Thread by @CoelingAurochs

*Thread*
King Arthur in Film Part 1:

King Arthur (2004)

An ambitious, and often misunderstood vision of Arthur as a Roman commander of Sarmatian Cavalry stationed in Britain. Directed by Antoine Fuqua, and taking the approach of an Arthur more grounded in history than myth, draws much of it's ideas from the Sarmatian hypothesis.

For those unfamiliar with said hypothesis, there are parallels between elements of the Ossestian Nart Sagas and some of the later Arthurian tropes (many I have discussed previously, which you can find in the link in my bio)

The idea is, that a group of Sarmatians came with not only their way of war, but also cultural influences, seeding ideas that get wrapped around a Roman commander in the late 2nd early 3rd century named Lucius Artorius Castus.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Lucius ever commanded the Sarmatians stationed in Britain, and with the ranks he held it is even more unlikely that this is the case. Upon close inspection much of the Sarmatian theory is little more than wishful thinking.

The idea of Lucius Artorius Castus being THE Arthur, or at least the inspiration for his name has caught on in popularity especially recently due to this film, and due to the mention of the name in the recent series Vinland Saga.

I have discussed issues with that before, and there seems to be better explanations for Arthur's etymology.

https://twitter.com/ActualAurochs/status/1661902136731369472?s=20

The film shifts Arthur's story from the generation around the late 5th and early 6th centuries to the beginning of the 5th, as Arthur is shown as a follower of Pelagius, who died in 418. Arthur is depicted as the descendant of Lucius Artorius Castus.

Germanus of Auxerre is also present in the film, presumably on his first visit to combat Pelgianism in 429, appearing in an ambush used in the film introduce the northern Tribes, here called 'Woads', erroneously lumped into a single group.

Rome's exit/expulsion from Britain is shifted to this later date of Germanus' visit from the more tradition date of 410.

The Sarmatian's themselves show a span of cultural influences, from 'Tristan' Mads Mikkelsen's far-eastern influenced gear to 'Galahad' Hugh Dancy's more likely scale armour, causing an odd cultural disconnect among the Sarmatian 'Knights' making them feel less cohesive IMO.

This boils down to almost stereotypical black leather biker gear trope everywhere. Some Sarmatians don names of Welsh origins, Tristan, Galahad, Gawain, others with later more disputed names, Lancelot, Bors, and Dagonet, further separating them from their Sarmatian origin.

The attempt here is of course to familiarize the viewer with the Sarmatians with existing named and connections, even if like in Dagonet's case existing depicts have been thrown out the window or subverted.

The Saxons are then put forward by Germanus as the next looming threat, greater than the 'Woads'. Cerdic of Wessex and his son Cynric are placed as the leaders of this Saxon landing, placed North of Hadrian's wall.

In reality Cerdic, much like Ida, seems to rise much later, in the mid 6th century, after the actual historical Arthur's power was waning. Cerdic serves as the impetus for a down to the wire commando mission by Arthur and his men to save a Roman family with a far northern estate.

The film reveals that Arthur is in fact part native Briton, and is viewed with awe by the other natives. Merlin appears as a leader to the Woads, along with a borderline feral and wild Guinevere, as a Woad captured by Romans under the guise of Christianizing them.

These attempts to pack in so much by way of common tropes and Arthurian material are noble, and serve the purpose of ensuring Arthuriana is represented here, and that the film doesn't just turn into another generic Roman vs. Barbarian's film.

Arthur is characterized as an enlightened Christian leader, believing in equality for his men, while Cerdic his foil is heard in his introduction stating "We don't mix with these people... We will not have our Saxon blood watered down by mixing with them."

Arthur leads from the front, charging with his men, and ready to stand alone even in the face of the enemy at Badon Hill (here transposed to somewhere along Hadrian's Wall) He is every bit depicted as Arthur typically is, even the flaws of naivety, and (possibly) lust.

The strong disdain for Christianity present is somewhat distasteful, and generally plants too many modern sensibilities in both Arthur's views and even amongst the Pagans, with the representatives of the Roman Church serving as backwards boogeymen.

The film overall goes wrong, much like most trying to ground in reality, with historical details. From the 'rule of cool' costuming, to the issues of cultural depictions, and the shaky timeline. The change of time is an interesting choice, and allows for the 'commando mission'

But this almost makes the film feel less like an Arthurian film than such a Navy Seals in the Roman era with Arthurian tropes pasted on top. Is it enjoyable? Yes. Is it 'accurate' as many involved tried to say? No.

The great parts here are the widespread fame of Arthur as Cerdic says: "Wherever I go on this wrenched island, I hear your name. Always half whispered, as if you were... a god." The heroic sacrifice of Dagonet, who in most depictions is a Jester is a standout moment as well.

Even with the missteps it's still worth a watch for any fans of Dark Age fantasy, or Arthuriana in general. Clive Owen himself does a great job as Arthur, an despite the goofy costuming looks the part. Stellan Skarsgård stands out as Cerdic with a 'cowboy' swagger.

This is just a small look at this film, and a larger more in depth version will be published soon at the link in my bio. I'll also be touching on Excalibur, Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and many others in this series.