Topic: King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table

[DJ Doena]

One of the ancient stories of our race but is there a decent movie of it? I know "First Knight", "Merlin", "King Arthur" but none of them tells the story in a proper fashion.

[mpengle]

I am partial to Excalibur but can't verify it is what you may be looking for...

[Najemikon]

I love the stories, but have never seen a film represent it properly. First Knight I saw on TV yesterday actually, and I'd say it's about the best because it's so straightforward. Still not satisfying though and no real flair about. I find Excalibur unapproachable though, despite it's undeniable flair! And I refuse to watch King Arthur on principle.

One of my favourite books is The Winter King, the first in Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles trilogy. It tells the story as if it's historical fact and places Arthur and his knights in a specific time, allowing the past Roman occupation of Britain and incoming Christianity as the very real backdrop. No magic or fantasy elements to speak of; Merlin is a brilliant character as a wily old pagan manipulating people who believe he is a sorcerer.

From what I have seen of the Clive Owen movie, I think they use this marvellous book to some extent, but the changes I've heard of are simply unacceptable. Arthur a Roman? No. Just, no. I would love to see the trilogy made in the Sharpe (also Cornwell), perhaps even Gladiator, mould.

The other night, Anthony Head was interviewed on Jonathan Ross and he says he is currently working on a series about Merlin. He plays Uther Pendragon. Surprisingly Ross didn't know about Uther and thought he meant Arthur. Disappointingly he asked the audience if they had heard of Uther and got a resounding "no". I was ashamed to be British, quite frankly. Arthur, along with Robin Hood, is the closest we have to a genuine legend in this country.

Anthony Head said it would be going out in the 7pm Saturday slot, currently Doctor Who/Robin Hood territory. I would say it will be aimed at teens, but I'm hopeful for some substance if Uther is in it.

[lovemunkey187]

Guards!
                   
Knights!
                   
Squires!
                   
Prepare for battle!

Excalibur is a great film.
Some fantastic British actors on display.  Nicol Williamson is brilliant as Merlin.

[Touti]

And I refuse to watch King Arthur on principle.

Just out of curiosity, what's the principle ?

[Najemikon]

And I refuse to watch King Arthur on principle.

Just out of curiosity, what's the principle ?

Because I can tell from the trailers, synopsis and clips, that aside from odd casting and worse dialogue, they've borrowed more than pinch of Cornwell's masterpiece. And it's bad enough they haven't paid the piper, so to speak, they add insult to injury by making Arthur a bloody Roman. Also, I can't stand arrogant hype, and this was marketed almost as definitive, claiming to be based on recent theories verified by historians. Rubbish. No such thing has happened.

Monty Python and the Holy Grail was a more believable pitch!

[Touti]

I was unaware of the claims that it has been verified by historians.  From what I know which seems to be confirmed by Wikipedia and Britannica Online, Arthur is only a legend and it is not even sure whether he his based on a real historical person or is completely "made up".

However, Arthur has been used in many stories and movies of which none, obviously, was accurate or respecting the original story since nobody really knows where it started in the first place.

I have seen this movie and, keeping the above in mind, found it good because I wasn't looking for any historical information.  It's a good entertaining action movie.

Then of course, although I understand your point,  nothing of what you said would be an issue for me because being french I don't care much for any English King 

[Najemikon]

I was unaware of the claims that it has been verified by historians.  From what I know which seems to be confirmed by Wikipedia and Britannica Online, Arthur is only a legend and it is not even sure whether he his based on a real historical person or is completely "made up".

However, Arthur has been used in many stories and movies of which none, obviously, was accurate or respecting the original story since nobody really knows where it started in the first place.

I have seen this movie and, keeping the above in mind, found it good because I wasn't looking for any historical information.  It's a good entertaining action movie.

Then of course, although I understand your point,  nothing of what you said would be an issue for me because being french I don't care much for any English King 

I can understand that. I mean, every time one of our kings got bored on a weekend, he'd pop over the Channel and kick your collective arse! It must be very depressing to be a history teacher in France, having to look into the wide-eyed, hopeful faces of the pupils, pleading to hear about a war with an English king their ancestors actually won (teasing the Scottish doesn't count!). Blimey, if they had the tunnel back in those days it would have become a national sport...

Anyway, I hasten to add that I do understand that he probably didn't exist, or may have been a collection of several historical figures, but I do feel making him a Roman undermines the point of the legend. And there are so many accepted stories, why did we need a new one? What's wrong with filming current public perception? I suppose Thomas Malory's take on it has only been around for about five centuries, so we mustn't rush into anything... 

[Touti]

I can understand that. I mean, every time one of our kings got bored on a weekend, he'd pop over the Channel and kick your collective arse! It must be very depressing to be a history teacher in France, having to look into the wide-eyed, hopeful faces of the pupils, pleading to hear about a war with an English king their ancestors actually won (teasing the Scottish doesn't count!). Blimey, if they had the tunnel back in those days it would have become a national sport...

Anyway, I hasten to add that I do understand that he probably didn't exist, or may have been a collection of several historical figures, but I do feel making him a Roman undermines the point of the legend. And there are so many accepted stories, why did we need a new one? What's wrong with filming current public perception? I suppose Thomas Malory's take on it has only been around for about five centuries, so we mustn't rush into anything... 

Since I am a "French" as in "French speaking person living in Quebec" and not as in "French from France" your comments don't touch me, considering how they've abandoned us, most of us here don't care much for any French King either 

As for the movie, the Roman empire was spreading throughout Europe at the time. I think the question is whether England was free at the time or if it was part of the Roman Empire in which case, the King would have been submitted to the will of the pope and would not rule the country himself.

Granted that Arthur is a legend, if that legend is from a time when England was part of the Roman Empire then Arthur would have been a Roman and it wouldn't be chronologically wrong to depict him as such in a movie.

I am in no way stating that the above is true however, I am merely exploring possibilities which would require some research on my part since I don't no much about England's history and wouldn't know whether it was ever part of the Roman Empire.

Where I live we stopped caring about British history shortly after we shot that Wolfe fellow on "Les Plaines d'Abraham" 

[DJ Doena]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur

King Arthur is a fabled British leader. According to various medieval histories and romances, he led the defence of Britain against the Saxon invaders in the early sixth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire

The Roman Empire by 476 AD:

[Najemikon]

Since I am a "French" as in "French speaking person living in Quebec" and not as in "French from France" your comments don't touch me, considering how they've abandoned us, most of us here don't care much for any French King either 

As for the movie, the Roman empire was spreading throughout Europe at the time. I think the question is whether England was free at the time or if it was part of the Roman Empire in which case, the King would have been submitted to the will of the pope and would not rule the country himself.

Granted that Arthur is a legend, if that legend is from a time when England was part of the Roman Empire then Arthur would have been a Roman and it wouldn't be chronologically wrong to depict him as such in a movie.

I am in no way stating that the above is true however, I am merely exploring possibilities which would require some research on my part since I don't no much about England's history and wouldn't know whether it was ever part of the Roman Empire.

Where I live we stopped caring about British history shortly after we shot that Wolfe fellow on "Les Plaines d'Abraham" 

 

Yes, Britain was part of the Roman empire. When I'm bashing the Scots as opposed to the French , I like to relate the story of Hadrian's wall. Basically I think the Roman's colonised much of the Britain, but then Hadrian took one look at the Scottish, said "no bloody way. Just build a sodding great wall so they can't bother us!"

What I love about the Winter King is that it is set hundreds of years after the Roman's left Britain, and just before Christianity took hold. There's a wonderful moment where Arthur is studying a stone bridge, and asks Derfel, the books main character, how would he build a bridge like that? Derfel shrugs and says he'd just build one out of wood. It fascinated me that the Roman's were so far ahead of their time that 500 years after they'd gone, the rest of Europe still couldn't pick up where they left off.

Also, it rather highlights a problem with the film. Didn't it come under attack because of the way it depicted Christians? If Arthur was supposed to be a Roman, I don't think Christianity was here at the same time. When the Romans invaded, Britain was tribal and they organised it and built roads ("Ok, but what did the Romans ever do for us?" ). Handing out Bibles would be a bit premature!

And yes, Wolfe was a silly sod for getting himself shot. However, didn't his French counterpart also die leaving the British as the occupying force? 

EDIT: Posted at the same time as Karsten! The book depicted Arthur never as king, but ruling while the rightful heir was sorted out (hence the title of the first book) and in the meantime fending off the Anglo-Saxons. Many takes on the story present him as a champion, rather than a king himself.

[Touti]

I don't really remember the details of the movie, would have to watch it again but you made me realize that I made a mistake in my post and said he would be submitting to the will of the "Pope" when what I meant was the "Will of the roman emperor", don't know what I was thinking there.

I'm not sure however that Arhur would have lived long after the Roman Empire.  According to Wikipedia (french), the end of the Roman Empire is generally said to be in 476 with Augustus Romulus and Arthur's legend seems to be set at the end of the 5th century or beginning of 6th.  Wouldn't it be conceivable that he could have been a Roman then ?

I would like to point out the historical importance of "the french counterpart" (Also known as Montcalm) outliving Wolfe by at least a few hours. 

That said, and if I may hijack Karsten thread even more than we already have, history and historians have said for a long time that the French had turned their back on the colony leaving Montcalm outnumbered on the battle of the Plaines d'Abraham and that it has ultimately led to the conquest.

We now are smarter than this and know better.  For over 1000 years, France and Britain had gone to war on every chance they had.  Once they both had colonies on this side of the Atlantic, it was only "normal" that the colonies would go to war if the mother countries did.  The historical facts show that France had capitulated 3 days before the battle took place on the Paines d'Abraham here, unfortunately internet was down that week and the colonies didn't get notified on time.

France then gave up Canada and all its claims on the territories east of the Mississippi with Treaty of Paris in 1763 so as you can see, you may have beaten the French but you didn't beat us, we were sold ( not sure it's better actually).

[Najemikon]

I don't really remember the details of the movie, would have to watch it again but you made me realize that I made a mistake in my post and said he would be submitting to the will of the "Pope" when what I meant was the "Will of the roman emperor", don't know what I was thinking there.

I didn't like to say!

I'm not sure however that Arhur would have lived long after the Roman Empire.  According to Wikipedia (french), the end of the Roman Empire is generally said to be in 476 with Augustus Romulus and Arthur's legend seems to be set at the end of the 5th century or beginning of 6th.  Wouldn't it be conceivable that he could have been a Roman then ?

What's hard to realise is just how long the Roman empire lasted. It was -for want of a better expression- on the skids for a couple of centuries at least. I've tried to get the dates from Wikipedia: Caesar invaded around 55BC, but Roman Britain is generally regarded as 42AD to 410. From what I've heard before though, the Empire was in sharp decline for many years before this. 410 is probably the time when the Celts and Saxons and Picts and God knows who else decisively took control, but they'd been attacking for years. Britain as a viable military point at the height of the Empire must have been a good couple of centuries before this.

I can't find it now, but I've read before that in simple terms, the Romans came, saw, conquered , went again, tried to come back, fell out with the Scottish and decided to stay in Rome and rescue the Empire. Which they didn't manage.

So, no, if Arthur was Roman military he'd have been getting killed in Rome around the end of the 5th!

I would like to point out the historical importance of "the french counterpart" (Also known as Montcalm) outliving Wolfe by at least a few hours. 

That said, and if I may hijack Karsten thread even more than we already have, history and historians have said for a long time that the French had turned their back on the colony leaving Montcalm outnumbered on the battle of the Plaines d'Abraham and that it has ultimately led to the conquest.

We now are smarter than this and know better.  For over 1000 years, France and Britain had gone to war on every chance they had.  Once they both had colonies on this side of the Atlantic, it was only "normal" that the colonies would go to war if the mother countries did.  The historical facts show that France had capitulated 3 days before the battle took place on the Paines d'Abraham here, unfortunately internet was down that week and the colonies didn't get notified on time.

France then gave up Canada and all its claims on the territories east of the Mississippi with Treaty of Paris in 1763 so as you can see, you may have beaten the French but you didn't beat us, we were sold ( not sure it's better actually).

Internet was down! Brilliant. They should have been using Facebook. 

Yes, apologies to Karsten, but great topic starter!

[Touti]

French Wikipedia makes a distinction between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire.

Republic lated about 500 years and started in 509 B.C.  It was weakened by a conflict between Marius and Silla and the civil war opposing Cesar to Pompei and Marcus Brutus.

Three dates have been proposed to mark the transition between the Republic and the Empire.

1: Nomination of Cesar as the perpetual dictator: 44 B.C
2: Victory of Octavius at the Actium Battle: Sept. 2nd 31 B.C.
3: When the senate gives Octave the title of Augustus: Jan. 16, 27 B.C

From the time of August to the fall of the Empire, Rome dominates all around the Mediterranean Sea and the occidental part of Europe.

From en.wikipedia.org:
The year 476 is generally accepted as the formal end of the Western Roman Empire. That year, Orestes refused the request of Germanic mercenaries in his service for lands in Italy. The dissatisfied mercenaries, including the Heruli, revolted. The revolt was led by the Germanic chieftain Odoacer. Odoacer and his men captured and executed Orestes. Within weeks, Ravenna was captured and Romulus Augustus was deposed, the event that has been traditionally considered the fall of the Roman Empire, at least in the West. Odoacer quickly conquered the remaining provinces f Italy.

From en.wikipedia.org:
The historical truth of the King Arthur legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought, based on references in the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, would see Arthur as a shadowy historical figure, a Romano-British leader fighting against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century.

Not saying the above paragraph is the ultimate truth but it would appear as though the makers of the movie (Yes, this thread was about a movie ) aren't completely off with it although the "verified by historians" claim is largely exagerated.

[Najemikon]

The historical truth of the King Arthur legend has long been debated by scholars. One school of thought, based on references in the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae, would see Arthur as a shadowy historical figure, a Romano-British leader fighting against the invading Anglo-Saxons sometime in the late 5th to early 6th century.

Not saying the above paragraph is the ultimate truth but it would appear as though the makers of the movie (Yes, this thread was about a movie ) aren't completely off with it although the "verified by historians" claim is largely exagerated.

Romano-British simply means anyone living in Britain between 42 and 410 thereabouts, not someone of Rome living in Britain and certainly not a soldier. Cornwell's book is set around the end of the 5th century and in his notes says there are records referring to heroes called Arthur or Artorius (which I believe is the name the film uses) fighting Saxons. So still using Roman names well after the Romans and more importantly, the idea of Rome, had long gone, hence Romano-British. To further illustrate this, here is a section from Cornwell's notes:

"We might know very little about Arthur, but we can infer a lot from the times in which he probably lived. Fifth- and sixth- century Britain must have been a horrid place. The protective Romans left early in the fifth century and the Romanized Britons were thus abandoned to a ring of fearsome enemies. From the west came the marauding Irish who were close Celtic relatives to the British, but invaders, colonizers and slavers all the same. To the north were the strange people of the Scottish Highlands who were ever ready to come south on destructive raids, but neither of these enemies was so feared as the hated Saxons who first raided, then colonized, and afterwards captured eastern Britain, and who, in time, went on to capture Britain's heartland and rename it England."


"Marauding Irish"? "Strange people of the Scottish Highlands"? Nothing much changes! Anyway, I say presenting Arthur as a Roman soldier (complete with Cockney accent) at this time is wrong.