Spain could very well be the cradle of humanity, the oldest Neanderthal bones in existence today were discovered in Cueva Mayor, at Atapuerca.
Spain and Portugal led the Europeans into the Age of Discovery, and founded the first globe-circling empires. The lion's share of the Western Hemisphere is known as Latin America with most of its people speaking either Spanish or Portuguese as a mother tongue, and follow the precepts of the Holy Catholic Church.
While the Conquistadores raised their king's banner around the world, its priests labored among the native people to spread Christianity. The cross of Roman Catholicism was raised at countless missions throughout the world via the far-flung global reign of their Catholic Majesties, and Spanish attitudes, values, and ideals were spread along with religion in a mix that still remains strong five centuries later.
Without taking from Britain, the Spanish have nothing to feel shame about; they were a great warrior Empire, and dominated the world in their day.
Beauseant!
*** I honestly don't know why people don't like "King Arthur".
Because, with the exception of the aerial depiction of the Roman camp, this purported “true story,” got it wrong in almost every possible way…and that's not to mention that the story itself was complete crap, especially when put up against the many possible tales involving Arthur that were readily at hand. It was Hollywood tripe.
*** I think what everyone is forgetting is that the Arthurian stories are later medieval inventions: Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chretien, Wolfram, and Mallory, spanning the 12th to the 15th centuries.
The basis of Arthur and the “legend” are not inventions. Most scholars now agree that there was an “Arthur” type figure who lived and fought in the late 5th/early 6th century.
*** The historical Arthur (Artorius Castus) was a Romano-Celtic leader of the fifth century, who helped repel Saxon invasions for 30-40 years. His true biography is not known, but the events in the film were quite possible.
First of all, the historical guy's name was not conveniently, “Artorius Castus,” it was “Lucius Artorius Castus,” and a gentleman of whom there is no demonstrable connection with the “legendary Arthur” except for a similarity of names and a connection with mounted warriors. He was a Romano-Sarmatian leader of the 2nd century, not the 5th/6th…and a fair bit of his bio is known today. He was also the commander of the Sarmatian cavalry auxiliary unit stationed in the eastern area of Hadrian's Wall. His cavalry was a well-equipped and maintained a consistent level of recruitment, as did all of the Roman auxiliary units. He didn't start out with 300 horsemen and end up struggling to get by with the 6 who survived the battles as depicted in the pathetic movie.
*** Most of the details in the film were amazingly accurate. I had a chance to speak with Mark Ryan a few months ago (at an event I was performing at), an English actor who was the sword master for the film. He told me that it is based on the latest archeological findings.
Most of the details in the film were amazingly Inaccurate…from the style of armor that the actors wore, to the bizarre mid-eastern/pseudo-Japanese sword wielded by one of the “knights,” to the number of men in the “Sarmatian” unit, to the battle tactics, to the placement of a Roman Villa north or Hadrian's wall (Hadrian's wall was the northern extent of the empire) and finally depicting the Pelagian Heresy and the withdrawal of the Roman army from Britain nearly a hundred years AFTER it actually happened. In fact, there is so little that was “amazingly accurate” that it's quite safe to call this film a complete fantasy.
*** Several key points:
*** The historical Arthur does seem to have been based near Hadrian's wall, not in Cornwall or Glastonbury as legend tells.
There is nothing but the suppositions of certain historian/researchers to place Arthur in the north of Britain, and for every one who seeks to place him there, there is another with an equally (and perhaps more so) compelling claim placing Arthur in the south. It is also telling that most of his earliest companions, Bedwyr and Cai, not to mention Uthyr Ygraine, Ambrosius and many, many others, hail from the area of Wales. There is also no early “Arthurian” claim of any northern town purporting to be the birth or burial place of Arthur…Tintagel and Glastonbury, in the south, alone hold those distinctions.
*** Sarmatians (from Russia) were used as mercenaries or pressed into service, and they were stationed at Hadrian's Wall. We don't know anything about Arthur's followers (the familiar names, Lancelot, Galahad, etc. were borrowed from medieval accounts for the film), but it is entirely possible that some of them were Sarmatian.
When discussing the “Sarmatians” one must consider that the men you're describing were as much “Sarmatian,” after 400 years of Roman rule and living thousands of miles away from Sarmatia, as any “American” could be considered “English” after having been only been separated from that country for less than 250 years.
*** Merlin as leader of the Celtic "Woads" is also fine. "Merlin" was a title, not a name, and referred to a druid or shaman in an advisory or leadership capacity.
There is no authoritative context from which to define “Merlin” as being equitable with “Druid” or “shaman” beyond your swordmaster's fantasies…or, for that matter, to state with any kind of certainty that “Merlin” was a title rather than a personal name.” There are only two persons connected with the name “Merlin”…one being “Merlin/Emrys” of the “two dragons” fame and the other being someone alternatively known as Laioken (sp?) who apparently went mad after a battle and became a hermet/seer in the area of the Caledonian Woods in the later 6th century. Two men do not a title make, let alone make it reasonable to apply that non-title to someone with no similar characteristics or traits to those of men known to be associated with the name.
*** The Pictish peoples of the north and the Celts did paint themselves with blue woad. The women were as fierce as the men in combat (attested to in many Roman writings); boys were sent to women for combat training. So Guinevere's role was entirely appropriate.
The Roman writings you're alluding to do not come from the 5th/6th century so it's less than probable that the Picts and/or Scotti still wore blue war paint during this late date. There is also no indication in any of the earliest mentions of her, that Guinevere had any particular “warrior” traits although she may have been a British/Welsh, not a Pictish, princess. Her father's abode is located in Gwynedd and can still be seen today…coincidentally, it is situated not far from Cai's fort.
*** The depiction of Arthur as a Pelagian was brilliant and undoubtedly lost on 99.9% of the movie-going public. Pelagius was a Celtic monk (and possibly a former druid) who advocated greater individual freedom of thought. His ideas were very popular in Britain, but his movement was crushed by the authoritarian Church. The depiction of the Church as corrupt and greedy even at that point was highly accurate.
The Pelagian doctrines were rather specific, concerning the need for the intercession of Christ, and not centered on general individual freedoms or thoughts. And although the church, or at least certain persons associated with the church, were probably greedy and corrupt, the assails against Pelagianism were seen as trying to stamp out heretical doctrines which could corrupt the faith and the everlasting souls of Christians and not necessarily to sate the greed of any particular church official. It should also be noted that nowhere, in anything ever written about Arthur does it even imply that he was an adherent to the Pelagian philosophies.
*** The sets were authentic, the costuming very good, even the use of the fragmented Pictish language was a nice touch. The only anachronism I spotted was the Saxon use of the crossbow, a weapon not found in Europe, I believe, until the 12th century.
The sets were ok, the costumes were ridiculous and the “Pictish” of the day wouldn't have been fragmented, nor would the Picts have been “savages” as they were depicted.
*** I could have done with more character development as well; another half hour or so would have been good.
After being immersed in such hogwash, I don't think I could have stood another hour seeing both history and legend so unapologetically mangled.
*** So, the only reason I can see people getting bent out of shape about this film is because it's not the story they know.
There's a reason it's the “story they know”…because it's either derived from the legends or has grown out of historical fact…neither of which was represented in the film.
*** But all the filmmakers were doing was trying to put forth a plausible biography of the man and times that inspired the legends.
There was nothing “plausible” about a guy wearing 2nd century Roman armor roaming around 5th century Britain with seven stereotypically “Hollywood” companions (none of whom was wearing appropriate Roman armor, by the way) all griping about going back to a country that they and their ancestors probably hadn't seen in several hundred years…not to mention that these seven guys would take on, AND BEAT, a substantial Saxon Army…and a Saxon army that was led by a man, Cerdic, who didn't even arrive in Britain until the early 6th century and never made it further north than Wessex. It's also quite probable that he wasn't even a Saxon as his name is British.
*** Fictional, to be sure, but there's no reason that it couldn't have happened that way.
The reasons it couldn't have happened that way are legion. I don't know what kind of research Bruckheimer was doing, but it wasn't historical.
