King Arthur

[massamuusi]

Since it is soon in theatres here I was wondering, I've heard this will be the historically accurate version as opposed to the fairy tale of pulling swords from stone and skeet, wizards and skeet.
I was wondering, is this movie accurate, and how accurate, and if not accurate, what is the actual historical version of the story.

[Papewaio]

Romans left leaving a power vacuum. This lead to various warlords fighting it out and it did not settle for a long time.

Of course it made great fodder for authours in later years as a basis of fantasy writing.

[massamuusi]

btw, hope it's ok if I start another thread on the same day?

[mdutr0]

Actually, I believe that there is some historical and archeological evidence for the existence of King Arthur in the years just after the Romans left Britain. Whether this Arthur did all the stuff that the 15th century authors of the stories we know today said he did is, perhaps, another question.

Took a class on it in college :D


Thanks,

Micah

[Jihad2Death]

I belive this movie is a historically accurate version of what the real King Arthur would have been like.One of the biggest knocks on this movie is that its not historically accurate,because its not the traditional story.It seems that people have gotten so use to the fairy tell story that they think its historically accurate.Having watched the movie,I belive it is a more accurate version of what might have happened,since no one knows for sure.I heard one movie goer complain because there were crossbows that could shoot through armor,I felt like telling this person to go out and buy MTW,so he could learn a few things.

[Blaidd]

I don't think the movie was ever purported to be historically accurate. I think it was supposed to be more like 'historically plausible' or at least more than the Medieval Fairy Tale Version of King Arthur. The Fairy Tale version is so riddle with historical inaccuracies it's painful unless you say 'it's just a fairly tale'.

I've seen this movie and I enjoyed it. I always enjoy these sorts of movies though. If you go in expecting 100% historical accuracy, you'll be disappointed, but if you go in expecting a good fantasy type story it's very rewarding.

Here are the things I noticed out of place in the movie if anyone is interested. Probably be some minor spoilers. I'm no expert on Rome so please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these points.

1) The Most Common Dark Ages Movie Blooper Ever....King Arthur and his knights are using stirrups which I believe were imported to Europe from the Asia (I think I read they were invented by the Scythians?) in the 700s. Fortunately, they are fairly well disguised. I was looking for them throughout the show and only noticed them in some of the still shots I've seen on the internet. The Knights are from ?Samartia? which I have never heard of but from the maps it looks like its on the Eastern side of the Empire and they are supposed to be barbarian auxilary types so they might have actually had stirrups, but I'm not sure.

2) In the movie the Saxons have 'armour-piercing crossbows'. The date is 400 something AD. To the poster above who mentioned someone complaining about this, M:TW is starts in like 1086 and it takes some time to build up to crossbows. I do not believe crossbows had been invented in Europe in the 400s although a friend told me they were used in China? Unless the Saxons made a pit stop in China before they invaded Britain.

3) And the biggest bluder of all, the Picts (they called them Woads) had trebuchets. It was very clear they were trebuchets. Excellent replicas. Except, I have no idea what the Picts were doing with them.

4) Very cool scene at the end where the Knights have some armour that looks exactly like the Kataphraktoi armour from M:TW. :) However, I'm not sure if the Western Roman Empire ever developed seriously heavy cavalry. So this may be a few centuries early as well.

More speculation than facts as this is very early period for me. I'm more comfortable discussing events in Viking Invasion and early M:TW eras.

This was an excellent movie on its own merits regardless of any historical anachronisms. It's certainly not the least accurate movie ever made :)

The award for best King Arthur movie ever still goes to Monty Python. :P

I was discussing this with some friends the other day. Seems like since LotR there have been lots of Pre-Medieval type movies coming out or in production. Troy, Alexander the Great, King Arthur, Mel Gibson's new one.

I was complaining that these are all too early period. I guess they just don't want to put out the money for a late Medieval costume flick, but it would be nifty to see some set in the Hundred Years War (Not Joan of Arc again) or the Wars of the Roses or the Crusades.

Someone could make a decent movie about the Battle of Hastings / Norman Invasion of England. Excellent source material there. And none of us could remember ever even hearing about a movie in that time frame.

Just some thoughts

-Blaidd

[Rufus]

I put a review of the movie in the Tavern Frontroom. Others have posted worthwhile comments in that thread too.

Quote[/b] ]I was complaining that these are all too early period. I guess they just don't want to put out the money for a late Medieval costume flick, but it would be nifty to see some set in the Hundred Years War (Not Joan of Arc again) or the Wars of the Roses or the Crusades.

Someone could make a decent movie about the Battle of Hastings / Norman Invasion of England. Excellent source material there. And none of us could remember ever even hearing about a movie in that time frame.

Yeah I've always wondered why there were never any non-Shakespeare Wars of the Roses movies. Or why Sharon Kay Penman's books have never been made into movies. They'd be great on the big screen. I guess one problem is there's a lot to squeeze into 2 or 3 hours. Perhaps a TV miniseries would be better.

Also on King Arthur, the History Channel had a great documentary on the historical Arthur a few weeks ago.

[Darth Binky]

Quote[/b] ]1) The Most Common Dark Ages Movie Blooper Ever....King Arthur and his knights are using stirrups which I believe were imported to Europe from the Asia (I think I read they were invented by the Scythians?) in the 700s.

From what I understand, the Huns had them. However, the earliest recorded usage by the Christian West is during the reign of Martel, around the 700s.

Quote[/b] ]In the movie the Saxons have 'armour-piercing crossbows'. The date is 400 something AD. To the poster above who mentioned someone complaining about this, M:TW is starts in like 1086 and it takes some time to build up to crossbows. I do not believe crossbows had been invented in Europe in the 400s although a friend told me they were used in China?

Actually the Romans had crossbows. And if you play the Viking Invasion, the Picts have crossbows (and the Catholics/Vikings don't for some reason... I suppose the Papal decree against crossbows could have come into play by that point though).

Quote[/b] ]And the biggest bluder of all, the Picts (they called them Woads) had trebuchets. It was very clear they were trebuchets. Excellent replicas. Except, I have no idea what the Picts were doing with them.

The trebuchet supposedly evolved out of the Roman Onager. So it's not that much of a leap. Although you're right, they wouldn't have had proper trebuchets by the late 400s.

Quote[/b] ]Very cool scene at the end where the Knights have some armour that looks exactly like the Kataphraktoi armour from M:TW. :) However, I'm not sure if the Western Roman Empire ever developed seriously heavy cavalry. So this may be a few centuries early as well.

Next time you're playing Medieval, check out the description of the Katatanks.:) Romans had heavy cavalry, but they were a little different than we think of them (mainly due to a lack of stirrups).

When I was in London back in April, I picked up a college history book called Anglo-Saxon England. Good read, if you like dry history about that era. Even discusses possibilities for the historical Arthur.

Cheers

[scooter_the_shooter]

i saw it it is realistic but not acurate like the things that make it not acuarate is they have trebuchets and it is set 200 years give or take after rome fell but still a good movie i liked it more than brave heart

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (ceasar010 @ July 21 2004,13:45)]i saw it it is realistic but not acurate like the things that make it not acuarate is they have trebuchets and it is set 200 years give or take after rome fell but still a good movie i liked it more than brave heart

Darth mentioned already the trebuchet beeing based on the onager - it was actually pretty much the same thing, just rediscovered like so much else in the middleages - I saw a replica of both and they are hard to distinguish.

For the timeframe - you are more than a century off there - the movie starts around 410AD when Britain was told to defend themselfes - that was 45 years before Rome was sacked by the Vandals (455AD)and the Western Empire fell 66 years later (476AD). Odoacer declined to use the term emperor and chose the title viceroy of the Eastern Roman emperor Zeno.



nick

[RexImperator]

Another error in the film was the power of the church at the time of the pullout from Britain the Romans were not exactly Catholic although the official religion of the empire had become Catholocism (spelling) less then a quarter of the empires population was christian. Religion was considered more of a fad and the pope definatly would not have had that much power and they made the Romans look like a bunch of religious fanatics. During that period(if i'm not mistaken which I could be) the position of Pontifix Maximus (the position that we now call pope) was held by the emperor of the western roman empire and not until it's fall did the pope take the tital. The most important thing that the pope did before the fall of the western empire was when Leo told Attila the Hun to leave
(which was probably more like Attila we have reinforcements coming from all over the empire and thousands of troops inside Rome if you saty in Italy theres a ten to one chance that your army will get slaughtered)

[AssasinsShadow]

Concerning a historical Arthur, there are bits, pieces, scraps, and speculations that point to a British warlord that gained more power due to the fact that the Anglo-Saxons had taken all of Western Britian. Theoretically, this warlord had ties to Rome (maybe not good ones, but way better than anyone else at the time in Britian). At one point the Western Emperor asked the British king to bring an army to the aid of the Romans, and this army actually did leave Britian, made it part way across France I think. This is, however, a theory based on all the precious few documents we have from the era, and I got it from the History Channel's documentary, great stuff btw.

[Colovion]

I thought it was a pretty good movie, but could've been better. One thing that kind of annoyed me was when at the beginning the Samartian promises that he'll return to his family ---- and doesn't? Why even have that in the movie if he doesn't?

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (RexImperator @ July 21 2004,15:07)]Another error in the film was the power of the church at the time of the pullout from Britain the Romans were not exactly Catholic although the official religion of the empire had become Catholocism (spelling) less then a quarter of the empires population was christian. Religion was considered more of a fad and the pope definatly would not have had that much power and they made the Romans look like a bunch of religious fanatics. During that period(if i'm not mistaken which I could be) the position of Pontifix Maximus (the position that we now call pope) was held by the emperor of the western roman empire and not until it's fall did the pope take the tital. The most important thing that the pope did before the fall of the western empire was when Leo told Attila the Hun to leave
(which was probably more like Attila we have reinforcements coming from all over the empire and thousands of troops inside Rome if you saty in Italy theres a ten to one chance that your army will get slaughtered)

you might be right about the number of christians during that time, but the power of the church was already very strong (btw - pontifex maximus (or pope) was always the title of the bishop of Rome and no emperor held it (Constantine was not baptized until his death)) It was not until Theodosius that it became official state religion (in 380 AD) but the church was powerful enough to excommunicate him 10 years later and was forced to do
penance. Showing the christians as a bunch of fanatics is actually quite correct:

In fact in the east of the empire Christian mobs ran riot and vandalized the pagan temples which Julian had re-instated.
Was Julian not a violent man of the likes of Constantine, then his response to these Christian outrages were never felt, as he already died in AD 363.
If his reign had a been a brief setback for Christianity, it had only provided further proof that Christianity was here to stay. from http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/religion.html

(pretty interesting resources there for RTW ;)

which makes it likely that there were (isolated) fanatics in the west too.

I think your idea about Leo and Attila is a good one as Attila got his **** kicked soon later (Catalaunian fields) - there is a thread around here somewhere where his actual words according to a scribe are quoted where there is no threat mentioned but Attila knew for sure that reinforcements were on the way and Middle Italy was easy to defend (he turned at Aquilea close to todays Venice so he was still in the plains)

[Darth Binky]

Quote[/b] ]During that period(if i'm not mistaken which I could be) the position of Pontifix Maximus (the position that we now call pope) was held by the emperor of the western roman empire and not until it's fall did the pope take the tital.

Sort of.

Pontifex Maximus (which means highest bridgemaker) was the head priest of the old Roman religion. It was actually a government position for a long time (Julius Caesar once held it). Eventually it was folded into the Emperor's position.

Long after the fall of the Empire, during the papacy of Gregory I, it was added as one of the honorific titles of the pope (because at the time, the Patriarch of Rome was merely considered first among equals within the church hierarchy... which would eventually lead to the schism with the Orthodox Church), and is still used to this day. Interestingly enough, it's one of the few pagan Roman titles used by the Christian church (which generally tried to distance itself from the pagan religions by not using their terminology).

But my point is that the Pontifex Maximus of the Empire was totally unrelated to the pope and Christianity.

The only thing I'm not totally sure about is what happened to the position between the ascension of Constantine and Pope Gregory's taking the title. I would assume the Emperors eventually dropped it and took on the role of 'defender of the church' (sort of like Charlemagne and then the Holy Roman Emperors), or emphasized it less.

But your point about the power of the pope at the time is probably true. The church wasn't quite the political power it would later be by that point- I'm assuming a time frame of around 500AD, which is about when Vortigern and other people suspected to be origins of the Arthur story are supposed to have lived.

[nick_maxell]

Quote[/b] (Darth Binky @ July 21 2004,18:04)]

Quote[/b] ]During that period(if i'm not mistaken which I could be) the position of Pontifix Maximus (the position that we now call pope) was held by the emperor of the western roman empire and not until it's fall did the pope take the tital.

Darth got me there - I was wrong the title wasn t christian at all until 360 AD and only legally used after the schism with the East.



nick

[RexImperator]

Finally someone agrees with me about Attila every historian (amateur historian mind)seems to think that Attila defeated the Romans and left out of the goodness of his heart. They dont realise that the Romans and Alans and Goths (I can never remeber if it's visi or ostro) wooped his @ss.

And i'm a bit lost have we come to a consensus on whether the pope had that much power or not?

[Colovion]

Quote[/b] (RexImperator @ July 22 2004,15:44)]Finally someone agrees with me about Attila every historian (amateur historian mind)seems to think that Attila defeated the Romans and left out of the goodness of his heart. They dont realise that the Romans and Alans and Goths (I can never remeber if it's visi or ostro) wooped his @ss.

And i'm a bit lost have we come to a consensus on whether the pope had that much power or not?

I wouldn't say they whooped his ass - more like it was a very close battle with heavy losses on both sides.

[caravel]

The problem with the arthurian legends is that they originate from medieval europe. That is we have no idea whether Arthur Actually existed at all. He may have been based on accounts of several distinct kings of the Britons. I have also read Anglo Saxon England: Frank Stenton ( as mentioned above) and many other works of a similar kind, but this book and the others also make it clear that what we know about this era is based on the surmisings of Bede and various poets of the time. There are many grey areas and much of it was embroidered to produce a pleasing yarn or tale. This will be a movie as ever. Anyone expecting an historical account of the kingdoms of the Brython Celts will be dissapointed. We hardly know enough about the Angles, Saxons and Jutish (collectively English) so we really can't go back to the Britons and produce a historical account. Many of their supposed folklore and culture including that of the Irish and Welsh has been since proven as unreliable and manily of Roman or Germanic origin. I really don't think that Hollywood can succeed where eminent historians have failed.

[KyodaiSteeleye]

Has there ever been an historically accurate hollywood film?

I can't think of any.

As long as people are intelligent enough not to go into these sorts of films and believe every word, then we're all right - unfortunately, i don't think a lot are...

[RexImperator]

Thats not fair attack of the killer tomatoes was entirely historically accurate