Why would a Roman family be living north of Hadrian's Wall? :inquisitive:
Printable View
Why would a Roman family be living north of Hadrian's Wall? :inquisitive:
Because the movie has no element of historicity?
Also I do believe that Roman power extended beyond there. They would have had no concept of a "border" as we know it beyond the physical boundaries imposed by a mountain range or a river.
Because the grass is always greener...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198
Relatively, new and very cheap labor. I was very surprised that they picked that setting. After the 2nd century AD, there was a slow and steady decline in population throughout the Roman Empire. From that point on, the shortage of labor became very important and the landed Senatorial class was always looking for new labor to work their fields as tenets. I believe the movie depicted the Roman family as from the Senatorial class as opposed to the Romano-British which would have been closer to the Artorivs character. By the way the Saxons were also active against the Picts and Scots in what is today Scotland. Actually, thats why Horsa and Hengest (the Horse and the Stallion) were given land in southern Britain.
I can never get over the fact how the boy accepts his father being killed without a word.......and even more weird is, the the father is not willing to budge from his place even though he knows that the Saxons are coming.
Well as my dad would say, "That's Hollywood for ya!" ~:rolleyes:
And the Picts are oh so friendly? :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
Could be possible he wasn't aware of the Romans withdrawling from the island. When told about the Saxons, he did say "Rome will send an army".Quote:
Originally Posted by asj_india
Please I'm not defending this movie, yet...
I believe at this stage, I assume around AD 410, the Romans had been using the Saxons to fight the Picts and Scots for at least several decades. I think the Saxons engaged the Picts as far north as the Orkneys. Again, because of the sever manpower shortages throughout the Empire, and the practise of Senatorial class that in effect further removed huge numbers of people from being used by the Imperial state, the Roman military was forced to use outsiders.
King Arthur is unbelievable bad crap. The Germanic Saxons as Proto-Nazis with a strong desire to keep their race clean of any Pictic genes, in the deep wisdom that such act could only lead to a generated people like the English. LOL. Did the inventors of that story even knew what they were saying?
I'm quoting the movie here, not my own thoughts.
I've seen this movie numerous times and I've never heard any proto-Nazi references. :blank:
Actually, I believe on closer inspection what the Saxon warriors wanted only the Hengest-like character denied?Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
In the movie, the saxons are killing everyone they can,not sparing anyone. The Saxon leader even kills one of his own man because he has "dirtied" himself by thinking of raping a local woman. So the reference to "uber menschen " is very clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198
lol wuts funny is i just watched that movie like yesterday
Uff, English is not my mother tongue, can you say that in other words please (with more words)?Quote:
Originally Posted by cmacq
I think he means that the saxons wanted to rape the women and the leader was the only one who did not want them to do that, there's a scene depicting that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
Might be worth considering that the guy also challenged Cerdic's authority, and that he was killed for speaking out against the king. Something that would naturally result in execution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
But the funny thing about me is that when I watch a movie, I single out the things I like about it, not the opposite. That's why I like King Arthur, Troy, 300, Alexander, The Last Legion, and so on.
I apologize for not singling out something that some people might label as proto-Nazi.
:daisy:
Well that scene didnt have any effect what so ever how much i enjoyed the movie.Just an observation.:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198
All it was on my part, as well. I sometimes get aggrivated and go on the defensive when I start to feel a little persecuted for not watching a movie like that from a historian's point of view. I'm really sorry that I sounded insulting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
I posted a topic in another forum concerning a movie about certain world-famous barbarian, which deteriorated into one of those "you're stupid for liking this movie because it has these faults" flame-fests, and I pretty much washed my hands of the thread after that.
No offense taken.~:) Im sure that kind of thing you described would not happen in this forum, specially here in frontroom, where Beirut and BKS will surely axe anyone throwing personal insults around.:smash:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198
I just flat out can't understand people who watch a movie and nitpick on every little thing wrong with it. Are there inaccuracies in movies like King Arthur? Yes, clearly. But why dwell on them? I just can't understand. :dizzy2:
When I watch a movie set in history I want it to be historic. Just a simple thing that no one has yet accomplished in the Ancient Era.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198
I've not seen the particular movie in question (though it would have to be very good to compare to Borman's Excalibur, which I consider to be the epitome of Arthurian film-making :bow: ), and given the huge uncertainties over the history/mythology surrounding Arthur, it's always going to be a matter of interpretation anyway....
However, back to the OP question of why a Roman family would be north of the Hadrianic wall? This wasn't the northern-most extent of Roman control, and actually represented a pulling-back of the northern border. The Antonine wall (Forth-Clyde, IIRC) was much further north, and some historians put the battle of Mons Graupius as far north as Inverness. Given the fluid nature of the Empire's further reaches, simply being north of Hadrian's Wall is not a major problem, IMHO. Some strands of Arthurian thought associate him with the Kingdom of Rheged, in what is now Dumfriesshire, firmly north of Hadrian's border :bow:
I must agree with cmacq, though, in that I would expect Arthur to be more likely a Romano-British character than derived from the Senatorial classes. Although the Legions were withdrawn in the early 400s AD, there was still the expectation that they would return, eventually. Romano-British society still looked to Rome for legitimacy. Nobody. least of all a noble (however provincial or minor) would be unaware that the Legions had gone. They would be unaware however that they would never return, largely due to the rest of the Empire going through it's final death-throes.
I didn't nitpick on every little thing, I reduced myself even to only "nitpick" on the biggest flaw. "Nit"picking I could add for example that they used crossbows in this movie, which alone turns me totally off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198
I want a movie to be historically feasable. I don't care if every rivet is correct, but please no such things as Lorica Segmentata in Punic Wars etc., let alone crossbows.
When the Saxon leader states, "we do not mingle with inferior races, only a degenerated people could be the outcome" I feel really offended. Not only would it flat out contradict the Germanic concept of tribesmanship, which didn't knew the concept of "race". It's just a cheap bone thrown to the crowd, like "oh look, those Germans are all racists, I didn't knew they were even back then, but now it's finally prooven, thank God and this very good historically accurate movie!"
And then finally King Arthur and the Sarmatians as fighters for freedom and democracy and the whole British (that means American) nation. Really I just can't eat that much that I'd like to vomit. Talk about transporting modern day issues into another era. Yeah that's what Hollywood likes best, taking an ancient issue and make "America brings freedom and democracy to the retarded barbarians" out of it.
Oops, I don't want to discuss policy here, it's just about a movie.
P.S.: I like Alexander, though it's surely not perfect. Gladiator I can watch, yes, although it's on the verge with the whole "bring Rome back to the people"-shit.
I bring up a quirky topic about a movie I like, and it degenerates directly into anti-American politics...Quote:
Originally Posted by Centurio Nixalsverdrus
:burnout:
Although I rarely spot historical inaccuracies in films, It does annoy me very much when film producers neglect historical accuracy. This film in particular would be annoying as it basically boasts to be a historically accurate version of the Arthur legend rather than the traditional story.Quote:
I bring up a quirky topic about a movie I like, and it degenerates directly into anti-American politics...
To explain why historical accuracy is important take this example.
Say you love Roman history and can often be found buying books just to read up about it. Then you hear their making a movie following, lets just say that guy Varus. So you think "Awesome, they are making a movie about this thing I love, now I can see it come to life!"
Then you go to watch the movie and the Roman is portrayed as a selfless hero - when hes not (or more appropriately 'wasn't') - the Germans are therefore the unjust, unreasonable, racist enemy - which you know they are not - and the thing you love the most, the roman military laws and political system - is drastically changed to suit the movie or otherwise doesnt exist.
Life is rarely ever Good guy, bad guy but Holywood will consistantly make it so because its easy for them. There is a lot of grey in the world, particularly the Roman world.
You would be really pissed at the movie especially when you know it could have been better with a bit more effort from the director.
Actually I wouldn't give a **** *** because movies are fiction and historical movies have always been used to talk about the modern world. Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is really inaccurate as well. When you hear the line "Et Tu Brute" do you yell at the theater screen "Caesar would have spoken greek! :angry: :angry:"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Marius Dynamite
@Spartan198:
That's an interesting statement...something I notice about movie threads is that some people love to diss a movie seen as "hollywood" or a "B-movie" but are very cautious when criticizing a movie seen as a artistic work. Bourdieu has an interesting theory about how tastes in movies and music are seen as representative of social class. Anyway I could talk more about the sociology but I don't really know much about it, I just find it interesting that whether people like a movie or not can be affected by what social class they see themselves as/what stereotypes surround that type of movie. These are probably some of the reasons you got flamed on that other forum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Martok
King Arthur is a fairly standard action/adventure movie of which there are many (praise the lord!). It's hella fun and entirely entertaining, thanks largely to the way it isn't constrained by attempts at accuracy. God bless hollywood!
You have to be working class. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I actually like action-movies, and also B-movies.
There's no excuse for being ignorant, not even being working class. :grin:Quote:
You have to be working class. ~;)
Again, I was very surprised about a number of things they got sort of right about the possibility of Roman Senatorial family living and a Saxon army operating north of Hadrian's Wall in the early 5th century AD. This includes the small private army, some may have mistaken as guards, that the Senatorial family used for protection.
A nicely wicket twist would have had the Romans employing the Saxons to wack the Picts in southern Scotland to cover their main field force's withdrawal from the island. The Saxons in turn decide to capture and ransom the Roman family, whom the Picts want to catch, cook, and eat? As the orders demand a quick withdrawal to defend Gaul, at the last minute the Roman Magister Equitum remembers the Senatorial families living north of wall and send a small detachment of heavy horse to police them up and get them to the ships. The Senatorial families don't want to leave because the natives, among whom they have been spreading "The Word,' love them so. Meanwhile, in the shadows await the savage Scots.
Oh well.
At least it isn't as bad as The Last Legion. A ten-year old boy wielding a 6 feet long sword?
Yeah, right. Also, a female (!) serving in the corps of the Roman Kataphraktoi (!!) from India (!!!)? What the hell is this?
Bad crap. Evil.
Of course not, that would be unreasonable and I wouldn't yell at inaccuracies in the cinema either, like I said I barely spot them anyway. :dizzy2:Quote:
Actually I wouldn't give a **** *** because movies are fiction and historical movies have always been used to talk about the modern world. Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" is really inaccurate as well. When you hear the line "Et Tu Brute" do you yell at the theater screen "Caesar would have spoken greek! "?
At the time of Shakespeare if I saw the play with a totally wrong portrayal of Caesar I would be damn disappointed. Today the inaccuracies don't matter for that play because that play is very old now and is indeed history itself. :skull:
Small inaccuracies are ok for me personally, I can see why a writer or director would bend the truth slightly for dramatic effect, its the larger ones which disappoint. :thumbsdown:
It's often the producer or distribution studio that coerce the writer or director to make changes. For instance, Fox studio forced the writer of Kingdom of Heaven to change the ending of that film, and IIRC they interfered at other points as well. Lion's Gate and Miramax are notorious for interfering in films in this way. If you want to see a film where a director rakes a producer (Joseph E Levine) over the coals with wicked satire for this kind of interference, check out Le Mépris (Contempt) (1963) directed by Jean-Luc Godard. What's hilarious is that Joseph Levine was one of the producers of the film.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marius Dynamite
I used to get excited over "historical" movies ... but have come to realise that the "history" part is just there to give it a plot :wall:. Now i dont mix up movies and history.:smash:
Anyone know any movie that can be called historically accurate :inquisitive:
History Channel/Discovery documentaries. The movie about Hitler was excellent. There was also one about Nero, and one about Atilla and Aiteus(spell?).
The History Channel must die!
@ Hax,
yeah, The Last Legion was total unhistorical crap, but at least the Indian Cataphract chick was a hottie, unlike Keira "lack of cans" Knightley.
Hehe. True, true. Also Keira "fails to act" Knightley.Quote:
yeah, The Last Legion was total unhistorical crap, but at least the Indian Cataphract chick was a hottie, unlike Keira "lack of cans" Knightley.
...
Wait, how does that differ from the Indian chick? -sigh- Hollywood, as usual.
That Indian chick is Aishwarya Rai. Supposed to be one of the best actresses in Bollywood. Anyhow, I don't think she did anything but add a little eye candy to the movie.
Well it's a good thing the Indian Chick isn't Keira "more mannish than Orlando Bloom" Knightley.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Wel Ms Rai really can't act, while Keira Knightley can, go see Atonement if you're not convinced. Ow and I found Guinevere far more lovely than the Byzantine warrior.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Lack of cans is why Keira could shoot an arrow further than the men despite having mangled hands, and I loved that blue makeup. I thought she was awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by MerlinusCDXX
I just saw King Arthur for the first time a week ago. I like it. I know its not historically accurate, so I'd consider this a historical fiction movie, even though King Arthur was a historical man. (I really do believe this. Ambrosius Aurelianus could have been "King Arthur")
Maybe becuase they didnt like that roman dude the father... lol his son just had to follow lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Spartan198
:robot: