In 2004, Antoine Faqua presented a movie that portrayed a more realistic story of King Arthur than the myths tell. The Film portrayed the history of ancient Rome and Britain during Arthur reign in the late five century. The Roman Empire was weak and have built Hadrian’s Wall to separating themselves from the ruthless barbarians from northern Britain. The story follows the heroic knight, King Arthur, and his knights of the round table in their journey to become free citizens of the Roman Empire. Yet before they can be free, The Bishop sends them on a mission to retrieve Alecto, the Pope’s favorite god son, so that Christianity can live on with him as the next Pope. Arthur and his knights head out to retrieve Alecto and as they return, an Anglo-Saxon
…show more content…
Ridley Scoot wanted to illustrate a more historically accurate story of King Arthur, yet how accurate was this movie to the real thing? The concepts of the military’s Weaponry, Christianity, and the Battle of Badon are all historically accurate in the fact that they had a huge significance during this time period, however, the movie’s portral of them are historically inaccurate to a large extent. The movie illustrated a Roman and barbarian army that seemed similar to real thing, however the weapons used by the Roman Legions and Picts are inaccurate while the weapons used by the Anglo-Saxons are accurate. In the movie, the Roman army used a wide range of weapons from the following: daggers, short sword, long sword, bows, Cavalry, and even Lancelot is seen in the final battle were he wielded dual swords as he fought. The Picts used bows in the majority of their fights and only used short swords or hatchets when engaged in close quarters combat. The Anglo-Saxons’ main infantry are shown to wield a short sword and shield or axe with a small dagger as backup. Few Roman soldiers are seen using shields. In actuality, the weaponry these groups used were not nearly as …show more content…
The final battle in the movie represented the Battle of Badon in 517 AD where King Arthur led the Roman Empire to a major victory in their war against the barbarians (Historia Britonum, pg 56). In the movie, the battle is shown to be taken place right by Hadrian’s Wall. However, the battle was predicted to be somewhere south west in Britian while Hadrian’s Wall is in the north. (http://www.badonhill.com) The battle lasted three days and three night. “The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders, and the Britons were victors”.(Annales Cambriae pg 516) Where as in the movie, the battle lasted no more than a few hours. A major historical inaccuracy in the movie was that the Picts helped the Romans against the Anglo-Saxons. The movie made it a huge deal that the Picts sided with Britian and that was the fact that they won yet there is no historical evidence that proves if they helped. The movie got the battle right in terms that it was a major victory for King Arthur yet many of the smaller details were inaccurate. In general, the movie “King Arthur” had many historically inaccuracies in the plot and was overshadowed by Hollywood to make a grand action movie. The movie was a good movie to sit down watch with a bag of popcorn and turn off
Ridley Scoot wanted to illustrate a more historically accurate story of King Arthur, yet how accurate was this movie to the real thing? The concepts of the military’s Weaponry, Christianity, and the Battle of Badon are all historically accurate in the fact that they had a huge significance during this time period, however, the movie’s portral of them are historically inaccurate to a large extent. The movie illustrated a Roman and barbarian army that seemed similar to real thing, however the weapons used by the Roman Legions and Picts are inaccurate while the weapons used by the Anglo-Saxons are accurate. In the movie, the Roman army used a wide range of weapons from the following: daggers, short sword, long sword, bows, Cavalry, and even Lancelot is seen in the final battle were he wielded dual swords as he fought. The Picts used bows in the majority of their fights and only used short swords or hatchets when engaged in close quarters combat. The Anglo-Saxons’ main infantry are shown to wield a short sword and shield or axe with a small dagger as backup. Few Roman soldiers are seen using shields. In actuality, the weaponry these groups used were not nearly as …show more content…
The final battle in the movie represented the Battle of Badon in 517 AD where King Arthur led the Roman Empire to a major victory in their war against the barbarians (Historia Britonum, pg 56). In the movie, the battle is shown to be taken place right by Hadrian’s Wall. However, the battle was predicted to be somewhere south west in Britian while Hadrian’s Wall is in the north. (http://www.badonhill.com) The battle lasted three days and three night. “The Battle of Badon, in which Arthur carried the cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders, and the Britons were victors”.(Annales Cambriae pg 516) Where as in the movie, the battle lasted no more than a few hours. A major historical inaccuracy in the movie was that the Picts helped the Romans against the Anglo-Saxons. The movie made it a huge deal that the Picts sided with Britian and that was the fact that they won yet there is no historical evidence that proves if they helped. The movie got the battle right in terms that it was a major victory for King Arthur yet many of the smaller details were inaccurate. In general, the movie “King Arthur” had many historically inaccuracies in the plot and was overshadowed by Hollywood to make a grand action movie. The movie was a good movie to sit down watch with a bag of popcorn and turn off