King Arthur

Home > Uncategorized > King Arthur

January 3rd, 2009 admin Leave a comment Go to comments

King Arthur

king arthur?

ok so im doing this project for history and im almost done but theres a section on king arthur that i hav to do and its not in our book (wtf?) so can someone giv me a history on this? its gotta include the sarmations, picts(not sure if he just meant pictures but it says picts), Saxons, and hadrian's wall

Please tell me that your history teacher is not teaching that King Arthur was real or is using that bad King Arthur movie from a few years ago that proclaimed itself as the "true story of King Arthur"
The Arthurian legends are based on the idea of some warrior kings of the early Britons and Picts (two tribes of Early Britain) from before the invasions of the Angles and Saxons.
Now that I look again, I realize he or she is using that pathetic movie. So. The idea here to give you what they want (and then tell you problem with it later...) is the idea that in Post Roman Britain there were still a lot of Roman soldiers left over. Many Roman soldiers were from the Barbarian tribes who were allowed to become citizens of Rome if they did military service. The Sarmatians were from Iran, Azerbaijan and the general region south of Russia (yes the area Borat is from... picturing Arthur talking like Borat may amuse). These groups were often called Scythians.
The concept from the movie is that one group of soldiers from this region fought off a group of Saxon invaders led by the warlors Cedric and Cynric who were invading southern England. And by doing this the Sarmatians/Scythians were helping unite the Britons (the regular people in the area), the picts (the blue woad wearing Druidic people) and the people who remained after Roman rule and this Arthurian realm existed at this time.
Now the problems here.... I will try to stay with the history problems. The main issue is that these two warrior Cedric and Cynric had been in southern England for many years and had a region under their control already. It is believed that both were born there and that they were strong leaders... who didn't always get along with their neighbours... but no ruler did in those days. But the movie supposes that these evil Saxons invaded England from the north, around Scotland in order to travel south to take over. First off, they likely did have wars but they already had territory. Secondly, this makes them more English than the Borat King Arthur. And thirdly why are they travelling by boat north, to go south to invade a region they already occupy?
I am not saying that these people did not exist. As the battles seems to have occurred. All I am saying is that Arthur is a legend and people always try to tack real figures onto the legend and it is not worthwhile as legends are Larger Than people. And I am saying that Hollywood will always take a story in history and beat it to submission and change any semblance to facts in order to get what they think to be a more convincing and black and white hero and villain movie... which never seems to work.