Joined Aug 2018
392 Posts | 102+
America
Arthur is a semi-historical king, but the narrative about a local Briton king defeating an Angle or Saxon army in battle and stopping their advance into Wales is hardly implausible. Of course, the later King Arthur traditions of the Holy Grail and errant knights straight up turned this king into a mythological figure with virtually nothing to do with his historical counterpart, with only the conflict with Mordred having possibly a kernel of truth.
In any case, what's the most historically accurate King Arthur film? There are a lot of King Arthur movies, but I'm only going to concentrate on four that I've seen and which also seem representative: Knights of the Round Table from 1953, King Arthur from 2004, The Last Legion from 2007 and King Arthur from 2017.
Knights of the Round Table: This one deals exclusively with the Arthur of mythology. Everything around it comes from the Arthurian Holy Grail traditions rather than the Celtic king who defended his homeland from an Anglo-Saxon invasion. Not only that, but it turns Arthur into a straight up Englishman with nothing Celtic about him except his name (which at this point most people probably don't know is of Celtic origin), and it mentions him as a king of "England" when England didn't even exist at the time of the historical Arthur in the 5th century CE.
King Arthur: Clive Owen's Arthur is actually half-Celtic, half-Roman in this one, which might very well be a possibility especially if Arthur is related to Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romanised general who is also said to have defeated a great Anglo-Saxon army. The movie's plot is also about stopping a Saxon invasion. However, the movie goes off the rails by its absurdly idiosyncratic portrayal of Celts as Native American noble savage stereotypes called "Woads", and its insistence of having Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, portrayed here following the equally stupid and ludicrous Sarmatian hypothesis that exists to deny that Arthur was anything other than a Celt and which postulates that Arthurian legends about errant knights have their origins in a Sarmatian contingent stationed there by the Romans that spread their nomadic culture into Britain. It also insists in making Arthur a much larger than life figure, getting him involved in the theological disputes of the Roman Empire going at the time and having him fighting in continental Europe, which the real Arthur wouldn't have done due to being in the periphery.
The Last Legion: This one goes with the hypothesis that Arthur is in reality Ambrosius Aurelianus (because, you see, for Hollywood Arthur cannot be a Celt, and even when he is a Celt, he has to be only partially), but it goes further by making Aurelianus a close acquaintance with Romulus Augustus and Odoacer and calling him "Ambrosinus". The plot about Julius Caesar's sword being Excalibur is dumb and ridiculous, and the plot gets even dumber when it includes an Indian female warrior and Ben Kingsley as Merlin. Moreover, after getting rid of Arthur's Celtic name and even identity, it can't even get the enemies he fought correctly since here they're Goths instead of Anglo-Saxons. The Goths didn't even attempt to invade England.
King Arthur: The 2017 adaptation goes back to 1953 by making Arthur an Anglo-Saxon again. This one doesn't even pretend to be historically accurate, including Vikings who wouldn't start raiding until three centuries after Arthur, and elephants. The opponent of Arthur isn't Anglo-Saxons again, but the Celtic king Vortigern as if to say that Celts are bad guys who need to be killed by the pretty blond Anglo-Saxon. Vortigern does appear in some Arthurian stories, but he is otherwise a very minor character largely unrelated to Arthur.
From these films, it would seem the most accurate is 2004's King Arthur with Clive Owen. Arthur is actually a (half-)Celt here and he fights off a Saxon invasion, even if the ridiculousness of Sarmatian knights fighting with him cannot be taken seriously. Next to this would be The Last Legion, which identifies Arthur with Ambrosius Aurelianus (though mangling this name) and has him fight an invasion of Goths, even though Goths are different from Saxons and there's no recorded Gothic invasion of Britain. Ironically, despite all the anachronisms, 2017's King Arthur is next if only by virtue of including the historical figure of Vortigern (though admittedly, all figures of early medieval Britain are of doubtful historicity and may well not have existed). Finally, Knights of the Round Table eschews all history and goes straight into the stories of the mythological Arthur that have virtually nothing to do with the semi-historical figure that won the Battle of Badon against invading Saxons.
There are more King Arthur movies, but I would be surprised if they are more accurate than the 2004 version. The fact that this one is the most "accurate" - using the term loosely -, however, shows just how much Hollywood mangles Arthurian history and seems incapable of portraying a simple story of a native Celtic king resisting foreign invaders that were the ancestors of today's English.
In any case, what's the most historically accurate King Arthur film? There are a lot of King Arthur movies, but I'm only going to concentrate on four that I've seen and which also seem representative: Knights of the Round Table from 1953, King Arthur from 2004, The Last Legion from 2007 and King Arthur from 2017.
Knights of the Round Table: This one deals exclusively with the Arthur of mythology. Everything around it comes from the Arthurian Holy Grail traditions rather than the Celtic king who defended his homeland from an Anglo-Saxon invasion. Not only that, but it turns Arthur into a straight up Englishman with nothing Celtic about him except his name (which at this point most people probably don't know is of Celtic origin), and it mentions him as a king of "England" when England didn't even exist at the time of the historical Arthur in the 5th century CE.
King Arthur: Clive Owen's Arthur is actually half-Celtic, half-Roman in this one, which might very well be a possibility especially if Arthur is related to Ambrosius Aurelianus, a Romanised general who is also said to have defeated a great Anglo-Saxon army. The movie's plot is also about stopping a Saxon invasion. However, the movie goes off the rails by its absurdly idiosyncratic portrayal of Celts as Native American noble savage stereotypes called "Woads", and its insistence of having Arthur's Knights of the Round Table, portrayed here following the equally stupid and ludicrous Sarmatian hypothesis that exists to deny that Arthur was anything other than a Celt and which postulates that Arthurian legends about errant knights have their origins in a Sarmatian contingent stationed there by the Romans that spread their nomadic culture into Britain. It also insists in making Arthur a much larger than life figure, getting him involved in the theological disputes of the Roman Empire going at the time and having him fighting in continental Europe, which the real Arthur wouldn't have done due to being in the periphery.
The Last Legion: This one goes with the hypothesis that Arthur is in reality Ambrosius Aurelianus (because, you see, for Hollywood Arthur cannot be a Celt, and even when he is a Celt, he has to be only partially), but it goes further by making Aurelianus a close acquaintance with Romulus Augustus and Odoacer and calling him "Ambrosinus". The plot about Julius Caesar's sword being Excalibur is dumb and ridiculous, and the plot gets even dumber when it includes an Indian female warrior and Ben Kingsley as Merlin. Moreover, after getting rid of Arthur's Celtic name and even identity, it can't even get the enemies he fought correctly since here they're Goths instead of Anglo-Saxons. The Goths didn't even attempt to invade England.
King Arthur: The 2017 adaptation goes back to 1953 by making Arthur an Anglo-Saxon again. This one doesn't even pretend to be historically accurate, including Vikings who wouldn't start raiding until three centuries after Arthur, and elephants. The opponent of Arthur isn't Anglo-Saxons again, but the Celtic king Vortigern as if to say that Celts are bad guys who need to be killed by the pretty blond Anglo-Saxon. Vortigern does appear in some Arthurian stories, but he is otherwise a very minor character largely unrelated to Arthur.
From these films, it would seem the most accurate is 2004's King Arthur with Clive Owen. Arthur is actually a (half-)Celt here and he fights off a Saxon invasion, even if the ridiculousness of Sarmatian knights fighting with him cannot be taken seriously. Next to this would be The Last Legion, which identifies Arthur with Ambrosius Aurelianus (though mangling this name) and has him fight an invasion of Goths, even though Goths are different from Saxons and there's no recorded Gothic invasion of Britain. Ironically, despite all the anachronisms, 2017's King Arthur is next if only by virtue of including the historical figure of Vortigern (though admittedly, all figures of early medieval Britain are of doubtful historicity and may well not have existed). Finally, Knights of the Round Table eschews all history and goes straight into the stories of the mythological Arthur that have virtually nothing to do with the semi-historical figure that won the Battle of Badon against invading Saxons.
There are more King Arthur movies, but I would be surprised if they are more accurate than the 2004 version. The fact that this one is the most "accurate" - using the term loosely -, however, shows just how much Hollywood mangles Arthurian history and seems incapable of portraying a simple story of a native Celtic king resisting foreign invaders that were the ancestors of today's English.
