king arthur movie

[Bricksidge]

I saw it.

The writing was awful. There were long stretches of absolute boredom. The battles were merely okay.

However, I believe I enjoyed it the most of my friends, because of my interest in the timeperiod.

One particular scene was priceless: an arrow traveling through the sky, through smoke, over the castle wall, headed for the enemy army, and then wham! hits the spy in the tree, he falls screaming to his death. We all laughed heartily for the next minute.

I can't really comment on the historical accuracy. It should be noted, however, that the film is surprisingly anti-christian, but I had no real qualms with that.

[Formendacil]

I can't really comment on the historical accuracy. It should be noted, however, that the film is surprisingly anti-christian, but I had no real qualms with that.

I won't start a topic on whether Christianity is good or not (because I know that's a big no-no ) But that is VERY odd. For a story purporting either to be authentic 5th century, or Arthurian legend, that is all wrong. The Roman-Celts were very Christian, and Arthurian Legend is in essence a CHRISTIAN legend, centering as it does on the Holy Grail and Christian medieval customs and myths.

Odd.....

[The Josh]

I'll probably see (or rent) the movie eventually out of my own interest. I just hope it does well in theatres to get the attention of producers to make other medieval movies.

-The Josh

[Sir Terrance]

I'm going to go see it in about 1/2 hour. It looks quite good from what I saw. Oh well. I still want to see it.

[doctorsparkles]

I won't start a topic on whether Christianity is good or not (because I know that's a big no-no ) But that is VERY odd. For a story purporting either to be authentic 5th century, or Arthurian legend, that is all wrong. The Roman-Celts were very Christian, and Arthurian Legend is in essence a CHRISTIAN legend, centering as it does on the Holy Grail and Christian medieval customs and myths.

Odd.....

I kind of enjoy seeing popular religion from the eyes of those who don't practice it. I liked the fact that the movie had an anti-Christian/anti-Roman tone to it. The depiction of how the Christian Romans treated the pagans was what put them in a negative light.
I don't know if the Sarmacian knights ever really existed, so I can't comment on what religion they would really have practiced, but they were pagan in the movie. King Arthur and all of the other Romans depicted were all Christian. Would the Northern Celts be Christian during this time period? I don't know how freely people passed through Hadrian's wall, so I don't know how much Roman contact the Northern Celts had. I do know that places like Ireland, which had little contact with Rome, retained Celtic culture well after the Romans had left the British Isles.

[Formendacil]

I kind of enjoy seeing popular religion from the eyes of those who don't practice it. I liked the fact that the movie had an anti-Christian/anti-Roman tone to it. The depiction of how the Christian Romans treated the pagans was what put them in a negative light.
I don't know if the Sarmacian knights ever really existed, so I can't comment on what religion they would really have practiced, but they were pagan in the movie. King Arthur and all of the other Romans depicted were all Christian. Would the Northern Celts be Christian during this time period? I don't know how freely people passed through Hadrian's wall, so I don't know how much Roman contact the Northern Celts had. I do know that places like Ireland, which had little contact with Rome, retained Celtic culture well after the Romans had left the British Isles.

I'm to point out a few holes that (I at least see) seem to exist in this statement.

While it is certainly true that the land north of Hadrian's Wall remained unconverted, and that there were undoubtedly numerous pockets of Celtic believers scattered elsewhere, it seems likely to me that the majority of Roman Britain (England and Wales) was Christian: because there seem to be no vestiges of Celtic beliefs once the Saxons established themselves, and because where the Briton culture survived (in Wales), it was in a Christian form.

In addition, Ireland had already been converted by this point, probably in close to its entirety. St. Patrick, who began the conversions, is believed to have originally been a Roman from either Britain or Gaul, and I believe he lived either in the 4th century or the 400s. In either case, it was the establishment of Christianity in Ireland PRIOR to the fall of the Western Empire that allowed for the survival of learning in much of western Europe.

As for how the Christian Romano-Celts treated the pagans, I don't really know. I suspect that having become the dominant religion in the Roman world (with the conversion of Constantine), they began to lose some of the humility and charity that had preserved them throughout the first centuries of persecution. But I believe that, occupied as their culture was with invasions such as the Goths, the Huns, the Saxons, and all the other Teutonic invaders, that it is unlikely that they would have been particularly oppressive towards their strong potential allies.

Of course, all this is conjecture. I have neither seen the movie, nor was I actually around in the late 400s. But you guys are smart, you knew that.

[doctorsparkles]

While it is certainly true that the land north of Hadrian's Wall remained unconverted, and that there were undoubtedly numerous pockets of Celtic believers scattered elsewhere, it seems likely to me that the majority of Roman Britain (England and Wales) was Christian: because there seem to be no vestiges of Celtic beliefs once the Saxons established themselves, and because where the Briton culture survived (in Wales), it was in a Christian form.

In addition, Ireland had already been converted by this point, probably in close to its entirety. St. Patrick, who began the conversions, is believed to have originally been a Roman from either Britain or Gaul, and I believe he lived either in the 4th century or the 400s. In either case, it was the establishment of Christianity in Ireland PRIOR to the fall of the Western Empire that allowed for the survival of learning in much of western Europe.

As for how the Christian Romano-Celts treated the pagans, I don't really know. I suspect that having become the dominant religion in the Roman world (with the conversion of Constantine), they began to lose some of the humility and charity that had preserved them throughout the first centuries of persecution. But I believe that, occupied as their culture was with invasions such as the Goths, the Huns, the Saxons, and all the other Teutonic invaders, that it is unlikely that they would have been particularly oppressive towards their strong potential allies.

I understand that Britons living south of Hadrian's wall would have been Christian. My question was whether the people north of the wall would have been. I really don't know a whole lot about the spread of Christianity.
As for Ireland, I admit that I made a mistake there. I misread a passage in a book I have on the Celts. If I had continued reading, I would have read that Celtic culture remained merged with Christian culture (For example: The cross adorned with Celtic knotwork). Oops. There I go speaking before I think again.
I don't know how pagans really would have been treated during this time period. I just know how pagans were treated in the movie. It wouldn't surprise me if pagans had been treated badly. After all, the church has been known to be less than kind to those refusing to convert. Then again, depending on the number of pagans living in the region at the time, perhaps it would have been unwise to make enemies out of them.
Anyway, thanks for correcting me... again. As much as I love history, I'm better with science. Maybe I should stick to that.

[Aviah102]

I saw the movie twice and liked it both times. The only parts that i did not enjoy, would include every time one of the knights of sarmatia decided to give out their loudest of war cries when there was no battle (only because i was not used to it). I would say that the only part of the movie worth complaining about was one really sketchy part towards the very beginning, but i will not tell of it because i would not like to ruin the movie for those of you who would like to see it. After i saw the movie, i decided it would be an appropriate time to build a large wall around one of my forts, similar to Hadrians wall (although not nearly as long).

[Aviah102]

Bricksidge, the movie is not anti-christian. In my opinion, the movie's characters obviously do not follow that particular religon and are mostly threatening to those people who use their holy influence in inappropriate ways (with exception to one part were one of the knights goes out of his way to verbally abuse a servant of the bishop).

[Formendacil]

I understand that Britons living south of Hadrian's wall would have been Christian. My question was whether the people north of the wall would have been.

No. The people of Scotland weren't converted until the 600s/700s (maybe even into the 800s. I'm not sure on specific dates, beyond that it was well past King Arthur), when they were converted by mainly Irish missionaries.

Bricksidge, the movie is not anti-christian. In my opinion, the movie's characters obviously do not follow that particular religon and are mostly threatening to those people who use their holy influence in inappropriate ways (with exception to one part were one of the knights goes out of his way to verbally abuse a servant of the bishop).

This is a pity, as the Arthurian legend is essentially a Christian one, and the real Arthur, as a Romano-Briton of the 400/500s, would have likely been Christian. So would most of his friends and allies.

They are therefore being true neither to history, nor to legend.

Would you make Mahatma Gandhi a Jew in a movie?

Would you make Jason and the Argonauts Babylonian?

[doctorsparkles]

Below is a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/:

Lucius Artorius Castus (fl. 2nd century AD) was a military commander of ancient Rome, suggested by some as the historical basis for King Arthur, and depicted as such in the 2004 movie King Arthur.

What we know of Castus comes from inscriptions on fragments of a sarcophagus, and a memorial plaque, both found in Podstrana on the Dalmatian coast. Although undated, the likely time period of the sarcophagus (before 200), combined with the inscription's mention of Castus being a dux, suggests that he was the unnamed commander of a 185 expedition to Armorica mentioned by Herodian.

As a member of the gens Artoria he was likely a native of Campania. According to the inscription, Castus was a centurion of the Legio III Gallica, then moved to Legio VI Ferrata, then to Legio V Macedonica, where he was promoted to primus pilus. He was then made praepositus of the classis Misenatium (the Bay of Naples fleet), followed by a position as praefectus alae of the Legio VI Victrix.

Castus went with VI Victrix to Britain in 181, and likely participated in the guarding of Hadrian's Wall, possibly from Bretennacum with a contingent of Sarmatians. When VI Victrix mutinied, Castus seems to have remained loyal, since he was soon after promoted to dux and sent to Armorica with several cohorts of cavalry, where he was successful in suppressing an uprising.

Castus then retired from the army and became procurator centenaris (governor) of Liburnia, a part of Dalmatia. Nothing further is known certainly of him, although the father of Cassius Dio was governor of Dalmatia while Castus was in Liburnia, and some of the material in Dio's history may have come from Castus directly.

The possibility of Castus as Arthur was first suggested by Kemp Malone in 1924. Although more recent study indicates that it is unlikely that Castus was contemporaneous with the Saxon invasions of Britain in the 5th century, it is certainly possible that he was remembered in local tales and legends that grew in the retelling.

So we know that Castus, whether he was the basis for Arthur or not, did lead Sarmatian knights into battle. We also know that the film-makers took the liberty of setting the story 250 years too late. A good question would be: what religion would the real-life Sarmatians practice?

[Formendacil]

So we know that Castus, whether he was the basis for Arthur or not, did lead Sarmatian knights into battle. We also know that the film-makers took the liberty of setting the story 250 years too late. A good question would be: what religion would the real-life Sarmatians practice?

I know little/nothing about the Sarmatians, so I won't say anything authoritatively about them, although i would guess that they were pagan of some sort.

As to the time of Arthur, whether or not he was placed in the right time period depends on whether you buy into the theory that Castus was indeed the Arthur who became legend.

It has generally been believed that there WAS a Briton named Arthur, who may have been a great leader, who lived in the 500s, in post-Roman Britain. He is generally believed to ahve fought to slow the Saxon invasions.

[Sir Terrance]

Its been a delay, but I forgot to post what I thought of it. It was good, I liked the battle scenes, and the arrow hitting the spy was really funny. It seemed short, but after seeing LOTR extended versions, everything seems short.

[erikut]

man this got waaaaay to complicated for me. but ower here the movie comes in 3 days then i migth see it or a couple of days after

[doctorsparkles]

I know little/nothing about the Sarmatians, so I won't say anything authoritatively about them, although i would guess that they were pagan of some sort.

From what I've read about the Sarmatians, they were related to (and eventually conquered) the Scythians. I haven't been able to find anything specific about the Scythians... but I've heard them mentioned by a certain member of this forum from time to time. Where's JPinoy when you need him?