King Arthur?

[journaldan]

My 11 year old son was very dis-satisfied with the King Arthur movie. We saw the movie together and shared a bucket of popcorn larger than his head.

Apparently, he read a book in his 5th grade class on Arthur and now accepts only that view.

My son is pretty bright and it was an adult book, so it did have lots of supporting facts and evidence, but as we know, there is no one definitive story. I am working on him to open his eyes a bit, or at least to make him have to think to make arguments to support his position. I certainly can't say that I am right on Arthur and he is wrong, because in this case, the son may actually know more than the father.

This little episode, however, has been a bit of an eye-opener for me. It is indicative of how we can get caught in our own beliefs and not be open to other theories, points of view.

 

(I still say early man lived in a style that could be defined as communism for many centuries, however)

[Zeke]

I thought that king Authur movie was a master peice greatly done and in fact greatly historical accept for the fact that the Celts drove the Saxons back when in relity the Saxons took over Brittanica. Great movie though

[pompeius magnus]

did you by chance watch the whole movie. They used Tebuchet, which were not invented for another several centuries. Also the movie took place around Attila the Hut and the Gothic conquest, Adrianople. The referred to Rome as being the center of civilization and still powerful, when in fact it would be sacked 3 years later in 455 AD. The only historically accurate part of that movie was probably the Saxton invasion.

[Zeke]

Yes I forgot to relise that......but the Woads looked really real........But still now that I look back on it, it wasn't that good......when I look at their armor it almost looks Persian. That movie was a Mix of Lord of the Rings, Druids, and the Midsts of Avalon or something. I should have looked at the date. But I highly enjoyed it never the less

Zeke

[Zeke]

And one last note I dout that they would shoot fire at Saxons.....

Zeke

[Primus Pilus]

One thing I always try to tell myself is that these movies are just that.. movies. They aren't documentaries. I try to enjoy them for what they are. I suppose its like Gladiator, which was horribly innacurate, yet I enjoyed it just the same.

[Viggen]

There was a site dedicated to the Arthurian theory that Arthur was Artorius Castus, but I can't seem to find it.  Will post it if I come across it.

 

Here is some background info about Lucius Artorius Castus

 

http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm

 

cheers

viggen

[Viggen]

and at this news story someone claims he is a descendat from King Arthur

 

His uncle, Cynlais Presdee, spent his life researching the genealogy and it took him 15 years just to establish the family's links to Welsh king Rhodri Mawr. "He eventually found links to Macsen Wledig, who would have been known outside Wales, and to his Roman contemporaries, as Magnus Maximus," said Mr Presdee.

[Jimbow]

Just joined, but someone asked about castles in Wales. The castles were built by the Normans after they invaded and took control in 1066. Wales was an incredibly difficult region to control, so the castles were built to control the populace. Their positions are strategically placed so as to enable a quick response to any uprising or trouble. We're really talking late 11th and 12th Century.

[Maximus Caesar]

At least Clive Owen did Arthur's character justice in the film. Why did the Anglo-saxons have crossbows in that era? I though it came only in the middle ages.

[Crysnia]

jugurtha,

 

That article is really very interesting. Do you know of any websites or books that talk about the same thing? Or do you have the website or the paper?

[longbow]

At least Clive Owen did Arthur's character justice in the film. Why did the Anglo-saxons have crossbows in that era? I though it came only in the middle ages.

I thought he was rubbish,King arthur with a cokney accent.lol Didnt the woads go into battle naked?Obviosly not all the warriors fight naked but some of them did.(i think) L

[longbow]

I think Alexander is the best one of the bunch,that movie really got me interested in his empire.Im now totally gripped by it and really enjoying doing the research on him.L

[Crysnia]

I've yet to see Alexander. But I can't wait to see it. As soon as I have some free time, I plan on catching it

[Ursus]

I'd like to point out many of the "standard" tales of King Arthur are not historically accurate either. The Medieval bards gave Arthur and his knights a medieval code of chivalry that didn't exist back in the dark ages. I think it's also debatable just how fully Christian, in the Roman Catholic sense of the word, Dark Age British would have been.

 

I haven't seen the movie yet, but if it does help take Arthur out of that Middle Age Christian Chivalry worldview he probably didn't have, I think we're on the right track, no matter the other historical flaws of said movie.

 

As far as the Saxon invasions, they did eventually take over much of the island, of course. But archaeological evidence suggests they were temporarily halted by something around 500, which is when Arthur was said to have fought his "final" victory over them. Who knows what really happened. But I don't think it's entirely impossible that some surviving remnant of the Romano-Celt aristocracy won a temporary victory over Saxons in the Dark Ages.