King Arthur - Fight at Badon Hill
Top Comments
All Comments (319)
-
excalibur is way better
-
Oh it feels so good at 9:40!
-
With the exception of the saxons being defeated, this is very historically inaccurate. They were defeated by Celtic romano-britons (we do not know who was leading them) not by some weird Roman-Asian-Pictish army led by King Arthur!
-
What is he yelling at 1:14, anyone knows ?
-
Cerdik and his son Cynric, it's actually Celtic Caradog and Cynwrig
-
Sarmatians Adrianov truly protect the shaft, but the II century, and not in the V century. Their sons and grandsons were not obliged to serve the Romans. The film shows that Rome left Britain in 462, although it happened in 410, and the Saxons came to Britain in 445 AD.
-
wouldn't be cool if an angel came down in the middle of this battle and said "STOP THIS FIGHTING" but the people attacking each other didn't listen and they keep killing each other then the angel summons more and it turns into a bloody big battle with 3 armies instead of 2. much more epic and arthur would be standing there going "WTF"
-
@CompactJam who really cares about all that? :) why can't you enjoy a good movie, if it isn't up to your liking then don't watch it dude ;)), movies were made for entertainment not to bore people to death with historical accuracies :D
-
@warbossgrotsmasha23 Hrm to mythologise is to distort reality into a more glorious form than it really is. In other words someone resembling Arthur really did exist (probably a British celt schooled in late Roman tactics and strategy - certainly not a knight) and this character has been twisted into all kinds of shapes by this film and many others. It would just be nice to see someone try and give the yarn a semi realistic turn at least once.
complete drivel and nothing to do with history
CompactJam 1 month ago 5
I LIKE TRISIANHES AUSOME
shadowcreature35 6 months ago 3