# King Arthur film: historical perspective



## Brian G Turner (Jul 30, 2004)

Interesting article from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3937817.stm

 What really surprises me is this:

"Clive Owen plays Arthur - based on the story of Roman soldier Lucis Artorius Castus ... The film-makers acknowledge that the real Lucis Artorius Castus lived in the 2nd Century and they moved the action forward 300 years. "

 What gets me is...why?? I;m sure I've read of a Roman rallying the British Romans against the Saxon invaders - went by the name of Ambrosius, and was later 5th century. Had him down as a contender for the Arthur legend.

 So...why use a 2nd century soldier for the plot???


----------



## Esioul (Jul 30, 2004)

I may be wrong, but I think Ambrosius was known as being seperate from Arthur- either before or after. I went to a lecture on him, but I can't remember much apart from some connection with the Romans.


----------



## Hypes (Jul 30, 2004)

If you've seen the film, you'd realise there's hardly anything worth paying attention to, because it's mostly rubbish.


----------



## Esioul (Jul 31, 2004)

I haven't seen it yet. Most things are mostly rubbish though really.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 31, 2004)

Heh, even if Ambrosius is very separate from Arthur, at least he's closer to the period than a 2nd century roman.


----------



## Esioul (Jul 31, 2004)

Yeah.. but there was something about a Roman fort. hang on, I'm going to have a look for my notes- yeah, it's something to do with Amesbury which might be connected with Ambrosius. There were also some Roman coins dating from the 2nd century to the 5th, I think, found around Amesbury and Stone Henge. Also evidence of a Roman garrison nearby.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 1, 2004)

Or perhaps simply evidence that Roman coinage was accepted tender, even after it was no longer legally required? 

 I'm under the impression that Roman coinage was used in the south of England after Caesar popped over, even though there was no garrison stationed there until after Cladius. Though I'm happy to be corrected.


----------



## Esioul (Aug 1, 2004)

Well, I think there did seem to be odd evidence of there being a garrison and a temple, although I didn't type my notes very well so I could have got it mixed up.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Aug 2, 2004)

Context does help in these instances - I simply enjoying challenging ideas. 

 Especially as the conclusions of a lot of research seems so fallcious. I was reading an article about the discovery of a handful of infant graves from the Roman period - the implication seemed to be that if romans were burying infants, then they must be killing them first - therefore there was *widespread* infanticide in the Roman Empire. I could only shake my head at the heady and unsupportable conclusions.


----------



## Tsujigiri (Feb 19, 2005)

I would normally have been disappointed with this film for metaphorically wiping itself on the toilet paper of history.....

However I watched it on Christmas Eve whilst wrapping presents for my childern and although Christmas has just been another day for me for a long while, that short period of time was quite magical.

I've tried watching it since and can't really get into it. Strange eh


----------



## The Ace (Nov 2, 2006)

King Arthur could well have been a late Roman, or at least a Briton using Roman equipment and tactics.   What made me burst out laughing was the 1st/2nd Century equipment, carried by these 5th century soldiers, almost as bad as the traditional medieval armour used instead.


----------

