King Arthur: a brave movie

It is not difficult to sneer at the new King Arthur movie. One can sneer at its historical errors – for example where is the mention of Ambrosius Aurelianus, who even writers who believe in the existence of Arthur admit was the original leader of British (or Briton or Romano-British or whatever you prefer) resistance to the Germanic invaders (dividing people into neat tribes ‘Angles’, ‘Saxons’ and so on is harder than might be thought). And Ambrosius Aurelianus was certainly a leader of south west Britian (his centre of power would have been in areas like the Cotswalds – places like Cirencestor). Nothing ‘northern’ about him.

And one can sneer in simple film-story terms. For example if going north of Hadrian’s wall is so dangerous, why is there such a lightly defended villa (containing such important people) doing up there?

But to sneer is to miss the point. This is a very brave film.

For example to make the point that there were different sorts of Christian in Britain and that the ideas of Pelagius on free will and moral responsibility might have political importance is to touch on matters that most films seem to assume are well above the heads of the audience.

The avoiding of “all Christians good, all Pagans bad” or (more likely in a modern production) “all Christians bad, all Pagans good” is brave.

Also brave was the direct treatment of de facto serfdom in the late Roman Empire. Whilst formally free men, peasants had been tied to the soil (originally for reasons of tax collection) since the time of the Emperor Diocletian. The Emperor Diocletian (with his price controls and semi serfdom) did not rule Britain at first (there was great resistance to him in this province), but his writ eventually ran here. By the 5th century it was not considered illegal for a local notable to chain up peasants he thought might run away (formally upheld by Constantine as early as 332) or to use physical pain against those peasants that defied him. And such folk as landlords had to watch out for themselves – as Imperial officials used such things as torture against them (if the officials thought tax collection was poor, or if other orders did not seem to be obeyed correctly).

The film showed that the condition of the ‘coloni’ (tenants) who were tied to the soil was little different from that serfs or slaves (and, of course, taxes and other dues forced peasant free holders into becoming coloni – they had to borrow to survive a sudden collection and became trapped in debt, and even peasant freeholders were tied to the soil anyway).

But the film did not make the mistake of showing the Germanic invaders as ‘liberators’ – they were anything but that.

On Britain itself the film may have been mistaken in showing the various groups of Britons near Hadrian’s wall as being anti Roman – most scholars would argue that the local ‘tribes’ (if I may use this word) of the area were pro Roman (unlike the ‘Picts’ further north).

Such British kingdoms as Strathclyde continued for centuries after the Romans (the great stronghold of Dumbarton ‘Fortress of the Britons’ fell to the Vikings in the late 9th century and the Kingdom limped on till absorbed into Scotland in the 11th century).

However, again the film was making an interesting point. The various groups of Celts in Britain (at least in the north and west) were far less pacified than local people elsewhere in the Empire.

Of all the Western Empire only in Britain is there long term resistance to the Germanic invaders – indeed what is now Wales never fell to the ‘Anglo-Saxons’. And this is because only in Britain was there still a tradition of using weapons (at least among certain groups of people).

Since the time of Augustus it had been illegal for civilians to train in arms in the Roman Empire – only the army was to keep and use weapons. But in the far north of the province of Britannia (on both sides of Hadrian’s wall) this was not the policy – both in the north and to some extent in the west of Britannia the Romans allied with certain groups and these groups continued to practice in arms. Of course Britain had not been part of the Empire in the time of Augustus – but the law was still valid here.

Heavy cavalry may have been important. The old notion was that “Roman cavalry could not charge, as without stirrups they would fall off their horses” never seemed to fit in with the existence of lances and horse armour – and consideration of the Roman saddle shows that (even if “Romans did not have stirrups” is true – rather than “Romans did not use metal stirrups”) certain types of Roman cavarly could charge.

There was heavy cavalry stationed in Britain right from the time of Marcus Aurelius (and, yes, they were originally drawn from Eastern peoples) and evidence for heavy war horses (“first created in the middle ages”) has been found in the Roman period in such places as what is now Austria.

So, contrary to the mockers, one can even have ‘Arthur and his knights’.

However, a bit of heavy cavalry is not going to achieve much on it’s own. There is a lot of evidence for light cavalry in Britain – an ancient Celtic tradition. And some people must fight on foot.

The relationship of the Celts of Britain (the P. Celts to give the name for the Celts who spoke the local dialects, as opposed to the Q. Celts of Ireland who gave rise to the Scots) is complicated. Some were indeed crushed by the Romans, but many were neither crushed not eternally hostile and they varied greatly.

Roman civilization seems to have (for example) to have been thin in what is now north Wales but very strong in what is now south east Wales – especially in what is now the county of Monmouth – where the ‘Citizens’ (as the Welsh called themselves) were still maintaining some Roman buildings (and not just military ones) in the 11th century – 600 years after the Romans left Britain.

The language of what is now Monmouth may have been Welsh (which comes from P. Celtic), but the people did not hold Latin civilization to be an enemy – far from it.

So even the King Arthur film’s mixture of Celtic language with surviving classical influences may not be so far from the truth.

Lastly the “absurd P.C. notion of women fighters”. Well perhaps, although there were female gladiators in the Roman world and some strange examples of females fighting in the Celtic world – and if a women is to fight she should avoid armour, only by avoiding a blow rather than going ‘toe to toe’ with a man is she going to survive – yes there is even a justification for the half naked look.

However, this raises another point. Forget female fighters and there is still the difference between the legal status of women between the Celtic Britons and the Germanic peoples. For example adultery could result in divorce under Welsh law – it could be punished by the death of the women under various Germanic codes.

Also a women could inherit land under Welsh law – but not Angle law (or that of most Germanic peoples). Although interestingly enough under Saxon law a women could inherit land.

Of all the Germanic peoples who invaded Britain (and mixed with each other and with the locals) ‘Saxons’ is the word that seems to carry the most hatred down the centuries (including in this film) which is a bit unfair on the Saxons (who were a complex and interesting people. But that will have to wait for another time.