.
Important MessageYou are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login. |
King Arthur
This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.
24 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:42 am
"Merlin" was a title rather than a proper name, given to the Chief Bard of Britain (afik but the celts themselves aren't my field.) Just as "Brennus" was a Romanized form of Brenn, a war-leader, but the Roman historians misunderstood it as a proper name.
@FD - the medieval Arthur romance is a Norman/French re-invention of a British myth, as distinct from the Anglo-Saxon culture the Normans conquered. It relies heavily on a chivalric rewriting of oral Celtic tradition.
The real story took place in the Dark Ages, after the Roman evacuation of Britain but before the Anglo-Saxon conquest turned Britain into England. Britain had been part of the Western Roman Empire for almost 400 years and was far from barbarous, although some Celtic tribes on the fringes clung to the old ways. With the end of Roman government, the Romanised Britons were forced to look to their own defence; unfortunately their political structure of family/clan/tribe meant they fought each other instead of presenting a united front against the Saxons, until the "Arthur" figure unites them and turns them into a effective fighting force, establishing what appears to be a 50year interlude of relative peace. Probable dates for Arthur are somewhere between *450 and 550AD, possibly a little earlier, possibly a little later. The only solid dates we have are 410AD, when the Emperor Honorious (a feckless idiot) writes to the British civil authorities to look to their own defence, and 580AD, when the Saxon advance is resumed and they start to overrun the country from their strongholds in the South and East.
for many years historians have debated whether Arthur even existed, or if it's a nickname (artos, meaning bear) given to some other figure such as Ambrosius Aurelianus. Now it seems it was actually true, there really was such a man, and Artorius was his name.
Unlike on the Continent, whoever Arthur was (if he existed) reigned in his own right and not as a shadowy pseudo-vassal of a far-off Emperor, nor did he make any claim to be Emperor himself.
*these dates themselves present problems. If you follow the generaly accepted chronolgy, then you have an "early" Arthur who's career is 5th C, leaving the first half of the 6th in the hands of who? If you prefer a later 6th C Arthur, then you either have a long period of turmoil in the 5th C which would have pretty much destroyed urban civilisation (it didn't) or you look to a partial and temporary restoration of Roman rule which accounts for the "missing" years; but of that there is no evidence.
Edited by - Tawakalna on 7/17/2004 7:30:36 AM
@FD - the medieval Arthur romance is a Norman/French re-invention of a British myth, as distinct from the Anglo-Saxon culture the Normans conquered. It relies heavily on a chivalric rewriting of oral Celtic tradition.
The real story took place in the Dark Ages, after the Roman evacuation of Britain but before the Anglo-Saxon conquest turned Britain into England. Britain had been part of the Western Roman Empire for almost 400 years and was far from barbarous, although some Celtic tribes on the fringes clung to the old ways. With the end of Roman government, the Romanised Britons were forced to look to their own defence; unfortunately their political structure of family/clan/tribe meant they fought each other instead of presenting a united front against the Saxons, until the "Arthur" figure unites them and turns them into a effective fighting force, establishing what appears to be a 50year interlude of relative peace. Probable dates for Arthur are somewhere between *450 and 550AD, possibly a little earlier, possibly a little later. The only solid dates we have are 410AD, when the Emperor Honorious (a feckless idiot) writes to the British civil authorities to look to their own defence, and 580AD, when the Saxon advance is resumed and they start to overrun the country from their strongholds in the South and East.
for many years historians have debated whether Arthur even existed, or if it's a nickname (artos, meaning bear) given to some other figure such as Ambrosius Aurelianus. Now it seems it was actually true, there really was such a man, and Artorius was his name.
Unlike on the Continent, whoever Arthur was (if he existed) reigned in his own right and not as a shadowy pseudo-vassal of a far-off Emperor, nor did he make any claim to be Emperor himself.
*these dates themselves present problems. If you follow the generaly accepted chronolgy, then you have an "early" Arthur who's career is 5th C, leaving the first half of the 6th in the hands of who? If you prefer a later 6th C Arthur, then you either have a long period of turmoil in the 5th C which would have pretty much destroyed urban civilisation (it didn't) or you look to a partial and temporary restoration of Roman rule which accounts for the "missing" years; but of that there is no evidence.
Edited by - Tawakalna on 7/17/2004 7:30:36 AM
Sat Jul 17, 2004 5:51 am
Must admit that i was under the impression that Arthur was later than this seems to be making out. However, later on we have better records of kings etc, which would mean its really difficult to try and pin this story. The kings for the past 1000 years are known accurately, but the several hundred years between Romans leaving, and the 10th century are alot more sketchy. Makes sense, especially since my "Arthur" knowledge is more old hollywood driven rather than factually based 
It looks alright, and to be honest, i am more likely to be seeing it for Keira Knightly than other reasons.........hmm...........keira......hmm
Just to annoy people even more, its been available on the interent in good quality for the last week or so (or so was claimed by the sun newspaper)
Edited by - Chips on 7/17/2004 6:52:20 AM
It looks alright, and to be honest, i am more likely to be seeing it for Keira Knightly than other reasons.........hmm...........keira......hmm
Just to annoy people even more, its been available on the interent in good quality for the last week or so (or so was claimed by the sun newspaper)
Edited by - Chips on 7/17/2004 6:52:20 AM
Sat Jul 17, 2004 8:42 am
you didn't like Last Samurai either, FF, and your criticism of that was much the same iirc, so that means I'm probably going to enjoy it.
btw i refer readers to our previous discussion on this matter.
Edited by - Tawakalna on 7/17/2004 2:25:40 PM
btw i refer readers to our previous discussion on this matter.
Edited by - Tawakalna on 7/17/2004 2:25:40 PM
Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:55 pm
spiderman was out in aus before the UK grom, and so will AVP.
@viator - you missed my point - King Arthur is part british funded movie about our biggest british legend, with an enormous semi-british cast and majority filmed in britain (I think!) - therefore surely it should open here first??!!
24 posts
• Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2