What do you think?
Rate this book
Britain The Key To World History
This volume is a companion work to The Riddle of Prehistoric Britain in which I endeavoured to prove by evidence, gathered over a wide field from ancient and modern sources, that the British Isles were highly civilized from the earliest times, and, indeed, that Britain may be proudly enthroned as the true and original mother of civilization.
This purpose evidence was derived from geographical, geological, astronomical, historical and legendary sources to the effect that this major catastrophe afflicted northern and western Europe.
This purpose evidence was derived from geographical, geological, astronomical, historical and legendary sources to the effect that this major catastrophe afflicted northern and western Europe.
291 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1947
About the author
Comyns Beaumont
18 books11 followersWilliam Comyns Beaumont was a British writer, journalist, lecturer, editor, and author of alternative history.
He was the uncle of the British actress Muriel Beaumont, mother of writers Angela du Maurier and Daphne du Maurier, and the painter Jeanne du Maurier.
He was the uncle of the British actress Muriel Beaumont, mother of writers Angela du Maurier and Daphne du Maurier, and the painter Jeanne du Maurier.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 13, 2016
Entertaining, flawed. It opens up a different perspective, however.
There seem to be few if any book reviews on William Comyns Beaumont. This is undeserved. He was brought to my attention in a book called `Exodus to Arthur'.
It is also of note that Beaumont seems to have been the inspiration for Velikovsky. Many of his astronomical theories are to be read about in another work `The Mysterious Comet', which is quite difficult to obtain. I do note that Prof. Mike Baillie in his `Exodus to Arthur' seems to be a bit of a fan, expressing a certain surprise that Beaumont seems to have been a man before his time in his suggestion that the catastrophic event of c.2350 BC, later associated with the Biblical Flood immortalizes the collision of a cometary body with earth.
Too many non-fiction authors merely summarise the works of others. Here we have the original thoughts and research of someone who is a genius antiquary.
There is certainly value to be gained in reading old books, even if one does not agree with the obsolete contentions. From one perspective, this book is perhaps a last gasp of the Anglo-Israelist movement, but that is not quite fair, for there is more to it than that---a lot more (Beaumont did not believe in Zionism). Britain, Beaumont holds, is the `key to world history'. He considers that many historical events did not happen in the Middle East, but in Britain.
This book is obviously the product of many years, perhaps a lifetime of research. For that reason, and its carefully written format, it's clearly a quality book.
The theories however are another matter. Some seem to have merit, but others seem reliant on geographical similarities, which can unfortunately lead to error.
He notes that the wars against Jerusalem coincide with the building of Hadrian's wall. Thence he considers that the wall was built to help obliterate Jerusalem. How? Beaumont considers that the description of Jerusalem does not match the topography of Jerusalem at all. It really refers to the area around Edinburgh castle. How might this have occurred? Perhaps Josephus' works are not really those of Josephus? While it is likely his works were tampered with, (the insertion of Christ into the margins for instance) for Beaumont's ideas to be correct, we would also require a major analysis of primary written evidence, which he does not provide.
That's not all. Among many original ideas we have:
* Frisians (North Netherlands) were Phrygians (Western Asia Minor, in conventional theories)
* The river Avon, to Bath, is the ditch which circumscribed the Atlantis capital
* Mythical King Sil of Salisbury is Saul of the Bible.
* The year was originally 360 days but cometary impact slowed the rotation of the earth, thence 365.
* Avaris of the Hyksos = Avebury
* Saxons are Saka (Scythians).
* Continental Europe used to be known as Asia. Sesostris' conquest of Asia was really Europe.
I would like to say that many of Beaumont's ideas are probably flat out wrong. They are wrong no matter how much you look at them. Either he is so far above everyone else that we are just not getting it, or something else is happening, perhaps to the tune of Fomenko's chronological revisions, though this is not one of the topics of Beaumont.
There is mythical and legendary relevance to the theories of Beaumont, even if they are not historically correct. For instance, we know that many pagan elements were incorporated into the Bible, so it is not impossible that two separate traditions once peregrinated across in stone age times, one finding its way in Britain, and the other in the Bible as some kind of sacrificier of Christians. Tribal names also with a similar root to Avebury, could pop up in different places due to various migrations from sources independent of tribal destinations.
On the one hand, however, his ideas really DO make one think! Why was Hadrian's wall built. Obviously it was the depletion of soldiers caused by the war in Israel, although this is not really mentioned in texts about the wall, which focus on Britain. Why does the name Sal of Britain sound so similar to Biblical Saul? The reader may begin to think that there is "something to it" after all, some lost connection, but he is unsure what. Beaumont's solution is that Britain's geography is the connection. I think not. Rather, peregrinating tribes and traders may have shared early legends with Britain. That could be a more realistic link.
Several of Beaumont's more moderate theories have merit. Did the Phoenicians have colonies in the north? The Runes appear to be derived from Phoenician characters, and the legend of Odin is likewise partly Mediterranean. Thence his idea that the Belgae derive their name from Baal does not seem an unreasonable suggestion, at first glance, even if there is probably a better explanation. (The fact the suggestion seems very diffusionist and early 20th century opens it to unfortunate and perhaps unwarranted ridicule).
At times the details are tedious but then again the work is precise and is reliant upon details to make its point. A person would be more likely to enjoy this work if they are both a fan of ancient and biblical history as well as a fan of the topography of Britain. That is to say, it would help a great deal if the reader was resident in Britain, or at interested in ancient `Earth mysteries'.
I have long ago decided that I am not going to review a book unless it can be given five stars. This book gets there, but barely. The merit is in the above points, and the entertainment provided by the sensational ideas. I am not saying that Beaumont is a figure of ridicule. On the contrary he is incredibly intelligent. The ideas make one think. It should not be treated as a work of history, but speculation, interesting and incredible speculation which is almost plausible. Beaumont often needs there to be some kind of "big pitch," some dramatic twist in order to explain everything.
Beaumont's major legacy is not in history, but in the catastrophism of some of this other works: distant pre-history. Much of his style is a precursor to Velikovsky.
Charles Kos, author of "In Search of the Origin of Pyramids and the Lost Gods of Giza."
There seem to be few if any book reviews on William Comyns Beaumont. This is undeserved. He was brought to my attention in a book called `Exodus to Arthur'.
It is also of note that Beaumont seems to have been the inspiration for Velikovsky. Many of his astronomical theories are to be read about in another work `The Mysterious Comet', which is quite difficult to obtain. I do note that Prof. Mike Baillie in his `Exodus to Arthur' seems to be a bit of a fan, expressing a certain surprise that Beaumont seems to have been a man before his time in his suggestion that the catastrophic event of c.2350 BC, later associated with the Biblical Flood immortalizes the collision of a cometary body with earth.
Too many non-fiction authors merely summarise the works of others. Here we have the original thoughts and research of someone who is a genius antiquary.
There is certainly value to be gained in reading old books, even if one does not agree with the obsolete contentions. From one perspective, this book is perhaps a last gasp of the Anglo-Israelist movement, but that is not quite fair, for there is more to it than that---a lot more (Beaumont did not believe in Zionism). Britain, Beaumont holds, is the `key to world history'. He considers that many historical events did not happen in the Middle East, but in Britain.
This book is obviously the product of many years, perhaps a lifetime of research. For that reason, and its carefully written format, it's clearly a quality book.
The theories however are another matter. Some seem to have merit, but others seem reliant on geographical similarities, which can unfortunately lead to error.
He notes that the wars against Jerusalem coincide with the building of Hadrian's wall. Thence he considers that the wall was built to help obliterate Jerusalem. How? Beaumont considers that the description of Jerusalem does not match the topography of Jerusalem at all. It really refers to the area around Edinburgh castle. How might this have occurred? Perhaps Josephus' works are not really those of Josephus? While it is likely his works were tampered with, (the insertion of Christ into the margins for instance) for Beaumont's ideas to be correct, we would also require a major analysis of primary written evidence, which he does not provide.
That's not all. Among many original ideas we have:
* Frisians (North Netherlands) were Phrygians (Western Asia Minor, in conventional theories)
* The river Avon, to Bath, is the ditch which circumscribed the Atlantis capital
* Mythical King Sil of Salisbury is Saul of the Bible.
* The year was originally 360 days but cometary impact slowed the rotation of the earth, thence 365.
* Avaris of the Hyksos = Avebury
* Saxons are Saka (Scythians).
* Continental Europe used to be known as Asia. Sesostris' conquest of Asia was really Europe.
I would like to say that many of Beaumont's ideas are probably flat out wrong. They are wrong no matter how much you look at them. Either he is so far above everyone else that we are just not getting it, or something else is happening, perhaps to the tune of Fomenko's chronological revisions, though this is not one of the topics of Beaumont.
There is mythical and legendary relevance to the theories of Beaumont, even if they are not historically correct. For instance, we know that many pagan elements were incorporated into the Bible, so it is not impossible that two separate traditions once peregrinated across in stone age times, one finding its way in Britain, and the other in the Bible as some kind of sacrificier of Christians. Tribal names also with a similar root to Avebury, could pop up in different places due to various migrations from sources independent of tribal destinations.
On the one hand, however, his ideas really DO make one think! Why was Hadrian's wall built. Obviously it was the depletion of soldiers caused by the war in Israel, although this is not really mentioned in texts about the wall, which focus on Britain. Why does the name Sal of Britain sound so similar to Biblical Saul? The reader may begin to think that there is "something to it" after all, some lost connection, but he is unsure what. Beaumont's solution is that Britain's geography is the connection. I think not. Rather, peregrinating tribes and traders may have shared early legends with Britain. That could be a more realistic link.
Several of Beaumont's more moderate theories have merit. Did the Phoenicians have colonies in the north? The Runes appear to be derived from Phoenician characters, and the legend of Odin is likewise partly Mediterranean. Thence his idea that the Belgae derive their name from Baal does not seem an unreasonable suggestion, at first glance, even if there is probably a better explanation. (The fact the suggestion seems very diffusionist and early 20th century opens it to unfortunate and perhaps unwarranted ridicule).
At times the details are tedious but then again the work is precise and is reliant upon details to make its point. A person would be more likely to enjoy this work if they are both a fan of ancient and biblical history as well as a fan of the topography of Britain. That is to say, it would help a great deal if the reader was resident in Britain, or at interested in ancient `Earth mysteries'.
I have long ago decided that I am not going to review a book unless it can be given five stars. This book gets there, but barely. The merit is in the above points, and the entertainment provided by the sensational ideas. I am not saying that Beaumont is a figure of ridicule. On the contrary he is incredibly intelligent. The ideas make one think. It should not be treated as a work of history, but speculation, interesting and incredible speculation which is almost plausible. Beaumont often needs there to be some kind of "big pitch," some dramatic twist in order to explain everything.
Beaumont's major legacy is not in history, but in the catastrophism of some of this other works: distant pre-history. Much of his style is a precursor to Velikovsky.
Charles Kos, author of "In Search of the Origin of Pyramids and the Lost Gods of Giza."
Displaying 1 of 1 review