I sincerely doubt that the Encyclopedia covers everything, although it may very well be a good reference book.

From the looks of your post you're just starting to learn about the historical Arthur (your saying you've read 30 fictional, on encyclopedia and one historical book) so here's a few suggestions from another amatuer:

No one knows everything and no one book covers everything Arthurian. Arthur and Dark age Britain is one of those subjects that that good old "If I had read further I'd have never stopped reading" quote applies too. Any book that claims otherwise should be viewed with a critical eye.

Do not become infatuated with the first theory you've read. Read far and wide and come up with your own ideas. If you have only read one or two books and those are your entire basis for belief and vouche for them with a fiery passion, it's more than likely that one of the many people on this forum will be able to quote you the book, author, and page number of the evidence and claims you are using and, in a a scene reminiscent of Good Will Hunting and his apples, proceed to rip you a new one. It happened to me about, oh lets say 7 years ago on these forums and for that I have been eternally greatfull.

Anyone who claims to know the truth behind Arthur is a dirty, dirty liar and is most likely in it just for the money (*[i:]coughAdrian Gilbertcough[/i:]*). All historians, archeologists, and regular joes with a passion for history have their own theories. All will argue for and push there own theories. But they'l also recognize that while their theory is what they believe to have happened, they will in almost every case accept that there is no way of knowing for sure and will not wear blinders to other possibilities. They will gladly embrace any new piece of information or evidence that is discovered and alter there own ideals appropriatley. Anyone who isn't willing to change heir propositions as time goes on, anyone who refuses to accept the possibility that they may be wrong is a fool and, most likely, not a good person to be reading.

Anyway, that's it for me. If you want to discuss any part of the ARthurian legends or theories I and many others will be more than eager to read, respond, and debate with you. But I suggest you do so in the general forum.

Here's a quick list of some other books you may want to check out, they cover multiple theories on Arthur:

Historical:

Age of Arthur by John Morris

The Discovery of King Arthur by Geoffrey Ashe

King Arthur: The Truth Behind the Legend By Rodney Castleden (publishers added that the truth bit)

The Lost Kingdom by Alistair Moffat

Arthurs Britain by Leslie Alcock

Ron, I tend to agree with you concerning the historical Arthur. I forget who it was that coined the phrase on the Old Forum, but they spoke of "an Arthur shaped hole in history", which alludes very well to my perspective. Until someone convinces me otherwise, I can only think in terms of a framework that makes Arthur to be a compendium of individuals, the sum being greater than the parts.

Of course, I really hope to be proven wrong someday, and find that Arthur was, indeed and without doubt, King of the Britons.

Regards,
Chief Scott