That possibility has been discussed for some time, especially given the Sarmatian's reliance on horse and cavalry and the closeness of this image to that of Arthur the dux bellorum, cavalry commander defending his fellow Romano-British against the Saxon hordes. It is entirely plausible that the connection got that far, that Arthur was indeed a Sarmatian-Brit, or at least descendant of a Sarmatian commander. The timelines seems to fit, as far as the Badon Hill timeline goes. (And indeed, in the film, the final battle is labled Badon Hill and is classified as a smashing victory by Arthur and his defenders, a victory made especially so when Cerdic and Cynric are dispatched along with a few hundred of their marauders.
Also, one of the Sarmatian folktales tells of a great hero named Batradz who owned a magical sword. When Batradz was mortally wounded in battle, he asked his friends to throw his sword into the water as a votive offering. His friends refused several times but told him they had done it; he knew, however, that they had not. When they finally did, the water into which they threw the sword turned red as blood. Batradz could die in peace. This tale is remarkably similar to the Vulgate version of Griflet's throwing Excalibur into the waiting arms of the Lady of the Lake, including the two refusals and the final acquiescence.
So the Sarmatian angle rather makes sense, as far as geography and timelines go, and its folk and religious references lend a little to the story (at least in the legends) that we have of Arthur. But what else about the movie made historical sense?
Well, the film did touch a bit on the religious question that was bound to be still raging in Britain at that time, namely, could Christianity coincide with the native languages of Brittania. In the film, Arthur is a disciple of Pelagius, the Celtic monk who made a name for himself by preaching the doctrine of free will. (It should be remembered here that we are in the 5th Century and that the Reformation is far into the future. The Roman Church at this time wasn't exactly fond of Pelagius's free-will pronouncements, but Arthur as portrayed in the film surely was. This fondness forms the basis for his continuing assertions that the people of Britain do indeed have free will and that they can live as they choose (especially since the Romans are packing up and leaving). Arthur's encounter with the bishop north of Hadrian's Wall is a vivid illustration of this. In the film's case, Arthur wins; Pelagius is not lucky, either in the film or in real life.
Go To Page: 1 2
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to David White's Ancient British History topic, please visit the Discussions page.