I am encouraged as our community took the preview of this movie and highlighted a nice discussion of histroy and suggested several sources to further any one with interest, there maybe hope for us all :)

Just heard the have a new clip out. Some nice battle scenes and again the Ridley look is distinctive.

Movie Clip

Also ran across a note where Russel and Kate actually studied Nottingham accents (period?, ouch, as I am beaten by those just wanting to watch a good sword flick :lol: ) but they did not want another foreign accented Robin Hood to add to the pile :)

At least they are trying. Hopefully we will all enjoy and have a good sit through the movie. If there are enough swords we might even get a sniff at a "myArmoury Oscar"!!!

Craig

You know what I spotted in that new trailer? Cate Blanchett donning a black gothic sallet. That's gotta be out of period...

I'm confused by the Nottingham accent study. Did they learn a 21st century accent? I guess that is better than an Australian one. However, since this movie is set around 1200, wouldn't the characters be speaking Norman French and/or Middle English with an unknowable accent? Then, we would need subtitles on the bottom of the screen. Didn't Mel Gibson do something like that in his Crucifiction movie and in another one on which he is currently working?

As for tthe armed Cate Blanchett, just seeing her with (inaccurate?) helm and sword made my heart go pit-a-pat.

lets just sit back have our loved ones chain us to our chairs so we don't jump up out of our seats throwing soda at the screen relax and just watch :D

Ya know, I'm sure its going to have its inaccuracies. Hell, I'm sure it will have lots of them. But as I watched the Superbowl commercial I decided that I was going to watch the movie anyway and withhold judgement until I have. Additionally, I have decided that if I like the movie (even if they put lightsabers and ET in it) I'm going to watch it again! :D :surprised: :p

Yep. Movies are not documentaries. They are entertainment. Sit back switch off your brain and have fun. I loved Braveheart, 300, Troy, Kingdom of Heaven, etc. 13th Warrrior is probably my all-time favourite movie (or maybe the first Highlander).

But if you tell me that one of these movies is "historically accurate" I'll punch you in the head.

I draw the line at King Arthur though. It was one of the most boring action movies I've ever seen. They took out the best parts of the King Arthur mythology (magic, etc.) and the rest was garbled nonsense. Weapons and armour were crap but they always are in movies. Even the battle scenes were boring. A scantily-dressed Keira Knightly couldn't even save it for me. Bruckheimer owes me two hours of my life. Give me Excalibur any day.

Amusing anecdote: A few days after I gave my wife another speil about how much I hated that movie my mother-in-law gave the DVD to me for Christmas and I had to pretend how much I loved her present. Compared to that performance Clive Owen is a hack :cool:

The trailers certainly make it look very unhistorical, but I'm still looking forward to the piece and hoping for the best story-wise. Still, I'd rather have seen Crowe in a sequel to Master & Commander (fearing that will never happen, but I still hold hope).

Dan Howard wrote:

Amusing anecdote: A few days after I gave my wife another speil about how much I hated that movie my mother-in-law gave the DVD to me for Christmas and I had to pretend how much I loved her present. Compared to that performance Clive Owen is a hack :cool:

I've had my share of such gifts, because my enthusiasm with middle ages is well known to my family (my wife's father and his ladyfriend). Usually they come with advertisements like "we found the perfect gift for you!" and then they all stare at me expectantly when I open the wrappings and see what ludicrous stuff they think middle ages mean this time... (they cannot tell 1950s and middle ages apart, you know.)

I have to agree with Dan. All the films he mentionned have entertainment value and very flimsy authenticity in terms of history, or even costumes , but sit down, eat the popcorn and enjoy the ride... but that Arthur thing, what an insult! It had me bouncing up and down on the sofa, foaming at the mouth... a british warlord imported from the steppes. fighting from the Wall, with Guinevere in underwear and Saxons invading from the north like a pack of marauding vikings...it's as if the screenwriters specifically went out of their way to insult native britons, making sure that we understand that they were painted savages depending on the protection of eastern european mercenaries, while the saxon invaders were...enough already.
It seems to me that dark age Britain, with the last remnants of Roman culture and the renaissance of celtic tribal loyalties, would allow for sufficient poetic license to put a decent film together, with women holding important womenly roles, and invading warriors being invaders with a purpose, and homegrown heroes defending their soil with courage and daring deeds, so why go all space-alien-comic book on us at every occasion?
The only good news I suppose is that the story of Arthur has yet to be brought to the big screen with any degree of talent, which leaves the field wide open for future attempts.

Sorry to continue the off-topic Arthur debate but:

Not that I've watched the film you're discussing (oddly enough, I keep missing it) but I think someone had the bright idea of paying too much attention to one suggestion for "Arthur" over another. I can't cite original sources or even a particular researcher but here goes. Being citizens of the Roman Empire, few Britons, by the time of the Roman withdrawal, would have owned weaponry, much less been capable of using it in organised defence and, apparently, the Roman Army sourced most of their troops from conquered or federated nations (not the same thing) by this time. Samartian cavalry units were known to have been sent to Hadrian's Wall (or the area) about a half century before the withdrawal. So, Romans withdraw, Picts and Irish start crossing the line and Samartian soldiers and their descendents end up being the last defenders of the "true British" / the Old North (Ogledd Hen? for the welsh speakers) . The "Saxon" issue follows a similar idea. The first invited group was probably brought in by the Romans and took up the Roman governing system. The next wave may have been invited by panicked Britons and so on. Much of the conflict is as likely to have been between what we call saxons as involving the British.

Incidentally, Samartians were being held responsible for the idea of dragon battle standards in Wales by the same people.

Like I said, no sources. I'm not a student of it, I just read these things in passing and eventually mash them up for my own amusement to produce a piece of speculative fiction.

Jo,
the sarmatian hypothesis has been around for a while, but the few references we have on Arthur as a construct of welsh lore all point to conflicts against the saxon invaders, and not to the incursions of the irish(scots) against the picts north of the Wall.
It has been pointed out that the saxon advance in the south halted for a period compatible with the battle of Badon hill by archeological evidence. This is often raised as a point to validate the historicity of an Arthur figure.
There are many authors who point to the northern welsh as a plausible source for the warlord figure who, out of northern Wales, would become involved with other welsh kingdoms in their fight against the saxons, and there is a list of battles which continue to give rise to debates and speculation, but these are mostly on what is now english soil, and not cavalry battles north of Hadrian's wall.
The last known roman forces in Britain are withdrawn in 418 (give or take a few months), the saxons come in at the request of a British king (one of the Vortigerns) about thirty years later (448) and the Arthurian campaigns span a time line from about 488 to 519-20, Badon is situated at around 493. All debatable, as these dates depend on interprtations of how Gildas, Bede and Nennius compute their dates and time lines, but in all instances we are well past the final withdrawal of the Romans and well into a period where independant British kinddoms or principalities are set up.
Whatever ''sarmatians'' were awol at the time of the withdrawal in 418, were either assimilated, sacrificed to the gods or eatenby those brutish hero-less Britons by the time Arthur was having it out with the Saxons way way south seventy years later.
As for weaponless Britons, well the roman emperor Anthemius is known to have been assisted by a british expeditionary force in 470, which points not only to the ability to arm themselves, but also to organize a structured command for purposes of assisting an ally in a foreign war.
I've got nothing against ''Sarmatians'', nor ''Saxons'', for that matter, but why attempt to explain a British warlord with a foreign import when no serious evidence can be adduced to establish such a claim?
Now, that the Gododdin or Rheged (northern welsh principalities) had to defend themselves from incursions by Scots-irish, or Picts, is surely a probability as they will disappear as functionning entities. That the survivors immigrated to Northern Wales is also a probable scenario, but that they were also survivors of a Sarmatian group of roman auxiliaries is a quantum leap unsupported by archeology, litterature, folk tales, linguitics nor DNA research. Leave British heroes, however disputed they may be, to the British.

Hi Jean-Carle,

Thank you. I was talking with respect with respect to why someone might decide to cast Arthur as a leader from elsewhere who has to save our backwards, barbaric behinds (not that I've seen the movie). Thank you of reminding me of all the other lovely bits of information. I ought to go read it again...

Oh, and the Old North isn't North Wales. Rheged was (probably) loosely cognate with what is now Cumbria. At greatest extent it probably stretched down through to mid Lancashire and up through a chunk of the Scottish Lowlands. Cumberland (Cumber being from the same Brythonic root as Cymru) was argued to be the oldest surviving part. The language remained in dribs and drabs until the mid 1900s (if only for sheep counting). I lived in Cumbria for two and a half years. They're pretty proud of the heritage. Gododdin was on the other side of the Pennines, IIRC. Pen-Y-Ghent is in West Yorkshire and was one of the boundary markers for the old kingdom of Elmet, which continues in a number of place names. I actually grew up not far from here: Battle of Hatfield Chase

And to continue the semi-snide remarks, there is also a "Wales, that little place in England". There's a village that is now part of Sheffield, not 20 miles from where I now live, called Wales. It gets its name from the same root as the country.

And also IIRC the weaponless Britons being unable to defend themselves comes from the idea that Roman citizens were not allowed to arm themselves. I understand it was part of the laws at some point in the Western Empire. Obviously, as a long-lived empire and with individuals if not peoples not necessarily following the law, this is a debatable point.

Personally, I suspect that Arthur is an amalgam with a god at the base. I rather like the idea of his European campaign having been borrowed from Macsen Wledig's son.