King Arthur Vs Alexander

King Arthur was quite historically correct from the facts and what historians think happened in that time, So how you can say that wasn't really what happened, is rather odd to me when it's a film based around all that.

There are of course some inaccurate aspects, but you find them in most films like this, eg the weapons. People told me they used certain weapons that certain tribes didn't use in those times. Think it was the bow and arrows.

As for the battle scenes, a lot of the 'gory' scenes were cut out just to get the rating they wanted 🙁 and I didn't like a lot of the editing in the battle scenes.

One reason I also liked this movie was because of Guinevere, and the movie going the warrior route with her.

Amen to that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No one has been able to prove the existence of King Arthur. Many people believe they now what happend and who king arthur's myth originated from. The closest link is that arthur was a roman soldier. These beliefs extend from shady writings and accounts all from the same writer. their is no proof Arthur and camelot actually existed, only speculation. The rest of the history in the film, from weapons and dialogue, and characters is just for enterainment and not historically correct. I dont care about this, but i care that it wasnt presented entertainigly.

Originally posted by BloomBabyGirl
ill be dissapointed in Alexander if it ends up being as inacurate as troy adn King athur

Well, "King Arthur" had to have existed to be accurate.

(EDIT: I see I am not alone in my opinion. ) 😛

Originally posted by MildPossession

One reason I also liked this movie was because of Guinevere, and the movie going the warrior route with her.

Yeah that was a pretty amazing fiet for her.

hey when you got to do what you got to do, anything is possible. She wasn't really taken guys down with ease, except for the fact that she was using a bow most of the time. That will take anyone down with ease if you are half way decent because you are sitting about 30 yards at least away.

yeah or historically speaking, the only woman in medievil times to go up against a raiding army Is of course Ms Saint joan of arc, and this was through the will of God. woman were not percieved in the way they were portrayed in this film, or maybe my history lessons have just been all make believe. i dont know, what do you think

She was helped by some other woman warriors to take down one man at a time in some scenes.

I think your history lessons have been skewed by the view of the person presenting them. Little is known about who actually fought in wars, but many a times women as well as men when put in situations like the one that they were in would fight in order to give them a chance.

no, not as reviered as her character was.Woman were looked upon as trash, or damsel's in medievil times. yeah everyone would fight when there castle's outer wall had been breached to the towns. They would never ride with nights in war though. Knights wwas a very honerable titles which consists of the kights code. No other can ride with these, unless they have bested a felleow knight and then whereby deeemed worthy by the lead rider to be knighted, but first having to finish his kill. then they would go off to knight school. that was long and grooling. No sir my history is not skewed, just acknowledged.

Right, well first off to quote you, you stated that they weren't able to ride with the knights, I didn't guinevere riding with the knights and secondly you said that once the castle's outer walls were breached everyone would fight, well if I recall in the movie the saxons came through the gate and that is when they began fighting??? is it not? So why shouldn't see have fought????

So I take it you have no response to that?