Will the Real King Arthur Please Stand Up?

A TechCentralStation column about the new film

The newest King Arthur purports to tell the "real story" that inspired the legend of Camelot. The Cliff's notes version is this: King Arthur was really the Roman commander named Lucius Artorius Castus, leading a group of conscripted "eastern knights" charged with repelling Rome's enemies at Hadrian's Wall in Britain. These "knights" are pagan cavalrymen from the Central Asian region that lies between the Vistula River and the Caspian Sea, known as Sarmatia.

Guinevere and Merlin are actually "Woads" (named for the blue dye used to paint the body before battle that gained notoriety in the movie Braveheart). These Woads are pagan barbarians who constitute Rome's primary enemies beyond the Wall to the north. Merlin is not really a magical wizard but a mystical Shaman-like freedom-fighter leading the Woads; Guinevere is not a queen in flowing robes, but rather a proto-feminist archer who goes to battle in William Wallace-style face paint.

The Woads simply want to be left alone after facing great persecution and torture by the Catholic Romans, who are willing to implement any hideous means to convert and enslave the natives. With the exception of Arthur (who is part-Woad), the Christians are almost uniformly duplicitous, and dare I say it, evil. Meanwhile the real enemies are coming down from the north, and they are the blonde-haired Aryan-looking Saxons. The ruthless Saxon leader's most notable quotation is along the lines of "don't breed with the locals, you'll taint our blood."

Comments

[Mark Shea]

The Kevin Costner-Demi Moore View of history triumphs again.

[William Tighe]

Lucius Artorius Castus was a Roman career officer, who served in numerous places in the Empire, including Britain in the 170s; and he did conyey a group of perhaps 5,000 defeated Sarmatians to Britain in that perios to settle tham along, perhaps, the Western end of the Wall. So far, so good -- but Christianity remained an illegal, and sporadically persecuted, religion down to Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313. Doesn't the conceit of the "Christian Romans" seeking to convert "the natives" at this period seem somewhat, um, adventitious?

And the Saxons are coming from "the north?" The north Sea coast of Germeny was *north* of Britain in the second century? Some grography.

[William Tighe]

Lucius Artorius Castus was a Roman career officer, who served in numerous places in the Empire, including Britain in the 170s; and he did conyey a group of perhaps 5,000 defeated Sarmatians to Britain in that perios to settle tham along, perhaps, the Western end of the Wall. So far, so good -- but Christianity remained an illegal, and sporadically persecuted, religion down to Constantine's Edict of Milan in 313. Doesn't the conceit of the "Christian Romans" seeking to convert "the natives" at this period seem somewhat, um, adventitious?

And the Saxons are coming from "the north?" The North Sea coast of Germeny was *north* of Britain in the second century? Some grography.

[F. C. Bauerschmidt]

I thought there was something slightly "Da Vinci Code"ish about the movie. 1) Creative alternative history passed off as "the real story" 2) The Catholic Church as the brutal enemy of freedom 3) The "true champions" of freedom and enlightenment(in this case Pelagius) rehabilitated from the awful label "heretic" 4) Silly theories about "feminism" in pagan societies.

I thought the movie pretty entertaining, but I was simultaneously having visions of students telling me that Pelagius was a champion of freedom and equality who was executed by the Catholic Church.

F. Bauerschmidt

[Donald R. McClarey]

King Arthur, someone we know virtually nothing about other than that he existed and fought some battles against the Saxons. On this small historical base mighty edifices of legend have been erected. Perfect for Hollywood!

[Tim]

This movie is not making much money. It cost something like 120 million and marketed for 60 million. It's only made 38 million and is dropping fast. Thats' a lot to make up in rentals and dvd sales. Not as much of a disaster for Disney as The Alamo but encouraging.

[Mark Windsor]

Never let reality stand in the way of a ripping good yarn, even if the yarn isn't all that rippingly good.

[c matt]

And the Saxons are coming from "the north?" The North Sea coast of Germeny was *north* of Britain in the second century? Some grography

Contintental drift. It could happen - didn't you see The Day After Tomorrow Next Week Except Alternating Thursdays?

[William Tighe]

What! Pelagius is in the film as well. He was dead by 415, long after the time of Lucius Artorius Castus and long before Arthur, whoever he was, if he was, could have lived and "done his stuff" (which would have been between 450 and 525), whatever that was (if it was).

[Puzzled]

Sounds like a terrible jumble of history, feminist fantasy novels, and the Da Vinci code.

Don't they have Cerdic as the leader of the Angles in this? If he had the blood-purity line, that is a hoot. Cerdic is a British name. Somehow became leader of the West Saxons in the South. The Angles and Utes typically took Romano-British wives and slaves, to continue working the same land as the Roman equestrians which they had conquered. Field maps and DNA studies show this.

[Frank Tassone II]

I saw a preview for KA when I saw "Troy". Trailers looked exciting; I loved the fact that Arthur wore Roman armor. The new interpretation of Guinevier reminded me of the celtic woman warrior tradition alluded to in the Ulster cycle of Irish myth.

Then I read a review from NCR, courtesty of Catholic Exchange. Now this.

What a let-down. I'll save my money now.

Will PC revisionism ever die?

[Jane Wangersky]

All this reminds me of a movie the Simpsons saw, where King Arthur was helped out by . . . Zorro.

[Liam]

Another major geographic boo-boo:

"Sarmatia" is not central Asia. It is eastern Europe. The central Asia is 1000 miles and more east of that.

This myth appears to be borrowing from the myths cultivated by the aristocracy and gentry of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which adopted Sarmatia as its classical antecedant. These stories are little known in the Anglosphere, so it would be easy for someone to plagiarize them...

[Sandra Miesel]

The Sarmatians were living in Central Europe at the time of their defeat by Marcus Aurelius but their culture (and that of the Alans who are also seen by some as involved with the evolution of the Arthurian legends) originated north of the Caspian Sea, not in Europe.
One strain of thought about the historic Arthur can be found in FROM SCYTHIA TO CAMELOT by C. Scott Littleton and Linda Malcor. They're not taking anything from Polish-Lithuanian ethnic fantasies.
But the best rendering of an historic Arthur is Rosmary Sutcliffe's SWORD AT SUNSET. Too bad no one's tried to film that.

[Ellyn]

I thought it might be a fun movie to see, but the more I read about it I can envision a family outing that would end with a trip to Ben and Jerry's for a post-movie snack and a lecture from Mom on Pelagian heresy. Maybe we'll just pass on this one....

[Puzzled]

The Age of Arthur
From Civitas to Kingdom
An Age of Tyrants

Those are my main sources, for authors I'd have to leave the computer. . . ;-)

[Steve Cavanaugh]

Folks, I didn't like the movie either, but you've got some of the facts wrong.

The Artorius in the movie is the descendant of the one who lived in the 170s (he is mentioned as being a hereditary military leader, the 12th in line). This is not completely far-fetched, as Diocletian required all sons to follow in the fathers' profession (circa 290 AD). The movie states that the action is happening in the 400s.

Some of the real historical problems with the movie, though, include the idea that the Romans would have been able to go into the Sarmatian area north of the Black Sea in the 400s. While the Romans ravaged around the coast of the Black Sea, by the 400s, when the movie was set, they had already been ousted from Dacia, and certainly were in no position to be roam the steppes north of the Black Sea.

[c matt]

If it takes place in the 400s, seems the Church was not in much position to be persecuting much of anyone, seeing as how she just barely came out of it herself.

[mcv]

The Age of Arthur
From Civitas to Kingdom
An Age of Tyrants

Now that's a nice haiku!

My opinion about the film is that he took the wrong Artorius. A more likely candidate is Artorius Riothamus, a Romano-Brittish warlord who lived just after the Roman Empire, and at the same time as a pope and two emperors that the otherwise completely untrustworthy Geoffrey of Monmouth named as contemporaries of King Arthur. He succeeded high king Vortigern by marrying his daughter Guenhumara, and together with Ambrosius Aurelianus he organised the remaining Romano-Brits into an army of cataphracts (armoured cavalry) with which they fought back the Picts and Saxons. Roman emperor Anthemius wanted to ally with him in order to fight off the Germanic tribes invading the empire. On his way to meet them, Artorius Riothamus' army was attacked and slaughtered by Visigoths. After the battle, Artorius retreated towards the French city of Avallon, after which nothing of him has been heard, although a group of men seemed to keep fighting in his name in Britain for a couple of decades.

Personally, I think there's a much better movie in this story than in the one used by the makers of the film.

For more information about this theory, read the works of historian Geoffrey Ashe.

By the way, Guinevere as Celtic Warrior Queen isn't as strange as it sounds. Remember Boudicca, who led armies and fought in battle. Celtic queens had a lot of power and respect, and apparently could afford to take several lovers. Like Lancelot, for example.

Germanus is a real historic figure, but his visits to Britain were before Artorius Riothamus came to fame and power.

mcv.

[Thomas Walters]

Bad lead actor,could not carry part!

Historically it is based on conflating various theories rather than clearly recorded fact. Fact is, there is no verifiable reference to arthur by any contemporary. Circumstantial evidence exist to allow many reasonable theories to develop. Some comments received are downright crap. A more interesting one is regarding an Artorius Riothemus? I know of a Riothemus of Brittany helping Athemius. Where is the evidence that he was named Artorius and that he had anything to do with fighting in Britain? The simple fact is we do not know.

[An Eductaed Individual]

This is in regards to Puzzled, you're and idiot. You moron,The Anglo Saxons ARE british. Cerdic was the first Germanic King of Wessex, in Britain. Around the time of 490-530. It's been recorded in the Anglo-Saxon chronical you dumb shit. Oh and just for your information...Cerdic is a CELTIC name to be exact...oh wait..ITS BRITISH..Just like the ANGLO-SAXONS whom of which he was the first Germanic King of! He ruled in Wessex which would be the modern day Hampshire or maybe South Wiltshire.

You people are the most brain dead losers anyone could come across. Before you bash the content of something, you may want to do some research. Alas, that would hurt the reputation the Christians have gained for themselves of teaching the gospel by their swords.

[An Educated Individual]

This is in regards to Puzzled,the Anglo Saxons ARE british. Cerdic was the first Germanic King of Wessex, in Britain. Around the time of 490-530. It's been recorded in the Anglo-Saxon chronical you dumb shit. Oh and just for your information...Cerdic is a CELTIC name to be exact...oh wait..ITS BRITISH..Just like the ANGLO-SAXONS whom of which he was the first Germanic King of! He ruled in Wessex which would be the modern day Hampshire or maybe South Wiltshire.

You people are completely and utterly blindfolded. Before you bash the content of something, you may want to do some research. Alas, that would hurt the reputation the Christians have gained for themselves of teaching the gospel by their swords.

[An Educated Individual]

This is in regards to Puzzled, you're and idiot. You moron,The Anglo Saxons ARE british. Cerdic was the first Germanic King of Wessex, in Britain. Around the time of 490-530. It's been recorded in the Anglo-Saxon chronical you dumb shit. Oh and just for your information...Cerdic is a CELTIC name to be exact...oh wait..ITS BRITISH..Just like the ANGLO-SAXONS whom of which he was the first Germanic King of! He ruled in Wessex which would be the modern day Hampshire or maybe South Wiltshire.

You people are the most brain dead losers anyone could come across. Before you bash the content of something, you may want to do some research. Alas, that would hurt the reputation the Christians have gained for themselves of teaching the gospel by their swords.

[Nelson]

Regarding the comments made by "An eductaed ?
individual", he should remember that the Anglo-Saxons were the original asylum seekers.

[tich tran]

Yes the sarmatians were living in eastern europe but it been proven by Dr.Jeannine Davis-Kimball that their descendants are the kazakhs(who still live in sarmatia-ukraine even up to this day).That meant they were turkic(mixture of tocharians,huns, and some persians), not pure persians. That have also been verified by genetic researcher Dr.Tom Gilbert of university of arizona. His paper was called, I believed, "Unravelling migrations in the steepes: Ancient mitchrondrial dna sequences of ancient central asians". The scythians and sarmatians were already mixed as far back as 8th century b.c(at least in central kazakhstan). The idea that the sarmatians were persians came from biased russian historians who wanted to link the russian people with them.What baloney.

[tich tran]

Even the forensic evidences such as facial reconstruction of scythians and sarmatians were done by biased russian scientists who have every thing to lose. Don't believe me? Check encyolepedia britanica about how hippocrates descripe the scythians. The encyolepedia describes them as looking like the way the "mongols" were seen by "franciscan monks" in, I believe the 13th century A.D. Now I know that the idea of asians in europe might seem farfetched but remember Attila was born in europe. I also know that women would be repulsed by the idea of lancelot as a "mongol" but so what?

[tich tran]

dr. gilbert is from the department of evoluntionary biology

[tich tran]

dr. gilbert is from the department of evoluntionary biology

[Kadir AKYILDIRIM]

King Arthur's Knights were Turkic Huns

http://www.the-huns.com/historic.asp

Around 410 AD, Rome leaves the isle of Britain to deal with problems in its own home territory. The popular mythical figure Arthur is said to be appearing around that time. The most likely historical figure to be Arthur is Dux Bellorum Artorius, a roman battle leader, defending the remnants of the Roman empire on the Island against Barbarian tribes like, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Germanics, Picts, Scotts.

The original inhabitants of the Island were Celts (also known as Keltoi), who with the inbreeding of romans became around Arthurs time the Britons. So Arthur was a Briton. To effectively stop rebellions and maintain a proffesional army, Roman empire almost never recruited their elite soldiers from the local folk. As seen on the movie Gladiator, Maximus was in fact a Spaniard.

In the History of Dux Bellorum Artorius, the commander was given a group of elite band of horse Warriors also known as the Cymri. These people are now known in the legends as The Knights of the Round Table. The Cymri were neither Celts nor Britons. They were conscripted from a land named Sarmatia. Sarmatia today corresponds roughly to Ukraine. The Sarmitions were a sub-tribe of the Huns who were fighting against Germanic tribes furthers west. So according to History the True knights of the round table might be Huns. ( for more about Huns : http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns )

Related Web Links :
http://www.turkishculture.org/forum2/messages/651.htm

[Kadir Akyildirim]

The scythians and sarmatians were Westerner TURK like Attila The Hun, who lived in the area between Northen BlackSea and Hungary!
They came from Kazakstan which was and still is Center of Turkistan !
Amazons were also Scythians .They established Sinop ( name of Synopea,Queen of Amazons) Amasra (name of Amastris,Princes of Scythians) and Izmir (name of Smyrna, Queen of Amazons). All these Cities are now in Turkey.

http://www.izto.org.tr/IZTO/IN/Pearl+of+Aegean/For+Pleasure/pleasure4.htm

[Tulugay Osman]

The King Arthur's famous "Roundtable Knights" were Scythian.
The scythians and sarmatians were Westerner TURK like Attila The Hun, who lived in the area between Northen BlackSea and Hungary!
They came from Kazakstan which was and still is Center of Turkistan !
Amazons were also Scythians .They established Sinop ( name of Synopea,Queen of Amazons)
,
and Izmir (name of Smyrna, Queen of Amazons). All these Cities are now in Turkey.

[loki]

Attila The Hunn was not a Turk!!!