Review of King Arthur

Argh! To get so much right and so much wrong in the same movie and the same instant in time is really amazing. This movie has a butt load of historical accuracy and inaccuracy.

1: Arthur was probably a Romano-British centurian just like in this movie. GOOD.

2: The Picts from Scotland were being very troublesom just like in the movie. GOOD

3: The British hired Angles and Saxons to help fight the Picts. The reason being that the Romans were pulling out because of the need for the troops in Europe to fight against the Ostrogoths and Visigoths who, in turn were being attacked and forced out by the Huns led by Attila. The movie totally ignores the known facts. BAD.

4: Knights from eastern Europe? Well maybe but who the hell really knows. I can buy into it since the Romans did stuff like that.

5: Hadrian's Wall? I think that by the time of Arthur in the 5th century the wall was pretty tumbledown and overrun with Picts. Picts were in control of everything north of the Humber river. The film ignores this BAD.

6: The location of the Battle of Badon Hill or Mons Badonicus is unknown. However Historia Britonum, composed around AD 820, has a second battle of Badon Hill happening in AD655. The battle was in the south of Britain. And was faught between King Aelle of Sussex and Celtic leader Ambrosius Aurilianus. Yet even this is dubious since by AD 650's Celts had been pushed into Wales and Strathclyde and Scotland. Anyhow Arthur, if he was trained in the Roman Army would have had to have lived before 500. Since the western Emprire fell in AD 476 and the last troops were yanked out of Britain in AD 446.

But I liked the movie anyway. It didn't stink as bad as I thought it wouild. I am not sure what the film maker had against religous types but I am used to it. During the time of this movie Rome was still a hodge podge of Christian and Pegan Roman values; Britian was even more of a caldron with native religions, thrown in for good blood sacrificial measure.