#61 ·
Basta said:The historical Lucius Artorius Castus—believe it or not—is buried in St. Petersburg near Miami. The man served everywhere from Rome to Appalachia.
First I've heard of this.🙄
King Arthur
Started by slyowl9 · · 👁 8 views · 67 replies
First I've heard of this.🙄
#62 ·
I caught that on PBS last night. Visually, the movie is a total knockout and honestly pretty fun to watch, but man, it is absolutely loaded with historical inaccuracies. For starters:
So, I just saw a trailer for the film, and it’s making this pretty bold claim that historians are all in agreement that Arthur was actually a real historical figure thanks to some new archaeological discoveries. Honestly, that’s just not true. Historians aren't reaching that consensus at all. Even if they're talking about that Artognou inscription—which is likely the "recent find" they're trying to use as leverage—it has absolutely zero connection to the version of events they're trying to sell us in this movie.
The film plays fast and loose with the timeline, showing the Roman legions pulling out of Britain right after Arthur saves the Pope's godson. If we're looking at actual history, that doesn't hold up at all. The legions finished their withdrawal around 410 AD, which is basically sixty years before that whole rescue mission even happens. By 467 AD, there wasn't a single legion left on the island; the place had already shifted into a messy patchwork of territories run by various local warlords.
Sarmatian cavalrymen definitely made their way over to Britain during the 2nd century. But honestly, even though the film tries to push a different narrative, there’s really hardly any proof that they stuck around through the 5th century. When you look at the actual data, there’s just very little evidence to suggest that Scythian-born immigrants were being brought into late Roman Britain on a regular basis.
In the film, they refer to the Picts as "Woads." It’s a nod to a specific plant the Picts might have used to create blue body paint, but honestly, most scholars are pretty skeptical about whether they actually used woad at all. Plus, the historical Picts weren't ever actually called anything like that. In an interview, Fuqua mentioned they opted for "Wodes" instead of "Picts" simply because they felt the actual name sounded "a little weird."
Archbishop Germanus' second—and final—mission to Britain actually went down twenty years before the timeframe this movie covers. In fact, Germanus passed away in 448, which is way before the period where the film is set.
So, looking at the plot, that Roman family Arthur saves is supposedly living north of Hadrian's Wall. Honestly, that doesn't really add up. The Wall was basically the edge of Roman rule in the territory, aside from those short stints where they occupied parts of the north during the second century AD. That being said, you have to keep in mind that Romanized client states—like the ones the Votadini had going on—did actually exist north of the Wall, even moving into the Sub-Roman era.
People tend to get the history wrong on this one. The consensus is that Pelagius likely passed away decades before the timeline most people assume, and when he did go, it was just from old age—he definitely wasn't burned at the stake. Also, the whole idea of the Pelagian heresy is pretty much misrepresented in popular discussions. It wasn't some grand movement centered around political freedom; it was actually focused on denying the concept of original sin.
The movie tries to suggest that the Pope was calling all the shots in the Western Empire, but that’s just not how things worked back then. In reality, the Emperor held the title, while the actual day-to-day power was being wielded by the Magistri Militum and various other regional governors.
So, looking at the timeline here, there’s a pretty massive hole in the logic if you follow the history. We're talking about the Saxon leader Cerdic, who is estimated to have been born around 467. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he and Cynric didn't actually show up in the Hampshire area until 495. Since the film is set right in 467, the math just doesn't add up—Cerdic wouldn't have even been able to lead an invasion yet, and Cynric (who's listed as his son or grandson) definitely wouldn't have been alive to see any of this happen.
Look, there’s no way Cerdic and Cynric died at the Battle of Mount Badon. It just doesn't line up. Most historians place that battle somewhere between 490 and 516, and if you look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it clearly shows Cynric taking over as King of Wessex in 534—keep in mind, Cerdic was the one who actually founded the whole kingdom. The math just isn't mathing.
The movie shows The Saxons attacking Hadrian's Wall from the north, which just doesn't line up with what we know. By 467, they had already moved way past that point and were occupying territories far south of the wall—what people call the Saxon Shore—and they never actually invaded Scotland.
In the movie, there's this scene where Cerdic steps in to stop a warrior from assaulting a woman, and the whole reason given is that it would mess up the purity of the Saxon bloodline. It’s clearly a nod to that old-school theory that the Anglo-Saxons basically wiped out the Romano-Celts in the eastern part of the country. However, that whole idea—which mostly relies on linguistics—has really been shaken up by modern DNA studies. The latest genetic research actually points toward massive amounts of intermixing between the Anglo-Saxon and Briton groups. In fact, some historians are even arguing that Cerdic himself might have had Celtic roots, especially considering he carried a Celtic name.
In the film, they take massive liberties with Guinevere, turning her into something completely different from the actual Arthurian myth. Instead of the figure we know from legend, she’s reimagined as this fierce barbarian warrior who fights right alongside Arthur and his knights. Now, look, I get where they were going with that—there’s definitely historical precedent for powerful women warriors, like the legendary Queen Boudica—but when you dig into the actual sources, whether they're ancient or more recent, nobody describes Guinevere like this. There isn't a single shred of evidence suggesting she was some kind of rustic Celt, either. In fact, if you look at Geoffrey of Monmouth's *Historia Regum Britanniae*—which is one of the earliest deep dives we have on her—it actually says Guinevere had Roman blood, while Arthur himself was the one with indigenous Celtic roots.
The Sarmatian cavalrymen had names rooted in French (think Lancelot) and Celtic traditions (like Tristan or the original Drustan). Even though you see these names popping up in medieval romances as Knights of the Round Table, they don't really hold up against actual history or even the original folklore. Take Bors, for example. In the film, he’s basically just a loud, obnoxious jerk with a massive brood of kids, but in the old legends, he was more like a Boy Scout—someone so disciplined and celibate that he actually earned the right to witness the Holy Grail.
I also noticed how the film leans heavily into this trope of painting the Roman Catholic Church as the villain while framing pagans and paganism as the "good guys." You see it with the shady Archbishop Germanus and those priests helping the Roman landowner squeeze the local peasants, or when they throw Guinevere in jail. On the flip side, you've got the non-Christian knights—especially Lancelot, who’s portrayed as an atheist—and the free-spirited Picts. It’s pretty telling that Merlin, not some priest, is the one who marries Arthur and Guinevere at the end. Plus, Arthur is one of the only "decent" Christians in the movie, yet he's depicted following a sect that the Pope would consider straight-up heresy.
So, I just saw a trailer for the film, and it’s making this pretty bold claim that historians are all in agreement that Arthur was actually a real historical figure thanks to some new archaeological discoveries. Honestly, that’s just not true. Historians aren't reaching that consensus at all. Even if they're talking about that Artognou inscription—which is likely the "recent find" they're trying to use as leverage—it has absolutely zero connection to the version of events they're trying to sell us in this movie.
The film plays fast and loose with the timeline, showing the Roman legions pulling out of Britain right after Arthur saves the Pope's godson. If we're looking at actual history, that doesn't hold up at all. The legions finished their withdrawal around 410 AD, which is basically sixty years before that whole rescue mission even happens. By 467 AD, there wasn't a single legion left on the island; the place had already shifted into a messy patchwork of territories run by various local warlords.
Sarmatian cavalrymen definitely made their way over to Britain during the 2nd century. But honestly, even though the film tries to push a different narrative, there’s really hardly any proof that they stuck around through the 5th century. When you look at the actual data, there’s just very little evidence to suggest that Scythian-born immigrants were being brought into late Roman Britain on a regular basis.
In the film, they refer to the Picts as "Woads." It’s a nod to a specific plant the Picts might have used to create blue body paint, but honestly, most scholars are pretty skeptical about whether they actually used woad at all. Plus, the historical Picts weren't ever actually called anything like that. In an interview, Fuqua mentioned they opted for "Wodes" instead of "Picts" simply because they felt the actual name sounded "a little weird."
Archbishop Germanus' second—and final—mission to Britain actually went down twenty years before the timeframe this movie covers. In fact, Germanus passed away in 448, which is way before the period where the film is set.
So, looking at the plot, that Roman family Arthur saves is supposedly living north of Hadrian's Wall. Honestly, that doesn't really add up. The Wall was basically the edge of Roman rule in the territory, aside from those short stints where they occupied parts of the north during the second century AD. That being said, you have to keep in mind that Romanized client states—like the ones the Votadini had going on—did actually exist north of the Wall, even moving into the Sub-Roman era.
People tend to get the history wrong on this one. The consensus is that Pelagius likely passed away decades before the timeline most people assume, and when he did go, it was just from old age—he definitely wasn't burned at the stake. Also, the whole idea of the Pelagian heresy is pretty much misrepresented in popular discussions. It wasn't some grand movement centered around political freedom; it was actually focused on denying the concept of original sin.
The movie tries to suggest that the Pope was calling all the shots in the Western Empire, but that’s just not how things worked back then. In reality, the Emperor held the title, while the actual day-to-day power was being wielded by the Magistri Militum and various other regional governors.
So, looking at the timeline here, there’s a pretty massive hole in the logic if you follow the history. We're talking about the Saxon leader Cerdic, who is estimated to have been born around 467. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, he and Cynric didn't actually show up in the Hampshire area until 495. Since the film is set right in 467, the math just doesn't add up—Cerdic wouldn't have even been able to lead an invasion yet, and Cynric (who's listed as his son or grandson) definitely wouldn't have been alive to see any of this happen.
Look, there’s no way Cerdic and Cynric died at the Battle of Mount Badon. It just doesn't line up. Most historians place that battle somewhere between 490 and 516, and if you look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, it clearly shows Cynric taking over as King of Wessex in 534—keep in mind, Cerdic was the one who actually founded the whole kingdom. The math just isn't mathing.
The movie shows The Saxons attacking Hadrian's Wall from the north, which just doesn't line up with what we know. By 467, they had already moved way past that point and were occupying territories far south of the wall—what people call the Saxon Shore—and they never actually invaded Scotland.
In the movie, there's this scene where Cerdic steps in to stop a warrior from assaulting a woman, and the whole reason given is that it would mess up the purity of the Saxon bloodline. It’s clearly a nod to that old-school theory that the Anglo-Saxons basically wiped out the Romano-Celts in the eastern part of the country. However, that whole idea—which mostly relies on linguistics—has really been shaken up by modern DNA studies. The latest genetic research actually points toward massive amounts of intermixing between the Anglo-Saxon and Briton groups. In fact, some historians are even arguing that Cerdic himself might have had Celtic roots, especially considering he carried a Celtic name.
In the film, they take massive liberties with Guinevere, turning her into something completely different from the actual Arthurian myth. Instead of the figure we know from legend, she’s reimagined as this fierce barbarian warrior who fights right alongside Arthur and his knights. Now, look, I get where they were going with that—there’s definitely historical precedent for powerful women warriors, like the legendary Queen Boudica—but when you dig into the actual sources, whether they're ancient or more recent, nobody describes Guinevere like this. There isn't a single shred of evidence suggesting she was some kind of rustic Celt, either. In fact, if you look at Geoffrey of Monmouth's *Historia Regum Britanniae*—which is one of the earliest deep dives we have on her—it actually says Guinevere had Roman blood, while Arthur himself was the one with indigenous Celtic roots.
The Sarmatian cavalrymen had names rooted in French (think Lancelot) and Celtic traditions (like Tristan or the original Drustan). Even though you see these names popping up in medieval romances as Knights of the Round Table, they don't really hold up against actual history or even the original folklore. Take Bors, for example. In the film, he’s basically just a loud, obnoxious jerk with a massive brood of kids, but in the old legends, he was more like a Boy Scout—someone so disciplined and celibate that he actually earned the right to witness the Holy Grail.
I also noticed how the film leans heavily into this trope of painting the Roman Catholic Church as the villain while framing pagans and paganism as the "good guys." You see it with the shady Archbishop Germanus and those priests helping the Roman landowner squeeze the local peasants, or when they throw Guinevere in jail. On the flip side, you've got the non-Christian knights—especially Lancelot, who’s portrayed as an atheist—and the free-spirited Picts. It’s pretty telling that Merlin, not some priest, is the one who marries Arthur and Guinevere at the end. Plus, Arthur is one of the only "decent" Christians in the movie, yet he's depicted following a sect that the Pope would consider straight-up heresy.
#63 ·
Arthur is just a solid flick. It’s basically about a group of veterans who are pretty much done with serving—just one last job left on the docket—and then, in the end, they still find themselves fighting "for the common man"... Classic stuff, and honestly, it works perfectly.
Accurate historical facts? Well, there's plenty of history to play with for a movie like this. Besides, Arthur wasn't even a real person. My only real gripe would be Keira Knightley in the fight scenes. Keira just doesn't have that warrior vibe, especially when she's swinging an axe.
Accurate historical facts? Well, there's plenty of history to play with for a movie like this. Besides, Arthur wasn't even a real person. My only real gripe would be Keira Knightley in the fight scenes. Keira just doesn't have that warrior vibe, especially when she's swinging an axe.
#65 ·
The film looks great visually, but it’s honestly way inferior to Excalibur. It completely misses the mark on the characters—and there's plenty of meat in the Arthurian myth to make them awesome—plus the plot is weak, the anti-church vibes are super heavy-handed, and Merlin’s whole role feels totally muddled...
All in all, I'm giving it a 2/10...
All in all, I'm giving it a 2/10...
#66 ·
Robin Rodriguez5 said:Caught a movie yesterday without bothering to check any reviews first. 🤮
BTW, how does anyone justify the whole 3rd-century setup where they're out there playing bodyguard to the Bishop and the Pope in service of Rome, considering Christianity wasn't even officially recognized in the States until 313? 😕
I'm right there with you on this one; even for me, nothing about it ever really made any sense. 😕 Honestly, the movie is just mediocre garbage that works fine if you’re looking for some mindless entertainment you don't need to overthink... sometimes you just need stuff like that to switch your brain off.
#67 ·
King Arthur is the law, and you all know it 🙂
Honestly, what I just can't wrap my head around is why nobody in any of these Arthurian myths ever thought to just smash the damn rock where the sword is stuck, instead of struggling to pull the blade out 😁
Honestly, what I just can't wrap my head around is why nobody in any of these Arthurian myths ever thought to just smash the damn rock where the sword is stuck, instead of struggling to pull the blade out 😁
🔗 Similar threads
- Contract leverage and the "walking away" power play in Miscellaneous · Jul 30, 2026
- Is it just me, or is the transfer window always a nerve-wracking wait? in Fans · Jul 30, 2026
- Is the "smart city" trend actually making our roads more dangerous? in Law · Jul 30, 2026
- Is the "influencer era" finally breaking the gatekeepers of professional sports? in Other Sports · Jul 30, 2026
- The struggle of vacation cooking in Hobbies & Leisure · Jul 30, 2026