Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2005-02 > 1107887223

From: "Ginny Wagner" <>
Subject: RE: Latest King Arthur Movie
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 12:27:03 -0600
In-Reply-To: <>

Perfect, thank you. Was so impressed by the use of the Picts, the Celtic
King Arthur appearing as the kings back then would have, the situation with
the Romans as occupiers who were fixing to withdraw and leave them to the
Saxons just as they did -- the sword being a part of the burial ceremony and
Guinevere being a fighter, the monks and Lord of the Manor being drunk with
power. Thought Buckheimer did a great job on it and that it reflected the
historical times accurately -- just had wondered if there was ever any proof
he had existed.

Ginny Wagner

-----Original Message-----
[mailto:]On Behalf Of Todd A. Farmerie
Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2005 1:25 AM
Subject: Re: Latest King Arthur Movie

Ginny Wagner wrote:
> Just saw the latest King Arthur movie last night and LOVED it. How
> historically accurate would you say it was? Even more to the point, in
> instance I believe they called him Lucius Arthur. Did I hear that right?
> If so, whence came the Lucius?

The only historical sources: a list of battles that Arthur
"fought against them (the Saxons) with the Kings of the Britons,
but he himself was leader of the battles." An indication that
another man "was no Arthur". Some lines in some annals, possibly
late interpolations, the first describing him carrying a cross at
the Battle of Badon, the second that Arthur and Medraut died in
"the strife at Camlann." (This last is particularly suspect, as
a later addition.)

That (at best) is the historical Arthur. Anything else . . . .


This thread: