King Arthur, the Movie

[The Ram]

Dark ages history is pretty blurred and I'm no experts at all. I liked the movie but the battles seemed a bit exaggerated.

The first battle at the frozen river/lake. From all the military history of every kind I've read, I find it hard to believe the 50 to 100ish Saxon crossbowmen can not kill a single person.

The 2nd battle of Badon hill in the first part. I find it hard to believe that the Samitarian knights + Arthur, 7 heavy horsemen in all, could have did the kind of damage they did in the movie against a detachment of more than 300 troops even with the Celtic bowmens covering them.

Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie. But can anyone clear up how these two battles could have been faught?

 

[Tallanas]

Don't get me wrong, I loved the movie. But can anyone clear up how these two battles could have been faught?

Only in Hollywood...

 

[Cimbri]

It wasen't made in Hollywood

 

[Vasileius]

The 2nd battle of Badon hill in the first part. I find it hard to believe that the Samitarian knights + Arthur, 7 heavy horsemen in all, could have did the kind of damage they did in the movie against a detachment of more than 300 troops even with the Celtic bowmens covering them.

Why , not ? Remember Thermopylae ... or the Last Samurai

Anyway , is it worthy to see it or not ?

 

[Cimbri]

Well, it's a good action movie at the very least.

 

[Longasc]

I liked the movie.

The scenario was rather refreshing, not that all arthurian legends again stuff, closer to history and some own fiction, a good mix.

But the director can really be blamed:

You should take a look at the characters before watching the movie or you will have problems to tell who is who besides Lancelot, Bors and Arthur himself.

Acting in general. The actors delivered a rather poor performances, perhaps is this related to the plot holes someone mentioned, too.

They should have taken more time to introduce characters or do it better, this way a lot of the movie is a bit confusing.


Still, the pictures are great, not overwhelming, but I think it is a good movie for those who like medieval stuff as I do. Arthur is more of a Roman Auxiliary, so more Rider than Knight, no shiny platearmor.

I cannot recommend it to anyone, but for those interested in the genre it is a good movie, in spite of many flaws.

 

[Benderino]

I do recommend it.

 

[Tallanas]

Why , not ? Remember Thermopylae ... or the Last Samurai

Well, Thermopylae doesn't fit, for many reasons which I will go into if you like...

I also have to take issue with the "closer to history" remark

This one was definitely more story than history (of which there was almost none). Enjoyable enough though, and as many have said, a solid action flick.

Funnily enough, as I got back from seeing it this evening, I noticed that U-571 was on tv...

As a keen historian, I really object when films make out that they are historically accurate (Mel Gibson, I mean you!). Why can't they just say "Loosely based on people who may once have existed, but NOT history! Starring..."?

 

[Tallanas]

Silly forum!!

 

[luiz]

That's a bit odd, considering Cerdic's land was South-East England. He'd have had to have gone right through Aelle's lands to get there.

I once read a thesis that Aelle and Cerdic fought in Mynnid Badon as Allies. Do you know if that's possibly true?

 

[Vasileius]

Well, Thermopylae doesn't fit, for many reasons which I will go into if you like...

300/7
1000000/1000 (Thermopylae)
That's what I mean ...
Don't go into it , I was joking ...

 

[Kafka2]

I once read a thesis that Aelle and Cerdic fought in Mynnid Badon as Allies. Do you know if that's possibly true?

It can't be discounted. Aelle is definitely linked with Mons Badonicus, but Cerdic is much harder to pin down. There appears to be a contradiction between the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Annals on his activities- the ASC makes him contemporaneous with Mons Badonicus, whereas the Annals place him a little too late.

It's a disputed point. My own suspicion is that Aelle was the main man on the Angles/Saxons side at Mons Badonicus. If Cerdic was there, he played a distinctly subservient role, but came to prominence in the power vacuum that followed the battle.

Where it gets really weird is when you consider that Cerdic may well have been a Briton. "Cerdic" is a British name, not a Saxon one like "Aelle". He's linked to the Gewisse tribe- a British tribe- and the term "Gewisse" in later years came to be used as a term for a military confederacy of mixed nationalities not tied to one area of land.

 

[luiz]

It can't be discounted. Aelle is definitely linked with Mons Badonicus, but Cerdic is much harder to pin down. There appears to be a contradiction between the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Annals on his activities- the ASC makes him contemporaneous with Mons Badonicus, whereas the Annals place him a little too late.

It's a disputed point. My own suspicion is that Aelle was the main man on the Angles/Saxons side at Mons Badonicus. If Cerdic was there, he played a distinctly subservient role, but came to prominence in the power vacuum that followed the battle.

Where it gets really weird is when you consider that Cerdic may well have been a Briton. "Cerdic" is a British name, not a Saxon one like "Aelle". He's linked to the Gewisse tribe- a British tribe- and the term "Gewisse" in later years came to be used as a term for a military confederacy of mixed nationalities not tied to one area of land.

If Cerdic was indeed a Briton then the history of Dark Ages Britain gets even more confusing(and entertaining!)

I also once read that Aelle was an Anglo and not a Saxon, though the author of the statement did not provide any proof.

 

[Kafka2]

That links up with a howling error I made earlier in this thread, when I said that for Cerdic to fight near Hadrian's Wall would have meant him passing through Aelle's land. That was absolute rubbish (I got Aelle mixed up with Uffa) and I apologise to any Dark Ages history buffs who may have spat out their mead in disgust.

Seeing as Aelle was accorded the title "Bretwalda", I feel safe in assuming his force would have featured Saxons and Angles. However he's most strongly linked with the South Saxons, who controlled the area around the South East coast, from the Isle of Wight to the Kentish borders. That would make him most likely to be a Saxon, as far as logic can be applied.

Cerdic? Quite possibly a turncoat Briton who joined a mixed band of Saxons and disaffected Britons as (possibly)a mercenary, and ended up in a position of power.

 

[Benderino]

That was absolute rubbish (I got Aelle mixed up with Uffa) and I apologise to any Dark Ages history buffs who may have spat out their mead in disgust.

Well geez! I for one did, you idiot!!!

 

[The Ram]

Long time no post! HEHE

Anyways, Vasileius, don't forget that while the rebellion actually took place, The Last Samurai was not a true story. And, the battle of Baddon hill, according to the movie, was on open ground while Thermophylae was a sea-side pass that was 4 metres wide at the narrowest point.

A fight on open ground (in reality anyway) would count a lot on the numbers. So for the movie-battle to have happend Arthur's knights have to be goddly good or the Saxons would have to be fighting like Roman civilians. Neither was the case. A charge of less than 10 knights could have easily been stopped by a detachment of 300 soldiers of any kind. Even if they just charge up to the charging knights they would still have won.

As for the Celtic bowmen (and women), they would stop their vollies the moment Arthur's knights reach the Saxons for the simple reason that if they continue firing, it is very likely they're going to hit the knights as well.

 

[Parmenion]

I must disagree with several posters who have said that the movie was a solid action flick. It just so wasn't......

There were 2 battle scenes, both of which were pants!

The first showed us 7 people firing arrows into 300-odd Saxon warriors who had sailed to Britain to rape, murder and pillage - big tough guys who feared nothing. The 7 good-guys won........ even though the Saxons had several dozen crossbowmen firing continuously back at them.

The second battle had those same good-guys fighting against thousands of the same tough Saxon warriors on open ground. Okay, they had some archers in support and some British woad-warriors, but c'mon!

Both battles were remarkably bloodless.
Both battles had unfeasably ridiculous events occurring.
Both battles were poorly choreographed.
Both battles failed to hold my interest and left me begging for them to stop.
It was like watching a fight from 'Robin of Sherwood' from the 80's........ (Ray Winston was in that too.)

I thought it was just me, but all of my friends who have seen the film felt the same way too.
Maybe it's because King Arthur had been lauded as 'The Film of 2004' even before it's release and it failed by a long way.


The trailers for this film prided themselves on a historically accurate movie portaying the reality behind the legend. Yet there are lots of silly and obvious historical anomalies.

I am ashamed that this film is associated with the British film-making industry.
Go and see it if you want, everyone should form their own opinion after all, but don't say you haven't been warned.

 

[Boleslav]

Did anyone else notice that in King Arthur the Celts were using trebuchets well before we know they were invented? And Kiera Knightly was using a longbow well before the battle of Agincourt as well!