In a 2007 review, Howard Wiseman follows Sheppard Frere (1967), saying that "the evidence "allows", not "requires" belief", and follows Christopher Snyder (2000) in emphasising the need for a better understanding of the period, regardless of whether Arthur existed. In 2011, Robin Fleming's history of the period does not mention Arthur at all. In 2013, Guy Halsall reports that "among the academic community, the sceptics have decisively carried the day". In 2018, Nicholas Higham refutes all the outstanding claims for a historical Arthur, summarising his position as: "That Arthur has produced extraordinary quantities of 'smoke' is in large part because he is so well suited to be a fulcrum of make-believe. But there is no historical 'fire' underlying the stories that congregated around him, just 'highland mist'." His book has been generally praised.