Guest Tristian Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 According to the movie King Arthur everything in the movie was based on fact if not fact its self. I have been wondering wat ur opinions are on whether or not the Sarmatian Kights really existed. RUS!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fafnir Posted January 27, 2005 Report Share Posted January 27, 2005 Yes Sarmatian Knights existed... they were more like mercenaries recruited in the east and shipped to Britain for garrison duty. They needed to keep those damned Picts in line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tristian Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 So what they said in King Arthur the movie wasn't completly true they just elaborated on some facts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 from my limited study on sarmatians the only thing i can really say about the movie and the real ones is that they were protrayed realisticly for the most part. they were descendants of scythians and supposedly amazons aswell, they were great archers who (through images found) road on horses. at the begining of the movie in their first charge youll notice that some of them had long spears with them. they also used this in real life i belive as a second offensive after their rain of arrows that they derived from the scythians. their armor also was depicted fairly well i belive as they wore metal plates on leather, also they were eastern so they would have had some eastern style armor such as the scales and the helms you saw in the movie (ie. tristians helm). if im wrong about any of that please correct me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 I finally watched 'King Arthur' over the weekend. I had to fast forward through most of it The screenplay and acting was disappointing at best. The basic premise is correct, that Eques Sarmatia served in Britain from the 2nd century on. Otherwise, everything was a pretty scattered attempt at loose historical reconstruction, with some known historical figures thrown in. The 2 other known facts which is basically all that needs to be said about the accuracy of the film Castus served in the late 2nd century. The Legions were gone from the wall in the late 4th and early 5th century. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skel Posted January 31, 2005 Report Share Posted January 31, 2005 so the eledged Arthur was dead well before that movie was even to have taken place?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 Yes, they took a few pieces of the Artorius Castus story and blended it in with another Arthurian concept that he was a late Roman/post withdrawal leader who rallied against Saxon incursions. That story has more in tune with Ambrosius Aurelianus or Vortigern. Many facts are unknown and I don't claim to know them, however the movie takes liberties with those items that are generally agreed upon and twists them to fit the story. Typical hollywood nonsensical stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 and the movies crap,bad acting and bad costumes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 But I'm told the female lead is mighty fine in her leather outfit. Reading the description primuspilus gave, I'm a bit disappointed. But nonetheless, taking Arthur out of his medieval Christian guise is a step in the right direction. I'm also told there are scenes in the movie revolving around the native pagan beliefs of the Britons and Sarmatians which is dealt with in a manner not totally mocking. That is a rare thing for Hollywood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Augustus Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Yes, they took a few pieces of the Artorius Castus story and blended it in with another Arthurian concept that he was a late Roman/post withdrawal leader who rallied against Saxon incursions. That story has more in tune with Ambrosius Aurelianus or Vortigern. So Artorius Castus was different than the Arthur of Celtic legend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Yes, they took a few pieces of the Artorius Castus story and blended it in with another Arthurian concept that he was a late Roman/post withdrawal leader who rallied against Saxon incursions. That story has more in tune with Ambrosius Aurelianus or Vortigern. So Artorius Castus was different than the Arthur of Celtic legend. Certainly, and not entirely. The entire Arthur legend is a intricately woven combination of probably thousands of stories. Castus is just one small part of that, or perhaps he is the original root, or perhaps has absolutely nothing to do with the truth. The 'truth' of Arthur is hidden away in 30 different cultures and time periods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longbow Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 I like b.cornwells version of Arthur,it seems the most likely to me.his books are really good i highly recommend them if you like historical fiction. http://www.bernardcornwell.net/ L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pompeius magnus Posted February 12, 2005 Report Share Posted February 12, 2005 They needed to keep those damned Picts in line Whats wrong with those damn Picts. I am a damn Pict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fafnir Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 Lol im sorry PM, i didnt expect that. I thought the People of Pictland were gone, the Scots kind of took over in Northern England... my apologies. But its not like the British never insulted the United States. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbow Posted February 13, 2005 Report Share Posted February 13, 2005 But its not like the British never insulted the United States. laugh.gif And as a Brit, all I'll say is 'U-571', and 'the Patriot'. We had no Navy and burned all the townsfolk in their churches....... hmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.