King Arthur - a defense of the movie

[annwfyn]

While pottering about in the library I found something interesting.

There actually was a Lucius Artorius Castus, who is a historical figure with the closest name to 'Arthur' that anyone has found. He was a career Roman officer who did command Roman Sarmatian Cavalry in Britain. Not Scythian, as I thought, but Sarmatian. He was long dead when the Romans left Britain, admittedly. He was around in the mid 2nd century, when he was promoted to 'dux' or 'rather important officer' and later won a major battle against the Armoricans in 185 AD.

So. If you take into account some serious re-arranging, the King Arthur movie did start off with a fragment of truth.

It's somehow very appropriate that the movie may have done what the Arthurian myth did all along - take something real, and then change and shape it to make the point the storyteller wanted made.

Comments

[soullessflyer.livejournal.com]

Well it does say at the start of the film that evidence had been uncovered pertaining a Sarmatian of that name. I still think it's a cracking film adding a new slant to the myth, thanks for sharing that little bit of fact though it does as you say show the films started out with a fragment of truth.
:o)

[annwfyn.livejournal.com]

To be fair, the more I read, the more aware I am that a lot of the film is nonsense. Still like the film tho. Tis a fun romp.

[soullessflyer.livejournal.com]

Well I didn't really put a whole lot of stock in any historical accuracy of the film, I just thought it was a cracking story. Clive Own was well cast as Artorius. It was good to see known british actors in the main roles. I bought the Director's Cut on DVD when it was released and have watched it a few times.

[onyxtears.livejournal.com]

Sweet icon btw.

[soullessflyer.livejournal.com]

Cheers, it's the closest thing to a photo of myself on-line. It's a photo-manip. a mate did for me. Myself as The Crow. you can find a full size version here: link (http://soullessflyer.deviantart.com/)