King Arthur

Gregg Easterbrook is bashing Hollywood's latest take on King Arthur for its unfaithfulness to history. What he says is true, but I'd argue that we shouldn't be too hard on the film, as our historical knowledge about Arthur is so limited that sticking to the facts isn't possible. The historical King Arthur was the subject of a high school research paper of mine. Among the things I learned is that we don't know much about Arthur other than that he ruled during the fall of the western Roman Empire and that he defended still-Roman Britain against a rising tide of barbarian invasions. The film got this part right, and for this I praise it. The film may be dreck, judging from the IMDB rating of the film, and so I'm in no rush to see it. However, I suspect I will see it eventually, as I have a soft-spot for historical films.

Whatever the quality of various movies about him, the history and legend of Arthur both still appeals to me. In my paper I quoted Winston churchill on Arthur, and I'd like to repeat the quote here:

If we could see exactly what happened we should find ourselves in the presence of a theme as well founded, as inspired, and as inalienable from the inheritance of mankind as the Odyssey or the Old Testament It is all true, or it ought to be; and more and better besides. And wherever men are fighting against barbarism, tyranny, and massacre, for freedom, law and honour, let them remember that the fame of their deeds, even though they themselves be exterminated, may perhaps be celebrated as long as the world rolls round. Let us then declare that King Arthur and his noble Knights, guarding the Sacred Flame of Christianity and the theme of world order, sustained by valour, physical strength, and good horses and amour, slaughtered innumerable hosts of foul barbarians and set decent folk an example for all time.