Masaryk University

Faculty of Arts

Department of English
and American Studies
English Language and Literature

Katarna Minrikov

Legend versus History in the Film

King Arthur (2004)
Bachelors Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: doc. Mgr. Milada Frankov, CSc., M.A.

2008

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently,

using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
..
Authors signature

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor doc. Mgr. Milada Frankov, CSc., M.A. for her patient guidance,
valuable advice and especially for her support with consultations at a distance.

Table of Contents
Introduction .. 5
1. King Arthur in Literature ....... 7
1.1.

Beginnings of Arthurian Legend 8

1.2.

From history to romance ...... 10

1.3.

Malorys King Arthur ... 11

2. Historical Arthur ...... 15

2.1.

Name of Arthur in historical documents ........... 15

2.2.

Arthurian traces in archaeology .... 19

2.3.

Popular historical theories .... 20

2.4.

Innovatory approach in the publication From Scythia to Camelot ..25

3. Legend versus History in Contemporary Film Adaptation 29

3.1.

Film King Arthur (2004) 29

3.2.

Interpretation of the legend in the film King Arthur ....... 32

3.3.

Historical inspirations .. 38

3.4.

Different attitudes to the film ....... 43

Conclusion 45
Bibliography ...... 46

Introduction
The Arthurian romance is one of the best-known stories of the medieval literature of
Great Britain. At the same time it is one of the major enigmas of British history. Literary
historians may, although not without some obscurities, trace the evolution of the legend,
which was changing and developing through the ages, but they still have not managed to
answer the question of the historicity of Arthur. They have not discovered what exactly
inspired the story of the noble king, his knights and their brave deeds. This problem is a
subject of study of many scholars, whose opinions over the existence of real Arthur vary
and thus give birth to numerous theories.
The mysterious background of the Arthurian story and various versions of the legend
itself have always been very attractive not only for the British artists, but many works of art
with this theme have been created worldwide. This story is a rich source of inspiration also
for contemporary authors. Among the most popular motifs we can find the quest for the
Holy Grail or a love story of Tristan and Isolt, but the other themes do not stay behind.
Authors also sometimes concentrate on introducing some true theories about Arthurs
existence and they modify the legend considerably. This is the case of the latest Arthurian
film called King Arthur (2004) that was directed by Antoine Fuqua and according to its
subtitle it brings "the untold true story that inspired the legend".
The film King Arthur is an unusual mixture which combines components of the legend
with historical observations and discoveries, and this melange is spiced with a dose of
fantasy, producing inaccuracies of all kinds. The story does stick neither to the original
literary content nor to historical theories and it makes its own way through the myth and its
obscure points. It concentrates on one particular quest of Arthur and his knights, so the
plot is quite simple and does not make use of many of the notoriously known elements
associated with Arthurian tradition. At the same time it tries to preserve the motif of
knighthood, honour and affection for the land and introduces some of the popular

Arthurian characters, symbols and features - however, the result is often quite awkward.
Which are thus the major faults and missteps that the film is denounced for and does it
have any benefits at all? To answer these questions it is necessary to analyse the adaptation
from the point of view of the legend as well as history, what is exactly the objective of my
thesis.
The first chapter of the thesis deals with the Arthurian legend and its development in
literature, from the first emergence of the name Arthur in written records to the era
when the king and his companions gained worldwide popularity. The chapter focuses
mainly on the work Le Morte dArthur by Sir Thomas Malory, which is the most elaborate
and detailed chronicle of King Arthurs court. The following section is devoted to history
and its treatment of the legend, with various theories and approaches that have appeared,
trying to explain the origins of the myth. Finally, the last chapter focuses on the film it
analyses it from the perspective of the points considered in the previous sections and refers
to its peculiarities and imperfections. It seeks to reveal the main problems of this
adaptation and to bring out its merits.

1. King Arthur in Literature

Literature has a mighty power in history. For some historical periods it is one of the
main sources of information about the life, people and events of those times. This case
especially applies to the Early Middle Ages - the period when Arthur was supposed to live.
The information about those times is so insufficient and so unclear that they earned the
name the Dark Ages. Unfortunately, literature is also one of the least credible sources. As
there is not much other evidence, reading any written records from those times, it can
never be said with certitude to what degree they are true and to what degree they were
modified and enhanced by the imagination of their author. And this is exactly the
stumbling block to the research about King Arthur and his existence.
To follow an evolution of the character of Arthur in literature is a demanding and
complex mission. Starting with some vague references, his name gradually gains importance
and more and more stories about him appear - about his life and deeds, his companions
and their quests. But as Arthur's story develops, we can notice also an increasing
exaggeration and addition of some unrealistic and mythological elements. This causes that a
warrior scarcely mentioned in the literature of his own times evolves step by step into what
can be perceived as one of the most important national symbols of Great Britain.
The old Arthurian literature could be classified into two categories: a literature with a
historical background and a mere fiction. Yet, it is sometimes difficult to draw a clear line
between these two groups as it is not always possible to decide where the history ends and
the fiction starts. What can be said with certainty is that reliable works of the first category
are quite rare and this makes Arthur more a fictional hero than a historically credible
personality. But before getting deeper involved into all the speculations about Arthur's
authenticity and sources that offer some proofs about his existence, I would like to devote
a few pages to that second category of literature, the content of which is definitely richer
and which has brought to Arthur his fame the Arthurian legend.

Beginnings of Arthurian legend

Following the path back to the roots of the Arthurian legend, the very first milestones
are not easy to trace. Besides the early historical works by Gildas, Bede and Nennius, where
only the last one mentions Arthur's name directly, several references to this person appear
in literary texts, predominantly of Welsh background. However, they are just some tiny
fragments of what seems to be a more complex story and thus do not shed much light on
Arthur's identity. Finally the person, who can be in these terms considered the father of the
Arthurian tradition, is a cleric called Geoffrey of Monmouth. It is only when his work
Historia regum Britanniae was completed in 1138 that Arthurs story got its first consistent
form, which would have a significant impact on the future of the legend.
Historia regum Britanniae (History of the Kings of Britain) is a pseudo-historical
manuscript that claims to draw inspiration from a certain most ancient book in the British
language (Jones 62). Monmouth pretends to acquire this book from his friend,
Archdeacon of Oxford, who asked him to translate it into Latin. Whether he is telling the
truth or just trying to find a background for his own fantasies, the fact is that such a book
was never found. Apparently even during Monmouths lifetime, his work was accepted
with a considerable controversy and its author was accused by several of his
contemporaries of being a mere liar. One of the most harsh of them, William of
Newburgh, uttered that Monmouths story about Arthur and his companions was made
up, partly by himself and partly by others, whether from an inordinate love of lying or for
the sake of pleasing the Britons (Jones 69). It is highly probable that Newburgh is right,
yet Monmouth's version of Arthur's life gained much popularity and became a cornerstone
for the following generations.
In Monmouths book Arthur is promoted from a war leader, potentially of a great
importance, to a once and future king of Britons. The cleric attributes him Uther the
Pendragon for a father and tells an intricate history how the king won Arthurs mother

Igraine and the future hero was conceived in the castle of Tintagel. After the death of his
father, Arthur inherits his throne and starts fights against Saxons, Picts and Scots. The
most important battle against Saxons is said to be the battle at Bath, which is the way
Monmouth interprets the famous battle of Badon. Gradually Arthur conquers most of the
Northern Europe Ireland, Iceland, Denmark and Norway. In the periods of peace he
marries Queen Guinevere and establishes an order of knighthood with such knights as
Kay, Bedivere and his nephew Gawain. Later the king is dragged into another war, this
time with a ruler of Western Roman Empire, Lucius, and leaving, he entrusts the country
to his other nephew, Mordred. Soon news reaches Arthur about the betrayal of Mordred
who has taken both, his throne and his wife. Therefore he returns to fight his last battle
with this treacherous kin, whom he defeats and kills, but he himself is mortally wounded.
But instead of dying on the battlefield, he is carried away to the mysterious Isle of Avalon
to have his wound which is said to be fatal, healed (Lupack 27) and that is how a myth
arises about Arthur being still alive and ready to return when the right time comes.
Taking into consideration this ambiguous end of Arthurs story, it may be true that one
of Monmouts intentions when writing his Historia was to give some hope to his nation
under the rule of Norman kings. At least that is what king Henry II believed when he
decided to put an end to these prospects of Arthurs return. In order to prove the death of
the brave king of Britons, he encouraged rumours about his grave being found at
Glastonbury. Since then this argument was repeatedly used by several English kings to
reinforce the legitimacy of their reign. However, this fact did not prevent the cult of Arthur
from increasing in importance; on the contrary, it even supported its further development.

1.2. From history to romance

Monmouths manuscript finally gained more weight in the literary field than in the field
of history. It did not take a long time before the story crossed the border of Britain and
was altered into numerous translations and adaptations in several countries. This fact had a
considerable effect on the future fate of the legend, as the translators often enriched
Monmouths version of their own ideas, elaborated on some parts and omitted the other
ones. The most influential of such modified translations was Roman de Brut by a Norman
called Wace and its subsequently reworked English version of a cleric Layamon. The
approach they adopted definitely deflects the Arthurian matter from having any historical
value and establishes a new romance tradition. Wace, who transforms Monmouth's Latin
text into French verse, decorates the story with features of the courtly literature. He
emphasizes the chivalric aspects and knightly behaviour and adds elements of courtly love
praising ladies, especially queen Guinevere. In Brut Arthur simply becomes the flower of
chivalry (Jones 90). Another significant contribution of Wace is that he introduces the idea
of the Round Table, which becomes one of the well-known symbols of Arthurs court.
This theme is even further developed by Layamon, who on the basis of Wace's Brut creates
an English version in the alliterative verse.
The Round Table is not the only aspect of Arthurian legend that has originated in
France. Paradoxically, in a certain period this subject became much more popular in this
continental neighbour of England than in the country of its origin. The credit for this must
be attributed primarily to Chrtien de Troyes, who in the second half of the 12th century
created five romances with Arthurian motifs: Erec et Eneide, Cligs, Lancelot or Le Chevalier de
la charrete (The Knight of the Cart), Yvain or Le Chevalier au lion (The Knight with the Lion)
and unfinished Perceval or Le Conte del Graal (The Story of the Grail). In these stories Troyes
not only further develops the concept of courtly love and chivalry, but also introduces
other themes that will ultimately become characteristic for the legend: the quest for the

10

Holy Grail and the adulterous love of Lancelot and Guinevere. He is also the first to
present Arthur as a character of a secondary importance the king is not usually directly
involved in the adventures of his knights, who are the central characters of the stories, and
Arthur's court has a sole function to regroup all these heroes and to give them a common
background.
The share of France in the development of the Arthurian legend is undeniable, for it
laid foundations of a new attitude towards the story and presented Arthur as a noble king
with a chivalric court. Finally in the mid-15th century comes a writer, who, building on the
English as well as the French sources and with an addition of his own imagination, gets the
hero back to his homeland - it is Sir Thomas Malory and his vast romance Le Morte
d'Arthur.

1.3. Malorys King Arthur

The 15th century does not bring innovations only to the Arthurian story, but to the
whole history of literature. In this period William Caxton introduces to England the art of
book printing and thus makes the books more accessible for the readers. One of the first
printed works is, among others, Le Morte dArthur by Sir Thomas Malory, with Caxton as a
publisher and an editor in one person. The interventions of the latter into the romance are
quite considerable besides some changes both in the content and the vocabulary, he
divides the longish text into 21 books and writes his well-known preface. In its opening
lines Caxton describes how he was asked by certain noblemen to publish the story of the
most renowned Christian king, first and chief of the three best Christian (3) and adds
some of their arguments supporting Arthurs existence. Subsequently he notes that this
hero is more spoken of beyond the sea, more books made of his noble acts, than there be
in England (5) and therefore he decides to strengthen his reputation in his own country as
well as to set the chivalric manners at his court as an example to the public. He apparently

11

achieves his aims and Le Morte dArthur becomes widely read and known. But of course, it
is not only a merit of its publisher - the lions share for the success of the book goes to its
author, Sir Robert Malory.
Malory, who derives his inspiration mainly from French books, but combines it also
with British tradition, treats the subject in his own way. He adopts some motifs from earlier
works, uses his own new ones and creates a literary piece of much complexity, composed
of a number of stories with even bigger number of characters, often interlinked only by the
concept of the Arthurs court. Besides an intricate content the romance builds also on an
elaborate literary style and dramatic descriptions, and the combination of these factors
makes it to become, from that time on, a key reference for the development of the
Arthurian legend. And this does not apply only to the character of Arthur as such, but to
many other figures and elements introduced by Malorys version.
One of the main contributions of Le Morte is that it brings respective stories of Arthur
and his knights under one roof and even though the ties among them are often quite vague,
it gives them a common denominator the Arthurian knighthood. This implies that the
concept of chivalric behaviour gains more importance than the king himself, what can be
understood also from the content of respective books, as divided by Caxton. First few of
them deal predominantly with Arthur and his life story from the romance of Uther
Pendragon with Igraine to Arthurs birth, his wars for the throne, acquisition of Excalibur,
marriage with Guinevere, the rise of his court and establishment of the Knights of the
Round Table, campaign against Roman emperor Lucius But afterwards Arthurs
importance in the book declines and the leading role passes to his knights and their deeds.
Respective books thus give account of the quests of such characters as Lancelot, Gareth,
Gawain, Tristan, Percival, Galahad, and many others. It is only towards the end of Le Morte
when Arthur gets back to the core of the story, being betrayed at first by Lancelot and his

12

adulterous relationship with Queen Guinevere and subsequently by his illegitimate son
Mordred, whom he finally kills in a battle, but is mortally wounded himself.
The most promoted character in Le Morte is, however, Lancelot. Malory attributes him
much more importance than he had used to be given in previous Arthurian works, so that
it might imply that it is him and not Arthur being the main figure in the story. He is
repeatedly associated with the attribute the best knight in the world (Malory, 209) and
would have been surely the one to find the Holy Grail, if not for his hopeless love for the
Queen. This affection and its consequences can be considered as one of the key plots of
the entire romance. It gives an example of chivalric devotion of a knight to an only lady,
but on the other hand this illicit love in the end deprives Lancelot of his honour, the
respect of his companions and of the favour of his king. It is also partly a reason of the
destruction of Arthurs kingdom, as it is during his expedition against Lancelot when
Mordred seizes the throne.
Yet, the love triangle Lancelot Guinevere Arthur is not the only popular motif
elaborated in the book. On the contrary, Malory adapts a number of elements that are
nowadays considered as key symbols of the Arthurian legend. He brings in the story about
Arthur pulling out the sword from a stone and stresses the importance of another sword Excalibur, which was given to him by Lady of the Lake and the scabbard of which should
have made him invincible. He modifies the story of the Holy Grail, which in his version
was found not by Percival, as claimed by de Troyes, but by Galahad, the son of Lancelot.
He also reworks the tale of brave Sir Tristan and two Isolts. And last but not least, he
refines the story of the last battle of the famous king and his departure for Avalon.
Some critics reproach Malory for accentuating knighthood and military action while
deemphasising or misunderstanding courtly love or the courtly refinement of the authors
he drew from (Lacy 131). Nevertheless, as stated, this omission of courtesy is replaced by
the concept of knighthood, which, indeed, includes special treatment of ladies just it is

13

not so explicit and concentrates more on actions than words. That implies it deals with
doings rather than vain talking and this approach apparently attracts a broad readership.
And besides it gives space to much more complicated plots and stories that even today feed
imagination of many art producers.

14

2. Historical Arthur
Looking at Arthurs story as it appears in the literature, it is clear that not much of it
could have happened in real life. The magic powers of the wizard Merlin, the mysterious
character of the Lady of the Lake and her gift the enchanted sword Excalibur, or singular
skills of certain knights does not sound like credible accounts of history. For that reason it
would be rather natural to conclude that there was not any real Arthur and the tales about
him are only an example of quite common attempts to historicise a fictitious literary
character. However, considering all the references to his name, it is generally assumed they
are too frequent for being a mere accident. The historicity of Arthur thus raises many
debates and scholars bring in still more and more theories striving to explain the
connection between literature and history. Their task is almost impossible to achieve, as the
written records on one hand are incomplete, unclear or unreliable and the archaeological
discoveries on the other hand are equivocal, difficult to read and rarely reveal concrete
names. That implies that both of these sources of information contain many obscure points
and inaccuracies. At the same time they inspire still more and more speculations. Therefore
it is not rare that even today still new and new approaches to Arthurian subject appear with
fresh ideas how to interpret all the ambiguous information. The following pages will try to
summarise the most essential arguments and theories and to analyse briefly to which extend
they support or disprove Arthurs existence.

2.1. Name of Arthur in historical documents

The most common way to get information about some historical figure is usually to
accumulate old documents referring to the person and to analyse them. Yet, this is
sometimes easier said than done. First of all, we have to remember that we deal with the
Dark Ages, thus the records are not so many and if there are some, they are often
incomplete and mystifying. Moreover, in the case of Arthur the scale of materials is quite

15

insufficient and due to the dubious nature of most of them they fail to provide us with any
credible evidence.
As already stated in the first chapter of this work, there are several literary texts,
predominantly of Welsh origin, where the name of Arthur can be found. Although not
having a big say in the field of history, these bits and pieces at least support an argument
that a character of this name existed. But the Arthurian historical tradition itself is generally
very dim. The fact that no such name appears in the first works giving account of the
history of the island is one of the principal puzzles in the studies of Arthurs historicity. If
he really was such an important warrior or even a ruler, why did not the first chroniclers
consider it necessary to mention him? When looking for historically credible texts referring
explicitly to Arthur, the most important among the few manuscripts offering some tangible
traces are Nenniuss Historia Brittonum and a Welsh chronicle Annales Cambriae.
Historia Brittonum or History of the Britons is a chronicle of British history written
around the year 800, supposedly by a Welsh monk Nennius. Nennius claims that he has
drawn its inspiration from a number of older historical sources. That obviously means that
he was not a first person to give a survey of historical events in early Britain. In fact, there
were at least two chroniclers of importance who preceded him. The very first of them was
Gildas, who created his De excidio et conquestu Britanniae (On the Destruction and Conquest
of Britain) in the mid-sixth century. Here he provides us with the first information about
the invasion of Saxons and the life of Britons after the withdrawal of Romans from the
Isles. However, the main purpose of his work is not of historical but more of a religious
character. By describing troubles of his nation he demonstrates that Britons are being
punished by God for their sinful actions. He considers the ravages of the Saxon as a result
of the sins of the British (Lupack 14). That may be also an explanation why he generally
does not care much about names and mentions only a certain Ambrosius Aurelianus, who
was supposed to fight against Saxons. At this point he also touches on a battle of Badon

16

Hill, which is later ascribed to Arthur. Yet, building on the attitude of this chronicler
towards his nation and its leaders, it cannot be excluded that Arthur played a role in the
events described by Gildas, who only does not consider it important to mention him or
worth mentioning.
Another manuscript, this time focused more on history, is called Historia ecclesiastica
gentis Anglorum (History of the English Church and People) and was completed in 731 by
Bede. This English monk again does not give any account of Arthur, but it has to be taken
into consideration that he draws his inspiration basically from Gildas. Nevertheless, he
adds at least some names, one of them being a ruler called Vortigern, who is said to
foolishly invite Saxons to his country to help him defend it against enemies from the
North.
At the beginning of the next century finally Nennius appears. He is the first historian to
record Arthurs name explicitly. His chronicle develops in more detail facts already
mentioned by his previous two colleagues. Even more, he adds some completely new
elements as is the story of Vortigern trying to build a fortification. As one of the towers
collapses every time it is built, the king is advised to sprinkle on the site the blood of a
child with no father (Lupack 15). He finds such a child, whose name is Ambrosius, but
this instead of being sacrificed tells him a story about two dragons living in a lake under the
site. The story is later adopted by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who modifies the name of the
child to Merlin.
And Nennius continues with his innovations by introducing Arthur as a dux
bellorum (leader in battle) in twelve battles against Saxons, even with names of concrete
places. What makes it a bit less believable is his remark about the most important battle at
Mount Badon, where Arthur is supposed to kill 960 enemies by his own hand. Finally, in
the attachment to the manuscript with the title Marvels of Britain Nennius adds two more
peculiar references to Arthur. In the first one he describes a pile of stones with a paw print

17

of Arthurs dog Cabal on the top, which cannot be removed and it reappears the next day.
Another wonder is a tomb of Arthurs son Amr, which if measured, never has the same
length.
Annales Cambriae does not go to such details. This chronicle lists some important
historical events during a certain period, starting in 447, and contains two entries in which
the name Arthur appears. One of them records the battle of Badon, in which Arthur
carried the Cross of our Lord Jesus Christ for three days and three nights on his shoulders,
and the Britons were victors (Lacy 16) and the other talks about the strife of Camlann, in
which Arthur and Medraut fell (Lacy 16). However short, even these evidences are not
without some discrepancies. The first one obviously refers to the battle on Mount Badon,
mentioned previously in other chronicles, yet the date is incompatible with the facts given
by Gildas, for instance. The same goes for the Cross carried by Arthur, as in Nennius a
similar feature is associated with the battle of Guinnion, with the difference that in his text
it appears as the image of holy Virgin Mary on his shoulders (Jones 15) and only one day
is given instead of three. Although most of these inaccuracies can be viewed simply as
copying mistakes and misunderstandings of previous sources, it still does not give us much
certitude that these events really happened and that any Arthur was involved in them.
The next significant and equally disputable material is already mentioned Monmouths
Historia regum Britanniae. Following the evaluation of this source given in the previous
chapter, it is clear that it brings more questions than explanations to the Arthurian topic.
Furthermore, since this adaptation clearly popularises the story, it has a strong impact on all
the following references to Arthur and the dubious elements of the book start mixing with
what might have been real facts. Consequently it becomes even more difficult to
distinguish the history and the fiction and the balance of Arthurian subject definitely
inclines towards the legend. Therefore it is high time to abandon the literary evidences and
have a short look at archaeology.

18

2.2. Arthurian traces in archaeology

To search for proofs of existence of a concrete figure in terms of archaeology is a
process with very unsure result. As this branch of history usually does not deal with
concrete names of people, the most natural way is probably to try to spot the places from
legends and writings on a current map of Great Britain. Therefore many researches have
been carried out to localise Arthurs birthplace Tintangel, his famous court Camelot or
battlefields wet by the blood of his enemies. But one of the famous triumphs was probably
the discovery of his tomb, or at least what was claimed to be his tomb shared with his wife
Guinevere, in the Glastonbury Abbey, Somerset. In the 12th century the monastery was
struck by fire and during its reconstruction an old burial place was excavated. There, deep
in the soil and among two stone pyramids, was found a leaden cross and a coffin from a
tree trunk with bones of a man and a woman. Their identification was facilitated by a Latin
inscription on the cross saying Here lies buried the renowned king Arthur in the Isle of
Avalon (Castleden 193). The story might sound quite realistic, if omitted a description of
the man skeleton as large, the shin bone being three finger widths longer than the shin of
the tallest monk present at the exhumation (Castleden 193). One may also ask why an
inland territory should be identified with a mystic island of Avalon. But in fact, the
monastery area had been for many years almost entirely surrounded by water, which was
artificially drained only a couple of centuries ago. At the same time, archaeological
excavations at this locality suggest that before being transformed into a monastery, this
place might have served as a Celtic sanctuary. All these facts could thus justify the
authenticity of the Arthurian discovery.
On the other hand, as most of the findings related to Arthur, this one is also rather
controversial. As already mentioned, this rumour was spread during the rein of Henry II,
more precisely in 1190 or 1191 and its psychological effect could help the king to subdue
his resistant British subjects. The benefit for the Glastonbury monastery itself is also rather

19

obvious after the blaze it was in a desperate need of some financial sources for its
rebuilding. This explanation would also shed a light on another important finding made in
Glastonbury at the same period. Approximately at the time of localisation of Arthurs
tomb, it was found out that the abbey was in fact the first Christian church in Western
Europe, founded by Joseph of Arimathea. Of course, subsequently the value of this house
of God must have increased considerably, so that a question arises whether it was not the
primary purpose for both of these cases. Another objection often voiced by scholars is that
none of the medieval historians has previously suggested any connection between Avalon
and Glastonbury. Nevertheless, the name of Glastonbury as such had appeared in the
Arthurian legend even before the discovery of the tomb for the first time it was
mentioned in mid-12th century in Life of Gildas by Caradoc of Llancarfan as a place where
Queen Guinevere was abducted by knight Melwas. All in all, there are several arguments
supporting the Glastonbury-Avalon theory as well as other diminishing its credibility, so
that the final conclusion again cannot be reached with certainty.

2.3. Popular historical theories

Owing to the obscure character of all the evidences supporting the historicity of
Arthur, it is understandable that there are many approaches to the study of this topic. They
range from complete rejection of an existence of such a person to the most absurd theories
striving to combine all elements into an acceptable interpretation. Some of them give
reasons why Arthur was omitted from some historical works and how respective parts of
the legend came into existence; others opt for identifying Arthur from the myths with some
different historical figures. Considering the popularity of the Arthurian question, the
number of possible explanations is really excessive. Therefore I would like to focus only on
a couple of them which I consider the most essential or somehow connected with the topic
of my thesis.

20

The supposed Arthurian era is generally dated between 5th and 6th century, which means
shortly after the withdrawal of Roman troops from what they called provincia Britannia.
This timing implies that the famous war leader is often associated with Roman officers or
their descendents installed on the island. Especially two of such figures are frequently
linked to the literary Arthur Lucius Artorius Castus and Ambrosius Aurelianus.
In case of Lucius, it would be a mistake to consider him a complete counterpart of the
knightly hero. This Roman commander fails to meet the basic criteria in terms of time
scale, for it is known that he led some troops in AD 185 from Britain in order to suppress
an uprising in Armorica. However, it is believed that being an outstanding warrior and
commander, his name and deeds might have been held in remembrance of people for
several generations. That would explicate why a couple of centuries later a fifth-century
Briton taking a force over the same country or thereabout could have been nicknamed, or
hailed in panegyrical verse as a second Artorius (Lacy 35). The records about Castus life
are not many and most facts are known predominantly due to inscriptions on his
sarcophagus discovered in Dalmatia. Nevertheless, one quite complex theory about his life
was proposed by Linda Malcor, which links him to the Arthurian story in a very untypical
manner. I would like to deal with this theory in more detail in the next sub-chapter
dedicated to the book of Malcor and her colleague C. Scott Littleton - From Scythia to
Camelot.
As for the second option, Ambrosius Aurelianus, there is a genuine belief that this man
could represent a direct model for the literary character. Although his profile in the
manuscripts of Gildas, Nennius and Monmouth alters considerably while the first one
ascribes him the function of a war leader, the next one portrays him as a fatherless young
visionary and Monmouth presents him as a brother of Uther Pendragon and thus Arthurs
uncle - it is generally assumed that the version of Gildas is for this case the most
trustworthy. It presents Ambrosius as a post-Roman commander standing at the head of

21

British troops in confrontation with invading Saxon tribes. To understand fully the role he
supposedly played in his age, a little explanation of the situation in 5th century Britain is
necessary.
After the withdrawal of Romans from the British land, there was a short period of
disintegration before a new leader known as Vortigern appeared. This chieftain was a
supporter of so-called Pelagian heresy, which represented a liberal form of Christianity
propagated by the monk Pelagius and strongly disapproved by Rome. That implies that the
rise of such a leader provoked anxiety in Rome, which sent one of its clerics a bishop
named Germanus to secure the situation on the island. He not only succeeded in getting
most of the British on his side, but even faced an attack of a Saxon-Pictish army and
managed to repulse it. However, one victory did not solve the problem of the raids of
enemy tribes. As they continued to harass the country, Vortigern foolishly invited to his
kingdom Saxons in a good belief that they will help him to fight Picts coming from the
north. But soon it turned out that he would not be able to meet the growing demands of
his allies, who subsequently started to ravage the territory. Their raids were finally stopped
by an army of the remnant of the Romanised and Catholic party (Ashe 53) under the
command of a certain Ambrosius Aurelianus. This skilled leader originated from a noble
Roman family living in Britain and there is a theory that he was given some power directly
by Vortigern. Others suggest his connection with territories as Gloucestershire or
Amesbury, which would mean that his land was directly endangered by the invaders. That
would explain his zealousness in fighting the Saxons, as he not only managed to defeat
them and ensure a relatively peaceful period for his people, but led even some offensive
expeditions. The decisive victory of Britons came with Mount Badon, although there are
doubts if this battle was won still under the leadership of Ambrosius. Some historians note
it would be to late for him to live. And Gildas, who is the first to mention this battle as well

22

as Ambrosius, does not connect these two names and, as typical for him, neglects to
mention a concrete leader for Badon. Could it be Ambrosius or even mythical Arthur?
Another remarkable Arthurian theory, promoted mainly by a British historian Geoffrey
Ashe, associates the Celtic hero with a person named Riothamus. This was definitely a real
historical figure, as proven by a letter of a Roman bishop Sidonius Appolinaris addressed to
this man. Riothamus is attributed the title king of the Brittones the problem being just
that from this formulation it is not clear whether the term Brittones refers to the Britons
or the Bretons. According to Ashes hypothesis he might have succeeded Vortigern at the
leadership of his nation and, what is important, led his troops into a war on the continent.
The reason was that at that time the lands under the Roman rule in Gaul were endangered
by the Visigoths. Britons came on the invitation of the ruler of western part of Roman
Empire in order to help defeat the raiders. But Riothamus and his men were betrayed by
the prefect of Gaul and crushed by Visigoths, without any support of Romans, who joined
only when it was too late. Many of the British warriors were killed, but there is no evidence
that Riothamus was one of them. However, after this battle he totally disappears from all
historical records. This fact became a cornerstone for Ashe, who assumes that
Riothamus was in fact just a title for a person of a completely different name. He
supposes this term meant supreme king and might have been used for more British
leaders (Lacy 346-7). This explanation theoretically meets some facts known about Arthur,
although the agreement with the time axis is not perfect. Riothamuss continental battle
was fought in the year 470 AD, which is quite early if we want to harmonise it with
Arthurs after-Riothamus-era activities. This is one of the reasons why the hypothesis is
accepted rather reluctantly, but as many others of this kind it could be taken into
consideration as one of the options.
All these positive theories can be contrasted to an approach of scepticism adopted by a
number of scholars. One of the most well known opponents of historical Arthur is a

23

Cambridge professor Oliver James Padel. His opinion is shared also by Thomas Green
form the University of Oxford, who, building to a large extent on Padels arguments,
substantiates his persuasion in an essay The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur. In this
work Green asserts that despite all so-called evidences, the existence of a leader named
Arthur is highly improbable, and he supports the opinion that in this case we deal with an
entity from pagan mythology rather than with a real person. He disapproves the no smoke
without fire attitude, which builds on the reflection that the number of references to
Arthur testifies to his historicity. He reminds that whilst the [] legendary Arthur might
be the result of a historical figure being mythicised, it is at least equally as likely that, in the
absence of good evidence either way, the [] historical Arthur was a result of a legendary
figure being historicised (Green 9). Therefore he poses a question what are the
motivations that make us believe in historical Arthur. Under this pretext he analyses item
by item what is considered to be the major proofs of his existence, pointing out all the
pitfalls and discrepancies. At the end of this examination he notes that all we can claim
with certainty is that there existed by the 9th century at the latest a concept of Arthur as a
historical figure; our sources are simply not of the quality that would allow us to come to
any firmer conclusion than this (Green 9). Green then continues with a statement that the
problem lies also within the methodology and the way the Arthurian question is posed. He
observes that the formulation Was there a historical Arthur? (Green 10) itself forces an
answer like perhaps, maybe as we cannot prove the contrary. He also recommends that
respective texts should be analysed within the context and not as extracts from a larger
unit. Subsequently he comes up with a number of arguments why it is probable that Arthur
was a figure of pan-Brittonic folklore and mythology (Green 11) and rejects hypothesis
identifying him with Riothamus or Lucius Artorius Castus. Although he still leaves some
space for a discussion, Greens opinion could be summarised in as follows: Arthur might
have existed but equally might have not and in this context it is more probable he did not.

24

2.4. Innovatory approach in the publication From Scythia to Camelot

Quite recently a new striking theory enriched the field of the Arthurian research. Two
American scholars, C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcor, published a work From Scythia to
Camelot, where they point out that the Arthurian legend shares many characteristics with the
culture of Scythian tribes from Western Asia. These tribes used to occupy the western part
of the sea of grass area stretching between the Altai Mountains and the Hungarian Plain.
However, as Littleton and Malcor note, somewhere in the 2nd century, during the era of the
Roman Empire, a group of warriors from Scythia was relocated to British territory as a part
of Roman military troops. This fact led them to the conclusion that the story of Arthur
evolved under the Asian influence and reflects some features of Scythian life in Western
Europe. Since this hypothesis is quite complex and innovative, I think it deserves a bit
more in-depth explanation.
In ancient times the territory of current south Russian and Ukrainian steppes was
inhabited by nomadic tribes known as Scythians. The term Scythians can be understood
in two ways either as a reference to a sole ancient Scythian tribe, or in a broader sense it
can comprise more groups of this family, such as Sarmatians and Alans. Within the context
of this theory the latter meaning is used.
One of the Scythian tribes, namely a Sarmatian branch known as Iazyges, got involved
into a war against the Roman Empire, along with the Germanic tribes of the Marcomanni
and the Quadi. In 175 AD Iazyges sustained a terrible defeat and as a tribute to Rome they
had to provide 8,000 fully equipped warriors for the Roman army. Out of these men, 5,500
were sent to protect the Roman territory in Britain. Littleton and Malcor believe that this
group might have served under the command of formerly mentioned Lucius Artorius
Castus, who had spent a part of his service in Lower Panonia and thus had had an
opportunity to become familiar with the Sarmatian culture, language and fighting
techniques (Malcor, Lucius Artorius Castus. Part 1). Most of the Iazygan soldiers were

25

stationed in the cavalry post Bremetennacum. They were assigned to protect this area as
well as a part of Hadrians Wall against attacks of enemy tribes, especially Picts. It is highly
probable that they were allowed to bring also their families wives and children and that
not many of them returned back to their native land, but rather settled permanently in
Britain. According to archaeological investigations, their presence on the island can be
demonstrated at least till the early 5th century.
However, the Iazyges were not the only Scythian tribe that happened to merge with the
Western Europe culture. Another branch of the Scythian family the Alans entered into
the Roman service and in the early fifth century they journeyed as far as to Gaul1 and
Spain. These men were skilled warriors and during the Middle Ages gained much influence
in this territory. Although they gradually fused with the local civilisation, in was not without
an impact of bits and pieces of their culture on the life in that area.
Scythian elements thus undoubtedly infiltrated into the life of inhabitants of Britain as
well as of the continent. But is this influence really so remarkable also in the most popular
British myth and what Scythian traces can be found there? In order to answer these
questions, lets first have a look at several characteristics of Scythian way of life. Both
Iazyges and Alans were mounted warriors who fought with both lances and bows, as well
as with long slashing swords. This pattern of fighting was the basis, upon which the
concept of chivalry developed (Littleton 8). This feature goes hand in hand with another
chivalric stereotype - the coat of arms - which might have been derived from Scythian
practice of identifying clans and other kinship units by means of tamgas (sacred symbols)
emblazoned on helmets, shields and other pieces of equipment (Littleton 8). Another
interesting point is connected with Scythian cult of a war-god, labelled as an equivalent of
Greek Ares, whose symbol was a sword thrust into a pile of wood (Littleton 9) or soil. It

Todays northern France

26

is not difficult to see a parallel between this custom and the Arthurian tradition of pulling
out a sword from stone.
However, the key argument of Littleton and Malcor is a number of similarities that can
be noted between the Arthurian legend and the Scythian Nart sagas, which survived till
nowadays among the Ossetians, a contemporary Caucasian people (Littleton xxv xxvi),
and probably the only direct descendants of the Alans. The death of the main character of
these sagas, Batraz, strikingly reminds of the last moments of Arthur before he was taken
to Avalon.
Immortal Batraz chooses to die voluntarily after he has revenged the death of his
father. But he claims: I cannot die until my sword has been thrown into the sea (Littleton
68). A handful of men charged to accomplish this task find the sword too heavy to carry
and therefore they try to deceive Batraz. But as he is the only one to know what happens
after the sword plunges in the water, he can tell their lie. When they finally satisfy his wish,
the sea becomes turbulent, boils, and turns blood-red (Littleton 68) and the hero can
finally die. Now we can think of Arthur, who, mortally wounded, pleads his friend, Sir
Bedivere: take thou Excalibur, my good sword, and go with it to yonder water side, and
when thou comest there, I charge thee throw my sword in that water, and come again and
tell me what thou there seest (Malory 516). Although Bediveres reason for trying to cheat
his Lord is that he cannot bring himself to throw away such a beautiful sword, the concepts
of both stories as such are very similar. They both include throwing a sword into water,
treason and a magical effect after sword touches the water in Arthurs case it is a hand
which catches the sword and waves it three times before it disappears in the lake. This
parallelism seems quite extensive to be just accidental. Besides, many other common
features suggest that there must have been some connection between the two stories and
the cultures from which they originated. A number of Arthurian characters, for example,
can be attributed a Nart counterpart. This is the case not only for Arthur, but also Kay,

27

Perceval, Gawain, Dame du Lac and many others. Moreover, the Lady of the Lake and its
Scythian equivalent, Satana, are also a demonstration of both myths being associated with a
magical elements related to water. Only Guinevere is said to be an almost completely
Celtic intrusion into what otherwise appears to be a cycle of largely Alano-Sarmatian origin
with a Celtic overlay (Littleton 153). The same was thought about Lancelot, until Linda
Malcor came with a judgement that this knight share many common features with his King
and therefore they could have been inspired by the same Scythian character. She offers an
explanation that while Arthur is a figure born in Britain, Lancelot has a continental origin.
She concludes that Arthur is in all probability a reflection of the same Alano-Sarmatian
hero as Lancelot, but the Arthurian legends were skewed by the presence of the historical
Arthur (Littleton 105).
To summarise the theory of the two American scholars, they believe that the legend of
King Arthur and his knights is a Western European modification of the legends from Asian
plains, partly influenced by local events and the Celtic tradition. As for the character of
Arthur himself, it was probably coloured by the name of the first leader of Iazyges, Lucius
Artorius Castus, and after 469 there was a real Arthur in the person of the shadowy
figure of Riothamus, whose military adventures in Gaul are attested in contemporary
accounts (Littleton 281). Complicated as the story may seem, this interpretation is not at
all improbable and could give a new direction to the Arthurian research. As assumed by
Victor H. Mair from the University of Pennsylvania, this publication should represent an
unavoidable benchmark for all future discussions of King Arthur and his band of
warriors.

28

3. Legend versus History in Contemporary Film Adaptation

3.1. Film King Arthur (2004)
Enigmatic stories and figures from history have always been a rich source of inspiration
for filmmakers. The more questions the subject raises, the more space it offers to directors
imagination. The classical Arthurian theme has therefore been a subject of a number of
interpretations on the screen, focused on various motifs of the story like the love triangle,
knighthood, the quest for the Holy Grail, etc. The newest adaptation King Arthur (2004) by
Antoine Fuqua, however, stands out among all the Arthurian films. Under the label the
untold true story that inspired the legend it attempts to present Arthur from a more
realistic and historical perspective. But at the same time, instead of renouncing all the
elements of the popular legend, it tries to insert some of them into this new concept.
Taking into consideration all the pitfalls arising from this combination of a well-known
myth and historical speculations, I would like to analyse the contribution of both of these
aspects to the story and to evaluate the overall impression of the film. For being able to do
so, I would like first to give an outline of its plot and the main characters.2
A person who would expect another romantic adaptation of the Arthurian subject,
involving noble quests and knightly values, learns his or her mistake immediately from the
beginning of the film. The introductory scene, accompanied by a commentary of a narrator,
who later turns out to be Lancelot, shows the expansion of the Roman Empire and a war
with brave Sarmatinas. For most of the audience, who do not know the Scythian
hypothesis, this may be a quite peculiar setting. But those familiar with recent Arthurian
research can quickly understand that the script is built on the basis of the same facts and
suppositions as the theory of Littleton and Malcor. In fact, Linda Malcor was one of the
research consultants for the film, although the two works does not treat the subject exactly
the same way.
2

In my work I refer to the Directors cut of the film, which differs in some details from the version
presented in cinemas.

29

The story itself begins with Lancelot explaining how brave Sarmatian warriors were
defeated by voracious Romans and how the latter appreciated the courage of the only
survivors a brave Sarmatian cavalry. Their lives were thus spared, but in return they had
to pledge to send their men to the service of the Roman army. As Lancelot notes, the
second part of the bargain they struck indebted not only themselves, but also their sons,
and their sons and so on (King Arthur). In 452 AD a bunch of Roman soldiers comes to
pick up a group of Sarmatian boys Lancelot and his companions - and to deliver them to
the location of their 15-year-long service Britain. On their arrival to the final destination a
young boy named Artorius learns from his teacher Pelagius that these may be his future
knights.
The story then jumps in medias res, that means 15 years forward. A unit of Sarmatian
knights Lancelot, Tristan, Bors, Dagonet, Galahad and Gawain, under the leadership of a
brave Roman commander Artorius Castus, is fighting against a tribe of savage Woads3 in
order to protect a Roman bishop Germanus, coming to the country. The service of these
Sarmatian men is approaching its end and so is the Roman presence in Britain. The part of
the country under Roman control has been protected by Hadrians Wall against attacks of
enemy tribes. However, an army much more dangerous than Woads the warlike Saxons
is approaching from the north. Besides, the Romans need all their men to defend their
territories in the mainland and thus they have decided to withdraw from the island and to
throw the land and its people to the wolves. Bishop Germanus arrives to announce this
news and at the same time he should discharge the few Sarmatian knights who survived the
15 years of fighting. But instead he informs their leader Arthur that before getting back
their freedom, the knights are expected to carry out a last, suicidal mission. Their duty is to
rescue the popes godchild and pupil Alecto, who lives with his family in the wilds
beyond the Wall and is directly endangered by the approaching Saxon army. Despite their
3

A nickname of the Picts, derived from the name of the blue paint used by its people to decorate their
bodies.

30

protests, the knights have to set off northwards to fulfil this burdensome task. Upon their
arrival at the estate of Alectos family, they find out how cruelly Alectos father treats his
subjects and decide to save all the people of the village. Just before their leaving they
discover 2 prisoners a child and a half-dead daughter of the Woad leader Merlin,
Guinevere. This lady is not a noble queen as known from legends, but a brave woman
warrior devoted to her land and her people. Therefore she strives to make Arthur
understand the Woad perspective of the Roman occupation. She reminds him that he
himself is half-British on his mothers side and suggests that instead of fighting his own
nation4, he should reconsider his loyalty to Rome. She also mediates his meeting with
Merlin, where the reason of Arthurs hatred is revealed his mother died during a Woad
attack of a Roman village.
This all happens already during the journey back to the Hadrians Wall. The progress of
the group is hampered not only by the slow advance of poor villagers but also by snow that
starts to fall. Finally, the Saxon pursuers are too close to escape, so Arthur and his knights
opt for a foolish attempt to defeat the whole army on a frozen lake. The handful of
Sarmatians along with their leader and recovered Guinevere succeed to overcome the
Saxons mainly thanks to Dagonet, who breaks the ice of the lake with his axe, but is
himself mortally wounded. The rescued expedition is consequently transported to the
Roman stronghold and the knights receive their discharge papers. However, it does not
take long time till the Saxons reach the Wall. The Roman troops in the meantime start their
journey back to the mainland, so that the fort is left without any military protection. At
least this is what the Saxons think. They do not know that Arthur has finally understood
that his place is here, among the British people, and that he is preparing a trap along with
Merlins Woads. Although he encourages his knights to leave with the Romans, they
decide, this time on their own free will, to continue the fight they have led over the last
4

Woads and Britons are presented in the story as interchangeable groups

31

fifteen years under the Roman command. The seemingly smooth seizure of the fortress by
Saxons turns into a savage battle - the Battle of Mount Badon. Many men lose their lives in
this ferocious combat, among others also Lancelot and Tristan. But Arthur finally succeeds
to kill the Saxon leader and the progress of this bloodthirsty tribe is stopped once and for
all. And, after the burial of their fallen companions, Arthur marries Guinevere and
becomes the King of the Britons.
Taking into account that the primary purpose of the historical reconstruction of the
Arthurian myth is, in fact, to entertain the public and not to present a historical theory, it is
understandable that the plot does not stick entirely to the scientific discoveries. Despite an
omission of all magic and fantastic elements, it still contains a number of speculations,
inaccuracies and fictions. In the next subchapters I would therefore like to treat these
imperfections from the point of view of the legend as well as history. At the end I would
like to summarise the opinion of the film producers about their creation and how it was
accepted by critics and Arthurian experts.

3.2. Interpretation of the legend in the film King Arthur

To present Arthur as a historical character is surely an interesting challenge. Yet, it is
very difficult to completely purify the story of all the stereotypes associated with a hero of
so many legends. Therefore the film King Arthur does not radically cut off all the nonhistorical elements, but instead tries to present some of them in a different light. In this
subchapter I would like to concentrate at these modifications and compromises and to
compare them to the original legend.5 Some of them may be also partly related to history,
for as already stated a couple of times, within the context of Arthurian story these two
concepts are often closely interconnected.

In terms of the legend, I refer to the version of Thomas Malory - Le Morth dArthur, unless specified
differently.

32

King and his knights

The first conflict between reality and legend arises in terms of the terminology. King
Arthur and his knights are two inseparable units. Of course, in the Roman setting Arthur is
a mere commander obeying orders from higher authorities. Yet at the end of the film, at
the occasion of Arthurs marriage with Guinevere, Merlin proclaims him the King of the
Britons. So, one point of the tradition is achieved in a considerably compromising way.
What is a bit more difficult to accept is the label knights used for Sarmatian warriors in
the service of Rome. It should be reminded that this term entered into usage during the
Middle Ages as a reference to professional cavalry warriors (Knight, E. Britannica).
However, the meaning of this title broadened during centuries and as explained in the
webpage of Renaissance Magazine, its bearers started to be associated with virtues like loyalty,
courtesy and generosity. These characteristics were elaborated on also by Arthurian writers,
and the Knights of the Round Table became a sort of chivalric prototypes. As an
illustration can serve the pledge they undertook in Malorys Le Morte, in which they
committed themselves never to do outrageousity nor murder, and always to flee treason;
also, by no means to be cruel, but to give mercy unto him that asketh mercy, upon pain of
forfeiture of their worship and lordship of King Arthur for evermore; and always to do
ladies, damosels, and gentlewomen succour, upon pain of death. Also, that no man take no
battles in a wrongful quarrel for no law, nor for no world's goods. (215-6).
From the historical point of view it is thus nonsense to attribute the title of knights
to soldiers of Roman Empire, just as it is odd to give Sarmatians names like Lancelot or
Tristan. But on the other hand, if they were called simply warriors or soldiers and their
names were changed, the Arthurian aspect would be lost completely.
Another question is do these Sarmatian knights meet the requirements of chivalric
behaviour? If we rely on the words of Guinevere, we can believe so. She says she has
known Arthur and his knights from fairy tales - the kind you hear about the people so

33

brave, so selfless that they cant be real (King Arthur). Nevertheless, not all of their actions
give evidence to her words. The way the knights talk about women and Bors extensive
family of little bastards surely do not fit the noble world of knights. Not to mention that
one of the most chivalric characters from the legend, Lancelot, presented as a completely
pragmatic figure, says to Guinevere: I would have left you and the boy there to die. (King
Arthur).
The general notion of knights is that they should be devoted to God, to their lord and
to their lady. For Arthurs knights not much of it is truth in this case. Even though they
obey Roman commands, except for Arthur they are not devoted to the Romans, who took
them away from their homes. Indeed, they are devoted to Arthur, who is just a mere
commander and their companion, but at the end becomes a real lord. But they do not fight
for any ladies of their hearts or damsels in distress and do not treat women with any
special care. And what is the main contrast, again with the exception of Arthur who had
been brought up as a Roman, all the knights are pagans. Not only do they not worship the
Christian God, but Lancelot even despises him when he sees practices of fanatic priests
torturing pagan prisoners. And Arthur himself is torn between the belief in the God of the
Romans and the heretic philosophy of his teacher Pelagius. Luckily the motif of the Holy
Grail is left out; otherwise it would be very difficult to find among the knights a man
worthy of finding it.

Characters and characteristics

The changes in the setting inevitably imply modifications in characteristics of respective
Arthurian figures. Some of them, like the Lady of the Lake or Arthurs wicked half-sister
Morgan le Fay and her son Mordred, are simply excluded from the story, others, like
Merlin and Guinevere, are attributed completely different roles. As for the choice of
Arthurs men, in the film they are but five and I daresay they are not the most

34

representative sample. Of course, besides Lancelot as one of the main characters, it is quite
logical to introduce figures like Tristan, Gawain or Galahad. But why did the producers
prefer Bors and Dagonet, whose names are not on the list of the most well-known heroes,
instead of choosing Gareth, Perceval, Bedivere or Kay? The reason could be that they
opted for a couple of less stereotypical representatives, who could be better adapted to the
needs of the scenario. In any case, a number of differences between all film characters and
their literary counterparts can be noted. Maybe it would be interesting to have a look at
some of them.
Firstly I would turn my attention to the Arthurian knights and their leader. Being
presented as a group of seasoned warriors, they do not have much in common with the
noble chevaliers from the Middle Ages. The nature of some of them is also drastically
modified. Bors, known for his purity and for being one of the three knights who achieve
the quest for the Holy Grail (Lupack 436), is presented as a rough and sarcastic fellow and
a father of a bunch of children. On the other hand, the calm and self-sacrificing Sarmatian
version of Dagonet contrasts with his literary model, known as Arthurs jester. Gawain and
Galahad, originally Arthurs nephew and Lancelots son respectively, are shown as skilled
warriors, but otherwise they do not stand out among their companions. The one who is
given slightly more importance is Tristan. Yet, with his hawk and love of fighting, he does
not comply at all with the portrait of one of the great tragic lovers of medieval romance
(Lupack 471). The same can be said about one of the leading characters Lancelot. While
the medieval figure is a hot-headed and daring knight having two principal concerns in his
life the quest for the Grail and the love of Guinevere the Sarmatian Lancelot is almost
the opposite. He does not display any interest in Guineveres fate and his pragmatic and
atheistic attitude always contradicts Arthurs generous views. As for the latter, he is
probably the closest version of his literary counterpart. A brave and noble-minded leader,
illustrious warrior and protector of those in need, he can fully rely on the loyalty of his

35

knights. His only fault is that he is quite hesitant in terms of his beliefs and identity.
Nevertheless, he finally makes the right choice and wins a battle that will bring him fame
and acknowledgement of many generations.
Apart from Arthur and his men, another characteristic figure of the legend is the wizard
Merlin. However, in the film he loses all of his magical powers and is degraded to a leader
of a Woad tribe. I say degraded, because he seems to be quite helpless in his position. He
spends years fighting against Rome and therefore against Arthur and his knights, to get
back the land of his people, but apparently without much success. On the departure of the
Romans, he is aware that with his handful of warriors he cannot resist the Saxon invasion
and therefore needs to win Arthurs support. Luckily for him, he succeeds in doing so,
although it is disputable whether it is an effect of his feeble arguments or rather the
influence of his daughter Guinevere.
Guinevere is another example of a complete digression from the legend, but for this
time probably from the history as well. The profile of the blue-painted yelling Woad leader
that replaced the fragile queen from Arthurian classics is based on the argument that The
Celts and the Picts both had women warriors who went into battle, next to their men
(Foley, K. Arthur - The Celts and the Picts). Yet, some experts like Dorsey Armstrong, object:
In the legend, Guinevere was never a warrior. Even though there is evidence in Celtic
culture that women fought, we can be sure Guinevere didn't fight, (Press Comment).

Love triangle
It may be noted that the historical focus of the story suppresses its emotional aspect.
The knights are pictured as rather harsh-natured and even if they express some sentiments,
they are definitely not as refined as in the courtly times. The usual love triangle ArthurGuinevere-Lancelot is also reduced to a hint of attraction between the first two and a few
meditative looks and conversations that Guinevere exchange with the latter. In one of their

36

discussions about homeland and freedom she says to Lancelot: We are much alike, you
and I (King Arthur) and subsequently asks with an enigmatic smile: When you return
home, will you take a wife, have sons? But he answers: Ive killed too many sons. What
right do I have to my own?, demonstrating again that any romantic feeling; let alone a love
relationship between him and the Woad princess, is out of the question. The knight, known
from the legend as the most devoted to the lady of his heart, thus totally fails to meet his
model. This is given by the way Lancelot is presented in the film not as a romance hero,
but as the most rational and sober from the company. And while in the classical stories he
is willing to sacrifice everything just to save Guinevere from her abductor, here he would
be the first to leave her without help in a village endangered by Saxons. Luckily there is
Arthur, who insists on saving her. And it is also him who wins Guineveres heart. In a
completely untraditional conclusion, Lancelot, and not Arthur, is killed in a battle, and just
after that Arthur weds Guinevere. However, the close relationship of the two men rests
until the end unstained by any love rivalry.

Round Table and Excalibur

Not only people but also objects have their importance in the Arthurian tradition.
Among them the most notoriously known are the Holy Grail, the Round Table and
Arthurs sword, Excalibur. Although the first one does not appear in the film, the latter two
are with more or less success comprised in the story.
Arthur and his knights do not reside in Camelot, but in a fortress separating the
civilised Roman world from unconquered British land full of menaces. Therefore they do
not have much time to spend sitting at the Round Table, but rather ride their horses and
fight the enemies of Rome. Nevertheless, this symbol of equality is presented in one scene,
where it takes aback bishop Germanus when he wants to demonstrate his superior
position. Having only 40 chairs, the Table is much smaller than the original model, which

37

according to the legend could seat 1.600 people. But its function remains unchanged it
demonstrates that all people are of the same importance the knights, their leader, even
the imperious cleric.
As for the Excalibur, the film producers make the same mistake as many of their
predecessors and interchange it with another Arthurian sword the one he pulled out of
the stone. As explained by Lupack in Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and Legend,
Excalibur is the name given to the sword Arthur receives from the Lady of the Lake and
entrusts to Bedivere to return to the water after his final battle. (443). However, the film
offers its own story about Arthur pulling out the sword Excalibur from the tomb of his
father in order to save his mother during the Woad attack. In this case the inspiration is
partly drawn from Sarmatian culture and the custom to thrust swords into the soil as a
symbol of a warrior-deity.

3.3. Historical inspirations

Historians agree that that the classical 15th century tale of King Arthur and his knights
rose from a real hero who lived a thousand years earlier in the period often called Dark
Ages. Recently discovered archaeological evidence sheds light on his true identity, declare
the first lines of the film King Arthur. It is a serious commitment, to start a film story by
claiming its historical authenticity, and even more serious to use it as a main slogan for a
promotion of the film. It seems that the film producers really desired to get everything
right and to create as believable historical interpretation as possible. This impression is
testified also by the fact that they consulted not one, but two experts dealing with Arthur
and the period in which he presumably live. One of them, Linda A. Malcor, highly praises
this collaboration: The film-makers really did everything they could to take my advice
whenever it was still possible, (Youngs). The other one, English historian John Matthews

38

also states that it is quite rare, if not unique, to have Hollywood a company saying, yes,
well change that, we want to get it right, (Foley, K. Arthur - John Matthews).
But as it usually happens in Hollywood films, something has always to be sacrificed for
the sake of entertainment and commerce. Even though both research consultants try to
convince the public that the authors of the film did their best, a number of missteps can be
found in the whole story. To start directly from the beginning; as proven in the previous
chapter of this work, not all the historians agree that Arthur rose from a real hero. But
this is just a play on words. In the next part I would like to point out some of the more
serious problems, such as geographic and time discrepancies.
One of the most crucial imperfections of the adaptation is related to the time chart.
The filmmakers, trying to combine too many factors, got into a serious melange of
historical periods. The story itself pretends to be set in 467 AD, but many of the events
presented there occurred prior to this date or a couple of years later. The main character
himself, bearing the name of Artorius Castus, should apparently refer to Lucius Artorius
Castus from 2nd century. So what is the explanation for the three-century gap? In Matthews
words You've got a Lucius Artorius Castus in the second century, on whom all of the
subsequent Arthurian characters are based. The one in the movie is a descendant of that
first Arthur, (Press Comment). Lind Malcor, on her turn, simply notes that some creative
licence was taken with a few of the details, but that happens in all storytelling, and what is a
movie if not another way of telling a story? (Youngs). However, this detail is not the
only problem in terms of historicity that arises in the adaptation.

Romans, Pelagius and Germanus

The first question marks about accuracy arise already in the prologue, when Lancelot
talks about the unstoppable expansion of the Roman Empire, which around 300 AD
reached up to Sarmatia. In fact Roman expansion stopped a long time before and the

39

Empire certainly never reached the territory of the Sarmatian nation. The battle in question
was fought in 175 AD in Pannonia, invaded by the tribe of Iazyges. And the obligation to
send Sarmatian men to the Roman army was just a one-off deal and not a repetitive
tradition.
Lets now pass to Britain of 467 AD, the period when Roman troops decided to leave
the country according to the scriptwriter but not historians. A British academic Tony
Keen reacted to this assertion by stating that the date usually given for Roman departure
was around 410 AD, but there was no formal withdrawal. And as affirmed by Ashe in
The Quest for Arthurs Britain; by 425 at latest, British independence was an accomplished
fact (47).
The main setting of the movie is the Hadrians Wall, the replica of which was
constructed in Ireland with a big accent on its resemblance to the original. The original
Wall, running from the western to the eastern shore of Britain and dividing the country in
two parts, was built by the Romans in order to protect their territory from the Picts.
Therefore it is not very understandable why any Roman family should live outside the wall
and risk to be razed to the ground by the savage inhabitants of this part of the land. Or
better to say, if there had been such a family, it would not probably have had much time to
enjoy its estate.
The names Pelagius and Germanus have already appeared in my thesis in connection
with the Ambrosius Aurelianus theory. The first, presented in the film as Arthurs teacher,
was a monk, probably of British or Irish origin, who settled in Rome around 380 AD and
wrote several religious works. There he also started to announce the theory later labelled as
Pelagianism - a heretic philosophy based on the denial of the original sin. For this reason
he was excommunicated, but surely not executed as claimed in the film - he disappeared
without any trace around 420 AD, which is therefore an estimated period of his dead. But

40

even if he survived, the approximately 70-year gap between his coming to Rome and his
presence in Britain to teach young Artorius, does not sound very believable.
As for Germanus, it is truth that he came to Britain twice as a deputy of the Pope,
who, indeed, was not in control of the Roman troops as the story suggests. However, the
two visits were around 429AD and 446AD and their purpose was to fight Pelagianism.
There is a tale that he won a confrontation with a Saxon-Pictish army by baptizing his
British soldiers and ordering them to shout Alleluia - this act so frightened their enemy
that they fled, many of whom drowned in a nearby river (Sumner). But this was already a
couple of years after the main Roman forces left Britain - and he is not known to lead any
of them to the mainland.

Woads, Picts or Britons?

Watching the first battle scene of Arthur and his men with Woad warriors, most
viewers probably ask a question who are these painted people?. Confusing as it may be,
the answer is quite simple. Woads, in fact, is a term sometimes used to denominate the
Picts, who were living to the north of the Wall. This tribe is till nowadays quite enigmatic,
for not much is known about their origin and way of life. The name Picts means the
painted ones and was probably given to them because of their habit of tattooing
themselves with intricate markings, believed to be tribal or religious (Matthews). Besides,
they used to paint whole bodies with a blue dye made from a woad plant and that is
where their nickname comes from. However, that is not an explanation why in the film this
term was given priority to the original name of these people. An even much bigger mistake
is an attempt to associate the Picts, or Woads, with Britons and with Celtic traditions.
Although the possibility that Picts had Celtic roots is not completely excluded, the generally
believed theory assumes that the Picts were an aboriginal race and non-Celtic (Duncan).
Notwithstanding this fact, the concepts of Woads and Britons are continuously

41

interchanged in the whole story. It starts with Woad Guinevere suggesting that by fighting
Woads, Arthur, half-Roman, half-Briton kills his own people (King Arthur), and ends with
Merlin, the Woad leader, attributing Arthur the title of the king of the British people during
a wedding ceremony in a Stonehenge-like ritual site.

Saxons and Mount Badon

The most feared enemies of both, the Romans and the Woads, are the fierce Saxon
invaders. This Germanic tribe, coming from the northern Europe, was distressing the
inhabitants of the island for several decades. In the story they are led by Cerdic and his son
Cynric, who were real Saxon chieftains, only they came to Britain at the beginning of the 5th
century. The depicted attitude of these leaders towards the native people is quite peculiar
in one scene Cerdic prevents one of his men from raping a Briton woman, stating we
dont mix with these people. What kind of offspring do you think it would yield? (King
Arthur). But the history says exactly the opposite it was rather characteristic of Saxons,
even after the fatal defeat at Mount Badon to intermarry with local inhabitants; after all
they are considered the ancestors of the present English people.
As for the Badon Hill, the exact location of this battle is not known and most of the
theories place it to the area of England and Wales, but there was also an attempt to localise
it in the proximity of the Hadrians Wall. So in this point the film may be quite right, but
there is still a couple of other misleads. Primarily, as pointed out by one of the critics of the
film, Badon Hill is traditionally the site of a Saxon settlement, and Arthur led the attacking
force. In the film, its the Saxons who are laying siege, and Arthur is the defender.
(Greydanus). Secondly; even if the Saxons were the initiators of the battle, they never
attempted to cross the Wall southwards. On the contrary, their troops always landed in the
south and headed northwards to the Scottish area, so that they reached the Wall from the
opposite side. Finally, the battle of Mount Badon is a real historical event, documented by

42

several records from those times. The chronicles do not exactly agree on the date when it
took place, but all the given choices approximate the year 500AD, therefore 467AD is
surely not among the options.

3.4. Different attitudes to the film

Upon its release in the summer 2004, the film King Arthur has provoked a torrent of
reactions. A Hollywood reproduction of the British national myth treated in a completely
non-mythical way - this contrast outraged many inflamed critics. Its alleged historicity full
of missteps touched off a groundswell of protests from the part of historians. Only the
authors of this blockbuster of the season do not admit they did any mistake and are
perfectly satisfied with the result. Let me now give the word to these respective groups and
to present a sample of their opinions.
In the reviews of most of the American as well as British press, the rating of the film
was highly critical. Manohla Dargis from The Los Angeles Times talks about consummate
New World vulgarity and affirms that the film presents the Arthurian legends, a
PlayStation Passion play and a Jerry Bruckheimer6 lollapalooza rolled into one. The British
daily The Guardian in an article with the title Death of a Legend protests that the
Arthurian legend without chivalry and romance, without spells, curses and tragic destiny
is a national insult (Press Comment). Of course, a couple of positive critiques can also be
found, appreciating the new approach, performance of actors, action and authenticity of
the production, but these are highly outnumbered by the voices of criticism. Among the
most repeated reproaches can be listed complete absence of chivalry, romance and
emotions as such, which normally construct the core of Arthurs story. In addition they
denounce the barbarous portrait of Guinevere, unconvincing indecisive Arthur and
unknightly amusing Bors, and suggest that the film bears many resemblances to the
6

Producer of King Arthur (2004)

43

previous works of its respective authors. And one of the most frequent targets of
comments is also the unjust claim of the film to be completely historically credible.
If the press critics underline historical inaccuracies, the reaction of historians and
experts on the particular period must be, naturally, even stronger. They point out all the
already mentioned mistakes, along with other trespasses, considering for example costumes
or weapons. Besides, many of them condemn the Sarmatian theory as improbable or
unfounded. As asserts the Arthurian expert Geoffrey Ashe: There is simply no evidence
for it. Make no mistake, I'm not saying there is little evidence for it, I'm saying there is no
evidence. (Youngs). On the other hand, the film has its defenders in the two research
consultants - Malcor and Matthews. In the opinion of Malcor, these film-makers did a
better job than most could have done when it comes to giving us something besides
knights in tin foil and damsels in chiffon, (Youngs).
The filmmakers themselves are apparently also satisfied with their job. Their priorities
different seems to be different from those of their critics - they underline how much
attention they paid to the authenticity of fighting scenes and to a special training for actors.
They are especially proud about the replica of the Hadrians Wall and the number of
different costumes and weapons they accumulated. After all, their intention was to reshape
the legend into a realistic story and they believe they have succeeded. They are not
bothered by the fact that they have slightly reshaped also the history and that under a label
of true events they sometimes present their own fantasies. As claims the director Antoine
Fuqua, the film offers a very human portrait of Arthur. There is no magic; power is in
the man, not in the sword. You know, just become a king by wielding a sword. You have to
earn it. This is what the movie is about - him earning the right to be a king. (Blood on the
Land: Forging King Arthur).

44

Conclusion
The recent film adaptation of the Arthurian theme - King Arthur (2004) by Antoine
Fuqua - promises an unconventional historical treatment of the popular romantic legend.
However, to modify a classical story, which is moreover, a subject of British national pride
and reverence, is a serious commitment. The objective of my thesis was to analyse this
innovative approach and to observe how the filmmakers succeeded in combining the
elements of the legend with historical theories and evidences. A special attention was also
devoted to the concept of the historical Arthur as such, since the opinions of scholars on
this subject differ radically.
The modern version of the story of Arthur and his knights does not share many
common features with the original myth, yet all its traces cannot be completely eradicated.
The film therefore finds a solution in adapting some of them to the needs of the realistic
story. For this purpose it also eliminates all magical, unrealistic and romantic notions and
replaces them with action and numerous fighting scenes.
On the other hand, although the film claims to be a reproduction of the true life of
Arthur and his contemporaries, it fails to deliver a believable historical background. Even
though it is based on a quite modern Arthurian theory, which assumes that the legend was
born under an influence of the Scythian tribes from Western Asia, it does not follow
precisely this hypothesis. Instead it builds predominantly on spurious evidence, bending of
historical facts and on the imagination of its authors.
From one point of view, King Arthur merits a credit for an attempt to present the noble
king and his companions from a less mythical and more human perspective. Although the
Scythian theory has not been recognised by many Arthurian scholars, pointing to the lack
of evidence, it brings an interesting possible explanation of the origins of the Arthurian
story. Besides, its arguments are much more believable than a number of other solutions
and should be made more known to the public. The only problem is that taking into

45

account the way the film manipulates history in general, many people may not be able
distinguish where is the boundary between the facts and the illusions.
Personally, I must admit that when I watched the King Arthur for the first time, I
switched it off in the middle, disappointed with this pseudo-historical interpretation. But
when I finally managed to finish it and started this research about the facts presented by
the film, I found the idea quite interesting. I cannot say that I agree with the entire script
and that I do not find it too Hollywood-styled, but the initial intention to look at Arthur
from a historical point of view is fresh and innovative. Only it would need a more cautious
treatment and less boasting about the verity of the story, as the actual truth is not known
and the chance that we will ever know the real Arthur is rather small.

46

Bibliography
Literary Sources works cited and consulted
Ashe, Geoffrey, and al. The Quest for Arthurs Britain. 2nd ed. London: Pall Mall Press ltd.,
1969.
Castleden, Rodney. King Arthur: The truth behind the Legend. 2nd ed. London and NY:
Routledge, 2003.
Caxton, William. Preface. Le Morte DArthur in Two Volumes, Vol. 1. by Malory, Sir Thomas.
Ed. Janet Cowen. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969. 3-8.
Higham, N.J. King Arthur: Mythmaking and History. London and NY: Routledge, 2002.
Jackson, Kenneth Hurlstone. The Arthur of History Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages.
Ed. Loomis, Roger Sherman. London: Oxford UP, 1959.
Jones, W. Lewis. King Arthur in History and Legend. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1914.
Lacy, Norris J., and Ashe, Geoffrey. The Arthurian Handbook. 2nd ed. London and NY:
Garland Publishing Inc., 1997.
Littleton, C. Scott., and Linda A. Malcor. From Scythia to Camelot. Rev. ed. London and NY:
Routledge, 2000.
Lupack, Alan. Oxford Guide to Arthurian Literature and Legend. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP,
2007.
Malory, Sir Thomas Le Morte DArthur in Two Volumes, Vol. 1. Ed. Janet Cowen.
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969.
---. Le Morte DArthur in Two Volumes, Vol. 2. Ed. Janet Cowen. Harmondsworth: Penguin
Books, 1969.
Monmouth, Geoffrey of. Histories of the Kings of Britain. Trans. Sebastian Evans. Ed. Ernest
Rhys. London: J.M. Dent, n.d.

47

Electronic Sources works cited and consulted

Dargis, Manohla. King Arthur. The Los Angeles Times. July 7, 2004. Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/dargis/cl-et-dargis7jul07,0,1215347.story>.
Duncan, John. A. The Origins of the Iron Age Picts. Scottish History Online. July 8, 2007.
Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://www.scotshistoryonline.co.uk/origin1.html>.
Foley, Jack. King Arthur - John Matthews Q&A.. IndieLondon. Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://www.indielondon.co.uk/film/king_arthur_matthewsQ&A.html>.
---. King Arthur - The Celts and the Picts both had women warriors who went into
battle usually naked. IndieLondon. Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://www.indielondon.co.uk/film/king_arthur_history_feature.html>.
Green, Thomas. The Historicity and Historicisation of Arthur Arthurian Resources. Ed.
Thomas Green. Nov. 1, 2007. Apr. 10, 2008.
<http://www.arthuriana.co.uk/historicity/arthur.pdf>.
Greydanus, Steven D. King Arthur (2004). Decent Films Guide. 2004. Apr. 27, 2008.
<http://www.decentfilms.com/sections/reviews/kingarthur.html>.
Keen, Tony. King of the Who? Memorabilia Antonina. Feb. 27, 2005. Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://tonykeen.blogspot.com/2005/02/king-of-who.html>.
Knight. Def. Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. Apr. 18, 2008.
Mair, Victor M. C. Scott Littleton and Linda A. Malcors From Scythia to Camelot. The
Heroic Age. Issue 2. Autumn/Winter 1999. Apr. 16, 2008.
<http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2tf.htm>.
Malcor, Linda A. Lucius Artorius Castus. Part 1: An Officer and An Equestrian. The
Heroic Age. Issue 1. Spring/Summer 1999. Apr. 5, 2008.

48

<http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/halac.htm>.
---. Lucius Artorius Castus. Part 2: The Battles in Britain. The Heroic Age. Issue 2.
Autumn/Winter 1999. Apr. 5, 2008.
<http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2lac.htm>.
Matthews, John. King Arthur - key historical facts. IndieLondon. Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://www.indielondon.co.uk/film/king_arthur_historical_facts.html>.
Pohle, Joseph. Pelagius and Pelagianism. New Advent. Ed. Kevin Knight. 2008. Apr. 25,
2008.
<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm>.
Press Comment about the King Arthur Movie. Arthurian Legend. Ed. Patrick Taylor.
2007. Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://www.arthurian-legend.com/more-about/king-arthur-movie.php>.
Sidonius Apollonaris. Britannia. 1999 Apr. 18, 2008.
<http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/sidonius.html>.
Sumner, Graham. A review of King Arthur, the movie. Vortigern Studies. Ed. Robert
Vermaat. 2005. Apr. 26, 2008.
<http://www.geocities.com/vortigernstudies/articles/guestgraham1.htm>.
The Roman Empire. Apr. 3, 2008. Apr. 24, 2008.
<http://www.roman-empire.net/index.html>.
Youngs, Ian. King Arthur Film History Defended. BBC. July 30, 2004. Apr. 24, 2008.
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3937817.stm>.

49

Other Sources
King Arthur. Directors Cut. Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Perf. Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira
Knightley. Buena Vista Pictures, 2004.
Blood on the land: Forging King Arthur. King Arthur. Dir. Antoine Fuqua. Perf. Clive
Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, Keira Knightley. Buena Vista Pictures, 2004.

50