Quote:
Originally posted by MysticCat81
Thanks for the info, especially about chain mail. A few comments:
As for "knights," certainly there was a more noble, if you will, horse-soldier/cavalry class as early as the Romans. My objection to use of the word "knight" was two-fold: (1) It is not an historically accurate word in that it is Germanic, not Latin (or Celtic) -- the roots of it would have come in with the Saxons (and Angles and Danes) that "Arturius" and company were fighting. It seemed a more Roman term should have been used. And (2), it implies a connection to medieval concepts of chivalry. These things being so, use of the word seemed a strange choice in a movie attempting to get at the "truth" of the Arthur story.
As for Pelagius -- true, he did have quite a following in Britain. He was British himself. And he may indeed have been a champion of the common people. But I was struck at how the movie subtly suggested that support for the common people vs. the establishment was why he was declared a heretic, rather than as a result of specific teachings he espoused.
|
Well as for the "knight" issue... really it doesn't matter as the film has so many other glaring historical issues... the Roman noble class, "Equestrian" rank, ranked below the Senatorial rank... and was identified with the middle upper class that gained presitge through military service, while their wealth came from business... they could be considered the "hands on" nobles, that personally oversaw their estates and investments as opposed the Senatorial class.
Pelagius teachings were considered heretical for esentially two reasons: that man isn't born with original sin, and that man could deal with God directly... without the oversight of the church.. so in a way the movie was somewhat accurate...
Overall if the movie wanted to be more "historical" it should have tried to use the writtings of Bernard Cornwell or Jack Whyte.