Monmouth--a Reliable Historian?

The history buff in me responded to The History of the Kings of Britain, and it was an engrosing read except that my head was reeling with the names I had to recognize/remember. What troubled mew once we reached Arthur was the inconsistency of Monmouth. The first six books were blood thirsty accounts of the various rulers of the Britons and one is unable to verify or nullify the evidence provided. In fact, I was mystified by one of the pronouncements (I cannot find the page number) in which it is stated that Britain/Briton will one day rule the world. If one takes it to be "Britons," then of course the prophesy does not ring true. However, if it is "Britains," it is a bit eeirie as Monmouth could never have anticipated this early what was to come.

In Part Seven, the story of Arthur, there appear to be some lack of editing and a desire on Monmouth's part to write an "Arthurian Romance." The top of page 254 is confusing no matter how many times I have read it. Do Hoel and Gawain "die" while killing Lucius? If this is true, how could Gawain have died in the battle against Mordred (258)? Also, Arthur sends Hoel to Gaul to restore peace on page 258.

Furthermore, Monmouth repeatedly mentions that King Ali Fatima of Spain fought on the side of the Romans against Arthur in Gaul (I believe?) There were no Moslems in Spain during Arthur's time. In fact, there were none any where. The Prophet Mohammad was born around 569/570 and Spain was conquered between 711 and 715. As Monmouth is writing around 1136/38, he is aware of the Moslem Empire in Spain but does not research the dates of the conquest. Dr. Wenthe cites Tatlock's in his bibliography that "these pseudo-Arabic names appear to derive from an eleventh-century Moslem ruler." My point is that if Monmouth is so ignorant or so lazy an historian in his own era where he could verify facts, then how reliable is he in recording the facts concerning the Britons or Saxons which stretch into the dim reaches of the conquest of Albion.

On another note, Uther Pendaragon's marriage to Arthur's mother seems to be a forerunner of Culhwch and Olwen, and the early Britons did not appear to regard women as the sanctified "spouse" of a friend or relative but as "property/chattel" to be plundered at will. Arthur is enraged and saddened by the giant's abduction and untimley death of Hoel's neice, but the giant was only aping what they themselves were doing.

Moreover, I now see a different Arthur. This Arthur appears to be more violent than expected from Arthurian Tales. He may have been all-inclusive and kinder to the Saxons than his predecessors but I ws made to feel uneasy. Was it really necessary for him to subdue the kings of the islands surrounding Briton? And was it really necessary for him to cross over to Europe to defy the Roman Emperor and flaunt his mettle?

I cannot imagine how there were any men left in Britain or Gaul seeing the way they were decimated in battle after battle.

The History ends rather abruptly as though Monmouth had done what he had set out to do, glorify Arthur, then he wrapped it up in a few pages, echoing the way he had begun the history. I am also wondering whether he was really asked to put in the Prophecy of Merlin. After providing such a long and at times, eponymous account, he does not explain how the Saons are suddenly Angles and on the last page, English.

I also found the pagan/Christian part a bit confusing. Saxons are understandably barbarians as they are pagans, but what about the Scots and the Picts? They have been converted. So there is no justification in calling them barbarians. Furthermore, it is interesting how Arthur always calls the clergy around him after his conquests. What exactly did the bishops of Briton think of his going to sack Rome? Or again they were nationalistic and the Popes and Romans were the "other."

To conclude, it is Monmouth's lack of historical facts in a more contemporary history and his killing Gawain and Hoel in Gaul (or am I mistaken?), make me sceptical of some of his other "facts."