Topic: King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table

[Touti]

But my point from the beginning of the discussions is that in the movie Arthur and his knights are not roman soldiers sent to Britain, they are British fighters sent to rome.  They are romans because their country has been conquered, made part of the Roman Empire and they automatically became Roman citizens.

From IMDB

Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.  Written by Scott Summerton

In 400 AD, the Roman Empire extends to Britain and the Romans become impressed with the fight skills of the warrior Sarmatian people, which are spared, but have to send their sons to serve Rome in the cavalry for fifteen years. Only after these services, these knights are free to return home. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table have their last mission before achieving their freedom.

The movie never claims that Arthur was from Rome and sent to Britain.  It's about him and his knights being sent on a last mission only a few hours before midnight on the day they're supposed to get the papers freeing them from the Empire and allowing them to return to their lives in Britain.

[Najemikon]

But my point from the beginning of the discussions is that in the movie Arthur and his knights are not roman soldiers sent to Britain, they are British fighters sent to rome.  They are romans because their country has been conquered, made part of the Roman Empire and they automatically became Roman citizens.

From IMDB

Based on a more realistic portrayal of "Arthur" than has ever been presented onscreen. The film will focus on the history and politics of the period during which Arthur ruled -- when the Roman empire collapsed and skirmishes over power broke out in outlying countries -- as opposed to the mystical elements of the tale on which past Arthur films have focused.  Written by Scott Summerton

In 400 AD, the Roman Empire extends to Britain and the Romans become impressed with the fight skills of the warrior Sarmatian people, which are spared, but have to send their sons to serve Rome in the cavalry for fifteen years. Only after these services, these knights are free to return home. King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table have their last mission before achieving their freedom.

The movie never claims that Arthur was from Rome and sent to Britain.  It's about him and his knights being sent on a last mission only a few hours before midnight on the day they're supposed to get the papers freeing them from the Empire and allowing them to return to their lives in Britain.

Ah, I didn't realise that. However, you've just made it sound even worse to me! My first thought as I read that was "what's a Sarmatian?" A quick jump to the all-knowing(!) Wikipedia reveals them to be "of Iranian stock". What? Now I'm not remotely pleased that Arthur's bloodline could be anything but British/Celt whose fight skills would have been good enough, but apparently the Romans (specifically Richard Harris in Gladiator actually!) did ship a bunch of them to Britain, but that was in the 2nd century. The "Inaccuracies" section of Wikipedia's entry for the King Arthur film suggests this is a stretch.

All this is waffle. Warriors of Sarmatian heritage under contract to Rome is just muddying what is classically accepted in Arthurian legend. A legend that would make a cracking movie in it's current form. Sodding Hollywood trying to put their own mark on stuff. Next they'll be saying that it them who captured the Enigma machines in WWII... oh, hang on... 

[mpengle]

Woah, this thread took a huge U-turn eh? I wouldn't skip the movie if you think they made Arthur into a Roman soldier. Touti sort of spells it out correctly I believe in that the movie portrays Arthur as a British knight who is in "service" to the Roman empire. I don't believe it is stated he is born a Roman. And the sarmatians they are talkign about are the soldiers working under Arthur who are from a village/area of the middle-east that was conquered by Roman and their people enslaved and sent into the Roman army. If I am not mistaken the Romans did do that, enslave conquered peoples and use them for their troops...

In any case, it is still just a movie, enjoy it for what its worth. 300 had a lot of falsehoods, but I went to the movie expecting that and to be entertained, not to watch true history enfold... Heck, if every movie I saw was true, I would probably be bored with movies.....

[Najemikon]

In any case, it is still just a movie, enjoy it for what its worth. 300 had a lot of falsehoods, but I went to the movie expecting that and to be entertained, not to watch true history enfold... Heck, if every movie I saw was true, I would probably be bored with movies.....

I don't look for truth, I look for integrity. I would LOVE to see a 300 style telling of King Arthur! The sheer spectacle would be brilliant. Falsehoods, I don't mind and actively encourage when Arthur's history is under so much debate anyway. But this film promotes itself as being closest to the true story, which is arrogant and wrong, and I shall punish them by not subjecting myself to it! It's alright saying it wasn't Arthur, but his knights that were Sarmatians; that's as bad. The legend of Arthur, be it the fantasy sword in the stone/hand in the lake version, or realistic Saxon-basher, is about a group of men defending their heritage before anything else. Much of the legend depends on their relationship with each other. To say they are simply under orders, on a mission, whatever, doesn't sit right with me.

What's really pissing me off is that I'm going to have to watch this bloody thing now so I know what I'm talking about!

[DJ Doena]

Yes, apologies to Karsten, but great topic starter!

I don't mind, it's a great discussion!

[DJ Doena]

What's really pissing me off is that I'm going to have to watch this bloody thing now so I know what I'm talking about!

I really like Clive Owen since I've seen him for the first time in "Inside Man", but I didn't care much for this interpretation of the Arthur (or "König Artus" as he is called in german) legend

[Touti]

...and I shall punish them by not subjecting myself to it!

Apologies for being blunt Jon but they don't give a shite (how do you like my Irish accent ?) whether you watch it or not.  It's a good movie regardless of how near or far it is from something there's a 95% chance isn't even true, by refusing to watch it I think the only person you're punishing is yourself.

I think you're approaching this the wrong way, you should watch it, enjoy it for the entertainment it provides and then you'll be in a better position to bash it for its historical perspective because, as you said yourself, you'll know "what you're talking about".

[Najemikon]

Apologies for being blunt Jon but they don't give a shite (how do you like my Irish accent ?) whether you watch it or not.  It's a good movie regardless of how near or far it is from something there's a 95% chance isn't even true, by refusing to watch it I think the only person you're punishing is yourself.

I think you're approaching this the wrong way, you should watch it, enjoy it for the entertainment it provides and then you'll be in a better position to bash it for its historical perspective because, as you said yourself, you'll know "what you're talking about".

No need to apologise! Especially when I was being facetious. Of course they don't give a shoite (yours is not a bad accent, but I think you'll agree mine is a little closer ).

As I said before, I don't mind it not being true, especially when the most popular Camelot stories are full of fantasy anyway, but I don't want to waste my time on something I think was made for the wrong reasons. Calling it "King Arthur" and having the audacity to claim it's as close as we're going to get to the true story is arrogant and unnecessary, especially when their truth doesn't stack up. There seems to have been great effort to directly link Arthur to Rome which is feasible only with a great stretch of the facts. The popular idea of Arthur, be it fantastic or real, based on man or a hundred, is of a noble leader defending Britain from invaders because it's right, not because he's a soldier for hire on a mission. I don't get that idea, it sits wrong.

I really should watch it, but I doubt I'd enjoy it because it can't be the King Arthur I have in my head. Just like Judge Dredd is a half-decent sci-fi action film, but it simply can't be Judge Dredd because of all the changes. And U571 is a fantastic submarine thriller, but they had to say "Enigma" and that screws it up. Integrity is all I need.

[mpengle]

What's really pissing me off is that I'm going to have to watch this bloody thing now so I know what I'm talking about!

LOL.....Don't do it man! Stick to your guns!