Remove Advertisements

Starz's Camelot

Invisusira's playground

Moderators: Aergis, Invisusira

Starz's Camelot

Postby Garov » Sat Apr 02, 2011 11:32 pm

Anyone else catch this butchering of the Arthur legend?

Here's some quick cliffnotes:
Arthur is raised Catholic
Camelot is an unused Roman castle in ruins
Excalibur is not Excalibur, but is instead the sword of Mars the Roman god of war
Lancelot isn't called Lancelot, but Guenivere is still the same


I was really trying to overlook these huge glaring issues and enjoy the show for what it was trying to be. But then at the end they just do something utterly stupid with the sword of Mars that isn't quite a spoiler but I still won't mention it...completely ruined what they were trying to do for me. I really wanted to like this as a counterpoint to Game of Thrones coming out in a few weeks. But man, did they really miss the mark.
Image
Garov
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed May 09, 2007 7:19 am

Re: Starz's Camelot

Postby Fivelives » Sun Apr 03, 2011 2:34 am

Chances are that it's being truer to history than most of the arthurian legend.

Considering that this is after the fall of the Roman empire, anyone who was raised in "the Roman way" (which by all accounts, Arthur was - nearest historians can put him was at a town called Aquae Sulis, or modern day Bath, England - an area that wasn't conquered by the Saxons, in part because of how near it was to Colchester) would have been raised in the Roman Catholic church.

Camelot would've been a fort on a hill near Camulod (short for camulodunum, modern day name of Colchester), a fort built on a hill about 140 miles away from Aquae Sulis, and the center of the British defense when the Saxons invaded. It was sacked by the saxons and in ruins at one point, then fell into ruins again naturally at another point.

Even after Catholicism took over the Roman empire, there was a tradition among emperors, kings and generals claiming that their weapons were god-forged, or belonged to the gods. There was a Roman emperor-by-acclaim, Maximillian, who claimed that his spear was gifted to him by Mars. He was never officially an emperor, because after his invasion of Gaul, he came marching back, victorious, then was betrayed by the Roman officer in charge of one of the garrisons in western Britain who poisoned him. This person was then promoted to a tribune and retired honorably (then got poisoned himself in his retirement. Go figure. Roman politics was even nastier than middle-eastern relations). In order to go from being emperor-by-acclaim to actually being emperor (which some emperors actually succeeded at - two, I think, but their names escape me right now), they actually had to either get the old emperor to cede power (unlikely) or kill them (easier).

There's no evidence at all that Lancelot or Guinevere, or any of the "knights of the round table" existed. In the middle ages, knights were brutal, vicious people that were in charge of "justice". I say "justice" because it mainly consisted of local lords sending in the knights to punish rebellious populations. This didn't stop until the church stepped in - they would go to an area, and force peace by gathering the holy relics of that area and basically threatening the knights that if they didn't observe "times of peace" as declared by the church, the saints would come down from heaven and torment them 24/7. As if saints didn't have anything better to do, pshaw. The original times of peace were the sabbath, lent, easter and the week of easter, feasts of various saints, and the week before and week after Christmas. It wasn't until the Muslim Moors marched through France and into Britain that the knights stopped pillaging their own country.

Guinevere and the knights of the round table (Lancelot included) were likely made from whole cloth when people came later and made up the Arthurian legends.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Starz's Camelot

Postby Shyrtandros » Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:54 am

Fivelives wrote:Chances are that it's being truer to history than most of the arthurian legend.

(Cool Historical stuff snip)



Awesome information, I think I'll forward some of it to a peer who is into this kind of stuff like I am.

Thanks for sharing Fivelives.
"Warning: AA posts may cause severe urges to buy or rent games you may not have been interested in, known about or would normally consider playing. If you experience sudden urges to purchase said games please consult your wallet, bank account or significant other to see if these games are right for you and your budget."
User avatar
Shyrtandros
 
Posts: 818
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 7:54 am

Re: Starz's Camelot

Postby Mannstein » Wed Sep 21, 2011 4:23 am

pereZScoth wrote:Nice history review.
I learned a lot on it.

I'll be sharing this topic on my friends for them to learn too.


Me too, i liked specialy the part that
Fivelives wrote:
It wasn't until the Muslim Moors marched through France and into Britain that the knights stopped pillaging their own country.

I just burned my history book since they say that the moors were stoped at Pointiers(south France) by Charles "the hammer" Martel... Goddam french propagand trying to trick us into thinking that the moors didn't reach England.
(Jooking a side, i think you are refering to the beginning of the 1st Crusade, when instead of bashing you neighbour you could bo to Holy lands and butcher you way into Heaven)
This line left me a little suspicious about the rest of "history lesson" but I cannot coment because i'm not aware of England early history.
An open mind is like a fortress with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Mannstein
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 5:40 am

Re: Starz's Camelot

Postby Fivelives » Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:35 pm

It's entirely possible that my info on the Moors is off. I got it from the History channel, so I could have misheard it or just been outright wrong. Right now, I don't remember (this is kind of an old topic).

It wouldn't have been the first crusade, though. That didn't take off until the end of the 11th century (1095 or thereabouts, unless I miss my dates?). The church's censure of the knights was around the late 8th/early 9th century.
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Starz's Camelot

Postby sahiel » Thu Sep 22, 2011 8:55 pm

Fivelives wrote:It's entirely possible that my info on the Moors is off. I got it from the History channel, so I could have misheard it or just been outright wrong. Right now, I don't remember (this is kind of an old topic).

It wouldn't have been the first crusade, though. That didn't take off until the end of the 11th century (1095 or thereabouts, unless I miss my dates?). The church's censure of the knights was around the late 8th/early 9th century.

Unfortunately the History Channel deceived you, the Moors made mincemeat of parts of France (briefly, before being defeated) and certainly Spain (where they settled for hundreds of years), but were never able to push into England.

Regardless though, I doubt the show was meant to be a historical reenactment of actual events but rather a commercial story driven episodic drama, they have a rather different take on 'history' ;)
Image
"Definition: Love is making a connection with another person against long odds."
"Clarification: Love is making a shot to the knees of a target 300 kilometers away using an Aratech sniper rifle with a tri-light scope."
-HK-47
WoW Millionaire
User avatar
sahiel
Maintankadonor
 
Posts: 1079
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:31 am
Location: St Louis, MO

Re: Starz's Camelot

Postby Fivelives » Thu Sep 22, 2011 9:11 pm

It was one of their specials, not one of their series. I usually trust the experts they have on their shows. I didn't even know there WERE series on the History channel? Other than the US version of Top Gear and Top Shot, which pretty much have nothing to do with "history".
- I'm not Jesus, but I can turn water into Kool-Aid.
- A Sergeant in motion outranks an officer who doesn't know what the hell is going on.
- A demolitions specialist at a flat run outranks everybody.
User avatar
Fivelives
 
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:55 pm

Re: Starz's Camelot

Postby Barathorn » Tue Nov 01, 2011 2:17 am

I missed this from casual skimming so apologies for the late post.

I watched a couple of episodes and it didn't seem that bad at all. It was entertaining enough as a story if you looked past the preconceptions you may have had about the legend of Arthur[see below].

No-one can really say how true it is to history because we simply don't know that much about what was happening at the time. The only remaining records we have tell us that there was a british/roman noble who is constantly refered to as Brittonius Rex and seems to unite the country somewhat after the roman occupation ends. That is the extent of our knowledge and is the commonly held belief by historians that someone did exist who did great things for the country and this is the basis of the Legend of Arthur. There is no mention of knights, a round table or a cave by the sea however in these records.

The majority of our percieved knowledge comes from the fairytale novel 'Le Morte du Arthur' written by Sir Thomas Malory around 1540 or 1640 [I can't remember which] and that has no historical accuracy whatsoever other than being about someone who unites the land sometime after the roman occupation at the start of the dark ages. It is a fairy tale, nothing more and nothing less.

The majority of 'historical' programs about Arthur are worthless 40 minute television experiances with little factual evidence [because there isn't any available] and each of them strive to push forward the point that their view is the correct view which is nonsence.

If you are interested in learning more about the legend especially from the historical side of things relating to the timeline of the legend then I have no hesitation in recommending this book by David Day as an unbiased view on what 'may' have occured.

http://www.daviddaybooks.com/King%20Arthur.htm
Sabindeus wrote:I feel like I should get a t-shirt made for me that says "Not Socially Awkward, Just Fat".

Brekkie wrote:The world will always need people to dig ditches.
User avatar
Barathorn
Moderator
 
Posts: 7100
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:08 am
Location: Hitting Panda's over the head with a cricket bat shouting Get Orf My Lawn!


Return to Arkham Asylum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Paxen and 1 guest


Remove Advertisements

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 380 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:28 pm

Users browsing this forum: Paxen and 1 guest