It has been said that a source written close to the time of its events is closest to the truth, right? So here's an oldie, but goodie: The History of the Kings of Britain was completed about the year 1136. But it is so unbelievable and outrageous that we have the right to question if the author, Geoffrey of Monmouth, is even real.
Whoever Geoffrey of Monmouth was, his account should probably be considered more of a romantic tale of Britain rather than a true history. Basically, the author puts together an idealistic account of the birth of Britain, like Aeneas and the founding of Rome. Speaking of Aeneas, Geoffrey included a connection between Aeneas' great-grandson, Brutus, and the beginning of Britain. Get it: Brutus...Britain?
There are plenty of chapters on the continuous battles between the Britons and Romans and Britons and Saxons. There are several chapters on Constantine. An entire chapter is dedicated to the prophecies of Merlin. I expected the story to become more familiar when I got to the chapter on King Arthur, but there was no extracting the sword from the stone, no Excalibur, and no Lady of the Lake. And according to Geoffrey, King Arthur fought the Romans frequently. By the end of the book, the Saxons had the upper hand over the Britons, and it wasn't looking good for them. And just like that, the history of Britain was over (though it felt as if it had just begun).
The History of the Kings of Britain is just a little entertaining read, but probably not a useful source for factual information. I would probably suggest something else for my report on an historical account of Britain.
This counts towards: