Originally posted by charlemagne9746
Nah....this movie wasn't based on the myth of Camelot. The movie was based on the "historical" King Arthur. Arthur lived during the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Middle Ages when barbarian tribes were consolodating Roman territory....hence the Saxons invading England. Arthur and his Knights were the first of their kind in history and they were wholly warriors. They didn't use mystical forces.
The film claimed to be based on archeological evidence but it was garbage, It has Saxons invading from the north (they didn't they were mainly in the south and the midlands and they were actually invited as mercenary troops and when agreements to pay and supply them weren't met, revolted and it wasn't until the mid sixth century they began expanding to the north and west)
Don't get me started on the crossbows! Saxons were not known for the use of them nor did they apear on 5th century battlefields in Britain!
Lancelots sword hilts had Torx fasteners, which were not available in fifth century Britain.
The Pope had no power to give land to a people till 400 years later.
The guy who betrays them is hiding in a horse chestnut tree, these weren't introduced to Britain till the 16th century...
The Hawk that they use is a sodding Harris Hawk! I.E. its from the America's last time I checked Columbus was about one thousand years later!
Don't get me started on the siege engines or how they were being used or the fact they they wouldn't work!
Oh and Barbed wire! how the hell does that work when it wasn't invented till the 1800's?
I'm not going to even talk about some of the weapons and armour being used by the "knights" in the film
The battle at the end is meant to be the Battle of Baden hill, this battle took place several centuries after the Romans had left Britain and Baden Hill is quite a way South of Hadrians Wall.
As you can see this film burns my biscuits! I don't mind a bit of fantasy with my history but to claim to be based on actual evidence and be so far off the mark its not funny, takes the p!ss!
Having said all that Movie Arthur and his knights would get slaughtered by Movie 300.
Originally posted by Hercules
The film claimed to be based on archeological evidence but it was garbage, It has Saxons invading from the north (they didn't they were mainly in the south and the midlands and they were actually invited as mercenary troops and when agreements to pay and supply them weren't met, revolted and it wasn't until the mid sixth century they began expanding to the north and west)Don't get me started on the crossbows! Saxons were not known for the use of them nor did they apear on 5th century battlefields in Britain!
Lancelots sword hilts had Torx fasteners, which were not available in fifth century Britain.
The Pope had no power to give land to a people till 400 years later.
The guy who betrays them is hiding in a horse chestnut tree, these weren't introduced to Britain till the 16th century...
The Hawk that they use is a sodding Harris Hawk! I.E. its from the America's last time I checked Columbus was about one thousand years later!
Don't get me started on the siege engines or how they were being used or the fact they they wouldn't work!
Oh and Barbed wire! how the hell does that work when it wasn't invented till the 1800's?
I'm not going to even talk about some of the weapons and armour being used by the "knights" in the film
The battle at the end is meant to be the Battle of Baden hill, this battle took place several centuries after the Romans had left Britain and Baden Hill is quite a way South of Hadrians Wall.
As you can see this film burns my biscuits! I don't mind a bit of fantasy with my history but to claim to be based on actual evidence and be so far off the mark its not funny, takes the p!ss!
Having said all that Movie Arthur and his knights would get slaughtered by Movie 300.
True, however as you well know...movies tend to disregard historical fact in exchange for scenes and depictions that they believe would be more entertaining for an audience. Troy was another example....it had little to do with Homer's actual epic.
Originally posted by charlemagne9746
True, however as you well know...movies tend to disregard historical fact in exchange for scenes and depictions that they believe would be more entertaining for an audience. Troy was another example....it had little to do with Homer's actual epic.
Didnt Troy take place before the 300 Spartans?
Originally posted by charlemagne9746
True, however as you well know...movies tend to disregard historical fact in exchange for scenes and depictions that they believe would be more entertaining for an audience. Troy was another example....it had little to do with Homer's actual epic.
Troy made no bones about the fact it deviated wildly from the Iliad and it was just a sword and sandals film.
If Arthur had done the same I would have been fine with it, it was the claims of being the real story of Arthur and based on actual evidence it that annoyed me.
Yes Braz, Troy was a lot earlier than the events in 300.
Originally posted by grey fox
The 300 lose , badly.It doesn't matter what ore their weaponry is produced from when said weapons are up against a high level of tech.
I agree
Back on topic if 500 knights are in full plate and 500 in partial plate then the Spartans weapons are going to have a hard time penetrating.
Originally posted by Hercules
I agreeBack on topic if 500 knights are in full plate and 500 in partial plate then the Spartans weapons are going to have a hard time penetrating.
Indeed , even partial plate is difficult. I've seen some re-creations of partial plate and it's pretty damn difficult to get to the vitals without getting within stabbing range.
Originally posted by grey fox
Indeed , even partial plate is difficult. I've seen some re-creations of partial plate and it's pretty damn difficult to get to the vitals without getting within stabbing range.
Yup Spartan spears arn't going to do it and their swords are in a word pants!
Too much of a gap in weapon and armour tech for the Spartans to compensate for.