In 2004 Hollywood enriched Arthurian legend with another incarnation of the once and future king. Played by Clive Owen, the Roman officer Artorius Castus organized an army of Sarmatian auxilliae and Pictish guerillas to fight the invading Saxons. It was a fantastic story, accompanied by the bold claim of being the 'untold true story'.

The purists were not amused. How dared anyone twist the tale of their Arthur into a fantasy story and claim it to be the 'true story'?
Romans north of Hadrian's wall, Picts speaking an incomprehensible sort of Celtic, a dark haired Guinevere, Sarmatians in Mongol armor, shooting armor piercing bolts from crossbows, a Pictish princess speaking the queen's English... Oh, the blasphemy!

Funnily enough, I enjoyed the film tremendously, and although I doubt if this Hollywood story comes even close to history, I found little that contradicted the known facts (also hardly anything supported by them though). Of course Hadrian's wall formed the border of the empire and to my knowledge no Roman ruins were found north of it, but does that rule out the possibility? Pictish is known to be a Brythonic language, but does anyone know how it was pronounced? And Gwenhwyfar may mean 'white ghost', but aren't there today dark-haired girls called Bianca or Fiona as well?

The events shown in the film are very unlikely, but still more likely than a lady's hand rising out of a lake, waving an unbreakable sword. Of course the label 'the untold true story' is ridiculous, but then, Hollywood might even claim Star Wars is based upon truth. I watched this as a fantasy film, inspired by the history of Britain, but certainly not based on it, and I liked it.

In reality, the only contemporary, Celtic, source which mentions Arthur is Y Gododdin, where a certain warrior feeds the ravens, but is no Arthur (ceni bei ef arthur). And that's all there is. All we know is that somewhere before the battle of Catraeth there was some guy named Arthur who killed a lot of people. All the rest of Arthurian myth is fiction, whichever version you choose, and who knows, perhaps even Aneirin made his part up.

Chretien de Troyes created the fantastic version which the purists adore, with Uther Pendragon and Excalibur, Morgause, Mogana, Galahad, Parceval, Gawain and all those others. This was centuries after Arthur is supposed to have lived and his version is just as Walt-Disneyfied as well, Walt Disney's version.

Scientists have been busy trying to stick the label Arthur on historical warlords, Roman generals, priests and petty kings... From Germanus of Auxerre (the villain in the film) to Artorius Castus (the Arthur in the film), from Ambrosius Aurelianus to Magnus Maximus, but none has ever been able to conclusively provide evidence that his choice is the real king Arthur.

And meanwhile the purists accuse Hollywood of twisting the tale. 'First Knight' and 'Excalibur', 'The mists of Avalon' and 'King Arthur', all of them new incarnations of this ancient story, and all of them critisized by the lovers of the myth.
I wonder... Over a thousand years are people going to quarrel over the historical Harry Potter?

King Arthur is a product of the mind, irrespective if a true warlord of that name existed. The once and future king is a personification of virtue and nobility, a warrior who fights the invaders and protects the Island of the Mighty, the leader of the quest for the Sangreal. There is not one King Arthur, there are as many as there are writers and each of them is as real as the other... Who cares if today's Guinevere is Keira Knightley wearing a leather bikini?