Til inconsistently admits that they do also even though in other places he says or implies that they don't. One does not need to "presuppose" God because, according to Romans One (and Sproul), all have at least some knowledge of God through God's natural/general revelation. This allows for a common ground between Christians and non-Christians. But Sproul, being a Classical Apologist, still thinks that one must posit proofs for God's existence even though everybody apparently already knows God exists. This is confusing. Sproul, on pages 262 and 263, basically says that the primary task of the apologist is to not let the non-Christians who argue against the truth they already know "escape" by "reminding" them of "arguments which they cannot deny." This, to me, is a ridiculous and weak justification for doing Classical/Traditional apologetics. If God's existence is taken for granted in the Bible (including Romans 1), and nowhere proven because everybody apparently already knows that God exists, then theistic apologetics (distinct from Christian evidences) is a waste of time. (side note: I agree with Mortimer J. Adler who said that "true knowledge" is reduntant and "false knowledge" is a contradiction in terms) - Brad Clark

Arthur Byron Cover's "Night of the Living Rerun" is my least favorite book in the series to date. As a fan of the television show, I found numerous discrepancies when reviewed in parallel. Not only was the book difficult to read (I had to go back and reread portions of the book to follow the plot), but I think some of the characters were not portrayed accurately when compared to the television series. The plot centers around past lives and recurring history... basically a plot that has been gone over many times before. History repeats itself and so on. I do have to mention that Cover mentioned Cordelia and Angel, which seems to be a first in the history of this series... of course, the mentions are small and don't contribute to the plot. If you're a collector of the Buffy series, you'll want to get this book, but others might find it a hard read with an unsatisfactory plot.

buffy is at about at wit's end. slaying occupies most of her waking hours but now she is dreaming about it. as it turns out her dreams have to deal with her old nemesis the master. he is
trying to rewrite history back to the time where he was trapped
in the alternate dimension. he wants to succeed this time and
bring the acopalise to earth. can buffy and crew stop him in time? tune in to see.

This book was excellent. I have read every Buffy book up to date, and this was one of my Favorites. Also I enjoyed Child of the hunt very much. The reason I enjoyed Night of the Living Rerun because it showed the characters from a diffrent point of view. This book went into their pasts and showed them together. I think my favorite part of the whole book was when throughout the whole book Willow wasn't having any dreams like the others, and then at the very end of the book Willow has a dream that puts her and Xander together in the past. I think that that was an excellent ending to the book, and it was an exellent book. I have gone back and read it two more times. Out of all the books this one is my favorite, because of history it brings out, also I now know alot more about the Salem witch trials then I did before. I love the movie, I love the show, and I love the books, I'm obssed with BtVS!

Where do I begin? The High Queen is a moving and powerful sequel to the awesome book The Child Queen. I am an avid reader of fantasy books, especially those based on Arthurian legend, and these have to be not only among the best, but probably the most emotionally-charged. Both books are the basic Arthurian legend as told by Guinevere, but be warned, there are a few twists, (not giving anything away), Nancy McKenzie presents her own Mordred, one who is much different from the evil bastard son most may expect. I adore Ms. McKenzie's Arthur, he is portrayed here as the great man of legend, a man who will truly bring peace and justice to the world, while at the same time the reader is forced to fall in love with Lancelot, just as Guinevere does. The true beauty of this book is that as Guinevere struggles with her love for both Arthur and Lancelot, the reader does too. WARNING: The ending of this book is so powerful, I finished it at 4 in the morning and just sat and cried my eyes out. This is the first and really the only book to really make me CRY. At the end I really cared for each of the characters and almost couldn't bear to have it all end. Even knowing the legend and what happens could not prepare me for the ending Ms. McKenzie created. I was truly moved. Please read this book and it's companion, The Child Queen. If you like novels based on Arthurian legend, fantasy books, or would like to try something new, try these. You won't be sorry, I promise!

I read The High Queen after having read The Child Queen (it's prequel) and I could not put either book down. I am normally a very slow reader, but I got through these books faster than I have any others. I admit that McKenzie's books are not "high art," but as someone who is enthralled by the Arthurian legend, I found them immensley enjoyable. McKenzie writes so that the reader often feels as though she were in the novel. I certainly found this to be true. McKenzie's descriptions of the characters and events stayed mostly true to the traditional legend while still "humanizing" Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, and all the rest. The characters became people rather than just bits and pieces of the legend. Again, I have read plenty of other books with more symbolism, meaning, and "depth," but I have enjoyed no others to the extent of The Child Queen and The High Queen. I really wish McKenzie would publish another book; I would love to read it.

I recently read the combination of Nancy McKenzie's two books, The Child Queen and The High Queen, and until recently the stories by Persia Woolley were my all-time favorites. This book is incredible. I have read this book 3 times, because it is always a wonder to me how the characters grow and the times change. The first time I finished it, I cried and was melancholy for days. This book so completely depicts all of the characters, I easily and immediately felt a part of Camelot and a part of this story. I cannot recommend this book highly enough!

Cobol for dummies is really for dummies. Smart people don't want to buy this book. This book only contain "parts" of program. But not a complete full reference. So people who has no experience in Cobol would finish reading it and end up being confused.

If you never had any experience with COBOL, this book is the place to start. Although it doesn't give many full programs for you to see, it does help you understand the way the language works. As I said, this is a great book to start learning COBOL, and you can then go on to the other books to get deeper into the language. The only problem I encountered was the Fujitsu compiler is an expired version. I've been using COBOL since 1982 and this book is on my shelf.

As a former programmer in COBOL (along with other languages), and a physician writing his own patient information tracking software, I decided to return to COBOL for it's simple, yet powerful file handling capabilities. Not wanting to spend several hundreds or thousands of dollars for a compiler (or - gasp! - an interpreter), I performed a quick search of the Web and found a reference to "COBOL For DUMMIES". Had it not been for the enclosed CD, I probably would have passed this book by without giving it a second thought. However, having read the book and worked with the CD, I am convinced that this is absolutely the best programming deal around. The coverage of COBOL is not intensive enough for someone who wants to make the language dance and sing, but it's complete enough (and covers the history and arcane aspects of the language well) for the programmer who has forgotten how elegant COBOL can be, especially after working with numerous other languages.

I stumbled onto this book in a shop and having heard about the controversy still surrounding it, I was curious of it's merit and content. I will emphatically state that I read it with a completely "open mind" and hope my statements regarding it reflect that. After the first few chapters, what disturbed me most about the book was it's tone. It is written at times like the words are being yelled at you, which to me makes me a little suspect in terms of accuracy. One of the functions of an intelligent historian should be an objective approach to the subject matter. When a writer loses that objectivity, he no longer functions in the role of an historian, but indeed, assumes a different role, which makes you wonder what exact role is Dr. Butz actually playing. He makes statements which he tells you are proof of "this hoax," yet to me, the reader, they are not only unproven, his arguments are not even conclusive. He takes considerable time to verify to the reader that Jewish testimony is unreliable and inaccurate, yet never holds the same standard to his own sources, which he never questions. He wants you to believe the Nuremburg trials were corrupt and fixed in favor of the Jews and the creation of the Jewish Holocaust myth, but gives no explanation or even much thought to the obvious question of "Why, then, did some of the those on trial get off scott free and others with light sentences along with the ones who were condemned?" I also had to go to outside sources for explanations which happened to be in opposition to his position, explanations that Dr. Butz neglects to mention in his arguments, explanations that are so obvious and important, it has to be a "conscious" decision to omit them. One wonders again, what is his role? . In something so massive as the Holocaust, there will always be mistakes made by those trying to tell the whole story, but certain inaccuracies do not invalidate the whole picture, and certainly do not "prove" malicious intent. The book is very unprofessional, and left me feeling I had spent time with someone hostile, certainly not someone I would trust to tell me an honest account of something which is blatantly very personal and emotional to them as a person. I can only recommend this book to readers who are curious about the origins of this movement.

I read this book several times and made a lot of notes. The first time I read it he sounded convincing. The second time I noticed inconsistencies and unjustifiable leaps in argument. I surfed the web for transcripts of the Wansee conference proceedings and found nothing resembling what Butz published.

The book includes an interesting collection of documents which I could not get off the web and could be valuable as a source reader if I were convinced the translations were intact and accurate.

Many of his arguments have been demolished by the passage of time, for instance his argument about the lack of intelligence reports is refuted by Breitman's "Official secrets" a book written using inteligence reports declassified in the 1990s.

Despite this it was valuable reading for me as it set me off on a trail where I found a lot of dark corners in WW II, such as the zionist collaborator with the nazis who later held high office in the Israeli government and the way big business managed to provide Germany with supplies, after America entered the war, while denying them to the US forces: all this information is in my "waiting to read the sources" pile.

In short, while I think Butz is wrong reading the book and checking the evidence was something I would not have done otherwise.

I would fault his references, which often omitted things I was interested in, such as the first world war anti German propaganda tales, which in turn were recycled from earlier wars and resurfaced in the Balkans, for example in the tale of the bowl of Serbian Eyes one partisan was alleged to keep.

Like Mein Kampf and Hitler's Secret book you should read it, but be sceptical. It's illegal to own Butz or Mein Kampf in many countries, and that is something I disagree with.

I have read many books in my life, but this is the most interesting. The book is intelligently written and presents its case with powerful logic and evidence. You will be surprised how many holes Butz pokes into the holocaust story. Holocaust believers with no good arguments of their own, simply label it "hate" or in the case of Germany, Israel, and Canada ban the book outright. Read this book and decide for yourself. The politcally correct people would love to keep you deaf and dumb on this issue, but fortunately we (USA) live a free country, so use that freedom and buy this book before they manage to ban it here as well.

I took a cobol class in which this was the text. Now I am on to an advanced level and am seeking serious supplemental material. This book has far too many grammatical errors in the examples, which causes serious problems for the beginner. The author also skims over material that needs to be covered more in depth and on occassion states that the concepts behind some of the programming are over the readers head, which left me with the feeling of being spoken over. Given all the errors in this book I have a hard time believing the author was a career programmer. This book is very expensive, probably because it contains the fujitsu compiler. For the person who truly wants to learn the language I would suggest looking at competing books first.

I have taught COBOL for a number of years and have always used Grauer Villar & Buss. This new edition, although commendable in adding Microfocus Cobol, lacks true Mainframe focus. A few years ago there was an accompanying small book that greatly added to the mainframe concepts - but is no longer available. However, the flow of the book, the explanations, examples and summaries have proved to be an excellent textbook for professional training, especially when accompanied with appropriate JCL and CICS textbooks. Still above all, I rate this at the top of COBOL books - but don't agree with the authors assumption that the mainframe is no longer a relevant part of COBOL programming.

This book is a great resource for the beginning or intermediate Cobol programmer. Very clear explanations and abundant examples aid understanding. The authors favor a "hands on" approach which encourages the reader to try out the concepts in each chapter. The example code is included on the CD (along with the input files for the exercises) which is a great timesaver.

The authors are careful about pointing out differences between Cobol-85 and Cobol-74 as they arise. While this may seem to be a minor point with the advent of the latest Cobol standard, it is helpful to those who work with older systems that are not fully Cobol-85 compliant.

The Fujitsu Cobol environment comes along with the book. The Fujitsu compiler is a big improvement over the DOS-based compiler and editor that came with the second edition. An appendix provides some step-by-step examples to help the reader get up to speed with the compiler.

The book is weighted more towards micro computers - if you are working in a mainframe environment, you will probably want to find additional references on JCL, CICS, etc.

The book may not be the best choice for someone who has no previous programming experience, but for readers who have some background in programming (in any language) and are interested in learning Cobol, this book & compiler set is the best resource I've seen for Cobol at this level. I strongly recommend it.

To clear up any confusion - Arthur C. Clarke wrote a plot synopsis that he wasn't interested in pursuing. Mike McQuay read the synopsis and fleshed it out into the novel Richter 10. The novel takes place in the near future. The story: a geologist named Lewis Crane is obsessed with stopping earthquakes by fusing the Earth's plates together. To this end, he starts a foundation to predict quakes and render assistance to victims. He comes into conflict with his own employees and a seperatist group called the Nation of Islam (NOI) led by an African American of great charisma. One of Crane's men leaves to join the NOI, setting up the main conflict for the remainder of the novel.

There are some obvious parallels with real life - for example, the leader of the NOI is obviously based on Elijah Mohammed, while the defecting geologist is similar to (but less influential than) Malcolm X. The vision of the future is quite dystopic (and overtly racist) - the U.S. government is a puppet for multinational (Chinese) corporations. However, the novel is not a warning or historical analogy, but simply an adventure story with lots of buildings falling over and tsunamis sweeping people out to sea.

On the whole, it is quite enjoyable. The action is well-written, the technology mostly believable, and the supporting characters well-developed. Unfortunately, the main characters are generally not likable (until, possibly, in the last 50 pages), so it's hard to develop any kind of sympathy for them. In addition, the central scientific tool the geologists use - a working scale model of the Earth - is extremely far fetched. The idea that an earthquake (or any major natural event) could be predicted by a 100-foot model, to an accuracy of a couple of minutes, stretches credulity to the breaking point. Finally, there are too many Big Moments in the book. There are at least 3 points where the story reached a logical conclusion, but then went on, basically starting over with a new theme. It makes the story seem very patchwork, (in the one particular chapter, 10 years pass!) Sure, it's supposed to be an epic, but it's too choppy.

Having said all that, the book is still fun and keeps you interested.

This book was amazing! The descriptions that Clarke and McQuay give the reader in this book are phenomenal, you really get to know the characters and what they go through during the course of the story. Many of the events that take place could very well happen and the authors let you know what it would be like during an EQ. But since this is science fiction they do have some far fetched ideas aboutabout a drug to control your emotions, or having a chip implanted in yoru head so you could interact with a computer. These things aside the storyline was great and I really recommend it to any fan of Arthur C. Clarke.

I don't know what the reviewers who gave this bad reviews were reading, but this is a well constructed, well written novel.

I believe that some of the reviewers were simply reacting to the genre not the story.

Maybe, they were forced to read the book for an assignment.

This was best Clarke collaboration, I've read to date. It is a shame that there will be no further works coming from the pen of Mike McQuay.

Make your own decision.

It seems as if the reviews fall to two extremes. The readers have either loved or hated the book.

I loved it.

I would recommed it to everyone.

In the book The Sword and the Stone by Rosemary Sutcliff, she retells the classic Arthurian stories. When Arthur as a young boy was sent to find Sir Kay's sword, he soon came upon a sword in a stone. Not knowing that he was the only man to pull Excalibor, his soon to be sword, from the stone, he was soon destined to become King of all Britain. Including the story where Arthur becomes King, she also retells the adventures of King Arthur's Knights of the Round Table.
In the original stories of King Arthur and his knight, the author simplify the stories. In Rosemary Sutcliff's book, she gives a lot of details and makes every story go further and some become more interesting. Although she does not change much but the names of some characters, the story line stays about the same as the original stories.
The book The Sword and the Circle might appeal interesting to people who like old legends such as King Arthur legends. To others, it will seem extremely boring. Some of these stories keep you interesting in some parts like in Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. In others, the author runs on and on and the story doesn't get any better. This book would probably be for kids 12+ because of the bigger and more descriptive words. I would give this book two out of five stars and would not waste your time reading this.

The Sword and the Circle is a great book about King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table. The story begins with how Arthur actually became king. The story then continues on with adventures of Arthur and how he assembles his Knights of the Round Table. The book tells about the many quests of Arthur, his knights, Guenever, and Merlin, the magician. During the story Arthur adds many knights to his group, but none stand out more than Gawain and Lanccelot. I enjoyed this book and thought it was very well-written. This book is very exciting and full of adventure. I had a hard time putting this book down because it told so much about the journeys of the knights, such as the mystery between Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. The book was also quite interesting and gave adequate information and detail without having excessive writing. This book kept me interested because it was so in depth and full of fascinating information, such as the feelings Sir Lancelot was forced to hide from others. The only negative aspect about the book was that it jumped around between characters. I had a little difficulty following what each character was doing, so I had to look back in the book to see what was happening. I would definitely recommend this book because it is an epic story of adventure that people of all ages would enjoy.

Rosemary Sutcliff's adaptation of the King Arthur legend is truly a unique and inspiring work, told in a highly descriptive yet very concise format. It is not only powerful and thought-provoking, but creates a sense of the ancient and medieval time it owes its existence to. Starting years before Arthur comes to power, Sutcliff tells the story of young Merlin and how Arthur came to be, following him through his rise to High King, the meetings of such brave and infamous knights such as Lancelot, Tristan and Gawain, right up to just before the quest for the Holy Grail begins. Sutcliff not only tells the traditional and time-honored stories, such as the sword in the stone, but also adapts other variations of the quests that individual knights took upon themselves to maintain peace and honor in Britain. For example, although he may not have actually been a knight of the round table, Sutcliff tells the tragic and romantic story of Tristan and Iseult, the ironic tale of Beaumains, and the humorous story of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, all of which reflect the honor and love which bounded King Arthur's kingdom together. This book easily stands alone, but simultaneously lays solid groundwork for the next two books, The Light Beyond the Forest and The Road to Camlann, two other excellent books written by Sutcliff on the rise and fall of Arthur. By taking her stories to a level above just the basic story-telling, Sutcliff also helps put King Arthur's place in history into perspective and gives an excellent reason for retelling this timeless legend again for this day and age. The book is really a medieval romantic story at heart, but has enough battles and swashbuckling adventures to keep readers more interested in action than a rambling story hooked. I would recommend this book to those who have never read a King Arthur book in their life, to those who might know the story by heart, and anyone in between those two categories, because it is an excellent way of reacquainting ourselves with the days of princes and knights, of villains and dragons, chivalry and fair maidens, and the ultimate triumph of good over evil. The Sword and the Circle and the other two books in the trilogy truly deserve a place all their own among those stories about the knights of the round table. Reading through it page by page, I truly felt drawn into a dim and room, lit by a crackling fire while the wind howled outside, listening to the voice of an excellent story-teller speak of a bygone age and long-dead heroes.

whoever would like to know something more about king Arthur and Early british history should avoid this book.
first of all because the theory of Mrs. goodrich is not clearly developed and at the end of each chapter is not easy to point out what the author has really been able to prove about the historical arthur, secondly because the analitycal methods of the writer are poor, misleading and lack of a deep integration with other sciences (archeology, philology...).
nevertheless, some points of her argument are interesting, but useful only to readers with an already rich arthurian background.

Goodrich's works have enriched my knowledge of the Arthurian genre. In fact, it's roused my curiousity so much that I'm presently researching the Holy Grail, the Templar Knights, and Celtic Christianity and their influence on the Arthurian canon.

I found it well-researched and extremely well written. Ms. Goodrich's arguments differ considerably from orthodox, academic views, which perhaps explains the marked and mean-spirited hostility which has greeted this book in some quarters. That hostility is very much in contrast to Ms. Goodrich's tone, which I found quite polite and low key. At any rate her argument that Arthur wasn't really medieval, but was instead the 'last of the Romans' is reasonable and very well argued. If it turns out in the long run that she is incorrect, then she will have at least introduced an extraordinarily interesting theory to the current mix. If on the other hand it turns out that she is right, then her sharp critics will have some nasty words to swallow. Perhaps these defenders of orthodoxy are feeling threatened?