Where to begin....
Yes, there is a connection between Arthur and the Sarmatians. But the idea of Sarmatian boys being drafted in their homeland is all wrong. A whole retired regiment of Sarmatian mercenaries was settled in Britain in the 2nd century, and they continued to live there as a distinct cultural enclave for two hundred years that we know of, and probably into the Arthurian era. Their original commander was named Lucius (personal name) Artorius (family name) Castus (sub-family name). A descendant of his /might have been/ the real Arthur. On the other hand, it's also possible that his name became a word for "General" among the British Sarmatians.
If the "Woad People" are supposed to be Britons, it's wrong; the Britons were Christian and Romanized by Arthur's time. If they're supposed to be the Picts, it's still wrong; the Picts were just as bad as the Saxons, attacking the Britons from the north while the Saxons attached from the east. (Yes, the east; if you sail from the Netherlands and/or Denmark to Britain, you don't normally arrive in Scotland.)
Pelagius, as far as we know, died a natural death, and was not condemned as a heretic in his lifetime. And the movie's notion that Pelagius's theological ideas concerning free will are somehow related to Jeffersonian notions of political freedom is so confused as nearly to constitute a pun.
Most of the knights named (Lancelot, Galahad, Dagonet....) are almost certainly creations of French literary works, not found in the early legends. And Dagonet was Arthur's /jester/. Bors is very likely a Sarmatian name, though.
Add to this a jumpy plot, clumsy cinematography (the layout of the land at the climactic battle is incomprehensible, and the action is shot from both flanks, a gross cinematic sin), bad continuity (giant gates that need to be turned by Clydesdales in one scene apparently open and close by sheer magic in another scene), scenes that go nowhere.... It's a mess.
Now understand, it's not absolutely disgusting. You can watch it, as long as you don't take it too seriously. And it /is/ truer to what probably really happened than any other Arthurian movie I know of. And Keira Knightley is a total hottie. But "King Arthur" is still a mess.
Yes, there is a connection between Arthur and the Sarmatians. But the idea of Sarmatian boys being drafted in their homeland is all wrong. A whole retired regiment of Sarmatian mercenaries was settled in Britain in the 2nd century, and they continued to live there as a distinct cultural enclave for two hundred years that we know of, and probably into the Arthurian era. Their original commander was named Lucius (personal name) Artorius (family name) Castus (sub-family name). A descendant of his /might have been/ the real Arthur. On the other hand, it's also possible that his name became a word for "General" among the British Sarmatians.
If the "Woad People" are supposed to be Britons, it's wrong; the Britons were Christian and Romanized by Arthur's time. If they're supposed to be the Picts, it's still wrong; the Picts were just as bad as the Saxons, attacking the Britons from the north while the Saxons attached from the east. (Yes, the east; if you sail from the Netherlands and/or Denmark to Britain, you don't normally arrive in Scotland.)
Pelagius, as far as we know, died a natural death, and was not condemned as a heretic in his lifetime. And the movie's notion that Pelagius's theological ideas concerning free will are somehow related to Jeffersonian notions of political freedom is so confused as nearly to constitute a pun.
Most of the knights named (Lancelot, Galahad, Dagonet....) are almost certainly creations of French literary works, not found in the early legends. And Dagonet was Arthur's /jester/. Bors is very likely a Sarmatian name, though.
Add to this a jumpy plot, clumsy cinematography (the layout of the land at the climactic battle is incomprehensible, and the action is shot from both flanks, a gross cinematic sin), bad continuity (giant gates that need to be turned by Clydesdales in one scene apparently open and close by sheer magic in another scene), scenes that go nowhere.... It's a mess.
Now understand, it's not absolutely disgusting. You can watch it, as long as you don't take it too seriously. And it /is/ truer to what probably really happened than any other Arthurian movie I know of. And Keira Knightley is a total hottie. But "King Arthur" is still a mess.