Ruthenia was the Roman name for what is now Ukraine. The main part of Rus i. Kyivan Rus is actually the land and people who are now known as Ukrainians. The Sarmatians were our ancestors.
Rus were a people combined of Vikings traveling between Denmark and Byzantium, and Slavic people. Sarmatians were before that, but from the same area and did intermingle with Slavs, so their blood is more than likely in there.
Answer: Rus in Latin means country or land. The whole movie was based on winning freedom. Fighting and dying to win them their home, their country. Arturius chooses Britain as his land and his countrymen to defend.
So Rus in this context, being they are Roman, their battle cry means 'for country', not Rome but Britain. For home. Answer: They do not yell "rus", they shout as "rochs". In fact at first the pronunciation in the movie shows that. Second one bears that prefix, and historically not Roxalans but Iazyges were forced to become mercenaries for Rome. So with that yell there is a little mistake in the movie but this is tolerable at the end.
Norsemen invaded Britain in the 8th century but were around much earlier. Romans recruited from foreign lands and could possibly have recruited from tribes earlier than this. Rus vikings were first recorded around the 8th century but could also have existed prior to this. It is accepted that Viking history was from AD.
Who became king after King Arthur? In the 12th century, Geoffrey of Monmouth included Constantine in his pseudohistorical chronicle Historia Regum Britanniae, adding details to Gildas' account and making Constantine the successor to King Arthur as King of Britain.
Ronaldo Neve Pundit. Why is saber a girl? Shirou and Saber's genders were swapped, mostly due to an experience with the novel Tsukihime because Type-Moon believed this would fit the modern demographic.
Takeuchi had the idea of drawing an armored woman , which resulted in Saber being female. Yanik Bakhlaev Pundit. Is Excalibur a real sword? Tuscany's Excalibur is the real thing, say scientists. The sword of St Galgano, said to have been plunged into a rock by a medieval Tuscan knight, has been authenticated, bolstering Italy's version of the Excalibur legend.
Linarejos Konigshofen Pundit. Is Camelot a real place? Camelot was a mythical castled city, said to be located in Great Britain, where King Arthur held court. It was the center of the Kingdom of Logres and in Arthurian legend would become the location of the round table that held knights.
Liman Thones Teacher. How many knights of the round table were there? Laila Macheleid Supporter. How much did Charlie Hunnam make for King Arthur? Warner Bros. Charlie Hunnam wants another shot at King Arthur. Sabas Jorda Supporter. You will be interested What makes a signal credible? How does war benefit a country? What's the antonym for privilege? Why a man is inconsistent? What are the cell theory states? What is cognitive Mediational theory?
Is Parveen a surname? What is an example of antagonism? Is Krishna a Dravidian? The Romans did have solid saddles which led to the subsequent invention of stirrups , but they did not have stirrups. The hilts on Lancelot's swords are affixed with modern day torx screws.
This error cannot be attributed to anything other than carelessness on the part of the art department. Lancelot fights with two hands, using a gladius sword in each hand. Whilst this may look good, there is no evidence whatsoever of anyone of the time period, in any culture, using two hands to fight. This is obviously attributable to aesthetics; Lancelot looks good fighting with two swords, so it doesn't matter if it's historically inaccurate or not. These countries would not even be discovered by Europeans for over years.
Again, this error seems due to simple carelessness on the part of the filmmakers. There was never a group of people called the Woads. However, this in and of itself is not an inaccuracy as such, because, as the production notes explain, the name Pict or pictus actually means "the Painted People" probably deriving from their habit of tattooing themselves with tribal markings, using a blue dye produced from the woad plant to give them their fearsome appearance.
This gives us the name for the Picts in the movie, where they are called "woads" by the Romans - a typical way of referring to your enemies with an insulting term. Wild tribes people living north of Hadrian's Wall, they carried on a guerrilla war against the Romans.
Their name means "the Painted Ones" - probably given to them from their habit of tattooing themselves with intricate markings, believed to be tribal or religious. The Woads, as they are called in the movie - the name is taken from the blue dye which they use to paint their bodies.
Calling the Picts "Woads" was a device meant to echo similar belittling titles given to enemies wherever they are encountered. As such, the fact is that although there were no such people as the Woads, they are supposed to understood as Picts. However, herein lies the error. In Commentarii de Bello Gallico c.
However, most modern scholarship believes this interpretation of Ceasar is inaccurate, and instead, it is thought that they most likely painted themselves with some form of copper ink.
See here for a discussion of the woad plant as used by the Picts. Creating a group of people who never existed ie the Woads is, in and of itself, not an error, but a conscious choice on the part of the filmmakers.
However, the name itself is based on a very traditional, and now somewhat outdated, interpretation of a vague comment in an ancient text, and most major scholars of the period dismiss it. Effectively, the Picts of the film are called after a plant that they probably didn't use to colour themselves.
The Picts [Woads] are shown operating very close to Hadrian's Wall, when in fact they never came that far south. Whilst this error could be attributed to the demands of the plot the final battle being fought at Hadrian's Wall necessitates the Woads being there, which creates an historical error by necessity , it could just as easily be attributed to inadequate historical research on the part of the filmmakers, and as with the issue of the Saxons invading from the wrong end of the country see below , the plot could easily have been restructured to facilitate historical accuracy.
The knights often speak about wanting to return home to Sarmatia. However, by the time of the film, Sarmatia had ceased to exist as a nation. By , Sarmatia had been conquered by the Huns and her people rendered subservient. One group of dispossessed Sarmatians, the Alans, invaded Spain with the Visigoths. Many others followed the Huns into Europe and settled in modern Hungary. Some joined the Roman army. Others remained where they were and were absorbed into the Hun population.
Again, this inaccuracy can probably be excused as a narrative device. The knights are Sarmatians, and their overriding goal is to return home, even though, historically speaking, that home no longer exists.
The use of Sarmatia as an image of home serves to elicit audience sympathy and to give the characters a very definite and definable goal, so again, one assumes the filmmakers chose to ignore the historical inaccuracy for the purposes of narrative expediency.
The final mission for the knights involves them travelling north of Hadrian's Wall to rescue the family of the Pope's godchild, Alecto.
However, as the film correctly establishes, there were no Romans north of the wall, thus creating both a sizeable historical error and a major plot hole or continuity error, depending on your perspective.
Germanus tells Arthur that the mission comes directly from the Pope, and later, Marius tells Arthur that the Pope granted his family the land on which his villa is built. However, if the family is so important to the Pope, why would he give them land beyond the furthest reaches of the Empire's most remote territory, devoid of any protection and surrounded by hostile natives?
Due to the plot hole it creates within the film itself, this error can only be attributed to very careless writing on the part of David Franzoni. When threatening Germanus before going on the final mission, Arthur says that no "papal army" will be able to stop him if Germanus betrays him. He's correct, but probably not the way the filmmakers intended. A papal army wouldn't have been able to stop him because papal armies didn't exist in the 5th century; the first papal army was raised by Pope Gregory VI in in anticipation of the arrival in Rome of Holy Roman Emperor, Henry III.
Henry had been summoned to Rome by members of the clergy to mediate a bitter dispute between Gregory, former pope Benedict IX and Sylvester III, who claimed to be the real pope and who had brought about the abdication of Benedict. The army was never called into action, as the dispute was settled by Henry, with Gregory stepping down and being replaced by Clement II. The Saxons are seen invading from the north, meaning they landed somewhere on the eastern coast of modern day Scotland and then travelled south to modern day England.
In reality, however, the Saxons invaded from the south; they arrived first in Kent on the south-eastern coast. To have landed in the north and travelled south by foot would make little sense, as they would have to traverse a series of fortifications such as Antonine Wall and Hadrian's Wall after marching for days on end.
By landing in the south, they were not only nearer the centres of power, they could avoid any obstacles. Whilst it could be argued that the invasion from the north was necessary for the plot, so as to create tension as to whether or not Arthur could complete his mission before the arrival of the Saxons, it seems more likely that this error arose due to careless historical research; the plot could easily have been written to accommodate the historical fact that the Saxons came initially into Britain from the south.
During their passage through Britain, Cerdic stops a warrior from raping a woman because he claims it would dilute their pure Saxon blood. However, Cerdic is a Celtic name, not a Germanic name, probably derivative from the name Ceretic, suggesting that miscegenation has already taken place between the two races. There are two primary theories as to this naming anomaly; firstly, his father was Saxon, his mother British, and he was simply given a name of his mother's people; secondly, Cerdic himself was a Briton, meaning that the record of his invasion of Britain contained in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle must be false.
Whatever the case about Cerdic himself however, both historic and genetic evidence suggests that the Saxons mixed extensively with the Britons almost as soon as they first arrived.
This error is difficult to attribute to anything other than poor research on the part of the filmmakers. Whilst the scene itself obviously functions to characterise Cerdic as proud of his heritage, but also cruel and callous, the filmmakers seem to have chosen the wrong way to illustrate this. Having a character whose very name provides evidence of interracial breeding preach about the evils of interracial breeding makes little sense.
Either the filmmakers were unaware of the origins of his name, or they simply ignored it. During the Battle of Mons Badonicus at the end of the film, Guinevere's barely-there warrior costume is very anachronistic; clothes such as she wears during the battle simply didn't exist at the time.
One would assume that the costume department were aware of this, and the costume was chosen for, ahem, aesthetic reasons. Horse Chestnut trees were not introduced into Britain until the mid 16th century.
This error can be due to nothing but lack of research and inattention to detail. The weaponry used throughout the film has provoked much dialogue as to its authenticity, or lack thereof, and numerous historical inaccuracies have been cited regarding virtually every weapon seen in the film.
The next few points represent a small sample of the discussion. The counterweight trebuchet was an advancement of the traction trebuchet, which was invented in China in the early 5th century and spread to Byzantium in the late 6th century.
The counterweight trebuchet seems to have been invented in Byzantium in the mid 12th century; there is no record of its usage prior to , and there is no evidence of its use in Britain prior to the Siege of Dover in , some hundred years after the time of the movie.
This error can be attributed to nothing other than very poor research; the aesthetics of the film trebuchets look pretty cool apparently overriding any sense of historical authenticity.
However, the extrusion technology necessary to produce barbed wire and any derivatives thereof was not invented until , in the American west, and patented by Joseph Glidden in As with the trebuchets, this error again seems attributable only to very poor factual research; using a weapon that would not be invented for over years. Although the ancient Greeks used rudimentary crossbows called gastraphetes , as did the Romans called manuballistae; a portable version of the siege weapons cheiroballistrae , and, possibly, the Picts themselves crossbow-like weapons are depicted on several carved stones of the era , there is no evidence that they were used by the Saxons, and certainly not as commonly as shown in the film.
Crossbows only became a major feature of warfare in Europe in the 11th century, and even then, only relatively advanced armies used them. The argument could be made that because the Romans and possibly the Picts had crossbows, the Saxons could have acquired them and duplicated the technology. Whilst this is a possibility, the film depicts virtually every Saxon warrior armed with a crossbow.
If crossbows were that commonly used by Saxon armies, evidence would have been found of it. On the contrary however, there has never been a single Saxon crossbow recovered. During the 5th century, all Roman soldiers were armed with spathae. The swords in the film are of a medieval design, which were never used by Roman forces. Again, the answer here is either poor research or a lack of concern about fact. According to the director's commentary, Tristan thinks of himself as something of a Samurai warrior, wanting only a good death in battle, which would explain why he uses such a weapon.
However, it is highly unlikely that a Roman soldier from Sarmatia, who is stationed in Britain would ever have come across or somehow gotten access to a dao. This choice was most likely due to character identification; the character is supposed to be a pseudo-samurai, so he needs to be armed with something with which the audience would associate with a traditional samurai; hence the dao.
We shall, of course, ignore Fuqua's error in claiming that a Chinese sword is an appropriate weapon for a Japanese archetype.
The answer to this question is simple; according to Antoine Fuqua, It's much more reality-based as opposed to the fantasy.
It excited me because it's King Arthur as you've never seen him before. What appealed to me was that it was based on a sense of a reality. There was historical research done and there were some facts we found that we didn't know before.
It's thrilling to discover that there is this hero that you grew up with who actually really existed. In a more ideological sense, Fuqua has also stated, "I wanted the movie to be about King Arthur and not about a magical sword, because I think, in these times, we need real heroes" quoted here. This comment identifies a political motif in the film which suggests perhaps a motive for many of the changes to the legend, other than simply presenting a new spin on an old myth.
This political strand was commented on by many critics upon the release of the movie. For the poets of the Middle Ages, his legend provided the perfect empty vessel into which to pour the ideals of "courtly love". For Henry II, who attempted to legitimise his own rule via Arthurian precedents established in Geoffrey of Monmouth's semi-spurious Historia Regum Britanniae, Arthur was a political propaganda tool. For the monks of Glastonbury Abbey, who fabricated Arthur's tomb sometime in the late 12th century with an eye on box-office receipts of their own, Arthur was a money-spinning tourist attraction.
It comes from fear. And America is perhaps going through a lot of that right now, so it's not unfair to read into it that it could be about Iraq. But I began writing the movie before we went into Iraq.
The GI connection is what is important for me. Like the Sarmatian knights, if you're a GI you're surrounded by people who hate you; you hate what you're doing, but you have to do it; and you're living for the day you get out. I see Arthur as being like someone drafted to Vietnam, who goes there full of ideas and gung ho, then gets it all shot away and comes down to himself. And that used to be an American hero, but we've become so cowboyed and numbed, we've lost track of who we once were.
For example, in his Guardian article, "Death of a Legend", Jonathan Jones wrote, Arthur, in the version that has been best known for centuries with its romantic picture of Camelot, its honourable knights who fight tournaments and go in search of adventure, and the tragic death of Arthur in his last battle with his incestuous son, Mordred, is a sad, subtle, poetic legend, full of emotional nuance.
The filmmakers' assumption seems to be that modern audiences need something harsher, simpler, more political - Arthur and the Britons fight for "freedom". But in evacuating myth from the world we rob ourselves of an imaginative, and even a moral, resource. By turning Arthur into a statebuilding soldier defending "freedom", his story is made glibly compatible with the way things are done now, the lies that make wars rational. But when these stories are told properly, in the grandeur and passion of myth, they are far more wise about the futility of war than any supposedly "realistic" retelling.
According to the controversial opening legend of the film, "Recently discovered archaeological evidence sheds light on [Arthur's] true identity. According to historical advisor John Matthews, The archaeological discoveries they are referring to are connected to the Sarmatians.
The Sarmatians were posted to Britain, as part of the Roman Legion, five and a half thousand of them. They basically formed a kind of unique cultural enclave up in a place called Ribchester, in present-day Lancashire, and that base has been excavated over the years, and recently more wholly than before. What's come out of that is the fact that they not only stayed there for several hundred years, but that they kept a sense of their cultural identity, of their religious beliefs, and that's one of the reasons that this is the film it is, and the story it is, because it's some of their ideas and beliefs that influenced the Arthurian legend, so we believe.
0コメント