King Arthur anyone?

[Karstenian of Coateville]

Ok, so I just watched a trash "historical" movie, King Arthur. Apparently this new take on the legend of King Arthur is truer to reality than the fanciful myths of old? I know there are a lot of Roman history buffs here and I would like to know what you girls and guys thought about the movie or the concept of the knights of the round table descending from our favorite sarmatian cavalry and arthur being some Arturius of the Roman garrisons. Hahaha please dont flame me for asking or for watching this movie...as you can see, its late(or early), i'm bored and my girlfriend is on the opposite end of the country.

[Ranika]

I suppose I can get this started for you.

-The movie is set in 407 AD (the final withdraw of Roman soldiers from Britain). Artorius Castus, the supposed 'real Arthur' in this movie DID command Sarmatian auxiliaries...and died nearly 200 years before the withdraw of Rome from Britain. The Saxon warlord/son depicted were real people too, who did raid Britain, but in a completely different region, 100 years after the withdraw from Britain.

-The 'Woads' were not called something so silly. They were called Picti or Pecti, and probably refered to themselves in a similar way.

-What were Saxons doing with crossbows? Picts had early crossbows, but not Saxons.

-What is this 'orders from the Pope' nonsense? The Pope had no control at all over any soldiers but his private bodyguards at this time.

-Pelagius was not executed for heresy, he was acquitted, and died in exile in northern Africa, of old age. Also, Pelagian theology nowhere discusses 'freedoms of men', but rather is an agnostic theology that grounded itself on the 'how' of God given by Christianity (that is 'God created the universe, and thus time, a property of the universe, so there is no 'before' God, since before is a subject of time'), but otherwise discarded most Christian belief. Where did they get this nonsense of anyone talking about freedoms? Pelagius never even worded it that way.

-Female Pict warrior. Not necessarily untrue, but she'd not be so narrow or willowy as depicted here, nor dressed as such. She'd have been an abnormally large, strong woman

-Clergy in Britain exerting any clout; not in this time period. There were far too many pagans in high places for monks to be going around telling people what to do (and even when they had such power, most modern perception highly exaggerates what they could do).

-Speculation; The 'real' Arthur was more likely a Romano-Briton from the south. He earned his fame fighting Saxons more than Picts. Possibly Dumnonia rather than in the north. He'd not be up around Hadrian's Wall, he'd be in the south, where the Saxons really did land and take land.

-On that note...why the hell are the Saxons so far north? Also, they didn't just land and start taking things. They were hired as mercenaries by Romano-British in the south, who, with no armies of their own, needed protection. The Saxons exerted themselves on their employers initially. Other Britons had already built armies of their own (small as they may have been) to withstand Pictish and Gaelic invasions (sometimes poorly, such as in case of Dyfedd, which was conquered by Gaels).

-...What the hell?

-Sarmatians at the abandonment of Britain? There's little proof of such, though locals may have copied some influences, but even that's somewhat spotty, aside from a few pieces, which were probably introduced by the Romans. The Sarmatians were in Britain earlier, but the number was very small, and no record says there were more.

-The clothing and armaments in general.

-Just nitpicking, was more of a filming constraint; Ireland (where it was filmed) apparently has resistant as all bejeezus trees that I've never seen despite having lived most of my life there. It's the dead of winter and they still have leaves. Hardcore.

[Frog]

I'm no history expert but there were sarmation auxilia in england at that time and i believe artorius is a legitimate roman name.
The films theory is a lot more realistic than the traditional ''knights in shining armour'' image.
personally i favour the idea that Arhtur was a brittish warlord who fought the saxons

[Ranika]

I didn't say "Artorius" isn't a Roman name. I said the person they're basing this supposed 'real' Arthur on (who was, as I said, named Artorius Castus (actually Lucius Artorius Castus), and really did command Sarmatians) had been dead for 200 years by the time the film starts (and that was also when Sarmatians were recorded as being in Britain). And 'knights in shining armor' isn't the traditional image, rather it is a modern one thrust upon it originally in the early Renaissance. The traditional image described in poetry has knights in mail and similar armament, which is more realistic than 'shining armor' (though they still gave them copious amounts of medieval accoutrements).

Lucius Artorius Castus commanded for about two years (182-184 AD) a group of Sarmatians. Artorius may have been part of the basis for the 'Arthur' legend, but the 'real' Arthur, I doubt he was. A lot of wannabes will play up the importance of Sarmatians in the Arthur legend's basis, and some Sarmatian customs do seem to show up, but countless more things are tied to Celtic British habits. Defenders of the 'real' Arthur being a commander of Sarmatians tend to discard these things as being a borrowing of the name Arthur, or misleadingly interpret certain practices as purely Sarmatian, like a woman who inhabits a lake, which is a prominent theme of Celtic mythology long before Romans even conquered Gaul, as well as the casting of a sword into water (countless finds show us Celts disposed of enemy weapons devotionally this way). Some Sarmatian practices, like the 'sword in the stone' concept are mostly likely of Sarmatian origin in the story. However, this is all ultimately irrelevant, but to point out that being a 'Commander of Sarmatians' doesn't really make any different. The Arthur was probably not such a man, as he would have inhabitted a region apart from them. Any Sarmatian influences would be superceded by Celtic and Roman influences but where there is a vacuum.

[Maethius]

The explanation for all of the stuff in the movie is this, the people who made this wanted to include the Hadrian wall and therefore Arthur!!

But the thing that is most frightening is the fact that considering a lot of other movies out there, it's not that bad, (shuders). :sign_wtf:

[Blitzkrieg80]

But the thing that is most frightening is the fact that considering a lot of other movies out there, it's not that bad, (shuders). :sign_wtf:

Seriously!

I have one movie flaw that says it all- Jerry Bruckenheimer... any complaints can be attributed to this cheese-maker

[Blitzkrieg80]

Actually, the movie King Arthur rocks, simply because it has Ray Stevenson in it! Who is he? He is the big guy who cracks the ice and gets killed early... He is also Titus Pullo in the HBO series ROME- such an awesome show, even if the costumes are inaccurate!

[CrayonVonCaesar]

Karstenian, you did watch the Directors Cut right? As the original was god-awfully edited (it has no blood, is missing whole scenes AND plotlines) and when i saw it i was appalled.
Why this was done i can't say, so get the dir.cut all of you, more graphic and extended more coherent scenes. making for a pretty good film after all.

[Lord Agelmar]

I thought the movie was set in the 450's, right after Aetius defeated Atilla.

[NineinchNails2010]

Damn you beat me to it i was really ready to rip the history in this movie apart. lol.

Aside from sheer hollywood influence such as sniper bows . Another thing is the tactics. They defend the abandond city by letting the saxons through the gate. They had no siege equipment all you had to do was close the gate and let them build some while you gathered your strenght.
Whered that lovely sarmation armour come from all of a sudden?
Ypu mentioned crossbows but missed the .....trebuchets.lol High point medieval siege weapons during the dark ages. yeah. sure.
Fighting on ice? Never. Woulda. Happend.

That said it quite fun if not accurate and ioan gruffold (lancelot) and the guy that plays pullo i quite like.

[Ranika]

Damn you beat me to it i was really ready to rip the history in this movie apart. lol.

Aside from sheer hollywood influence such as sniper bows . Another thing is the tactics. They defend the abandond city by letting the saxons through the gate. They had no siege equipment all you had to do was close the gate and let them build some while you gathered your strenght.
Whered that lovely sarmation armour come from all of a sudden?
Ypu mentioned crossbows but missed the .....trebuchets.lol High point medieval siege weapons during the dark ages. yeah. sure.
Fighting on ice? Never. Woulda. Happend.

That said it quite fun if not accurate and ioan gruffold (lancelot) and the guy that plays pullo i quite like.

Oh yes, I forgot their machinery, I overlooked it while recalling other bits. It really is terribly done.

Also, if it is set in 450 (it's hard to recall for me), even more is wrong, because there weren't any legionnares in Britain by 450, they were all pulled out by 407; the zombie of Lucius Artorius Castus would apparently also be interacting with a Roman army with access to a time machine. ...Actually, that might explain the Saxons in questions, and why Artorius is still kicking around Hadrian's Wall long after he should be mouldering in the earth.

[Drexxus Maximus]

Havent seen this new King Arthur movie yet, been scared to watch it honestly heh. But if you want a kick ass King Arthur movie watch Excalibur (1981) If you like the "fantasy" version of the legend of King Arthur you cant do any better. It's gritty and hardcore, plus you get all the Merlin, Morgana, Mordrid stuff in there.

[humvee2800]

besides the stadium full of errors in the movie it was kind of nice(though lancelout gets killed......)

[Karstenian of Coateville]

Yea, I did see the directors cut. I was pleased by the casting They had Horatio from Horatio Hornblower and his friend as well as Titus Pullo from Rome. Oh, and Stellan Skaarsgard from Exorcist : The Beginning. What a cast what a cast. Thanks alot for the run down...I was really suspicious of the movie, especially when they decided (as a master strategy) to open their gates to the siege weaponless army. I liked it when they put on the Sarmatian armor and they all looked like White huns hahaha. Good times...but not a bad movie. No love triangle so I was pleased.

[Zuwxiv]

-...What the hell?

I'd have to go with that one. Entertaining, mildly. But... What the hell? Seriously, it makes me wonder....

Scene: Holywood studio. Directors are looking for a movie.

Characters:
Earnwood: A historian, presenting an ingenious movie that is completely historically accurate, and amazing.
Bob: Holywood director. Nuff said.
Joe: Holywood director. Nuff said.

/Bob and Joe among desk and pile of unused blah screenplays.
/enter Earwood

Earnwood: Mr. Bob, Mr. Joe, I have this amazing movie for you!

Joe: Does it have guns?
Bob: And would Vin Diesel fit in? Say as the leading role?

Earnwood: Um... It doesn't have guns. It is based on the Battle of Thermopylae, where three hundred Spar..

Bob: Term of Ply? Sounds kind of dry. Where does Vin Diesel fit in?
Joe: And Chuck Norris.
Bob: Don't forget Mr. T.
Joe: Right, he looks awesome with all those guns.

Earnwood: There are no guns. This movie is set thousands of years ago, in ancient...

Bob: Hmm, lets put it in modern times. OOh! What about Los Angelas?
Joe: Oooh, good, gangs have lots of guns.

Earnwood: No, you are completely missing the part.

Bob: No we aren't. Vin Diesel has it.

Earnwood: No, it is in ancient times, there are no guns, and it is the Persians against the Greeks, led by the Spartans.

Joe: That won't do.

Earnwood: Yes, it will! It is excellent. The Spartans, fighting for the Greeks, make the ultimate sacrifice to fight the Persians. Against all odds.

Bob: Okay, lets make it the Gays against the Politicans, add in a few dogs that die, and make them run away in the end, and lose!
Joe: Brilliant! Make it sad!

Earnwood: It already is sad, they die for their country!

Joe: Better! The Gay Politicans go to Iraq and fight the terrorists!
Bob: Who have Guns! And Mr. T!!!
Joe: Great! But in a big battle, the terrorists all lose and run away, to be slaughered by the larger power!
Bob: Excellent! Call in Vin Diesel!

Earnwood: What? No! You missed my point entirely!

Joe: You're right. We need something pointy.
Bob: Like a car? Lets call in that guy who designed the Batmobile!
Joe: What should he make? A gun?
Bob: Good idea!

Earnwood: Nooooooooooooooooooo!

Bob: You're right again! We need something else.
Joe: I have it!
Bob: What?
Joe: We have Mr. T say "I pity the fool" while laying waste to entire countries using the point thing, and guns!

/Earnwood repeatedly slams his head into the nearest blunt object until he is dead or unconscious. It is unclear which he is. But his soul and dignity are definately dead.

[Cheexsta]

Joe: We have Mr. T say "I pity the fool" while laying waste to entire countries using the point thing, and guns!

"I pity Abdul" would be more appropriate

(Cookie for he who can spot the reference)

[Anonymous Researcher]

The bald Sarmatian guy was ocassionaly shouting "Rus!" after battle.
What does it mean?

[Ranika]

To my understanding, Rus has only referred to the people who would eventually create Russia. I've looked for some other meaning, but from what I've heard, they wanted 'Rus' to be what Sarmatians called Germans, since the nearest Germanic people would be Rus...but I think that's a bad, bad anachronism too.

Also, that is how studios tend to approach these things. I once helped pitch a film about Niall Noigalach coming to power as king of Ireland, his alliance with the Picts, and invasion of Roman-Britain at their request. Here are some facts;

-Niall was from Connacht, but successfully rose to power in both Uladd and Oirgall, and united all of what is modern Ulster under his rule. He accepted tribute from all kings of Ireland, making him the effective emperor of the pre-Christian Irish.

-Niall ruled from his palace at Eahmain Macha, and maintained a second palace near Teamhaidh (Tara), and was the apparent first king to encourage major settlement there (before, the area was for ceremonies, religious events, and temples; the nearby town more served as a home for the families of the clergy and others who maintained it).

-Niall fought in battle. He sent his champion Conn to raid Britain at the request of the Picts, while he invaded with his own army, out of the north, with the Picts. Despite ultimately being turned back, he initiated a tradition of raiding Roman-Britain mercilessly, including intentional destruction of infrastructure, which helped render Britain unprofitable. With Rome's power stretched due to barbarian invasions in other parts of the empire, Britain was abandonned, because the now empowered Picts, as well as Gaelic pirates, could raid with impunity.

Our script was in three parts. It first focused on Niall's legendary youth (portrayed realistically), his service in the army of the king of Connacht, then his rise to power in Ulster. The second was on his dealings with the Picts, and his invasion of Britain. The third was the end of his life, and the fallout of his encouragement for piracy of Britain, and shifted focus a bit to the early Dal Riada (witnessing the collapse of the Irish central government, making the island fall back into 5 kingdoms, discluding their own chiefdom), and to the Picts.

The potential producers seemed excited about the project, seeing it as an unexploited bit of history, with a lot of action and chances for the big battle scenes people seem to love so much anymore. However, when we actually began talking to them, their vision of it rapidly dissolved from our goal of a historical approach to the idea. For example;

-They wished to add a love interest... The few main characters our script followed all expressed love for their countries or causes, but they wanted a romance. This was unacceptable and drew away from the main point, and introduced a very blatant hollywood element.

-Desire for a political point. They wanted to show the pointless nature of warfare. However, this detracts from true historic motivations. None of the parties involved believed what they were doing was pointless. Gaels saw themselves as being loyal to their allies, and saw looting as a way to ensure their clan's financial security by returning it a great deal of treasure (from an enemy they percieved as morally corrupt at that), the Picts thought they were freeing Britain from Roman oppressors, and the Romano-British were fighting to defend their country. Certainly, there were monsters of people; the greedy, the cruel, the sadistic. They desired loot or to kill solely for themselves. However, the potential producers wanted us to insert things about disconcernment with combat. Apparently young soldiers weeping for their dead relatives after battle, or having a severe emotional breakdown or going into shock after his first experience in thick combat wasn't enough. They even suggested some hackneyed dialogue.

-Ahistoric clothing. They wanted things we told them were not in existence then, because people could more easily identify it. Like kilts on Gaels. The most annoying part of this? This conversation occured after we explained we were going for a historical accurate look and feel. We were going have realistic Romans, Gaels, and Picts.

-More political points, this time about slavery (does anyone even need to make a point about this any more? It's slavery). They didn't like that slaves appear often in the script, and were so blatantly treated as property in some scenes, without any complaint from anyone. Most offensive was that our 'hero' Niall is in a scene taking slaves for himself and to send to his relations as gifts, without any sense of maliciousness (it's not like he hated those he took slaves; they were 'just slaves'). I know it's not a cheery subject, but that's how life was. They did, irritatingly, overlook scenes where long-time slaves were being treated well (because in many societies, they were; in Celtic society, many longtime slaves were adopted into the family they served and released as a member of the clan or tribe). Apparently that isn't enough to offset their complaints.

-Depiction of the Romans as evil oppressors of the Britons (they didn't say it as such, but it was strongly implied). As much as some would like to think otherwise, many Britons were fine and happy being under Roman-rule (though there were dissidents, too, of course). It wasn't like Romans were walking around randomly beating down Britons. Further, by this point, most Britons in much of Britain were pretty thoroughly Romanized.

-The actors... Jesus. This is where it gets the worst. The bulk of the story would be Niall's adult life. They kept suggesting actors far too young to be Niall, and in two cases, too old (but 'seasoned' and handsome...). Our goal for Niall was pretty simple; a big, strong looking man of broad size and fairly toned.


It may not sound too bad here, but it's incredibly irritating, and condescending as all hell to sit in a room with a few guys suggesting idiotic things that you simply don't want, and keep suggesting after you say you don't want such things. Just makes me want to hit them.

[humvee2800]

maybe it is just a battle cry,doesnt meen anything.sortof like how americans soldiers say hoowrah.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

I'm no history expert but there were sarmation auxilia in england at that time and i believe artorius is a legitimate roman name.
The films theory is a lot more realistic than the traditional ''knights in shining armour'' image.
personally i favour the idea that Arhtur was a brittish warlord who fought the saxons

I'd say the same.

But that movie is stupid beyonf belief. Totally idiotic, as anyone who has studied the history of the period would tell you.

It has one redeeming feature in the midst of its brain-numbing idiocy: - Kiera Knightly is very, very pretty.

That's it.

Otherwise it's a wasted opportunity for someone to actually set a movie in the Fifth Century. Because it set the film in some stupid, Hollywood fantasy land.

One day an intelligent film maker will set a story in the real Fifth Century. Until then we'll have to endure babbling nonsense like 'King Arthur'.

Total and utter crap.