Arthur is not historically accurate. Also it really should be nunc et perpetuo to get across now and forever as we think of it.
>Hurr dur historically accurate
What year does the legend take place? Using that alone can't you just deduce what type of armor and weapon someone during that time period would be using?
Sure, but the thing is he didn't exist. The fun of the Arthur mythos is that they're batshit insane. Why would you want to ruin that by making it "historical?"
>israelite christcuckery on shield
Dropped.
The Romano-Britons were Christians. That was literally Constantine's section of the tetrarchy you dumb homosexual.
Most scholarly analyses of him have come to that conclusion. It's not like the scholars wouldn't want him to exist, either, because discovering something like that would be incredible. Instead all we have are made up stories written at least 300 years after he supposedly existed. As far as I'm aware no physical evidence has ever turned up, which is the holy grail of these mythological figures being proven as being real.
Arthur lives both in the 4th and the 10th century and everywhere in between
it's part of the charm
OP pic makes no sense, the oldest sources make him a medieval knight and extrapolate contemporary technology to the late romans with whom arthur interacts
the prince valiant comics got a nice equilibrium aesthetically
Prince Valiant was made in the 1930s when historians didn't know as much about the dark ages and had to base a lot on historical depictions made hundreds of years later.
It's not until recently that archeology and historical research has come to the conclusion that the dark ages had far more Roman influence than previously believed
A dream project of mine is a movie about King Arthur that's written and structured like a Spaghetti Western. Portray him like a Clint Eastwood-style knight errant.
I just wish that we could get a early Medieval story in Britain where the vikings don't dress in black leather and fur, the Anglo Sexons don't dress like 12th century Normans, and the Normans dress like 15th century Lancaster knights
The first works on Arthur came from the Welsh around the 9th century my friend. The French Norman book is much later and of course introduces cuck shit.
its both moron. the lady in the lake gave him the "sword in the stone" and he "pulled it out" by molding it into a weapon. Even the idea of "finding the sculpture within the stone" predates the legend.
There will never be a movie about the Vandal king Gaiseric slaughtering his way through half of Europe while having the Huns nipping at his heels, killing celts and wolves in the Pyrenees, and Berbers and lions in Morocco
The real question is why is there no Richard the Lionheart or William Marshal movies? Is the El Cid tv series any good? I never seen the El Cid movie from the 60s, does it hold up like Ben Hur?
howmany swords did he have
>historically accurate King Arthur
>Hurr dur historically accurate
What year does the legend take place? Using that alone can't you just deduce what type of armor and weapon someone during that time period would be using?
Sure, but the thing is he didn't exist. The fun of the Arthur mythos is that they're batshit insane. Why would you want to ruin that by making it "historical?"
The Romano-Britons were Christians. That was literally Constantine's section of the tetrarchy you dumb homosexual.
>he didn't exist.
source?
Most scholarly analyses of him have come to that conclusion. It's not like the scholars wouldn't want him to exist, either, because discovering something like that would be incredible. Instead all we have are made up stories written at least 300 years after he supposedly existed. As far as I'm aware no physical evidence has ever turned up, which is the holy grail of these mythological figures being proven as being real.
>Romano-Britons were Christians
Would explain why the eternal anglo is so vehemently anti-Aryan. Christcucks HATE whites.
You will never get Europeans to renounce their heritage Chaim.
Romano-British weren't Anglos, Anglos conquered them.
Arthur lives both in the 4th and the 10th century and everywhere in between
it's part of the charm
OP pic makes no sense, the oldest sources make him a medieval knight and extrapolate contemporary technology to the late romans with whom arthur interacts
the prince valiant comics got a nice equilibrium aesthetically
Prince Valiant was made in the 1930s when historians didn't know as much about the dark ages and had to base a lot on historical depictions made hundreds of years later.
It's not until recently that archeology and historical research has come to the conclusion that the dark ages had far more Roman influence than previously believed
A 4th century knight would look closer to the OP than whatever you think a "medieval knight" looks like.
the "legend" is a romanticism of finding an iron deposit in a lake.
King Arthur was real
So was Jesus
Keep coping.
>everyone is black or brown except for guenevere
pass
>historically accurate King Arthur
based moron
Arthur is not historically accurate. Also it really should be nunc et perpetuo to get across now and forever as we think of it.
>israelite christcuckery on shield
Dropped.
>redditspacing
>fedora tipping
Go back
Anon, one of Arthur's most famous stories was his quest for the holy grail. Cope.
it is now time to discuss whether the holy grail is purely christian, or a christianised keltic myth.
then we will have a hint on the kind of art we are going to talk about.
it's fricking ugly, which is even worse
A dream project of mine is a movie about King Arthur that's written and structured like a Spaghetti Western. Portray him like a Clint Eastwood-style knight errant.
The 2004 movie was accurate in that there were no implants available during that time period and kawaii Kiera Knightley
Didn't Lancelot cuck king Arthur with her and which led to the downfall of the knights?
no booba
I just wish that we could get a early Medieval story in Britain where the vikings don't dress in black leather and fur, the Anglo Sexons don't dress like 12th century Normans, and the Normans dress like 15th century Lancaster knights
Best I can do is open relationship modern sensitivity adapted bikings with meme haircuts
>"Accurate" King Arthur movie
>Excalibur is the "sword in the stone" and not the sword given to him by the lady in the lake
The only accurate Arthur movie would be the one removing all the Fr*nch nonsense. That's of course where all the cuck shit started.
but it's a french norman book...
The first works on Arthur came from the Welsh around the 9th century my friend. The French Norman book is much later and of course introduces cuck shit.
its both moron. the lady in the lake gave him the "sword in the stone" and he "pulled it out" by molding it into a weapon. Even the idea of "finding the sculpture within the stone" predates the legend.
Sword in the stone and Excalibur are two different swords
They are the same, but one is a gay retelling and the other is the sword in the stone
Fate/Stay Night is the best depiction of King Arthur
There will never be a movie about the Vandal king Gaiseric slaughtering his way through half of Europe while having the Huns nipping at his heels, killing celts and wolves in the Pyrenees, and Berbers and lions in Morocco
they had their chance with the Warlord chronicles adaption but they fricked it up with shit casting and bad costumes
Why has there been no historically accurate Star Wars movie yet?
theres literally a movie called
>King Arthur: Knight of Rome
you fricking moron
Arthur is a post-roman, pre-anglo-saxon character.
That movie is about him trying to unite the britons against the invading anglo-saxons. Clive Owen plays Arthur with Keira Knightly playing Guinevere.
The real question is why is there no Richard the Lionheart or William Marshal movies? Is the El Cid tv series any good? I never seen the El Cid movie from the 60s, does it hold up like Ben Hur?
>why is there no Richard the Lionheart
I assume the big noses hate him
>historically accurate movie about a fictional character
There it is
?si=mK1sQrhT7CHfeGGL