This is why I'm so confused Hollywood movies. For some reason they couldn't get it, except, inaccurate timeline, Hollywood director made up their on version. Hacksaw ridge did it right because it happened in WW2.
This is the kind of comment that puts me in the red. Dead serious if you say this to me in person you better be ready for a fight for survival. The world needs less people like you. Even if this is some automatic bot, you, the creator and anyone apart of test like this are a coward and knowingly in the wrong hence the indirectness of this arrangement. Quiet possibly unhuman, like is sympathetic to like, thats nature. Inbreeding produce's genetic mutations and can lead to bad health and mental disabilities. Kinda like a protective funtion in the code that kills off the corrupted line. Nature's way of keeping balance in a delicate system. Wanna know what happens to leopards born deaf in the wilderness? It keeps cats in good hearing..
This was actually my favorite Arthur version... Mainly because of the Lancelot actor, but actually I loved the cast and their character's relationships
This is easily one of my three all-time favorite on-screen adaptations of the story of King Arthur. This film, Mists Of Avalon, and King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword. Whatever theory you believe about whether King Arthur was real or not, and/or who inspired his legend, I think we all have to agree that the story of King Arthur is a subject where the line between history and myth/legend/folklore becomes blurred. As for you StoryDive, I fully understand your reasoning for focusing only on historical figures and events, and not doing anything relating to costumes, weapons, etc. However, after watching this video, I feel like there was one particular prop/weapon that you didn't focus on but should have, or at the very least devoted a small section of this video to it: Excalibur. In that section, I think it would have been great to talk about what type of sword Arthur might have wielded if he did exist, what the historical inspiration for this particular film's design for Excalibur is, and what an actual Sarmatian sword looks like and how it compares to this film's design. Maybe a part 2 video talking about this subject?
Excalibur is the best but this is a close second. I love the music, snowing scenes, battles and cast. I think Clive Owen is perfect: he seems ten ft tall 🎉
There is also the Celt name Arth, that is a possible origin for the name Arthur, Arth in Celt means Bear, during the 400 to 900 was a very chaotic period in British history, as rossy as some historians portray it, there wasn't a communal of the people, people didn't chose their kings, they weren't like the Danes/Vikings that chose their leaders, this was a period of warlords that crown themselves kings, till Alfred the Great defeated the Danes and become the first real King of England.
I always believe Arthor was a collection of real life people who legends were collect and place under one figure that why it hard to pin down the exact date of his legend as he has pieces of real people who conflict could be centuries apart. We see another version of this with the legend of robin hood who also may had been a real person or a number of individuals.
@@Marveryn Yeah, I hear of it, there is a legend of an outlaw called Robin, but that is the only connection to Robin Hood, some historians believe that Robin Hood is an amalgamation of many people, because many people had many reasons to hate King Jon to the guts, specially the Barons. they would turn the blind eye to any outlaw that rob from the king or even steal the gold themselves.
This is one of my favourite Historic-ish films, made by a lot of the same talent behind Gladiator and telling a similar tale of heroism. I liked your breakdown, the video reminded me I haven't watched this one in a while and probably should.
In short, there are two types of ""King" Arthur", the realistic one that happened in the era of the Roman Empire, and the fantasy one that happened in the Middle Ages
@@StoryDive there is no way u can make an accurate film about a person who we still are not sure actually existed and if he did who he was, so the writers just have to be creative, I would not worry about accuracy when it come to king Arthur
making a historically plausible king arthur seems so dull to me, the guy whole legend it's a mix of pagan fairy folklore and early christianity but one thing a would love its a movie that takes the historical outfits and set design of the suposed time period of Arthur (in a more colorfull way hollywoods notion of the dark ages being literally dark and gloomy its such a waste of creativity) and still add and plays with the whole fantastical side of the story a fairy tale as the people of that time would have protrayed
I do think you could make an amazing *historically authentic* 6th century retelling of the Arthurian mythos but the fantasy side of the older Welsh tales & accounts of Gildas should definitely be woven into it. Would be a hood chance to showcase & combine old Welsh & late Roman culture in a creative way. I would love a “Northman” like approach to the fantasy elements
2 года назад+3
Movie: Sarmatians join the Picts to fight the Saxons. No Britons fight. Reality: Britons join Saxons to fight Picts.
I did enjoy this film, but I also spotted many historical inaccuracies in it. I mainly enjoyed it because it seemed to have parallels with a book I enjoyed reading, _The Dragon Lord_ by David Drake. _The Dragon Lord_ was originally supposed to be a pastiche of a story about Robert E. Howard's character Cormac Mac Art, who roams around the world of early Britain with a companion with the colorful name of Wulfhere Skullsplitter. But the pastiche deal fell through, so Drake rewrote it, changing the names of the main characters and some of the plot points and published it as an independent novel. And it's a good one, in my opinion. I recommend it to anyone who likes that style of sword-and-sorcery fiction that has a good dose of verisimilitude and is also good adventure.
Clive Owen's King Arthur is my favorite arthurian version. Despite the historical inaccuracies you dilineated, I feel the Romano-British connection makes the most sense.
This movie did Germanus dirty: Germanus led the native Britons to a victory against Pictish and Saxon raiders, at a mountainous site near a river, of which Mold in North Wales is the traditional location. The enemy approaching, the former general put himself at the head of the Christians. He led them into a vale between two high mountains, and ordered his troops shout when he gave them a sign. When the Saxon pirates came near them, he cried out thrice, Alleluia, which was followed by the whole army of Britons. The sound echoed from the hills with a noise so loud that the barbarians, judging from the shout that they were facing a mighty army, flung down their arms and ran away, leaving behind their baggage and booty
It's hard to say. Germmanus did came around 428 AD Britannia to deal with Pelagian. But his second visit and the Allelujah to scare away the Irish raiders is debateable.
As much as I liked this film, I have got to say that there are some serious flaws, not only with the details on Arthur and the story surrounding Britain but also with the Roman setting. There was no part of Sarmatia that was under Roman in the 5th century and if there was, then the knights would have most likely been in the service of the Eastern Roman Emperor rather than the Western Roman Emperor as Theodosius I had declared that the empire be divided again. Then as it is around 451 when the knights are in Britain, there are some serious problems with that date because in 451, that was after the battle of the Cattalaunian plains in which many Germanics teamed up with the Romans to fight other Germanics and the Huns in staving off Attila's invasion of Gaul, and by then, the Roman army had been a shell of itself. When Germanus said, "Barbarians from every corner are almost at Rome's door," implies that many of these barbarian invasions haven't even begun yet but by then, there were several kingdoms carved out by the Salian Franks, the Visigoths, the Suebi, and the Vandals. Plus, as it would be after 455, Rome was already sacked a second time in that century and yet they aren't hearing about that at all. Also, since Cerdic's invasion of and start of the kingdom of Wessex didn't begin until 510 AD. By that time, the Western Roman Empire had ceased to exist because Odeacer had taken over Italia and deposed the last emperor Romulus. Also, Germanus was already dead by the time the film takes place. He also wasn't a corrupt priest, he was a Saint. Also, given the shift in Earth's climate as it grew colder, it makes more sense for the Saxons to invading the South of Britain for good farmland rather than the north where the cold would have made it harder to grow just about anything.
It’s a Hollywood movie based on a ancient legend with multiple versions. So no need to be picky. Something I did like much was actually the time setting (believe it or not). With the withdrawal of the Romans. Instead of the time of the crusaders as in most movies.
Arthur Pendragon = Herakles/Hercules; Uther Pendragon = Zeus/Jupiter. The legends were brought in Britannia by the Geto-Dacians conquered by Emperor Traian (followed by Hadrian, his general) because of the Romano-Dacian Wars in 101-102 and 105-106 AD. (btw..they also brought the "Morris dancers"..aka "Calusari" in today Romania - ancient Dacia/Getia)
The capital of Dacia was Sarmizegetusa ("Sarmi" - was the name of Sirius "dog" star..the same as "Gharmr" for scandianvians...and "Sarama/Karma" for hindu myths...hence"Camelot"; "Zegetusa" = "cetatzuia" means "little city/fortress"..hence "The city of Sirus"). The Sarmatians (again that "Sarma" particle...wich also means "coiled/wrapped like a dog") were related with Dacians/Geti..and allied with them agains the Roman Empire.
The funny thing is that this "Sarma" particle is used today in words such: "Shawarma, Sarmale, Salami"...all kinda food that involve minced meat "covered/coiled/turned/repeated" by a membrane (of vegetal..such as cabbage or pastry...or animal origin).
EXCALIBUR... is not!...a "sword"!...but the wooden "Shepherd's Crook"..called CARLIBANA (later "Caliburn/Excalibur") by Aromanian shepherds! It's basically a staff with an "S" shaped head of a wolf (used to catch a sheep's foot)..this simbol with a "piked wolfhead" it is actually the so-called "Draco(n) flag" that you see in this movie...and it was a symbol of Geto-Dacians/Sarmatians. *edit - the Shepherd's Crook was a symbol for Herakles/Hercules (known as "Osiris" - using the Greek version of the name - by ancient Egyptians...represented by Orion constellation /the original "Herakles constellation" - used also for the symbol "Chi Ro cross" starting with Emperor Constantine; the mother of Osiris was Isis...aka "Sirius star - Sopdep/Sothis"...if you cross a line from "Orion's Belt" to the left you hit Sirus "dog" star....from the constellation of "Big dog"- Canis Major. Orion is known as "The Fool" in the Tarot cards..with Orion's star depicted on his clothes and a little dog at his feet...the same way "Sarama" she-dog is at the feet of Sakra/Indra - Herakles/Hercules in Hindu myths.)
Another funny, cool thing about this movie directed by Antoine Fuqua..is that the hired historian/mythological expert believed that Arthur's legend is originated "somewhere east of...Croatia"! A decade or so after the movie he said..."carpato-danubian-pontic area".
My biggest letdown in this film was how the knights in the movie were in no way based on the ones for whom they were named. Dagonet was not a jester, Bors certainly knew a woman more than once, Bors, Galahad, and Percival had nothing remotely like a quest for the Holy Grail (though they did all survive the final battle. Maybe that counts), Tristan had no romance with any princess, and Lancelot and Gwenevere never hooked up after Arthur married her. And, of course, while none of these knights existed in stories of Arthur before the 12th century, the two whose names go the furthest back, Kay and Bedevere, do not appear in this film. I am just going to call it a missed opportunity.
I have to laugh at the narrator talking about historical dates being "long after" or "long before" the stated date when we are looking at only a couple of decades which is nothing when you are dealing with things over centuries.
Well, to me being decades off is "long". The point of the video is to focus on historical accuracy, so I wanted to point out inaccuracies even if they are minor. In the end, I do state that it's still an enjoyable film.
But the film doesn't take place over several centuries. It is just based in one specific time period, so getting things wrong by several decades is a major error. It's like making Churchill the leader of Britain in World War I.
I don't think they really ever stated that Merlin and Guinevere were ever related in the movie but rather just two people from the proximity of the same tribe if not just the same country who share a common view for their people and beliefs in Arthur
IIRC, it was stated in one of the interviews/commentaries included in the Director's Cut of the film that Merlin is meant to be her father. However, within the film itself it is never stated or even implied that they are more than just two people from the same tribe.
When questioning the reliability of sources because they were written a century or so after the events, keep in mind that the opinions of scholars that doubt them are written about a millennium and a half after those events...
The armor in the movie like scale (squamata), plate (segmentata), and lamellar (that eastern or Sarmatian introduction crudely depicted here as coat-of-plates), may all be historically evidenced. But the depictions in this film look like plastic steampunk versions of them.
By the way one of my favourite cities to visit! It's true, Northumbria stretched into Edinburgh but this was, like a lot of things in this film, long after the setting in the 5th century. I think Edinburgh was still "Pictland" at the time this film is set.
@@StoryDive precisely the first Anglo Saxon kingdom ever recorded was Cent/kent on the south of Britain. There are no recorded Saxon incursions during or before the Roman withdrawal of Britain.
@@Oobido my feelings aren’t hurt, I know the Anglo Saxon invasion went from south to north they took the area and built a fortified town called Edinburgh which came from the original Celtic name Etin. 😂😂😂
They also get the dates and itinerary of St Germanus wrong. He died in 448 and never went as far north as Hadrian's Wall. The Hallelujah Victory would have made for better cinema than the tired stereotype of a medieval prelate they gave us instead.
This is so frustrating there was 2 king Arthur's one in the 4th century and the 2rd in 5th 6th century around Saxon times. Both are very interesting stories and should be shown as separate people. One was a British Roman general the other was a British king leader general.
Yeah, I've been meaning to get on that one, but it's so long and involved I kept avoiding it. Ill put it back on the list but I do have some other anime coming up
This is my favorite film version of King Arthur. Is it historically accurate? No, not really. But since it's a movie about a fictional character, I don't think it really matters all that much. It's fun, it's entertaining, it places the character in a rough approximation of the time period/setting that probably birthed the legend, it has plenty of visually impressive combat sequences, every single one of the knights gets at least one cool moment or bit of dialogue, each of them clearly have their own preferred weapons and combat styles, and it has by far my favorite version of Excalibur ever. Many people love the 1981 Excalibur film, and the sword from that film but I've never been able to get far into that movie, it's just too cheesy for me (in the way only an early 80s film can be) and the sword from that film is just a plain cruciform longsword that looks somewhat iridescent. Boring. I've loved this movie for twenty years, and like all pieces of entertainment, it's entirely subjective whether one will enjoy it or not. If you enjoyed this movie too, great! I'm sure we could have some interesting discussions on it's merits. If you didn't like this movie, that's disappointing to me as a fan of it, but it's not my place to tell you what you should like, so that's okay too. 🤷🏻♂️
Its obvious who King Arthur is. He is 5th Century Sub-Romanized Pictish Cumbrian Brythonic speaker in Strathclyde goes by the name Cunorix MaqColine born most likely between around the 430s-440s and died around 510s. Ironically Cerdic or Cynric is mostly Celtic names. His Real name Cu or Cyn + Rig/Rex aka Cunedda. He appears only once in the Letter of St. Patrick Coroticos. In his youth his father Elaphius aka Coel Hen/Aloc/Elsing/Elessa ruler of Ailech(not the one in Ireland) in Strathclyde came to help local tyrant to deal with Irish/Scotti raiders. His father and the Kentishmen Saxon drive the raiders out. After that a local dispute that turn into violence and hostility between Roman Briton mercenary and Saxon mercenaries. Coroticus rampage all over Briton and push the Kent back to the South East of Briton. Later he created a slave warrior feudal society and went on a rampage in Gaul until he was defeated by the Visigoth. When he was in Gaul, Emperor Leo and Sidonus are desperate for someone to suppress or check and balance the Visigoth territory. Vandals rule the Northern Africa. Franks control Northwest of Gaul. Visigoth was at striking distance. However Coroticus or Riothamus men are rowdy the prefect of Gaul Arvandus don't like them so he wrote a letter to Euric to attack them. He later return to Alban aka Scotland and retake the lands all those rebel while he was gone campaigning in Gauls. By this time he returns to Hibernia aka Ireland after the failure of Gaul. The Irish call him Muircertach aka Mor + Caradoc aka Sea Lover or Sea Warrior or Sea Coroticus (this name will later be adopted by Danes or Norseman Myrkjarton or Kjarton)or Coirpre McNeil aka the Charioteer. There was no Chariot using in war by the 5th and 6th century. But are mentioned by writers like Gildas. Suggesting this King Arthur figure was a noble cavalryman leader. The word Aloo Rex or King of Alt Clut can be misinterpreted from Ala Rex meaning the Commander of the Wing Calvary Flanks. Here in Irish Annal Coroticus/Muircertach fought a man called Ailill Molt. Meaning Elf Ram. Notice Elf and Ailill meaning the same Aelle or Ella the Bretwealda. Aelle is similar to Aelfred. Alfred is Elf Counseling. Meaning despite the battle took different places or timeline (somewhere in the 480s if we want to get technical). They referring to same guy, both Ailill and Aelle. As for Molt could be a butcher Irish word for mistranslation and misreading from a translator writing it down of a Saxon word Wedder meaning Castrated ram same as Molt definition. What the word most likely was Wealda. Meaning Arthur or Muircertach/Coroticus/Cerdic was fighting a growing army led by a figure named Aelle/Ella/Ailill. This gave birth to the infamous Mont Badon or Battle Oiche in Irish. The Roman call him Riothamus, Rigothamos or Riotimus. St Patrick call him Coroticos. Anglo Saxon Chronicles call him Cerdic of Wessex. Yes Cynric and Cerdic are the same person. Brittany call him Caradoc Vreichvras. His famous title is Coroticus Artus. "The Beloved Strongarm." His real name is Cunorix or Cynric or Cunedda descendants of the Owain or Eoghan clan. The only Saint Contemporary to be Arthur Merlin is either St Palladus and St Cairnech. Tl;Dr I am just bullshitting lol we don't know if he exists or not.
Soooo, you also don't have exact answers for us either!!! "Theorized by some scholars"; "Some historians believe"; so many theories upon theories, I don' t see why people are bashing this movie for not being "historically accurate"---NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING FOR SURE 😂😂😂😂 Also, when you say there is no evidence of......--just because there isn't doesn't mean it didn't happen. What basis do you have for "such an alliance was NEVER made between the Woads (picts) and the Britons." So many records were lost to history and some alliances never documented i'm sure. Using the word never is a very strong word.
Sir, please, what dou you have on the historical facts about a Romanian “Country Dracula”. Much obliged. Sincerely, Nurse Jane of Deale, Maryland Kali Nikita!
@@gloriaschoenthal7968 you should check the miniseries out, it’s surprisingly good given some of its technical flaws. The miniseries is the one I go back to more than the BBC Colin Morgan series.
Anything to make king Arthur none ancient british ie welsh which he was.There was 2 king Arthur's in history 1 in the 3rd century in 5th century fighting the Saxons.
You are wrong about Sarmatians. They were proto Slavs, R1A1 Y DNa. and one of their tribes was called Roxolani. 😊 Norwegian vikings were R1B1 and Slavic or Russian ancestors. Slavs come from Indo-Iranic ancestors.
Where did my last name come from than? We have some sagas and stories we share in the family about our arthurian heritage. Most are silly arthurian legends. Artorius sounds like the ancient strait with deep waters in the Adriatic between Italy and Illyria (Croatia, Montenegro etc) So he was of Messapic origin?, greek/Italian later Roman sochi and then Roman citizens. Our word of mouth stories tell of an ancient family predating British Christianity and that we are of Roman ancestry but were adopted/surrounded... by the Scotish culture. That's about it, in otherwords, bullcrap.
Hey believe his enemies the Anglo Saxon chronicles state that they would've taken Britain 50 years earlier if it hadn't been for a Vortiegn or high king
The degree of racism found in the title of this video is disgusting. It's not Clive Owens King Arthur. Clive Owens did not direct this iteration of the character. Antoine Fuqua did. The vision you're discussing is that of Antoine Fuqua's Excalibur.
The point of a title of a video is to be recognisable and clearly understood to those who might be interested in watching it. Since the 2004 King Arthur film is best known as the one that stars Clive Owen, the most logical thing is to mention his name in the title rather than anyone else associated with the film.
Actually, I originally just titled it "King Arthur vs History" but it wasn't getting many views (it still isn't) so I added Clive Owen's name as it is pretty recognizable and might be key word searched. Antoine Fuqua is a great director but not as many people know who he is. It was definitely not racially motivated.
@@calebhowells1116 as logically sound as your response is it's still can be classified as weak. We live in the information era everybody walks around with computers and GPS tracking devices in their pockets. If you put Clive Owens face in the thumbnail and mention Antoine Fuqua's name as the director most people who graduated kindergarten can put two and two together and have a more holistic picture. It is not Clive owens's film it is Antoine fuqua's film. Just semantics? Is it though?
Hello. This a re-post due to testing a few things out. I hope it doesn't annoy too many people. Thanks!
This is why I'm so confused Hollywood movies. For some reason they couldn't get it, except, inaccurate timeline, Hollywood director made up their on version. Hacksaw ridge did it right because it happened in WW2.
This is the kind of comment that puts me in the red. Dead serious if you say this to me in person you better be ready for a fight for survival. The world needs less people like you. Even if this is some automatic bot, you, the creator and anyone apart of test like this are a coward and knowingly in the wrong hence the indirectness of this arrangement. Quiet possibly unhuman, like is sympathetic to like, thats nature.
Inbreeding produce's genetic mutations and can lead to bad health and mental disabilities. Kinda like a protective funtion in the code that kills off the corrupted line. Nature's way of keeping balance in a delicate system. Wanna know what happens to leopards born deaf in the wilderness? It keeps cats in good hearing..
@@ministerofpropaganda4050 Thanks for the comment. Helps with the algorithm and made me chuckle. You're hilarious
You did see that document describing the real inspiration for Arthur actually says pendragon, right?
Which document are you talking about, out of interest?
This was actually my favorite Arthur version... Mainly because of the Lancelot actor, but actually I loved the cast and their character's relationships
Mines too and one of my top 10 favorite movies of all time
This was a fun film, I liked the variety of weapons the knights had, not just the typical sword
Yeah, I thought it was a nice fantasy/historical film if you don't take it too seriously.
I absolutely love this movie and don't care about how historically accurate it is. I did enjoy all of the facts in the video
This is easily one of my three all-time favorite on-screen adaptations of the story of King Arthur. This film, Mists Of Avalon, and King Arthur: Legend Of The Sword. Whatever theory you believe about whether King Arthur was real or not, and/or who inspired his legend, I think we all have to agree that the story of King Arthur is a subject where the line between history and myth/legend/folklore becomes blurred.
As for you StoryDive, I fully understand your reasoning for focusing only on historical figures and events, and not doing anything relating to costumes, weapons, etc. However, after watching this video, I feel like there was one particular prop/weapon that you didn't focus on but should have, or at the very least devoted a small section of this video to it: Excalibur. In that section, I think it would have been great to talk about what type of sword Arthur might have wielded if he did exist, what the historical inspiration for this particular film's design for Excalibur is, and what an actual Sarmatian sword looks like and how it compares to this film's design. Maybe a part 2 video talking about this subject?
Excalibur and Monty Python are objectively best
Excalibur is the best but this is a close second. I love the music, snowing scenes, battles and cast. I think Clive Owen is perfect: he seems ten ft tall 🎉
There is also the Celt name Arth, that is a possible origin for the name Arthur, Arth in Celt means Bear, during the 400 to 900 was a very chaotic period in British history, as rossy as some historians portray it, there wasn't a communal of the people, people didn't chose their kings, they weren't like the Danes/Vikings that chose their leaders, this was a period of warlords that crown themselves kings, till Alfred the Great defeated the Danes and become the first real King of England.
I always believe Arthor was a collection of real life people who legends were collect and place under one figure that why it hard to pin down the exact date of his legend as he has pieces of real people who conflict could be centuries apart. We see another version of this with the legend of robin hood who also may had been a real person or a number of individuals.
@@Marveryn Yeah, I hear of it, there is a legend of an outlaw called Robin, but that is the only connection to Robin Hood, some historians believe that Robin Hood is an amalgamation of many people, because many people had many reasons to hate King Jon to the guts, specially the Barons. they would turn the blind eye to any outlaw that rob from the king or even steal the gold themselves.
This is one of my favourite Historic-ish films, made by a lot of the same talent behind Gladiator and telling a similar tale of heroism. I liked your breakdown, the video reminded me I haven't watched this one in a while and probably should.
In short, there are two types of ""King" Arthur", the realistic one that happened in the era of the Roman Empire, and the fantasy one that happened in the Middle Ages
It was the scene when Winston Churchill made an appearance and a speech when I said, "Wait, this can't be historical."
I love the 2004 King Arthur film
Me too.
"Suspend disbelief" is what's required to fully enjoy this film.
Very good movie and one of the best king Aurthur movie, very underrated
Despite all the criticisms in this video I did enjoy the film
@@StoryDive there is no way u can make an accurate film about a person who we still are not sure actually existed and if he did who he was, so the writers just have to be creative, I would not worry about accuracy when it come to king Arthur
@@luorr Yeah, to be honest I agree but thought it would be interesting to see what they got wrong. Thanks for the comment
How can a film director make the largest number of historians happy? Mixing and matching facts into an epic fantasy!
This movie was bye far the best movie off all the king Arthur movies
making a historically plausible king arthur seems so dull to me, the guy whole legend it's a mix of pagan fairy folklore and early christianity but one thing a would love its a movie that takes the historical outfits and set design of the suposed time period of Arthur (in a more colorfull way hollywoods notion of the dark ages being literally dark and gloomy its such a waste of creativity) and still add and plays with the whole fantastical side of the story a fairy tale as the people of that time would have protrayed
It was dull. Extremely boring.
I do think you could make an amazing *historically authentic* 6th century retelling of the Arthurian mythos but the fantasy side of the older Welsh tales & accounts of Gildas should definitely be woven into it. Would be a hood chance to showcase & combine old Welsh & late Roman culture in a creative way.
I would love a “Northman” like approach to the fantasy elements
Movie: Sarmatians join the Picts to fight the Saxons. No Britons fight.
Reality: Britons join Saxons to fight Picts.
Lancelot is the best character in this movie. Historically accurate or not, the actor Ioan Gruffudd is credible.
I did enjoy this film, but I also spotted many historical inaccuracies in it.
I mainly enjoyed it because it seemed to have parallels with a book I enjoyed reading, _The Dragon Lord_ by David Drake. _The Dragon Lord_ was originally supposed to be a pastiche of a story about Robert E. Howard's character Cormac Mac Art, who roams around the world of early Britain with a companion with the colorful name of Wulfhere Skullsplitter.
But the pastiche deal fell through, so Drake rewrote it, changing the names of the main characters and some of the plot points and published it as an independent novel. And it's a good one, in my opinion. I recommend it to anyone who likes that style of sword-and-sorcery fiction that has a good dose of verisimilitude and is also good adventure.
The best Movie about king Atrhur was the
Monty - Pyton - Movie !!
I think this is a very fair video about a film that I always have enjoyed!
Clive Owen's King Arthur is my favorite arthurian version. Despite the historical inaccuracies you dilineated, I feel the Romano-British connection makes the most sense.
I love this movie. I don't care if it's inaccurate. It's entertainment.
This movie did Germanus dirty:
Germanus led the native Britons to a victory against Pictish and Saxon raiders, at a mountainous site near a river, of which Mold in North Wales is the traditional location. The enemy approaching, the former general put himself at the head of the Christians. He led them into a vale between two high mountains, and ordered his troops shout when he gave them a sign. When the Saxon pirates came near them, he cried out thrice, Alleluia, which was followed by the whole army of Britons. The sound echoed from the hills with a noise so loud that the barbarians, judging from the shout that they were facing a mighty army, flung down their arms and ran away, leaving behind their baggage and booty
It's hard to say. Germmanus did came around 428 AD Britannia to deal with Pelagian. But his second visit and the Allelujah to scare away the Irish raiders is debateable.
Like most myths they tend to be composited from various sources, and in the case of Arthur, several historic figures.
As much as I liked this film, I have got to say that there are some serious flaws, not only with the details on Arthur and the story surrounding Britain but also with the Roman setting. There was no part of Sarmatia that was under Roman in the 5th century and if there was, then the knights would have most likely been in the service of the Eastern Roman Emperor rather than the Western Roman Emperor as Theodosius I had declared that the empire be divided again. Then as it is around 451 when the knights are in Britain, there are some serious problems with that date because in 451, that was after the battle of the Cattalaunian plains in which many Germanics teamed up with the Romans to fight other Germanics and the Huns in staving off Attila's invasion of Gaul, and by then, the Roman army had been a shell of itself. When Germanus said, "Barbarians from every corner are almost at Rome's door," implies that many of these barbarian invasions haven't even begun yet but by then, there were several kingdoms carved out by the Salian Franks, the Visigoths, the Suebi, and the Vandals. Plus, as it would be after 455, Rome was already sacked a second time in that century and yet they aren't hearing about that at all.
Also, since Cerdic's invasion of and start of the kingdom of Wessex didn't begin until 510 AD. By that time, the Western Roman Empire had ceased to exist because Odeacer had taken over Italia and deposed the last emperor Romulus. Also, Germanus was already dead by the time the film takes place. He also wasn't a corrupt priest, he was a Saint. Also, given the shift in Earth's climate as it grew colder, it makes more sense for the Saxons to invading the South of Britain for good farmland rather than the north where the cold would have made it harder to grow just about anything.
I loved this film. Such an excellent story of comraderie
This is one of all-time favorite movies. I watched it last night! I don't care what critics say. I love it!
Nice analysis,
The movie says much more about US society as of 2004 than it does about roman britian. The parallels to the Iraq war ar unavoidable
My favorite king Arthur movie
Stellan Skarsgard is phenomenal in this, Till Schweiger too while Clive Owen does a legit job.
It’s a Hollywood movie based on a ancient legend with multiple versions. So no need to be picky. Something I did like much was actually the time setting (believe it or not). With the withdrawal of the Romans. Instead of the time of the crusaders as in most movies.
The problem is most younger people are stupid and will believe what they see on the screen to be factually true
Arthur Pendragon = Herakles/Hercules; Uther Pendragon = Zeus/Jupiter.
The legends were brought in Britannia by the Geto-Dacians conquered by Emperor Traian (followed by Hadrian, his general) because of the Romano-Dacian Wars in 101-102 and 105-106 AD. (btw..they also brought the "Morris dancers"..aka "Calusari" in today Romania - ancient Dacia/Getia)
The capital of Dacia was Sarmizegetusa ("Sarmi" - was the name of Sirius "dog" star..the same as "Gharmr" for scandianvians...and "Sarama/Karma" for hindu myths...hence"Camelot"; "Zegetusa" = "cetatzuia" means "little city/fortress"..hence "The city of Sirus").
The Sarmatians (again that "Sarma" particle...wich also means "coiled/wrapped like a dog") were related with Dacians/Geti..and allied with them agains the Roman Empire.
The funny thing is that this "Sarma" particle is used today in words such: "Shawarma, Sarmale, Salami"...all kinda food that involve minced meat "covered/coiled/turned/repeated" by a membrane (of vegetal..such as cabbage or pastry...or animal origin).
EXCALIBUR...
is not!...a "sword"!...but the wooden "Shepherd's Crook"..called CARLIBANA (later "Caliburn/Excalibur") by Aromanian shepherds! It's basically a staff with an "S" shaped head of a wolf (used to catch a sheep's foot)..this simbol with a "piked wolfhead" it is actually the so-called "Draco(n) flag" that you see in this movie...and it was a symbol of Geto-Dacians/Sarmatians.
*edit - the Shepherd's Crook was a symbol for Herakles/Hercules (known as "Osiris" - using the Greek version of the name - by ancient Egyptians...represented by Orion constellation /the original "Herakles constellation" - used also for the symbol "Chi Ro cross" starting with Emperor Constantine; the mother of Osiris was Isis...aka "Sirius star - Sopdep/Sothis"...if you cross a line from "Orion's Belt" to the left you hit Sirus "dog" star....from the constellation of "Big dog"- Canis Major. Orion is known as "The Fool" in the Tarot cards..with Orion's star depicted on his clothes and a little dog at his feet...the same way "Sarama" she-dog is at the feet of Sakra/Indra - Herakles/Hercules in Hindu myths.)
Another funny, cool thing about this movie directed by Antoine Fuqua..is that the hired historian/mythological expert believed that Arthur's legend is originated "somewhere east of...Croatia"!
A decade or so after the movie he said..."carpato-danubian-pontic area".
@@RazvanMihaeanu well artorius castus supposedly died in croatia
My biggest letdown in this film was how the knights in the movie were in no way based on the ones for whom they were named. Dagonet was not a jester, Bors certainly knew a woman more than once, Bors, Galahad, and Percival had nothing remotely like a quest for the Holy Grail (though they did all survive the final battle. Maybe that counts), Tristan had no romance with any princess, and Lancelot and Gwenevere never hooked up after Arthur married her.
And, of course, while none of these knights existed in stories of Arthur before the 12th century, the two whose names go the furthest back, Kay and Bedevere, do not appear in this film.
I am just going to call it a missed opportunity.
I have to laugh at the narrator talking about historical dates being "long after" or "long before" the stated date when we are looking at only a couple of decades which is nothing when you are dealing with things over centuries.
Well, to me being decades off is "long". The point of the video is to focus on historical accuracy, so I wanted to point out inaccuracies even if they are minor. In the end, I do state that it's still an enjoyable film.
But the film doesn't take place over several centuries. It is just based in one specific time period, so getting things wrong by several decades is a major error.
It's like making Churchill the leader of Britain in World War I.
@0:17 "...that attempts to be historically accurate"
They tried.
Yes and I give them credit for trying
I actually would love for you to make a video about the costumes, set design, and son on aswell with compared to the historical accuracy
King Arthur was a Roman Briton with possible Scytho-Sarmatian roots similar to his Scytho-Sarmatian Knights.
I don't think they really ever stated that Merlin and Guinevere were ever related in the movie but rather just two people from the proximity of the same tribe if not just the same country who share a common view for their people and beliefs in Arthur
IIRC, it was stated in one of the interviews/commentaries included in the Director's Cut of the film that Merlin is meant to be her father. However, within the film itself it is never stated or even implied that they are more than just two people from the same tribe.
9:08 whoa hold on when was it said she was Merlin’s daughter?
Actually, it's never stated explicitly, it's sort of implied but I know from reading up on the film they intended her to be Merlin's daughter.
This is the nearest ....
Why do you ALL ignore Welsh history.The truth of Arthur is there!
When questioning the reliability of sources because they were written a century or so after the events, keep in mind that the opinions of scholars that doubt them are written about a millennium and a half after those events...
If Geneviever is Merlin’s daughter then who was her mother? Nimoway?
The armor in the movie like scale (squamata), plate (segmentata), and lamellar (that eastern or Sarmatian introduction crudely depicted here as coat-of-plates), may all be historically evidenced. But the depictions in this film look like plastic steampunk versions of them.
I love your vids man
A Saxon expedition into Scotland?? Edinburgh was founded by the Anglo Saxons though the land was then claimed by Scots at some point.
By the way one of my favourite cities to visit! It's true, Northumbria stretched into Edinburgh but this was, like a lot of things in this film, long after the setting in the 5th century. I think Edinburgh was still "Pictland" at the time this film is set.
@@StoryDive precisely the first Anglo Saxon kingdom ever recorded was Cent/kent on the south of Britain. There are no recorded Saxon incursions during or before the Roman withdrawal of Britain.
@@Oobido A burgh is old English for fortified town. Edinburgh. the city was founded in the kingdom of Northumbria.
@@Oobido my feelings aren’t hurt, I know the Anglo Saxon invasion went from south to north they took the area and built a fortified town called Edinburgh which came from the original Celtic name Etin. 😂😂😂
@@Oobido your point being??? Not too sure how my feelings have anything to do with this 😂😂😂😂
They also get the dates and itinerary of St Germanus wrong. He died in 448 and never went as far north as Hadrian's Wall. The Hallelujah Victory would have made for better cinema than the tired stereotype of a medieval prelate they gave us instead.
We know St Germannus came in 428 along with other like St Palladus. But the 442 or 446 visit in Britain may been not true.
Everyone needs to read the holy kingdom by wilson and Blackett.
Also read THE HARLIAN DOCUMENT FROM THE BRITISH MUSEUM
Hey guys, great video! Can you guys share your sources? I am writing an essay on this movie :)
Except that Rome at that time meant Byzantium not the western empire. Meaning they would have looked and dressed like the mosaics at Hagia Sofia.
This is so frustrating there was 2 king Arthur's one in the 4th century and the 2rd in 5th 6th century around Saxon times. Both are very interesting stories and should be shown as separate people. One was a British Roman general the other was a British king leader general.
Do the Legend of Korra video it’s been a while since you did the last air bender
Yeah, I've been meaning to get on that one, but it's so long and involved I kept avoiding it. Ill put it back on the list but I do have some other anime coming up
"Where it failed." It's a freaking movie, not a documentary. Unbelievable!
Just leaving a comment to help this gain traction.
Thanks!
This video also covers the movie The Last Legion
This is my favorite film version of King Arthur. Is it historically accurate? No, not really. But since it's a movie about a fictional character, I don't think it really matters all that much.
It's fun, it's entertaining, it places the character in a rough approximation of the time period/setting that probably birthed the legend, it has plenty of visually impressive combat sequences, every single one of the knights gets at least one cool moment or bit of dialogue, each of them clearly have their own preferred weapons and combat styles, and it has by far my favorite version of Excalibur ever. Many people love the 1981 Excalibur film, and the sword from that film but I've never been able to get far into that movie, it's just too cheesy for me (in the way only an early 80s film can be) and the sword from that film is just a plain cruciform longsword that looks somewhat iridescent. Boring.
I've loved this movie for twenty years, and like all pieces of entertainment, it's entirely subjective whether one will enjoy it or not. If you enjoyed this movie too, great! I'm sure we could have some interesting discussions on it's merits. If you didn't like this movie, that's disappointing to me as a fan of it, but it's not my place to tell you what you should like, so that's okay too. 🤷🏻♂️
I think the the battle cry “Rus!” Refers to their Sarmatian tribe? The Rhoxolani?
Its obvious who King Arthur is. He is 5th Century Sub-Romanized Pictish Cumbrian Brythonic speaker in Strathclyde goes by the name Cunorix MaqColine born most likely between around the 430s-440s and died around 510s. Ironically Cerdic or Cynric is mostly Celtic names.
His Real name Cu or Cyn + Rig/Rex aka Cunedda. He appears only once in the Letter of St. Patrick Coroticos.
In his youth his father Elaphius aka Coel Hen/Aloc/Elsing/Elessa ruler of Ailech(not the one in Ireland) in Strathclyde came to help local tyrant to deal with Irish/Scotti raiders. His father and the Kentishmen Saxon drive the raiders out. After that a local dispute that turn into violence and hostility between Roman Briton mercenary and Saxon mercenaries.
Coroticus rampage all over Briton and push the Kent back to the South East of Briton. Later he created a slave warrior feudal society and went on a rampage in Gaul until he was defeated by the Visigoth. When he was in Gaul, Emperor Leo and Sidonus are desperate for someone to suppress or check and balance the Visigoth territory. Vandals rule the Northern Africa. Franks control Northwest of Gaul. Visigoth was at striking distance. However Coroticus or Riothamus men are rowdy the prefect of Gaul Arvandus don't like them so he wrote a letter to Euric to attack them.
He later return to Alban aka Scotland and retake the lands all those rebel while he was gone campaigning in Gauls. By this time he returns to Hibernia aka Ireland after the failure of Gaul. The Irish call him Muircertach aka Mor + Caradoc aka Sea Lover or Sea Warrior or Sea Coroticus (this name will later be adopted by Danes or Norseman Myrkjarton or Kjarton)or Coirpre McNeil aka the Charioteer. There was no Chariot using in war by the 5th and 6th century. But are mentioned by writers like Gildas. Suggesting this King Arthur figure was a noble cavalryman leader. The word Aloo Rex or King of Alt Clut can be misinterpreted from Ala Rex meaning the Commander of the Wing Calvary Flanks.
Here in Irish Annal Coroticus/Muircertach fought a man called Ailill Molt. Meaning Elf Ram. Notice Elf and Ailill meaning the same Aelle or Ella the Bretwealda. Aelle is similar to Aelfred. Alfred is Elf Counseling.
Meaning despite the battle took different places or timeline (somewhere in the 480s if we want to get technical). They referring to same guy, both Ailill and Aelle. As for Molt could be a butcher Irish word for mistranslation and misreading from a translator writing it down of a Saxon word Wedder meaning Castrated ram same as Molt definition. What the word most likely was Wealda. Meaning Arthur or Muircertach/Coroticus/Cerdic was fighting a growing army led by a figure named Aelle/Ella/Ailill. This gave birth to the infamous Mont Badon or Battle Oiche in Irish.
The Roman call him Riothamus, Rigothamos or Riotimus.
St Patrick call him Coroticos.
Anglo Saxon Chronicles call him Cerdic of Wessex. Yes Cynric and Cerdic are the same person.
Brittany call him Caradoc Vreichvras.
His famous title is Coroticus Artus. "The Beloved Strongarm." His real name is Cunorix or Cynric or Cunedda descendants of the Owain or Eoghan clan.
The only Saint Contemporary to be Arthur Merlin is either St Palladus and St Cairnech.
Tl;Dr I am just bullshitting lol we don't know if he exists or not.
Soooo, you also don't have exact answers for us either!!! "Theorized by some scholars"; "Some historians believe"; so many theories upon theories, I don' t see why people are bashing this movie for not being "historically accurate"---NO ONE KNOWS ANYTHING FOR SURE 😂😂😂😂 Also, when you say there is no evidence of......--just because there isn't doesn't mean it didn't happen. What basis do you have for "such an alliance was NEVER made between the Woads (picts) and the Britons." So many records were lost to history and some alliances never documented i'm sure. Using the word never is a very strong word.
I loved that movie
Sir, please, what dou you have on the historical facts about a Romanian “Country Dracula”. Much obliged. Sincerely, Nurse Jane of Deale, Maryland Kali Nikita!
Could you explore your opinion of Guy Ritchie’s King Arthur: Legend of the Sword. Or even the 1998 miniseries called Merlin.
Never heard of this 1998 miniseries. There's a Merlin (BBC) series done in 2008 and also Camelot which I surprised I ended up loving it
@@gloriaschoenthal7968 you should check the miniseries out, it’s surprisingly good given some of its technical flaws. The miniseries is the one I go back to more than the BBC Colin Morgan series.
The blade is like Arrow, Spear Head And Kukari And Bowie Knife in one 🗡️🔪🗡️🔪🗡️🔪🗡️🔪
Anything to make king Arthur none ancient british ie welsh which he was.There was 2 king Arthur's in history 1 in the 3rd century in 5th century fighting the Saxons.
You are wrong about Sarmatians. They were proto Slavs, R1A1 Y DNa. and one of their tribes was called Roxolani. 😊 Norwegian vikings were R1B1 and Slavic or Russian ancestors.
Slavs come from Indo-Iranic ancestors.
Thank you.
VIVA DUX LUCIUS ARTORIUS CASTUS....
During the Age Attila..
Where did my last name come from than? We have some sagas and stories we share in the family about our arthurian heritage. Most are silly arthurian legends. Artorius sounds like the ancient strait with deep waters in the Adriatic between Italy and Illyria (Croatia, Montenegro etc) So he was of Messapic origin?, greek/Italian later Roman sochi and then Roman citizens. Our word of mouth stories tell of an ancient family predating British Christianity and that we are of Roman ancestry but were adopted/surrounded... by the Scotish culture. That's about it, in otherwords, bullcrap.
Hey believe his enemies the Anglo Saxon chronicles state that they would've taken Britain 50 years earlier if it hadn't been for a Vortiegn or high king
Pendragon sword of my father and Arthur of the Britons are ok
9:29 Picts or it didn't happen :P
Just now saw this. Very disappointed, the film had many discrepancies! They shouldn't have typed the ff. said facts at the beginning of the film! 🤔👎
crossbows lmao
King Arthur From Russia very interesting🤔
The degree of racism found in the title of this video is disgusting. It's not Clive Owens King Arthur. Clive Owens did not direct this iteration of the character. Antoine Fuqua did. The vision you're discussing is that of Antoine Fuqua's Excalibur.
The point of a title of a video is to be recognisable and clearly understood to those who might be interested in watching it. Since the 2004 King Arthur film is best known as the one that stars Clive Owen, the most logical thing is to mention his name in the title rather than anyone else associated with the film.
Actually, I originally just titled it "King Arthur vs History" but it wasn't getting many views (it still isn't) so I added Clive Owen's name as it is pretty recognizable and might be key word searched. Antoine Fuqua is a great director but not as many people know who he is. It was definitely not racially motivated.
@@calebhowells1116 as logically sound as your response is it's still can be classified as weak. We live in the information era everybody walks around with computers and GPS tracking devices in their pockets. If you put Clive Owens face in the thumbnail and mention Antoine Fuqua's name as the director most people who graduated kindergarten can put two and two together and have a more holistic picture. It is not Clive owens's film it is Antoine fuqua's film. Just semantics? Is it though?
@@StoryDive noted my good man...carry on.
@@SonOfGO886 Thanks! Actually, I wish Will Smith had starred in this movie because he has the world's most trending name right now, lol.